UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner
versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

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

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

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

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

complies with the 20 March 2017 ORDER for Response by April 19, 2017 to the Defendants'

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

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

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY......................5

BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY........................................................11

COMBINED RESPONSE INTRODUCTION..........................................................................14

POINTS OF CONTROVERSY..................................................................................................16

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

PLAINTIFF'S THREE JUDGE PANEL ARGUMENT QUESTIONS PRESENTED.......17

Is there a Federal Question?

Is there 8 USC 1324 Harboring of illegal aliens by the State and or municipality?
Is there a breach of fiduciary duty that is a ripe substantial constitutional claim?
Is there a substantial constitutional claim?
Is there a malicious failure of Defendants to enforce its Election Law or Code at the POTUS
election and such constitute a basis for a 14th Amendment infringement violation?
Is there a Privileges or Immunities Clause infringement violation?
Is there a Full Faith and Credit Clause infringement violation?
As a matter of equal protection does a state have a compelling duty to provide an illegal alien
with a drivers license and or suffrage privilege and or immunity?
Does the scope of harm that is ripe, escape review warrant a Three judge Panel?

Plaintiff's preliminary argument as to Eleventh Amendment and immunity exceptions ....23

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

Plaintiff's Response to California Defendants' Argument.......................................................35

Plaintiff's Response to New York State Defendants' Argument.............................................39

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

Plaintiff's Response to United States Defendants' Argument..................................................49

Plaintiff's Request for a Declaratory Judgment on Defendants illegal alien harboring.......58

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

CONCLUSION IN RESPONSE....................................................................................................65

2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
3 USC 1 thru 21
42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985
8 USC 1324
18 USC 611
18 USC 1091(a)
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 19611968 (RICO)
National Voter Registration Act of 1992 (NVRA)
Help America to Vote Act 2002 (HAVA)
Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 - 28 USC 2201
12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) (now under Chapter 53) still a National Emergency of
Executive Order 2039 and 2040 by authorization of Congress by 12 USC 95(b)
The Emergency Powers Act of Sept. 14, 1976 PL 94-412 90 Stat. 1255, expressly retained 12
USC 95(a) with 50 USC Appendix 5(b)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707), EBRA
remains the law of the land over banking and commerce internationally cited by the
Congressional Research Service Report to Congress
98-505 National Emergency Powers update September 18, 2001.
Glass Steagall Act.
Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.

US Constitution with Amendments

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

Federal Citations
Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 73335 (1878)
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).

3
Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004)
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams (05-465)
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009)
ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES , 9th Circuit 641 F. 3d 339
State Citations
CA Election Code 6901
CA-AB 1461
New York Election Law
Federal Rules
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6)
Other Sources
112th Congress - SENATE " 2nd Session - DOCUMENT No. 1129: THE CONSTITUTION
of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Centennial
Edition INTERIM EDITION: ANALYSIS OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO JUNE 26, 2013 PREPARED BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS KENNETH R.
THOMAS.EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, LARRY M. EIG MANAGING EDITOR, U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 29309 WASHINGTON : 2013 Online Version:
www.gpo.gov/constitutionannotated.......................................................................................16. 49
Department of the Army Field Manual FM 41-10-62 Civil Affairs Operations
Governmental Functions
FM 41-10-62 Page 17 - diagram for CIVIL AFFAIRS IN TIME PHASES HOSTILITIES-
PEACETIME: RELATIONSHIP TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT (POLITICAL- ECONOMIC-
SOCIAL MATTERS)-A PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MILITARY SUPPORTED
BY OTHER DESIGNATED US AGENCIES
The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel in 1758
Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933
Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933
US Senate Report 93-549
Maryland Journal of International Law Vol. 3 Issue 2 Article 11 "Amendments to
the Trading With the Enemy Act"
Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505 National Emergency Powers
update September 18, 2001
SPYHUNTER: The Secret History of German Intelligence by Michael Shrimpton, June Press
2014

4
PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY that on 5 May

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

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

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

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

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

"Sparky" Gierke; Andrew S. Effron; James E. Baker, were petitioned by Accusers defined by 10
(2)
USC 801-9 for offenses against nationals of the United States outside the jurisdiction of any

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

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

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

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

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

States Army Field Manual For Civil Affairs Operations, Uniform Code Of Military Justice, and
(3)
Constitution of The United States of America, as to Civil Affairs under the The Emergency

Banking Relief Act of 9 March 1933 (48 Stat. 1) (EBRA), 12 USC 95(a) amended 50 USC App.
(4)
5(b) ongoing emergency (now of Title 50 Chapter 53) of the Trading with the Enemy Act

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

5
 (5)
(TWEA) with the Military Government agents gross dereliction of U.S. Army duties in the

Community under the CINC defined by U.S. Army Field Manual 41-10-1962 based upon Hague

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5
FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 2 Definitions- g. Military Government. Form of administration by which an
occupying power exercises executive, legislative, and judicial authority over occupied territory.
6
FM 41-10-62 Chapter 5 THE ARMY IN THE COMMUNITY..Paragraph 70. Martial Law
(a.) Among the domestic emergency situations that may, depending on the necessities of the case, justify recourse to
a regime of martial law are flood, earthquake, windstorm, tidal wave, fire, epidemic, riot, civil unrest, or other
extraordinary circumstances beyond the control capability of normal governmental officials. In such circumstances,
a military commander may, on instructions from higher authority, or on his own initiative, if the circumstances do
not admit of delay, take such action necessary to maintain law and order and assure the performance of essential
governmental services. As government in the United States is a civil responsibility, the degree of military intrusion
into the field of government, and correspondingly, the scope of military authority, is circumscribed by the necessities
of the case. Civil and military officials in foreign states have similar powers with the extent of authority varying
from country-to-country and regime-to-regime. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
b. Although, in the U.S., no declaration of martial law is necessary, it is customary for the President, the governor of
a state or territory, comparable officials of other political subdivisions, or the military commander in question, to
publish a Proclamation informing the people of the nature of the emergency and the powers which the military
authorities feel justified in assuming. Such proclamation by itself confers no authority on the military commander. It
does serve, however, to define the area of military control and the specific governmental functions and
responsibilities to be exercised by the military authorities. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
c. As martial law is a temporary, extraordinary regime, great care must be taken in drafting proclamations, orders,
instructions, regulations, or any other martial law directives, lest such pronouncements assert more authority than is
justified under the circumstances, fail to particularize the powers to be exercised, or have the effect of perpetuating
the emergency or enlarging its scope. For more detailed information concerning martial law, (see DA Pam 27-11),
Lectures on Martial Law (1960), FNI 19-15, and AR 500-50. To the extent that they are applicable to domestic
emergencies the control techniques outlined in chapter 8 may be utilized.
7
FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 8. Application of International Law. (a.) International law is usually
regarded as having two branches, one dealing with the peaceful relations between states and the other concerned
with armed hostilities between states. This division is not, however, absolute, and there are many facets of
international relations that are difficult to regard as belonging to the law of peace or the law of war. Both branches as

6
falls upon the U.S. Army Chief of Staff's (COS) authority over Civil Affairs Functions with civil

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

civil government, public finance, legal due process(8) that Petitioner sought a 28 USC 1651

well as the undefined grey area in between apply to civil affairs relations. The law of peace deals with such matters
as recognition of states and governments, jurisdiction, nationality, diplomatic protocol, the prerequisites for and
construction of international agreements, and, generally, the practices and standards observed by friendly states in
their mutual relations. Evidence of the law of peace is to be found in law making treaties, the decisions of
international and national judicial bodies, the writings of jurists, diplomatic correspondence, and other documentary
material concerning the practice of states. The law of peace is particularly relevant to define the rights and
obligations of a military force that is deployed in the territory of an allied state not only where there is a civil affairs
agreement, but also where there is no applicable agreement or with respect to matters on which such agreement is
silent. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
(b.) The law of war governs such matters as the conduct of hostilities on land, in the sea, and in the air; the status and
treatment of persons affected by hostilities, such as POW'S, the sick and wounded, and civilian persons; the
occupation of enemy territory, flags of truce, armistices and surrender agreements, neutrality, and war crimes. The
law of war is derived from two principal sources, law making treaties, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions,
and custom, a body of unwritten law that is firmly established by the practice of nations and well defined by
recognized authorities on international law. Ordinarily, a provision of an international agreement is binding on a
state only to the extent that it has consented to be bound. However, a humanitarian principle enunciated in a law
making treaty is binding. (Emphasis by Petitioner)
(e.) Of these' agreements, the NATO Status of Forces Agreement is particularly significant because of the precedent
it has established concerning the law applicable to visiting military forces when they are in the territory of a friendly
state. The Hague Regulations are important because they are regarded as declaratory of law applicable between
belligerents. The 1949 Conventions supplement the Hague Regulations, which by their literal terns applied only to a
"war" between parties signatory thereto, by broadening the scope of the Treaty law to cover not only "war" but also
"any other armed conflict" and "any partial or total occupation," involving their signatories (see FM 27-10). An
international agreement of particular significance to CA personnel is the Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The United States became a signatory to this agreement at the Hague in
1954. This Convention outlines the measures which armed forces shall take in the preservation of historical, cultural,
and scientific properties in any enemy territory. As CA personnel will have principal responsibility for measures to
be taken concerning cultural property, they should be thoroughly familiar with the legal obligations of the United
States respecting artistic objects, archives, monuments, shrines, and other types of cultural property. (Emphasis by
Petitioner)
8
FM 41-10-62 CHAPTER 2 CIVIL AFFAIRS FUNCTIONS Paragraph 11 Governmental Functions. Included in
this grouping of functions are those dealing with matters customarily involving governmental activity or control.
The general areas of concern include the organization and conduct of local government, political activities; review,
advice, or correction of civil officials in accordance with competent directives, and implementation of policy
decisions with respect to control or other relationships with government in the area of operations.
(a.) Civil Government. This function is concerned with the structure and conduct of local government. It
encompasses methods of establishing legislative and executive agencies from national to local levels and the
processes of these agencies in the administration of civil government. Included are such considerations as political.
parties, eligibility for franchise, elections, tenure, and all other aspects of the development and operation of the
apparatus of government. Commanders having area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units are charged, as
appropriate, with

(1) Surveying governmental organization at all levels.

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

7
 (3) Analyzing effectiveness of existing agencies of government or social control.

(4) Studying effectiveness of governmental officials and employees and of other community leaders; removing
persons who are inimical to the United States or who are not in sympathy with its policies and objectives, and
securing the appointment of leaders who will further desired programs.

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

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

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

(8) Participating on joint commissions, committees, or councils concerned with governmental affairs.

(b.) Legal. This function is concerned with the legal system of the area and the application of international law in
CA operations. Commanders having CA area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units are charged, as appropriate
with-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(12) Provision of members for civil affairs tribunals.

(13) Review or administrative examination of cases tried in CA courts before referral to higher headquarters for
final review.

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

8
Writ of Mandamus and Injunctive Equity relief for Accusers personal damage caused by
(9)
malicious breach of contract by repeal of the 1933 Glass Steagall Act protective firewall; and

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

(1) Analysis of taxation systems and other sources of revenue, governmental expenditures, and estimates of
adequacy of public funds for performance of governmental functions.

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

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

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

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

(6) Recommendations as to provisions for military currency.

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

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

(9) Recommendations for control of foreign exchange.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(17) Recommendations for protection of public and private financial institutions and safeguarding funds,
securities, and financial records.
9
That according to Petitioners associate British Intelligence Expert Michael Shrimpton, the theft is interrelated with
crimes accomplished by the post 1945 German Military Intelligence racketeering enterprise, Deutscher
Verteidigungs Dienst (DVD) based in Dachau Germany, see SPYHUNTER: The Secret History of German
Intelligence published by June Press in 2014, whose Red Chinese agents operate as do their North Korean and
Vietnam mis-adventures still operative, and having promulgated the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repeal of much
of the Glass-Steagall Act, a.k.a. the Banking Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 162), during which time in the Clinton White
House attorney J. Paul Oetken enabled merging of Commercial with Investment Bank investments for DVD / Red

9
that the resultant damage burdens Petitioner(s) as a class, e.g. those humans registered as the

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

to guarantee the public debt accrued before 1999.

Petitioner(s) / Accusers demanded a de novo review of the Military Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10
 As such, to the extent that Petitioner does not seek monetary damages per se, the Alien

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

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

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

BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

The determination of the existence of a state of war by the political department of the

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

notice. (10)
That by operation of law the pre-existing and current National Emergency Mandates

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

10
American Jurisprudence, Second Edition Copyright 2010 West Group John Kimpflen, J.D. War I. In General
78 Am Jur 2d War 5 Proof of existence of state of war; political nature of question:
The normal state of nations is one of peace, benevolence, and friendship, and this must always be presumed
to subsist among nations. One who founds a claim upon the rights of war must prove that the peace was broken by
some national hostility, and war commenced; mere conjecture, supposition, and possibility can render no competent
evidence of the fact. n1 Whether war exists in its legal sense at any given time is a matter to be determined solely by
the political department of the government. n2
The determination of the existence of a state of war by the political department of the government is
conclusive upon the courts, n3 and of this determination the courts must take judicial notice. n4 The court will take
judicial notice of the entry of the country into war and of an executive order taking over vessels of the enemy found
in its ports. n5 After a foreign nation officially recognizes the existence of Civil War, one of its subjects is estopped
to deny the existence of such war. n6 (emphasis added by Petitioner)
FOOTNOTES:
n1 Marks v. U.S., 31 Ct. Cl. 453, 161 U.S. 297, 16 S. Ct. 476, 40 L. Ed. 706 (1896).
n2 Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 68 S. Ct. 1429, 92 L. Ed. 1881 (1948); In re Wulzen, 235 F. 362 (S.D. Ohio
1916); Beley v. Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co., 373 Pa. 231, 95 A.2d 202, 36 A.L.R.2d 996 (1953). The war with
Japan commenced not on the date of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, but on the day after, when Congress
officially declared war on Japan. West v. Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., 202 S.C. 422, 25 S.E.2d 475, 145 A.L.R.
1461 (1943).
n3 Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7, 23 L. Ed. 188 (1875); The Neustra Senora de la Caridad, 17 U.S. 497, 4 L. Ed.
624 (1819); Beley v. Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co., 373 Pa. 231, 95 A.2d 202, 36 A.L.R.2d 996 (1953); West v.
Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., 202 S.C. 422, 25 S.E.2d 475, 145 A.L.R. 1461 (1943); State ex rel. Mays v. Brown, 71
W. Va. 519, 77 S.E. 243 (1912).
n4 The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459 (1862); In re Wulzen, 235 F. 362 (S.D. Ohio 1916); O'Neill v.
Central Leather Co., 87 N.J.L. 552, 94 A. 789 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1915), aff'd, 246 U.S. 297, 38 S. Ct. 309, 62 L.
Ed. 726 (1918); Sutton v. Tiller, 46 Tenn. 593, 6 Cold. 593, 1869 WL 2594 (1869). n5 The Kaiser Wilhelm II, 246
F. 786 (C.C.A. 3d Cir. 1917).
n6 The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635, 17 L. Ed. 459 (1862).
REFERENCE: West's Key Number Digest, War and National Emergency [westkey]1, 2, 6, 9, 10(1), (2), 33;
U.S.C.A. 2441; 28 U.S.C.A. 1350 note; 102-256; L.R. Digest: War and Civil Defense 1, 3; .L.R. Index: War
West's Key Number Digest, War and National Emergency [westkey]1, 7

11
March 9, 1933 brought inland jurisdiction of The Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,
(11)
1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411 (TWEA) by operation of Executive Orders: 2039 of 6 March
(12)
1933 and 2040 of 9 March 1933, e.g. 12 USC 95(a): Title 50 Chapter 53 previously by 50

USC App. 5(b), still a National Emergency of the Executive by perpetual authorization of

Congress with 12 USC 95(b)(13); and that with four other Emergencies are still in effect (14), WE

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

continual national emergency occupation, stated:

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

11
Executive Order 2039 created the perpetual private trusts on March 6, 1933 mandated : "...the Secretary of the
Treasury. with the approval of the President and under such regulations as he may prescribe. is authorized and
empowered (a) to permit any or all of such banking institutions to perform any or all of the usual banking functions,
(b) \o direct, require or-permit the issuance of clearing house certificates or other evidences of claims against assets
of banking institutions , and {c) to authorize and direct the creation in such banking institutions of special trust
accounts for the receipt of new deposits which shall be subject to withdrawal on demand without any restriction or
limitation and shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal Reserve Banks or invested-in obligations
of the United States." (emphasis added by Petitioner)
12
Executive Order 2040 created the perpetual temporary Military Government on March 9, 1933 mandated : "...in
view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act
of October 6 , 1917 (40 Stat. L 411), as amended by the act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and
declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders
issued there under are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President..."
(emphasis added by Petitioner)
13
That 12 USC 95(a): 50 USC App. 5(b) with Executive Orders 2039 and 2040 as the law of the land approved
by Congress under 12 USC 95(b) and as for all current and related "...actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders
and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States
or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4. 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title,
are approved and confirmed." (emphasis added by Petitioner)
14
See quote: The purpose of the TWEA was to "define, regulate and punish trading with the enemy." Section 5(b)
of the original act gave the President power to regulate or prohibit transactions in foreign exchange and currency,
and transfers of credit or property with any foreign country or the resident of any foreign country during war. This
section has been amended four times. In 1933 Section 5(b) was amended to provide that its authorities could be used
in time of a national emergency declared by the President; previously, the grants of power could be used only during
wartime. President Roosevelt cited the emergency authority of 5(b) to declare a bank holiday during the depression.
The national emergency declared by Roosevelt is still in effect today. (emphasis added by Petitioner)

12
 Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing
manners. This vast .range of powers, taken together,. confer enough authority to rule the
country without reference to normal Constitutional process"
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the - President may: seize property;
organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces
abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication;
regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular
ways, control the lives of all American citizens..."

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

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

502(a)(1) with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-

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

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

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

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

With the Enemy Act" and the Congressional Research Service Report to Congress 98-505

National Emergency Powers update September 18, 2001; and maintains and further triggers

the oscillating vice-a-versa A not B, civil versus military (shown in Exhibit S), imposition of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13
Process (see Exhibit Q); but, reassures proper jurisdiction is in this Court absent Martial law

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

consistent with the Hague Convention requires proper display without gold fringe or with (15).

COMBINED RESPONSE INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

harboring and hiring illegal aliens in violation of the RICO Act (16). The action before this Court

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

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

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

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

15
Every court, state and federal, flies military colors pursuant to AR 840-10 inside their courthouses within their
geographic jurisdictions of the United States; ... however, such display inside appears as an actual constructive fraud
and deception in contravention to the laws of military occupation unless flown outside with the same configuration
(gold fringe or otherwise) as required under the Hague Convention, Article 23:
" ... ,it is especially forbidden ... To make improper use ... of the national flag ... : To declare abolished, suspended,
or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise
forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own
country, even if they were in the belligerents service before the commencement of the war."
16
To establish a RICO violation, Mohawks employees had to show that Mohawk and its third-party recruiting
agencies constituted an enterprise within the scope of RICO. Therein the district court held that Mohawks
collaboration with the third-party recruiters sufficiently established an enterprise. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and
the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a defendant corporation and its agents can constitute an
enterprise under RICO, in light of the rule that a defendant must conduct or participate in the affairs of some
larger enterprise and not just its own affairs. If the Court affirms, the scope of the enterprise element would be vastly
widened, exposing more corporations to RICO liability. But if the Court reverses, the government may find it more
difficult to use RICO to control corporations and other similar entities where immigration violations are alleged.

14
separate from the Defendants' Counsels who are part of the opposition Congressional Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

immigrant" having appeared in a dozen earlier opinions.

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

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

Offenses (https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminalresourcemanual1907title8usc1324aoffenses):

Harboring Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who knowing or

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

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

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

any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who

15
 encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or

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

violation of law.

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

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

POINTS OF CONTROVERSY
With leave of the Court, for brevity Undersigned combines the Plaintiff's Response to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

invidious discrimination against Plaintiff's expectation of a uniform ballot as a matter of

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

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

III. NYS / NYC State / Democratic / Republican Party biased non/mis/malicious action cause

rights infringement by invidious discrimination against Plaintiff's expectation of a uniform

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

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

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

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

16
V. Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated to enforce

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

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

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

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

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

PLAINTIFF'S THREE JUDGE PANEL QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Is there a Federal Question?

State and or Municipal illegal alien Harboring prohibited by 8 USC 1324

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

Citizen of New York too?

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

impersonation of a domiciliary US Citizen with exclusive liberties?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State of California Election Code 6901 (17) with related code sanctions out of state American

Independent Party (AIP) POTUS Electors at the 8 November 2016 General Election that

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

17
 triggers a privilege and immunities protection requirement for a National Citizen, Republican

and resident Citizen of New York too?

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

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

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

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

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

remanded. Held quote:

1. The Federal Governments broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status
rests, in part, on its constitutional power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
Art. I, 8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign
relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/458/1). Federal governance is extensive
and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are
ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. 1182) requires aliens to register
with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, 1304(e), 1306(a) imposes
sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, 1324a and specifies which
aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see 1227.
Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion
exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of
Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal
aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration
status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 27.
2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may
contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United
States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to
federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating
conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive
governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/505/88). Intent can be inferred from a
framework of regulation so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to
supplement it or where a federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be
assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. Rice v. Santa Fe

of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the
party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the
several political parties to be placed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election.

18
 Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/331/218).
Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when
they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/312/52). Pp. 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a substantial constitutional claim?

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

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

147148 (1980). The Fourteenth Amendment (was ratified by New York on January 10, 1867

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

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

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

Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all

state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

19
 Is there a malicious failure of Defendants to enforce its Election Law or Code at the

POTUS election and such constitute a basis for a 14th Amendment infringement violation?

The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges

or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause

provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott

v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be

citizens of the United States, thereafter resolved by the Civil War the 13th 14th and 15th

Amendments to the Constitution as relate to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Is there a Privileges or Immunities Clause infringement violation?

The Privileges or Immunities Clause protects the privileges and immunities of national

citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and Immunities

Clause of Article IV, [Berger, Raoul (1997). Government by Judiciary : The Transformation of

the Fourteenth Amendment (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. p. 58. ISBN 0865971447]

which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other

states. In the Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Court concluded that the

Constitution recognized two separate types of citizenship "national citizenship" and "state

citizenship"and the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from

interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of national citizenship. The

Court concluded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only those

rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its

Constitution, or its laws." The Court recognized few such rights, including access to seaports and

navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government

while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of

20
government, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the

writ of habeas corpus, and the right to participate in the government's administration. This

decision has not been overruled and has been specifically reaffirmed several times; and largely as

a result of the narrowness of the Slaughter House opinion, that lay dormant for a century.

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving

persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been

used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as

to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.

Is there a Full Faith and Credit Clause infringement violation?

Application of State actor doctrine, Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States

Constitution, other than the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, protect not against actions

by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. Regarding the

Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948): "[T]he action

inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be

said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct,

however discriminatory or wrongful." The court added in Civil Rights Cases (1883): "It is State

action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not

the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes

void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and

immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property

without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is

"state action" meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental

21
power. In Ex parte Virginia (1880), the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the

Fourteenth Amendment

"have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State,

by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by
its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The
constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the
officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under
a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of
law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional
inhibition and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's
power, his act is that of the State."

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all

people within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting

irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

As a matter of equal protection does a state have a compelling duty to provide an illegal
alien with a drivers license and or suffrage privilege and or immunity?

Given the above referenced circumstances along with the Petition with Complaint, the

second, third, and fourth sections of the 14th amendment are seldom litigated. However, the

second section's reference to "rebellion and other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional

ground for felony disenfranchisement herein with available remedy not least of which is

proportionate reduction of House seats, bar from holding office, claw back of stolen funds and or

segregation of ill-gotten gains and or debt from any obligation of righteous citizens.

The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by

"appropriate legislation". However, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress's

enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the

amendment as applies to the decision of a Three Judge Court trial and findings.

22
 Does the scope of harm that is ripe, escape review warrant a Three judge Panel?

In that there are several Federal questions along with substantial Constitutional claims

raised above in support of the Petition with Complaint that requires readily available punishment

and relief that according to Congress only a Three Judge Court is able to reapportion the

remaining House seats in preparation for the 2018 interim election and or reapportionment of

House district that would otherwise be elected at large until the Census enumeration of 2020; and

for the above and further reasons Undersigned contends that with the affidavit of Robert K.

Dornan proving a pattern of malicious infringement that there is a substantive request for Three

Judge Court with 28 USC 2284 for enforcement of the provisions of the Fourteenth

Amendment as to all defendants subject to the further and different reason and proof provided in

the Undersigned's response to the Defendants Motions to Dismiss due on April 19, 2017.

Plaintiff's preliminary argument as to Eleventh Amendment and immunity exceptions

The Eleventh Amendment enactment did not contemplate a National Citizen per se (only

state citizens and or foreign nationals), and is affected by the enactment of the 14th

Amendment creation of National Citizen status involving a different set of privileges and

immunities under a federal question.

Interpretation of the 11th Amendment is modified when the USA has been under a

continuous 84 year national banking emergency relief since 1933 requiring provision of

Administrative Marital Due Process rather than Civil due process per se, and whereby

States are defacto corporate trustees over property/ process for the emergency military

government under the Commander-in-chief - evidenced by fringe on the flag argument

that violates the Hague Treaty Article 23 uniformity when flown inside is absent outside.

State actor malice and insurrection bad faith not protected by 11th Amendment immunity

23
 CA affords out of state electors and therefore equal protection jurisdiction - standing

applies using New York Long-arm doctrine argument regarding close dealing.

CA / NY / NYC abrogated 11th immunity in that it facilitated illegal aliens to vote thereby

fall directly under Article I Congressional prohibitions under 8 USC 1324

CA / NY / NYC abrogated 11th immunity in that it facilitated illegal aliens to obtain

licenses then used to vote and impersonate a U.S. Citizen thereby fall directly under

Article III jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause

Congressional withdrawal of immunity prohibitions under 8 USC 1324, NVRA, HAVA

creates waiver of immunity

IF IT PLEASE THE COURT PLAINTIFF PROVIDES excerpts on the AMENDMENT 11

SUITS AGAINST STATES starting from page 1772 thru Page 1781 TAKEN FROM THE
112th Congress - SENATE " 2nd Session - DOCUMENT No. 1129: THE CONSTITUTION
of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Centennial
Edition INTERIM EDITION: ANALYSIS OF CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO JUNE 26, 2013 PREPARED BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Congressional Withdrawal of Immunity.The Constitution grants Congress power to

regulate state action by legislation. At least in some instances when Congress does so, it may

subject the states themselves to suit by individuals to implement the legislation. The clearest

example arises from the Civil War Amendments, which directly restrict state powers and

expressly authorize Congress to enforce these restrictions through appropriate legislation.(18)

Thus, the Eleventh Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty which it embodies . . . are

18
88 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978); City of Rome v. United
States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980). More recent cases affirming Congresss 5 powers include Pennhurst State School &
Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984); Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 (1985); and
Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 227 (1989).

24
necessarily limited, by the enforcement provisions of 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. (19)

The power to enforce the Civil War Amendments is substantive, however, not being

limited to remedying judicially cognizable violations of the amendments, but extending as well

to measures that in Congresss judgment will promote compliance.(20) The principal judicial

brake on this power to abrogate state immunity in legislation enforcing the Civil War

Amendments is the rule requiring that congressional intent to subject states to suit be clearly

stated.(21) In the 1989 case of Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.,(22) the Courttemporarily at

leastended years of uncertainty by holding expressly that Congress acting pursuant to its

Article I powers (as opposed to its Fourteenth Amendment powers) may abrogate the Eleventh

19
89 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456 (1976) (under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may provide for
private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts.).
20
90 In Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980), the Court found that Congress could validly authorize imposition of
attorneys fees on the state following settlement of a suit based on both constitutional and statutory grounds, even
though settlement had prevented determination that there had been a constitutional violation. Maine v. Thiboutot,
448 U.S. 1 (1980), held that 1983 suits could be premised on federal statutory as well as constitutional grounds.
Other cases in which attorneys fees were awarded against states are Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978); and New
York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980). See also Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004) (upholding
enforcement of consent decree).
21
Even prior to the tightening of the clear statement rule over the past several decades to require express legislative
language (see note and accompanying text, infra), application of the rule curbed congressional enforcement.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 45153 (1976); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 69398 (1978). Because of its
rule of clear statement, the Court in Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979), held that in enacting 42 U.S.C. 1983,
Congress had not intended to include states within the term person for the purpose of subjecting them to suit. The
question arose after Monell v. New York City Dept of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), reinterpreted person
to include municipal corporations. Cf. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978). The Court has reserved the question
whether the Fourteenth Amendment itself, without congressional action, modifies the Eleventh Amendment to
permit suits against states, Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 290 n.23 (1977), but the result in Milliken, holding
that the Governor could be enjoined to pay half the cost of providing compensatory education for certain schools,
which would come from the state treasury, and in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974), permitting imposition of
damages upon the governor, which would come from the state treasury, is suggestive. But see Mauclet v. Nyquist,
406 F. Supp. 1233 (W.D.N.Y. 1976) (refusing money damages under the Fourteenth Amendment), appeal dismissed
sub nom. Rabinovitch v. Nyquist, 433 U.S. 901 (1977). The Court declined in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 150
(1908), to view the Eleventh Amendment as modified by the Fourteenth.
22
491 U.S. 1 (1989). The plurality opinion of the Court was by Justice Brennan and was joined by the three other
Justices who believed Hans was incorrectly decided. See id. at 23 (Justice Stevens concurring). The fifth vote was
provided by Justice White, id. at 45, 5556 (Justice White concurring), although he believed Hans was correctly
decided and ought to be maintained and although he did not believe Congress had acted with sufficient clarity in the
statutes before the Court to abrogate immunity. Justice Scalia thought the statutes were express enough but that
Congress simply lacked the power. Id. at 29. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices OConnor and Kennedy joined
relevant portions of both opinions finding lack of power and lack of clarity.

25
Amendment immunity of the states, so long as it does so with sufficient clarity. Twenty-five

years earlier the Court had stated that same principle,(23) but only as an alternative holding, and a

later case had set forth a more restrictive rule.(24) The premises of Union Gas were that by

consenting to ratification of the Constitution, with its Commerce Clause and other clauses

empowering Congress and limiting the states, the states had implicitly authorized Congress to

divest them of immunity, that the Eleventh Amendment was a restraint upon the courts and not

similarly upon Congress, and that the exercises of Congresss powers under the Commerce

Clause and other clauses would be incomplete without the ability to authorize damage actions

against the states to enforce congressional enactments. The dissenters disputed each of these

strands of the argument, and, while recognizing the Fourteenth Amendment abrogation power,

would have held that no such power existed under Article I.

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas lasted less than seven years before the Court overruled it in

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida. (25)

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for a 54 majority,

concluded Union Gas had deviated from a line of cases, tracing back to Hans v. Louisiana,(26)

that viewed the Eleventh Amendment as implementing the fundamental principle of sovereign

immunity [that] limits the grant of judicial authority in Article III. (27)
Because the Eleventh

Amendment restricts the judicial power under Article III, . . . Article I cannot be used to

23
Parden v. Terminal Railway, 377 U.S. 184, 19092 (1964). See also Employees of the Dept of Pub. Health and
Welfare v. Department of Pub. Health and Welfare, 411 U.S. 279, 283, 284, 28586 (1973).
24
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 672 (1974).
25
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (invalidating a provision of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act authorizing an Indian tribe to sue a state in federal court to compel performance of a duty to
negotiate in good faith toward the formation of a compact).
26
Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
27
517 U.S. at 64 (quoting Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 9798 (1984).

26
circumvent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction. (28)
Subsequent cases

have upheld this interpretation.(29) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is another

matter. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,(30) which was based upon a rationale wholly inapplicable to the

Interstate Commerce Clause, viz., that the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted well after the

adoption of the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification of the Constitution, operated to alter

the pre-existing balance between state and federal power achieved by Article III and the Eleventh

Amendment, remains good law.(31) This ruling has led to a significant number of cases that

examined whether a statute that might be applied against non-state actors under an Article I

power, could also, under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, be applied against the

states.(32) In another line of case, a different majority of the Court focused not so much on the

authority Congress used to subject states to suit as on the language Congress used to overcome

immunity.

Henceforth, the Court held in a 1985 decision, and even with respect to statutes that were

enacted prior to promulgation of this judicial rule of construction, Congress may abrogate the

States constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention

28
517 U.S. at 7273. Justice Souters dissent undertook a lengthy refutation of the majoritys analysis, asserting that
the Eleventh Amendment is best understood, in keeping with its express language, as barring only suits based on
diversity of citizenship, and as having no application to federal question litigation. Moreover, Justice Souter
contended, the state sovereign immunity that the Court mistakenly recognized in Hans v. Louisiana was a common
law concept that had no constitutional status and was subject to congressional abrogation. 517 U.S. at 117. The
Constitution made no provision for wholesale adoption of the common law, but, on the contrary, was premised on
the view that common law rules would always be subject to legislative alteration. This imperative of legislative
control grew directly out of the Framers revolutionary idea of popular sovereignty. Id. at 160.
29
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (the Trademark
Remedy Clarification Act, an amendment to the Lanham Act, did not validly abrogate state immunity); Florida
Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999) (amendment to patent
laws abrogating state immunity from infringement suits is invalid); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62
(2000) (abrogation of state immunity in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is invalid).
30
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,427 U.S. 445 (1976).
31
Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 6566.
32
See Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Definition of Fourteenth Amendment Rights, infra.

27
unmistakably clear in the language of the statute itself.(33) This means that no legislative history

will suffice at all.(34) Indeed, at one time a plurality of the Court apparently believed that only if

Congress refers specifically to state sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment will its

language be unmistakably clear.(35) Thus, the Court held in Atascadero that general language

subjecting to suit in federal court any recipient of Federal assistance under the Rehabilitation

Act was deemed insufficient to satisfy this test, not because of any question about whether states

are recipients within the meaning of the provision but because given their constitutional role,

the states are not like any other class of recipients of federal aid. (36) As a result of these rulings,

Congress began to use the magic words the Court appeared to insist on.(37) Later, however, the

Court has accepted less precise language,(38)and in at least one context, has eliminated the

33
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985) (emphasis added).
34
See, particularly, Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 230 (1989) (legislative history generally will be irrelevant),
and Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept of Income Maintenance, 492 U.S. 96, 10304 (1989).
35
Justice Kennedy for the Court in Dellmuth, 491 U.S. at 231, expressly noted that the statute before the Court did
not demonstrate abrogation with unmistakably clarity because, inter alia, it makes no reference whatsoever to either
the Eleventh Amendment or the States sovereign immunity. Justice Scalia, one of four concurring Justices,
expressed an understanding that the Courts reasoning would allow for clearly expressed abrogation of immunity
without explicit reference to state sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 233.
36
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 246 (1985). See also Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223 (1989).
37
In 1986, following Atascadero, Congress provided that states were not to be immune under the Eleventh
Amendment from suits under several laws barring discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance. Pub.
L. 99506, 1003, 100 Stat. 1845 (1986), 42 U.S.C. 2000d7. Following Dellmuth, Congress amended the statute
to insert the explicit language. Pub. L. 101476, 103, 104 Stat. 1106 (1990), 20 U.S.C. 1403. See also the
Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, Pub. L. 101553, 2, 104 Stat. 2749 (1990), 17 U.S.C. 511 (making states
and state officials liable in damages for copyright violations).
38
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 7478 (2000). In Kimel, statutory language authorized age
discrimination suits against any employer (including a public agency), and a public agency was defined to
include the government of a State or political subdivision thereof. The Court found this language to be sufficiently
clear evidence of intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. The relevant portion of the opinion was written by
Justice OConnor, and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and
Stevens. But see Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533 (2002) (federal supplemental
jurisdiction statute which tolls limitations period for state claims during pendency of federal case not applicable to
claim dismissed on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity).

28
requirement of specific abrogation language altogether.(39) Even before the decision in Alden v.

Maine,(40) when the Court believed that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity did not apply

to suits in state courts, the Court applied its rule of strict construction to require unmistakable

clarity by Congress in order to subject states to suit.(41) Although the Court was willing to

recognize exceptions to the clear statement rule when the issue involved subjection of states to

suit in state courts, the Court also suggested the need for symmetry so that states liability or

immunity would be the same in both state and federal courts.(42)

Suits Against State Officials

Courts may open their doors for relief against government wrongs under the doctrine that

sovereign immunity does not prevent a suit to restrain individual officials, thereby restraining the

government as well.(43)The doctrine is built upon a double fiction: that for purposes of the

sovereigns immunity, a suit against an official is not a suit against the government, but for the

purpose of finding state action to which the Constitution applies, the officials conduct is that of

the state.(44) The doctrine preceded but is most note-worthily associated with the decision in Ex

parte Young,(45) a case that deserves the overworked adjective, seminal.

39
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, 363 (2006) (abrogation of state sovereign immunity
under the Bankruptcy Clause was effectuated by the Constitution, so it need not additionally be done by statute); id.
at 383 (Justice Thomas dissenting).
40
527 U.S. 706 (1999).
41
Will v. Michigan Dept of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (holding that states and state officials sued in their
official capacity could not be made defendants in 1983 actions in state courts).
42
Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. Rys. Commn, 502 U.S. 197, 206 (1991) (interest in symmetry is outweighed by
stare decisis, the FELA action being controlled by Parden v. Terminal Ry.).
43
See, e.g., Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949), where the majority and dissenting opinions
cite both federal and Eleventh Amendment cases in a suit against a federal official. See also Tindal v. Wesley, 167
U.S. 204, 213 (1897), applying to the states the federal rule of United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882).
44
C. WRIGHT, THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS 48 (4th ed. 1983).
45
209 U.S. 123 (1908).

29
 Young arose when a state legislature passed a law reducing railroad rates and providing

severe penalties for any railroad that failed to comply with the law. Plaintiff railroad

stockholders brought a federal action to enjoin Young, the state attorney general, from enforcing

the law, alleging that it was unconstitutional and that they would suffer irreparable harm if he

were not prevented from acting. An injunction was granted forbidding Young from acting on the

law, an injunction he violated by bringing an action in state court against noncomplying

railroads; for this action he was adjudged in contempt.

If the Supreme Court had held that the injunction was not permissible, because the suit

was one against the state, there would have been no practicable way for the railroads to attack the

statute without placing themselves in great danger. They could have disobeyed it and alleged its

unconstitutionality as a defense in enforcement proceedings, but if they were wrong about the

statutes validity the penalties would have been devastating.(46) On the other hand, effectuating

constitutional rights through an injunction would not have been possible had the injunction been

deemed to be a suit against the state.

In deciding Young, the Court faced inconsistent lines of cases, including numerous

precedents for permitting suits against state officers. Chief Justice Marshall had begun the

process in Osborn by holding that suit was barred only when the state was formally named a

party.(47) He presently was required to modify that decision and preclude suit when an official,

the governor of a state, was sued in his official capacity,(48) but relying on Osborn and reading

Madrazo narrowly, the Court later held in a series of cases that an official of a state could be

sued to prevent him from executing a state law in conflict with the Constitution or a law of the

46
In fact, the statute was eventually held to be constitutional. Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S.
352 (1913).
47
Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824).
48
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 110 (1828).

30
United States, and the fact that the officer may be acting on behalf of the state or in response to a

statutory obligation of the state did not make the suit one against the state.(49) Another line of

cases began developing a more functional, less formalistic concept of the Eleventh Amendment

and sovereign immunity, one that evidenced an increasing wariness toward affirmatively

ordering states to relinquish state-controlled property(50) and culminated in the broad reading of

Eleventh Amendment immunity in Hans v. Louisiana.(51)

Two of the leading cases, as were many cases of this period, were suits attempting to

prevent Southern states from defaulting on bonds.(52) In Louisiana v. Jumel,(53) a Louisiana

citizen sought to compel the state treasurer to apply a sinking fund that had been created under

the earlier constitution for the payment of the bonds after a subsequent constitution had abolished

this provision for retiring the bonds. The proceeding was held to be a suit against the state.(54)

Then, In re Ayers (55)

purported to supply a rationale for cases on the issuance of mandamus or

injunctive relief against state officers that would have severely curtailed federal judicial power.

49
Davis v. Gray, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 203 (1872); Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U.S. 531 (1875); Allen v.
Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 114 U.S. 311 (1885); Rolston v. Missouri Fund Commrs, 120 U.S. 390 (1887); Pennoyer
v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 (1891); Reagan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 (1894); Smyth v. Ames,
169 U.S. 466 (1898); Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 (1900).
50
Judicial reluctance to confront government officials over government-held property did not extend in like manner
in a federal context, as was evident in United States v. Lee, the first case in which the sovereign immunity of the
United States was claimed and rejected. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882). See Article III, Suits Against
United States Officials. However, the Court sustained the suit against the federal officers by only a 5-to-4 vote, and
the dissent presented the arguments that were soon to inform Eleventh Amendment cases.
51
134 U.S. 1 (1890).
52
See Gibbons, The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity: A Reinterpretation, 83 COLUM. L. REV.
1889, 19682003 (1983); Orth, The Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment, 17981908: A Case Study of Judicial
Power, 1983 U. ILL. L. REV. 423.
53
107 U.S. 711 (1882).
54
.The relief asked will require the officers against whom the process is issued to act contrary to the positive orders
of the supreme political power of the State, whose creatures they are, and to which they are ultimately responsible in
law for what they do. They must use the public money in the treasury and under their official control in one way,
when the supreme power has directed them to use it in another, and they must raise more money by taxation when
the same power has declared that it shall not be done. 107 U.S. at 721. See also Christian v. Atlantic & N.C. R.R.,
133 U.S. 233 (1890).
55
123 U.S. 443 (1887).

31
 Suit against a state officer was not barred when his action, aside from any official

authority claimed as its justification, was a wrong simply as an individual act, such as a trespass,

but if the act of the officer did not constitute an individual wrong and was something that only a

state, through its officers, could do, the suit was in actuality a suit against the state and was

barred.(56) That is, the unconstitutional nature of the state statute under which the officer acted

did not itself constitute a private cause of action. For that, one must be able to point to an

independent violation of a common law right.(57) Although Ayers was in all relevant points on all

fours with Young,(58) the Young Court held that the injunction had properly issued against the

state attorney general, even though the state was in effect restrained as well. The act to be

enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so, the use of the name of the State to

enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of the complainants is a proceeding without the

authority of and one which does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It

is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the

State to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which

the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer

56
123 U.S. at 50001, 502
57
Ayers sought to enjoin state officials from bringing suit under an allegedly unconstitutional statute purporting to
overturn a contract between the state and the bondholders to receive the bond coupons for tax payments. The Court
asserted that the states contracts impliedly contained the states immunity from suit, so that express withdrawal of a
supposed consent to be sued was not a violation of the contract; but, in any event, because any violation of the
assumed contract was an act of the state, to which the officials were not parties, their actions as individuals in
bringing suit did not breach the contract. 123 U.S. at 503, 50506. The rationale had been asserted by a four-Justice
concurrence in Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U.S. 769, 783 (1882). See also Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R.R.,
109 U.S. 446 (1883); Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52 (1886); North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22 (1890); In re
Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (1893); Baltzer v. North Carolina, 161 U.S. 240 (1896); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516 (1899);
Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 (1900).
58
Ayers would seem to be decisive of the Young litigation. C. WRIGHT, THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS
48 at 288 (4th ed. 1983). The Young Court purported to distinguish and to preserve Ayers but on grounds that either
were irrelevant to Ayers or that had been rejected in the earlier case. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 151, 167 (1908).
Similarly, in a later case, the Court continued to distinguish Ayers but on grounds that did not in fact distinguish it
from the case before the Court, in which it permitted a suit against a state revenue commissioner to enjoin him from
collecting allegedly unconstitutional taxes. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U.S. 299 (1952).

32
in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that

Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is

subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. (59)

Justice Harlan was the

only dissenter, arguing that in law and fact the suit was one only against the state and that the suit

against the individual was a mere fiction. (60)

The fiction remains a mainstay of our jurisprudence.(61) It accounts for a great deal of

the litigation brought by individuals to challenge the carrying out of state policies. Suits against

state officers alleging that they are acting pursuant to an unconstitutional statute are the standard

device by which to test the validity of state legislation in federal courts prior to enforcement and

thus interpretation in the state courts.(62) Similarly, suits to restrain state officials from taking

certain actions in contravention of federal statutes(63) or to compel the undertaking of affirmative

59
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 15960 (1908). The opinion did not address the issue of how an officer stripped
of his official . . . character could violate the Constitution, in that the Constitution restricts only state action, but
the double fiction has been expounded numerous times since. Thus, for example, it is well settled that an action
unauthorized by state law is state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City
of Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (1913). The contrary premise of Barney v. City of New York, 193 U.S. 430 (1904),
though eviscerated by Home Tel. & Tel. was not expressly disavowed until United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17,
2526 (1960).
60
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 17374 (1908). In the process of limiting application of Young, a Court majority
referred to the Young fiction. Idaho v. Coeur dAlene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 281 (1997).
61
E.g., Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 156 n.6 (1978) (rejecting request of state officials being sued to
restrain enforcement of state statute as preempted by federal law that Young be overruled); Florida Dept of State v.
Treasure Salvors, 458 U.S. 670, 685 (1982).
62
See, e.g., Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (1913); Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915);
Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453 (1919); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923); Hygrade Provision Co. v.
Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (1925); Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 272 U.S. 525 (1926); Hawks v. Hamill, 288
U.S. 52 (1933). See also Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (enjoining state welfare officials from denying
welfare benefits to otherwise qualified recipients because they were aliens); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)
(enjoining city welfare officials from following state procedures for termination of benefits); Milliken v. Bradley,
433 U.S. 267 (1977) (imposing half the costs of mandated compensatory education programs upon state through
order directed to governor and other officials). On injunctions against governors, see Continental Baking Co. v.
Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932); Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932). Applicable to suits under this doctrine
are principles of judicial restraintconstitutional, statutory, and prudentialdiscussed under Article III.
63
E.g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 66468 (1974); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978).

33
obligations imposed by the Constitution or federal laws (64) are common.

For years, moreover, the accepted rule was that suits prosecuted against state officers in

federal courts upon grounds that they are acting in excess of state statutory authority(65) or that

they are not doing something required by state law(66) are not precluded by the Eleventh

Amendment or its emanations of sovereign immunity, provided only that there are grounds to

obtain federal jurisdiction.(67) However, in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman,(68)

the Court, five-to-four, held that Young did not permit suits in federal courts against state

officers alleging violations of state law. In the Courts view, Young was necessary to promote

the supremacy of federal law, a basis that disappears if the violation alleged is of state law. The

Court also still adheres to the doctrine, first pronounced in Madrazo,(69) that some suits against

officers are really against the state(70) and are barred by the states immunity, such as when the

64
E.g., Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 66468 (1974); Quern v.
Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 34649 (1979).
65
E.g., Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 (1891); Scully v. Bird, 209 U.S. 481 (1908); Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
v. OConnor, 223 U.S. 280 (1912); Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R.R., 244 U.S. 499 (1977); Louisville &
Nashville R.R. v. Greene, 244 U.S. 522 (1917). Property held by state officials on behalf of the state under claimed
state authority may be recovered in suits against the officials, although the court may not conclusively resolve the
states claims against it in such a suit. South Carolina v. Wesley, 155 U.S. 542 (1895); Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.S.
204 (1897); Hopkins v. Clemson College, 221 U.S. 636 (1911). See also Florida Dept of State v. Treasure Salvors,
458 U.S. 670 (1982), in which the eight Justices who agreed that the Eleventh Amendment applied divided 4-to-4
over the proper interpretation.
66
E.g., Rolston v. Missouri Fund Commrs, 120 U.S. 390 (1887); Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. OConnor, 223 U.S.
280 (1912); Johnson v. Lankford, 245 U.S. 541, 545 (1918); Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U.S. 461, 471
(1915); Davis v. Wallace, 257 U.S. 478, 48285 (1922); Glenn v. Field Packing Co., 290 U.S. 177, 178 (1933); Lee
v. Bickell, 292 U.S. 415, 425 (1934).
67
Typically, the plaintiff would be in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, cf. Martin v. Lankford, 245 U.S. 547,
551 (1918), perhaps under admiralty jurisdiction, Florida Dept of State v. Treasure Salvors, 458 U.S. 670 (1982), or
under federal question jurisdiction. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Commn of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002). In the
last instance, federal courts are obligated first to consider whether the issues presented may be decided on state law
grounds before reaching federal constitutional grounds, and thus relief may be afforded on state law grounds solely.
Cf. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 213 U.S. 175, 193 (1909); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 54647 & n.12
(1974). In a case removed from state court, presence of a claim barred by the Eleventh Amendment does not destroy
jurisdiction over nonbarred claims. Wisconsin Dept of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381 (1998).
68
465 U.S. 89 (1984).
69
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 110 (1828).
70
E.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Department of the Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 (1945).

34
suit involves state property or asks for relief which clearly calls for the exercise of official

authority, such as paying money out of the treasury to remedy past harms.(71)

Plaintiff's Response to California Defendants' Argument

First, under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for California Defendants POINT I, Plaintiff denies

that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury-in-fact is Federal court does not lack personal jurisdiction over California's Governor and

Secretary of State in either official or individual capacity have six (6) months to rectify errors of

returns of the general election of 8 November 2016.

A. Under Federal rules, Plaintiff , a Private National Citizen / Republican resident in the

United States of America among those similarly situated does not rely on New Yorks Long-Arm

Statute to provide a Basis for Personal Jurisdiction, and is confirmed when CA admits that quote:

"Strunk does not and cannot show that Californias Governor or Secretary of State are
subject to jurisdiction under New Yorks long-arm statute. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302. The
complaint does not mention this statute, let alone invoke any of its particular
provisions..."

ARGUENDO, however, were Plaintiff solely a Citizen of New York with a tortuous Complaint

against California's Governor and Secretary of State in either official or individual capacity

applying N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302 as if in State Court would not only show minimum contacts (72)

71
In Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004), Texas, which was under a consent decree regarding its state Medicaid
program, attempted to extend the reasoning of Pennhurst, arguing that unless an actual violation of federal law had
been found by a court, then such court would be without jurisdiction to enforce such decree. The Court, in a
unanimous opinion, declined to so extend the Eleventh Amendment, noting, among other things, that the principles
of federalism were served by giving state officials the latitude and discretion to enter into enforceable consent
decrees. Id. at 442. (emphasis by Petitioner)
72
Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate
for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The United States
Supreme Court has decided a number of cases that have established and refined the principle that it is unfair for a
court to assert jurisdiction over a party unless that party's contacts with the state in which that court sits are such that
the party "could reasonably expect to be haled into court" in that state. This jurisdiction must "not offend traditional

35
but that California had extended its own jurisdiction (73) and authority over out-of-state parties

under CA Election Code 6901 with related code / rules, and or by criminal violation of 8 USC

1324; and legal clarification, an illegal alien per se, is a person who poses a actual degree of

notions of fair play and substantial justice". A nonresident defendant may have minimum contacts with the forum
state if they 1) have direct contact with the state 2) have a contract with a resident of the state 3) have placed their
product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state 4) seek to serve residents of the forum
state 5) have satisfied the Calder effects test, e.g. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (jurisdiction over reporter
and editor responsible for defamatory article which they knew would be circulated in subjects home state). or 6)
have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state..
73
Jurisdiction Generally.Jurisdiction may be defined as the power of a government to create legal interests, and
the Court has long held that the Due Process Clause limits the abilities of states to exercise this power, Scott v.
McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 64 (1894) . In the famous case of Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714 (1878) the Court enunciated
two principles of jurisdiction respecting the states in a federal system (Although these two principles were drawn
from the writings of Joseph Story refining the theories of continental jurists, Hazard, A General Theory of State-
Court Jurisdiction, 1965 SUP. CT. REV. 241, 25262, the constitutional basis for them was deemed to be in the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 73335 (1878). The Due Process
Clause and the remainder of the Fourteenth Amendment had not been ratified at the time of the entry of the state
court judgment giving rise to the case. This inconvenient fact does not detract from the subsequent settled use of this
constitutional foundation. Pennoyer denied full faith and credit to the judgment because the state lacked
jurisdiction; and whereas: first, every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and
property within its territory, and second, no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons
or property without its territory. 95 U.S. at 722. The basis for the territorial concept of jurisdiction promulgated
in Pennoyer and modified over the years is two-fold: a concern for fair play and substantial justice involved in
requiring defendants to litigate cases against them far from their home or place of business. International Shoe Co.
v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 317 (1945); Travelers Health Assn v. Virginia ex rel. State Corp. Comm., 339
U.S. 643, 649 (1950); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977), and, more important, a concern for the
preservation of federalism. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945); Hanson v. Denckla,
357 U.S. 235, 251 (1958). The Framers, the Court has asserted, while intending to tie the States together into a
Nation, also intended that the States retain many essential attributes of sovereignty, including, in particular, the
sovereign power to try causes in their courts. The sovereignty of each State, in turn, implied a limitation on the
sovereignty of all its sister Statesa limitation express or implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution
and the Fourteenth Amendment. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 293 (1980). Thus, the
federalism principle is preeminent. [T]he Due Process Clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding
a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or
relations. . . . Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before
the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy;
even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument
of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment. 444 U.S. at
294 (internal quotation from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). Over a long period of
time, however, the mobility of American society and the increasing complexity of commerce led to attenuation of
the second principle of Pennoyer, and consequently the Court established the modern standard of obtaining
jurisdiction based upon the nature and the quality of contacts that individuals and corporations have with a state,.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). (As the Court explained in McGee v. International Life
Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957), [w]ith this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in
the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time modern transportation and
communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages
in economic activity. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 293 (1980)). The first
principle, that a State may assert jurisdiction over anyone or anything physically within its borders, no matter how
briefly therethe so-called transient rule of jurisdiction McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90, 91 (1917), remains
valid, although in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977), the Courts dicta appeared to assume it is not. This
minimum contacts test, consequently, permits state courts to obtain power over out-of-state defendants.

36
danger / threat to U.S. Citizens when entering uninspected by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE), and such person is properly compared to a burglar per se - not to be

confused with a house guest or legal alien entering with a visa, passport, and travel probable

cause inspected by ICE.

B. That somehow under Federal rules, were the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction would

violate due process, despite the facts that show California had extended its own jurisdiction and

authority over out-of-state parties under CA Election Code 6901 with related code / rules with

arbitrary and capricious state action, and or by California Defendants willful criminal violation

of 8 USC 1324 to intentionally harm Plaintiff among those similarly situated as applies with 42

USC 1983 / related law as to infringement of liberty for application of 14th Amendment relief.

Secondly, under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for California Defendants POINT II, Plaintiff denies

that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury-in-fact is due to resource limitations as part of his socio-economic injury, Plaintiff does

not wish as of right to merely use civil provisions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 19611968 (RICO), unless the U.S. Justice Department defers;

in that based upon information and belief nevertheless, the Federal court has jurisdiction over

State public and private agents of California, as if part of a corporate entity used with a RICO

corrupt enterprise, and is comparable to the circumstance of those directors /agents of Mohawk

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

Court of Appeals with SCOTUS Oral argument: Apr. 26, 2006, in which Mohawk Industries had

been accused of harboring and hiring illegal aliens in violation of the RICO Act.

However, there is a simplified basis of jurisdiction, notwithstanding the Eleventh

37
Amendment and or RICO per se, because the exhibited facts herein prove both prima facie and

probable cause by ultra vires state action that need provision of fair play and substantial justice

in the absence of another forum to obtain relief, and that California Defendants willful criminal

violation of 8 USC 1324 that intentionally use the entity of California for enterprise unjust

enrichment under the continuing 84 year Emergency Banking Relief Act (12 USC 95 with 50

USC Chapter 53 under E.O. 2040) fractional reserve system that makes California the trustee of

all property for the National POTUS Trustee Commander-in Chief (CINC) with legal and equity

title under the emergency to pay the national debt with every surety-indenture of Public U.S.

Citizen debtor(s) property registered in commerce obligated to the Creditors; and that a US DOJ

investigation of that enterprise activity even includes the Communist Party of the People's

Republic of China in its use of Wells Fargo Bank, NA owned by Wells Fargo & Company to

leverage public bonds underwritten for the accounts shown in the California Comprehensive

Annual Financial Report (CAFR); and wherein the pattern of Defendants ultra vires activity

harbors illegal aliens maliciously to harm the liberty of Plaintiff among those similarly situated,

and beyond the scope of California authority its Defendants are not immune from suit under the

Eleventh amendment as if California and its public officers / agents were acting within the law.

Mr. Padilla and Mr. Brown are part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who as

trustees with fiduciary responsibly to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable.

38
 Plaintiff's Response to New York State (NYS) Defendants' Argument

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for New York State (NYS) Defendants POINT I,

Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow as for Undersigned's standing that is the

threshold question in every federal case, this proverbial frog has the good sense to have

jumped from the slow boiling cauldron in recognition of the genocidal social engineering injury-

in fact that is caused by the Cuomo New Age collectivist whack-a-mole methods that like those

of Jesuit Jerry Brown in California, use the multi-decade full spectrum invasion using the illegal

alien battering ram theft of individual Citizen free will in favor of docile drooling government

cheese eating peons captured in socialist amber; and as such socialist causation has destroyed the

economic and cultural well being of its citizens who if each remain aware are fleeing the city at a

rate of 4 to 5% annually, statistically unequalled by any other major city, and from the State

territory whose second numerous spoken language according to statistics is Chinese.

First as an arcane mouthful, Mr. McMahon has to prove that the Undersigned is not the

sole private national citizen in esse Sui juris sole beneficiary agent of his inter vivos express trust

and executor for the posterity singularly conscious enough to have expressed individual courage

and leadership to have jumped from Mr. Cuomo's cauldron of witches brew of the slow boil

genocide subjugation of private U.S. Citizens invidiously discriminated against by the

enterprise's machine.

(1) Mr. McMahon's practice for Defendants obstructs justice in defense of the harboring

theft of Petitioner's birth right is tortuous interference with Undersigned's right to self-

determination, an injury in fact, if one is able to express individual liberty, and if done so

39
notwithstanding the canard of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

reserved as inapplicable during the ongoing 84th year of the national / international emergency

under EBRA / TWEA whose fractional / discount banking reserve system makes New York and

California the respective provisional trustee for all property within its jurisdiction, held as such

for the POTUS / CINC, the actual Trustee with legal and equity title to secure the public debt

during the emergency, while and if the individual freely chooses to remain surety-indenture for

the Public U.S. Citizen debtor registered in commerce, freely remains the indenture without

availing remedy as of right to release the Trustee(s) per se to convert debtor obligations.

(2) Who of my fellow U.S. Citizens, presently reduced to peonage, is able to express

proof of a causal connection between his particularized injury while paddling in the cauldron

has challenged? As an individual birth right, each cognizant would at least have to clearly make

the causal connection with the self evident fact of the fraud present in every indoor setting where

a fringed flag is flown but not flown outside, and be able to explain why that violates the Hague

Treaty Article 23 for territorial occupation; and if Mr. McMahon wants to prove me wrong as to

the fact of my individualized injury then either remove the fringe on the inside flag or add it to

the flag flown outside - one or the other not both. How many individuals could fill this

requirement of complaint?

(3) Undersigned's injury likely would be redressed by a favorable decision as

expressed in the Complaint with relief available under to Private National Citizens under the

provisions of the 14th Amendment with related law, won't hold his breath for a miracle that

would order the proper flag fringe and or absent that requires an executive order cancelling the

emergency.

40
 Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT II Plaintiff denies that the

specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-

fact is somehow that as New York State Defendants argue that quote: PLAINTIFFS

COMPLAINT challenges the outcome of the election is done not only as to the substantive rights

infringement as a continuing injury in fact by Defendants state action to harbor illegal aliens, and

as such is NOT MOOT as long as New York Defendants and their agents are accessory to the

criminal harbor illegal aliens obstruct justice and facilitate the theft of Plaintiff's birth right as a

member of a class of US Citizen similarly situated has not been remedied by enforcement of law

Plaintiff does not tolerate a continued repetition without resolution or even a voluntary

cessation doctrine in form only to be substantively violated again in fact, focuses on the

likelihood of discontinued conduct recurring or a superseded statute being renewed. (74)

Cessation of a challenged activity by voluntary choice, especially of an activity the actor claims

was proper, will moot a case only if it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable

expectation that the wrong will be repeated. (75)

A person asserting mootness through

voluntary cessation bears the formidable burden of showing with absolute clarity that there is

no reasonable prospect of renewed activity. (76) Otherwise, [t]he defendant is free to return to his

74
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn, 166 U.S. 290 (1897); Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U.S. 37
(1944); Porter v. Lee, 328 U.S. 246 (1946); United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953); Gray v. Sanders,
372 U.S. 368 (1963); United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn, 393 U.S. 199, 20204 (1969); DeFunis
v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 318 (1974); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 63134 (1979), and id. at
64146 (Justice Powell dissenting); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 486487 (1980), and id. at 50001 (Justice
Stewart dissenting); Princeton University v. Schmidt, 455 U.S. 100 (1982); City of Mesquite v. Aladdins Castle,
Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 288289 (1982).
75
563 United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (quoting United States v. Aluminum Co. of
America, 148 F.2d 416, 448 (2d. Cir. 1945)).
76
564 Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. ___, No. 11982, slip op. at 4 (2013) (trademark holder seeking to
moot invalidation claim against it: assessing the effect of the holders dismissal of its trademark infringement claim

41
old ways and this fact would be enough to prevent mootness because of the public interest in

having the legality of the practices settled. (77)

Still a third exception concerns the ability to

challenge short-term conduct which may recur in the future, which has been denominated as

disputes capable of repetition, yet evading review. (78)

Thus, in cases in which (1) the

challenged action is too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or

expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be

subjected to the same action again, mootness will not be found when the complained-of conduct

ends. (79)
Absent the State Defendants and their agents good faith to actually reverse their

expressed scofflaw sanctuary cities to continue the harbor of illegal aliens, the case and

controversy is not moot.

As to Mootness.Unlike this Complaint, a case initially presenting all the attributes

necessary for federal court litigation may at some point lose some attribute of justiciability and

become moot. The usual rule is that an actual controversy must exist at all stages of trial and

appellate consideration and not simply at the date the action is initiated. (80)

against rival and submittal of a covenant not to sue), citing Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S.
167, 190 (2000)
77
565 United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). But see A.L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United
States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961).
78
566 Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911).
79
567 Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982). See Super Tire
Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 12526 (1974), and id. at 13032 (Justice Stewart dissenting), Friends
of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 18991 (2000),. The degree of expectation or likelihood that the
issue will recur has frequently divided the Court. Compare Murphy v. Hunt, with Nebraska Press Assn v. Stuart,
427 U.S. 539 (1976); compare Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 31823 (1988), with id. at 332 (Justice Scalia
dissenting).
80
551 E.g., United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950); Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969); SEC
v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403 (1972); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973); Sosna v.
Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 398399 (1975) (special rule for class actions); United States Parole Commn v. Geraghty, 445
U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (special rule for class actions), and id. at 411 (Justice Powell dissenting); Burke v. Barnes, 479
U.S. 361, 363 (1987); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988); Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,
477478 (1990); Camreta V. Greene, 563 U.S. ___, No. 091954, slip op. (2011); United States v. Juvenile Male,
564 U.S. ___, No. 09940, slip op. at 4 (2011). Munsingwear has long stood for the proposition that the appropriate
practice of the Court in a civil case that had become moot while on the way to the Court or after certiorari had been

42
 Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing
cases or controversies. . . . Article III denies federal courts the power to decide questions
that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them, . . . and confines them to
resolving real and substantial controvers[ies] admitting of specific relief through a
decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law
would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. This case-or-controversy requirement
subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.To sustain
our jurisdiction in the present case, it is not enough that a dispute was very much alive
when suit was filed, or when review was obtained in the Court of Appeals. . . . The
parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. (81)

Because, with the advent of declaratory judgments, it is open to the federal courts to declare the

rights and other legal relations of the parties with res judicata effect, (82)
the question in cases

alleged to be moot now seems largely if not exclusively to be decided in terms of whether an

actual controversy continues to exist between the parties rather than in terms of any additional

older concepts. (83)

So long as concrete, adverse legal interests between the parties continue, a

case is not made moot by intervening actions that cast doubt on the practical enforceability of a

granted was to vacate or reverse and remand with directions to dismiss. In U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner
Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994), however, the Court held that when mootness occurs because the parties have
reached a settlement, vacatur of the judgment below is ordinarily not the best practice; instead, equitable principles
should be applied so as to preserve a presumptively correct and valuable precedent, unless a court concludes that the
public interest would be served by vacatur.
81
552 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 47778 (1990) (internal citations omitted). The Courts
emphasis upon mootness as a constitutional limitation mandated by Article III is long stated in the cases. E.g., Liner
v. Jafco, 375 U.S. 301, 306 n.3 (1964); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); Sibron v. New York, 392
U.S. 40, 57 (1968). See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988), and id. at 332 (Justice Scalia dissenting). But
compare Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 756 n.8 (1976) (referring to mootness as presenting policy
rather than constitutional considerations). If this foundation exists, it is hard to explain the exceptions, which partake
of practical reasoning. In any event, Chief Justice Rehnquist has argued that the mootness doctrine is not
constitutionally based, or not sufficiently based only on Article III, so that the Court should not dismiss cases that
have become moot after the Court has taken them for review. Id. at 329 (concurring). Consider the impact of
Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Intl, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993).
82
553 But see Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 47072 (1974); id. at 477 (Justice White concurring), 482 n.3
Justice Rehnquist concurring) (on res judicata effect in state court in subsequent prosecution). In any event, the
statute authorizes the federal court to grant [f]urther necessary or proper relief, which could include enjoining state
prosecutions.
83
554 Award of process and execution are no longer essential to the concept of judicial power. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937).

43
final judicial order.(84) Again Defendants state action to harbor illegal aliens, and as such is NOT

MOOT as a continuing injury to Undersigned along with his US Citizens similarly situated.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (a) as to Substantive

Due Process Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" as to (a) Substantive Due Process

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (b) as to Equal

Protection Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (b) Equal Protection

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (c) as to Conspiracy

To Deny Equal Protection Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of

the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue,

quote:

"PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (c) Conspiracy To Deny Equal Protection

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (d) as to First

84
555 Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. ___, No. 111347, slip op. (2013) (appeal of district court order returning custody
of a child to her mother in Scotland not made moot by physical return of child to Scotland and ...

44
Amendment Speech and Association Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-

economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS

Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (d) First Amendment Speech and Association

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (e) as to

Disproportionate Dilution of House Representation and Dilution and Diminution of Vote

Property Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (e) Disproportionate Dilution of House
Representation and Dilution and Diminution of Vote Property "

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT III (f) as to Insurrection

Against the United States Through the Use of Illegal Aliens Plaintiff denies that the specifically

targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is

somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED" (f) Insurrection Against the United States
Through the Use of Illegal Aliens .

As to Point III in its entirety, to wit Strunk contends that NYS Defendants are all a part of the

Enterprise Machine challenged herein have a among State duties a Federal Trustee Fiduciary

duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYS Defendants POINT IV Plaintiff denies that

45
the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-

in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW YORK STATE DEFENDANTS ARE

BARRED BY THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT "

As to Point IV in its entirety, to wit Strunk contends that NYS Defendants are all a part of the

Enterprise Machine challenged herein participating in the harboring of illegal aliens are part of a

crime not granted 11th Amendment Protection or immunity as each has among State duties a

Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and further

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for New York State Defendants POINT V Plaintiff

denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing

existential injury-in-fact is somehow quote: "LACK OF PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT."

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for New York State Defendants POINT VI Plaintiff

denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing

existential injury-in-fact is somehow that NYS Defendants' argue, quote:

"ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL

CAPACITY ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY"

As to Points V and VI in its entirety, to wit Strunk contends that NYS Defendants are all a part

of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein participating in the harboring of illegal aliens are

part of a crime not granted 11th Amendment Protection or immunity as each has among State

duties a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and

furthermore, Mr. Cuomo and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYS Board of Elections

are part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein as trustees with Federal and State public

officer fiduciary responsibly to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable.

46
 Plaintiff's Response to the city of New York (NYC) Defendants' Argument

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT I Plaintiff denies that the

specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-

fact is somehow that NYC Defendants' argue, quote:

"LACKS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PROCESS AS

HE DOES FACE A CONCRETE AND PARTICULARIZED INJURY",

To wit Mr. Di Blasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further

Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

"BUT RATHER ASSERTS A GENERALIZED POLITICAL GRIEVANCE CONCERNING THE

POLICIES OF TWO STATES THAT PURPORTEDLY FOSTER THE INTERESTS OF
UNDOCUMENTED RESIDENTS, A POLICY POSITION OPPOSED BY PLAINTIFF"

To wit Mr. Di Blasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT II Plaintiff denies that the

specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-

fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

"THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED AS MOOT, AS IT SEEKS TO HAVE THE

ALLEGEDLY TAINTED ELECTORAL VOTES OF CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK BE
VACATED AND RE-CERTIFIED BY A FEDERAL COURT, HOWEVER, THE
ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP AS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE
CONGRESS AND NO EQUITABLE RELIEF IS AVAILABLE."

47
To wit Mr. Di Blasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT III to wit Plaintiff denies

that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury-in-fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

"THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED AS IMPLAUSIBLE UNDER THE

ASHCROFT V.IQBAL STANDARDS, AS THERE IS NO REASONABLE CORRELATION
BETWEEN THE CITED LOCAL LAW AND THE CONCLUSION THAT IT HAS LED TO
SIGNIFICANT IMPROPER VOTING PATTERNS AND POPULATION INCREASES ."

To wit Mr. Di Blasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for NYC Defendants POINT IV Plaintiff denies that

the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-

in-fact is somehow NYC Defendants' argue that quote:

"THERE IS NO COGNIZABLE SECTION 1983 CLAIM AND NO ALLEGATIONS OF

WRONGDOING AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL NEW YORK CITY DEFENDANTS, AND
SO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED AGAINST THEM ."

To wit Mr. Di Blasio and those Commissioners and Chairmen of the NYC Board of Elections are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who are as trustees with fiduciary responsibly

to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable; and furthermore,

That as a matter of further obstruction of justice prohibited by 8 USC 1324, on April 3,

48
2017 the New York State Supreme Court Justice Minardo in the Article 78 Petition with Docket

No.: 080528-2016 issued the Decision and Order (see Exhibit L-9) denied therein petitioners

request to preserve the underlying documents used to issue identification in NYC to illegal aliens

as belligerents per se, involves Title 12 provisions under the EBRA and that as a national

security matter during a time of war or emergency with the 8 USC 1324 subject matter the State

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and thereby its Decision and Order is denied full faith and

credit, Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 73335 (1878), and also violates privileges and immunities

due Plaintiff, who now differs to this Court for such relief and remedy.

Plaintiff's Response to United States Defendants' Argument

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part I

to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow evades the "Standard of Review"

To wit Strunk contends that Mr. Pence and the trustee Fiduciaries of the respective

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION and UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS among others yet named are

part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein who as trustees with fiduciary responsibly to

Plaintiff along with those similarly situated are liable even if it to the lesser degree of the

maintenance of an accurate public record of the election, investigation and or promulgation of

enforcement of law based upon the finding herein (hereinafter referred to as "part of the

Enterprise Machine challenged herein Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with

those similarly situated"); and further.

49
 Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part I -

A to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow evades the "A. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1)" To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all along with those yet

named are part of the Enterprise Machine challenged herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary

duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part I -

B to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow evades the "B. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6)" and Strunk acknowledges the application of the dicta that quote:

"To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6),
each claim in a pleading must set forth sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In applying this standard, the Court must
accept[ ] all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[ ] all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152
(2d Cir. 2002)."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all have part of the Enterprise Machine

challenged herein a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly

situated; and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II

to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that quote:

50
 "Plaintiffs Causes of Action Must Be Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1)." Strunk asserts seven causes of action in his Complaint: (1) denial of
substantive due process; (2) denial of equal protection; (3) conspiracy to deny equal
protection; (4) infringement on plaintiffs speech and association; (5) disproportionate
dilution of house representation using illegal aliens for partisan unjust enrichment; (6)
dilution of vote property using illegal aliens; and (7) insurrection against the United
States using illegal aliens."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated. ;

and further

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II-

A to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that quote:

"A. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert His Claims Against the Federal Defendants" as
Strunk acknowledges the application of the dicta that as Strunk asserts that Article III of
the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding actual Cases
or Controversies. Hollingsworth v. Perry, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013).
Standing is the threshold question in every federal case, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,
498 (1975), and one essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the
power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at
2661." As Federal Defendants argue "Respectfully, it is clear that Strunk does not have
standing to bring whatever claims he is attempting to assert against the Federal
Defendants."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II-

B to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

51
 "B. Plaintiffs Claims are Barred By Principles of Sovereign Immunity". As Federal
Defendants argue that "Strunks Complaint must also be dismissed because his claims
against the Federal Defendants are barred by sovereign immunity. It is elementary that
[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ,
and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that courts jurisdiction to
entertain the suit. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). A waiver of
sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed. United
States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969)."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part II-

C "C. Plaintiffs Claims Against the Federal Defendants are Moot", to wit Plaintiff denies such

that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential

injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunks claims are moot because Congress has already declared the winner of the
presidential election. The mootness doctrine limits Article III courts to deciding actual,
ongoing controversies. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988)."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part III

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Cause of Action, to

wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Each of Plaintiffs Claims Must Be Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

52
 Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Cause of Action. In addition to the foregoing
threshold jurisdictional defects, Strunks Complaint must also be dismissed because each
of his causes of action fails as a matter of law. At most, Plaintiffs Complaint consists of
a series of conclusory and unsupported allegations and conspiracy theories."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 1. substantive due process, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-

economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as

Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunks first cause of action alleges an unspecified denial of substantive due process by
the California and New York Defendants, and by its terms states no claim against the
Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to state a claim against the Federal
Defendants, it must be dismissed. A substantive due process claim has two elements: (1)
identification of the constitutional right at stake, and (2) consideration of whether the
state action was arbitrary in a constitutional sense. See Drain v. Freeport Union Free
Sch. Dist., No. 14-CV-1959 SJF, 2015 WL 1014451, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015);
Bryant v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 11237, 2003 WL 22861926, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec.2, 2003) (citing Lowrance v. Achtyl, 20 F.3d 529, 537 (2d Cir. 1994))."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 2. Equal protection, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic

nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal

Defendants argue that quote:

53
 "Strunks second cause of action alleges an unspecified denial of equal protection under
the law by the California and New York Defendants, and by its terms states no claim
against the Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to state a claim against the
Federal Defendants, it must be dismissed. A claim of violation of equal protection by
selective enforcement of the law generally has two elements: (1) the person, compared
with others similarly situated, was selectively treated; and (2) that such selective
treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to
inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to
injure a person. LaTrieste Rest. & Cabaret Inc. v. Village of Port Chester, 40 F.3d 587,
590 (2d Cir. 1994). Under Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)
(per curiam), an individual, not alleging invidious discrimination on the basis of
membership in some group, may nevertheless prevail on an equal protection claim
provided she shows that (1) she has been intentionally treated differently from others
similarly situated and (2) there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. As
Strunks second cause of action contains no allegation that he was intentionally treated
differently than other similarly situated persons, his second cause of action fails as a
matter of law."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 3. Equal protection conspiracy, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-

economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as

Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunks third cause of action alleges a conspiracy to deprive him of equal protection
under the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 by the California and New York
Defendants, and by its terms states no claim against the Federal Defendants. Even if it
could be construed to state a claim against the Federal Defendants, it must be dismissed.
To make out a violation of Section 1985, a plaintiff must allege and prove four
elements: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly,
any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges
and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4)
whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States. Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 508 Fed. Appx
7, 9 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 82829
(1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to the second element, a plaintiff

54
 must show that the conspiracy was motivated by some racial or perhaps otherwise class-
based, invidious discriminatory animus.... Id. (quoting Britt v. Garcia, 457 F.3d 264,
270"

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 4. First Amendment Speech and Association, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically

targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is

somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunks fourth cause of action alleges a violation of his First Amendment right to
freedom of speech and association by the California and New York Defendants, and by
its terms states no claim against the Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to
state a claim against the Federal Defendants, it must be dismissed. This cause of action
fails as Strunk has not identified any putative speech or associational right which was
allegedly infringed upon."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated; and

further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 5. Disproportionate Dilution of House Representation for Partisan Enrichment, to wit

Plaintiff denies that the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all

encompassing existential injury-in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunks fifth cause of action alleges that the California and New York Defendants aid
and abet the invasion of illegal aliens by provision and theft of public funds for
partisan unjust enrichment[.] By its terms, this cause of action states no claim against the

55
 Federal Defendants. Even if it could be construed to state a claim against the Federal
Defendants, it must be dismissed. As noted above, Plaintiff has previously raised
substantially similar claims in at least one other lawsuit heard in this district, which was
dismissed with prejudice and affirmed on appeal. See Forjone, 2010 WL 653651, *2
(dismissing claims that various states have failed to prevent non-citizens from voting in
elections and that by allowing non-citizens to vote, [plaintiffs] votes have been
effectively diluted.). He has also unsuccessfully raised similar claims in a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See Strunk v. United
States Dept of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, et al., 2010 WL 960428, *1
(dismissing Strunks claim that defendants improperly are counting tourists [i.e., illegal
aliens] in the 2010 census, and as a result, plaintiff asserts that he is disenfranchised
the strength of his vote is diluted.). Each of these cases was dismissed in its entirety with
prejudice."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 6. Dilution and Diminution of Vote Property, to wit Plaintiff denies that the specifically

targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-in-fact is

somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunks sixth cause of action alleges a conspiracy among the defendants to use public
funds in the enticement for the invasion of illegal aliens to dilute and disproportionate
take vote property using illegal aliens to disproportionately dilute intra and interstate
representation. (Dkt. #1, 96). While this cause of action is unintelligible, to the extent
that Plaintiff intends this cause of action to raise a gerrymandering claim, it fails for the
same reasons that the fifth cause of action fails as a matter of law i.e., that he has failed
to allege the essential elements of such a cause of action. To prevail on such a claim,
plaintiff would have to prove both intentional discrimination against an identifiable
political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group. See Davis v. Bandemer,
478 U.S. 109, 127 (1986). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that could support such a
claim here."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

56
and further.

Under the facts of the controversy based upon the above Combined Response

Introduction, and upon the foregoing as for United States Defendants' argument as to Part

III. 7. Insurrection Using Illegal Aliens Against the United States, to wit Plaintiff denies that

the specifically targeted socio-economic nature of the actual all encompassing existential injury-

in-fact is somehow that as Federal Defendants argue that quote:

"Strunks final cause of action alleges that the Defendants aid and abet the invasion of
illegal aliens by provision and theft of public funds in the enticement for the invasion of
illegal aliens to are [sic] engaged in insurrection against the Posterity of the United
States. (Dkt. #1, 102). This cause of action fails for the simple reason that there is no
civil cause of action for insurrection under the law. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seventh
cause of action must be dismissed."

To wit Strunk contends as to Federal Defendants all part of the Enterprise Machine challenged

herein have a Federal Trustee Fiduciary duty to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated;

and furthermore.

To the extent as referenced above that the NARA and US Bureau of the Census are here

as a matter of an accurate Public record due to the non/mis/malfeasance of public officers

involving 8 USC 1324 Harboring of illegal aliens for so many years that goes to the impact upon

the operation of Title 3 USC 1 thru 21 for Election of the POTUS that includes the President

of the Senate, now is Mike Pence; and Mr. Pence was appointed by President Trump to oversee a

special commission to investigate voter fraud, which he says helped Hillary Clinton win the

popular vote. About which, the announcement came up when Mr. Trump was asked about

criticism that his claim of voter fraud is not backed up by the data. Mr. Trump said.: Many

people have come out and said Im right, you know that, Trump said. You have illegals, you

have dead people its really a bad situation. The Washington Post reported that Pence

57
pledged to GOP lawmakers at the annual Republican retreat in Philadelphia that the

administration would initiate a full evaluation of voting rolls nationwide." (see Exhibit V-7).

Plaintiff's Request for a Declaratory Judgment on Defendants illegal alien harboring

The 1934 Declaratory Judgment Act provided that [i]n cases of actual controversy

federal courts could declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning

for such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be prayed. . . . (85)
Upholding the

Act, the Court wrote: The Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934, in its limitation to cases of actual

controversy, manifestly has regard to the constitutional provision and is operative only in

respect to controversies which are such in the constitutional sense. The word actual is one of

emphasis rather than of definition. Thus the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is

procedural only. In providing remedies and defining procedure in relation to cases and

controversies in the constitutional sense the Congress is acting within its delegated power over

the jurisdiction of the federal courts which the Congress is authorized to establish. (86)
Finding

that the case presented a definite and concrete controversy, the Court held that a declaration

should have been issued. (87)

The Court has insisted that the requirements for a justiciable case

or controversy are no less strict in a declaratory judgment proceeding than in any other type of

suit. (88) As Justice Douglas wrote:

The difference between an abstract question and a controversy contemplated by the

Declaratory Judgment Act is necessarily one of degree, and it would be difficult, if it
would be possible, to fashion a precise test for determining in every case whether there is

85
520 48 Stat. 955. The language remains quite similar. 28 U.S.C. 2201.
86
521 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239240 (1937).
87
522 300 U.S. at 24244.
88
523 Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461 (1945).

58
 such a controversy. Basically, the question in each case is whether the facts alleged,
under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties
having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance
of a declaratory judgment. (89)
It remains, therefore, for the courts to determine in each case the degree of controversy

necessary to establish a case for purposes of jurisdiction. Even then, however, the Court is under

no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction.(90) Use of declaratory judgments to settle disputes and

identify rights in many private areas, like insurance and patents in particular but extending into

all areas of civil litigation, except taxes,(91) is common. The Court has, however, at various times

demonstrated a substantial reluctance to have important questions of public law, especially

regarding the validity of legislation, resolved by such a procedure. (92)

In part, this has been

accomplished by a strict insistence upon concreteness, ripeness, and the like.(93) Nonetheless,

even at such times, several noteworthy constitutional decisions were rendered in declaratory

judgment actions.(94) As part of the 1960s hospitality to greater access to courts, the Court

exhibited a greater receptivity to declaratory judgments in constitutional litigation, especially

89
524 Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941).
90
525 Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U.S. 491, 494 (1942); Public Service Commn v. Wycoff Co.,
344 U.S. 237, 243 (1952); Public Affairs Associates v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111, 112 (1962). See also Wilton v.
Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995).
91
526 An exception with respect to Federal taxes was added in 1935. 49 Stat. 1027. The Tax Injunction Act of
1937, 50 Stat. 738, U.S.C. 1341, prohibited federal injunctive relief directed at state taxes but said nothing about
declaratory relief. It was held to apply, however, in California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982).
Earlier, in Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293 (1943), the Court had reserved the issue but
held that considerations of comity should preclude federal courts from giving declaratory relief in such cases. Cf.
Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981).
92
527 E.g., Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936); Electric Bond Co. v. SEC, 303 U.S. 419 (1938); United Public
Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947); Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U.S. 426 (1948); Rescue Army v. Municipal
Court, 331 U.S. 549, 572573 (1947).
93
528 United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961); Altvater v.
Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943); International Longshoremens Union v. Boyd, 347 U.S. 222 (1954); Public Service
Commn v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237 (1952).
94
529 E.g., Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939); Ashwander v. TVA, 297
U.S. 288 (1936); Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202 (1958).

59
cases involving civil liberties issues.(95) The doctrinal underpinnings of this hospitality were

sketched out by Justice Brennan in his opinion for the Court in Zwickler v. Koota,(96) in which the

relevance to declaratory judgments of the Dombrowski v. Pfister (97)

line of cases involving

federal injunctive relief against the enforcement of state criminal statutes was in issue.

First, it was held that the vesting of federal question jurisdiction in the federal courts

by Congress following the Civil War, as well as the enactment of more specific civil rights

jurisdictional statutes, imposed the duty upon all levels of the federal judiciary to give due

respect to a suitors choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal

constitutional claims. (98)

Escape from that duty might be found only in narrow

circumstances, such as an appropriate application of the abstention doctrine, which was not

proper where a statute affecting civil liberties was so broad as to reach protected activities as

well as unprotected activities.

Second, the judicially developed doctrine that a litigant must show special

circumstances to justify the issuance of a federal injunction against the enforcement of state

criminal laws is not applicable to requests for federal declaratory relief: a federal district court

has the duty to decide the appropriateness and the merits of the declaratory request irrespective

of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction. (99)

95
530 E.g., Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Turner v.
City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 (1962); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). But see Golden v. Zwickler,
394 U.S. 103 (1969).
96
531 389 U.S. 241 (1967).
97
532 380 U.S. 479 (1965).
98
533 Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248 (1967).
99
534 Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 254 (1967).

60
 Plaintiff's Summary Argument as a Social Contract scope of harm

measured with 18 USC 1091

So that the Court is given juridical notice as a matter of establishing the breadth of

inflicted harm that this part of the challenged Enterprise Machine herein trustees with fiduciary

responsibly under violations of 8 USC 1324 are liable as to a scope of harm inflicted upon

Plaintiff among those similarly situated as Domiciliary private National Citizens of the United

States of America the 18 U.S. Code Chapter 50A 1091 Genocide, also known as the Proxmire

Act of 1987, applies herein under the Hague Convention Treaty of 1907 along with the Army

Field Manual of Regulations for Civil Occupation during the ongoing time of war or national

emergency for measuring severity of harm from the margins of the basic offense notwithstanding

whether this is a civil or criminal action applies nevertheless as follows:

(a) BASIC OFFENSE.Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the

specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious

group as such

(1) kills members of that group

(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group

(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group

through drugs, torture, or similar techniques

(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical

destruction of the group in whole or in part

(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group or

(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group shall be punished as

provided in subsection (b).

(b) PUNISHMENT FOR BASIC OFFENSE.The punishment for an offense under subsection

(a) is

61
 (1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or

imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both and

(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years,

or both, in any other case.

(c) INCITEMENT OFFENSE.

Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more

than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d) ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY.

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished

in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.

(e) JURISDICTION.There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c),

and (d) if

(1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States or

(2) regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is

(A) a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (/uscode/text/8/1101)))

(B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as

that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

U.S.C. 1101 (/uscode/text/8/1101)))

(C) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States or

(D) present in the United States.

(f) NONAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.Notwithstanding section 3282, in

the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted,

at any time without limitation.

To wit Plaintiff is a private national Citizen of the USA whose group defined above has

been harmed in all manner of socio-economic and civil ways by the crime associated with 8 USC

62
1324 harboring by State and Municipal Defendants with acquiesces by members of Congress

who if not silent aided and abetted the Executive themselves in the crime for personal gain and

admit to their crime by public pronouncements and enactments in breach of public duties and

maliciously done, despite the fact that under Title 8 as Mr. Cutler states, shown in Exhibit W,

and worth repeating that quote:

"Mayors of Sanctuary Cities are not helping illegal aliens who fall victim to criminals.
In point of fact, illegal aliens who assist law enforcement authorities are able to acquire
visas that enable them to live and work legally in the United States.

"If our political leaders truly want to assist aliens who fall victim to crimes and they want
to go after transnational criminals and human traffickers, they need to encourage illegal
aliens to cooperate with ICE to provide actionable intelligence that can ultimately
identify, investigate, arrest and prosecute these alien criminals. Shielding illegal aliens
from detection by ICE is illegal and undermines public safety and national security.

"The 9/11 Commission made it clear that terror attacks, and not just the attacks of 9/11
were made possible by multiple failures of the immigration system..."

As such there is no legitimate legal rational other than ignorance for there is no defense

that a Public Officer may harbor an illegal alien per se, logically any Public Officer activity in

harboring is suspect activity involved in crime, and that act of harboring with no immunity and

or Eleventh Amendment protection. IN both New York and California the banks through the

banking fractional discount system are using illegal aliens against Federal law to profiteer as they

had done in 1999 to get rid of Glass Steagall for the theft of the Special Trusts Funds and by

commingling funds for egregious speculation that continues niow even worse that seen in 2008,

and that Defendants are acting in a quid pro quo collusion to facilitate unjust enrichment using

illegal aliens. At this point in time the nearly sole remaining pieces of personal property are the

individual vote and life itself and even those are taken by harboring and corruption driven greed

That when harboring is so closely tied to the provision of drivers licenses and or any form

of identification to be used to assume the identity of a domiciliary US Citizen with exclusive

63
protected privileges and immunities including the exclusive right to vote throws suspicion over

the entire voting process that must be scrutinized extremely closely as a matter of the pattern of

fraud at elections that started during the 1990s when the National Voter Registration Act "Motor

Voter" was initiated and with enactment of the Help America to Vote Act implemented

"Provisional Voting" whereby "Voting by Mail" previously termed "Absentee Ballots" extended

the basis for fraud under the cloak of a secret ballot whereat the polls or main office in effect no

one could be efficiently challenged to prevent fraud. Such was the 1996 General Election

California when Robert K. Dornan was defrauded by illegal alien vote fraud that by operation of

law the House of Representatives, with Newt Gingrich as speaker, was the final judge of the

member elections and by a cynical deal between the Democrats and Republicans racketeering

enterprise that aided the fraud despite the fact that the INS had proven illegals in considerable

numbers had voted and absent that involvement Mr. Dornan won, nothing was done to correct

the voter rolls then in 1996 or now despite HAVA court cases especially here in New York.

Now especially with HAVA the national registration rolls that should show who is

registered where as a result of political interference and sedition by the likes of George Soros and

his NGOs still remains unenforced as to multi-state registration by moving, student attendance or

otherwise even the dead live on election day and even before hand by aid of the US Postal

service as mail fraud too - Undersigned has not expectation that Mr. Pence's' commissionership

will be able to correct the situation without this Court to assist by way of relief and scrutiny done

herein. There have been very few opportunities to correct this scandalous theft of Private

National Citizen rights since 1976, with the exception of the present political atmosphere with

Misters Trump and Pence in office, and we must not miss taking the initiative to straighten out

what should be obvious.

64
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner
versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW

FOR PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

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

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

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

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

complies with the 20 March 2017 ORDER for Response by April 19, 2017 to the Defendants'

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

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

1
 1. Undersigned's fellow New York acquaintance for 14 years is Michael Cutler, who is an

expert witness available to testify as a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS

(Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an

Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who

rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was

assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional

hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around

the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, The

Michael Cutler Hour, on Friday evenings on Blog Talk Radio. His personal website is

http://michaelcutler.net/. Mr. Cutler contends in a number of his latest article (see Exhibit W)

for a variety of websites, that by operation of law under Title 8, quote:

"Mayors of Sanctuary Cities are not helping illegal aliens who fall victim to criminals.
In point of fact, illegal aliens who assist law enforcement authorities are able to acquire
visas that enable them to live and work legally in the United States.

"If our political leaders truly want to assist aliens who fall victim to crimes and they want
to go after transnational criminals and human traffickers, they need to encourage illegal
aliens to cooperate with ICE to provide actionable intelligence that can ultimately
identify, investigate, arrest and prosecute these alien criminals. Shielding illegal aliens
from detection by ICE is illegal and undermines public safety and national security.

"The 9/11 Commission made it clear that terror attacks, and not just the attacks of 9/11
were made possible by multiple failures of the immigration system..."

2. Although my focus is upon harboring of illegal aliens per se, malicious policy that

applies to Undersigned's harm as State Policy of socio-economic malice is to be measured under

18 USC 1091 as an attack upon U.S. Citizen Nationals to destroy living standard and culture, as

policy that facilitates harm, Mr. Cutler published an analysis entitled IMMIGRATION

'REFORM': ENGINEERED DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS: The plan to reduce

"wage inequality" by making Middle America poorer -- while the super rich pocket the

2
difference. on July 21, 2014 in FrontPage magazine that exposes the malicious policy pursued

by government as expressed by Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve (see Exhibit X) during

his testimony at that hearing, Greenspan spoke of the:

"...advantages to the employment of foreign workers both illegal aliens, as well as high
skilled aliens admitted into the United States with visas that enable them to take the high
tech jobs."

Stated In fact, he called for greatly increasing the number of highly skilled (and educated)

foreign workers. In this excerpt from his testimony, it is clear that he understands what most

Americans want, but he could not care less:

"There are two distinctly different policy issues that confront the Congress. The first is
illegal immigration. The notion of rewarding with permanent resident status those who
have broken our immigration laws does not sit well with the American people. In a recent
poll, two thirds would like to see the number of illegals decreased.

"But there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a
significant contribution to the growth of our economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for
example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor
force..."

Greenspan glossed over the significant costs on state and local governments and minimized the

issue of wage suppression. When people are among the working poor, every cent they earn

counts. He noted the imposition of significant costs on some state and local governments, but

what is significant is that corporations will make more money even as they offshore their

manufacturing facilities and their profits to minimize labor costs, violate safety and

environmental laws and standards and certainly dodge paying taxes in the United States.

This should surprise no one. What level of empathy would you expect of someone who

could complain about too much money being paid to middle class workers (the privileged elite as

he referred to them)? This is precisely the position he took when he went on to support the

claims that had been made by Bill Gates at a previous hearing that the United States needs to

3
admit far more high skilled workers into the United States. Here is how Greenspan's testimony

addressed this issue:

"First, skilled workers and their families form new households. They will, of necessity,
move into vacant housing units, the current glut of which is depressing prices of
American homes. And, of course, house price declines are a major factor in mortgage
foreclosures and the plunge in value of the vast quantity of U.S. mortgage backed
securities that has contributed substantially to the disabling of our banking system.

"The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of income in this country.
Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of
skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our
skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage
pricing mechanism.

"In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at
noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating
such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality."

And Mr. Cutler contends as do I, that with systemic malice Mr. Greenspan refers to the

American middle class workers as the "privileged elite is such an outrageous statement made at

a Senate hearing and go unreported. Yet this is what happened, is genocidal warfare against me.

3. Undersigned's first exposure to systemic harboring of illegal aliens goes to the pattern of

harm done while employed by the NYS Facilities Development Corp. (FDC) (see Exhibit A-3);

created by Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller (bankers) in cooperation with Democrats

(people managers) such as Congressman John F Kennedy who as a U.S. House member

managed to divide the Social Security Fund (SSI) into components to be used to support those

persons deemed permanently disabled to be afforded SSI separate from the Mentally ill; and

wherein - Office of Mental Retardation versus Office of Mental Health was transformed into a

vehicle to finance construction, individual care and bonded finance for housing and care for the

Developmentally disabled. From 1981 thru 1987 I was simultaneously the field engineer /

manager for projects at Staten Island Development Center (Willowbrook), The Institute for Basic

4
Research, South Beach Psychiatric Center, Brooklyn Development Center, Kingsboro

Psychiatric Center, Rockland Psychiatric Center. From 1984 thru 1987 was assigned the job of

shutting down the Willowbrook facility under the Federal Court Willowbrook Decree, where as

project manager supervised five (5) inspectors, and reported directly to the Governor's Office in

Albany weekly. I discovered 8 USC 1324 harboring violations at Willowbrook and among

other care facilities. Foreign aliens who would fly roundtrip into JFK with their retarded/

disabled infant/child with the purpose to abandon them at the terminal - then to return home. The

Foreign alien had an understanding that the infant / child left behind would to be given U.S.

Citizenship arranged by the local U.S. House member or Senator, and then be interned for life

for long-term care being paid individually between $30k to $80k per annum by the Social

Security Administration out of the Social Security Fund- Charles Schumer knows about money.

4. My next experience with harboring harm, referenced by Mr. Cutler in Exhibit X, while at

NYS Facilities Development Corporation was government policy to replace Veterans and U.S.

Citizen employees, especially those registered Republican, with refugees from Eastern Europe

and Africa that I was to train, and in time who replaced me at less pay before my pension vested.

5. My next set of experiences with harboring harm occurred in NYC from 1992 after I left

FDC as a private contractor who over time was economically smashed by the NYC harboring

policies, and where obligated by Court order stayed in the city to be with my son weekly, then in

his mother's custody, and recently due to economic policy by NYC harboring relocated upstate.

6. Undersigned's associate of 12 years, Robert K. Dornan, will testify as to his Affidavit of

March 5, 2017 as a Virginia State Resident (see Exhibit U) that supports the causes of action

complained of as to California Defendants with sufficient probable cause evidence of harm and

rights infringement because of 8 USC 1324 harboring of illegal aliens as a result of the leniency

5
afforded by the NVRA as INS investigated and proven illegal alien vote fraud in 1996 that shows

a pattern of vote fraud under voter registration with NVRA and provisional voting ease with

HAVA made increasingly easy for actual vote fraud against the requirements of 18 USC 611.

7. Mr. Dornan and others have been injured by harboring of illegal aliens by State action

because of Sanctuary City ordinance in place since no later than 1989, when e.g,. San Francisco

Administrative Code Chapter 12-H and 12-I the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance was

passed (see Exhibit I-1) (similar to the NYC Sanctuary Ordinance since the Koch administration

that prohibited a police officer from asking when apprehended the person is a legally present in

the city), and in which the Sanctuary Ordinance prohibits City employees from using City funds

or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of

Federal immigration law unless such assistance is required by federal or state law.

8. The ease of uninspected registration and voting by illegal aliens is admitted as a problem

statewide under CA AB 1461 October 2015 (see Exhibit I-2) that holds the voter and public

officer harmless for law violation and or dereliction of duty, and as of March 30, 2017 is

compounded with Senate Bill 54 as amended published March 30, 2017 (see Exhibit I-3); and

since no later than 30 January 2017 as reported by SACRAMENTO CBSLA.com/Associated

Press (see Exhibit 1-4) there is seditious insurrection in California prohibiting local law

enforcement, as in NYC since the mid 1970s, from cooperating with federal immigration

authorities, creating a border to border sanctuary in the nations largest state as legislative

Democrats ramp up efforts to battle President Donald Trumps duty to enforce the law. Further

legislation is scheduled to enact code Democratic lawmakers allege somehow protect immigrants

(SIC) from the Republican president who has promised as his duty to enforce the Federal law.

6
 9. That similarly situated with me, J.B. Williams of The North American Law Center

(TNALC) whose director is attorney Stephen Pidgeon, have acted to stop California harboring

and illegal voting earlier in the year having proposed Federal legislative Bill to Disqualify the

State of California from Participating in the 2016 Federal Election (see Exhibit Y-1) and on

October 27, 2016 with follow-up article published on NewsWithViews.com (see Exhibit Y-2).

10. In March 2017, TNALC issued a White Paper entitled Report On USA Patriot Act

Violation (see Exhibit Z) that outlines the necessity to use the Patriot Act against the

organizations that illegally facilitate harboring, sedition, insurrection and terrorist belligerency,

well beyond free speech, all financed by the traitor Gyrgy Schwartz. AKA George Soros, who I

sued in NYS Supreme Court by the Complaint with Index No.: 6500-2011 filed in March of

2011, and about whom I have written with consequence, as has my fellow New Yorker Dr.

Robert E. Kaplan PhD. who wrote the book THE SOROS CONNECTION: How the Exposure of

George Soros as an Agent of Germany has Led to the Revelation of Germany's Here-to-fore

Unrecognized Apparatus for Controlling the United States and Achieving World Rule (2011).

11. That since filing the Complaint on 15 December 2016, additional exhibits apply for

evidence and named individual testimony at trial as listed below with a short explanation:

a. Undersigned as a registered non-belligerent continues to be the Executor for the

Express Trust of the Posterity of the USA filed with the Superior Court of Georgia

(see Exhibit A-1) and that applies as germane due to the fact by operation of law that

the continuing National Emergency 84th year under EBRA with Executive Order

2040 remains until revoked as jurisdiction to be observed by the Court as explained

with the Judicial Notice in the Memorandum of Law applies to Defendants' malicious

7
 illegal acts to facilitate use of banking in commerce including obtaining mortgages in

competition with U.S. Citizens and or those aliens legally resident.

b. That 10/4/2016 the California list of POTUS / VPOTUS Elector slates for the

November 8, 2016 Ballot previously marked as Exhibit B is now Exhibit B-1;

c. The California Executive Department Certificate of Ascertainment for Electors of

President and Vice President of the United States of America (see Exhibit B-2);

d. For the California Certification of the Election Results (see Exhibit B-3).

e. The August 5, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter to James Brulte,

Chairman of the California Republican Party and Cynthia Bryant, Executive Director

of the California Republican Party From: Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent

Party of California Chairperson And Markham G. Robinson, Executive Committee

Chairman (State Party), Chairman (National Party) Re: American Independent Party

2016 Presidential Ticket Intentions (see Exhibit C-1);

f. The August 26, 2016 ALEX PADILLA | SECRETARY OF STATE | STATE OF

CALIFORNIA Steven J. Reyes Chief Counsel ELECTIONS DIVISION notification

RE: General Election: Ballot Layout Issues (see Exhibit C-2).

g. The August 26, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter To: County

Registrar of Voters From: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party of

California Chairperson Re: Urgent Questions about the form, content and handling of

the November 8, 2016, General Election Ballot and the September 9, 2016, Military

Ballot Mailing (see Exhibit C-3)

8
h. The email re FW: DEFECTIVE CALIFORNIA PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST from

<mark@masterplanner.com> Markham Robinson Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:59 PM

To: suretynomore@gmail.com Strunk Aide to Robert K. Dornan (see Exhibit C-4)

i. The October 30, 2016 American Independent Party of California A Petition to the

County Registrar of Voters with TABLE OF REPUBLICAN ELECTOR

NOMINEES and analysis of slates (see Exhibit C-5).

j. The October 7, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter to the County

Registrar of Voters From: Dr. Robert Ornelas, American Independent Party of

California Chairman Re: A Public Records Request about the November 8, 2016,

General Election Electors for President and Vice President of the United States,

especially as regards voter rights to see the list(s) of said Electors and about the ballot

masthead contents for the Presidential contest (see Exhibit D-1);

k. The October 27, 2016 American Independent Party of California letter To: Governor

Jerry Brown Attn: Constituent Affairs Subject: Request for Special Session of

California State Legislature State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas State Vice

Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg (see Exhibit D-2);

l. The November 7, 2016 American Independent Party of California DEMAND

LETTER TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE From State Chairman:

Dr. Robert Ornelas State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg (see Exhibit D-3);

m. County of Sacramento Ballot Type 009 Page 6 for 11/8/2016 (see Exhibit E-1);

n. Sample of County of San Francisco Ballot for 11/8/2016 Election (see Exhibit E-2);

o. The New York list of POTUS / VPOTUS Elector slates for the November 8, 2016

Ballot previously marked as Exhibit B is now Exhibit F-1;

9
p. The New York Certification of the Election Results (see Exhibit F-2).

q. 11/18/2016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations | Pew Research Center (see

Exhibit G).

r. 10/12/2016 Breitbart by William Bigelow article Jerry Brown Signs Bill Allowing

Illegal Immigrants to Vote (see Exhibit H).

s. City of San Francisco Office of Civic Engagement & Immigrant Affairs "Sanctuary

City Ordinance" (see Exhibit I-1).

t. CA AB 1461 October 2015 (see Exhibit I-2);

u. CA Senate Bill 54 as amended published March 30, 2017 (see Exhibit I-3);

v. 30 January 2017 as report by SACRAMENTO CBSLA.com/Associated Press (see

Exhibit 1-4) California prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating with

federal immigration authorities,

w. Thursday 2 April 2015 14.45 EDT The Guardian by Kanishk Tharoor Non-citizens in

New York City could soon be given the right to vote (see Exhibit J-1);

x. July 14, 2016, by NYC press office Mayor de Blasio Launches Voter Registration

Forms in Five New Languages, Expanding Access to Voting (see Exhibit J-2);

y. February 22, 2016, Breitbart by Caroline May - Effort to Open Voting to Illegal

Immigrants Underway in NYC (see Exhibit J-3);

z. Commissioner Alan Schulkin to resign over his claims of voter fraud B Maia

Toure 10/18/2016 4:25pm (see Exhibit K-1);

aa. Elections Commissioner Admits to Widesp[read Voter Fraud on Hidden Camera by

Jack Burns on Ocgtober 12, 2016 (see Exhibit K-2).

10
bb. December 5, 2016 THE ENTIRE Order to Show Cause with TRO Castorina etal v

Bill Di Blasio etal NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 including

the transcripts of NYC City Council Committee on Immigration (see Exhibit L-1);

cc. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Nisha Agarwal pages 1 thru 79 (see Exhibit L-2);

dd. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Steven Banks pages 80 thru 112 (see Exhibit L-3);

ee. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Commissioner John Miller pages 113 thru 142 (see Exhibit L-4);

ff. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Assemblyman Ronald Castorina pages 143 thru 176 (see Exhibit L-5);

gg. 1-5-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis pages 176 thru 203 (see Exhibit L-6);

hh. 1-18-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Bank Expert John Burnett pages 204 thru 245 (see Exhibit L-7);

ii. 1-18-2017 NYS SC County of Richmond Index No.: 80528/2016 Trial Transcript of

Witness Sergeant Edward Mullins pages 246 thru 296 (see Exhibit L-8);

jj. 4-3-2017 New York State Supreme Court Justice Minardo in the Article 78 Petition

with Docket No.: 080528-2016 issued the Decision and Order (see Exhibit L-9).

kk. Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 10 Koller v Brown

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(see Exhibit M).

11
ll. April 16, 2008 Department of Elections for the City and County of San Francisco

voting handbook (see Exhibit N).

mm. November 8, 2016 Non-citizen Voting in School Board Elections- San Francisco

Voter Information Pamphlet & Sample Ballot (see Exhibit O).

nn. 111/28/16 Election Clerk Frances Austin for CA Ventura County re CA Election

Voter Complaint Form and correspondence with SOS (see Exhibit P).

oo. March 4, 2013, 80th FDR Inauguration Anniversary, Order by the NYS Supreme

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

Martial Due Process (see Exhibit Q)

pp. 5 May 2016, the Undersigned Executor for the Posterity non-belligerents obtained a

jurisdictional Order from the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) with Docket No. 16-0512 (see Exhibit R)

qq. U.S. Army Field Manual 41-10-1962 Civil versus Martial Process depicted in the

Field Manual Diagram between the grey of Transition "A" and "B" (see Exhibit S).

rr. November 4, 2016 Strunk FOIL #2016-4195 re record destruction (see Exhibit T).

ss. Robert K. Dornan, a National Citizen along with Undersigned, and who according to

his Affidavit of March 5, 2017 is a Virginia State Resident (see Exhibit U).

tt. Alex Padilla California Secretary of State Provisional Voting in California (see

Exhibit V-1).

uu. BlackBoxVoting.org Accountability: In governance, accountability means

answerability to the public and the obligation to report, explain and be held

responsible for consequences of decisions ? by Bev Harris November 18, 2016 (see

Exhibit V-2).

12
vv. BlackBoxVoting.org AUDITS OR FRAUDITS? by Bev Harris November 18, 2016

(see Exhibit V-3)

ww. BlackBoxVoting.org ACTIONS: THE BRAKEY METHOD By Bev Harris

November 15, 2016 (see Exhibit V-4).

xx. How the vote is counted in California after Election Day By JANIE HAR -

Associated Press Wednesday, November 9, 2016 (see Exhibit V-5).

yy. Did Obama Encourage Illegal Immigrants to Vote? No, But YES BY: JAMES

BARRETT on NOVEMBER 7, 2016 an interview highlighted by Fox Business

News' Neil Cavuto (see Exhibit V-6).

zz. On February 5, 2017 THE HILL BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 02/05/17 04:36 PM

EST report on Trump taps Pence to head voter fraud investigation (see Exhibit V-7).

aaa. On April 13, 2017 the website, lunacy of Sanctuary Cities. MICHAEL CUTLER

MOMENT: LETHAL SANCTUARY CITIES (see Exhibit W).

bbb. Mr. Cutler published an analysis entitled IMMIGRATION 'REFORM':

ENGINEERED DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS: The plan to reduce

"wage inequality" by making Middle America poorer -- while the super rich pocket

the difference. on July 21, 2014 in FrontPage magazine that exposes the malicious

policy pursued by government as expressed by Alan Greenspan of the Federal

Reserve (see Exhibit X).

ccc. The North American Law Center (TNALC) whose director is attorney Stephen

Pidgeon, have acted to stop California harboring and illegal voting earlier in the year

having proposed Federal legislative Bill to Disqualify the State of California from

13
 Participating in the 2016 Federal Election (see Exhibit Y-1) and on October 27,

2016 with follow-up article published on NewsWithViews.com (see Exhibit Y-2).

ddd. March 2017, TNALC issued a White Paper entitled Report On USA Patriot Act

Violation (see Exhibit Z).

12. As for HAVA "Provisional Voting" the State of California instructed as shown in

Exhibit V-1 that quote:

"Provisional Voting: If your name is not on the voter list at your polling place, you have
the right to vote a provisional ballot.
What Is a Provisional Ballot? A provisional ballot is a regular ballot that is placed in a
special envelope prior to being put in the ballot box.
Who Casts a Provisional Ballot? Provisional ballots are ballots cast by voters who:
Believe they are registered to vote even though their names are not on the
official voter registration list at the
polling place.
Vote by mail but did not receive their ballot or do not have their ballot with
them, and instead want to vote at a
polling place.
What Happens After You Cast a Provisional Ballot?
Your provisional ballot will be counted after elections officials have confirmed that you
are registered to vote in that county and you did not already vote in that election.
You may vote a provisional ballot at any polling place in the county in which you are
registered to vote, however, only the elections contests you are eligible to vote for will be
counted.
How Can You Check The Status of Your Provisional Ballot?
Every voter who casts a provisional ballot has the right to find out from their county
elections official if the ballot was counted and, if not, the reason why it was not counted."

13. Based upon information and belief Undersigned alleges that on 8 November 2016

the States of California provided "provisional ballots" under HAVA to say 750,000 persons

and that the CA SOS contends that such must remain under seal as to whom of the 400,000

of the rough total were recorded to have voted by absentee ballot renamed "Vote by Mail".

14
 14. In late January 2017, Undersigned spoke with Bev Harris of Black Box Voting

concerning HAVA "Provisional Ballots" in California that according to her is the new means

to conduct vote fraud. Bev Harris influential reporting by Black Box Voting is referenced

worldwide, founded in 2003, performs nonpartisan investigative reporting and public

education for elections. Author Bev Harris became known for groundbreaking work on

electronic voting machines, which can remove transparency of the vote count; other

important reporting pertains to voter lists, election chain of custody, transparency problems

with absentee voting, election industry corporate governance, and financial accountability in

elections. Opaque, non-transparent voting can afflict voter lists, poll lists, vote counting and

chain of custody; political finance can also be "black box."

15. In the January phone conversation with Bev Harris, she confirmed Undersigned's

suspicion about the fraud with use of HAVA "Provisional Voting" evidenced by the CA SOS

treatment of the Provisional ballot records as sealed to protect the secret ballot,

notwithstanding the fact that we are merely interested in knowing who is registered as a

result of the issuance of the ballot and who voted that way and is information that must be

available but kept secret by either California, New York or any state per NVRA and HAVA.

16. That based upon a series of word Acrobat advanced searches and review of the

accompanying at least show room for considering prima facie harboring of illegal aliens

aided and abetted by the NYC and NYS Government agencies and even Judge Minardo in

conjunction with the Banks per se, and as similarly used by the California Defendants under

the continuing National Emergency, and that a search of Bates paginated Exhibits for key

words in effective with proper use of terms goes to the mens rea of the court, attorneys in

15
their papers and at testimony, as to witnesses, the court and various government officials is

instructive as to intent and underlying bias:

a. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) search for the word "Bank" lists 135

instances in use by official correspondence and transcript testimony both at the NYC

Council Committee on Immigration and Testimony at trial.

b. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Alien" listed twice (2)

c. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Immigrant" listed 117

times of the 209 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

d. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for the oxymoronic term

"Illegal Immigrant" listed 38 times and not once in the L-9 Decision of the 59

instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

e. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Undocumented" listed

109 times of the 116 instances in the entire set of Exhibits

f. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Undocumented Alien"

listed only twice (2) on pages of the Mullin Testimony and nowhere else in the entire

set of Exhibits.

g. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

16
 L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Illegal Aliens" listed

only four (4) times, twice on pages of the Mullin Testimony and not once by Judge

Minardo, of the 52 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

h. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Federal" listed 150

times of the 299 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

i. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Registration" listed four

(4) times and not once in the L-9 Decision of the 168 instances in the entire set of

Exhibits.

j. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Citizen" listed 29 times

and not once in the L-9 Decision of the 166 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

k. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Vote" listed 64 times

and not once in the L-9 Decision, of the 1275 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

l. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for "Voter Registration"

listed not once of the 90 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

m. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) generic word search for "American" listed

29 times and not once in the L-9 Decision of the 312 instances in the entire set of

Exhibits.

17
 n. As to the full OSC supporting documents of NYSSC 80528-2016 shown at Exhibit

L-1 thru L-9 (Exhibit pages 184 thru 967) word search for the generic term "Legal"

listed 54 times of the 116 instances in the entire set of Exhibits.

17. Notably Judge Minardo shown in Exhibit L-9 (Exhibit pages 947 thru 967) mentions

"Bank" seven (7) times "Immigrant" four (4) times , "Federal" four (4) times, "Undocumented"

twice (2) referencing the Mullin Testimony and "Alien" "American" "Vote", "Voter"

"Registration" not once.

18. Undersigned based upon the argument of Judge Minardo refusal at trial to argue the legal

basis for his jurisdiction, remarkably Minardo to Batra at Exhibit Page 683 of L-2 Testimony

Page 38 Does not allow the review of Federal law germane to the trial stated-- "THE COURT:

Wait. Mr. Batra, please. We are not going through legal questions here as far as what the

pyramid of law is and so forth." - shuts down the petitioners' attorney.

19. It is clear from that the "city doesn't consider legal status when determining whether to

issue an ID card."

20. That Judge Minardo at L-9 page 10 refers to the Testimony of Bank Expert John Burnett

regarding State and City collusion with the banks per se :

"John L. Burnett works in financial services and writes for the Huffington Post.
Petitioners brought this witness as a financial expert. He testified that the IDNYC
card could be used to open bank accounts, but such use could not supersede federal
law. He testified that there was a concern that the City of New York, could leverage
those institutions that do business with the City of New York to use the IDNYC card
as identification. Further, the letter of the Superintendent of the New York State
Department of Financial Services, dated September 1, 2016, which provides guidance
on the use of the IDNYC card as proof of identity for the use in opening bank
accounts could enhance such leverage."

21. In my opinion the State Court admits it does not have jurisdiction over the matter before

it by refusing to allow discussion of Federal plenary power of immigration and the duty of all

18
PLAINTIFF'S DECLMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit A-1

Exhibit Page No.: 0001 of CES Response Declaration

 DEPUTY ClERK

EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO THE YN}TED STATES OF A,MIRI!!A

WITH BENEFICIARY DISCRETION FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO
ARE TRUE NATlJRAL.BORN CITIZENS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 AND NOT SURETY-INDENTURES FOR THEIR
RESPECTIVE DEBTOR TRUST ENTITY UNDER 12 USC 95 AND 50 USC AP-P. 5(b) MARTIAL
GOVERNMENT WITH A CONTINUING NATIONAL EMERGENCY

This Express Deed in Trust is a claim of beneficial interest in and over all the public and private
real, personal, tangible and intangible Property within THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA geographic
border to safeguard and secure for the posterity of WE the People of the United States of America in the
nation given by GOD for securing each private Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest in
pursuit of life liberty and happiness in perpetuity. and with the Executor and Beneficiaries duty to this
Trust shall guarantee that all incumbents and future candidate(s) for the Office of President or Vice
President of the United States (POTUS) shall be a bonafide Natural-Born Citizen (NBC) private citizen of
the United States agent who is surety no more to the Debtor Trust Entity in compliance with the United
States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, either under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) with the
Military Government authority of renewed annual National Emergency or otherwise (DEED in TRUST).

That this NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a gift from GOD, not me~ according
to the Declaration of Independence in CONGRESS, July 4. 1776 as the unanimous Declaration of the
Freemen of the thirteen united States of America state, quote:

''When in the Coltrse of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to disoolue the political bands
which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth. the $eparole and
equal station to which the Lawg pfNature and of Natu,re's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requ.ires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-euideat. that all meq. are t:;reated equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Riflhfs. tluzt among these are Life. Liberty and the pursuit ofHanpiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent q{the ror;erneq. 11wt whenever any Form of Governm.ent becomes destructive of these ends, it is th~t
Rieht of the fe.qof.e to alter or to abolish it, and to in.stitzzte new Government, laying its foundation on such
principks and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness. Prmhnce, indeed. will dictaJe that Governments long established should rwt be changed
for light and tran.sient causes; and accordingly all ~erience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are suf{erable1 than. to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abttses and usurpations~ pursuing invariably the same Object evinces
a design to reduce them under absolute Despptism. it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
!. Government. and to prouide new Guards for their future security .....

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States provides Authority and purpose declares:

We the People of the United States1 in Order to form a more perfect Union. establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility. provide for the common defence. promote the general Welfare, and &cure the
Blessings of Liberty lo ourselves and our Posterity1 do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America..

Exhibit A Page 1 ofl5

Exhibit Page No.: 0002 of CES Response Declaration

 DEPUTY ClERK
That WE the People are only those private Citizens under GOD, not public citizens under men, and that
guarantee within this Nation that each Private Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest is
secure in perpetuity as long as the Sovereign People of this Nation act under GOD aa expressed in the
Book of Isaiah Chapter 55 Verse 1 thru 5, hereafter quoting from the King James Version of the Bible:

1. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and
eat; yea. come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which
satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight
itself in fatness.
3. Incline your ear) and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting
covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
4. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou know est not, and nations that knew not thee
shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One ol Israel; for he
bath glorified thee.

That the geographic border and size of this NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
including its population according to the C-ensus of 2010 is depicted in the map and chart below with a
map showing public and private land that includes the coastal waters out to the limit of 200 miles as
follows:
Federal Government Land& In tbe U.S.

FlDUL t.AIID8
- ......
buu9f andM
a.--otlMid~
(Nile aom.n,
8I..U Ylll(jart. . .. !rudy, .... ~
&OIIIM
- Dls*1mlnl ofDefenH
~ofinerw

_,_ .
U. $ . F01..a~fUIIiiiMI F-* lll

- ~ s.Moltll'lllld.n-, & Wlldlme

$udyAIH11

l;iill-1::..~-m
i:tl""'

Exhibit A
_ _ ,,
=Page 2 of15 -.
f l - ..
......

Exhibit Page No.: 0003 of CES Response Declaration

 DEPUTY CLERK

That the "naturaJ..born Citizen"

Clause expressed in the ratified U.S.
Constitution Article 2 Section 1
Clause 5 was imposed. by the People
of New York with emphasis that was
expressed as displeasure in the July
26, 1788 ratification document of
what should have been. quote:
"That no Persons excent natural born
Citizens, or such as were Citizelts on
or before the fourth day of July one
thousand seven hundred and seventy
six, Dr such as held Commi.ssion.s
under the United States during the
Wqr, and have at any time since the
fourth day of July one thousand seven
hundred and seventy six become
Citizens of one or other of the United
States, arul who shall be Freeholders.
shall be eligible to the Places of
President, Vice President. or Members
of either Hoz,m Q{ th& Congress of the
United States. "
And the People of New York
warned:
That the Powers of Government may
be reassumed by the . PeonY#.
whensoever it shall become
n.eces!}O' to thekr Happiness: that
euery Power, Jurisdiction and right,
which is not by the said
Constitution clearly delegated to the
Congress of the United States, or the
departments of the Government
thereol remains to the People of the
several States, or to their respective
State Governments to whom they
may have granted the same; And
that those Clauses in the said
Constitution. which declare, that
Congress shall not have or errcise
certain Powers, do not imply that
Congress is entitled to any Powers
not given by the said Constitution;
bu,t such Clauses are to be construed
either as exceptions to certain
specified Powers, or as inserted
merely for greater Caution.

Exb.ibitA Page 3 o15

Exhibit Page No.: 0004 of CES Response Declaration

 DEPUTY CLERK

That the Natural-born Citizen clause does NOT derive from the term of art "natural-
-
born Subject''. but instead was derived from ancient consideration of GOD's Natural Law as expressed
in Greece by the works of Aristotle and carried forward for use in Roman law by the works of Cicero.
Ar.istotle did not define citizenship like the English did in the English common law in which they
did not give any relevancy to the citizenship of the child's parents, provided the parents were not
diplomats or military invaders. Aristotle included in the definition of a Cfcitizen.'' a person "of whom both
the parents are citizens." <1> It is this definition which was handed down through the millennia through
the law of nations and which the Founders and Framers adopted for the new republic. We also see that
the then Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Minor v. Hanpersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162
(1875) (Minor) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868) held that "all children
born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselws, upon their birth, citizens also. These
were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" informed that a person
who became a citizen by being born in the country to "citizen" parents was known in common law with
which the Framers were familiar as a "natural-born citizen." How do we know that the Founders and
Framers looked to Aristotle's view of citizenship? We learn from the historical record that Supreme Court
Justice James Wilson wrote in 1791: '"Generally speaking,' says the great political authority~ Aristotle. 'a
citizen is one p_artaking equally of power and of subordination! .. In Wilson's view, "a citizen of
Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or
county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen." James
Wilson, 1st commentaries on the Constitution. Here we clearly see Wilson referring to what could only be
a "natural born Citizen" as ''the son of a citizen."
We also know that the Founders and Framers studied Roman law. The Framers were well read in
the Roman and Greek classics as is expounded upon in their writings in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson

1
Aristotle also gave us a definition of a "natural born Citizen." In "Politics, Book Three, Part II. Aristotle, writing in
350 B.C.E., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition of citizenship:
"Part II
But in practice a citiun is ckfined tg be one of whom both the parents -qre citizens; others insist on
going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there
are some who raise the further question; How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of
Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said 'Mortars are what is made by the
mo.r tar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are thoee who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to
make Lari.ssaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared
in the governmen~ they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the WQrds, 'born of a
father or mother who is a citizen, cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.

There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, a.s by
Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many metics, both
strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen;
and there will still be a furthering the state, whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what
ought not to be is what is false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold of'tice, whom
we describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his holding some kind of
rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evident,
therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens."
... htt,p://c}assig.mit.edy/Apswtle/pQ}itics.html .

Exhibit A Page 4 ofl5

Exhibit Page No.: 0005 of CES Response Declaration
and other Founders had a love for Roman history and education. The Founders and Framers were great
admirers of Cicero and read many of his works. It is not inconceivable that they would have read this
English translation of The Proposal 12.> and seen the clause "natural born Citizen." This shows that they
did not need to borrow the clause from English common law's "natural born subject." Rather, they had
sources that they read which contained the exact clause, ''natural born Citizen," which clause also had its
own meaning which was different from that of an English "natural born subject" which allowed children
born in the King's dominion and under his allegiance to aliens to be English "natural born subjects."
A definition of a "natural born Citizen" was also provided by the world-renowned, Emer de Vattel in
his The Law o[Nations. Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel1758). Vattel had a great
influence on the Founders and Framers in their constituting the new republic and writing the
Constitution. See, for example, J.S. Reeves, The Influence ofthe Law of Nature Upon International Law
in the United States. 3 Am.J. Int'l L. 547 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a profound political
influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence)
Lee A Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and Its Implications
Under International Law, http://\'\-ww.fed-soc.Ql:g/publicationsfPubiD.l04/pub detail.asp (concerning U.S.
constitutional analysis, "Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most
, the Framers'). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well
widely read among
over 100 years after the birth of the republic; F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance o{Vattel, Grotian Society
Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of the Constitution. 111&.
Law ofNations was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and
1820). The Founders and Framers studied and were greatly influenced by Vattel. R.G. Natelson, The
Original Constitution 49 and 69 (2010) ("Vattel was probably the Founders' favorite autlwrity on
international law .. . ." and his, treatise, The Law o{Nations, was their favorite).
What Minor said about a "natural born Citizen" was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law definition of a "natural-born
citizen" but adding based on the English common law that since "'[t]he child of an alien, if born in the
country, is as much a citizen u.s the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle
[birth in the country]'" (bracketed information supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled
alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States"). This American common law
definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment
(only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizenn) or by
Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural
born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country.

2
Roman law provided: "Lex MENSIA, That a child should be held as A foreigner. if either of. the parents
was so. .But if both parents wer~ Romans and mAt'ri~d. hildr~n @lways QbtAined ih& tf!nk Q.ft))Q: t'Atlu~r,
(patrem sequuntur liberi, Liv. iv. 4.) and if unmarried, of the mother, Uipian." Alexander Adam, Roman antiquities:
or, An account of the manners and CWltoms of the Romans 210 (6th ed. corrected 1807). Cicero wrote in A Proposal;
"The Colophonians claim Homer as their own free Denizen, the Chlans challenge him as theirs, the Salaminians
demand him again for their own, but the Smyxneans assert him to be their natural born Citizen; and therefore have
also dedicated a Temple to him in their Town of Smyrna. There are a great many besides at Daggers--drawing among
themselves, and contend for him."

A Proposal For Printing in English, The Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, According to tb.e last Oxford
Edibon 17 (Henry Eelbeck trans. London 1720).
Exhibit A Page 5 of 15
Exhibit Page No.: 0006 of CES Response Declaration
 DePUTY CLERK

In the matter of Rome's Coup d'etat over the "Accursed" United States of America

by Eric Jon Phelps with edits by Christopher Earl Strunk (2014)

On March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) assumes the Office of President of the
United States, and with his Inaugural Address seizes and gives ALL Property and persons as
collateral for the debt of the United States in national "consecration" to its prime Creditors, the
Vatican State and Grown's City of London, and as Commander in chief FDR issues
Proclamation 2039 on March 6, 1933, as the Military Conqueror as if he were "Augustus
Caesar" of the American Republic, declaring a state of National Emergency based upon
The "Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917 (40 Statute Law 411);

Congress at the demand of every Governor on March 9, 1933 passes the "Emergency Banking
Relief Aet" (12 USC 95a)) thereby Amending the notorious World War I Statute "Trading With
the Enemy Act" of October 6t 1917, (50 USC App. 5(b)) (TWEA), and then FDR issues
Proclamation 2040 on March 9, 1933, also confirmed by "Emergency Banking Relief Act"
(12 USC 95b) and bringing the 'IWEA inla.n d, imposing Military Government
This Amended W\VI Statute in fact regards all "PERSONS" ''Within the United States'~ as
seized property of the federal government to be treated as an "enemy" and "enemy ally" or
"belligerents and rebels" by the Conqueror's Military Government.

These "belligerents and rebels" are publicly residing in the Several States Now considered
to be conquered territories."

By 1939 all American Common Law Civil Process will be gone. Inits place will be Roman
Civil Law Martial Process imposed on aU "PERSONS'' (natural and artificial) subject to
the Conqueror's De facto Equity Jurisdiction of the "United States."

This Martial Process will apply to all Public "United States Citizens."

This Martial Process cannot apply to Private ;(Citizens of the United States," Priva.tely
residing on the land at Common Law. while holding Private State Citizenship pursuant to
Section 1 of the 14th Am.endment.

''The Emergency Banking Relief Act'' (EBRA) (48 Statute Law 1)

This Act accomplished the Design of the Society of Jesus in "the Company's" Great Conspiracy
against the Liberties of the United States set forth in Samuel Morse's Nineteenth century
masterpiece, Foreign Con.spirgcy Against the Liberties of the United States (1835). Just a.s the Order
had brought the British Admiralty (possessing both a criminal and civil jurisdiction unlike American
Admiralty with only a civil jurisdiction) inland in the days of Jesuit-rUled King Charles Stuart I of
England thereby attempting to do away with the English Common Law on the land, the Jesuits
accomplished essentially the same thing here in America with this wicked Act aided by the
"Roosevelt Oourt."

Exhibit A Page 6of15

Exhibit Page No.: 0007 of CES Response Declaration
In the passing of this Act which the emotionally distressed Congress never read, the following must
be understood:

1. The "Trading With the Enemy Act," as passed originally in 1917 and amended in 1918~ was
made to apply to any "enemy"' of the United States.

2. The "enemy" was defined to be "any individual partnership. or other body of individuals of
any nationality, resident within the territory of any nation with which the United States is at
war."

3. Other enemy "individuals" were defined as "natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with
which the United States is at war. other than citizens of the United States.~ These
"citizens of the United States" in 1917 held Private citizenship of the United States without
having been reduced to the inferior citizenship status of being property of and surety for the
State-created Public "citizen of the United States," which public citizenship status was
imposed on March 9, 1933.

4. The "Trading With the Enemy Aet" also defined the term "person!' A "person" was "deemed
to mean an individual, partnership, association. company, or other unincorporated,body of
individuals. <>r corporation or body politic." Therefore in 1917 a,"person., could mean both a
natural person/Private Citizen of the United States and an artificial person/Public citizen of
the United States in privilege.

5. Therefore, a "person" as defined by the "Trading with the Enemy Act" DID INCLUDE a
"citizen of the United States," which at the time was a Private "citizen of the United States."

6. The "Emergency Ban.king Relief Act" of March 9, 1933, amended the "Trading With the
Enemy Act" of 1917 (previously amended fourteen times from March 26, 1918, to March 10,
1930), bringing the "Trading With the Enemy Act" inside the U nit.ed States applying it to "any
place subject to the jurisdiction thereor {all the States within the United States] when
previously, under the 'Trading With the Enemy Act," all transactions "executed wholly
within the United State{' were excluded;
1. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act" defined any '(person" to mean "an individual
partnership, association or corporation." The term "person.. wae defined to mean a Public"
"'citizen of the United States." The term "person"' excludes a Private "citizen of the United
States.>t

8. Therefore, the "Trading with the Enemy Act" defined a "person" to include a Private Citizen of
the Un.ited States. The tEmergeney Banking ReliefAct" defined a "person" to be an artificw

Exhibit A Page 7of15

Exhibit Page No.: 0008 of CES Response Declaration

~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT

~f>Tfff'1tfi,PEfr'N cuf~~&1fJOE
BPA BOOK C3z . PAGES j~
OEPUTY CLERK tzi"tt:
entity (obviously being a partnership, association, or corporation) to include an "individual"
"person" to be treated as an artificial entity which cannot include the Private Citizen of the
United States.

9. For that "individual" American to be treated as an artificial entity, his Private "citizenship of
the United States" had to be reduced by an implied, constructive contract by operation oflaw
to the inferior grade of quasi-corporate citizenship.

10. The corporation that is a citizen is a "Public" citizen of the United States. It is created for the
benefit of the public. The corporation is not a "Private" Citizen of the United States. Only
individual Men and Women can be "Private" Citizens of the United States as intended by
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

11. Therefore, the Private "citizen of the United States" is protected in his citizenship status by
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Federal
statute 12 USC 95a amending and resting upon 50 USC 5(b) does not apply to the Private
Citizen of the United States.

12. Because the individual Private "Citizen of the United States is protected by Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, he was specifically EXCLUDED by definition from the 'fEmergency
. Banking Relief Act," which act ofFDR's Emergency War Powers Congress (by way of the
amended "Trading With the Enemy Act," Section 17), imposed a martial process upon the
courts, federal and state, after April25, 1938.

13. Therefore the good news is, all Private ''Citizens of the United States" are protected in their
private right to a civilian due process of law on a federal level by the Fifth Amendment, and
to a civilian due process on a state level by Section 1 ofthe Fourteenth Amendment.

14. Therefore every Private ''Citizen of the United States" is neither a "person,, nor "property"
"subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' referred to in the Emergency Banking
Relief Act (12 USC 95a) passed by the Emergency War Powers Congress on March 9, 1933.

15. And therefore, all Private "citizens of the United States" are not subject to the provisions of
the "Emergency Banking Relief Act?' (12 USC 95a) having amended the "Trading With the
Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, as previously amended on March 28, 1918, now codified as 50
USCApp. 5(b)), including a martial due process of law imposed by the amended ''Trading
With the Enemy Act" upon any artificial "person" within the United States and "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof," i.e, ''subject to the de facto Emergency War Powers jurisdiction
thereof."

Exhibit A Page 8 ofl5

Exhibit Page No.: 0009 of CES Response Declaration
 A Word for Word Comparisgn
Between 50 USC App. Section 5(h) of the

"The Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6,1917,40 Stat. Law 411

as Amended on March 28, 1918!t and Section 5(b) of the "Trading With the Enemy Act"

"The Emergency Banking Relief Act, of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. Law 1

This Word for Word Comparison is critical in understanding how "The Emergency Banking Relief
Act" (1933) Amended "The Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917) as Am.e nded in substance making
"The Trading With the Enemy Act" the Law of the Land of the United States of America.

"The Trading With the Enemy Act as Amended on March 9, 1933, imposed a de facto Emergency
War Powers Military Government, while ousting de jure Civilian Constitutional Government.

All Courts, FMeral and State, now impose a Martial Due Process instead of a Civilian Due Process
on every "Person Within the United States." Natural and Artificial.

"Trading With the Enemy Act," Section 5(b}t 40 Statute Law 411

1917-"That the President may investigateJ regulate, or prohibit,

1933-'~During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by
the President, the President .t:naYY through any agency that he may designat~ Qr
otherwise. investigate, regulate, or prohibit,

ChAnge 1. TWEA is now imposed insid.e the geographic United States during a declared
state of national emergency.

Change 2. The President may now create agencies to "investigate, regUlate or prohibit."
These agencies will be ereated during the 1930s. The Securities and Exchange
Commission is created in 1933; its first director is Knight of Malta Joe Kennedy. A host of
other agencies will be created as a result of the Jesuit Order's Fabian Socialist New Deal.

1917-"under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or

1938-"under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or

1917_:"otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or ear-markings of gold

1933--"otherwise-. any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between

Exhibit A Page9of15

Exhibit Page No.: 0010 of CES Response Declaration

 D UTYCLERK

or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export.

hoarding, meltingt or earmarking of gold

Change 8. Banking institutions within the United States are totally regulated by
Congress without limitation. No "Individual" may "hoard" his gold. All gold will ~e taken
from "any person within the United States" on June 5t 1988, via HJR-192 <:n.

1917-"or silver coin or bullion or currency, tra.nsfers of credit in anx form (othtr thun

credits relating solely to transaQtions to hi! executed w}!olly within the Jlpit~

States), and transfers of evidenc~s of indebtedness or of the ownemhi:P gf

property betl!een the United States @.114 any foreigg CQuntcy. whether encmx.

ally of enemy or otherwise. or between residents of one or more fgreigp

countries, by any person within the United States;

1933-"or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States

3
When the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the: use of gold, such contracts
became sources of controversy. ln the solg clause cas~ Nornum vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935), the 1l.S.,.
SYRnrm~t CQ!Jlt ruled that gotd clauses w~ invalid. However. Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations
(new contracts) issued after October I977 in accordance with ~ l :U.$.C. .uJ.l.l(d)(2).
The United States Gold Reserve Aet of January 30, 1934 required that all &llil and gold certificates held by the Fmeral
R~e be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the !.JniU<d States D~ent of!he TreMUJY.
The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold. forcing individuals to sell it to the Treaswy, ~r wbich it
was stored in United Statte~ BuUion ~MO' at F<m Kn.ox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from
$20.67 per trgy oqqce to $3.5 .
A year earlier, in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere
in the worl~ with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins. These prohibitions were relaxed starting in 1964- gold
certificates were again allowed for private investors on April 24, 1964, although the obligation to pay the certificate holder on demand
in gold specie would not be honored. By 1975 Americans could again freely own and trade gold.
The Gold Reserve- Act authorized the E~cbanrre SmPm:mliw.f!:m.d to use such assets as wete not needed for exchange market
stabiUzation to deal in govemmmt securities,
The Gold Reserve Act bad economic nunifioations far beyond national finance. At tl:mt time many contraws stipulated that
their monetary terms could be demanded in gold. Such gold clauses were intended to protect against the United States devl!luing the
dollar. When the Emergency: BankingActof1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the use of gold, such contract$ became
sources of controversy. Jn the gold clay,se case Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 tJ.S. 240 {1935), the Q.S. SJmreme
.Qm!:! ruled that gold .clauses were invalid. However. Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations (new
contracts) issued after October 1977 in acwrdlmee with 31 U.S,t; . .21ll(d)(2).
The 2QOB.d~ision 216 Jamaica Avent{C, LLC vs S&Jl Playhouse .Realty Ca. established that a gold "lau.se in oontnwts $i~
before t 933 was only suspended not erased. and under ~in limited circmnstances might be ~vated.

Exhibit A Page 10of16

Exhibit Page No.: 0011 of CES Response Declaration
 LAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT
;:iit:ai~ro2/~ Ctff~t~
~K : 3g PAGE$~
DEPUTY ClERK t:lil!.
Change 4. The provision excluding the TWEA of October 6, 1917, as amended from
regulating transactions executed wholly within the United States is eliminated. All
foreign and domestic transactions of "any person within the United States" is to be
investigated, regulated or prohibited.

1917-"AQd he may require any such person engaged in any~ transaction to furnish

1933-"or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require
any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish

Change 5. The "new jurisdiction of the United States" established by the emergency war
powers military government of the United States under Proclamation 2040 approved and
confirmed by the EBRA amending the TWEA, now extends to all states and territories.

1917-"under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production

1983-"under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production

1917-"of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection

1933-"of any books of account, contracts; letters or other papers, in connection

1917-''therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after

1933-''therewitb in the custody or control of such person, either before or after

1917-"sueb transaction is completed.

1983-"such transaction is completed.

1917-[End ofStatute]

1988-"Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of this subdivision or of any

license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be
fined not more than $10,000~ Ot\ if a natural person, n:taY be imprisoned for not
more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any
corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be punished by a
like fine,. imprisonment, or both. As used in this subdivision the term 'pe!"son'
means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation." {End of Statute)
Exhibit A Page 11 ofl5
Exhibit Page No.: 0012 of CES Response Declaration
 EPUTYClERK

Chyge 6. New penalties are imposed for violating the amended TWEA extended into the
United.States a:tTecting "any person .within the United States" (natural or artificial)
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof/~ namely, to the newly imposed~ non--civilian,
emergency war powers, martial jurisdiction of the United States.

Note: "Person" as defined under the 'l'WE.Jt\. is identical to a Person'' defined in the EBRA.
However; an individual natural "Person" under the TW.EA was a Private Citizen of the
United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The natural "Person" under the
EBRA amending the TWEA and thereby extending the TWEA into the United States is a
Public "U.S. citizen" treated like a corporation in commercial privilege.

CONCLUSION

Citizenship Status and Jurisdiction of the United States

I. Private Citizenship of the United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

A An individual is a natural "person."

B. That individual natural "person is "born or naturalized in the United Statetl' {the
geographic ''United States" composed of the states in union unde:r the Constitution of the
United States).

C. That individual natural ''person" is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the jurisdiction
of the United States.

D. The "jurisdiction thereor (jurisdiction of the United States) is the constitutionally-

established, constitutionally-limited, de jure. civilian jurisdiction of the United States that
began on March 4, 1789, and that ended on March 6, 1933, confirmed and approved on
March 9, 1933, by the Emergency Banking Relief Act.

E. The citizenship of the "citizen of the United States" is private, not public.

F. Therefo..re, the Private citizen of the United States" under Section 1 of the 14"h
Amendment is a "person .. . subject to the jurisdiction o{the United States." That
jurisdiction is a civilian jurisdiction.

Exhibit A Page 12 ofl5

Exhibit Page No.: 0013 of CES Response Declaration

 DEPIJTY CLERK

II. Public Citizenship of the United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment

A. A corporation is a "person,. under Section 1. 14th Amendment.

B. A corporation is a qcitizen" under Section 1, 14th Amendment.

C. A corporation is created by a state for the benefit of the public.

D. A corporation is a public ;'citizen of the United States."

E. By operation of law, the Certificate of Live Birth, on the day it was filed with a public office
of the state of natural birth, created an individual corporate/trust entity, a Public "citizen
of the United States," its property being the Private "citizen of the United States.''

F. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA). all
registered property (land, labor and businesses) were seized as '1>ooty of war" by
P:roelamation 2039 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt acting under the World War I
statutory authority of the "Trading With the Enemy Act' of October 6, 1917, as amended
14 times up to and including March 10, 1930.

G. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9. 1933, via the EBRA), the
constitutional. limited, de jure, civilian government of the United States was ousted and
replaced with a statutory. unlimited, de facto, military government of the United States.

H. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9. 1933, via the EBRA), the civilian
"jurisdiction of the United Statd under Section 1 of the 14tb Amendment was removed
and replaced with the military "jurisdiction of the United Statetr under the
"Emergency Banking Relief Act" now codified as 12 USC 95a based upon the military
"Trading With the Enemy Act" now codified a 50 USC App. 5(b).

J. Therefore, the Public "citizen of the United States' under Section! of the 14th
Amendment is a "person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" under
the "Emergency Banking ReJief Act!' (12 USC 95a)based upon the "Trading With the
Enemy Act" (50 USC App. 5(b)). That jurisdiction is a military jurisdiction imposing
martial process in every action, state and federal, civil and criminaL

FINAL CQNCLUSION
The l!rivam citizen of the United State#/' is a ''person" subject to the constitution~ de jure,
peacetime. jurisdiction of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

That peacetime jurisdiction of the United States is a civilian jurisdiction using civilian process
to gain in.. persQnam jurisdiction.
Exhibit A Page 13 ofli

Exhibit Page No.: 0014 of CES Response Declaration

On the other hand:

The Public "citizen of the United Statetf is a "person,. subject to the statutory, de facto, wartime
jurisdiction of the United States under the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (codified as 12 USC 95a)
based upon the military "Trading With the Enemy Act" (codified as 50 USC App. 5(b)). All actions,
federal and state. criminal and civil, using martial process to confer in persoru:rm jurisdiction of the
emergency war powers courts are founded upon these two s-tatutes.

That wartime jurisdiction of the United States is a military jurisdiction using martial process to
gain in personam jurisdiction.

You are either a Constitutional Private. '~citizen of the United States~'

Or

You are a Statutory Public "citizen of the United States"

You are either a "person" under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

Or

You are a "person:' under the commercial <'Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933)
(12USC95a)
Based upon the martial "Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917)
(50 USC App. 5(b))

You are either subject to a civilian ''jurisdiction of the United Statu'

Under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

Or

You are subject to a martial ''jurisdiction of the United States"

Under the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933) and
The "Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917)
{12 USC 95a and 50 USC App. 5(b))

You al.'e one of the Sovereig;p People ofthe United States of America

Or

You are one of the conquered people of the United States of America

The End
Exhibit A Page 14 of 15

Exhibit Page No.: 0015 of CES Response Declaration

 DI;PIJTY CLERK

That for the reasons expressed above. notwithstanding whether a natural person is born within a
State of the United States of married citizen parents, the_Executor and Beneficiaries of t.his EXPRESS
DEED IN TRUST TO THE UN1TED STATES OF AMERICA are of a singular class separate and apart
from those who are either naturalized or born a citizen, and are unable to certi.fy as eligible for POTUS
one of the conguen;d people of the United States of America as long as the dejure citizen of the United
St.at.es remains the surety-indenture for the Debtor trust with beneficittl interest in the surety, f"Or that
natural person is th.e property of the United States and is a slave unable to fulfill the duties of POTUS.
Therefore, the Executor and Beneficiaries are bound by their :registered statue as private citizens
of the United States with their bonafide status as a natural-born Citizen within the duties and
obligations ofthis DEED in TRUST to only certify a candidate is eligible based upon the foregoing and
shall seek equity relief of a chancellery court for attempt to USURP the POTUS to the contrary.
That the Beneficiaries for this DEED in TRUST are private citizens of the United States in respect
to the debtor trust entity registered with the United States Secretary of the Treasury with acceptance
confirmed for each respective package by Certified Mail with numbers for their account: in regards t.o
the period ending before the tiling of this DEED in TRUST and that the undersigned Beneficiaries are
certified natural~bom Citizens capable of rendering a decision as to the status of a POTCS eandidate.
That Executor and Settlor (SETTLOR), who privately is of equal beneficial interest to the
Beneficiaries or any member of the class deimed above in the execution of the obligations of this DEED
in TRUST. is Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris ptivate citizen o! the United States, the
sceured beneficiary agent of the Debtor Trust transmitting utility TMCHRISTOPHER EARL
STRUNK~ as duly registered with the United States Secretary .of the Treasury with account #S I
9 J'i\ce:rual#70103090000192293013 and 70123460000358729106 and located at~

~. who upon his acceptance will duly serve this Trust publicly without be~ficial
interest until further written notice unanimously approved by undersigned Beneficiaries and be
reimbursed tor his time and expense acceptable to the Beneficiaries.
'l'he undersigned Beneficiaries hereby enact ibia EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST and ~ppoint the SETTLOR;

Eric Jon Pb~s in esse Sui ~s

private citiv..en of the United States.
the secured beneficiary agent of the Debtor Trust
transmitting utility TMERIC JON PHELPOO

Exhibit A Page 15of15

Exhibit Page No.: 0016 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit A-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0017 of CES Response Declaration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. ----
--.----.

BENEFl~IABY AME;NDM)!!NT TO THE EXPRESS DEEQ IN TRYST TO

THE UNITED STATES QF AMERICA
WITH BENEFICIARY DISCRETION FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
WHO ARE TRUE NATUBAL-BORN CITIZENS UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 AND NOT SURETY-INDENTURES FOR
THEIR RESPECTIVE DEBTOR TRUST ENTITY UNDER 12 USC 95 AND 50 USC APP. 5(b)
MARTIAL GOVERNMENT WITH A CONTINUING NATIONAL EMERGENCY

This is a Beneficiary Amendment to the Express Deed in Trust cl.abn of hene:t'icial interest
in and over all the public and private ~' person!}), tangible and inta,ngiWg Property within THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA geographic border to safeguard and secure for the posterity ofWE
the People of the United States of America in the nation given by GOD for secu1ing each private
Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest in pursuit oflife liberty and happiness in
perpetuity, and with the Executor and Beneficiaries duty to this Trust shall guarantee that all
incumbents and future candidate(s) for the Office of President or Vice President of the United States
(POTUS) shall be a bonafide Natural-Born Citizer1. (NBC) private citizen of the United States agent
who is surety no more to the Debtor Trust Entity in compliance with the United States Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, either under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) with the Military
Government authority of renewed annual National Emergency or otherwise (DEED in TRUST).
rrhat for the reasons expressed above, notwithstanding whether a natural person is born within a
State of the United States of married citizen parents. the.Executor and Beneficiaries of this EXPRESS
DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are of a singular class separate and apart
from those who are either naturalized or born a citizen, and are unable to certify as eligible for POTUS
one of the conguereQ people of the Unitced States of America as long as the dejure citizen ofthe United

States remains the . urety-indenture for the Debtor trust with beneficial interest in the surety, for that
natural person is the property of the United States and is a slave unable to fulfill the duties of POTUS.
Therefore, the undersigned Beverly Waldorf Tokarz is bound to the rules and intent of this
DEED in TRUST by the unanimous decision of the Executor SETTLOR Christopher Earl Strunk and
Beneficiary Eric Jon Phelps have authorized me to become a DEED in TRUST Beneficiary based upon
my registered status as private citizen of the United States with a bonafide natural-born Citizen status
within the duties and obligations of this DEED in TRUST to only certify a candidate is eligible based
upon the foregoing and shall seek equity relief of a chancellery court for any incumbent and or attempt
to USURP the POTUS to the contrary.
I, Beverly Waldorf Tokarz, the undersigned hereby accept the terms, conditions and duties as a
Benefi.ciary to this EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST,

Dated: zt; ~Jrril ZDlf

Bever aldorf o ar in esse Sui juris
private citizen of the United States.
the secured beneficiary agent of the Debtor Trust
transmitting utility TMBEVERLY WALDORF TOKARZ

Exhibit Page No.: 0018 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit A-3

Exhibit Page No.: 0019 of CES Response Declaration

 CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue PMB102 Brooklyn, New York 11217
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

RESUME
WORK EXPERIENCE SUMMARY: My skills include as a construction manager a wide range of in depth work
history encompassing 30 years of New York State government experience, real property development, life safety
and building codes, construction management, construction methods, low income housing development and
management, 40 yr. computer experience, carpentry: layout, house framing, finished carpentry, kitchen I bathroom
rehab, weather proofmg, roofmg hot and cold, ceiling and flooring systems, structural steel, tile, stucco, masonry,
concrete forming and finishing, plumbing roughing, sprinkler, electrical roughing and finished, alarm systems,
artistic training, strong paralegal background in State and Federal laws related to litigation, banking and FOIL.

1986 to Present Self Employed Consultant- producing real property feasibility studies, community
development I prognun services reports and studies, real property surveys and contracting
work with bids in FHA related rehab. work; Tax Credit financial planning and business plans, mortgage closing I
due diligence, request for Proposals to NYC I HUD I SBA I DHCR others, able to rapidly produce creative solutions
for projects of all kinds with detailed reports using markets I scientific research and fmancial feasibility studies,
Sources & Uses plans, startup cash flow projections, and accounting methods based upon spreadsheet models of
operation, CPM; and have organized a statewide network to address endemic New York state systemic problems.
Starting in 1986, on my own time separate from then State employment, I developed a turnkey
specialized 30 unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Multiple Dwelling Housing in Bedford Stuyvesant Brooklyn in
connection with the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan guarantee I low income housing subsidy to
be obtained thru a NYC Housing Preservation Development (HPD) 75% of construction bridge loan; and in which I
designed all the trade work and developed the prognun presented to the local Community Board, HPD I HUD,
prepared all code analysis and DOB submissions to obtain a permit for the loan closing and thereafter performed the
rehabilitation removals, structural steel framing, new hydraulic Elevator, and construction trades and oversaw
mechanical, sprinkler, mechanical plumbing, Electrical trades applications, and wherein to assist the Architect I
provided all document preparation and submission, complicated controlled inspection submissions, plan
amendments and sign-off work for issuance of permits and application for TCO, which involved meeting at the
Brooklyn DOB with assistants commissioner and commissioner in regards to code compliance and SRO waivers.

2001 to 2002 Hardwick & Company, Inc. - Director for Construction Management that utilized the services
of an architect for DOB expediting on a small Brooklyn Hotel that had been disrupted by a fire in
one unit that damages four- I prepared DOB paper and filed for sign-off for permit as the rehab contractor.

1983 to 1992 New York State Facilities Development Corporatio!!, NY, NY (public benefit corp.)
Construction Engineer I Manager I Development Administrator I supervisor of 5 staff for NYS:
OMH, OMR, DAAA, DSS projects; grade MC level2 approved by Gov. Cuomo as special project manager for $12
mil. in new construction projects from 1986 thru 1988 responsible for the Staten Island Development Center closing
under the "Willowbrook Federal Court Decree"; as a Public Officer reported to the NYS Attorney General as a
professional responsible for project development, management (see NYS Legislative Resolution Commendation).
While Project Executive for the Willowbrook Closing I was responsible for the work direction and
job performance of the five (5) inspectors, who I supervised in accordance with the FDC's policies and applicable
laws. My responsibilities included interviewing, hiring, and training employees; planning, assigning, and directing
work; appraising performance within the 6 month evaluation system required annually for promotion purposes;
rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and resolving problems, evaluated and supervised as
many as ten architects/engineers, five inspectors on my staff, 30 thirty contractors under "Wicks I Davis Bacon
legal requirements", community diplomacy and government agency client coordination simultaneously at multiple
remote locations.

1989 to 1992: I was promoted to a Development Administrator and Building Codes Manager for projects
at Central Islip, Pilgrim, Sagamore, Kingsboro, Manhattan, Bronx, Kirby, South Beach Psychiatric
Centers for NYS OMH, wherein I also served on a committee to select architects engineers and worked with the
client to develop program and projects then to be put to public bid and then bonded.

Exhibit Page No.: 0020A-3

Exhibit of Page
CES Response
001 of 7 Declaration
1982 to 1983 Slomanson Smith Barresi AJThitects, NY, NY (architect for R.H. Macy's nationwide)
Architects field representative -New York State work with Facilities Development Corp.

1981 to 1982 Marathon Orbit Co., Inc. Bronx NY (25 person Gen. Contractor NY government bids)
Project Manager I Open Market Bid emergency work for DGS.

1979 to 1981 Comoutron Technologies Corporation- NY NY (software dev. I OEM computer sales)
Facilities Planner for 17K s.f. Manhattan & NJ offices I labs. In 1980 as a private
consultant doing interior design commercial office space for my client at 810 7th Avenue I personally prepared and
expedited DOB Building Notice application with an Architect hired for plan review and DOB submission, in which
I obtained a sign-off for issuance of a Permit for a contractor under my control.

1978 to 1979 American International Group Realtv Corporation- NY, NY (real property
development and management for AIG reinsunmce internationally) 1 of 2 Construction
Coordinators for Manhattan Office Headquarters at Pine St., Wall St. and Maiden Lane. While with American
International Group on Pine I Wall and Maiden Lane I coordinated in house construction in which an outside
expediter obtained all necessary DOB papers.

1977 to 1978 Kallman McKinnel I Russo Sonder Architects, Brooklyn, NY (Architects 1.2 mil SF
NYC HHC hospital complex) 1 of 5 Construction Coordinators at Woodhull Hospital.

1974 to 1977 Vogel & Strunk Architects, NY, NY (family architectural firm doing Health and
Hospital Corporation "HHC" and private health facility projects) Architects
representative in greater New Yolk Area. While employed by Vogel and Strunk Architects partnership, that did all
of its own DOB expediting for all of their rehab and new Medical facility work in NYC.

MILITARY SERVICE:

1966 to 1972 United States Air Force- Rank E-5 Sergeant with Honorable Discharge Training: Weather
Observer, Rawinsonde Technician, Weather Satellite Mapping, Aerial Photo Mapping, R&D -Inflated Structures I
Support Systems, Theodelite, wiresonde, dropsonde, pilot balloon tracking, weather radar, misc. equip., tractor
trailer certified, photography B&W film and printing, small arms expert, Duty: 1.5 yr. domestic TDY; 2.5 yr.
Europe, Mideast, North Africa, Central America.

EDUCATION BACKGROUND for Turnkey Design Built Construction Manager

1995 Pratt School for Continuing Education: Low Income Housing Management
1990 to 1991 New York Department of State: 100 hr Building Codes course- Certified Code Manager
1986 New York University: Asbestos Abatement course series
1975 to 1976 City College of New York, School of Architecture - Design, Materials courses
1971 to 1974 University of South Florida- Tampa, Florida- Geography Major, Anthropology & Engineering Minor
1965 to 1966 Westchester Community College- Valhalla, NY- Liberal arts Science
1964 to 1965 Certified Scuba Diver- YMCA - White Plains , NY
1960 to 1965 Valhalla High School- Valhalla, NY- Science Cirriculum
1959 to 1965 Eagle Boy Scout- w/ Silver Palm I Brotherhood Order of the Arrow I 4 yrs. J.A.S.M.

2
Exhibit Page No.: 0021A-3
Exhibit of Page
CES Response
002 of 7 Declaration
 TD ?te 1074 771U

State of New York

fl!!!!!!!!!!!~Legislafive Resolution~~
Aeallllibly lila, 1m
IY: Mr. ,_.ntol

*
WHl!lEAS, Chrlt"'Phtf Strunl!, eQI'Istruc:tion .-glnftr for the ~ Vtl'k
St.t. Fa'Uitiea DIYtlumtnl Corporation nd hi ~Uilt ttaff dldr JO
~in.R!Iti'IV labor to I._IUN tha &uttenful dwtlopment c4 the G~~~~~munl\.y :rtill:IIIQ
1\ ;Uo4Z7t Oiylclon Avenue, 6r.ooklyn, New York; end

WHEREAt, flaaoh Ttkvah, In~ . tO 'trlii'V mirror.. ;an UI!Nft1lttlnSJ rt~wolva, 1

total .,_ltment to t .b ae tuffarin.s from M~Ctlol'l ntllrdatlo!l; and

. WH1tlAS, Th~ dodl~tlon J:"er-ny for lite t.<:JIIty l.a tentatively plannlld far
Thursday, Jun* thirtenth.- ninotaan hundred alghiyflva; Chrlstoplll!f' Sti'Un.k
wm be s:lted for pec.lal bor; nd

Exhibit Page No.: 0022A-3

Exhibit of Page
CES Response
003 of 7 Declaration
 ro- ne s?4 1101
lB:4B CE STRUN&

- z.
IUlSOL\IED, Th~t coples ol thla ftetolutJon. uitablv omaroecl I\JIII trail
llllt\ecl ~ Aililbl em.-"', Stub~r, Enc;llthre Dll'l!etol' Of P.._.h Tlk~<h. lflr;. , :l74
27i Dlv.t!on Avenue, Brookl'fil, New York .l1211; to . Chrlstophar Strun~ 1
-Contruotion ngln"r. -and 1o Sruu H. J.!offmn, Ol'r cl!lr, Olvltlon w
CcmtrUc:tlon. N~w York St6t.e Fatflltl.et Davelo~N~~Cmt orP!II'ation, 44 Hollen <I
Ave.n ue, Alb~ny, Ntw yqrk 1:U~.

( ..... ~.~
l"ranl!fn M. Mlusl, Cl.rl<.

.I
..

Exhibit Page No.:Exhibit

0023 ofA-3CES Response
Page 004 of 7 Declaration
 Oct. 15 Jon - Senate- Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs
Cllair: Senator Vincent l. Leibel! Ill and Senate Standing Committee on Transportation
Chair: Senator Thomas W. Libous Public.Hearing: Protecting our State's Security
Place: Van Buren Hearing Room A. Leg_istative Office Building, 2nd Floor, Afbany, New York
......... ~. :;.-..... !!Iii It! ... - . .,,..,...... " - ---~- ~,_. "

T'tme; 10:00 A.M. Contact: Robert T. Farley I Marianne Reilly- fax (518) 42&.6977

In appreciation of the opportunity to speak on Protecting our State's Security as a matter of

national security with global significance~ I Christopher Earl Strunk am.a Vietnam l3ra Vete~
born in Manha~ resident in Brooklyn, devoted to God and Country, have taken the oath to
defend and protect the USA and the constitutions on which the Federal republic is based against
any enemy foreign or domestic; as such give warning of Governor Eliot Spitzer's sedition as an
enemy whose treachery is in conspiracy with others aiding and abetting with sanctuary 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 with the May 1985 adoption of Senate I 073 and Assembly
1249 commitment to the consummate efflorescence of human dignity with which they did praise
my ~'unselfish dedication and competent discharge ofduty ... above and beyond the
responsibilities ofjob and duty ...perception ofthe value and worth ofothers, for his innate and
ingenious concern for the preservation and enhancement ofhuman dignity".

That beyond the honor and praise of22 years ago, I am vigilant to maintain individual
inalienable freedoms given by Almighty God, urge this Committee to support my action with
Attorney Carl E. Person for an independent investigation of the perfidy unleashed on 9-11-01
against the sovereign People of the state New York; we urge the State Legislature to bring
- sunlight upon treason and sedition as a matter ofprotecting our State's Security.

That as a matter of s~urity and justice denied after 9-11-01 involves the matter of providing
sanctuary for illegal aliens with impunity in violation of federal and state law, that then Attoroey
General Spitzer by seamless acts of sedition now as Governor reaches the level of treason subject
to impeachment under NYS Articl VI section 24, and that pursuant to Article IV must be
removed; Mr. Spitzer shall give testimony without immunity pursuant to Article I section 6.

That notwithstanding the majority vote of our Assembly controlled by a top-down COl]>Oratist
elite, with political districts gerrymandered beyond the Jetter and intent of State Constitution
Article IX Homerule, this committee nevertheless must act as a matter of our State's Security to
review the population size of the city of New York, which as a Home-rule entity has 26 of 62
Senators violative of NYSC Article mSection 4; and as a bome~rule entity exceeds the
maximum size of persons detennined by the census allowable by the NYS Constitution; and as
such BrQoklyn must have Homerule again for our State~s Security,

A review cfthe facts will show that Governor Eliot Spitzer is a globalist driven by oxymoronic
Liberation Theology in conspiracy with the Cuomo and Clinton dynasty, whose modernist-
progressive praxis is that of Fr. George Tyrell, S.J. {1861-1909) and Fr. Pierre Teilhard De
Chard in, S.J. (1881- I 955).

That by using the God and Country principle as our inalienable foundation for continuation of
our federal republic with 50 sovereign states is apposed by the GQvemor, as if New York were a

1
Exhibit Page No.: 0024A-3
Exhibit of Page
CES Response
005 of 7 Declaration
 pro,ince often provinces, merely as a subset among 83 provinces globaUy. and the multicultural
co-equality it supposes rather than the fiercely independent Country under an Almighty God
whose citizens of one State are sovereign among the fifty Federal menibers with borders
language and culture distinct from the whole world.

Furlber. only our Congress sets the agenda under Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 for the
naturalizaioo of citizens per se, not the governor or legislature(as if once under the Articles of
Confederation~ As such goes to Mr. Spitzers violation ofthe Logan Act by offering residency
tbat undermines each citizens vote and right to have each vote CO\ID.ted in the sunshine.

Furthennore, were Hlegal aliens or aliens~ granted drivers licenses by the GovemQr's sedition
and treason, (I contend that only the Federal government may issue a license to an alien whether
f.-
here legally or not) the People' s sovereignty guaranteed in our State Bill of Rights Law in all
matters is affected, especially for the sanctity of the vote under Article n would be undermined
and stolen by dilution and fraud My associate the Honorable Robert K. Doman has suffered
since the 1996 stolen eJection by the perfidy of globalist RepUblicans and Democrats who in
California and elsewhere use illegal aliens to vote as a weapon against our sovereignty, a copy of
Mr. Dornan' s letter to the Court in the Federal case in Western District of New York WDNY 06
cv-0080 ease Forjone v. California et al. is herewith attached (now transferred to NDNY 06-cV
1002 assigned to Judge Lawrence E. Kahn).

Like me, Mr. Dornan 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 be accompanied by the right ofknowing that ~b vote is duly counted .in the sunshine as
a matter of national security. Alive on the public record suffi'age perfidy exists in New York that
allows aliens to vote. Here in Albany, were Mr. Soares to compare the graveyards of Albany that
rise as if by command of Mayor Coming~ s ghost on election day with those who do vo~,
likewise Mr. Hynes comparing voting roles census in NYC grows accordingly each eJection day
with votes from all over the world. That elections in New York proceed as if by remo~ control _at
a distance and brings into question tbe use ofNVRA ("Jnotorvoter act'') and HAVA ("help
anyone to vote ace'); and as such the standard for review by this Corom1ttee shall be strict and
thorough as a State and national security matter.

In deference for the time 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
dtizeils1 states and nation. I am at the beck and call of this Committee for providing supporting
evidence for what I contend, and mn available for ony accordingly.

Dated:~toberl5, 2007
Brooklyn, New York
~~~~vTOPHEREARLSTRUNK
593 Vanderbilt Avenue -#281
Brooklyn. New York 11238
631-745-6402
email: freebrookl:rnrepublic@yahoo.com
Attachment: RKD letter to the Court

cc: th~ Honorable Robert K. Doman

Carl E. Person, Esq.
2
Exhibit Page No.: 0025A-3
Exhibit of Page
CES Response
006 of 7 Declaration
 Forjone v. EAC .. WDNY 06-cv..so
EXHIBITD2
The HonorJblc Robert K. Oornan(U.S. Congress 1()77- llN7)
3 1341 r\ndrc!o Pico Road
Slif\ J~1an C;;tpts1mno, Calrtornla o.)2lt75

July 5, 2t.JOO
The Honorable .Chief JuJ~c Richard J. Atcara
t1.t the L'nitcd St.atc:. Oismct Court
\\~~~rem Dh1rict of New YMk
J041l.'), l ounhousc

- (II~ (\)Urf Slf\.'e(

Buftillo. New York 14202
R~: For/mt' L'l.<li ' EAC d .ut, WDNY Oll....cv~~O {RJA)
Ncabjtcf: h!ttD'tOfigp ga of Rigbt FHC,P Rp)e ~f(at
The Honot:~blc Clucf JuJgc Ri!;:hard J~ Amara,
I am former U. S, House RcpJ"esentative Robert K.
Doman. prose \\<ilhoul bcmg an attorney. wbo was outrugcously defeated iUcgu.Uy by Democrat
Lor~tta Sanchez b) a minimum of2J(,') alien ' 'OtC!J. and uccorJins to 1.C.E, U.N.S.) rceorJs 4Jt23
.tlien \Vl~~ Hlegally cast n the 11'ltl (':tlifornia Gencr~l EJcc.tjon; anJ d1at by conscntills of both the
Rcrublu:an and Democrat!<' partie~ behind the scenes in vioJation of the majority of votc.rs' rights
cono;,pired then aoo now for control ov.:r illegal .tlicn votin!:! (lO\'\'Cr in Califprnio and seemingly
naliom' 1Jc. Aliens illegal. w~ting with impunity and wherea":> uot a singt'-' individual was churged
~nh thou<Stnds of fCionu:s ha\'mg (\een conunined, to \litectly bring about my los\<~ by nine votes-
not;\ithstandmg the I.C.E, r~cord'i to the contrary. ( dcstrcto t~liltify iltl\1 intcrvctlc in support of the
~:mbalth.'\J pro sc Plaintiff.'4 herein. ooth in my <>wn sdftintcrc~t and for the survi\''ttl of our nafjQn as
a C"on~titurional n:publi,,
My ~ti~ct injury in tWo attd afterward i.; the subji.:ct ofPiuintitT!i' Amended Complaint
paragruphs 92. t 17 thru llS .md 147~ As s;uch my intcr\'ention 1& required to ~abli!.h accuracy in
th~: rccord uf tlw underlyin~ prnctedings datmg back more than len yetits. anti that I al.;;o lontend
w1ll support and t't;lrmthe b-.to;i..,Jor proving the pancm and cc,'lnduct asroci\ttcd with both harboring.
of dlcgal alicnllund 'iolattQO of U.S. Citizen proprietary \olin& r1ght11 complained of by Plaintiff.,;
unJer ci" il RICO pro,i:::ions.
\\ ith leol\oe CJfthe Court <1ft~r dispositu:m oftle ttlrr~nt Juoc4. 21.106 text order of Defendant.
ll) rcsf1\1nd tot~ Rcmurk 'Oolket fl'7] (therein requ~.... ring a special master to ;rsccrtain authority
and jurtsthction lwcr l(cfcndants within the state ofNew York ~pec1fically prior 10 PlaintiffS
cotN~Iidntcd rcsronse in opposition to the various motions to di'>miss). if Plaintiffs survive f d""irc
l{l intcf'\cnc formally under provisiolli offRCvP Rule 24(a) and or be given standing tQ testii}'

under t)tlth \,n the record of the proCC\.-ding ac..::~,rdingly. That by locul rulel\ l huvc caus!Xi 1hiJ>
cNrc.;ponllent'e to be July !icned upon p~rlics ~'rein and that :1 duplicate ~tnd certificate of sel'\ic:
lc' h4.'1C\'\ ith uttachcll. Rc~p~tfully :-ubmittcd for <!ction by:

c~rllfi~atc of S~:t\ i\.'C

C~ ; Plamt1ffs rm.1 o;c
Dt;f~!l~antc;. ('" CUU:"iCf~
EXHIBITD2

Strunks Reply to Defendants' Response to Remark- Page 40 of 42

Exhibit Page No.: 0026

Exhibit of Page
A-3 CES Response
007 of 7 Declaration
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit B-1
Exhibit Page No.: 0027 of CES Response Declaration
November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Democratic Party Presidential Electors
Pledged To: Hillary Clinton
Tim Kaine
Dustin R. Reed Javier Gonzalez Shawn E. Terris
Concord, CA San Jose, CA Ventura, CA

John M. Ryan Mark W. Headley Gail R. Teton-Landis

San Rafael, CA Berkeley, CA Santa Barbara, CA

Faith A. Garamendi Ana A. Huerta Marie S. Torres

Davis, CA Bakersfield, CA Hacienda Heights, CA
Kathleen R. Scott Donna M. Ireland RobertS. Torres
Lincoln, CA Pleasanton, CA Pomona, CA

Timothy J. Farley Christine T. Kehoe Dorothy N. Vann

Martinez, CA San Diego, CA Long Beach, CA

Analea J. Patterson Vinzenz J. Koller David S. Warmuth

Sacramento, CA Carmel, CA Pasadena, CA

Janine V. Sera Andrew R. Krakoff Karen D. Waters

Elk Grove, CA Orinda, CA Inglewood, CA
Sandra M. Aduna Katherine A. Lyon Shirley N. Weber
Laguna Woods, CA Coronado, CA San Diego, CA

Saundra G. Andrews John P. MacMurray Denise B. Wells

Oakland, CA La Habra, CA Victorville, CA

Jane C. Block Sheldon Malchicoff Gregory H. Willenborg

Riverside, CA Westlake Village, CA Los Angeles, CA

Edward Buck Nury Martinez Laurence S. Zakson

West Hollywood, CA San Fernando, CA Los Angeles, CA

Francine P. Busby Gwen Moore

Cardiff, CA Los Angeles, CA

Laphonza R. Butler Cathy A. Morris

Los Angeles, CA Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Benjamin Cardenas Stephen J. Natoli

Montebello, CA Visalia, CA

Jacki M. Cisneros Mark A. Olbert

Los Angeles, CA San Carlos, CA

Raymond L. Cordova Christine P. Pelosi

Garden Grove, CA San Francisco, CA

Steven D. Die bert Carmen 0. Perez

Fresno, CA Long Beach, CA

James A. Donahue Celine G. Purcell

El Cerrito, CA Redwood City, CA

Patrick F. Drinan Andres Ramos

Escondido, CA Elk Grove, CA
Susan Eggman Olivia A. Reyes-Becerra
Stockton, CA Stanford, CA
Eileen Feinstein Mariano Priscilla G. Richardson
San Francisco, CA Cathedral City, CA

Natalie P. Fortman Steve J. Spinner

Valencia, CA Atherton, CA

Exhibit Page No.: 0028 of CES Response Declaration10/4/2016

November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Republican Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Donald J. Trump

Michael R. Pence
Joel Anderson Mark Herrick Mike Spence
Alpine, CA San Martin, CA West Covina, CA

Marilyn Barke Tom Hudson Shawn Steel

Los Alamitos, CA Elverta, CA Surfside, CA

Jennifer Beall Kenneth Korbin Mark Vafiades

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Sacramento, CA La Crescenta, CA
Robert Bernosky Kevin Krick Marcelino Valdez
Hollister, CA Fairfax, CA Fresno, CA

Arun Bhumitra Jeff Lalloway Errol Valladares

Rolling Hills, CA Irvine, CA Valencia, CA

Jim Brulte Linda Lopez-Alvarez Cyndi Vanderhorst

Fontana, CA Vista, CA Santa Clarita, CA

Nachhattar Chandi Robin Lowe Megan Vincent

La Quinta, CA Hemet, CA Wilton, CA

Claire Chiara Papa Doug Manchester Elissa Wadleigh

Berkeley, CA La Jolla, CA Sonoma, CA

Tim Clark Shirley Mark Deborah Wilder

Auburn, CA Paso Robles, CA Grass Valley, CA

Greg Conlon Chuck McDougald Dave Willmon

Atherton, CA South San Francisco, CA Riverside, CA

Matthew Del Carlo John Musella John Young

San Francisco, CA Valencia, CA Auburn, CA

Harmeet Dhillon Ron Nehring

San Francisco, CA El Cajon, CA

Elizabeth Emken Mike Osborn

Fair Oaks, CA Ventura, CA

Jean Fuller Douglas Ose

Bakersfield, CA Sacramento, CA

Ted Gaines John Peck

ElDorado Hills, CA Rancho Santa Fe, CA

Ron Gold Pete Petrovich

Woodland Hills, CA Thousand Oaks, CA

Lisa Grace-Kellogg Donna Porter

Agoura Hills, CA Corona, CA

Barbara Grimm Marshall Dennis Revell

Bakersfield, CA Granite Bay, CA

Howard Hakes Scott Robertson

Pasadena, CA San Francisco, CA

Diane Harkey Carla Sands

Dana Point, CA Los Angeles, CA

Matthew Harmon Truong Si

Rocklin, CA Inglewood, CA

Noel Irwin Hentschel Robert Smittcamp

Los Angeles, CA Fresno, CA

Exhibit Page No.: 0029 of CES Response Declaration10/4/2016

November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
American Independent Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Donald J. Trump

Michael R. Pence
Linda Lea Alsbury Charles Edward Harrison, Jr. Robert Ornelas
Winters, CA Redding, CA Anaheim, CA

Merwyn Alsbury Thomas Nowlen Hudson Marilyn Plumb

Winters, CA Elverta, CA Vacaville, CA

The Honorable Steve Baldwin The Honorable John LeBoutillier Jamie Rangel
Santee, CA Old Westbury, NY San Diego, CA

Gary Brown The Honorable Robert Marc Levy Jeffrey Rangel

Fairfield, CA Pinehurst, NC San Diego, CA

Ruth Brown Mary Parker Lewis John Daniel Robertson

Vacaville, CA Alexandria, VA Pleasanton, CA

Mark Brownlee Gaudencio Gene Lopez Markham Robinson

Vacaville, CA East Palo Alto, CA Vacaville, CA

William C. Cardoza Judy Lopez Mary Robinson

Sacramento, CA Vacaville, CA Vacaville, CA

Joseph J. Cocchi Raul Lopez Stephanie Roundy

Vacaville, CA Danville, CA Simi Valley, CA

Julie Colglazier Sheila Schultz Lopez Terrance Arthur Rust

Hays, NC Danville, CA Truckee, CA

Kayla Colglazier Leonard Luna Dustin Paul Salsi

Hays, NC Huntington Beach, CA Shasta, CA

Patrick Colglazier Kim McDermott Richard Scott Andrew Schalo

Hays, NC Vacaville, CA Redding, CA

Dr. J. Steven Davis Eric McDermott David James Scholl

Buena Park, CA Vacaville, CA Dixon, CA

Sallie Hansen Dornan Arthur Loyal Morgan Mark J. Seidenberg

Fairfax Station, VA Redding, CA Aliso Viejo, CA

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan Matthew Justin Morgan Chris Smentech

Fairfax Station, VA Redding, CA Dixon, CA

Wiley Drake Richard Mathew Nettleton, Sr. Glenn Smentech

Buena Park, CA Shasta Lake, CA Dixon, CA
Sally S. Easter Julie Marie Nettleton Michael Warnken
Citrus Heights, CA Redding, CA Dixon, CA

Ron Gold Marc Nettleton Jack Warren

Woodland Hills, CA Redding, CA Rocklin, CA

The Honorable Virgil Goode Jaycob Andrew Ornelas

Rocky Mount, VA Anaheim, CA

Jeff Grage Melissa Ornelas

Simi Valley, CA Anaheim, CA

Exhibit Page No.: 0030 of CES Response Declaration 10/4/2016

November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Green Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Jill Stein

Ajamu Baraka
Daniel Alvarado Greg Jan Nancy Shaw
Downey, CA Oakland, CA Templeton, CA

Sayareh Amirebrahimi Scott Kam Dana Silvernale

Los Angeles, CA San Luis Obispo, CA Blue Lake, CA

William Arkfeld Tarik Kanaana Susan Sonne

Atascadero, CA Santa Rosa, CA Buena Park, CA

Janet Arnold Janet Kobren Angelika Sonne

Oakland, CA Oakland, CA Buena Park, CA

Doug Barnett Margaret Koteen Pamela Spevack

Los Angeles, CA San Luis Obispo, CA Oakland, CA

Meredith Bates Susan C. Lamont Lisa Taylor

Morro Bay, CA Santa Rosa, CA Los Angeles, CA

Marla Bernstein Hassina Leelarathna John Torok

Los Angeles, CA Arleta, CA Oakland, CA

Megan Buckingham Jessy M. Lemieux Jesse Townley

Clovis, CA Riverside, CA Berkeley, CA

Timothy Casebolt Wanda Jean Lord Jack Wagner

San Diego, CA Bakersfield, CA Sonoma, CA

Jose Trinidad Castaneda Bernard C. Macdonald Paul Weiss

Fullerton, CA Albion, CA Mariposa, CA

Linda Chimenti Genevieve Marcus Laura Wells

Paso Robles, CA Los Angeles, CA Oakland, CA

Susan Chunco Patricia Marsh

Santa Rosa, CA Berkeley, CA

Margot Cox Robert Marsh

Santa Rosa, CA Berkeley, CA

Frisco Del Rosario PeggyOki

San Mateo, CA Carpentaria, CA

Rachael A. Denny Samuel Payes

Bradley, CA San Jose, CA

Sanda Everette Linda Piera Avila

San Mateo, CA Santa Monica, CA

Michael .Feinstein Ajay Rai

Santa Monica, CA Los Angeles, CA
John Foran John Edward Reid
Santa Barbara, CA Paso Robles, CA

Michael Goldbeck Ron Stacy Rodarte

Carlsbad, CA San Clemente, CA

Richard Gomez Luis Rodriguez

Fresno. CA San Fernando, CA

Lindsey Harms Michael Rubin

Bonita, CA Oakland, CA

Tian Harter David Shantz

Mountain View, CA Saint Helena, CA

Exhibit Page No.: 0031 of CES Response Declaration 10/4/2016

November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Libertarian Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Gary Johnson

Bill Weld
Alexander Appleby David Kettering Kurt Schultz
Stockton, CA Beaumont, CA Lafayette, CA

Baron Bruno Manuel S. Klausner John Stagliano

Marina Del Rey, CA Los Angeles, CA Malibu, CA

Arman Chahal Janine Kloss Aaron Starr

Modesto, CA Sacramento, CA Oxnard, CA

Alicia Garcia Clark Tyler Kuskie Brian Thiemer

Pasadena, CA Cameron Park, CA Fairfield, CA

Edward Clark PauiLazaga Emily Tilford

Pasadena, CA Ben Lomond, CA Folsom, CA

Tracy Cramer Roberto Leibman Jarrett Tilford

Irvine, CA Roseville, CA Folsom, CA

Joseph W . Dehn, Ill Thomas Lippman Susan Marie Weber

Sunnyvale, CA Brisbane, CA Palm Desert, CA

Barbara Engelhardt Benjamin T. Maes Robert G. Weber

Sacramento, CA Suisun City, CA Culver City, CA

Keith Ericson Michael Martin Randall Weissbuch

San Diego, CA Santa Ana, CA Arcadia, CA

Richard Fields Alex Mattis William C. White

Davis, CA Sacramento, CA Los Altos, CA

Aubrey Freedman Denis Mehulic Martha de Forest

San Francisco, CA Pleasant Hill, CA San Diego, CA

Nicholas Gerber Catherine Mellor

Moraga, CA Lodi, CA

Joshua Glawson Gale Morgan

Pasadena, CA Sacramento, CA

Noel R. Gregorio Samuel W. Oglesby

Castaic, CA Garden Grove, CA

Harland Harrison Kenneth Brent Olsen

Belmont, CA Hanford, CA

Jane Heider Gardner Osborne

Carmel, CA La Jolla, CA

Nathan Hoffman Shashi Ramchandani

Los Angeles, CA Sunnyvale, CA

John Hoop Joe Reynoso

Signal Hill, CA Cloverdale, CA

Linden Hsu Honor Robson

San Jose, CA Long Beach, CA

Jonathan Jaech Brian W. Ryman

Los Angeles, CA Adelanto, CA

Sandra Kallander Brian Schar

Pacheco, CA Menlo Park, CA

John Kendail David Schrader

Newport Beach, CA Hermosa Beach, CA

Exhibit Page No.: 0032 of CES Response Declaration10/4/2016

November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Peace and Freedom Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Gloria Estela La Riva

Dennis J. Banks
Meghann Adams Ruben La Riva Lehma Amena Sawez
Daly City, CA San Francisco, CA Davis, CA

Kevin Akin Gloria La Riva Michelle Schudel

Riverside, CA San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA

Margie Akin Tina Landis Fred Short

Riverside, CA San Francisco, CA Ukiah, CA

Richard Becker Frank Lara Margaret M. Smith

San Francisco, CA Daly City, CA Aptos, CA

Jon Lowell Britton Shelby Lippencott Neal Sweeney

Campbell, CA Sacramento, CA Davis, CA

Sarah Carlson Esmeralda Loreto Tahnee Sweeney

San Francisco, CA Los Angeles, CA Davis, CA

Tanya Chase Abel Macias Dennis Terrill

San Francisco, CA San Diego, CA Sacramento, CA

John Comly Evelyn C. Martinez Cristina Villatoro

Berkeley, CA San Francisco, CA Sacramento, CA

Yohana De Leon Isaac Munoz Mackenzie Elizabeth Wilson

North Hollywood, CA Modesto, CA Sacramento, CA

Gerald Allen Frink Susan M. Muysenberg Preston Wood

Sacramento, CA Campbell, CA Los Angeles, CA

Anne M. Gamboni Toni Novak Sheila Xiao

San Francisco, CA Healdsburg, CA Los Angeles, CA

Nyree Hall Keith A. Pavlik

Sacramento, CA San Francisco, CA

Maile Hampton Samuel Petker

Sacramento, CA Manteca, CA

Norma Harrison Adan Plascensia

Berkeley, CA Irvine, CA

Estevan Hernandez Kent Power

Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA

John Hershey Emily Power

Citrus Heights, CA Sacramento, CA

Gary Hicks Victor Quintero

Berkeley, CA Los Angeles, CA

Ron Holladay John Reiger

San Francisco, CA Sacramento, CA

Nathalie Patricia Hrizi Debra Reiger

San Francisco, CA Sacramento, CA

Howard Johnson JamierSale

Los Angeles, CA Sacramento, CA

Douglas Kaufman Teresa Sale

Long Beach, CA Sacramento, CA

Eman Khaleq Erik Saucedo

Long Beach, CA Sacramento, CA

Exhibit Page No.: 0033 of CES Response Declaration 10/4/2016

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit B-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0034 of CES Response Declaration

 fx.ecutiut itpartmttti
.ifatr nf <!talifnrnia

CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT

For

ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT and

VICE PRESIDENT of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2016

To the President of the Senate of the United States of America:

I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, herby certify,

pursuant to the laws of the United States and the State of California, that a General
Election was held in accordance with law in the State of California on Tuesday. the glh
day ofNovember, 2016, for Electors of the President and Vice President of the United
States.

I further certify that the votes cast for Electors at the General Election were
canvassed and certified by the Secretary of State of the State of California, and the
Secretary of State has certified to me the names and number of persons receiving votes as
Electors.

I further certify that the following persons received the highest number of votes
for Electors of the President and Vice President of the United States for the State of
California, and have been appointed as Electors after the final ascertainment as required
bylaw:

Exhibit Page No.: 0035 of CES Response Declaration

 California Democratic Party Electors Pledged to
Hillary Clinton for President oftbe United States and
Tim Kaine for Vice President of tbe United States:

Sandra M. Aduna Mark W. Headley Dustin R. Reed

Saundra G. Andrews Ana A. Huerta Olivia A. Reyes-Becerra
Janine V. Bera Donna M. Ireland Priscilla G. Richardson
Jane C. Block Christine T. Kehoe JobnM. Ryan
Edward Buck Vinzenz J. Koller Kathleen R. Scott
Francine P. Busby Andrew R. Krakoff Steve J. Spinner
Laphonza R. Butler Katherine A. Lyon Shawn E. Terris
Benjamin Cardenas John P. MacMurray Gail R. Teton-Landis
Jacki M. Cjsneros Sheldon Malchicoff Robert S. Torres
Raymond L. Cordova Nury Martinez Marie S. Torres
Steven D. Diebert Gwen Moore Dorothy N. Vann
James A. Donahue Cathy A. Morris David S. Warmuth
Patrick F. Drinan Stephen J. Natoli Karen D. Waters
Susan Eggman Mark A. Olbert Shirley N. Weber
Timothy J. Farley Analea J. Patterson Denise B. Wells
Eileen Feinstein Mariano Christine P. Pelosi Gregory H. Willenborg
Natalie P. Fortman Carmen 0. Perez Laurence S. Zakson
Faith A. Garamendi Celine G. Purcell
Javier Gonzalez Andres Ramos

NUMBER OF VOTES- 8,753,788

***
I further certify that the following persons received votes for Electors of the
President and Vice President of the United States for the State of California other than
those cast for the California Democratic Party Electors:

California Republican Party Electors Pledged to

Donald J. Trump for President oftbe United States and
Michael R. Pence for Vice President of the United States:

Joel Anderson Diane Harkey Donna Porter

Marilyn Barke Matthew Hannon Dennis Revell
Jennifer Beall Noel Irwin Hentschel Scott Robertson
Robert Bernosky Mark Herrick Carla Sands
Arun Bhumitra Tom Hudson TruongSi
Jim Brulte Kenneth Korbin Robert Smittcamp
Nachhattar Chandi Kevin Krick Mike Spence
Claire Chiara JeffLalloway Shawn Steel
Tim Clark Linda Lopez-Alvarez Mark Vaftades
Greg Conlon Robin Lowe Marcelino Valdez
Matthew Del Carlo Papa Doug Manchester Errol Valladares
Hanneet Dhillon Shirley Mark Cyndi Vanderhorst
Elizabeth Emken Chuck McDougald Megan Vincent
Jean Fuller John Musella Elissa Wadleigh
Ted Gaines Ron Nehring Deborah Wilder
Ron Gold Mike Osborn Dave Willmon
Lisa Grace-Kellogg DouglasOse John Young
Barbara Grimm Marshall John Peck
Howard Hakes Pete Petrovich

NUMBER OF VOTES- 4,483,810

***
Exhibit Page No.: 0036 of CES Response Declaration
 American Independent Party Electors Pledged to
Donald J. Trump for President of the United States and
Michael R. Pence for Vice President of the United States:

Linda Lea Alsbury Charles Edward Harrison, Jr. Robert Ornelas

Merwyn Alsbury Thomas Nowlen Hudson Marilyn Plumb
The Honorable Steve Baldwin The Honorable John LeBoutillier Jamie Rangel
Gary Brown The Honorable Robert Marc Levy Jeffrey Rangel
Ruth Brown Mary Parker Lewis John Daniel Robertson
Mark Brownlee Gaudencio Gene Lopez Markham Robinson
William C. Cardoza Judy Lopez Mary Robinson
Joseph J. Cocchi Raul Lopez Stephanie Roundy
Julie Colglazier Sheila Schultz L<>pez Terrance Arthur Rust
Kayla Colglazier Leonard Luna Dustin Paul Salsi
Patrick Colglazie.r Kim McDermott Richard Scott Andrew Schalo
Dr. J. Steven Davis Eric McDermott David James Scholl
Sallie Hansen Doman Arthur Loyal Morgan Mark J. Seidenberg
The Honorable Robert K. Doman Matthew Justin Morgan Chris Smentech
Wiley Drake Richard Matthew Nettleton, Sr. Glenn Smentech
Sally S. Easter Julie Marie Nettleton Michael Warnken
Ron Gold Marc Nettleton Jack Warren
The Honorable Virgil Goode Jaycob Andrew Ornelas
Jeff Grage Melissa Ornelas

NUMBER OF VOTES- 4,483,810

Libertarian Party Electors Pledged to
Gary Johnson for President of the United States and
Bill Weld for Vice President of the United States:

Alexander Appleby Jonathan Jaech ShashiFUunchandani

Baron Bruno Sandra Kallander Joe Reynoso
Arman Chahal John Kendall Honor Robson
Alicia Garcia Clark David Kettering Brian W. Ryman
Edward Clark Manuel S. Klausner Brian Schar
Tracy Cramer Janine Kloss David Schrader
Joseph W. Dehn, Ill Tyler Kuskie Kurt Schultz
Barbara Engelhardt Pau!Lazaga John Stagliano
Keith Ericson Roberto Leibman Aaron Starr
Richard Fields Thomas Lippman Brian Thiemer
Aubrey Freedman Benjamin T. Maes Emily Tilford
Nicholas Gerber Michael Martin Jarrett Tilford
Joshua Glawson Alex Mattis Susan Marie Weber
Noel R. Gregorio Denise Mehulic Robert G. Weber
Harland Harrison Catherine Mellor Randall Weissbuch
Jane Heider Gale Morgan William C. White
Nathan Hoffman Samuel W. Oglesby Martha de Forest
John Hoop Kenneth Brent Olsen
Linden Hsu Gardner Osborne

NUMBER OF VOTES- 478,499

Exhibit Page No.: 0037 of CES Response Declaration

 ..,.,
~ -,z~
Green Party Electors Pledged to
Jill Stein for President of the United States and
Ajamu Baraka for Vice President of the United States:

Daniel Alvarado Richard Gomez AjayRai

Sayareh Amirebrahimi Lindsey Harms John Edward Reid
William Arkfeld TianHarter Ron Stacy Rodarte
Janet Arnold Greg Jan Luis Rodriguez
Doug Barnett ScottKam Michael Rubin
Meredith Bates Tarik Kanaana David Shantz
Marla Bernstein Janet Kobren Nancy Shaw
Megan Buckingham Margaret Koteen Dana Silvernale
Timothy Casebolt Susan C. Lamont Susan Sonne
Jose Trinidad Castaneda Hassina Leelarathna Angelika Sonne
Linda Chimenti Jessy M. Lemieux Pamela Spevack
Susan Chunco Wanda Jean Lord Lisa Taylor
Margot Cox Bernard C. Macdonald John Torok
Frisco Del Rosario Genevieve Marcus Jesse Townley
Rachael A. Denny Patricia Marsh Jack Wagner
Sanda Everette Robert Marsh Paul Weiss
Michael Feinstein PeggyOki Laura Wells
John Foran SamuelPayes
Michael Goldbeck Linda Piera Avila

NUMBER OF VOTES- 278,657

***
Peace and Freedom Party Electors Pledged to
Gloria Estela La Riva for President of the United States and
Dennis J. Banks for Vice President ofthe United States:

Meghann Adams Howard Johnson Victor Quintero

Kevin Akin Douglas Kaufman John Reiger
Margie Akin EmanKhaleq Debra Reiger
Richard Becker Ruben La Riva Jamier Sale
Jon Lowell Britton Gloria La Riva Teresa Sale
Sarah Carlson Tina Landis Erik Saucedo
Tanya Chase Frank Lara Lehma Amena Sawez
John Comly Shelby Lippencott Michelle Schudel
Yohana De Leon Esmeralda Loreto Fred Short
Gerald Allen Frink Abel Macias Margaret M. Smith
Anne M. Gamboni Evelyn C. Martinez Neal Sweeney
Nyree Hall Isaac Munoz Tahnee Sweeney
Maile Hampton Susan M. Muysenberg Dennis Terrill
Norma Harrison Toni Novak Cristina Villatoro
Estevan Hernandez Keith A. Pavlik Mackenzie Elizabeth Wilson
John Hershey Samuel Petker Preston Wood -
Gary Hicks Adan Plascensia SheilaXiao
Ron Holladay Kent Power
Nathalie Patricia Hrizi Emily Power

NUMBER OF VOTES- 66,101

***
~ ..
~~ Exhibit Page No.: 0038 of CES Response Declaration
-- -
r.i!J
 Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Bernard "Bernie" Sanders for President of the United States and
Tulsi Gabbard for Vice President of the United States:

Lydia M. Arbizo Jensen Hastings Mary Jo Poole

Rohana Barden Donald Hughes Barbara Maxson Proud
Sheila T. Barnes Alan Davis Hysinger David Robbins
Mary Kay Benson Ramona Irwin Christina Robinson
Deirdre Brinlee Benjamin Jenshus Cheryl L. Rogness
Alfred P. Bulf Lynn Kessler Kira Rogness
Renee J. Bulf Margaret Kincaid Lynn Root
Mary Beth Cameron Karissa Knurowski Rebecca Ross
Brian Carolus Donald Arthur Kronos Lisa S. Scouten
Caroline Coward Thomas Krouse Jason Christopher Small
Clayton Lee Daves Brenda Lee Colleen F. Sparks
Jaime R. Davis Tori Phebe Lin Robyn Sumners
Jonathan Fields Jerry Malamud Carol Thiesing
Catherine Fish Julie Marie Marsh Patrick Thiesing
Linda Beth Fox Ronald Massey Sheri Treanor
Patricia Gracian Jeffrey Scott McCampbell Denece R. Vincent
Trish A. Guajardo Jeneva Miller Kathy Yurista
Catharine Anne Gunderson Patricia L. Moorea
Patricia A. Hamilton Deanna Lynn Polk

NUMBER OF VOTES -12,108

Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Evan McMullin for President of the United States and
Nathan Johnson for Vice President ofthe United States:

Kenneth Reed Allen Cynthia Lea Guinto Holly Gwendlyn Nutt

Paul Cortland Ament Ari Habyar Connie Jean Page
Lauren Michelle Monahan Applegate JanaHall Andrew Parris
George Harry Aster Sarah P. Hancock Jeremy Christopher Powell
Daniel Frazier Booth Ernest Robert Heinzer Tauna Sanderson
Benjamin Christensen Roy D. Hensley Nathan Leslie Sandland
Kathleen L. Coleman Cecile L. Hodge Alexandra Shadle
George Gunerious "Garry" Cope Erin Michelle Hussey Keller Cara Lee Shelton
Susan Elaine Cottam Cynthia Kersey Jerdonek Jonathan Michael Shulman
Aaron Darling Kevin Kimball Janis Smith
Laura Christine Dillender Colin MacDonald Jeffrey B. Smith
Mary Policastro Dinsdale Richard Kevin Mansfield II Christina Ruth Snyder Morgan
Kerri Ann Downs Betty Ann Marquardt Angela Vereau
Marty Boyd Dye Patrick McBrearty Robert Michael Veylupek
Diane Parker Eldredge Julieta Mendoza David Joseph Watkins
Leonard Farello Peter Joseph Morrison Christine Wick
Jan Elizabeth Fry Thomas Craig Moulton Ryan E. Zachreson
Jocelyn Nielsen Goldberg Laurel Staten Nguyen
James Groenke Jonathan Nguyen

NUMBER OF VOTES - 7,194

***

Exhibit Page No.: 0039 of CES Response Declaration

 ...
I :::1
..
Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Mike Maturen for President oftbe United States and
Juan Munoz for Vice President of the United States:

Sara Ahmed Lisa L. Hammill Sasha Anne Oates

George Angelo Mary Hammond John Piasecki
Craig Bemthal Lee M. Hammond Sharon Piasecki
Joseph Bidwell Tami Watanabe Heckmann Justin Redemer
James M. Boubonis Ross Steven Heckmann Theresa Marie Russ Covich
Victoria Silvestri Carroll Brian David Heckmann Benjamin Seidl
Brian Thomas Carroll Bradley Heidenberg Sara A. Silveira
Liam Jon Cheney Jonathan Holowaty Desmond A. Silveira
Therese Collins Lindsay Katherine Howie Gamino Dennis Paul Slavens
Nicholas Collins Gary A. Huber Jesse David Slavens
Noelle Combs Edward L. Hull Fanny Surjana
Adam N. Crawford Olukemi A. Ingram Cheri Walters
Melissa M. Crawford Leslie Shaw Klinger Kenneth Richard Walters, Jr.
Kenneth E. Crawford John Henry 'Lamming Trisb A. Warfield
Jeff Culbreath Darin Richard Lovelace Christopher R. Weinkopf
LeXuan Culbreath Marc Gregory Mason Justin Welter
BeJ:Uamin Michael Ebbink Laurel Muff Teri L. Wilkie
Philip B.R. Gallanders Stephen Geoffrey Muff
Ryan Hammill Kay Gorman Nicholas

NUMBER OF VOTES -196

***

Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate

Laurence Kotlikofffor President of the United States and
Edward Leamer for Vice President of the United States:

Diana Bailey Dale Frank Lizabeth Story Maynard

Kathleen Mackin Baptist Deborah Ann Glassman Kenneth McAuley
Antonio Bernardo Larry Grobe! Moritz Meyer-Ter-Vehn
Sidford Lewis Brown Jonathan Louis Gu Ama Lynn Neel
Lynn Tevis Burleson Barbara Brandlin Hines Richard Randolph Phillips
Patricia Arnold Buss Patrick Kevin Hines Derek Ricke
Kevin Catlin Daniel J. Houk Elaine Robinson-Frank
Gregory Chauwas Nancy To Huynh Jerred Scheive
Gaby Chazanas Laurie Jurado Karen J. Schwartz
Dora Luisa Costa Matthew Edwin Kahn Abraham Michael Sipe
Howard Darvey Joseph Kahn Shruti Srinivasan
Robert Dekle Micheline Kaldawi Ma Fatima Victorino Valencia
Richard Alan Destin Bassam Kaldawi Romain Wacziarg
Jeff Dollinger Krishna B. Kumar Christopher Paul Wazzan
Adam Turner Dumper Karen Levine T. Jon Williams
Dawn Elise Eash Peter Eugene Liberti Linus Yamane
Alejandra Cox Edwards Beverly Lowe Julie G. Yamane
Paul Michael Feinberg Esther Margulies
Patricia Nomura Feinberg Armenak Markosyan

NUMBER OF VOTES- 53

***

Exhibit Page No.: 0040 of CES Response Declaration.

 Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Jerry White for President of the United States and
Niles Niemuth for Vice President of the United States:

Sheen Adame Alan Gelfand Alexa Navarro

Michael L. Becker Evan Hudson Gerardo Nebbia
Jose Mateo Bernal Nancy Ingram Donald G. Norris
Glenn Brightwell Staness Jonekos Christina Pederson
John Brightwell Diana Jones Latrel Powell
John C. Burton Jeffry Alan Jones Toby Remmers
Nelly J. Carlisle Genevieve Jones KaleRoseen
Frederick S. Choate Kirandeep Kaur Juan Santana
Geraldine Ann Clifford Nora Kimie Kuzay Jonathan Seibel
Matthew J. Crooke Liana LeBaron Heinz Jakob Strunk
Celia Cruz-Elmassian Sandy Leonardis Luana R. Turner
Roseanna Carolyn D'Amico Robert Bruce Livingston William VanAuken
Anthony Delgado Marco Marinangeli Daniel Viruleg
Carole D. Denton Robert Marston Brendan Weinhold
John Albert Dragstedt Michael McClain Jeremy C.R. Wells
Patricia Evans Kevin Mitchell Morris White
Christopher Franklin David Moore Carolyn L. Zaremba
Robert Douglas Gafford Dwight V. Moore
Norissa Gastelum Maria Munoz-Nebbia

NUMBER OF VOTES -7

***

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto

set my hand and caused the Great Seal of
the State of California to be affixed
this 12th day ofDecember 2016.

Governor of California

Attest:

Secretary of State

~
Exhibit Page No.: 0041 of CES Response Declaration
..
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit B-3

Exhibit Page No.: 0042 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit C-1

Exhibit Page No.: 0043 of CES Response Declaration

American Independent Party of California
Affiliated with the American Independent Party
Of
These United States

State Central Committee Chairperson: Mark Seidenberg

Executive Committee Chairperson: Markham Robinson

State Headquarters
476 Deodara St. Vacaville CA 956882637
AlP HQ Phone: 707359-4884
markyavelli@gmail.com

State Filer ID: 742371 August 5, 2016

To: James Brulte, Chairman of the California Republican Party

and
Cynthia Bryant, Executive Director of the California Republican Party
From: Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party of California Chairperson
And
Markham G. Robinson, Executive Committee Chairman (State Party), Chairman (National Party)
Re: American Independent Party 2016 Presidential Ticket Intentions

Dear James and Cynthia:

The American Independent Party of California is very pleased to offer cooperation to the California Republican
Party in the election of Donald J. Trump and Michael Richard Pence as the next President and Vice President of
the United States, respectively. Elections Code 13105 (c) provides statutory support for such an offer by allowing
us to nominate your Presidential ticket.

The demographic to which the American Independent Party appeals is precisely that of the "new voters" which
Donald Trump brought out to vote for him in the recent Primary elections. A number of Republican officeholders
attribute their electoral success to the edge provided by our endorsement. Our nomination is, we believe, a
much stronger evidence of our support and approval than just an endorsement and reaches beyond our own
registration base to many more voters who are acquainted with our brand.

Here is our proposal.

Our State and National Conventions (August 13, 2016, in Sacramento, California) will nominate Donald J. Trump
and Michael Richard Pence for President and Vice President, respectively.

We will immediately notify the Secretary of State of our decision following our two day event. Then, well before
the deadline for the submission of an Electoral College slate, we will, jointly with your Party, write a notification
to the Secretary of State specifying Presidential Electors primarily selected by your Party and a small number by
ours. Using the latest registration figures for our parties our fair portion of 55 Electoral College electors is:

((457173/(4888771+457173))*55 = 4.7034751954

Rounding to the nearest whole number, that is 5 for us and 50 for you. We will provide you promptly with a list of
5 potential electors and their relevant information which you should find easy to vet.

Precedents for the Republican Party cooperating with another party in Presidential elections are found in 1928
and 1940 elections where your Party nominated the same Presidential candidate as the Prohibition Party of
California and the Townsend Party, respectively. In 1928 the California Prohibition Party broke with its national
party and nominated Herbert Hoover, but did nominate for Vice President someone different from the

Exhibit Page No.: 0044 of CES Response Declaration

Republican nominee for that position. Our proposal does better than that, synchronizing our national and state
party nominations for President and Vice President entirely with your Party's.

For your convenience you will find below the enabling Elections Code Section and a link to material on the
historic election of 1928.

13105.
(c) If for a general election any candidate for President of the United States or Vice President
of the United States has received the nomination of any additional party or parties, the name(s)
shall be printed to the right of the name of the candidate's own party. Party names of a
candidate shall be separated by commas ...

https: II en. wikipedia.orglwiki I United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_1928

https: II en. wiki pedia. org I wiki I Prohi bition_Party

It is our hope that our Party constituencies joining together in this way will have several salutary effects,
namely:

Jo>- Induce the national Trump Campaign to devote more resources to California seeing a
potential win here;
Jo>- Garner more exposure to your and our Parties' principles, positions and agendas by the
publicity that our cooperation will engender;
Jo>- Provide an opportunity to conduct registration campaigns to attract new voters to both our
parties;
Jo>- Point out political values shared by two patriotic American political parties.
Jo>- Divert Democratic Party and Hillary Campaign resources from other uses;

We hope to have an affirmative response from you very shortly. For our part, we will proceed on the assumption
of success, intending to nominate the same ticket and trusting that details will be worked out in good faith with
ample time to spare.

Sincerely,

71/JJ~
Mark Seidenberg, Chairman of the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party of California

Faithfully Yours,

Markham Robinson, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Independent Party of California
(AIPCA) and Chairman of the American Independent Party of These United States (AIPOTUS)

Exhibit Page No.: 0045 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit C-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0046 of CES Response Declaration

 ALEx pADlllAj SECRETARY OF STATE I STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTIONS DIVISION
1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 958141 Tel916.657.21661 Fax 916.653.32141 www.sos.ca.gov

August26,2016

County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV) Memorandum #16270

TO: All County Clerks/Registrars of Voters

FROM: Is/ Steven J. Reyes

Chief Counsel

RE: General Election: Ballot Layout Issues

We have received several inquiries regarding the ballot layout for the upcoming
November 8, 2016, General Election due to the unusually large number of state
propositions and as a result of the nomination of Trump/Pence by both the Republican
and American Independent parties as their candidates for President and Vice President.
As you are aware, the Elections Code contains very specific instructions for ballot layout
(Division 13 of the Elections Code, commencing with Section 13000).

While we understand that many counties will need to utilize Elections Code section
13265 and have more than one ballot card, we want to remind you of some essential
Elections Code sections that must be followed. The information below is a summary of
questions received and our office's responses.

Can we modify the ballot order for the state and local measures in any way to
save space?

No. Elections Code section 13109 provides the specific order of offices and measures
on the ballot.

Since the November 8, 2016, General Election ballot will be so lengthy, can the
ballot label provided by the Attorney General for the state ballot measures and/or
the ballot wording describing party labels be shortened or removed all together?

No. Elections Code section 13247 requires that the statement of all measures
submitted to the voters be abbreviated on the ballot in a ballot label as provided in
Elections Code section 9051.

Elections Code section 13206.5 provides the exact language (in quotations) that must
be included on the ballot for the description of party labels.

Exhibit Page No.: 0047 of CES Response Declaration

CCROV #16270
August 26, 2016
Page2
Since both the Republican Party and the American Independent Party have
nominated Donald Trump and Michael Pence for President and Vice President,
how should the parties be listed on the ballot?

Elections Code section 13105(c) provides that if any candidate for President of the
United States or Vice President of the United States has received the nomination of any
additional party, the name of the party shall be printed to the right of the name of the
candidate's own party. The party identification after Donald Trump's name shall read as
follows: Republican, American Independent.

In the event your voting system does not have the capability to print "Republican,
American Independent" due to lack of space, the parties may be abbreviated. On
February 10, 2012, this office issued CCROV #12059, which provided guidance for the
implementation of the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act of 2010. In 2012, some
counties had expressed concerns about placing all of the required language regarding a
candidate's party preference as required by Elections Code section 13105(a)(1).
CCROV #12059 provided that, if ballot layout capacity necessitates abbreviating
qualified political party names, the following approved abbreviations could be used:

OEM - Democratic
REP -Republican
AI -American Independent
GRN -Green
LIB - Libertarian
PF - Peace and Freedom
REP, AI -Republican, American Independent (for Trump/Pence nomination
only}

Please Note: If your county will be abbreviating the nominating party of presidential
candidates, or the party preference of any other candidate on the ballot, the
abbreviations must be used for ALL candidates in every contest on your ballot.
Further, if abbreviations are used, you must include a list which defines the
abbreviations in your sample ballot.

Elections Code section 1321 O(b) requires the ballot to state "Vote for One Party"
for candidates for President and Vice President. Since two parties have
nominated Donald Trump for President, is this instruction still required?

Yes. The "Vote for One Party" language is provided in quotations in Elections Code
section 1321 O(b) and must be printed on the ballot.

Are the names of the presidential electors printed on the ballot?

No, the Elections Code does not require the names of the presidential electors to be
placed on the ballot. The ballot must include the names of the candidates for President
and Vice President.

Exhibit Page No.: 0048 of CES Response Declaration

CCROV #16270
August 26, 2016
Page3
How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected when more than
one political party nominates the same candidate?

The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and
Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one
party nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.

How should we list the voter instruction and voting question for Proposition 59?

Elections Code sections 13207(d) and 13247 require "Yes" and "No" boxes to be placed
to the right of the title and summary and ballot label. The sample provided below, for
illustrative purposes, demonstrates how Proposition 59 might be set in a ballot layout.
Actual ballot layouts may differ.

59 CORPORATIONS. POLITICAL SPENDING. FEDERAL

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY
QUESTION. Asks whether California's elected officials should use their
authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution YES
overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing
certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are
unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local f - - ---1
governments.
Shall California's elected officials use all of their constitutional authority,
including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more
amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United NO
v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable
judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign
contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth,
may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations
should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?

To help ensure voters and candidates are aware of this updated information, we
recommend that:

Your sample ballot, vote-by-mail ballots, and polling place materials include
information regarding the large number of ballot measures and, if applicable, that
your voters will receive two (or more) ballot cards;
Your county's website include information about the large number of ballot
measures, and, if applicable, that your voters will receive two (or more) ballot cards;
and
Poll workers be appropriately trained on the large number of ballot measures and, if
applicable, that voters will receive two (or more) ballot cards.

Additionally, our office will include similar information on our website.

Should you have additional questions regarding ballot layout issues, please contact
Jana Lean, Chief of Elections, at 916-653-5144 or jana.lean@sos.ca.gov.

Exhibit Page No.: 0049 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit C-3

Exhibit Page No.: 0050 of CES Response Declaration

 American Independent Party of
California
Affiliated with the American Independent Party
Of
These United States

State Central Committee Chairperson: Mark Seidenberg

Executive Committee Chairperson: Markham Robinson

State Headquarters:
476 Deodara St. Vacaville CA 95688
AlP HQ: 707-359-4884
FAX: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com

State Filer ID: 742371 August 26, 2016

To: County Registrar of Voters

From: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party of California Chairperson
Re: Urgent Questions about the form, content and handling of the November 8, 2016,
General Election Ballot and the September 9, 2016, Military Ballot Mailing

Dear County Registrar of Voters:

As the Secretary of State told you, the American Independent Party of California nominated the
Trump/Pence ticket for President and Vice President subsequent to the California Republican Party
nomination of the same. Moreover, we were informed that all the County Registrars of Voters were
advised to follow Elections Code 13105 (c) which requires that our party name follow the California
Republican Party name (defined in Elections Code Section 7250) on the Trump/Pence ballot line,
separated by a comma, for the California General Election ballot of November 8, 2016.
The American Independent Party of California has eight questions, found below, about how the
aforesaid election will be handled, whose most recent precedents were in 1928 and 1940. In those
years the two qualified political parties who nominated the same Presidential ticket, settled on the
same slate of electors for President and Vice President as the other party. These elector slates
submitted by the aforesaid two parties had a total overlap, because they were identical.
In 2016 our two parties' projected elector slates have a small overlap of two electors, but might end
up with none, because the California Republican Party might object to such an overlap. The
American Independent Party of california has no objection to any such overlap and in fact is seeking
a total "overlap."
We understand that qualified political party names appear on California election ballots in several
contexts. Below we reproduce for your convenience a Code section that contains the State
Legislature's dictum on the designation by which we are known.
CODE TEXT
ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 7. POLITICAL PARTY ORGANIZATION AND CENTRAL COMMITTEE ELECTIONS [7000
-7928]
(Division 7 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)

1 of2 8/26/2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0051 of CES Response Declaration

 PART 4. AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY [7500 -7695]
(Part 4 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions [7500- 7500.]
(Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
7500.
This part shall apply to the organization, operation, and functions of that
political party known as the American Independent Party of California.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Moreover, we note that the style by which we are referred to throughout the body of California law
is "American Independent Party." That is the name that our party wishes to appear in all official
references to us for the sake of consistency. However, when the context demands the addition of
the phrase "of California," so that our name appears as "American Independent Party of California,"
our party finds that an agreeable variation.
When considering the following questions, please keep in mind the three cases of no elector slate
overlap, partial slate overlap, and total slate overlap.
1. We have been told that Counties have asked the Secretary of State whether they can
abbreviate political party names and were told that if they did, then they would have to
abbreviate all of them. What is the statutory basis for abbreviation of party names?
2. What will the abbreviations be?
3. Will these abbreviations be uniform across all counties?
4. Given the fact that Elections Code Section 13210 states that "the words 'Vote for One Party'
shall appear just below the heading 'President and Vice President'," how will the voters
who vote for Trump/Pence select which qualified political party they prefer, the
california Republican Party or the American Independent Party of california?
5. If there are more than 55 Presidential and Vice Presidential electors for the
Trump/Pence ticket, how will the maximum 55 such be chosen? Who will do it?
6. Since two slates of Presidential electors will have been submitted by the two parties in the
ordinary course of events, if voters ask who the electors are for the Trump/Pence
ticket, what will they be told?
7. If voters ask how many electors there are for the Trump/Pence ticket, what will they be told?
8. When must the ballot print master for the military vote mailing September 9,
2016, be completed?
Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Mark Seidenberg, Chairperson of the American Independent Party of California

2of2 8/26/2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0052 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit C-4

Exhibit Page No.: 0053 of CES Response Declaration

M Gmail Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com>

FW: DEFECTIVE CALIFORNIA PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST

2 messages

Mark <mark@masterplanner.com> Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:59 PM

To: suretynomore@gmail.com
Cc: hakohen3@yahoo.com, rbrtomelas@aol.com, markyavelli@gmail.com, mark@masterplanner.com

Dear Aide to Robert K. Doman (Known as B 1 Bob,

First, my profuse apologies about not knowing your name. Dr. Seidenberg is in the throes of moving and could not recall
it. We have a clue though. Starts with an "S."

Second, my apologies for not getting this to you sooner. I learned of Congressman Doman's receptivity to this
information and plans to use it when I was on the way to a doctor's appointment, fell asleep on the way back, and took a
short nap that turned out to be 2 hours. Fortified now with my 3rd mug of Espresso, I am now packaging the current
state of information for your perusal.

The communications to Senator Moorlach below contains the links to the articles mentioned to you by Dr. Seidenberg.
The International Complaint cover letter contains a fair summary of the situation we face and the dire consequences if
the rules are followed and if no remedy is immediately forthcoming.

First California State legislator addressed email:

Dear State Senator Moorlach :

I include below the 5 articles/postings addressing the situation that occurred after the American
Independent Party added its nomination of the Trump ticket to the Republican Party's.

The solution to this problem is, we believe, a Concurrent Resolution by the California Legislature
instructing Elections Officials to provide a supplemental ballot for the use of Trump ticket voters to
choose which Trump slate they wish to be their electors for President and Vice President of the
United States (Electoral College).

Below find the titles of the Articles in quotes immediately followed by the link to them.

"California Secretary of State Approves Letting Election Proceed Before Parties Have Chosen
Presidential Elector Candidates" by Richard Winger

Exhibit Page No.: 0054 of CES Response Declaration

 http ://ballot-access.org/2 0 16/08/2 7/californ ia-secreta ry-of-state-a pp roves-letting-election-
proceed-before-parties-have-chosen-presidential-elector-candidates/

"What Happens When Two Political Parties Nominate the Same Candidate for President?" by
Markham Robinson

http://ivn. us/20 16/09/07/happens-two-political-parties-nominate-candidate-presidenU

"Will Californians Get to Vote for Trump's Electoral College Slate(s)?" by Markham Robinson

http://ivn. u s/2 0 16/09/0 7/will-califo rn ian s-get-to-vote-for-trumps-electoral-college-slates/

"If Donald Trump Carries California, He Won't Get California's Electoral Votes" by Richard Winger

http: I /ballot -access .org/2016/ 10/04/if-donald -trump-carries-california-he-wont -get-

californias-electoral-votes I

"California Secretary of State Accepts 108 Different Presidential Elector Candidates Pledged
to Donald Trump" by Richard Winger

http ://ballot-access. org/20 16/1 0/04/califomia-secretary-of-state-accepts-1 08-presidential-elector-

candidates-pledged-to-donald-trump/

The potential consequences of a failure to address this problem is-whether the Trump ticket wins or not-loss
of the entire California Electoral College and their votes, whether Hillary or Trump wins and, moreover, loss of
the entire California Congressional delegation according to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Markham Robinson, AlP Secretary

Second legislator addressed email:

Dear State Senator Moorlach,

We since learned that the legislature is adjourned currently. We are in the process of alerting all Congressmen
from all parties of the danger they face of losing their offices so they might join us in an appeal to Governor Brown
to call a special session.

Failing this we must shortly seek legal remedies while vigorously pursuing political ones. We do not dispute the
contention of the Secretary of State in CC/ROV #16270 that they lack statutory instructions about how to specify
which Electors for President and Vice President of the United States or slates thereof the voters mean when they
mark their choice on the Trump/Pence line. Voting for both slates would be an overvote, causing the voter's choice
to be discarded as correctly observed by Richard Winger of Ballot Access News.

Exhibit Page No.: 0055 of CES Response Declaration

 Markham Robinson, American Independent Party Secretary

International Complaint
Dear Ivan Gobarsky and Radivoje Grujic:

I apologize for not using your proper titles, but I am currently only in receipt of your names and emails and
function of international vote monitoring especially of the United States.

I was asked to send you the necessary information forthwith that defines our problem brought on by a dual
nomination of Trump/Pence by the California Republican Party and the American Independent Party of
California, no agreement between them on a common slate of Electoral College electors, and no provision by
the California State Legislature for deciding on which such electors get a vote when the Trump/Pence ballot
line is voted.

Below find copies of emails sent to a California legislator which contain a brief outline of the problem and
potential consequences of failure to deal with the problem caused by the Republican Party's failure to
cooperate in following the precedents of 1928 and 1940 in submitting a single slate of Electors for President
and Vice President of the United States to the California Secretary of State.

Attached herewith are the following files

1. Questions the AlP posed to 58 Counties about the Dual Nomination for Trump/Pence.
2. SOS answers to the questions posed by the Counties to the SOS based we believe on the questions we
posed to them.

3. The letter we sent to theCA GOP before the AlP Convention on Aug. 13, 2016, proposing a single slate of
such Electors fairly divided 10 to 1 according to our respective registrations, (50 to 5) for a single slate of 55
such Electors to which California is entitled in the "Electoral College."

4. Another set of questions for Counties formulated as a Public Records Request

Here is the link to the qualified parties' lists of nominees of 55 Electors for President and Vice President of
the United States each submitted to theCA SOS (2 of which are pledged to Trump/Pence) found on the SOS
website http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//statewide-elections/2016general/preselectorlist.pdf .

Title 3 US CODE Chapter 1 provides for appointment by the California State Legislature of Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States should the November 8, 2016, Presidential contest fail to
properly select said Electors on the next day, November 9, 2016. This requires the Governor to call the
Legislature back into session since it is currently on recess. If there is a failure to have a legitimate decision
on these Electors for President and Vice President of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution in its Section 2 penalizes the State by reducing its Congressional representation in the United
States House of Representatives proportionate to the denial in any of several types of elections including in
the first instance such Electors.

Exhibit Page No.: 0056 of CES Response Declaration

 Since the denial of a fair vote in the Presidential contest would be of all voters, California would lose
according to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment all of its House representation. The intention of this
provision of this post-Civil War Amendment was not only to make sure freed male slaves of the age of
majority would not be denied the vote, but that the practice of the South Carolina legislature of appointing
such Electors for President and Vice President by its legislature rather than its citizen voters , would not
continue.

If there is no supplemental ballot to allow a true choice in the November 8, 2016 of all the Presidential
tickets and the Elector slates pledged to them, then the legislature may insure that there is an "Electoral
College" vote for California, but if there is no true choice on November 8, 2016, nothing the California State
legislature can do can do to retain House Congressional representation, if the dictates of the Fourteenth
Amendment are followed. If the Legislature fails either to provide by Concurrent Resolution for a
supplemental ballot to let Trump/Pence ballot line voters choose between the two party Elector slates (55
in each slate) or by appointing them the day after the November 8, 2016, election, California loses its voice
in the "Electoral College" in the selection of President and Vice President of the United States.

Markham Robinson

American Independent Party (AlP) of California Secretary

Chairman of the American Independent Party (AlP) of California Executive Committee

Chairman of the American Independent Party Of These United States (AIPOTUS)

On behalf of Dr. Robert Ornelas, Chairman of the American Independent Party of California and Dr. Mark Jerome
Seidenberg, Vice Chairman of the American Independent party of California

4 attachments

!) 2016 GENERAL ELECTION QUESTIONS FOR COUNTY ROVs.pdf

64K

~ 16270sr.pdf
130K
~ Proposal of American Independent Party of California to CA GOP.docx
169K

~ 2016 NEW QUESTIONS FOR COUNTY ROVs Oct pdf

52K

Christopher Strunk <suretynomore@gmail.com> Fri, Oct 21 , 2016 at 4:39 PM

To: "Dr. Jonathan Levy" <jonlevy@hargray.com>
Cc: donegalhill@earthlink.net, michael <michael@mshrimpton.co.uk>
Dr. Seidenburg had his office send this to me.

Note that I have Michael Shrimpton helping us to establish contact with the Sultan of Zanzibar as a flanking action that
I will discuss separately
[Quoted text hidden]

http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin. orglindex.html

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK

315 Flatbush Avenue- #102 Brooklyn NY 11217
suretynomore@gmail. com 718-414-3760

Exhibit Page No.: 0057 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit C-5

Exhibit Page No.: 0058 of CES Response Declaration

 ** * American Independent Party ***
Affiliated with American Independent Party Of These United States
State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas
State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson
State Headquarters
476 Deodara Street Vacaville CA 95688-2637
Phone: 707-359-4884 Fax: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com www.aipca.org Party/Committee 1.0. # 74237

October 30,2016

A Petition to the County Registrar of Voters

The American Independent Party hereby petitions the County Registrar of Voters to do the
following:

1. Implore the Governor of the State of California to call a special session of the State
Legislature to resolve the urgent problem of dual party nomination as set out in the August
26, 2016, Advisory Memorandum CC/ROV #16270 by Joint Resolution.
2. Implore all members of the State Legislature whose districts are in part or whole within
your County to join you in urging upon the Governor such a special session of the
Legislature.
3. Urge the Secretary of State to ask the Governor for such a special Legislative session.
4. After reviewing the material submitted below on the Republican Elector Nominee slate, ask
the Secretary of State to reject their slate submission. (This solves the problem of multiple
distinct slates, avoiding the necessity of a special session of the legislature.)
5. Provide a voter information sheet at the polls to all voters containing the information
contained in Elections Code, Section 13205 (b) which you were required to put in the
masthead of the Presidential contest on the November 8, 2016, General Election Ballot and
making it abundantly clear that "Vote for one party" in the masthead means "Vote for one
party slate of electors."
We note that the Secretary of State has failed to provide County Registrars of Voters with any
advisory counseling them that they are required to post the language of Elections Code, Section
13205 (b) in the masthead of the Presidential contest portion of the General Election ballot for
2016. This omission in no way absolves you of the necessity of obeying the requirements of this
section. Your excuse for not following Elections Code, Section 13205 (b) is that the selection
method is obsolete. If you can print the false command "Vote for one party" when that is not
what the voter is doing, why can't you tolerate an easily explained imperfection in the
explanatory language of Elections Code, Section 13205 (b)? We find no conceivable excuse for
this dereliction of the duty to inform the voter of the true nature of their choices in the
Presidential contest. The attitude of the Secretary of State is that the office of "elector for
President and Vice President of the United States" is not an office, but is merely "ceremonial."
The American Independent Party finds this position exceedingly offensive and contrary to the
Secretary of State's oath to support and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

A proper handling of all these measures and problems are-the American Independent Party
asserts-necessary to the conduct of a fair Presidential election. The Secretary of State has also
refused to comply with our Public Records Request for an unredacted copy of the Republican

Page 1 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0059 of CES Response Declaration

 Party's submission of Electoral College nominees, suppressing their residential addresses,
necessitating the arduous process of researching them.

The problems we encountered in filling in information which the Secretary of State refused to
provide us exposed numerous defects in the Republican submission which we list below:

1. It has one Constitutionally unqualified member reducing the qualified submissions to 54,
one short of the required number.
2. The submitted list attempts to deny ten persons their rights as ex officio nominees by not
submitting their names.
3. The qualified names submitted plus the ten ex officio members not submitted makes the
total 64 members, nine more than are permitted.
4. Many addresses appear to be old, suggesting inadequate vetting of the nominees for a
willingness to fulfill their duties.
5. The presence of unwitting nominees increases the chance of "faithless electors" who
don't vote for the Presidential nominees of the party which nominated them should they
be called upon to do so as is required in Elections Code, Section 6906.
6. The Republicans missed the October 1, 2016, deadline (effectively 5:00 P.M. September
30, 2016, since the deadline fell on a Saturday). The Secretary of State extended this
statutory (Elections Code, Section 7300) and Republican Bylaws deadline without
statutory authority. Ironically the reason advanced for providing no solution to two
distinct slates pledged to the same Presidential Ticket, was that they lacked statutory
authority.

As a result of all of these problems, we contend that the entire Republican slate of elector
nominees should be disqualified, which would solve all of the problems of a dual nomination
with two distinct slates. (A common slate was submitted by two nominating parties in 1940 and
1928. The Republicans and the Townsend Party both nominated Wendell Willkie in 1940. The
Republican Party and the Prohibition Party of California nominated Herbert Hoover in 1928.)

You, the County Registrar of Voters-we conclude-are essentially on your own, abandoned by
the Secretary of State whom we understand truly has only an advisory capacity. The Secretary
of State has proven himself unable and it appears unwilling to either command or advise an
effective and proper course of action. Your independent power to conduct elections are
commensurate with your duty to do so fairly and effectively. As fellow citizens of this State, we
fully expect you to diligently perform your duties to conduct a fair election or to appeal to
those whose assistance is necessary to do so, such as the Governor to call a special session of
the Legislature, your legislators to urge the Governor to do so, and the Secretary of State to
urge a similar course of action upon the Governor.

Page 2 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0060 of CES Response Declaration

TABLE OF REPUBLICAN ELECTOR NOMINEES
Legend:
0 = Occupied.
V =Vacant.

C =Chairman appointed.
P =Party Rules Ex Officio.
X = Statutory Ex Officio.

N =Not reported.
R = Reported.

Q =Qualified Constitutionally.
U = Unqualified Constitutionally.

Categories:
We have no indication that the potential Electoral College members reported by the Republican
Chairman to the California Secretary of State were placed in any distinct categories based on
either California Statute or Republican Bylaws. Thus, we found it necessary to the proper
understanding of this submission to understand the categories into which they fit according to
the California Elections Code, Section 7300, and applicable provisions of the Republican Bylaws
(Sections: 1.04(A); 1.04(B); 4.01 ).

The main reason that the matter is so complex is that both Statute and Bylaws concerning
Republican elector nominees specify ex officio positions. By the Elections Code, the Republican
Chairman is only required to report the nominees which he appoints, but is instructed by his
Bylaws to report all of them, including ex officio ones, but he has neglected to indicate which is
which or by what office the ex officio nominee enjoys the status of nominee. Thus he has left
this task to others to be performed without his assistance.

The American Independent Party asserts that this duty belongs properly to the California
Secretary of State. This duty the Secretary of State does not recognize. You know that in his
CC/ROV #16270 he explicitly provided no resolution to the crucial requirement to provide a
means of choosing between two slates of electors when two parties nominate the same
candidate. The Secretary of State also contends that the notice to nominee electors required in
Elections Code, Section 6901, is accomplished by simple posting of an adumbrated version of
the Republican submission on their website, rather than by the obviously effective means of
sending by US mail some adequate form of notice of nomination to the residential and business
addresses of the nominee electors.

General

The first table immediately below contains all the members who are "Ex Officio" in any sense-
who have their position by reason of an office they hold. The next table found below contains
those members who were appointed pursuant to the authority of the Republican Chairman
granted by California Elections Code, Section 7300, as constrained by the Republican Bylaws.
After that 1s a table of those who are "Ex Officio" and unreported by the Republican Chairman.

Page 3 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0061 of CES Response Declaration

 The last two tables show vacant positions in the membership of Republican nominees for
electors for President and Vice President of the United States.

Category Tables

The "OXRQ" category above with 18 members is comprised of those who owe their membership
to their office according to California Elections Code, Section 7300.

Since members of the above category were not distinguished from appointees by the Republican
Chairman, we must regard them as redundantly "appointed," if they should lose their Ex Officio
status, such as Robert Musella did when he resigned from the Log Cabin Republicans as their
Chairman. He thereby also vacated his ex officio position as head of a Chartered Republican
group, leaving it permanently unoccupied with no remedy by statute or party rule, since the
time-September 30, 2016-is past for the Republican Chairman to have appointed, within his
statutorily granted and bylaws constrained authority, an alternate for him as a statutory ex
officio nominee.

The "OPRQ" category above with 5 members is comprised of those appointed as constrained by
additional "Party Ex Officio" rules contained in Republican Bylaws, such as Insurance
Commissioner and senior Republican member of the State Board of Equalization. This category
also includes those who possess a "party nominated" ex officio elector nominee position
according to a definition in the Republican Bylaws of "party nominated," whose scope is
entirely limited to those Bylaws and cannot affect the usage of the same phrase in California
Elections Code, Section 7300. Any constraints in the Republican Bylaws on their Chairman's
appointment authority are only capable of directing the Republican Chairman to exercise his
elector nominee appointment authority to the extent to which he has such statutorily granted
authority.

The Republican Bylaws assert (falsely) that their rules supersede any provision of the California
Constitution or Law concerning the definition of "party nominated" or for specifying additional
ex officio positions. While the American Independent Party is a strong supporter of the rights of
free political associations (such as political parties) to engage in free speech and determine
their own organizational rules and structure, in this case the direction of the manner of
appointment of electors for President and Vice President and-as is necessary and proper to that
process-the manner of nomination of candidates for such offices, is the Constitutionally
mandated duty and sole prerogative of the State Legislature as provided in Article II, Section 1,
Clause 2, of the United States Constitution as exhibited below:

"Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a
number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or
person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an
elector."

Therefore, in all matters touching the manner of appointment of such electors and nominees for
such, the State Legislature-without any participation of the State Executive-exercises
complete power over such procedures, notwithstanding any provisions of the rules of any
Page 4 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0062 of CES Response Declaration

 private or any other public body. If the Republican Party wishes to participate in this process, it
must do so within the bounds of the manner prescribed by the California State Legislature,
which includes a direction to the Republican Party in California Elections Code, Section 7300, to
implement in its Republican Party Bylaws the provisions of that section, which include a list of
ex officio Electoral College nominee positions, some of which are characterized as derived from
"party nominated" candidacies. An actual lawful implementation of California Elections Code,
Section 7300, by said Bylaws may not add to or delete from the list of ex officio elector
nominees, nor by changing the definition of a phrase in its own Bylaws, change the meaning and
effect of State law.

The breakdown of this category is 4 members due to getting the highest number of votes in the
Top 2 Primary for a State-wide office in the Republican Party Bylaws and one due to an addition
to the list of Ex Officio generating candidacies to include the Insurance Commissioner. As will
be explained later, the Republican Chairman failed to appoint all the "Party Ex Officio"
members which his own Bylaws instruct him to do.

Chairman A pointees (32)

The "OCRQ" category above with 31 members is comprised of those persons who were
appointed purely on the authority of the Republican Chairman to appoint additional nominee
electors-only constrained by Constitutionally-specified limitations-to bring the number up to
the 55 target number to replace vacant statutory ex officio positions with alternates.

The sole member of the "VCRU" category, Arun Bhumitra, is Constitutionally unqualified to be a
member, since he enjoys an office of Trust (but not indeed Profit) under the Government of the
United States, as confirmed to the American Independent Party by the United States
Department of Commerce. Although both the Secretary of State and the Republican Party
refuse to acknowledge this fact, no Constitutionally oath-bound official should include him on
any list of potential or actual Electoral College members. See the following Ballot Access News
article on this: http://ballot-access.org/20 16/1 0/09/california-republican-party-appears-to-have-appointed-
an-ineligible-candidate-for-presidential-elector/.

The proper remedy for the aforesaid problem is Mr. Bhumitra's replacement at the meeting on
December 19, 2016, according to the provisions of Elections Code Section 6905. This of course
can take place only if the Trump ticket prevails and only one ticket (in this case the
Republican's) is ruled by a court to have received the votes placed next to the Trump ticket line
on the ballot. If Mr. Bhumitra is allowed to vote, his vote may well be successfully challenged at
the joint session of the United States Congress which counts the Electoral College votes.
Moreover, there is a legal precedent indicating that the election of an unqualified person to an
office is no election at all and that with no election to an office, there is no office to be vacant.
Hence the California Elections Code, Section 6905, may well be without authority to prescribe a
replacement for Mr. Bhumitra, because his office is non-existent.

Unreported Electors Entitled to an Ex Officio Position Nomination 10)

OXNQ Occupied. statutory eX Officio. Not reported. Qualified. 10

Two of these unreported nominees in category "OXNQ" are the heads of Chartered Republican
Associations. Another is an officer of the California Republican Party. Another is a Republican
Caucus leader in one of the houses of the Legislature. The rest are "party nominated"
Page 5 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0063 of CES Response Declaration

 candidates for state-wide office in 2010, the last year in which such offices were "party
nominated" in the sense of the provisions of California Elections Code, Section 7300.

Unreported Vacant Positions (9)

Party Ex Officio (6)

VPNQ Vacant. Party ex Officio. Not reported. 5
Qualified.
VPNU Vacant. Party ex officio. Not reported. 1
Unqualified.
6

The two categories above, "VPNQ" and "VPNU" refer to Republican Bylaws mandated ex
officios, who were appointable by the Republican Chairman. He failed to appoint these
members, improperly for five of them who are Constitutionally eligible, and properly for the
one who is Constitutionally unqualified. These potential nominee positions are only "vacant" in
the estimation of the Republican Bylaws, which entitled those potential nominees to
appointment by the rules of the Republican Party and not by State law. While having no legal
grounds to assert a right to such a position as a nominee, they have clear grounds internal to
the Republican Party to complain of their mistreatment.
Statutory Ex Officio
VXNQ Vacant. statutory eX officio. Not reported. 2
Qualified.
VXNU Vacant. statutory eX officio. Not reported. 1
Unqualified.
3
The two categories above, "VXNQ" and "VXNU" refer to "party nominated" candidates for
state-wide office in 2010, the last year in which such offices were "party nominated" in the
sense of the provisions of California Elections Code, Section 7300. Two of these positions are
vacant due to resignation from office, one from a Republican Party office and one as the head
of a Republican Party chartered association. The one "VXNU" office is vacant by reason of the
otherwise eligible potential nominee holding Congressional office, an office of Trust and Profit
under the United States.

Page 6 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0064 of CES Response Declaration

The Republican Nominees to the Electoral College
First Last CAT Ex Off Residence: Street Residence: City, Business Address Business City, State
Office Address State Zip Zip
Joel (Christopher) OCRQ None 8881 Hunter Pass Alpine, CA 91901 500 Fesler, Suite 201 El Cajon, CA 92020
Anderson
Marilyn Barke OCRQ None 3142 Tucker Ln Los Alamitos, CA No business addr. No business address.
90720
Jennifer Beall OCRQ None 24 Arado 92688- Rancho Santa 29122 Rancho Viejo San Juan Capistrano,
2749 Margarita, CA Rd., Suite 111, CA 92675
Nachhattar (Singh) OCRQ None 46177 Roadrunner La Quinta, CA 42270 Spectrum St. Indio, CA 92203
Chandi Ln 92253
Claire (Anne) OCRQ None 839 Chasefield Ln Crystal Lake, IL 2 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN RAFAEL CA
Chiara Apt 2 or 1640 60014 or Berkeley, #4338 94913-5703
Scenic Ave Apt 3 CA 94709 (Old
(Old Address) address)
Tim (Timothy OCRQ None 2495 Vineyard Dr, Auburn, CA 95603 126 East Street Auburn, CA 95603
Shawn) Clark
Lisa Grace-Kellogg OCRQ None 31220 Lobo Canyon Agoura Hills, CA 5737 Kanan Rd, Suite Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Rd, Agoura Hills, 91301 {Old 296 or Twin Oaks or Agoura Hills, CA
CA 91301(01d address?) or Shopping Center, 91301
address?) or 5537 Walsenburg, CO 5737 Kanan Rd,
County Road 520 81089 Postal Annex+
Appears to be a mail
drop. Figures since
they live in CO not
CA.
Barbara Grimm OCRQ None 7158 Buena Vista Bakersfield, CA 1001 River Run Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93311
Marshall Rd 93311
Howard Hakes OCRQ None Pasadena, CA 1303 John Reed Ct. City of Industry, CA
91748
Diane (Lynn) OCRQ None 76 Ritz Cove Dr or Dana Point, CA 400 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814
Harkey 31878 DEL OBISPO 92629 or SAN Suite 2580
PMB 106 or 118; PO JUAN
BOX 106 CAPISTRANO, CA
92675
Matthew Harmon OCRQ None 2415 Casa Del Oro Rocklin, CA 95677 2415 Casa Del Oro Rocklin, CA 95677.
Way Way
Noel Irwin OCRQ None 301 Copa De Oro Los Angeles, CA 6953 West Century Los Angeles, CA 90045
Hentschel Rd#D 90077 Blvd., Suite 700
Kenneth (K) Kobrin OCRQ None 6930 Steamboat Sacramento, CA 5960 South Land Sacramento, CA 95822
Way 95831 Park Dr. #384 (or 383)
linda (C.) Lopez- OCRQ None 650 Sunrise Dr E Vista, CA 640 Civic Center Dr Vista, CA 9208
Alvarez (Old Address?) or 92084 (Old Suite 110,
27999 Jefferson Address?) or
Ave Temecula, CA
92590
Robin (Reeser) OCRQ None 8172 Omeara Ave Hemet, CA 92545 Same as residence.
Lowe
Papa Doug OCRQ None 6104 Avenida La Jolla, CA 101 Ash St., Suite San Diego, CA 92101
(Douglas F.) Cresta (Old 92037 (Old 1900 or 1 Market PI#
Manchester address) address) 33
Chuck McDougald OCRQ None 222 Crown Cir South San 875 Mahler Rd., Ste. Burlingame, CA 94010
Francisco, CA 120
94080
John (Richard) OCRQ None 24522 Windsor Dr Valencia, CA 91355 27451 Toume Rd., Valencia, CA 91355
Musella Unit C (old (old address?) or Suite 170
address?) or 6383 Los Angeles, CA
W 80th St 90045
Douglas (Arlo) Ose OCRQ None 4013 Park Rd or Sacramento, CA 8556 Gibson Ranch Elverta, CA 95626
5046 SUNRISE 95841 or FAIR Rd. (Doesn't appear

Page 7 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0065 of CES Response Declaration

 BLVD OAKS. CA 95628 to be a business
address. Rural
residence.)
John Peck OCRQ None Po Box 829 (92067) Rancho Santa Fe, Po Box 829 (92067)?) Rancho Santa Fe, CA
CA (92067?) (92067
Pete (Dushan) OCRQ None 2209 Rutland PI Thousand Oaks, Hyundai Motor Fountain Valley. CA
Petrovich CA 91362 America 10550 92708
Talbert Ave.
Donna L Porter OCRQ None 1565 Border Ave. Corona, CA 92881 1565 Border Ave. Corona, CA 92881
(92881) or 215 or 92882
Lewis Ct ( 92882)
Scott Robertson OCRQ None 3045 23rd Ave or San Francisco, CA Same as residence. Same as residence.
3990 Washington 94118 or San
St or 1245 Sobre Francisco, CA
Vista Dr or 203 94132 or Sonoma,
REDWOOD CA 95476 or
SHORESPKWY REDWOOD CITY,
STE 503 CA 94065
kevinmaywoodc
apital.com
Carla Sands OCRQ None 1244 Moraga Dr Los Angeles, CA 11611 San Vicente Los Angeles, CA 90049
90049 Blvd., Suite 1000
Truong (Kuang) Si OCRQ None 712 Washington Rochester, NY 12672 Audry Circle Garden Grove, CA
Ave or 328 14617 or 92840
Hargrave St Inglewood, CA
Robert (Bob) E. OCRQ None 2227 W Bullard Ave Fresno, CA 93711 3158 E Hamilton Ave. Fresno, CA 93702
Smittcamp
Mike Spence OCRQ None 391 E Michelle St or West Covina, CA 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA
1343 HIDDEN 91790 or COVINA, Ave. 92415
VALLEY DR WEST CA 91791
Errol Valladares OCRQ None 28721 Coal Valencia, CA 91354 25101 The Old Road Santa Clarita CA 91381
Mountain Ct
Cyndi R. OCRQ None 28070 Charles Dr. Santa Clarita, CA 26893 Bouquet Santa Clarita, CA 91350
Vanderhorst OR28446 91350 Canyon Rd., C447
Silverking Trl
Santa Clarita, CA
91390
Megan Vincent OCRQ None 9300 Dillard Rd. Wilton, CA 95693 10600 White Rock Rancho Cordova, CA
Rd., Ste 100 95670
John Young OCRQ None AUBURN,CA Placer County AUBURN, CA 95602
95602 Republican Party
P.O. Box 605 Loomis
CA 95650-0605 916-
2388467
info@placergop.org
(P) Greg Conlon OPRQ Treasurer 43 Virginia Ln or PO Atherton, CA c/o Mark Watson Law Burlingame, CA 94010
2014 BOX 2600 94027 or MENLO Firm, 1633 Bayshore
PARK, CA 94026 Hwy, Suite 341 or 875
MAHLER RD STE 250
OR 120
Elizabeth (Diane) OPRQ US Senate 4905 Ridgeline Ln Fair Oaks, CA PO Box 2863 Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Emken 2012 or PO BOX81 95628 or
DANVILLE, CA
94526
Ted Gaines OPRQ Insurance 1422 Souza Dr or El Dorado Hills, CA Gaines Insurance. Roseville, CA 95661
Commissio PO BOX984 95762 or 2260 Lava Ridge Ct,
ner 2014 WILLOWS,CA Ste. 101 OR 1911
95988 DOUGLAS BLVD STE
85-249
Ron I Gold OPRQ Attorney 5264 Del Moreno Dr Woodland Hills, 5264 Del Moreno Dr Woodland Hills, CA
General CA 91364 91364
2014
Page 8 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0066 of CES Response Declaration

Ron Nehring OPRQ Lt 1015 Old Mountain El Cajon, CA 92021 1015 Old Mountain El Cajon, CA 92021
Governor ViewRd ViewRd
2014
Ivy Nicole Allen OXNQ California 1653 Livorna Rd W Alamo, CA 94507 Unknown. Unknown.
College
Republican
s (CCR)
Chairwoma
n
Steve Cooley OXNQ Attorney 10153 1/2 TOLUCA LAKE, CA Unknown. Unknown.
General RIVERSIDE DR STE 91602 or Rolling
Nominee 155 or 9 Hills, CA 90274
2010 Chuckwagon Rd
OXNQ Secretary 3131 MICHELSON IRVINE, CA 92612 Unknown. Unknown.
Damon (Jerel!) of State UNIT 708 W or 400 or Long Beach, CA
Nominee W Ocean Blvd Unit 90802
Dunn
2010 2303
Carly Fiorina OXNQ US Senate 915 L ST STE C-378 SACRAMENTO,CA Unknown. Unknown.
Nominee or 11201 Gunston 95814 or Lorton,
2010 Rd or 28545 VA 22079 or Los
Matadero Creek Ln Altos Hills, CA
94022
Mario A. Guerra OXNQ Treasurer 8132 FIRESTONE DOWNEY,CA Unknown. Unknown.
CAGOP BLVD STE 882 or 90241 or Downey,
7702 Yankey St CA 90242
Patricia (Patty) Ann OXNQ California 25707 Pacy St Newhall, CA 91321 Unknown. Unknown.
Kelly Congress
of
Republican
s (CCR)
President
Abel Maldonado OXNQ Lieutenant 150 POST ST STE SAN FRANCISCO, Unknown. Unknown.
Governor 405or PO BOX CA 94108 or
Nominee 5325 or 2707 SANTA MARIA, CA
2010 Lorencita Dr 93454 or Santa
Maria, CA 93455
Chad J. Mayes OXNQ Assembly PO BOX 11636 or PALM DESERT, CA CAPITOL OFFICE Sacramento, CA 94249
Republican Po Box 188, or 7363 92255 or Yucca State Capitol or or Sacramento, CA
Leader Palomar Ave or Valley, CA 92286 Chad Mayes for 95814
53817 Ridge Rd or Yucca Valley, Assembly 20161
CA 92284 or Yucca 1022 G Street I
Valley, CA 92284
Anthony (Tony) A. OXNQ Controller PO BOX 1371 or THOUSAND OAKS, Unknown. Unknown.
Strickland Nominee 22924 LYONS AVE CA 91358 or
2010 STE 104 NEWHALL, CA
91321
Margaret (Meg) C. OXNQ Governor 20813 STEVENS CUPERTINO, CA Unknown. Unknown.
Whitman Nominee CREEK BLVD STE 95014 or Atherton,
2010 or 24 Edge Rd # CA 94027
150
Robert (Rob) (E) OXRQ Vice Chair, 445 Marks Dr or 521 Hollister, CA 95023 445 Marks Dr or 521 Hollister, CA 95023 or
Bernosky Central TEVIS TRAIL or PO or HOLLISTER, CA TEVIS TRAIL or PO HOLLISTER, CA 95023
Coast BOX2200 95023 or BOX 2200 or HOLLISTER. CA
CAGOP HOLLISTER, CA 95024
95024
Jim (Leon) Brulte OXRQ Chairman 4568 Creekside Ln Fontana, CA 92336 4254 Foxborough Dr. Fontana, CA 92336
CAGOP
Matthew Del Carlo OXRQ California 1 Daniel Burnham San Francisco, CA 1 Daniel Burnham Ct San Francisco, CA
Young Ct Apt 315 or 183 94109 or SAN Apt 315 94109
Republican MT VERNON AVE FRANCISCO, CA
Federation 94112
(CVFR)
Page 9 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0067 of CES Response Declaration

 Chairman
Harmeet (Kaur) OXRQ RNC 1009 Lombard St San Francisco, CA 177 Post St. #700 San Francisco, CA
Dhillon National 94109 94108
Committee
woman
CAGOP
Jean (Jeannie OXRQ Senate 6218 De La Guerra Bakersfield, CA State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
lynn) Fuller Republican Teror PO BOX 93306or
Minority 12889 BAKERSFIELD, CA
leader 93389
Mark Herrick OXRQ California 1610 Maple Ave San Martin, CA 1610 Maple Ave San Manin, CA 95046-
Republican 95046-9704 9704
League
(CRL)
Chairman
Tom (Nowlen) OXRQ California 9971 Base Line Rd Elvena, CA 95626- 9971 Base Line Rd Elvena, CA 95626-9411
Hudson Republican 9411
Assembly
(CRA)
President
Kevin (William) OXRQ Vice Chair, 236 Marinda Dr Fairfax, CA 94930- 55512th St. Oakland, CA 94607
Krick Bay Area 1106
CAGOP
Jeff (Jeffrey E.) OXRQ Vice Chair, 73 Bellevue Irvine, CA 92602 19200 Von Kerman Irvine CA, 92602
Lalloway South Ave., Suite 400
CAGOP
Shirley Mark OXRQ California 1885 Nacimiento Paso Robles, CA Retired. Retired.
Federation Lake Dr 93446
of
Republican
Women
(CFRW)
President
Mike (William) OXRQ County 4924 Thille St # 10 Ventura, CA 93003 4924 Thille St # 10 Ventura, CA 93003
Osborn Chairman's
Association
Chairman
Dennis (Cormac) OXRQ Vice Chair, 6007 Princeton Granite Bay, CA One Capitol Mall, Ste Sacramento, CA 95814
Revell Nonh Reach Way# WA 95746 210
CAGOP (old address)
Shawn Steel OXRQ RNC 27520 Hawthorne Surfside, CA or 9010 Old Ranch Seal Beach, CA 90740
National Blvd Ste 270 Rolling Hills Parkway, Suite 260
Committee Estates, CA 90274
man
CAGOP
Mark (Basil) OXRQ Vice Chair, 2453 Tealey St. La Crescenta, CA 16133 Ventura Blvd., Encino, CA 91436
Vafiades los 91214 Suite 560
Angeles
CAGOP
Marcelino Carrillo OXRQ Vice Chair, 5351 WMillbrae Fresno, CA 675 W. Nees Ave. Fresno, CA 93711
Valdez Central Ave Fresno, CA Kerman, CA 93630
Valley 93722 Po Box 477
CAGOP
Elissa Wadleigh OXRQ Vice Chair, 579 Flower Ave Sonoma, CA Sonoma Valley Sonoma, CA 95476
Northwest Santa Rosa, CA insurance Agency,
CAGOP 95404 PO Box 1669
Deborah Wilder OXRQ Secretary 850 Chrysopolis Dr Grass Valley, CA 635 Mariners Island San Mateo, CA 94404
CAGOP # 3100 Foster City, Blvd., #200
CA 94404
Dave Willmon OXRQ Vice Chair, 6099 San Gabriel Riverside, CA or Retired or Retired or Government
Inland Apt F or PO Box Kalamazoo, Ml Government Relations Officer at
Empire 208 or 5469 Via Del 49009 or Riverside, Relations Officer at Riverside Countv
Page 10 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0068 of CES Response Declaration

 CAGOP Tecolote CA 92502 or Riverside County District Attorney's
Riverside, CA District Attorney's Office.
92507 Office.
Arun Bhumitra VCRU None 13 Buggy Whip Dr Rolling Hills, CA 23211 Hawthorne Torrance, CA 90505
90274 Blvd, Suite 300

George (Cyril) VPNQ Senior 3101 Franklin Blvd Sacramento CA 4375915TH ST W LANCASTER, CA 93534
Runner, Jr Republican Apt A or 2839 95818-3954 or PMB25
BOE Dartmouth Dr. lancaster, CA
Member 93536

Pete (Nolan) VPNQ Secretary 522 San Vicente Santa Monica, CA 19528 VENTURA LOS ANGELES, CA
Peterson of State Blvd. Apt F 90402 BLVD STE 507 91356
2014
George Melchoir VPNQ US Senate 1920 Barbara Dr. or Palo Alto, CA GPS Mediation, APC SACRAMENTO,CA
(Duf) Sundheim Ill 2016 Small 27319 Julietta Ln. 94303 or los Altos, 1022 G STREET 95814
Businessm CA 94022
an/Mediator
Ashley (Emile) VPNQ Controller 6414 N Harrison Fresno, CA 93711 FRESNO, CA 93710 1625 E SHAW AVE STE
Swearen~in 2014 Ave. 130
Mike Neil Villines VPNQ Insurance 2706 Countryside Placerville, CA FRESNO, CA 93709 PO BOX606
Commissio Dr. 95667
ner
Nominee
2010
Neel Kashkari VPNU Governor Unknown. Unknown. SACRAMENTO,CA 455 CAPITOL MALL,
2014 95814 STE 205
Harmeet Dhillon VXNQ Vice See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere.
Chairman
CAGOP
John (Richard) VXNQ Log Cabin See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere.
Musella Republican
(LCR)
Chairman
Mimi Walters VXNU Treasurer RANCHO SANTA 30151 TOMAS IRVINE, CA 92618 9070 IRVINE CENTER
Nominee MARGARITA, CA 23615 El TORO DR #150
2010 92688 or LAKE RD STE U or 20532
FOREST, CA 92630 EL TORO RD STE
or MISSION VIEJO, 210A or 23615 El
CA 92692 TORO RD STE U

Page 11 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0069 of CES Response Declaration

2016 TABLE OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENT ELECTOR NOMNEES
This list is generated by the American Independent Party's Convention according to Elections
Code, Section 7578. It does not include the business address of the elector nominees as they
are not required by the Elections Code for our party. There are no ex officio nominees, so it is
possible to get a promise of being a faithful elector before nominating them. All of nominees on
this list have promised to vote for the Trump/Pence Ticket either verbally or in writing.

Name of Elector Street Address City State Zip

Linda Lea Alsbury 1206 Valley Oak Drive Winters, CA 95694
Me~_ Alsbury 1206 Valley Oak Drive Winters, CA 95694
The Honorable Steve Baldwin 9622 St. Andrews Dr. Santee, CA 92071
Gary Brown 1920 Garden Meadow Ave. Fairfield, CA 94534
Ruth Brown 470 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Mark Brownlee 208 Columbia Drive Vacaville, CA 95687
William C. Cardoza 9114 Trujillo Way Sacramento, CA 95826
Joseph J.Cocchi 401 Cottonwood St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Julie Colglazier 2746 Wilesridge Rd. Hays, NC 28635
Kayla Colglazier 2746 Wilesridge Rd. Hays, NC 28635
Patrick Colglazier 2746 Wilesridge Rd. Hays, NC 28635
Dr. J. Steven Davis 6801 Western Ave. Buena Park, CA 90621
Sallie Hansen Deman 8623 Beaver Pond Lane Fairfax Station, VA 22039
The Honorable Robert K. Doman 8623 Beaver Pond Lane Fairfax Station, VA 22039
Wiley Drake 6671 Longfellow Drive Buena Park, CA 90620
Sally_ S. Easter 5609 Monte Cortia Cir. Citrus Heights, CA 95621
Ron Gold 5264 Del Moreno Drive Woodland Hills, CA 91364
The Honorable Goode, Virgil 235 South Main St. Rocky Mount VA 24151
Jeff Grage 5307 Katherine St. Simi Valley, CA 93063
Charles Edward Harrison, Jr. 2797 Vermeer Place Redding, CA. 96002
Thomas Nowlen Hudson 9971 Base Line Road Elverta, CA 95626-9411
The Honorable John LeBoutillier 280 Wheatley Rd. Old Westbury, NY 11568
The Honorable Robert Marc Levy #4 Wicker Place Pinehurst, NC 28374
Mary Parker Lewis 4700 Surry Place Alexandria, VA 22304
Gaudencio Gene Lopez 1120 Weeks St. East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Judy Lopez 2007 Infidel Ct. Vacaville, CA 95688
Raul Lopez 61 Oakridge Ct Danville, CA 94506
Sheila Schultz Lopez 61 Oakridge Ct. Danville, CA 94506
Leonard Luna 19852 Claremont Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Kim Mcdermott 890 Fall River Trail Vacaville, CA 95687
Rick McDermott 890 Fall River Trail Vacaville, CA 95687
Arthur Loyal Morgan 8743 Placer Rd. Redding, CA 96001
Matthew Justin Morgan 3381 Auburn Dr. Redding, CA 96001
Richard Mathew Nettleton Sr. 3304 Shasta Dam Blvd. space 59 Shasta Lake, CA 96019
Julie Marie Nettleton 9329 Irish Creek Ln. Redding, CA 96001
Marc Nettleton 2028 Marlene Ct. Redding, CA 96002
Jaycob Andrew Ornelas 1691 South Heritage Circle Anaheim, CA 92804
Melissa Ornelas 1691 S. HeriU!ge Cir Anaheim, CA 92804
Robert Ornelas 1691 S. Heritage Cir Anaheim, CA 92804
Marilyn Plumb 6680 Willow Road Vacaville, CA 95687-9469

Page U of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0070 of CES Response Declaration

 Jamie Rangel 10946 Scripps Ranch Blvd., APT 2D San Diego, CA 92131
Jeffrey Rangel 10946 Scripps Ranch Blvd., APT 2D San Diego, CA 92131
John Daniel Robertson 2323 Santa Rita Rd, Apt 17 Pleasanton, CA 94566
Markham Robinson 476 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Mary Robinson 476 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Stephanie Roundy 2753 Highgate Place Simi Valley, CA 93065
Terrance Arthur Rust 348 James McArthur Truckee, CA 96161
Dustin Paul Salsi 11383 Benson Dr. Shasta, CA 96087
Richard Scott Andrew Schalo 7600 Camino Del Encina Redding, CA 96001
David James Scholl 1275 West H St. Dixon, CA 95620
Mark J. Seidenberg 23405 Via San Miguel Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Chris Smentech 1300 Parkgreen Dr. Dixon, CA 95620
Glenn Smentech 1300 Parkgreen Dr. Dixon, CA 95620
Michael Warnken 6715 Binghampton Rd. Dixon, CA 95620
Jack Warren 5513 Freeman Circle Rocklin, CA 95677
Alternates
Elector Name Street Address City State Zip PNP Elector
Robert Drobot 190 Sylvia Avenue, Milpitas, CA 95035 Drobot, Robert
Reuben LaBarga 471 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688 LaBarga, Reuben
Byril Price 20702 El Toro Rd., Apt 222 Lake Forest, CA Price, Byril
92630
Alane Quien 134 South Parsons Ave., Apt Merced CA 95341 Quien, Alane
A.
Catherine Stachowiak 3410 Regatta Place Oxnard, CA 93035 Stachowiak, Catherine
Thomas A. Stachowiak 3410 Regatta Place Oxnard, CA 93035 Stachowiak, Thomas
A.
Trees Wowor 23495 Via San Miguel Aliso Viejo, CA Wowor, Trees
92656

Dr. Robert Ornelas

Chairman of the American Independent Party of california

Dr. Mark Seidenberg

Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 13 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0071 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit D-1

Exhibit Page No.: 0072 of CES Response Declaration

 American Independent Party of
California
Affiliated with the American Independent Party
Of
These United States

State Central Committee Chairman: Robert Ornelas

Vice Chairman: Mark Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson

State Headquarters:
476 Deodara St. Vacaville CA 95688
AlP HQ: 707-359-4884
State Filer ID: 741371
FAX: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com

To: County Registrar of Voters October 7, 2016

From: Dr. Robert Ornelas, American Independent Party of California Chairman

Re: A Public Records Request about the November 8, 2016, General Election Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States, especially as regards voter rights to see
the list(s) of said Electors and about the ballot masthead contents for the Presidential
contest

Dear County Registrar of Voters:

It has been the experience of the American Independent Party that very few Counties ever even
acknowledge the receipt of questions by our party concerning elections matters, or respond to them
in any manner. Therefore, our party has determined in this important instance that we will put
these questions in the form of a public records request.

First, some observations.

All the qualified parties' nominees of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States
have been accepted by the California Secretary of State as of October 3, 2016, before 5:00P.M. and
they have been posted on the Secretary of State's Elections Division website.
In CC/ROV #16270 General Election: Ballot Layout Issues, the following question was raised and
"answered:"
How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected when more than one
political party nominates the same candidate?
The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice
President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party nominates
the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate. [Emphasis Added]
NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION. This public records request
is part of our many-pronged effort to get this disaster in the making appropriately resolved.
It seems rather obvious that you can't select "electors for President and Vice President of the United
States," if you can't figure out how ("the manner in which") to let the voters do it. And why is this
Page 1 of3 County Registrars of Voters 7 October 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0073 of CES Response Declaration

 important? Well, serious consequences will ensue if the matter is not properly resolved by elections
officials, the State executive and the State Legislature.
If voters are denied an effective choice in any ballot line for the Presidential contest, such as the
Trump/Pence ballot line, this will cause the invocation of Section 2 of Article 14, Amendments to the
United States Constitution, which diminishes State Congressional representation in proportion to
such a denial. If the State Legislature is forced to make such a selection, which the American
Independent Party contends will be the case whichever ticket gets the most votes, then the entire
California Congressional delegation will lose their offices.
Moreover, an invalid Presidential contest, absent appointment of the aforesaid Electors by the State
Legislature in accord with Title 3, US CODE, Chapter 1, will lose California its vote in the Electoral
College for the 2016 election.
Questions About the Handling of the Presidential Contest by the
County Registrar of Voters, the Contents of the Ballot, and Voter
Rights
1. If voters ask how many electors there are for the Trump/Pence ticket, what will
they be told?
2. If voters ask to see the list of electors for the Trump/Pence ticket, will they be
shown anything and if so what?
3. If voters ask to see the list of electors for any other ticket than Trump/Pence, will
they be shown anything and if so what?
4. If voters will be shown an Electoral College list (or lists) for a ticket, what will they
be shown-a list of names only or perhaps a list of names with residence
addresses as submitted by the party (or parties) to the Secretary of State?
5. For the Trump/Pence Ticket, will the Electoral College list be a single list or two
lists, one for each party which nominated it?
6. For the Trump/Pence Ticket, will any overlaps between party slates be indicated
on the list or lists of Electoral College nominees shown the voters upon request?
1. For the Trump/Pence Ticket, how will the existence of overlaps be indicated?
s. By what authority does your County disregard the provisions of the Elections Code
section below concerning what is to be placed in the masthead of the Presidential
contest in the General election of November 8, 2016?
Elections Code Section 13205. Additional instructions to voters shall appear on the ballot prior to
those provided for in Section 13204 under the following conditions:

(b) In elections when electors of President and Vice President of the United States are to be
chosen, there shall be placed upon the ballot, in addition to the instructions to voters as provided in
this chapter, an instruction as follows:

"To vote for all ofthe electors of a party, stamp a cross(+) in the square opposite the names of the
presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A cross(+) stamped in the square
opposite the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of
the electors of that party, but for no other candidates."
9. What is the justification used by your County to follow the provisions of the
Elections code section displayed below to place the false instruction "Vote for
one party" when that is clearly false and misleading, since in fact it is a slate of
electors of a party that the voter is voting for?
Page 2 of3 County Registrars of Voters 7 October 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0074 of CES Response Declaration

 Elections Code Section 13210.

(b) In the case of candidates for President and Vice President, the words "Vote for One Party"
shall appear just below the heading "President and Vice President" and shall be printed so as to
appear above the voting squares for that office. The heading "President and Vice President" shall
be printed in boldface 12-point gothic type, and shall be centered above the names of the
candidates.
10. One hundred and eight (108) Elector nominees pledged to the Trump ticket have
been accepted by the Secretary of State, 55 from the Republicans and 55 from
the American Independent Party with an overlap of 2, giving a total of 108
unique individuals. How will your County count votes for each such Elector?
11. If there are more than 55 Presidential and Vice Presidential electors for the
Trump/Pence ticket, how will the maximum 55 such be chosen? Who will do it:
the voter, the Secretary of State, the County Registrar of Voters, the California
Legislature, the california Courts, the Federal Courts, or the Joint Session of
Congress which counts Electoral College votes or someone else?
This Public Records request should include all policy statements applicable to or generated by or
communicated to your County or from it regarding the matters raised in the above questions, all
exchanges between your County concerning them with other Counties or State officials or any other
materials relevant to these questions.
Please notify our Headquarters when the response to this public records request is available or
contact our Headquarters if you have any questions regarding this request. When your response is
available, we will make arrangements with you to receive them and to pay applicable fees.

Sincerely,

Robert Ornelas, Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 3 of3 County Registrars of Voters 7 October 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0075 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit D-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0076 of CES Response Declaration

 *** American Independent Party ***
Affiliated with American Independent Party Of These United States

State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas

State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson
State Headquarters

4 76 Deodara Street Vacaville CA 95688-2637 Party/Committee I.D. # 74237

Phone: 707-359-4884 Fax: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com www.aipca.org

October 27, 2016

To: Governor Jerry Brown

Attn: Constituent Affairs
Subject: Request for Special Session of California State legislature

Sent to Fax#: 916-558-3160

Dear Governor Brown:

We called your office recently to request that the Governor of California call a special session of the
State legislature to address the question raised in the Secretary of State's August 26, 2016, County
Clerk/Registrar of Voters {CC/ROV) Memorandum #16270 "How will Presidential and Vice Presidential
electors be selected when more than one political party nominates the same candidate?"

The Secretary of State's answer and advice to all 58 California Counties' Registrars of Voters to the
foregoing question is as quoted below:

"The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice
President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party
nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate."

Please consider the Constitutional mandate in Article II Section 1, Clause 2 in the United States
Constitution,

"Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct [Emphasis
added], a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person
holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector,"

Given this clear mandate, the American Independent Party of California believes that the California State
legislature is the body mandated to "address the issue" and that the appropriate time is now, by a Joint
Resolution of the California State legislature in a special session called by the Governor of California.

Page 1 of2 Governor Jerry Brown October 27, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0077 of CES Response Declaration

We were informed by your office this last Monday (October 24, 2016) that the Governor will not call
such a Special Joint Session of the Legislature to pass a Joint Resolution directing a manner of dealing
with the issue raised by CC/ROV #16270.

We respectfully request that your office confirm our understanding of this information by return fax to
707-222-6040, or by email to the American Independent Party Headquarters email,
markyavelli@gmail.com.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Ornelas, Chairman of the American Independent Party of california

Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 2of2 Governor Jerry Brown October 27, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0078 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit D-3

Exhibit Page No.: 0079 of CES Response Declaration

 * ** American Independent Party ** *
Affiliated with American Independent Party Of These United States
State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas
State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson
State Headquarters
476 Deodara Street Vacaville CA 95688-2637
Phone: 707-359-4884 Fax: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com www.aipca.org Party/Committee I. D. # 74237

November 7, 2016

DEMAND LETTER TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE

Demand 1
The American Independent Party hereby demands that you, the California Secretary of State,
tell us and the voters at large, how you will apply votes for the Trump/Pence ticket selection to
the American Independent and Republican Party slates of electors for President and Vice
President of the United States for the General Election of November 8, 2016.

In particular, when a voter selects the Trump/Pence ticket line, to which slate-the Republican
or American Independent-will that selection be tallied-to neither slate, to both, just to the
Republican Party's slate, or just to the American Independent Party's slate? If to neither, will
you count that as a zero vote or just leave the Trump/Pence tally blank as not counted? Or take
some other action?

Let us remind you of your own words in your August 26, 2016, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters
(CC/ROV) Memorandum #16270 "How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected
when more than one political party nominates the same candidate?"

Your answer and advice to all 58 California Counties' Registrars of Voters to the foregoing question is
as quoted below:

"The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice
President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party
nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate."
The American Independent Party is vitally interested in how this selection of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States will occur or can even possibly occur. By
focusing on the nature, method, and reporting of the count, we hope to understand this.

As to the appropriate time to address this issue, it was when the question was raised to the
Secretary of State by the Counties, prompted, we believe, by our interrogatory to them just
prior to the August 26, 2016, issuance of CC/ROV #16270, when you defined and admitted the
problem, but did not resolve it. All we can do now, just before November 8, 2016, is to ask how
your "selection method" works, what it will count, and how you will apply said counts to your
reports of the vote including the ascertainment of the votes of all slates, not just the winning
one you owe to the Governor of the State for certification to the United States Archivist
according to Title 3 US CODE Chapter 1 Section 6. But if there is no effective selection method
for electors for President and Vice President of the United States, we ask you and the Attorney
General, isn't this an "illusory choice" for the voters?
Page 1 of6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0080 of CES Response Declaration

 Demand 2
The unresolved problem posed by two distinct slates could have been resolved in advance by
the submission of a common slate by the two qualified political parties nominating the same
Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket. Another way to have avoided the problems posed by a
dual party nomination for President is for only one party to have submitted submit such a slate,
but, in fact, two parties submitted such a slate. The American Independent Party, under color
of statutory authority, has appointed nominees for "electors for President and Vice President of
the United States."

We submitted the proper number, fifty-five (55), nominees qualified to be "electors for
President and Vice President of the United States." The California Republican Party submitted a
list of "electors for President and Vice President of the United States" which should have been
done in accordance with Elections Code, Section 7300. (The corresponding section for the
California Democratic Party is Elections Code, Section 7100.) About half of the Republican
electors are ex officio and the other half are appointed by their Chairman, plus any appointed
by him to fill vacancies in the ex officio positions.

The American Independent Party of California demands that the California Republican Party's
submission of "electors for President and Vice President of the United States" be rejected for
the following four reasons and that our slate of nominees for "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" be the only slate of such nominees accepted for the November
8, 2016, General Election Presidential Contest:

1. Elections Code, Section 7300, governing their submission has the California Republican
Party entitled to "electors for President and Vice President of the United States" by
ex officio provisions and by their Chairman's appointment. Since they are not
nominees, they cannot participate as candidates in an election. A similar assertion
applies to the California Democratic Party submission of its "designees" for "electors
for President and Vice President of the United States." They too already have office
as "electors for President and Vice President of the United States"by the language of
Section 7100, so they too are not nominees. Since the minor qualified parties, ours
included, have mere nominees, they are qualified to compete for the office of
"electors for President and Vice President of the United States" in the General
Election of 2016 in California.

2. Whatever office, electors or nominee electors, the submission of the California

Republican Party is held to be, it was submitted after the statutory deadline (October
1, 2016, falling on a Saturday) and hence must be rejected by your office. Since
Saturday is neither a Sunday nor a holiday, the rule for submission deadlines is the
first working day before the deadline, September 30, 2016, at 5:00P.M. Moreover,
the California Republican Party's Bylaws also specify October 1 of the Presidential
Election Year as the deadline for submission of "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States," which in fact they must do, because California
Elections Code, Section 7300, mandates the California Republican Party implement its
provisions in their party Bylaws and in this regard at least so they have done.

You, Secretary Padilla, for your part exceeded your statutory authority by the act of
arbitrarily (or as a favor), extending the deadline beyond October 1, 2016, for the
California Republican Party's submission of their "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States."

Page 2 of6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0081 of CES Response Declaration

 Despite the California Republican Party's defiant assertions in their Bylaws of said
Bylaws superiority to the California Constitution and all State statutes, in this case
the California Legislature has a United States Constitution mandated duty (and power)
to appoint "electors for President and Vice President of the United States" and to
direct the manner of doing so. Therefore at least in this instance, the Republican
Party has no choice despite their undisputed status as a "free political association,"
but to comply with the State Legislature's dictat in this regard, that is, if they wish to
participate in the electoral process that results in the appointment of "electors for
President and Vice President of the United States."

3. The submission of fifty-five (55) putative "electors for President and Vice President of
the United States" included one Arun Bhumitra, who, in addition to his many other
accomplishments, is a member of a Commerce department organization to which he
was appointed by the United States Senate and which the Commerce Department
assures us is an office of trust but not profit under the United States and hence falls
under the Constitutional exclusion of all who enjoy an office of trust or profit under
the United States at the time of their appointment, election, or exercise of the office
of "elector for President and Vice President of the United States." He is a member of
the Industry Trade Advisory Committee, which is part of the International Trade
Administration within the U.S. Department of Commerce.

4. The California Republican Party's submission of fifty-four (54) Constitutionally

qualified "electors for President and Vice President of the United States" is missing
ten (10) ex officio "electors for President and Vice President of the United States."
These ten (10) individuals have all been deprived of their right to be a California
Republican Party "elector for President and Vice President of the United States." The
Republican Chairman has appointed ten (10) more "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" than he was entitled to because of an illegitimate
provision in the California Republican Party's Bylaws that attempts to modify the
meaning and effect of a provision for ex officio "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" in California Elections Code, Section 7300, which the
Californian Republican Party was mandated by this very section to implement, not
subvert, contradict, modify or add to its provisions! The attempted modification is by
means of a new definition of "party nominated" (State) offices in the first section of
the California Republican Party Bylaws. The sensible definition "highest vote getter in
the Top Two Primary" was properly incorporated in a statutory modification of
California Elections Code, Section 7100, for the Democratic Party. That's how it's
done legally.

Since there are really ten additional ex officio "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" in the California Republican Party's stable of "electors
for President and Vice President of the United States," that brings their total to sixty-
four (64), ten (10) more than the fifty-four (54) Constitutionally qualified "electors
for President and Vice President of the United States" that they submitted.

If you, Secretary Padilla, or your subordinates had carefully read California Elections
Code, Section 7300, you would have noticed that the Chairman of the California
Republican Party was only obliged to submit to you those "electors for President and
Vice President of the United States" which he had appointed. The rest, the ex officio
"electors for President and Vice President of the United States," are your
responsibility to ascertain. The help of the California Republican Party to identify

Page 3 of6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0082 of CES Response Declaration

 their ex officio "electors for President and Vice President of the United States" is and
would be in the future a great help to your office, but is by no means obligatory.

As a consequence of this overage of "electors for President and Vice President of the
United States" for the California Republican Party for the 2016 General Election, any
vote for the California Republican Party's slate of "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" (assuming contrary to fact, that they are entitled to
participation in the Presidential contest in the 2016 General Election) would be an
overvote and would of necessity be discarded since there are only 55 "electors for
President and Vice President of the United States" to which California is entitled in its
Electoral College representation and their "electors for President and Vice President
of the United States" number sixty-four (64).

The Republicans failed to report six (6) statutory ex officio Electoral College party
nominees, two (2) heads of Republican-Chartered groups, one (1) California
Republican Party official, and one (1) party legislative leader, all entitled to an
Electoral College nominee position according to California Elections Code, Section
7300.

There are seven (7) State wide positions for which nominations or elections in a party-
nominated position correspond to ex officio positions for said electors. One of these,
the 2010 State Treasurer position, was won by Mimi Walters, but was appropriately
omitted because she is a Congressman and not entitled to be on the Electoral College
for that reason.

The six (6) other party nominated, omitted Electoral College nominees are all from
the 201 0 election which was the last election at which there were party nominated
State wide candidates, since after that the Top Two Primary State Constitutional
amendment took effect, making all such State wide offices, voter nominated.

The Republicans in their Bylaws defiantly assert that they are not subject to
California statutory law or Constitution in their rules for these ex officio positions for
Electoral College nominees. They also add two "ex officio" positions not included in
the Elections Code, Section 7300, which actually governs these matters.

The six (6) persons deprived of their rights to be California Republican Party ex officio
"electors for President and Vice President of the United States" are the following:

Steve Cooley, Attorney General, 2010 Republican Nominee

Damon Dunn, Secretary of State, 2010 Republican Nominee
Carly Fiorina, US Senate, 2010 Republican Nominee
Abel Maldonado, Lieutenant Governor, 2010 Republican Nominee
Tony Strickland, Controller, 2010 Republican Nominee
Meg Whitman, Governor, 2010 Republican Nominee

Moreover, there are 4 more omissions, namely the following:

Two heads of Republican-Chartered groups: Ivy Allen, California College Republicans

Chairwoman, and Patty Kelly, California Congress of Republicans President.

The Assembly Republican Leader, Chad Mayes and

Page 4 of6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0083 of CES Response Declaration

 The California Republican Party Treasurer, Mario A. Guerra.

Demand 3
The American Independent Party of California demands that you, Alex Padilla, California
Secretary of State, in detail tell us how you will fulfill your duty in the California Elections Code
expressed in California Elections Code, Section 15505 (found below for your convenience), to
"certify the names of the proper number of persons having the highest number of votes," those
"persons" of course being "presidential electors?"

Note that you must notify with a "certificate of election" those elected as "presidential
electors." If you had performed your duty to notify nominees for the office of "presidential
elector" which you unaccountably contend are not offices at all or disgracefully to your
Constitutional oath, contend are "merely ceremonial," then you would know whether the
submitted addresses were accurate. Yet here they are, elected as "presidential electors!" They
have duties to do and will be paid the princely sum of $10 for it.

15505. No later than the 32nd day following the election, the
Secretary of State shall analyze the votes given for presidential
electors, and certify to the Governor the names of the proper number
of persons having the highest number of votes. The Secretary of State
shall thereupon issue and transmit to each presidential elector a
certificate of election. The certificate shall be accompanied by a
notice of the time and place of the meeting of the presidential
electors and a statement that each presidential elector will be
entitled to a per diem allowance and mileage in the amounts
specified.

Moreover, we demand to know how you will "analyze the votes given for presidential electors" in light
of the advice you gave in your August 26, 2016, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV)
Memorandum #16270 that "The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for
President and Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one
party nominates the same candidate."

You also said you would address this matter "if/when appropriate." The time is upon you for this
determination, and not primarily because of our Party's demand to know. It is upon you, because no
matter what the outcome of the vote for President and Vice President of the United States, you must
certify to the Governor the names of the proper number "of persons having the highest number of
votes," which you must do as a result of your analysis of the results of the vote which you receive
from the fifty-eight (58) County Registrars of Voters. We know you will convey results of the vote for
all of the persons nominated for "presidential electors" since the Governor is obliged in Title 3 United
States Code, Chapter 1, Section 6 to convey "the number of votes given or cast for each person for
whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast" to the United States Archivist. Note
that that is all persons, not just the winning candidates. So you must determine the number of votes
for the American Independent Party slate of "presidential elector" nominees and (if you have not
acceded to our "Demand 2" above) the number of votes cast for "presidential electors" of the
California Republican Party, so they can be reported to the United States Archivist. If you have never
seen an example of the "Certificate of Ascertainment for Electors for Electors of President and Vice
President of the United State of America" which the Governor provided in 2012 to the US Archivist, he
ytill no doubt be willing to provide it.

Page 5 of6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0084 of CES Response Declaration

 It contains the votes by slate and a list of all of the members of said slates. So finally you may no
longer evade the question of how many votes our American Independent Party and the California
Republican Party slates received if you are to properly serve the Governor of California in this matter,
as you indeed you must. This "Certificate" also contains for each slate the names of candidates for
President and Vice President of the United States to which the electors were pledged.

You may wonder why we might have to some extent gone over the ground already covered in
"Demand 1" in this demand. As well as the greater detail we went into in this demand for detailed
information from you, it will probably have sunk in by now how much easier this analysis will be if you
accede to our "Demand 2" as indeed we believe you should and must.

The American Independent Party's Right to Make These Demands

The American Independent Party, under the color of statutory authority, has appointed fifty-
five (55) nominees for "electors for President and Vice President of the United States."

Both the American Independent Party and its nominees for "electors for President and Vice
President of the United States" have a palpable interest in the proper working of the electoral
process for the 2016 California General Election Presidential contest and a particular interest in
avoiding voter suppression due to an increasingly wide-spread realization by would be voters for
the Trump/Pence ticket that their vote may well be ineffective because of fatal and unresolved
structural difficulties in that election contest.

Dr. Robert Ornelas

Chairman of the American Independent Party of california

Dr. Mark Seidenberg

Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 6 of6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 0085 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit E-1

Exhibit Page No.: 0086 of CES Response Declaration



County of Sacramento www.elections.saccounty .net

Ballot Type 009 Page 6

Exhibit Page No.: 0087 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit E-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0088 of CES Response Declaration

 BT1 VBM

--
----
-
--
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Consolidated General Election
City and County of San Francisco
l!li\~Wll!
:=ililmmf!
------
----
November 8, 2016 201611Fl8EI

---- INSTRUCnONS TO VOTERS:

Complete the arrow pointing to your
choice, as shown in the picture. en espaiiol
Por correo: !lame al
(415) 554-4366
Du~mm:
~nliolfli1~lil1lle<Jii1f~li::ltlli1f~!iiJ#.11llliMD~
~J'Ii~o
W*:lf!~$~, 1&ra.rt..(ii:>Jt-ffl'wtll'!a~ o
!IO*;t!\~!5i:M**=9~tEJ.!~l:ll'J"i'l'~'1HIIi~~l.!
!10

En persona: pregunte a un
trabajador electoral
----
A'tE~lil1A~*m~e<J~~~~~Ail<.Jtt
~Ml*1!1i.wlffili1f~ttl~~JiJtg* o fflii:Jl~)i_g:
m~l!l!tUJ:::ffti'Hili~~liA o

PARTY-NOMINATED OFFICES
itm:s~
FEDERAL
wn
PRESIDENT AND VIC PRESIDENT
aauiii-
Vote fcr One Party ill-lll PartyPr!lfel'lfll:e;Oemocl1tic
DONALD J. TRUMP AND
MICHAEL R. PENCE
SanFranci5cs;:;;.. ..
Republiean.Atnericanlndfi)Wierrt. . . UIIII'Joto.'<B
~~-JR*II .. =:*
JtOla .l!atua Parry Prsler&nee: Democrwtic
..
GARY JOII\ISON AND
BILL WELD
JJJJI<l'
, ..
::. . . .
Jt. . . . .
Member, ~rdofs;;;...

aau~:mioa
....
HILLARY CUNTON AND
..
..
TIM KAINE
Democratic..._
-ll:ltliJMI: ..,..... ..
llllt lU!.

GI.OIUA ES1ELA lA IIVA AND

"'"*
.. l-=====;::"======_,l,;c;,.....11
DENMS J. BANKS

J!I~. ~;.-:~-;:;;...
IJ.JE J -~

... .
"'.lfll!ld!

..

Exhibit
C1-1-1-1C
IZA1)-1C

Page No.: 0089 of CES Response Declaration

BT: 1 E/C C1
CH 1/5
Vote both sides of ballot
aaaaiJii111tll -
- -
Edue8tion0evtlopment0irector

ui:,~.. . Rttire<ICityDir1!Ctor

*~~~:..~ .. .
Mtmber,Com~nityColltgeBoard

:tl. .. . Corm1unityHOU$irlgBiogger

..
. .. :.:.~::"~
l>il* . .

SmaiiBusineuOwrler

,.:~~
Nonp!ditExeeutiwDireaor

ur.;ti~!.. .
Incumbent

;?.lr.! . .. ..
..
.. .
HodthFiN~"~CeAdministrJior

l:~~l! .. ..
Teacher f Pa~

tt!~~..

DataExecutive f Educator

-~~~;:.~ . ..
.. .
.. .
. ..
.. ..

-- Exhibit
C12A11C Page No.: 0090 8T:
of1 CES
Vote both sides of ballot
aallfliiiiittll
EIC C1 Response Declaration
-
 BT1 VBM

---
-- OFFICIAL BALLOT iEitil!l
------
-------
Consolidated General Election llltii~m

---
City and County of San Francisco ::Ollil$$f\J
November 8, 2016

--
2016Jf:lli"J8S
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: ii~Jiil;r-:
Complete the arrow pointing to your
choice, as shown in the picture.
If you make a mistake, you may request
a new ballot. -.
=-=~
-~m~~~m~~mmm~~~~~~~*~

lilffl~o
~n~:IJ!:;qm~ ~1'IT1.;.!~3J<-fft*'i~l'!!~ ,
----
~-

MEASURES SUBIWTTED TO THE VOTERS

Jl3eil~tstiUI!JiU~

51
YES/ItJt . .
NO/&ti . .
..
52
YES/JtR\: . .
NO/Jjlf . .
....
.APPROV~ I~"'IVE CO~L AMENDMENT.

....
REVENUE BONDS. STATEWIDE VO Requires
statewide voter approval before any revenue bQnds ~..t)fdssued or sold'byttse ~~rtain projects if the bond amount
exceeds $2 billion. Rscallmpact: State anCIJocarfiScal effects are untilown.-an:~ta depend on which projects are affected
53 by the measure and what actions government agencies and votetS' take in-res se to the mea ure's voting requirement.

Iiiii :!il:jjjilm .l;l< IIJIIIIHiElll: ffi ll2ilol .. ~ . .20fljljf, !!O~l!!l!>:!Effill'! YES/JfJt . .

.e!!t.ot ~ifJ(!IiW: ~iffllt!l:tJ~ifJ(lliW*~ i1Jtll: . il{ll'JH P1bl.dU!111-IIlVI'J!!:li!JI!J;(tfll*ll~
ll'JJlt~lJ!)Jt NO/&ti . .

54
1l:iil!lllll 1l:ii!lllil!l !lbii.HiE:I:"'iill! ~.tl:1L$Mllt<*lifil11~!!!~72,N!lHf!llli!f.I:BIIIi~"F ll!fffol~ '!!':sJt:iL$ YES/ItR\: . . ..
~-~~w~~<E~li!f.t~~~*~m~~~~ :-~tt~~-~~~-~m oo~~~-~~mm~
~~:n:'*~~~~~~~~~~1<mli!f.tmm NO/&ti . . ..
TAX EXTENSION TO FUND EDUCA110N AND HEALTHCARE. INITIA11VE CONSTlTUTIONilL AMENJ?IIi' T.
Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on ear6ing&>over $15(),000, with
revenues allocated to K-12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain year:s.--11'8a1Ulc:e,re. f.J$ca(lmpact Increased
state revenues-$4 billion to $9 billion annually from 20192030-depending on econofuy and stQCk~f"rket. Increased
55 funding for schools, community colleges, health care for low-income people. bud:{t:fl t~~ $. debt payments.

~li!!UJ;IJifllllfl!""'all!f*fl IIJ8Bi.tH:& Jl!!201 21l'liP'Dil'l , ttnllll!250,~1$,~1l'Ji!i~fl.Mf~l!1.l!ll&iSOll:lit:IO;

+=IF ;ltiJI!!l&l\I'H!fill\<-121l'l!l!J:l51, roffi:ttllli!JI\\: ~bl.<E~>Eil'i!lil'IBHill! Jit~ ffiW&il'Jll!l!l----20191l'-"2030
ll'llllilill'40i!""x~9oi!!llx-~~l!l.illlm!tm 181JO<:!I!!Jl>11'1l~":l51 :tti!O!!'I'ii: 1-PI!:J.-A'fl'H~ill! , ll!Hii~1&iHf1lll:ll

56
mll!!~-~~llll~,~~m~,~~~~iiDau~:~:~;:m~~~ll'lm
,\l,:ffl1!l:lt-iSTil'J!It'fjl!t!l~i!!i1!11lil(l()lll.ml MiS(N: 201718~(1()ffilli.Umllt!!Ji10i!~14i!~5t
l&JI!!:t'l!!!ll~ia;i<:tt!ljJxiJiiil4lCA.!SRoll'IH!!!H>til
* ~2 -
~~!&
....

-- Exhibit
C2-201-3-2C
(4A1)-2C

~ Page No.: 0091 of CES Response Declaration

BT: 1 EIC C2
CH
215
Vote both sides of ballot
aalliiili~ -
-... -
MEASURES SUBMI1TED TO THE VOTERS
1l501~1t:J~;tlll tJU~
STATE PROPOSITIONS
~tU~
CRIMINA!~ llelNTENCES. PAROLE .JUVENILE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCING. INITIAnVE
CONSTIT"'IONAL AME~NT AND STATUTE. Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes
S"entence cr;edits forJ ehabilitB'fion, good behavior, and education. Provides juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will

51 be prosecUted as ad}Jit. Fiscal Impact: Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on
ilitplemenfatfon. Net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually.

Ji;*'i*)l ftl'f"Jl!:ll!i';F. :iJMiil!lH!iill ;tl'f~~&li1l , ~l>tll!l!ttJ&i!t

~Am~~A~IT~~ M~~- , m~~~~ ffl~~~-~~5

58
!l!Uii:IJ j.l!tM II~ lbl!<:f:'a:ll!lJ!il(iiilHI!$.~!Fo!!Oli~~-atfili'Jll!iii ~11t!ll!5Ml]t~J.Vtl:Olil'l':ilitil. VA~!<ili VES/Jt~-
11f ~flf!tlf J!JJtW IJ\mli'I~.:!Uil~'lf~IOt'llllll.~l!l' W ll<l!li!rnl~l!iflll'llffll:lf"J<I! ~!!iflll'llfl!.JZ~iaiV-. il: !t
il M~~- , m~~~~~~~-~M~~ NO/J.itlt

Shall California's elected officials 'tJ~ II of their co itutiopal authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying
one or more amendments to the United States Constltut~ n. to overturn Citizens--tJtiited v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents. Y' allow the_fuU reUlation or limitation of campaign contributions and
59 spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardleSS- of~fth* m ay xpress their views to one another, and to make clear that
corporations should not have the same , nSijtutiQn~ rights as human b,.!.ln~s-

d iU11illi 81~!!i*iliUI !Li* lll Q!IlJJ;(!IUJJt il-lf!!l~Jt1ll!!l<llllftli!i*I'Ji1I

aaz.ns Urited v. Federal Ektion Ccmnis sicn- Oti2oni U>r..,-lt)E $~ltlli"!IUili 1t~if;l151tRtli fF
a:w~~~~m&!!$~rr~ Ma~ ' flffl

1Xlffill'lil!lll11i~sf!S'IIJ I!l;!I; !Eilll~li!!i ;; YES/Jr~ . . .

Election Commission- ((2010) 558 U.S. 31 0)
0~ ~-MW~~~~w~U~~~~& NO/Iil.lt . . ..

60
YES/Jf~-
NO/&It
STATE PRESCRIPnON DRUG PURCHASES. PRICING STANDARDS. INmAnYE STJ!: Piobiblls s ate from

..
buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at price over lowest price paid fo_1:the dNg.by United States
Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through Medi:..Cal. Fiscal f!J)pa&: Potential for
state savings of an unknown amount depending on (1) how the measure's implemeri&tlon. challenges are addressed and (2)
61 the responses of drug manufacturers regarding the provision and pricing of thaif drugs.

ffl-~~$D~~ -~~fflU~~~~ ~ffi A-~W1i~~~~~-~ m ~~~$.~~~~~~ff~-n

J! , lt6i'cml1Jtvle&Calfil!IJ~'l:ill'it{liHlll'til Jltif;l(~ll' ' :Hii'!~!lll1tf~(lg~PJ.Jtll!*~il3lll:lll ~!!ll&ii!~(l)~!IE~Jli:ltl~t!'
ll'li'JII'll!!li~MiUl~ VJ& (2) JidlJ ~~~l!t;!;!ll.;Efll:ltJi oll. ~ ~ lll/lTf\'ll'l ff~IJl! "\_

62

..

--
Exhibit
C2-4A1-2C
Page No.: 0092 ~iliilitt
of CES Response Declaration
Vote both sides of ballot

BT: 1 - EIC - C2
EB --
--- ----------
BT1 VBM

-----
OFFICIAL BALLOT iE~il~
Consolidated General Election l!fM lrf
City and County of San Francisco

.. ..
:::Jlff$$1

---
November 8, 2016

-----
2016f!:11F.I813

--
INSTRUCnONS TO VOTERS:
Complete the arrow pointing to your
choice, as shown in the picture.
If you make a mistake, you may request
a new ballot.
~

....
:-:~
~

ill~aiff.:
~m~~~m~ ~~~~~~~~~~~* M
ilffi'~
llll~lti!~t.i~ 11!li'iJJ).X~.l.!l:-i~UJTIJ\Jll~
---
---
iii- -

AREARMS. AMMUNITION INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires background check and Department of Justice
authorization to purchase a ~mu nition. rohibits possession of arge~capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes
procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possessiorYby spe,cified persons. Requires Department of Justice's
panicipation in federal Natioilallnsta,.nf Criminal Backg.yL{ild Che4c' $._stem. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court
63 and law enforcement coz', potont;.tliv in tho tens~ nlitllons of doll
firearms from prohibit perso after they are convk;tvd.
annually, related to a new court process for removing

~~D~~~~~~~m~~an~ ~~ ~~fl*@~~-au~~~~~~~~
::EA mllll~ll'Jitilfa<J'll\11'-' 'l>W:>ellliNJUIUl!MIItllll~~B~U~pll: ~ifl(i!>ll : <t- 11!lil!l&E.I!!Jlllma<J:'Itii>AIl'JIIlx
a<J~~iti~~~m~nooffl~~n~a~iti~W~~~~~~~roeTX~ft

TIVE STAl'UTE.. Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older.

....
Imposes state taxes on sales a~d cultivatio~. Pro~des' fOl' irldustry ~i~ensing anc::J..esqtblishes_ standards_ for marijuana
products. Allows local regulaton and taxaton/ Fiscall pact Addit1onalfttx revenu""es rangmg from h1gh hundreds of
millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually. mostty edicated specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of
64 millionsofdollarsannually. ~

:i<;litlitit Dit~~! ~~ilii21ilita'Jii<Ail'1*-li~d~t;~'li.II!IUDJll&J'!I1li.Jt lll:i<fiAJMMJEffillll'fOJilllll:ir

~~ft~~nmrr~fi~ W~ ~ifl(~ = ~ ~l&~tte~~--,~~~m~~JE:m~ m~iti
xtl14tFilliill:IXTii~

CARRYOUT BAGS. CHARGES.

65
YES/Jilt . . Ill
NO/&It . . . .
DEATH PENALTY. PROCEDURES. INmAnVE STATUTE CHanges procedures governing otate urt challenges to
death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive'R$titio'ns. Require'S appointed._attorneys
who take non capital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison official~ existing regulatiotfprocess for
developing execution methods. Ascal Impact Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing .legal c llenges
66 to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

litl!! f1!1 lll.iU! !!fl!!:lJ!fliJ?Eii'Ja'JHiilil'ftl!!lill'a'J~ii' !llJEi!!i.$1',.1;~l!I!W#Eil !ll:li!ifiili'J~ DJl!!l!!~S:l'f'#'J!IHEII'J

l:Siia'J~fllil!!:'lt?Eii'JJ:JI fjiU"s.&se:'ltW.."'ti'I$~:>!'1M1'niti~'ll!'iiff.l!<a'Jll!l!l llti&.,., : ~l1i.!lmJII!l! ?EJ!IJa'Jiti~iili!n
~~m~tl'l~~*~~~a'J~~oo~~~~~~~~TM~

SAN ON SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS. REFERENDUM. A "Yes vote approves. arid No" vote raiects, a statute that

...
prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single-use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of
recycled paper bags and reusable bags. Fiscal Impact: Relatively small fiscal effects on siatB and local governments.
including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local go ernme'bt savings from reduced litter and
67 waste management costs.

- (6A11-3C

Exhibit Page No.: 0093 aaiiliilim

C3-301-5-3C
of CES Response Declaration
CH 315
Vote both sides of ballot

BT: 1 EJC - C3
-
-- -
MEASURES SUBMITIED TO THE VOTERS
JBtil&tiJli'BJf*
SCHOOL PROPOSmONS

-~

~sur:~~o~6~~;~~~~~%;~!~e~:~:~:~:~~:~~~~~~~:~~=~~~;~~~g~:;t~t:~~ s~:~~: p~~=r~t~~;~~~~~~=u~~:::rs:

8 0

universities, workforce trainingi"n careers in nursing.. engineering/ technology; provide counselors; keep college libraries
open; shall San-Frarlcisco Comr;nunlty College District"renew its existing annual parcel tax at $99 per parcel for fifteen years,
B requiri ~ual independent aud~ od chizen oversight?
~ J'llll~.:::lifl~~fti~J!Ii!Ja<pf>l!lill~;b!ll&jjijlll!Jt~~;;wJl!l!ua : 111JiliH,$ l!lii!OJ.ft11e<Jii&Jf : ilillill'lf'F ' ll!!ll YES/It.li.. ..
fllf'~!lll!f!.:JC~ll1 ; l!o!JI!!Eil'l11!1 ;f<;!ll3JtJf~llt J{Jil!i!i , Ill1 I IJiji"lfflllifll~lii!!Srull ; Ji{Jl~l!Ul. ; i*l!f*ll!ii1Uilii1UIIII!l
lii1.!t~; :=lili1HIl!i* !l! :fffl'll:b~ftr 01Uii111l'lll!l~!J!'f!'fllfl'llill<lJ!ll! llil!lil!>~fi'J;.P99:1C l:JWI15l!'? NOI&ti . . . .

AKE LOAN AND HOUSING PRESERVAllON BONDS, 1992. To Amend 1992 voter approved
measure Proposition A. to allow san additiona~rJ,ose me
incurre of bonded indebtedness to finance the acquisition,
improvement, and reha~Utatio? of at-risk multk mit resid8"$,i&t;liQildin~and to convert such structures to permanent

c affordable housing; shall t]Je:,9,ltv and County of San Futq_cisc01SSUe u o $260,700,000 in general obligation bonds, subject
to independent citizen oversight and rsD01ar audite?
YES/Jf.ll.. ..
NO/&tf . . . .
Shall the City amend the Charter to require the Mayor to make a..temporary appointm,.,t to fill a vacancy in a local elected
office within 28 days of the date of the vacancy; proYide-thif'tha person who te{O_pontritY. fills a vacancy on the Board of
Supervisors cannot run in the election hel<f to fill thstvaeancy for th!Jemaind&fOfthe ta\ m; and require the City to hold an

...
election to fill a vacancy on the Board of S~petvj110rswithi 26to 154 day$ifthere is no,j:ity election scheduled, within 180
days if another election is already scheduled wlthJo..that period, or more'than 180 d -tater if requested by the Director of
D Elections and approved by the Mayor and th'i. BOard of Supervisors(
mlf.Jli\sl!l1i1Jr~nllill' '~<:itmEH'ltl ti!!liOfJJ&IIffi:~llli"'~ : llt~lll!m#llllt?;,~'il'"f'tll:ti!IJI*
ffl!!ll'l O.JJol#!llli~"'~!lflllrrll'l lA!l! : mJ<JJ<mlf.Jsl!l\llUE ~~~~ .I!R1261 54E!PfiJuliUII' l!ll!l!lll#f.llllt:>;,~ 'S!l<J\Ill'l!l YES/~t
I'JE:Il!:Eilrr-'l-Jall!lll~~ -.1 80J<I'l '5ll!l!llli!li!f> lilJ! 111 lrt<!ml!lillrl!tW!Uifl1BO>i: 7
NOI&ti . .

E YES/It.ll . . ...
F
NO/&If . .

YES/Jfli . .
NOI&ti . .
....
..
Shall the City amend the Charter to rename the Office of Citizen Complaints a ~ttte Depal'tmflntpf'Police Accountability (CPA);
require the DPA to review the San Francisco Police Department's use-of-force p~icies anct-ps11andling of claims of police
misconduct; allow the OPA to audit or review any SFPD policy. procedure or pra ice; pcify the City records that the DPA
G may access to perform its duties; and provide that the OPA would separately submit its bu'dget to the Mayor?

H
iliJI:Jffei'f!ili&ili ll!1z r :&!.GlltiiAJ i!il: jlJli.ll:i:lkl!itM!Rfil!lliliiL'IIIU~!Al~EII.Jtt.!OC!!m;:
11! ~l'i'ili>OMU!i.A.Ji!.~~llfll!t~'25,gifF.A.~fll'>tl!<?
....

--
Exhibit
C3-6A1-3C
Page No.: 0094
a.asftiilitt
of CES Response Declaration
Vote both sides of ballot

BT: 1-E/C -C3

EB --
 ---------
BT1 VBM

--- --OFFICIAL BALLOT

--------
Consolidated General Election 1!111--iftll

--
City and County of San Francisco -=:iii!Ji!J!l'&
November 8, 2016 2016fF-11FI8B
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS:
Complete the arrow pointing to your
choice, as shown in the picture.
If you make a mistake,
a new ballot.
may request
iiHi\!fl;r.:
~f.llol!~~J!il~~WimitiW~IiJ~~tli!!l* tiD
[ijj5jf;r,o
~*~~$~~~~~*-&~~m 0
--
o;--
---
ito sa wikang Filipino
tumawag sa (415) 554-4310 Nang personal: magtanong sa manggagawa sa Iugar ng

nte a un trabajador electoral

YES/It.Jl . .
NO I .lilt . .
....
~~;~~~~~~::~~~~=s~=r~
would provide services to the
homeless
Shall includin
the City amendg housing
the and and assistance in transitioning out

....
of homelessness by allocating $50 a Transportation Improvement
Fund, which would be used to improve million per year for 24 years,
J adjusted annually?

YES/~ . .

K
NO I .lilt . .
VES/Jf.Jl . .
NO I .lilt . .
..
L
YES/W~ ... ..
NO/J.ilt ... ..

M ....
N .... ..

0
Shall the City permanently exempt new office space on Candlestick Point and most of the former Na,Y.omiJ:>Y81~
Point from the City's annual 950,000square~foot limit, and provide that any new office space in this
count toward the annual limit that applies in the rest of the City?

mlfll!oiSIU!Candesti:k Pontt)&HlS1t..,;
P'<''""' -wo,uoo
YES/It~ . .

NO I .lilt . .
....
p
Shflll the City be prohibited from proceeding with an affordable housing project on City-owned property unless the Mayor's
Office of Housing and Community Development receives at least three proposals; and shall the City incorporate into City law
most current criteria for selecting a developer for affordable housing projects on City-owned property7
YES/Jin:! ...
NO I .lilt . .
....

-- BE5
Exhibit
C4-401-7-4C
Page
(8A1)-4C

No.: 0095
.t!Milftt
of CES Response Declaration
CH
415
Vote both sides of ballot

BT:1EICC4
-
- ... -
MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
!l~JU.~W:lllB~U!Ul
CITY AND COUNTY PROPOSITlONS
ilia~

VES/Jfi . .
NO/.&ti . .
...
Shall thaCity ere a Neighborhood Crime Unit to prevent and investigate crimes that affect neighborhood safety and quality
of life when the CitY has at least 1.971 full-duty uniformed police officers?

~~~~~~-ft~~~e m~~-~~-oo '~M~~~~m , *~~w~~e~~M~~&~~-~~ VES/Jti . . ...

....
Jllllli'f ?
NO/&If . .

s VES/Jf) . .
NO/.&It . .

T
Shall the City prohibit any lobbyist from making campaign contriti.!tions to a City elected official or bundling contributions for
the official, if the lobbyist w~s. registered to lobby the official's agency; generally prohibit lobbyists from providing gifts of any
value to City officials; and r8qulre lobbyists to identify thei':itv agene~&s they plan to lobby?
VES/Itfl . .
NO/&If . .
....
u
Shall the City increase the income el;gibUity J!rnit for on..$ita re~l units for all new and existing affordable housing units to
make them affordable for households eamir(g up to 110% of the area median income?
VES/Jt.ft . . ....
..
ffi~81Ulli1UJilLf.\!ll\lfOJ fi. .
m?
NO/.&If . .
VES/Jtfl . .
v NO/.&If . .

w
Shall the City increase the transfer tax rate for sales of..residential and 09mmercial pr~rtiesiTon:\2% to 2.25% for sales from
$5 million up to $10 million; from 2.5% to 2.75% for a1as from $10 ill ion up to $25 miUion; .flnd from 2.5% to 3% for sales of
$25 million or more? VES/Jtfl . .
NO/.&If . .
....
Shall the City require developers of projects in parts of the Ml$sion and Sq.utti Of Ma t neighbor-hoods to build replacement
space if they remove production, distribution and repair (PDA) uses o ,000 squ re feet Or:..more-; instttut~nal community (IC)
uses of 2,500 square feet or more, or arts activities uses of anY. and to obtain conditional use authorization before
X changing the property's use?
YES/It! . . ..
mil'l:li!:i!i~'ll!)Jt*il~:ftlMarkettli~Qllllfl!71ltl~~l!!illl~ilij~Jtf;fft;i>r.J l>lllllilll~Qi!t!>,OO!t'I':I59<RJ;U:il'J 71!ellll!i
I;J(PDR)IIlli!l 2,500'l'15!il;Rl.'.l.tl'Jtt~l!llfi!(IC)!Illi!l llt:li!:~Mtiffol!J!ll!il'Jiiti!!!ll li!l ;JJ!E!:IllU!J~Jili!!li-~PH$~~11l
ll!llf? NO/.&If . . ..

BART Safety. Reliability and Traffic Relief. To keep BART safe; prevent accidentslbreek:J ownsldelays; relieve
overcrowding; reduce traffic congestion/pollution: improve earthquake safety a}\~ accessj or seniors/disabled by replacing

RR
and upgrading 90 miles of severely worn tracks; tunnels damaged by water intrusion; ~year.ald train control systems; and
other deteriorating infrastructure, shall the Bay Area Rapid Transit District issue
improvement of real property subject to independent oversight and annual audits?

BART:<i:i:1t 0Jil1tfll:i<UII! 1;, 7 iJi!!11BARTitll!lillll'ii:~ : lili!n~:9f$l& I !&PI I

$3':5
billion of bonds for acquisition or

llliili !ful!l'li'~:f!JJJjj!J!\'<l' 1 9111.1 )._; lil!JI!ll!J/!l:ftl7ti!l90:l'l:lll ~JI!U!lila<J !IILll!: : IB17./<!i

l't'2~1f>Hta<JJ:;l1Hlli>i i'llllliDI!lill!s~ff3 5\i:Jtofilllll ~l&JII!l\tilti!fliiil!!ilt ;li!!\tll!S'i:Bi
..

--
Exhibit Page No.: 0096 of CES Response Declaration
C4-8A1-4C
Vote both sides of ballot
aillliliilittll
BT: 1-E/C -C4
EB --
 BT1 VBM

,.,. -
-

---

-


OFFICIAL BALLOT
Consolidated General Election
City and County of San Francisco
Makuku~li'IJ'-.Iotang
ito sa wikllng~F{IIplno
Sa parrljj)T.agit
tumaw,ag:sa '(4
')l;eo:
, 10
iEitill!
~~Wlil
=.Jiiiiiii~ ---
----------
-- --
November 8, 2016 Nang p~rsol)al. I)Ong.sa . 2016~11F.I8B
;:'o~~~~~g'~~!~sa . u~,ar;g
~~~ ~-'

---
- - INSTRUCnONS TO VOTERS:
Eata boii{it_~"iil,ponible
en espaliol
Por correo: llama al
(415) 554-4366
En persona: pregunte a un
m~m;r-:


~OJJ.:~ft~lli:l~EIlil!!
:ff~->'uli~i~il'<!~-lm!!~ mfmlolil!.lil'<lm
iii

---
....
trabajador electoral


!!il'<lm~m~~~~m~~*~~~m
m!~~=~~m~~ B:m=?~J~m~-il'f'~(II:J
j)j:JilA
~~~~=-11m~~ 1'~.:::.91J<Pm~-451'1l"lil'<l
=-=~
.... 'cf
jlj:lllA
~~-~~-A~M=~~-A~OJ
il~~a
~*~~m~~~*~~lil~L(I/:J~~~~~m
A'ff~lllA45*~~il'<J~lliL~~~Ail'<ltt
45:M!:mff*iW!Woi~-J~!l~~* '
!IIUI!~1.i~~ i!!.ll'iJJ.:~;Jt-f71;w[il'<J!I~

il-i!l
AH8HA SAI'AI
......J:~!
..... ..
MAGDALENA DE GUZMAN
-~~=~!~~- .. MAGDJII.NA DE GUZMAN
lf~,!,.;!:!! .. .
... ... . . .. ... ..
,.,,ititfl:lt41 x~ft

FRANCISCO HERRERA FRANCISCO HERRERA

lli=.:,;= lli~~.;=
,
IEIITA HSINANDEZ
Q]~!~.!=! . ,
IEIITA HERNANDEZ
c-!~.!1!!!.. .
lt8881t1Ut

KIM ALVARENGA
..
lt8881tlt41

KIM ALVARENGA
..
Urion~=-
.. . .. ..
I.Jllt~ir
.....U!I!!
"'*U'Ioff

-- Exhibit
C5-501-9-5C
Page No.: 0097 of CES Response Declaration
BT: 1 EtC CS
CH 5/5
-
Exhibit Page No.: 0098 of CES Response Declaration
BT: 1-E/C C5
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit F-1

Exhibit Page No.: 0099 of CES Response Declaration

PAGE1 of 101 PAGES DATE: Dec. 1, 2016 TIME: 2:05PM

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CANDIDATE LIST ELECTION YEAR : 2016 TYPE :GENERAL ELECTION

OFFICE: President Of the U.S.

DISTRICT: NJA. COUNTIES:

Party Name

DEMOCRATIC Hillary CHnton

REPUBLICAN Donald .f. Trump
CONSERVATIVE Donald J. Trump
GREEN Jill Stein
WORKING FAMILIES Hillary Clinton
INDEPENDENCE Gary Johnson
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Hillary Clinton
LBTLIBERTARIAN Gary Johnson

oFFICE: Vice-President of the U.S.

DISTRICT: NIA COUNTIES:

Party Name
DEMOCRATIC Tim Kaine
REPUBLICAN Michael R. Pence
CONSERVATIVE Michael R. Pence
GREEN Ajamu Baraka
WORKING FAMILIES Tim Kaine
INDEPENDENCE BIJJ Weld
WOMEN'S EQUALm' Ttm Kafne
LBTLIBERTARIAN Bill Weld

. -
Exhibit Page No.: 0100 of CES Response Declaration
PAGE2 of 101 PAGES DATE: Dec. 1, 2016 TIME: 2:05PM

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CANDIDATE LIST ELECTION YEAR: 2016 TYPE :GENERAL ELECTION

OFFICE: Presidential Elector

DISTRICT: N/A COUNTIES:

Party Name

DEMOCRATIC William J. Clinton

OI:MOCRATIC Andraw M. Cuomo
DEMOCRATIC Kathy c. Hochul
DEMOCRATIC Thomas P. DJNapon
DEMOCRATIC Eric T. Schneiderman
DEMOCRATIC Carf E. Heastle
DEMOCRATIC Andnta Stewart.Cousrns
DEMOCRATIC Bill de Blasto
DEMOCRATIC Letitia A. James
DEMOCRATIC Scott M. Stringer
DEMOCRATIC Melissa Martc-VIv.rlto
DEMOCRATIC Byron w. Brown
DEMOCRATIC Christine C. Quinn
DEMOCRATIC Basil A. Smlkle. Jr.
DEMOCRATIC Metlua Sklarz
DEMOCRATIC Marto F. Cilento
DEMOCRATIC Rhonda Weingarten
DEMOCRATIC George K. Gresham
DEMOCRATIC Daniel F. Donohue
DEMOCRATIC Stuart H. Appelbaum
DEMOCRATIC Gary S. LaBarbera
DEMOCRATIC Lovely A. Warren
DEMOCRATIC Stephanie A. Miner
DEMOCRATIC Katherine M. Sheehan
DEMOCRATIC Anastasia M. Somoza
DEMOCRATIC SandraUng
DEMOCRATIC Ruben Diaz, Jr.
DEMOCRATIC Hazell. Ingram
DEMOCRATIC Rachel D. Gold
REPUBLICAN Adrian H. Anderaon
REPUBLICAN John Burnett
REPUBLICAN Guy T. Parisi
REPUBLICAN Edward F. Cox
REPUBLICAN Thomas v. Dacley, Jr.
REPUBLICAN John J. flafllgan
REPUBLICAN Brian M. Kolb
REPUBLICAN Char1u P. Joyce
REPUBLICAN Peter Kallkow
REPUBLICAN Sandra King
REPUBLICAN Nicholas A. Langworthy
REPUBLICAN John Jay LaValle
REPUBLICAN Gary J. l.avlne
REPUBLICAN Stephen louro
REPUBLICAN Adele Malpass
REPUBLICAN Susan E. McNeil
REPUBLICAN Joseph N. Mondello

Exhibit Page No.: 0101 of CES Response Declaration

PAGE3 of 10, PAGES DATE: Dec.1, 2016 TIME: 2:05PM

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CANDIDATE UST ELECTION YEAR; 2016 TYPE :GENERAL ELECTION

OFFICE: Presidential Elector

NIA COUNTIES:
DISTRICT;

Party Name

REPUBLICAN Edwan;t F. Morgan

RePUBLICAN Cart P. Paladino
REPUBLICAN William Reillch
REPUBLICAN Todd Rouse
REPUBLICAN Jennlfw Saul Rich
REPUBLICAN Raymond ScoiUn
REPUBLICAN Meilin Tan
REPUBLICAN Donald J. Trump, Jr.
REPUBLICAN Gerard Kassar
REPUBLICAN Shaun Marie Levine
REPUBLICAN Howard IJm, Jr.
REPUBLICAN Rodney J. Strange
CONSERVATIVE Adrian H. Anderson
CONSERVATIVE John Burnett
CONSERVATIVE Edward F. Cox
CONSI!RVATM! Thomas A. Dadey
CONSERVATIVE John J. Flanagan
CONSERVATIVE Charles P. Joyce
CONSERVAnYE Peter Kallkow
CONSERVATIVE Gerard Kassar
CONSERVATIVE Sandra King
CONSERVATIVE Brian M. Kolb
CONSERVATIVE Nicholas A. Langworthy
CONSERVATIVE John Jay LaValle
CONSERVATIVE Gary J. Lavine
CONSERVATIVE Sbaun Marie Levine
CONSERVATIVE Howard Um, Jr.
CONSERVATIVE Stephen Louro
CONSERVATIVE Adele Malpass
CONSERVATIVE Susan E. McNeU
CONSERVATIVE JOMph N. Mondello
CONSERVATIVE Edward F. Morgan
CONSERVATIVE cart P. Paladino
CONSERVATIVE GuyT. Parisi
CONSERVATIVE William Relllch
CONSERVATIVE Todd Rouse
CONSERVATM! Jennifer saul Rrch
CONSERVATIVE Raymond Scolltn
CONSERVATIVE Rodney J. S1fange
CONSERVATIVE Mellin Tan
CONSERVAT~ Donald J. Trump. Jr.
GREEN Cassie Wilson
GREEN Eric Jones
GREEN Nancy Morelle
GREEN Danlella LlebUng
GREEN Joshua Feintueh

Exhibit Page No.: 0102 of CES Response Declaration

PAGE4 of 101 PAGES DATE: Dec. 1, 2016 TlME: 2:05PM

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CANDIDATE LIST ELECTION YEAR : 2016 TYPE :GENERAL ELECTION

OFFICE: Presidential Elector

DISTRICT: N/A COUNTIES:

Party Name
GREEN Michael D. Emperor
GREEN Craig A. seaman
GREEN Jennifer R. White
GREEN JamoC.Lane
GREEN Martanne Schwab
GREEN Rochelle Dorfman
GREEN James R. Brown, Ill
GREEN Christine S. Schmldt
GREEN Gail B. Brown
GREEN Julia Wlllebrand
GREEN Joanne Landy
GREEN Claudia Flanagan
GREEN Martha K8$Sier
GREEN Christopher Archer
GREEN James McCabe
GREEN Gil Obler
GREEN John Baldwin
GREEN Howle Hawkins
GREEN Mary House
GREEN Frank Cetera
GREEN Darin Robbins
GREEN Peter Lavenla
GREEN Theresa Portelli
GREEN Delbert Gregory
WORKING FAMILIES William J. Clinton
WORKING FAMILIES Andrew M. Cuomo
WORKING FAMILIES Kathy c. Hochul
WORKING FAMILIES Thoma& P. DiNapoli
WORKING FAMILIES ErleT.Schn~dennan
WORKING FAMIUES Carl E. Heatfe
WORKING FAMIUES Andrea Stewart-Cousins
WORKING FAMILIES Bill de Blasia
WORKING FAMIUES Letitia A. .James
WORKING FAMIUES Scott M. Stringer
WORKING FAMIUES Melissa MarkVivtrito
WORKING FAMIUES Byron W. Brown
WORKING FAMJUES Christine c. Quinn
WORKING FAMIUES Basil A. Smlkle, Jr.
WORKING FAMIUES Melissa Sklarz
WORKING FAMILIES Mario F. Cilento
WORKING FAMILIES Rhonda Weingarten
WORKING FAMILIES George K. Gresham
WORKING FAMILIES Daniel F. Donohue
WORKING FAMJUES Stuart H. Appelbaum
WORKING FAMILIES Gary S. LaBarbera
WORKING FAMIUES Lovely A. Warren

Exhibit Page No.: 0103 of CES Response Declaration

PAQE5 of 101 PAGES DATE: Dec.1, 2018 2:05PM

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CANDIDATE LIST- ELECTION YEAR : 2018 TYPE :GENERAL ELECTION

OFFICE: Presidential Elector

DISTRICT: H/A COUNTIES:

Party Name

WORKING FAMIUES Stephanie A. Miner

WORKING FAMJUES Katherine M. Sheehan
WORKING FAMJUES Anastasia M. Somoza
WORKING FAMILIES Sandra Ung
WORKING FAMIUES Ruben Dlaz, Jr.
WORKING FAMIUES Hazel L. b'lgram
WORKING FAMILIES Rachel D. Gold
INDEPeNDENCE Frank M. MacKay
INDEPENDENCE Kristin A. MaeKay
INDEPENDENCE William Bogardt
INDEPENDENCE Robert G. Pllnlck
INDEPENDENCE Thomaa S. Connolly, Jr.
INDEPENDENCE Paul Caputo
INDEPENDENCE Valerie Caputo
INDEPENDENCE Stephen P. Corryn
INDEPENDENCE Joseph L. BaMh. Sr.
INDEPENDENCE Lee A. Kolesnlkoff
INDEPENDENCE Thomas R. H.tfietd
INDEPENDENCE Teresa Bogardt
INDEPENDENCE ThomasA. Connolly
INDEPENDENCE Dennis R. Zack:
INDEPENDENCE Susan L. McGu1te
INDEPENDENCE Richard Belando
INDEPENDENCE Maryellen Belando
INDEPENDENCE Debra Bums
INDEPENDENCE Michael Amo
INDEPENDENCE Nlki Lee Rowe
INDEPENDENCE John B. MacKay
INDEPENDENCE Scott R. Major
INDEPENDENCE Robert J~ Bogardt
INDEPENDENCE c.
Anna Bogardt
INDEPENDENCE Samara Pilnlck
INDEPENDENCE Edward G. MitiOr
INDEPENDENCE Joanne Foresta
INDEPENDENCE Avarham GYiiJ
INDEPENDENCE Michael Zumbluskas
WOMEN'S EQUAUTY William J. CUnton
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Andrew Ill. Cuomo
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Kathy C. ttochul
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Thomas P. DiNapoli
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Eric T. Schneiderman
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Carl E. Heaatie
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Andrea Stewart-cousins
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Bill deBlasfo
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Letitia A. James
WOMEN'S EQUALFTV Scott M. Stringer

Exhibit Page No.: 0104 of CES Response Declaration

PAGES of 101 PAGES DATE: Dec. 1, 2016 TIME: 2:05PM

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CANDIDATE LIST- ELECTION YEAR : 2016 TYPE :GENERAL ELECTION

OFFICE: Presidential Elector

DISTRICT: NJA COUNTIES:

Party Name
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Melissa MafkVivertto
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Byron w. Brown
WOMEN'S EQUAUTY Christine C. Quinn
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Basil A. Smllde, Jr.
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Malina Sklal'i1
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Mario F. Cilento
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Rhonda Weingarten
WOMEN'S EQUALITY George K. Gresham
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Daniel F. Donohue
WOMEN'S EQUALITY stuart H. Appelbaum
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Gary $.LaBarbera
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Lovely A. Warren
WOMEN'S EQUALITY stephanie A. Miner
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Katharine M. Sheehan
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Anastasia M. Somoza
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Sandra Ung
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Ruben Dlaz, Jr.
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Hazel L Ingram
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Rachel D. Gold
LBT-UBERTARIAN Mark N. Alclnn
LBT~LIBERTARIAN Jeffrey T. ftUS$811
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Richard A. cooper
LBT-LIBERTARIAN RogerJ.Cooper
LBT-LIBERTARlAN Pamela Connolly Tangredi
LBT-LIBERTARIAN John eutton
LBT-UBERTARIAN Stav&n G.T. Becker
LBTLIBERTARIAN Shawna L. Cole
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Hesham EI-Mellgy
LBT-UBt:RTARIAN Marte. E. Glogowski
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Andrew Martin Kolstee
L8T-LIBERTARIAN William P. McMillen
LBT.UBERTARIAN Gary S. Popkin
LBT~LIBERTARIAN Andrew Roger&
LBT-LJBERTARIAN Robert N. Power. Ill
LBTllBERTARfAN Alton Vee
LBT-UBERTARJAN Robert E. Schuon, Jr.
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Brlan Waddell
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Christian Padgett
LBTcoi.IBERTARIAN Kevin Wilson
LBTLIBERTARIAN Erik Bell
LBT--LIBERTARIAN Harold w. Barnett, Jr.
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Arthur Rosen
LBTUBERTARIAN EdWard Garrett
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Shawn Hannon
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Matthew Mai\Jet
LBT-LIBeRTARIAN Charles Millar

Exhibit Page No.: 0105 of CES Response Declaration

PAGE7 of 101 PAGES DATE: Dec. 1, 2016 TIME: 2:05PM

NEW YORK S'TATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

CANDIDATE LIST ELECTION YEAR: 2016 TYPE :GENERAL ELECTION

OFFICE: Presidential Elector

DISTRICT: NJA COUNTIES:

PBtty Name
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Mark Potwora
LBT-UBERTARJAN James Rosenbeck

OFFICE: U.S. Senator

DISTRICT: NIA COUNTIES;

Party Name

DEMOCRATIC Charles E. Schumer

REPUBLICAN Wendy Long
CONSERVATIVE Wendy Long
GREEN Robin Laverne Wilson
WORKING FAMIUES Charles e. Schumer
INDEPENDENCE Charles E. Schumer
WOMEN'S EQUALITY Charles E. Schumer
REFORM Wendy Long
LBT-LIBERTARIAN Alex Merced

Exhibit Page No.: 0106 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit F-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0107 of CES Response Declaration

 )

~~~~fljt:~~?~~~'~
~~ tM.e:o,i~ ( tu?il~ iJ_ ~
- - ,.....- - -
~ "- ,. ___.__ ~ - s -:;: - ~
~~---- ~ ,-.-/
_. =---~
. ~._.,

(__~ ~---~./7'
~ . "t:::'"rl'~"'
. .,..... ~ t'
""""~~
~i!t~IJIDJ!~
~lt ~ ~~

~~~~~

-
::...--ro -. . . ;: . ---- ...__ r:::;.,rr-
I, Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, do hereby certuy, that the statement containing the
Canvass and Certificate of Determination by the State Board of Canvassers of the State of New York, as to ELECTORS
of PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT hereto annexed, and certified by the Co-Chairs of the State Board of Elections
ofNew York, under their seal of office, contains a true and correct list setting forth the names of Electors of President
and Vice-President, elected in New Yolk, at the General Election held in New York on the Tuesday after the First
Monday in November (November Eighth)in the year two thousand sixteen, pursuant to the Constitution and the Laws
of the United States and of the State ofNew York, to wit:

William J. Clinton Mario F. Cilento

Andrew M. Cuomo Rhonda Weingarten
Kathy C. Hochul George K. Gresham
Thomas P. DiNapoli Daniel F. Donohue
Eric T. Schneiderman Stuart H. Appelbaum
Carl E. Heastie Gary S. LaBarbera
Andrea Stewart-Cousins Lovely A. Warren
Bill de Blasio Stephanie A. Miner
Letitia A. James Katherine M. Sheehan
Scott M. Stringer Anastasia M. Somoza
Melissa Mark-Viverito SandraUng
Byron W. Brown Ruben Diaz, Jr.
Christine C. Quinn Hazel L. Ingram
Basil A. Smikle, Jr. Rachel D. Gold
Melissa Sklarz

And further that the Statement of Canvass and Certificate of Determination certified by the Co-Chairs of the
State Board of Elections of New York, as aforesaid, correctly sets forth the Canvass of Determination under the Laws
of the State of New York, of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose elections any and all votes
have been given or cast at said election as aforesaid.

In Testimony Whereof, The Great Seal of the State is

hereunto affixed.

Attested by

Exhibit Page
SecretaryNo.:
of State 0108 of CES Response Declaration
STATE OFNEW YORK . ss:

We, the State Board of Elections, constituting the State Board of Canvassers, having
canvassed the whole number of votes given for the office of ELECTOR of PRESIDENT and
VICE-PRESIDENT at the General Election held in said State on the eighth day of November,
2016, according to the certified statements of the said votes received by the State Board of
Elections, in the manner directed by law, do hereby determine, declare and certify that

William J. Clinton Mario F. Cilento

Andrew M. Cuomo Rhonda Weingarten
Kathy C. Hochul George K. Gresham
Thomas P. DiNapoli Daniel F. Donohue
Eric T. Schneiderman Stuart H. Appelbaum
Carl E. Heastie Gary S. LaBarbera
Andrea Stewart-Cousins Lovely A. Warren
Bill de Blasia Stephanie A. Miner
Letitia A. James Katherine M. Sheehan
Scott M. Stringer Anastasia M. Somoza
Melissa Mark-Viverito Sandra Ung
Byron W. Brown Ruben Diaz, Jr.
Christine C. Quinn Hazel L. Ingram
Basil A. Smikle, Jr. Rachel D. Gold
Melissa Sklarz

was, by the greatest number of votes given at said election, duly elected ELECTORS of
PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT of the United States .
. GIVEN under our hands in the city of Albany, New York, this ath day of December in the
year two thousand sixteen.

Douglas A. Kellner Commissioner

PeterS. Kosinski Commissioner
Andrew J. Spano Commissioner
Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner

STATE OF NEW YORK )

STATE BOARD OFELECTIONS ) ss:

We certify that we have compared the foregoing with the original certificate filed in this
office, and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original.

GIVEN under our hands and seal of office of the State Board of Elections, at the city of
Albany, this 8th day of December, 2016.

Doug! 1-\. Kellner

~~=~Q Peter S. Kosinskt
Co-Chair Co-Chair

Exhibit Page No.: 0109 of CES Response Declaration

 STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

Statement of the whole number of votes cast for all the candidates for the office of
ELECTOR OR PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT at a General Election held in said State on
the Eighth day of November, 2016.

The whole number of votes given for the office of ELECTOR OF PRESIDENT and VICE-
PRESIDENT was 7, 700,223 of which

WORKING WOMEN'S
DEMOCRATIC FAMILIES EQUALITY TOTAL
William J. Clinton received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Andrew M. Cuomo received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Kathy c. Hochul received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Thomas P. DiNapoli received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Eric T. Schneiderman received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
carl E. Heastie received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Andrea Stewart-Cousins received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Bill de Blasio received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Letitia A. James received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Scott M. Stringer received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Melissa Mark-Viverito received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Byron W. Brown received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Christine C. Quinn received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Basil A. Smikle, Jr. received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Melissa Sklarz received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Mario F. Cilento received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191 .
Rhonda Weingarten received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
George K. Gresham received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Daniel F. Donohue received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Stuart H. Appelbaum received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Gary s. LaBarbera received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Lovely A. Warren received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Stephanie A. Miner received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Katherine M. Sheehan received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Anastasia M. Somoza received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Sandra Ung received 4,316;642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Ruben Diaz, Jr. received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Hazel L. Ingram received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Rachel D. Gold received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191

Exhibit Page No.: 0110 of CES Response Declaration

STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE TOTAL

Adrian H. Anderson received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
John Burnett received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Guy T. Parisi received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Edward F. Cox received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Thomas V. Dadey, Jr. received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
John J. Flanagan received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Brian M. Kolb received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Charles P. Joyce received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Peter Kalikow received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Sandra King received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Nicholas A. Langworthy received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
John Jay LaValle received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Gary J. Lavine received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Stephen Louro received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Adele Malpass received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Susan. E. McNeil received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Joseph N. Mondello received 2,5.0 1,200 288,873 2,790,073
Edward F. Morgan received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Carl P. Paladino received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
William Reilich received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Todd Rouse received 2,501,200 288/873 2,790,073
Jennifer Saul Rich received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Raymond Scollin received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Meilin Tan received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Donald J. Trump, Jr. received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Gerard Kassar received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Shaun Marie Levine received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Howard lim, Jr. received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Rodney J. Strange received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073

Exhibit Page No.: 0111 of CES Response Declaration

STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

GREEN TOTAL
Cassie Wilson received 106,995 106,995
Eric Jones received 106,995 106,995
Nancy Morelle received 106,995 106,995
Daniella Liebling received 106,995 106,995
Joshua Feintuch received 106,995 106,995
Michael D. Emperor received 106,995 106,995
Craig A. Seeman received 106,995 106,995
Jennifer R. White received 106,995 106,995
James C. Lane received 106,995 106,995
Marianne Schwab received 106,995 106,995
Rochelle Dorfman received 106,995 106,995
James R. Brown, III received 106,995 106,995
Christine S. Schmidt received 106,995 106,995
Gail B. Brown received 106,995 106,995
Julia Willebrand received 106,995 106,995
Joanne Landy received 106,995 106,995
Claudia Flanagan received 106,995 106,995
Martha Kessler received 106,995 1061995
Christopher Archer received 106,995 106,995
James McCabe received 106,995 106,995
Gil Obler received 106,995 106,995
John Baldwin received 106,995 106,995
Howie Hawkins received 106,995 106,995
Mary House received 106,995 106,995
Frank Cetera received 106,995 106,995
Darin Robbins received 106,995. 106,995
Peter Lavenia received 106,995 106,995
Theresa Portelli received 106;995 106,995
Delbert Gregory received 106,995 106,995

Exhibit Page No.: 0112 of CES Response Declaration

STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

INDEPENDENCE TOTAL
Frank M. MacKay received 118,118 118,118
Kristin A. MacKay received 118,118 118,118
William Bogardt received 118,118 118,118
Robert G. Pilnick received 118,118 118,118
Thomas S. Connolly, Jr. received 118,118 118,118
Paul Caputo received 118,118 118,118
Valerie Caputo received 118,118 118,118
Stephen P. Corryn received 118,118 118,118
Joseph L. Baruth, Sr. received 118,118 118,118
Lee A. Kolesnikoff received 118,118 118,118
Thomas R. Hatfield received 118,118 118,118
Teresa Bogardt received 118,118 118,118
Thomas A. Connolly received 118,118 118,118
Dennis R. Zack received 118,118 118,118
Susan L. McGuire received 118,118 118,118
Richard Belando received 118,118 118,118
Maryellen Belando received 118,118 118,118
Debra Burns received 118,118 118,118
Michael Amo received 118,118 118,118
Niki Lee Rowe received 118,118 118,118
John B. MacKay received 118,118 1181 1l8
Scott R. Major received 118,118 118,118
Robert J. Bogardt received 118/118 118,118
Anna C. Bogardt received 118,118 118/118
Barbara Pilnick received 118,118 .. 118,118
Edward G. Miller received 118,118 118,118
Joanne Foresta received 118,118 118,118
Avarham Gvili received 118,118 118,118
Michael Zumbluskas received 118,118 118,118

Exhibit Page No.: 0113 of CES Response Declaration

STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

LIBERTARIAN TOTAL
Mark N. Axinn received 56,833 56,833
Jeffrey T. Russell received 56,833 56,833
Richard A. Cooper received 56,833 56,833
Roger J. Cooper received 56,833 56,833
Pamela Connolly Tangredi -received 56,833 56,833
John Clifton received 56,833 56,833
Steven G.T. Becker received 56,833 56,833
Shawna L. Cole received 56,833 56,833
Hesham EI-Meligy received 56,833 56,833
Mark E. Glogowski received . 56,833 ' 56,833
Andrew Martin Kolstee received 56,833 56,833
William P. McMillen received 56,833 56,833
Gary S. Popkin received 56,833 56,833
Andrew Rogers received 56,833 56,833
Robert N. Power, III received 56,833 56,833
Alton Vee received 56,833 56,833
Robert E. Schuon, Jr. received 56,833 56,833
Brian Waddell received 56,833 56,833
Christian Padgett received 56,833 56,833
Kevin Wilson received 56,833 56,833
Erik Bell received 56,833 56,833
Harold W. Barnett, Jr. received 56,833 56,833
Arthur Rosen r.eceived 56,833 56,833
Edward Garrett received 56,833 56,833
Shawn Hannon received 56,833 56,833
Matthew Mahler received 56,833 56,833
Charles Miller received 56,833 56,833
Mark Potwora received 56,833 56,833
James Rosenbeck received 56,833 56,833

Exhibit Page No.: 0114 of CES Response Declaration

 GIVEN under our hands in the city of Albany, New York, this gth day of December in the
year two thousand sixteen.

Douglas A. Kellner Commissioner

Peter S. Kosinski Commissioner
Andrew J. Spano Commissioner
Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS )

We certify that we have ~ompared the foregoing with the original certificate filed in this
office, and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original.

GIVEN under our hands and seal of office of the State Board of Elections, at the city of
Albany, this 8th day of December, 2016.

~~Q Peter 5. Kosinski

Co-Chair

Exhibit Page No.: 0115 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit G

Exhibit Page No.: 0116 of CES Response Declaration

11/1812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations I Pew Research Center

PewResearchCenter
Hispanic Trends

NOVEMBER 18, 2014

UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANT TOTA LS RISE IN 7 STATES , FALL IN 14

Chapter 1: State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations

BY JEFFREYS, PASSEL (HTTP: //WWWPEWRESEARCH.ORG/STAFF/JEFFREY-S-PASSELI) AND D'VERA COHN
(HTTP:I/WWW.PEWRESEARCH.ORG/STAFF/DVERA-COHN/)

Exhibit Page No.: 0117 of CES Response Declaration

http://www .pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter-1-state-l.flauthorized-i mm igrant-populations/ 1/10
1111812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Pop!Jations 1Pew Research Center

T!lBLE1.1

States with Largest Unauthorized

Immigrant Populations, 201.2
In thousands
Range
Estimate (+(II' -)
Celifornia 2,450 45
Texas 1,650 40
Florida 925 25
New York 750 20
New Jersey 525 25
Illinois 475 25

Georgia 400 1.5

North carotina 350 15
Arizona 300 15
Virginia 275 15
Maryland 250 15
Washington 230 15
Nevada 210 10
Colorado 1.80 1.0
Pennsylvania 170 1.5

kore: i\fl numbers arerounje;i indepen:lentl~ an:f are nota:ljusiect

ttl sum to the total U.S. figure or other totals. Diff~ftot<::S ~t,veen
;:;13nse::ut1we ranks m:~y n::~t be statiStically Slgrtifr...ant See
MethOdology for rounding rules. Range based on 00': confiderce
inter.al.
Source:: Table A1. denved fr:~m P,;:,,. Research !)enter estimates
Oflsed on eugmented 2812 American Communitj Sun.ey data from
Integrated Pubh.:: Lse 1.11::-rodsm Series ,IPUMSl.
PEW RESEARCH CENTER

(http:/ /www.pewhispanic.org/2014/ll/18/unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-States-fall-in-14/Ph_2014-11-
18_unauthorized-immigration-o6/) Twenty-one states had statistically significant changes in their populations of
unauthorized immigrants from 2009 to 2012. They comprise seven states where the number of unauthorized
immigrants increased and 14 where the number decreased.

These state-level changes are masked by the stability at the national level, according to the Pew Research
estimates. The overall number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012-standing at 11.2 million-
was unchanged from 2009, the final year of the Great Recession. The population had fallen since its peak of 12.2
million in 2007, when the recession began.

States that Grew or Declined

The seven states where unauthorized immigrant populations grew from 2009 to 2012 were Florida, Idaho,
Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Exhibit Page No.: 0118 of CES Response Declaration

http://www .pewhi spanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter-1 -stat&-I.J'lauthorized-imm igrant-populations/ 2110
11/1812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant PopiAations 1Pew Research Center
In two of these states, Macyland and Virginia, the state-level trends also broke with the national-level trend for
2007 to 2012. During those years, the number of unauthorized immigrants fell in the U.S. overall, but continued
to grow in both Macyland and Virginia. In Macyland, the estimated number of unauthorized immigrants grew to
250,000 in 2012, compared with 220,000 in 2007. In Virginia, the estimated number grew to 275,000 in 2012
from 250,000 in 2007. (In the adjacent District of Columbia, the 2012 population of 20,ooo was not
statistically different from the totals in 2009 or 2007.)

The 14 states where populations of unauthorized immigrants decreased from 2009 to 2012 were Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New
Mexico, New York and Oregon.

As detailed in Chapter 2, a decline in unauthorized immigrants from Mexico was responsible for the decreases
in 13 of the 14 states; in Massachusetts, the decline was due to decreases in unauthorized immigrants from other
countries. In six of the seven states with increases in unauthorized immigrants, the changes were driven by
increases in unauthorized immigrants from countries other than Mexico. In Nebraska, the increase was driven
by a small but statistically significant gain in unauthorized immigrants from Mexico.

Although state trends varied from 2009 to 2012, there was no change in which six states had the largest
unauthorized immigrant populations. The six-California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and illinois-
accounted for 6o% of unauthorized immigrants in 2012. California alone had an estimated 24 million
unauthorized immigrants in 2012, about one-in-five (22%). Texas ranked second, with 1.7 million unauthorized
immigrants, 15% of the total. No other state had more than a million.

Long-Term Trend Comes to a Halt

Exhibit Page No.: 0119 of CES Response Declaration

hltp:/Jwww.pewhispanic.orgl2014111/181chapter- 1-state-unauthorized-immigrant-populations/ 3110
1111812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations 1Pew Research Center

fiGLRE1.1

Growth in Unauthorized Immigration Has Leveled Off

I n millions

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

S.O

4.0

0 .0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012
t.ote: Shatlmgsurroundingline inoicateslo.v end high points of the estlm.:.ted oo: =
confidence inte!\5l.Data lebelsarefor 1990,1995. 20'"..0, 20'35, ZXJ7, 2009. 2011 and
2012 The 2009-2012 chsnge is notstatistJca!lj signltk..flntatl:Xr c-::~nilden~ intel"\al.
Source T-sb!e Al, derived from "e" Resetlf::h J.:nterestima1es for ~:>~5-:;:tl2 b<lsed on
augmented .'l.merir:>n ~mmunit.' Sur, a<_, dsta from !n:<:grated Public lse Mu;rod5ta Series
(fPUr~lS\; far 1995-2CJ4. Z:Xt and ~ IJ.asr:i :m Mar :.h Supplements of the Current
P:>puiauon Su~>,e]. EsomB!es f:n 1900 from '1-'.arren an:Wsren !2013't
PEW RESEARCH CENTER

(http:/ /www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-States-fall-in-14/Ph_2014-11-
18_unauthorized-immigration-o7/) Until the recent slowdown in growth, the unauthorized immigrant population
had risen rapidly over nearly two decades-and the sharpest growth rate had been in states without major
concentrations of unauthorized immigrants. As a result, there had been a marked shift in the distribution of
unauthorized immigrants across the nation.

From 1990 to 2007, the unauthorized immigrant population increased from 3-5 million to 12.2 million, growth
of about 250% or an average of more than soo,ooo people a year.

The population of unauthorized immigrants increased in every state, but growth was slower in the six states with
the largest numbers of such immigrants than in the rest of the nation as a whole. 2

California, the state with the largest number of unauthorized immigrants in both 1990 and 2007, experienced the
largest numerical growth, but its 88% increase from 1990 to 2007lagged far behind other large states and
nearly all smaller states. As a group, the other five largest states (Florida, fllinois, New Jersey, New York and
Texas) experienced growth in their unauthorized immigrant population at the national average of 250%.
Meanwhile, though, the unauthorized immigrant population in the rest of the country increased almost
sevenfold, from 700,000 in 1990 to 4-7 million in 2007.

These growth differentials led to a marked shift in the distribution of unauthorized immigrants across the
country. The share in California dropped to 23% in 2007 from 42% in 1990. The share in the other large states
was unchanged at 38%, but the share in the rest of the country essentially doubled, to 39% in 2007 from 20% in

Exhibit Page No.: 0120 of CES Response Declaration

http://www .pewhispanic.orgl2014111/181chapter-1-state-lllauthorized-i mmigrant-populations/ 4110
1111812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations 1Pew Research Center

1990. With the overall decreases in the unauthorized population since 2007, these shifts came to a halt.

Unauthorized immigrant populations can grow at the state level for the same reasons they do nationally, when
immigrants cross the U.S. border without authorization, or when they overstay a legal visa after it expired Some
states also may have experienced growth in their populations because unauthorized immigrants moved there
from other states. A major factor contributing to losses in California, lllinois and New York from 2009 to 2012,
according to Pew Research Center analysis, was movement of unauthorized immigrants to other states.

f!GIJPE1..2

U.S. Foreign-born Population, 2012

Una~horlzecllmmlcrartts tec;at lmtftiC~'"*
11.2 million t26.3%} .:11.4 miltlon {73. 7~)
1

Temporary
fecal rutdenta
:1.9 million
(4.5% of I : i \ .... ~ J > I < o 1I

for~lgn-bortl ' : ,,, 42 5 '

fe$Jd nt$}

Note AJf numbers sr;,:roun:led in~p~'l:l<m'tl}' 5 !ld sr'!: ''Ot s j)lJstetl

usum w tre t.:ltBI L!.S. figur ~. :Jr Jt..f):trtotels.

SotJrc~ Pe;d:(esest:::.'l ~nu: roest~maresfor :o.t:::rusadtm

a'Jgmen!etl .:..rner' ~n 2-orrmun!\:,. Suf\r~ ::ldl.S from tntegre~
Pul:!lc L ~ ~ licrodru Ser ~ IPI..:MS
PEW RESEARCH CENTER

(http:/fwww.pewhispanic.org/2014/ll/18/unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-states-fall-in-14 /Ph_2014-11-
18_unauthorized-immigration-o8/) Unauthorized immigrant populations can decline when fewer new immigrants
arrive, when a greater number decide to leave the country or through deaths (although there are relatively few
deaths because unauthorized immigrants tend to be younger than the population overall). Government action
also plays a role: Numbers can decline through deportations or when unauthorized immigrants obtain legal
status.

Exhibit Page No.: 0121 of CES Response Declaration

http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.4111/18/chapter-1-state-unauthorized-i mmigrant-popt.jations/ 5110
11/1812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations 1Pew Research Center

The nation's foreign-born population totaled 42.5 million in 2012, or 13.5% of U.S. residents. In addition to the
nation's 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants, it was made up of 11.7 million legal permanent residents (274%
ofimmigrants in 2012), 17.8 million naturalized citizens (41.8% of immigrants) and 1.9 million legal residents
with temporary status (4.5% ofimmigrants).

Among all immigrants, the share who were unauthorized in 2012 ranged widely by state, from 6% (Maine) to
45% (Arkansas). The states with the largest shares were in the South and Mountain West, some of which are
relatively new destinations for unauthorized immigrants.

Unauthorized Immigrant Population Share

F!GIJRE1.3

States with Largest Shares of

Unauthorized Immigrants in.the
Population, 2012
Unauthorized immigrants~; of total state population

Nevada 7.6

California

Texas
New Jersey

Florida

Arizona
Maryland

Georgia - 3.9

NewYork - 3.8

Illinois - 3.7
North Caronna - 3 .6

Utah - 3.6

Colorado - 3.5

Connecticut - 3_5

Virginia - 3.5

r..ote Perc.entsge:; ;;okul~e d from unrounded numbers. Oifferero:s

bet.>een consewti\e r,:,li<.s may not be statistic.allj significant
State:. ,..,ith the same shar es are sho;, nalphebetic"SI~.
Sour:e: Tatlte A3. deri.ed from Pe, Research CenterestimattS
based on .:. ugmen~ed Z)12 Amer :an Oommumt}' Sun~ :lata from
lntegr ate:! ?ublic l'se ,\1~rom Ser~es (i?UM5).
PEW RESEARCH OEHlER

(http:/ jwww.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-states-fall-in-14/ Ph_ 2014-11-

6/10
Exhibit Page No.: 0122 of CES Response Declaration
t#.tf>:/Jwww.pewhispanic.orgl2014/11/18/chapter-1-state-unauthorized-i mm igrant-populations/
11/1812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Popl.dations 1Pew Research Center

t8_unauthorized-immigration-ogj) Unauthorized immigrants accounted for 3.5% of the U.S. population of nearly
316 million in 2012, down from a peak of 4.0% in 2007. The share varied from less than 1% in 10 states to 7.6%
in Nevada. California (6.3%) and Texas (6.3%) also are among the top-ranked states in this regard.

Most of the states with the largest numbers of unauthorized immigrants also have relatively high shares of
unauthorized immigrants. The six states with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations-California,
Florida, lllinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas-also are among the states with the 10 highest shares of
unauthorized immigrants in the overall population. Similarly, states with relatively lower numbers of
unauthorized immigrants tend to have lower shares in the overall population.

Nationally, unauthorized immigrants made up about a quarter of the foreign-born population (26%) in 2012.
That share peaked in 2007, at 30%, when the size of the unauthorized immigrant population also peaked.

One-in-Twenty People in the Labor Force

Exhibit Page No.: 0123 of CES Response Declaration

http://www .pewhispanic.org/2014111/18/chapter-1-state-unauthorized-i mm igrant-populations/ 7/10
11/1812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Popldalions 1Pew Research Center

fiaRE1.4

States with Largest Shares of

Unauthorized Immigrants in the Labor
Force, 2012
llnauthorized immigrants,., of state's labor force

Nevada 10.2
California

Texas

New Jersey

Florida

Maryland - 6.2

AriZona - 6.0
NewVork - 5.7

Georgia - 5.6

Illinois - 5.2
NorthOarotina - 5.2

Connecticut - 5.1
Utah - 5.1

Virginia - 5..1
Washi~n - 4.9

Note: Percenu.ge~csl::ulat..'"ti fr:.m unrourrled numbers. Differen:es

bet.l'een conse::uli>,e rafll.:s. rna} not be statisticaU:y sigmficant
States ,,;m the same shares are s!'Jown :ilphabeti;!llly.
Sour~e: Table ?.3. ~erive::J from Pe Rese!lr:::h G::oterestim~tes
tr~s1::i on augmented 201:?Amenc.an Communit} Sur.~dat:l from
Integrated Put!!: Lse Microdata Series .,_!PUMS).
PEW RESEAR()H CENTER

(http: I jwww. pewhispanic.org/2014 j 11/18fun authorized -immigrant-totals-rise-in -7-states-fall-in -14 jp h_2014 -n-
lS_unauthorized-immigration-10/) In the U.S. overall, unauthorized immigrants account for one-in-twenty people
in the labor force, or 8.1 million people in 2012, but the share is markedly higher in some states, especially those
with high shares of unauthorized immigrants in the population.

The share of unauthorized immigrants among adults ages 16 and older who are working or looking for work is
highest in Nevada (10.2% in 2012); Nevada also has the highest share of unauthorized immigrants in the overall
population (7.6%). The share in the labor force also is relatively high in California (94%) and Texas (8.9%),
which rank second and third in the unauthorized immigrant share of the total population.

Exhibit Page No.: 0124 of CES Response Declaration

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18fchapter-1-state-unaulhorized-i mm igrant-populalions/ 8110
11/1812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations 1Pew Research Center

Unauthorized immigrants are more likely than the overall U.S. population to be of working age and less likely to
be young or older (Passel and Cohn, 2009 (http: I /www.pewhispanic.org/2009 I 04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-
immigrants-in-the-united-states/) ). That is one reason that the unauthorized immigrant share of the labor force is
higher than its share of the population overall.

Students with Unauthorized Immigrant Parents

Children with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent made up 6.9% of students enrolled in kindergarten
through 12th grade in 2012. Most (s.s% of all students) are U.S.-bom children who are U.S. citizens at birth. The
rest (1.4%) are unauthorized immigrants themselves.

Among elementaiy and secondary school students with unauthorized immigrant parents, the U.S.-bom share
has grown since 2007 while the share who are themselves unauthorized immigrants has declined. In 2007, for
example, when the unauthorized immigrant population was at its peak, 7.2% of elementaiy and secondary school
students had unauthorized immigrant parents: 4.5% were born in the U.S. and 2.6% were themselves
unauthorized

This trend is parallel to a general rise in the number ofU.S.-bom children of unauthorized immigrants and a
decline in juvenile unauthorized immigrants (Passel, Cohn, Krogstad and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2014
(http:/fwww.pewhispanic.org/2014/09/03/as-growth-stalls-unauthorized-immigrant-population-becomes-more-settled/)
). As long-term residents make up a growing share of unauthorized immigrants, they are more likely to have
U .S.-bom children. Among unauthorized immigrant adults in 2012, 4 million (or 38%) lived with U .S.-bom
children, either minors or adults. In 2000, 2.1 million, or 30%, did.

Figure 15

States with Largest Share of K-12

Students with Unauthorized Immigrant
Parent(s}, 2012

Nevada 17.7

california

Texas

Arizona

t 'otr: Perc.entel!es ~lculated from unrouroed numbers. Differerns

bet.. een consecutive rankS may not be. SiEitisticallysignificant
Sour:e: Table A4, deri "'d fr~m P::.\ Research C~nt~restimates
nased on augmented 2':)12 l>.meri::an Dammunit} Sur~~t.~ data fi<rn
lntegrat::d Public l:se Mtwdata Senes{lPLMS).
PEW RESEAR<:HCENTER

(http: f jwww. pewhispanic.org/ 2014 f nj18 /unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-states-fall-in-14 /ph_2014-11-

Exhibit Page No.: 0125 of CES Response Declaration

tdtfJ:/Iwww.pewhi spanic.org/2014111/18/chapter-1-state-unauthorized-i mmigrart-populations/ 9110
11/1812016 State Unauthorized Immigrant Populations 1Pew Research Center

18_unauthorized-immigration-n/) The number of unauthorized immigrant adults with U.S.-bom children may be
higher than what is shown here because these numbers do not include those who live separately from their
children.

Young unauthorized immigrants have declined in number in part because some have turned 18 and become
adults with unauthorized status.

The share of students with unauthorized immigrant parents varies widely by state. The 2012 share was in double
digits in four states-Nevada (17.t>A>), California (13.2%), Texas (13.1%) and Arizona (u.o%). In seven states, the
share in 2012 was less than 1%.

2. The only exception is Montana, where the unauthorized immigrant population was not statistically larger in 2007 than it had been in 1990. _,

Exhibit Page No.: 0126 of CES Response Declaration

http://www .pewhi spanic.org/2014111/18/chapter-1-state-unauthorizeG-imm igrant-populations/ 10110
11/1&'2016 Immigrants in California (PPIC Plblication)

Just the FACTS

Immigrants in California
_,. California has more immigrants than any other state.
California is home to more than 10 million immigrants-one in four of the foreign-born population
nationwide. In 2011, 27% of California's population was foreign-born, about twice the U.S.
percentage. Foreign-born residents represented more than 30% of the population of seven
California counties: Santa Clara, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Mateo, Imperial, Alameda, and
Orange. And half of the children in California had at least one immigrant parent.

,... Most immigrants in California are documented residents.

Almost half (47%) of California's immigrants are naturalized U.S. citizens, and another 26% have
some other legal status (including green cards and visas). According to the Department of
Homeland Security, about 27% of immigrants in California are undocumented .

_,. Immigration to California has slowed.

The state's immigrant population increased by only 15% (1.3 million) in the 2000s, compared to
37% (2.4 million) in the 1990s. This decline in international immigration has been a contributing
factor in the slowdown of California's overall population growth.

_,. Most immigrants in California come from Latin America, but recent arrivals
are primarily from Asia.
The vast majority of California's immigrants were born in Latin America (53%) and Asia (37%).
California has sizeable populations of immigrants from dozens of countries; Mexico (4.3 million),
the Philippines (812,000), and China (760,700) are the leading countries of origin . However,
more than half (53%) of those arriving in the state between 2007 and 2011were born in Asia; only
31% came from Latin America.

_,. Most immigrants in California are working-age adults ...

About eight of every ten immigrants (81%) in California are working-age adults (age 18 to 64),
compared to four of every seven (57%) U.S.-born California residents. This means that more than
a third (34%) of working-age adults in the state are immigrants.

,.. ... and are likely to be on either end of the education spectrum.
In 2011, 37% of California's immigrants age 25 and older had not completed high school,
compared to 9% of U.S.-born California residents. A quarter of California's foreign-born residents
had attained at least a bachelor's degree, compared to a third of U.S.-born residents. Foreign-
born residents accounted for 72% of all high school dropouts in the state and 31% of college-
educated residents. But recent immigrants and immigrants from Asia tend to have very high
levels of educational attainment. Almost half (47%) of foreign-born residents who came to the
state between 2007 and 2011-and 60% of those who came from Asia-had bachelor's degrees
or more.

,... Immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born residents to be employed but
make less money.
California's foreign-born residents are more likely to be in the civilian labor force than U.S.-born
residents: in 2011, 66% of immigrants were in the labor force, compared to 62% of the U.S-born.
They are also more likely to be employed (59% compared to 54%). However, the median income
for households with foreign-born householders in 2011 was 20.9% lower than that for
households with U.S-born householders ($48,851 compared to $61,752). And foreign-born
residents are more likely than the U.S.-born to live in poverty (18.9% compared to 15.7%).

Exhibit Page No.: 0127 of CES Response Declaration

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258 1/2
11/1&12016 California's Ukely Voters (PPIC Publication)

Just the FACTS

California's Likely Voters

~ Seven in ten are registered to vote; independent registration continues to
increase.
As of May 2016, 17.9 million of California's 24.8 million eligible adults were registered to vote,
which equates to a registration rate of 72.3%. This rate is identical to May 2012 and slightly
higher than the rate before the presidential primary in February 2008 (68.5%). However, the
share of eligible adults who are registered to vote is likely to increase as we have seen in the
lead-up to elections in 2012 (76.7% in October) and 2008 (74.6% in October), the last
presidential contest without an incumbent. The share of registered voters who are Democrats
(44.8%) is up from 2012 (43.7%), whi le the share of Republicans (27.3%) is down (from 29.4%). At
the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as "decline to
state" or "no party preference") has been increasing: it is now 23.3%, up from 20.9% in 2012.

~ Likely voters and unregistered adults lean Democratic and are ideologically
mixed.
Among likely voters in our surveys over the past year, 45% are Democrats, 31% are Republicans,
20% are independents, and 4% are registered with other parties. Of those we consider
infrequent voters, 41% are Democrats, 34% are independents, 21% are Republicans, and 5% are
registered with other parties. Among independent likely voters, 42% lean toward the Democratic
Party, compared to 32% who lean toward the Republican Party and 26% who volunteer that they
lean toward neither major party or are unsure. Among unregistered adults, 51% lean toward the
Democratic Party and 22% toward the Republican Party; 27% lean toward neither party or are
unsure. Ideologically, 35% of likely voters are politically liberal, 29% are moderate, and 36% are
conservative. Among infrequent voters 35% consider themselves liberal, 32% consider
themselves moderate, and 32% consider themselves conservative. Unregistered adults are also
ideologically mixed: 36% are conservative, 33% are liberal, and 31% are moderate.

~ Likely voters are disproportionately white.

Whites make up only 43% of California's adult population but 60% of the state's likely voters. In
contrast, Latinos comprise 34% of the adult population but just 18% of likely voters. Asian
Americans make up 15% of the population and 12% of likely voters, while 6% of both the
population and likely voters are African American. "Other race" and multiracial adults make up
3% of the population and 4% of likely voters. Four in ten (40%) infrequent voters are white, and
30% are Latino. Nearly six in ten unregistered adults are Latino (57%); fewer are white (22%),
Asian American (17%), or African American (2%).

~ Likely voters are older, more educated, more affluent; they are homeowners
and were born in the US.
Californians age 55 and older make up 31% of the state's adult population but constitute 47% of
likely voters. Young adults (18 to 34) make up 33% of the population but only 18% of likely voters,
while adults ages 35 to 54 are proportionally represented. Eight in ten likely voters either have
some college education (41%) or are college graduates (41%); 17% have no college education.
Forty-four percent of likely voters have annual household incomes of $80,000 or more, while
27% earn between $40,000 to under $80,000 and 29% earn $40,000 or less. The vast majority
of likely voters (69%) are homeowners, while three in 10 (31%) are renters. In contrast, 68% of
unregistered adults and 63% of infrequent voters are renters. Eighty-four percent of likely voters
were born in the US (16% are immigrants). Women (52%) and men (48%) make up similar shares
of the likely voters in California.

,.. The regional distribution of likely voters matches the state's adult
population.

Exhibit Page No.: 0128 of CES Response Declaration

trttp:/lwww.ppic.org/main/publication_shavv.asp?i=255 113
11118f2016 Califorria's Ukely Voters (PPIC Publication)
The share of likely voters in each region mirrors the region's share of the state's overall adult
population: Los Angeles County (27% of adults. 27% of likely voters), the San Francisco Bay Area
(20% of adults, 21% of likely voters), Orange/San Diego Counties (17% of adults. 18% of likely
voters), the Central Val ley (17% of adults, 17% of likely voters), and the Inland Empire (11% of
adults, 9% of likely voters). The largest shares of infrequent voters (29%) and unregistered adults
(25%) live in Los Angeles County.

California's likely voters

Registered voters Not rcg<stcrcd

Ukely voters Infrequent voters:
Democratic 45~ 41%
: Republican 31 21
Party registration
Independent 20 34
Other 4
------
5
---- -

Democratic ~arty 42 41 51%

Major party leanings
among independents Republican Party 32 25 22
Qnd those no1 registered
Neither/Don't koow 26 33 27
liberal 35 35 33
Political Ideology Moderate 29 32 31
Conservative
---+----
36
------10 -------
32 __
36
....,...._

2
______
Afrlean American 6
+
Asian American 12 15 17
Race/Ethnicity Latino 18 30 57
' White 60 40 22
-~~-- -----....-
Other/ Multiracial 4 4
Los Angeles County 27 29 25
San Frandsco Say Atea 21 18 20
- --- -- - -~

Orange/ San Diego 18 15 17

Region
Central Valley 17 18 18
Inland Empire 9 11 13
Other 9 9 8
Men 48 48 49
Gender
Women 52 52 51
" 18to34 18 46 43
Age 35to54 35 31 41
~--~~----.- ... - ---'---- . --~ - ---------- ------~-- - -
55 and older 47 23 16
No college 17 45 63
Education Some college 41 33 20
College graduate 41
-~--- - ...... ----
22
------
.... -----
17
+
Under $40,000 29 54 67
Income $40,000 to under $80,000 27 22 19

$80,000 or more 44 24 14
Own 69 37 32
Own/rent
Rent 31 63 68
US-born 84 78 35
Nativity L--- --~--------

Immigrant 16 22 65

SOURCES: Seven PPIC Statewid e Surveys from September 2015 to July 2016. including 7.306 likely voters . 2,368 infreq uent voters.
and 2.128 unregistered adults. California Secretary of State. Report of Regi stration. May 2016. US Census, 2010-14 American
Community Survey.
NOTE: "Likel y vote rs" are registered voters meeting criteria on interest in politics, attention to iss ue s. voting behavior, and intention
to vote ; "infrequent voters" are registered voters w ho do n ot meet thes e c riteria. For full description of th is criteria and regional
definitions, visit www.ppic.org/contenUother/SurveyMethodology.pdf. For race and ethnicity, results are presented for non-Hispanic
whites. non- Hi sp a nic As ians, non-Hi spa nic b la cks. and for non-Hispanic other race and multiracial adults.

Exhibit Page No.: 0129 of CES Response Declaration

http:flwww.ppic.orgtmainlplillication_soo.v.asp?i=255 213
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit H

Exhibit Page No.: 0130 of CES Response Declaration

11/17.'2016 Jerry Brown Signs Bill Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Vote

rept1rt lhis ad

~- BIG GOVERNMENT BIG JOURNALISM BIG HOLl VWOOO NATIONAL SECURITY T:;, VI00 SPORTS THE WIRES "'"';016 : THE RACE
:i5 BREITSARTLON!lON BRf!TBART JRllSAlUil BREIT BART TEXAS ,.Iii i Ii:f.lu ['/II II fll'f!IA ::1 Ul/1

JERRY BROWN SIGNS BILL THAT COULD LET

ILLEGAL ALIENS VOTE
~~EMAil g + sHm 331 ~ TWEET

.':- :~~J~F7~
~ ~ ... "'" , -

BREiTBi\R~ CONNECT
IJ rJ 1$1 C ttillttt!l .
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
email address SUBMIT
by WILLIA,\1 BIGELOW j 12 Oct 2 015 J ~~~~~~~

[>

On Saturday, California
Governor Jerry Brown signed SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Assembly Bi111461, the New cestrunck@yahoo.com SUBMIT
Motor Voter Act, which
will automatically register
people to vote through the DMV, and could result in illegal aliens
voting.
Any person who renewed or secured a driver's license through the DMV may now register
r<>porl !hi~ <td
to vote, or choose to opt out of doing so. Because illegal immigrants are now eligible for
obtaining driver's licenses, they could be allowed to vote in elections if the Secretary of
State's office fails to verify their eligibility properly.
BREITBART VIDEO PICKS
I'f'port this ad
Brown and the California Democratic party know exactly what they are doing; as a Public
Policy Institute survey showed, among unregistered adults, 49% lean toward the
Democratic Party and 22% toward the Republican Party. Any bill permitting illegal YOU MIGHT LIKE Sponsored Links
immigrants to vote would cement the Democratic Party's hold on California.

Exhibit Page No.: 0131 of CES Response Declaration

trtt.p:/lwww.breitbartcom/california/2015110/121gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/ 1/10
11/17/2016 Jerry Brown Signs Bill Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Vote

True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht stated, "This bill is terrible. It makes an
already bad situation much, much worse," adding that California's registration databases
''lack the necessary safeguards to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls."

Election Integrity Project of California President Linda Paine echoed that AB 1461 "will
effectively change the form of governance in California from a Republic whose elected
officials are determined by United States citizens and will guarantee that noncitizens will Are you a strategic thinker? Test your
participate in all California elections going forward." The Election Integrity Project of skills with millions of addicted players!
~\olmt(IJI Fro~ Online GamB
California had joined True the Vote to demand that brown veto the bill, calling it a path to
'"state sanctioned' voter fraud."

Although noncitizens' driver's licenses in California feature the phrases "Federal Limits
Apply" and "not valid for official federal purposes," True the Vote spokesman Logan
Churchwell pointed out that state officials "specifically chose not to make noncitizen
license holders searchable in their DMV database." I
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla countered that the increase in voters will benefit Meal Kit Skeptic? I Was Until I
...
Tried Plated
the state, arguing, ''The New Motor Voter Act will make our democracy stronger by
Food & \Y'iue for Plated
removing a key barrier to voting for millions of California citizens. Citizens should not be
required to opt in to their fundamental right to vote. We do not have to opt in to other
rights, such as free speech or due process."

California follows Oregon, where Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill in March
allowing the automatic registration of all eligible Oregonians to vote when they obtain or
renew a driver's license or state identification card.

35 Super-Stars Who Support Donald J.

But Stephen Frank of California Political Review bluntly asserted that the bill will reduce
Trump. (Including a Surprise from New
voter turnout because voters will sniff fraud in the polls: "AB 1461 assures corruption of York)
our elections-our elections will look like those of Mexico and other corrupt nations-and
honest people will stop voting since illegal aliens will out vote them."

READ MORE STORIES ABOUT:

Breitbart California, Immigration, A...<:SCmbly Bill1461, O:tlifornia, Illegal Immigr-..mts, .Jerry
I3ro\\TI, The New Motor Voter Act, Vote

Yi'TWEET f SHARE Top 10 Most-Anticipated Superyachts

Coming to the 2016 Monaco Yacht Show
Robb R<>rorl
report thjs ad

We Recommend Sponsored Links by Taboola [i> by Taboola f>

report this tld
American Giant Just Created The First Real Leggings Designed To Replace Your Jeans

Victoria Principal Was Stunning In The 70s... But What She Looks Like Now Is Jaw
Dropping
DailyDLSdosun:

Hybrid Cloud raises a lot of questions. Do you know them?

SQL Server 2016: Calculate Your Cost Today

.n~port this nd
:tdvt-rl15t"ment

Susan Dey Was Stunning in the 70s.. But What She Looks Like Today is Incredible

Exhibit Page No.: 0132 of CES Response Declaration

http:/lwww.breitbart.com/california/201511CV12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/ 2/10
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit 1-1

Exhibit Page No.: 0133 of CES Response Declaration

 Office of Civic Engagement &
Immigrant Affairs

Sanctuary City Ordinance

Sanctuary Ordinance

What is the Sanctuary Ordinance?

In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known
as the Sanctuary Ordinance). The Sanctuary Ordinance generally prohibits City
employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such
assistance is required by federal or state law.

In 201 3, San Francisco passed the "Due Process for All" Ordinance. This ordinance
limits when City law enforcement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person's
release from local jail. It also prohibits cooperation with ICE detainer requests,
sometimes referred to as "ICE holds."

These ordinances were last amended in July 201 6.

[Sanctuary Ordinance: SF Admin Code Chapter 12H and 121 - English]

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What does it mean that San Francisco is a Sanctuary City?

In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known
as the Sanctuary Ordinance). The Sanctuary Ordinance generally prohibits City
employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such
assistance is required by federal or state law.

In 2013, San Francisco passed the "Due Process for All" Ordinance. This ordinance

Exhibit Page No.: 0134 of CES Response Declaration

limits when City law enforcement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person's
release from local jail. It also prohibits cooperation with ICE detainer requests,
sometimes referred to as "ICE holds."

These ordinances were last amended in July 2016. Under current law, City employees
may not use City resources to:

a. Assist or cooperate with any ICE investigation, detention, or arrest relating to

alleged violations of the civil provisions of federal immigration law.
b. Ask about immigration status on any application for City benefits, services, or
opportunities, except as required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court
decision.
c. Limit City services or benefits based on immigration status, unless required by
federal or state statute or regulation, public assistance criteria, or court decision.
d. Provide information about the release status or personal information of any
individual, except in limited circumstances when Jaw enforcement may respond to
ICE requests for notification about when an individual will be released from
custody.
e. Detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer after that
individual becomes eligible for release from custody.

2. Why did San Francisco adopt the Sanctuary Ordinance?

The Sanctuary Ordinance promotes public trust and cooperation. It helps keep our
communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status,
feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and
cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations. It helps keep our
communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration
status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs.
(Please note: Federally funded programs may have different rules, record-keeping,
and reporting requirements.)

3. Is San Francisco the only Sanctuary City in the country?

No. In fact, San Francisco is just one of hundreds of cities across the U.S. with
sanctuary policies or related law enforcement orders. California and certain other
states also have related laws or policies.

Exhibit Page No.: 0135 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit I-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0136 of CES Response Declaration

11/3QI2016 Bill Text- AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

. ..-.,
.
~ ,e O'l'tn e.rL-.
/ LEGISLATIVE INFORMAT ION

AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program. (2015-2016)

Assembly Bill No. 1461

CHAPTER 729

An act to amend Sections 2100 and 2102 of, and to add Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 2260)
to Division 2 of the Elections Code, relating to elections.

[Approved by Governor October 10, 2015. Filed with Secretary of State

October 10, 2015. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1461, Gonzalez. Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

Existing law, the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993, requires a state to, among other things,
establish procedures to register a person to vote by application made simultaneously with an application for a
new or renewal of a motor vehicle driver's license. The federal act requires the motor vehicle driver's license
application to serve as an application for voter registration with respect to an election for federal office, unless
the applicant fails to sign the application, and requires the application to be considered as updating the
applicant's previous voter registration, if any. The federal act defines "motor vehicle driver's license" to include
any personal identification document issued by a state motor vehicle authority.

Under existing state law, a person may not be registered to vote except by affidavit of registration. Existing
law requires a properly executed affidavit of registration to be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by
the county elections official if the affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles on or before the
15th day before the election. Existing state law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Secretary of
State to develop a process and the infrastructure to allow a person who is qualified to register to vote in the
state to register to vote online.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue driver's licenses and state identification cards
to applicants who meet specified criteria and provide the department with the required information. Existing
law generally requires an applicant for an original driver's license or state identification card to submit
satisfactory proof to the department that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under
federal law.

This bill would require the Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish the California
New Motor Voter Program for the purpose of increasing opportunities for voter registration by any person who
is qualified to be a voter. Under the program, after the Secretary of State certifies that certain enumerated
conditions are satisfied, the Department of Motor Vehicles would be required to electronically provide to the
Secretary of State the records of each person who is issued an original or renewal of a driver's license or state
identification card or who provides the department with a change of address, as specified. The person's motor
vehicle records would then constitute a completed affidavit of registration and the person would be registered
to vote, unless the person affirmatively declined to be registered to vote during a transaction with the
department, the department did not represent to the Secretary of State that the person attested that he or she
meets all voter eligibility requirements, as specified, or the Secretary of State determines that the person is
ineligible to vote. The bill would require the Secretary of State to adopt regulations to implement this program,

Exhibit Page No.: 0137 of CES Response Declaration

https:/lleginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faceslbiiiNavCiient.xhtml?biii.Jd=201520160AB1461 1/7
1113012016 Bill Text- AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program .
as specified.

Under existing law, the willful, unauthorized disclosure of information from a Department of Motor Vehicles
record to any person, or the use of any false representation to obtain information from a department record or
any use of information obtained from any department record for a purpose other than the one stated in the
request or the sale or other distribution of the information to a person or organization for purposes not
disclosed in the request is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in
the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment.

This bill would provide that disclosure of information contained in the records obtained from the Department of
Motor Vehicles pursuant to the California New Motor Voter Program is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not
exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment.
By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, authorizes every state agency to maintain in its records
only personal information that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency, or is required
or authorized by state or federal law. That act specifies the situations in which disclosure is permissible and
also specifies the manner in which agencies must account for disclosures of personal information, including
those due to security breaches, among other provisions.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to establish procedures to safeguard the confidentiality of
information acquired from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to the California New Motor Voter
Program and would state that the provisions of the Information Practices Act of 1977 govern disclosures
pursuant to the program.

Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other
person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration.
Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.

This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the
California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above,
that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault
of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote
by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective
date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is
not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote
knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.

This bill would also make conforming changes.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 2102 of the Elections Code, proposed by SB 589, that
would become operative only if SB 589 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before
January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: -~ajority _ A_ppr.o_priation_~ no F~scai_Committe~ Y.~~ _ Loc_ai P~ogram: yes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 2100 of the Elections Code is amended to read:

2100. A person shall not be registered except as provided in this chapter or Chapter 4.5, except upon the
production and filing of a certified copy of a judgment of the superior court directing registration to be made.

SEC. 2. Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014,
is amended to read:

2102. (a) Except as provided in Chapter 4.5, a person shall not be registered as a voter except by affidavit of

Exhibit Page No.: 0138 of CES Response Declaration

https:/lleginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faceslbiiiNavCiient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 217
11/3012016 Bill Text- AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

registration. The affidavit shall be mailed or delivered to the county elections official and shall set forth all of
the facts required to be shown by this chapter. A properly executed registration shall be deemed effective upon
receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if received on or before the 15th day prior to an election
to be held in the registrant's precinct. A properly executed registration shall also be deemed effective upon
receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if any of the following apply:

(1) The affidavit is postmarked on or before the 15th day prior to the election and received by mail by the
county elections official.

(2) The affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles or accepted by any other public agency
designated as a voter registration agency pursuant to the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52
U.S.C. 20501 et seq.) on or before the 15th day prior to the election.

(3) The affidavit is delivered to the county elections official by means other than those described in paragraph
( 1) and (2) on or before the 15th day prior to the election.

(4) The affidavit is submitted electronically on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to
Section 2196 on or before the 15th day prior to the election.

(b) For purposes of verifying a signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition or a signature on a
nomination paper or any other election petition or election paper, a properly executed affidavit of registration
shall be deemed effective for verification purposes if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

( 1) The affidavit is signed on the same date or a date prior to the signing of the petition or paper.

(2) The affidavit is received by the county elections official on or before the date on which the petition or paper
is filed.

(c) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the affidavit of registration required under this chapter shall
not be taken under sworn oath, but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as to its truthfulness and
correctness, under penalty of perjury, by the signature of the affiant.

(d) A person who is at least 16 years of age and otherwise meets all eligibility requirements to vote may
submit his or her affidavit of registration as prescribed by this section . A properly executed registration made
pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed effective as of the date the affiant will be 18 years of age, if the
information in the affidavit of registration is still current at that time. If the information provided by the affiant
in the affidavit of registration is not current at the time that the registration would otherwise become effective,
for his or her registration to become effective, the affiant shall provide the current information to the proper
county elections official as prescribed by this chapter.

SEC. 2.5. Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of
2014, is amended to read:

2102. (a) Except as provided in Chapter 4.5, a person shall not be registered as a voter except by affidavit of
registration. The affidavit of registration shall be mailed or delivered to the county elections official and shall
set forth all of the facts required to be shown by this chapter. A properly executed affidavit of registration shall
be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if received on or before the
15th day before an election to be held in the registrant's precinct. A properly executed affidavit of registration
shall also be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if any of the
following apply:

( 1) The affidavit is postmarked on or before the 15th day before the election and received by mail by the
county elections offici a I.

(2) The affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles or accepted by any other public agency
designated as a voter registration agency pursuant to the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52
U.S.C. Sec. 20501 et seq.) on or before the 15th day before the election.

(3) The affidavit is delivered to the county elections official by means other than those described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) on or before the 15th day before the election.

(4) The affidavit is submitted electronically on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to
Section 2196 on or before the 15th day before the election.

Exhibit Page No.: 0139 of CES Response Declaration

https:/lleginfo.legislature.ca .gov/faceslbiiiNavCiientxhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 317
11130/2016 Bill Text- AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.
(b) For purposes of verifying a signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition or a signature on a
nomination paper or any other election petition or election paper, a properly executed affidavit of registration
shall be deemed effective for verification purposes if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

( 1) The affidavit is signed on the same date or a date before the signing of the petition or paper.

(2) The affidavit is received by the county elections official on or before the date on which the petition or paper
is filed.

(c) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the affidavit of registration required under this chapter shall
not be taken under sworn oath, but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as to its truthfulness and
correctness, under penalty of perjury, by the signature of the affiant.

(d) A person who is at least 16 years of age and otherwise meets all eligibility requirements to vote may
submit his or her affidavit of registration as prescribed by this section. A properly executed affidavit of
registration made pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed effective as of the date the affiant will be 18
years of age, if the information in the affidavit of registration is still current at that time. If the information
provided by the affiant in the affidavit of registration is not current at the time that the affidavit of registration
would otherwise become effective, for his or her registration to become effective, the affiant shall provide the
current information to the proper county elections official as prescribed by this chapter.

(e) An individual with a disability who is otherwise qualified to vote may complete an affidavit of registration
with reasonable accommodations as needed.

(f) An individual with a disability who is under a conservatorship may be registered to vote if he or she has not
been disqualified from voting.

SEC. 3. Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 2260) is added to Division 2 of the Elections Code, to read:

CHAPTER 4.5. California New Motor Voter Program

2260. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the California New Motor Voter Program.

2261. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Voter registration is one of the biggest barriers to participation in our democracy.

(b) In 1993, congress enacted the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 u.s.c. Sec. 20501 et
seq.), commonly known as the "Motor Voter Law," with findings recognizing that the right of citizens to vote is
a fundamental right; it is the duty of federal, state, and local governments to promote the exercise of the right
to vote; and the primary purpose of the act is to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote.

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact the California New Motor Voter Program to provide California
citizens additional opportunities to participate in democracy through exercise of their fundamental right to
vote.

2262. (a) The Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles shall establish the California New Motor
Voter Program for the purpose of increasing opportunities for voter registration by any person who is qualified
to be a voter under Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution.

(b) This chapter shall not be construed as requiring the Department of Motor Vehicles to determine eligibility
for voter registration and voting. The Secretary of State is solely responsible for determining eligibility for voter
registration and voting.

2263. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall establish a
schedule and method for the department to electronically provide to the Secretary of State the records
specified in this section .

(b) (1) The department shall provide to the secretary of State, in a manner and method to be determined by
the department in consultation with the Secretary of State, the following information associated with each
person who submits an application for a driver's license or identification card pursuant to Section 12800, 12815,
or 13000 of the Vehicle Code, or who notifies the department of a change of address pursuant to Section 14600
of the Vehicle Code:

Exhibit Page No.: 0140 of CES Response Declaration

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/facesJbiiiNavCiient.xhtml?bill_id=201520100AB1461 417
11/3QI2016 Bill Text- AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

(A) Name.

(B) Date of birth.

(C) Either or both of the following, as contained in the department's records:

(i) Residence address.

(ii) Mailing address.

(D) Digitized signature, as described in Section 12950.5 of the Vehicle Code.

(E) Telephone number, if available.

(F) Email address, if available.

(G) Language preference.

(H) Political party preference.

(I) Whethe r the person chooses to become a permanent vote by mail voter.

(J) Whether the person affirmatively declined to become registered to vote during a transaction with the
department.

(K) A notation that the applicant has attested that he or she meets all voter eligibility requirements, including
United States citizenship, specified in Section 2101.

(L) Other information specified in regulations implementing this chapter.

(2) (A) The department may provide the records described in paragraph (1) to the Secretary of State before
the Secretary of State certifies that all of the conditions set forth in subdivision (e) of this section have been
satisfied. Records provided pursuant to this paragraph shall only be used for the purposes of outreach and
education to eligible voters conducted by the Secretary of State.

(B) The Secretary shall provide materials created for purposes of outreach and education as described in this
paragraph in languages other than English, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec.
10503).

(c) The Secretary of State shall not sell, transfer or allow any third party access to the information acquired
from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to this chapter without approval of the department, except as
permitted by this chapter and Section 2194.

(d) The department shall not electronically provide records of a person who applies for or is issued a driver's
license pursuant to Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code because he or she is unable to submit satisfactory
proof that his or her presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.

(e) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall commence implementation of this section no later than one year
after the Secretary of State certifies all of the following:

( 1) The State has a statewide voter registration database that complies with the requirements of the federal
Help America vote Act of 2002 (52 u.s.c. Section 20901 et seq.).

(2) The Legislature has appropriated the funds necessary for the Secretary of State and the Department of
Motor Vehicles to implement and maintain the California New Motor Voter Program.

(3) The regulations required by Section 2270 have been adopted.

(f) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall not electronically provide records pursuant to this section that
contain a home address designated as confidential pursuant to Section 1808.2, 1808.4, or 1808.6 of the Vehicle
Code.

2264. (a) The willful, unauthorized disclosure of information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles
pursuant to Section 2263 to any person, or the use of any false representation to obtain any of that information
or the use of any of that information for a purpose other than as stated in Section 2263, is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) or imprisonment in the county jail not

Exhibit Page No.: 0141 of CES Response Declaration

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faceslbiiiNavCiient.xhtml?billjd=201520160AB1461 517
11130/2016 Bill Text- AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.
exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment.

(b) The Secretary of State shall establish procedures to protect the confidentiality of the information acquired
from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Section 2263. The disclosure of this information shall be
governed by the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1798) of Title 1.8 of
Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code), and the Secretary of State shall account for any disclosures, including
those due to security breaches, in accordance with that act.

2265. (a) The records of a person designated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2263 shall
constitute a completed affidavit of registration and the Secretary of State shall register the person to vote,
unless any of the following conditions is satisfied:

( 1) The person's records, as described in Section 2263, reflect that he or she affirmatively declined to become
registered to vote during a transaction with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

(2) The person's records, as described in Section 2263, do not reflect that he or she has attested to meeting all
voter eligibility requirements specified in Section 2101.

(3) The Secretary of State determines that the person is ineligible to vote.

(b) (1) If a person who is registered to vote pursuant to this chapter does not provide a party preference, his
or her party preference shall be designated as "Unknown" and he or she shall be treated as a "No Party
Preference" voter.

(2) A person whose party preference is designated as "Unknown" pursuant to this subdivision shall not be
counted for purposes of determining the total number of voters registered on the specified day preceding an
election, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 5100 and subdivision (c) of Section 5151.

2266. A person registered to vote under this chapter may cancel his or her voter registration at any time by any
method available to any other registered voter.

2267. This chapter does not affect the confidentiality of a person's voter registration information, which remains
confidential pursuant to Section 2194 of this code and Section 6254.4 of the Government Code and for all of the
following persons:
I
(a) A victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking pursuant to Section 2166.5.

(b) A reproductive health care service provider, employee, volunteer, or patient pursuant to Section 2166.5.

(c) A public safety officer pursuant to Section 2166.7.

(d) A person with a life-threatening circumstance upon court order pursuant to Section 2166.

2268. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of
a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected
with official authorization and not the fault of that person.

2269. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or
attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, that person shall be
presumed to have acted with official authorization and shall not be guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting
to vote pursuant to Section 18560, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or
she is not entitled to vote.

2270. The Secretary of State shall adopt regulations to implement this chapter, including regulations addressing
both of the following:

(a) A process for canceling the registration of a person who is ineligible to vote, but became registered under
the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of any violation by that person of Section 18100.

(b) An education and outreach campaign informing voters about the California New Motor Voter Program that
the Secretary of State will conduct to implement this chapter. The Secretary may use any public and private
funds available for this and shall provide materials created for this outreach and education campaign in

Exhibit Page No.: 0142 of CES Response Declaration

https:/!leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faceslbiiiNavCiient.xhlml?bill_id=2015201&JAB1461 617
1113012016 Bill Text- AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

languages other than English, as required by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10503).

SEC. 4. Section 2.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by
Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014, proposed by both this bill and Senate Bill 589. It shall only
become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, (2) each bill
amends Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of 2014,
and (3) this bill is enacted after Senate Bill 589, in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred
because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for
a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of
a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Exhibit Page No.: 0143 of CES Response Declaration

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faceslbiiiNavCiient.xhtml?bill_id=201520100AB1461 717
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit 1-3

Exhibit Page No.: 0144 of CES Response Declaration

 0\ ~~.
\~ ~~TIVE INFORMATION
P Quick!
IBill Number
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites i

Bill Information >>

Bill Search >>
Text
PDF I Add To My Favorites I Track Bill I Version:! 03129/17- Art

SB-54 Law enforcement: sharing data. (2017-2018)

Text Today's Law As Amended 0 Comments

SHARE THIS: IJ t: Date Published: 03/30/2017 04:00

AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 29, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 06, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 01, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 24, 2017

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE- 2017-2018 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL

Introduced by Senator De Leon

(Principal coauthors: Senators Atkins, Beall, Pan, and Wiener)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Chiu, Cooper, Gomez, Levine,
and Santiago )

December 05, 2016

An act to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of th
Code, to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Sections 3058.1
to the Pen a I Code, relating to laW'-f'lfe>FB:!ffleflb-i3-fH3-Eifetaf'ffiEt-a=te--t::tREtel'*"f-"tf=teJ=eef..-1EEHI
immediately. enforcement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 54, as amended, De Leon. Law enforcement: sharing data.

Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a viola
controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agenc
appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.

This bill would repeal those provisions.

Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime,
can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing
state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or susped
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -------___]

Exhibit Page No.: 0145 of CES Response Declaration

- ----
violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities.

This bill would, among other tl1iA~s, things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local
agencies, including school police and security departments, from using resources to investig
detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified. The bill woul
3 months after the effective date of the bill, the Attorney General, in consultation with
stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to t
possible for use by those entities for those purposes. The bill would require all public schools,
health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses t
model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that all other organizations and enti
services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, includi
of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require a law enforce
chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, to submit a report every
Department of Justice, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General, within 14 ~
effective date of the bill, and twice a year thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint
task forces, and other information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney Gener
site. The bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings or the Department of Corrections and
applicable, to notify the Federal Bureau ef IA'resti~atieA United States Immigration and Custom
the scheduled release on parole or postrelease community supervision, or rerelease follow j
confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment, of all persons confined
serving a current term for the conviction of a violent

has a prier cenvictien fer a vielent feleny, as specified. or serious felony, or who has a prior convi
or serious felony.

This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions.

By imposing additional duties on public schools, this bill would impose a state-mandated local prog

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contain
by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions not

This bill weulfl fleclare that it is te take effect iFAFAefliatel; as an urency statute.

Vote: twe_thirasmajority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

1HE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of
Code, to read:

CHAPTER 17.25. Cooperation with Federal Immigration Authorities

7284. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Values Act.

7284.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in t
is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent.

(b) A relationship of trust between California's immigrant community and state and local agencies
public safety of the people of California.

(c) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigrati
with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are
witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of publi
well-being of all Californians .

(d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs divert
resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.

(e) State and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs also raises constit
including .the prospect that California .I.~Si~~ll~. could be detained in violation .2! the_fourth A

Exhibit Page No.: 0146 of CES Response Declaration

United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Pratt
denied access to education based on immigration status.

(f) This act seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutio1
people of California, and to direct the state's limited resources to matters of greatest concern tc
governments.

7284.4. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) "California law enforcement agency" means a state or local law enforcement agency, including
security departments.

(b) "Civil immigration warrant" means any warrant for a violation of federal civil immigration law, <
immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information Center database.

(c) "Federal immigration authority" means any officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or ac
of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Pr
division thereof, or any other officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an age
States Department of Homeland Security who is charged with immigration enforcement.

{d) "Health facility" includes health facilities as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety
defined in Sections 1200 and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and substance abuse treatmer

(e) "Hold request," "notification request," "transfer request," and "local law enforcement agency'
meaning as provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests i
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as \
federal immigration authorities.

(f) "Immigration enforcement" includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the
enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investi~
assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that pena
presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States, iAcludiAg, but Rot liA'lited
SeetioA 1253, 1324e, 1325, Of 1326 of Title 8 of tl'te UAited States Cede. States. "Immigration en
not include either of the following:

(1) Efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of a violation of Se

Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 132t
of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity.

(2) Transferring an individual to federal immigration authorities for a violation of Section 1326(a)
United States Code that is subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of that title
has been previously convicted of a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Pe

(g) "Joint law enforcement task force" means a California law enforcement agency collaboratir
partnering with a federal law enforcement agency in investigating, interrogating, detaining, detect
persons for violations of federal or state crimes.

(h) "Judicial warrant" means a warrant based on probable cause and issued by a federal juc
magistrate judge that authorizes federal immigration authorities to take into custody the person w
of the warrant.

(i) "Public schools" means all public elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of
boards or a charter school board, the California State University, and the California Community Col

(j) "School police and security departments" includes police and security departments of the
University, the California Community Colleges, charter schools, county offices of education, sch
districts.

7284.s. (a) California law enforcement agencies shall not do any of the following:
(1) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investig
detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including, but not limite
following:

(A) Inquiring into Of eelleetiAg iAferFAatieA about an individual's immigration status, exee19t as fe<
witl'l SeetioA 922(el)(5) of Title 18 of tl'te UAiteel States Coele. status.

(6) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.

Exhibit Page No.: 0147 of CES Response Declaration

(C) Responding to requests for notification eF tFaAsfeF Fequests. by providing release dates oro
unless that information is available to the public.

(D) Providing information regarding a person's release date unless that information is available tot

(E) Providing eF FeSJ9eAdiA~ te FeJuests ffiF A6Af3Ublicl; available personal information abou
including, but not limited to, iAffirFAatiaA abaut the f3erseA's Felease date, heFAe addFess, the ir
address or work address ffir iFAFAi~FatieA eRffiFceFAeAt f3UFJ9eses. unless that information is availabil

(F) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants.

(G) Giving fe.deral immigration authorities access to interview iAdividuals an individual in agenc~
custedy l'eF iFAFAigFatieA eAffiFeeFAeAt f3UFJ9eses. custody, except pursuant to a judicial warrant, ar
with Section 7283.1.

(H) Assisting federal immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) <
United States Code.

(I) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Titlt
States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.

(2) Make agency or department databases, including databases maintained for the agency or
private vendors, or the information therein other than information regarding an individual'
immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement.
in existence on the date that this chapter becomes operative that conflict with the terms of thi
terminated on that date. A person or entity provided access to agency or department database
writing that the database will not be used for the purposes prohibited by this section.

(3) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers dep1
federal officers or special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers remain subject
governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.

(4) Use federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating I
agency or department custody.

(5) Transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial v

violation of Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that is subject to the enhancer.
Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and the individual has been previous/]
violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.

(b) NethiAg Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a), nothing in this section shall preve1
law enforcement agency from doing any of the following:

(1) Responding to a request from federal immigration authorities for information about a specific 1
history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, and similar criminal history information a
the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted b

(2) Participating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long as the primary purpose of the joint
task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.
participation in the task force by the California law enforcement does not violate any local law
jurisdiction in which the agency is operating.

(3) Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as<
or trafficking victim for a Tor U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Titfl
States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(4) Responding to a notification request from federal immigration authorities for a person who is SE
the conviction of a misdemeanor or felony offense and has a current or prior conviction for a violer
subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code or a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of 5
the Penal Code, provided that response would not violate any local law or policy.

Exhibit Page No.: 0148 of CES Response Declaration

(c) If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement ta:
submit a report every six months to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney Gener
a~eAey er the Attemey GeAeral ffiay deterffiiAe a ref}ert, iA whale er iA 13art, is Ret a f3UBiie reeerc
the CaliferAia Public Records Act pursuaAt to subdivisieA (f) of SeetieA 6254 te preveAt the disde
iAferffiatieA, iAcludiA~, but Ret liFAited te, aA eAgeiA~ eperatieA er a cenfideAtial iAferffiaAt. The n
for each task force operation, the purpose of the task force, the federal, state, and focal law enfon
involved, the number of California law enforcement agency personnel involved, a description of'
any federal and state crimes, and a description of the number of people arrested for immigrat
purposes. The reporting agency or the Attorney General may determine a report, in whole or in (:.
subject to disclosure pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 6254, the California Public Records Ac
that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person
investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investig.

(d) The Attorney General, within 14 months after the effective date of the act that added this sec1
year thereafter, shall report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces.
include, for the reporting period, assessments on compliance with paragraph (2) of subdivision
California law enforcement agencies that participate in joint law enforcement task forces, a
enforcement task forces operating in the state and their purposes, the number of arrests made
joint law enforcement task forces for the violation of federal or state crimes, and the number
associated with joint law enforcement task forces for the purpose of immigration enforcement I
participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. The Attorney General shall post the rep
this subdivision on the Attorney General's Internet Web site.

(e) Notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall a California law enforcement agency transfer
federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement or detain an individual c
federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement absent a judicial 'NarraAt.
as provided in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b). This subdivision does not limit the scope of subdivi:

(f) This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, ot
federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawfL
an individual pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.

7284.8. The Attorney General, within three months after the effective date of the act that added
consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies limiting assistance ~
enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools,
health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, D
Standards Enforcement facilities, and shelters, and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible
residents, regardless of immigration status. All public schools, health facilities operated by the st
subdivision of the state, and courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent
organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellne~
access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy.

The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is I"
7284.10.
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the inv
application.

SEC. 2. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.

SEC. 3. Section 3058.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

(a) The Board of Parole Hearings, with respect to inmates sentenced pursuant to subdivisic
3058.10.
1168, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with respect to inmates sentenced pur
1170, shall notify tl'le Federal Bureau ef IRvesti!';)atieA United States Immigration and Customs Em
scheduled release on parole or postrelease community supervision, or rerelease following a perioc
pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment, of all persons confined to state 1
current term for the conviction-at of, or who have a prior conviction for, a violent felony listed in s
Section~ 667.5 or a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

(b) The notification shall be made at least 60 days prior to the scheduled release date or as soon
notification cannot be provided at least 60 days prior to release. The only nonpublicly av
information that the notification may include is the name of the person who is scheduled to be r
scheduled date of release.

SEC. 4.Seetien 3058.11 is added to ti'le PeAal Cede, to read:

3058.11.(a)WheAever aA'f J3eF9eA C6AfiAed te COUAty jail iS serviA!} a terffi fer ti'le CeA'vieti6A Of
effense and has a J'Fier eeA'o'ietieA fer a vielent feleA)' listed iA sui:JdivisieA (c) of SectieA 667.5 er 1'1
eeAvietieA iA aAether jurisdictieA fer aA effeAse that has all the eleffieAts ef a vieleAt feleAy describ

Exhibit Page No.: 0149 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0150 of CES Response Declaration
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit 1-4

Exhibit Page No.: 0151 of CES Response Declaration

Calif. To Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary
January 30 , 2017 11:18 PM

Filed Under: Immigration, Sanctuary , trump

LISTEN LIVE

Fans were Outraged when her secret

was finally revealed! >READ THE STORY
lloltywoodmrsplnt.com

FOLLOW US ON
D SACRAMENTO (CBSLA.com/AP) -California may prohibit local law
enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities,
rJ creating a border~to~border sanctuary in the nation's largest state as

a
-
legislative Democrats ramp up their efforts to battle President Donald
Trump's migration policies. Bi Sign Up for Newsletters

The legislation is scheduled for its first public hearing Tuesday as the
Senate rushes to enact measures that Democratic lawmakers say would
protectl!l' immigrants from the crackdown that the Republican president
has promised.

POPULAR
AP: Trump'~; Voter-Fraud
Expert Registered In 3 States

Exhibit Page No.: 0152 of CES Response Declaration

 Here's A look At The Reported
Top Contenders For The
Supreme Court

Iranian Couple Released After

22 Hours In Custody At LAX

LIKE THIS
As Anxious Relatives Wait At
A irports, And Travelers Are
Detained, Trump ...

Travel Ban Protests Continue

At lAX

While many of California's largest cities - including Los Angeles, San Mayor Garcetti: 'LA Will Always
Francisco and Sacramento- have so-called sanctuary policies that Be A Place Of Refuge'

prohibit police from cooperating with immigration authorities, much of the

state does not. FOR YOU
Underground Spring Perpetually
RELATED- Mayor Garcetti : 'LA Will Always Be A Place Of Refuge' Flooding Agoura Hills Home

The Democratic legislation, written by Senate President Pro Tern Kevin Landslide Leaves Hollywood
de Leon of Los Angeles, comes up for debate less than a week after Hills Neighborhood In The Dark

Trump signed an order threatening to withdraw some federal grants from

jurisdictions that bar officials from communicating with federal authorities Tenants At Riverside
about someone's immigration status. Apartment Complex Take Down
Suspected Serial Car Bu...

The Senate Public Safety Committee considers SB54 Tuesday morning.

The Judiciary Committee will also consider fast-tracked legislation that
would spend state money, in an amount that has not been disclosed, to
provide lawyers for people facing deportation.

Some Republicans have criticized the Democratic reaction to Trump's

policies, saying bombastic rhetoric and provocative legislation will inflame
tensions with the president and harm California.

The debate over sanctuary cities reached a fevered pitch in 2015 after
Kate Steinle, 32, was fatally shot in the back Juan Francisco Lopez-
Sanchez, who was in the country illegally after multiple deportations to his
native Mexico. Lopez-Sanchez, who told police the gun fired by accident,

Exhibit Page No.: 0153 of CES Response Declaration

 had been released from a San Francisco jail despite a request from
federal immigration authorities that he be held in custody for possible
deportation. Trump often cited the Steinle case during the campaign.

Many other cities and counties in California also refuse to detain

immigrants for deportation agents out of legal concerns after a federal
court ruled that immigrants can't be held in jail beyond their scheduled
release dates. Since then, federal agents have been asking local law
enforcement agencies to provide information about immigrants they're
seeking for

(TMand

redistributed.

~Comments

SPONSORED CONTENT

Add Some Coffee to Your Ribs

Live life on the edge and try out these mustard and coffee-crusted pork ribs.
Promoted byConnatix

You May Like Sponsored Links by Taboola (t>

Federal 'Mortgage Refund' Just Went Into Effect

HarpConnect.com

The IRS Announces 2017 Standard Mileage Rates

Turbo Tax

Man Trapped In His Own Body For 12 Years Wakes Up, Reveals Heartbreaking
Secret
Answers

I Tried Blue Apron and Here's What Happened

Blue Apron

Republican Clint Eastwood Revealed Who He Voted For, And Fans Are Taken

Exhibit Page No.: 0154 of CES Response Declaration

Aback
Majorten

Rock Legend Sells 2,000-Sq-Ft LA Beach Home

Bank rate

Why Flight Attendants Keep Their Arms Behind Their Backs When Greeting
Passengers
Answers

$14.95 Oil Change Special in New York- Fast & Efficent Oil Changes
Finds Oil Change Coupons

More From CBS Los Angeles

Exhibit Page No.: 0155 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit J-1
Exhibit Page No.: 0156 of CES Response Declaration
 guardian
Non-citizens in NewYorl< City could soon be
given the right to vote
New York City council is currently drafting legislation that would allow all legal residents, regardless of US
citizenship, the right to vote in city elections

Kanishk Tharoor
Thursday 2 April2015 14.45 EDT

New York City is routinely described as a "global hub", a place so thoroughly penetrated by
international capital and migration that it seems at once within and without the United States. It
is the centre of American commerce and media, but its politics, demographics and worldly
outlook make the Big Apple an outlier.

New York may be about to become even more distinct. The left-leaning New York City council is
currently drafting legislation that would allow all legal residents, regardless of citizenship, the
right to vote in city elections. If the measure passes into law, it would mark a major victory for a
voting rights campaign that seeks to enfranchise non-citizen voters in local elections across the
country. A few towns already permit non-citizen residents to vote locally, but New York City
would be by far the largest jurisdiction to do so.

Under the likely terms of the legislation, legally documented residents who have lived in New
York City for at least six months will be able to vote in municipal elections. Reports suggest that
the city council is discussing the legislation with Mayor Bill de Blasia's office, and that a bill might
be introduced as soon as this spring.
While the legislation stands a good chance of sailing through the council and even winning the
approval of the mayor, the prospect of New York City enfranchising its residents has stoked
controversy. Many Americans find the idea of non-citizen voting entirely unpalatable and fear
that it undermines the sanctity and privilege of citizenship.
Advocates for non-citizen voting in New York City argue that it would right a glaring wrong.
Invoking the ancient American battle cry of "no taxation without representation", they point to
the enormous numbers of non -citizen residents who pay taxes, send their children to public
schools, are active members of their communities, but have no say in local elections.
"People are New Yorkers in profound ways without being citizens of the us:' said Ronald Hayduk,
a professor of political science at Queens College and a member of the Coalition to Expand Voting
Rights. Non-citizen residents contribute $18.2bn to New York state in income taxes every year.
According to a 2013 Fiscal Policy Institute study, 1.3 million people in New York City over the age
of 18 are non-citizens (a ful121% of the voting age population). Adjusting the figure to account for
undocumented migrants, the study claims that about one million more New Yorkers would be
eligible to vote were the bill passed.

Exhibit Page No.: 0157 of CES Response Declaration

In the immigrant-heavy borough of Queens, non-citizens make up as much as half of the
population in areas like Jackson Heights, Elmhurst and Corona. In parts of Brooklyn and the
Bronx, they make up well over a third of certain districts. "It's very different in New York than in
middle America;' said Jerry Vattamala, a staff attorney at the Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund.
Supporters of the legislation claim that politicians can overlook the needs of entire communities
if non-citizens don't have voting rights. According to Vattamala, council redistricting has
deliberately carved up many immigrant neighborhoods, portioning their non-citizen residents to
several districts.
"Elected officials salivate at the prospect of districts with people they don't have to respond to;'
he says. "Many of these communities have lots of non-naturalized residents or newly naturalized
residents who are not yet practiced in voting. They get treated like human fillers." Advocates
believe that legal residents should have a say in the daily matters that affect them, like
transportation, public safety, affordable housing, language access and translation services,
sanitation, schools and parks.
Democratic city councilman Daniel Dromm, the bill's architect, represents District 25, which
includes parts of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. "Enfranchising non-citizens would make
communities like mine more important to city-wide and state officials;' he said. ''We can't ignore
them if they can vote?'

Like local elections elsewhere in the US, local elections in New York City suffer from shrinking
turnout: 24% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2013 election that brought DeBlasio to office, a
new low. "It's ironic that people think national or state elections are more important than local
elections, when they better determine lived day-to-day realities;' Hayduk says. "If there were 1
million new voters in New York City, voter turnout would increase!'
More importantly, Hayduk says, non-citizen voting would refresh local politics to better reflect
the needs of city residents. "It would produce new issues, new candidates, and new outcomes:'

He offered an example from the 1980s. From 1969 to 2002, non-citizen New Yorkers could vote
in community school board elections (the school board was abolished in 2003). Civic groups
encouraged thousands of Dominican non-citizen residents of Washington Heights to vote in
school board polls. Their participation eventually forced the administration of Mayor Ed Koch to
direct greater resources to neglected schools.
Dromm tried two years ago to advance legislation on non-citizen voting. He had won the support
of 35 of the city council's 51 members, forming a veto-proof majority. But he faced the
obstruction of then council speaker Christine Quinn and the unbreakable opposition of the
Bloomberg administration. "The speaker and the mayor didn't want [the legislation] to go
forward;' Dromm said. "The speaker exerted power over the council's committees?' The
legislation stalled on the council floor.
Two years later, political circumstances make its passage much more tenable. The current city
council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, supports the proposal. While he hasn't given his explicit
backing, DeBlasio claims that he remains open to debate on non-citizen voting. The mayor has
launched other pro-immigrant reforms, like the municipal ID card scheme.

Exhibit Page No.: 0158 of CES Response Declaration

'As New York City goes. so goes the rest of the world'
The city council's three lonely Republicans have repeatedly voiced their opposition to non-citizen
voting. Two of them come from the Republican redoubt of Staten Island and represent districts
with very few non-citizens, 4% and 10% respectively. The third, Eric Ulrich, represents a Queens
district where one- fifth of residents are non -citizens. "The right to vote is a privilege and a sacred
obligation that citizens have enjoyed. It should only be for United States citizens;' he told
Newsday. "It's also a reason for people who are on a path to citizenship to aspire to citizenship.
It's something for them to look forward to:'
Peter Schuck, an emeritus professor oflaw at Yale University, also worries about the dilution of
citizenship. "My guess is that it would cause many Americans to wonder what the point of
citizenship is if anyone can vote without even bothering to learn or be committed enough to
apply for naturalization;' he said via email.

According to Vattamala, this emphasis on the meaning of citizenship misrepresents the very
limited, local scope of non-citizen voting. "Did school board elections- where non-naturalized
parents with children in local schools voted - defile the sanctity of citizenship?" he says. "It's
about effective representation. If people live here and pay taxes, they have a stake in the city:'
Permitting non-citizen voting would also address the fact that pathways to citizenship are not as
straightforward as they were for immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries. "It's more
complicated and expensive now compared to a century ago, when it was much easier, faster, and
cheaper to become a citizen;' Hayduk said. He argues that far from being a disincentive to
citizenship, non-citizen voting would empower New Yorkers and serve as a vehicle for
integration, fostering "the experience of the practice of citizenship". Vattamala agrees. "Most
people engaged enough to vote in municipal elections will become citizens;' he said.
Citizenship has not always been the prerequisite for suffrage in the US. During the first 150 years
of American history, non-citizens were allowed to vote in 40 states and territories. "Alien
suffrage" was whittled away in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, coinciding with
large waves of migration from eastern and southern Europe. A xenophobic 1902 Washington Post
editorial captured the political mood, bemoaning the ''marked and increasing deterioration in the
quality of immigration" and fretting that the newcomers were "men who are no more fit to be
trusted with the ballot than babies are to be furnished with friction matches for playthings".
"Voting in America has constantly changed;' Dromm said. "We have an evolving understanding of
suffrage. Women and African Americans were given voting rights. Now it's time to restore those
rights to non-citizens?'

Currently in the US, six small towns in Maryland allow non-citizen voting in local elections.
Chicago lets non-citizens vote in its school elections. Non-citizen voting exists elsewhere in the
world, chiefly within the context of supranational arrangements like the European Union, the
Nordic Passport Union and the British Commonwealth. But many countries extend suffrage more
broadly, like New Zealand and Chile, where permanent residents are allowed to vote regardless of
their nationality, and Colombia and Ireland, where foreigners can vote in local elections.
Advocates of non-citizen voting believe that a victory in New York City would have tremendous
symbolic importance in their efforts to expand voting rights across the country.
"As New York City goes;' Dromm said, "so goes the rest of the world:'

Exhibit Page No.: 0159 of CES Response Declaration

More features
Topics
US voting rights New York US immigration

Save for later Article saved

Reuse this content

Exhibit Page No.: 0160 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit J-2
Exhibit Page No.: 0161 of CES Response Declaration
OverviewNewsMayor's BioOfficials

Mayor de Blasio Launches Voter Registration

Forms in Five New Languages, Expanding
Access to Voting
July 14, 2016

Voter registration forms now available in Russian, Urdu, Haitian Creole, French and Arabic

NEW YORK- As part of the administration's efforts to expand voting participation and access, Mayor
Bill de Blasio today announced the launch of voter registration forms in five new languages: Russian,
Urdu, Haitian Creole, French and Arabic.

"No one should be disenfranchised because of their language," said Mayor Bill de Blasio. "These voter
registration forms in five new languages will help us involve even more New Yorkers in the voting
process. New York is a city of immigrants, and these forms will help New Yorkers of every background
cast their ballots on Election Day."

"With these new voter registration forms, we are sending a clear message: civic participation matters for
all New Yorkers, and all citizens should be able to exercise their right to vote," said Commissioner
Nisha Agarwal of the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs. "New York City is the most diverse city in
America, with over 200 languages spoken. With this announcement, the de Blasio administration has
now ensured that there are accessible voter registration forms for 80 percent of Limited English
Proficient eligible voters in New York City, and we will continue to expand these efforts in 2016."

The administration has already taken multiple steps to increase participation in the electoral process and
reduce barriers to voting. The Mayor issued Directive #1 expanding the requirements for agency-based
voter registration, including a requirement that 19 agencies provide assistance with completing voter
registration forms if requested, and has worked with the City Council to expand the agencies covered by
the law. Additionally, the administration is currently implementing a pilot project to provide electronic,
agency-based voter registration .

The new forms will be available on the Campaign Finance Board website (www.nycdb.info/), which is
also found on the homepage of NYC.gov under "Register to Vote."

The City will also add additional voter registration form languages in the coming months beyond the five
new languages announced today, with the aim to provide translated versions in the top languages
spoken by limited English proficient eligible voters. Previously, the voter registration forms were
available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Bangia.

Commissioner Nisha Agarwal of the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs announced the launch of five
new form languages at Homecrest Library in Brooklyn, where she was joined by the Campaign Finance
Board, elected officials, community-based groups and leadership from the Brooklyn Public Library. A
number of immigrant community organizations partnered with the Mayor's Office on this initiative,

Exhibit Page No.: 0162 of CES Response Declaration

including AALDEF (Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund), African Communities
Together, Arab-American Family Support Center, GAMBA, Make the Road New York, MUNA NY and
Shorefront YM-YWHA of Brighton-Manhattan Beach.

Many New Yorkers may be eligible for citizenship and the benefits it provides, including voting. The City
is also providing support to immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens through its NYCitizenship
program, which Mayor de Blasia launched this year. As part of NYCitizenship, New York City residents
receive appointments with a trusted attorney for help with citizenship applications, information sessions
about the citizenship process and its benefits, and free and confidential financial counseling. U.S.
citizenship gives residents the right to travel with a U.S. passport, vote in elections, and access more job
opportunities. To learn more, visit www.nyc.gov/citizenship.

Amy Loprest, Executive Director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board said, "Today, New
York City is sending a simple message to all its citizens: that we want you to vote, that your voice
matters, and that our city works better when your voice is heard. Providing these registration forms in
five new languages shows that the city is committed to broadening access to the democratic process for
all voters."

"With these new voter registration forms, we are empowering more of New York City's diverse
communities to vote, which in turn strengthens the vibrancy of our democracy. Forms written in Arabic,
French, Haitian Creole, Russian, and Urdu will allow the voices of immigrants in this city to be heard,
especially the thousands of Brooklynites who live in these languages every day. Every citizen has a right
to be engaged in civic life, no matter what their mother tongue may be," said Brooklyn Borough
President Eric Adams.

"As New York City continues to grow as a multi-cultural society, the different languages spoken by our
citizens grows as well. I commend Mayor Bill de Blasia for his commitment to eradicate the language
barrier that has kept many great citizens of New York from their constitutional right to have a voice in the
Democratic process. The launch of the voter registration forms in five new languages: Russian, Urdu,
Haitian Creole, French, and Arabic now reflects the rich diversity of our community," said State Senator
Roxanne J. Persaud.

State Senator James Sanders Jr. said, "It is our duty and our responsibility as Americans to make our
voices heard. We have the power to effect change, but we lose that power when we don't exercise our
right to vote. Our diverse city represents a melting pot of cultures. By expanding the languages in which
voter registration forms are available, it is my hope that more New Yorkers will sign up to take part in the
Democratic process."

"I have long supported and advocated for legislation that would make voter registration materials
available in more languages, I am pleased that this step is being taken. Now, more American citizens,
regardless of the language they speak, will be able to participate in the process. This truly reflects the
greatness of our democracy," said State Senator Marty Golden.

"Until today, the battle to make the voting process accessible to more non-English speaking New
Yorkers has been a frustrating one that's spanned many years and several administrations," said
Assembly Member Steven Cymbrowitz, whose legislative efforts to mandate Russian-language voting
materials dates back to 2007. "I'm grateful to Mayor de Blasia for taking this bold step to ensure that
many more thousands of New Yorkers have the ability to participate in the democratic process. I'm
equally pleased that the Mayor chose to make this announcement in my district, where so many
Russian-Americans will be positively impacted."

Exhibit Page No.: 0163 of CES Response Declaration

"I applaud Mayor Bill de Blasio for answering the call of a cross-section of immigrant speaking
populations by making voting materials available in Haitian Creole, Arabic, French, Russian, and Urdu,"
said Assembly Member Rodneyse Bichotte, who is Haitian-American, and speaks Creole. "Our
communities and advocates have been asking for this change for years, and for people in my
district, which is a highly populated immigrant district with Haitian-Creole being the first spoken language
for many of the residents, this small change makes a big difference. I am personally proud as this
addresses one of the voting rights bills that I introduced on the state level, which sought to meet the
need of districts with high Haitian-Creole speaking populations throughout New York State. It is another
way that the Mayor is making good on his promise to make New York a more inclusive city, especially
and most importantly to new Americans whose voting rights are being protected and preserved."

"For far too long, potential voters for whom English is a second language have been disenfranchised
because voter registration forms have been unavailable to them in their native tongue. I applaud the
New York City Board of Elections for making these new forms available, and look forward to working
with them to remove remaining barriers that prevent voters from fully exercising their right to vote," said
Assembly Member Helene Weinstein.

"I applaud the Mayor, the Office of Immigrant Affairs and Council Member Treyger for breaking down
language barriers and making voter registration forms accessible in more languages in New York City,"
said Assembly Member Pamela Harris. "We must do more to create an inclusive voting process, and
that starts with being able to read and understand election materials. Today, we are one step closer to
fairer civic engagement and giving more New Yorkers the opportunity to get involved in our
communities."

"The Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs decision to include a greater variety of languages for voter
registration forms is a great first step for improving the quality of services to our neighborhood voters. It's
vital that more steps are taken to make voters' experiences at the ballot easier and more efficient. This
decision will hopefully encourage more people to come out and vote," said Assembly Member William
Colton.

"One of the many strengths of being a New Yorker is our diversity -whether that is our different
backgrounds, many languages and cultures. Adding additional voter registration form languages will
build upon this strength and make sure that all members of our community can be involved in the voting
process," said Assembly Member Latoya Joyner. "Our communities include families from all walks of
life and different countries - ensuring that all Bronxites and New Yorkers know how to become more
civic-minded will guarantee that everyone has a voice."

"In the world's capital, one's language should not be a barrier to civic participation" said Assembly
Member David Weprin. "As the Assembly member who represents one of the most diverse districts in
the city, I applaud Mayor Bill de Blasio and Commissioner Nisha Agarwal of the Mayor's Office of
Immigrant Affairs for taking this step towards ensuring all New Yorkers have a voice in their
government."

"As diverse as New York City is I'm surprised that this hasn't happened earlier" said Assembly Member
Alicia Hyndman. "We are so thankful that the Mayor has provided leadership on this pertinent issue."

"Our elections system needs major improvements. People are not voting and many who try to vote are
frustrated when they go to the polls. I applaud this effort to boost voter information by printing brochures
and forms in many more languages. It's a necessary and cost effective first step to reforming New York's
antiquated voting process," said Assistant Assembly Speaker Felix W. Ortiz.

Exhibit Page No.: 0164 of CES Response Declaration

"Making our elections more accessible and voter-friendly for all New Yorkers remains one of our great
unmet challenges," said Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh. "While we continue to push for
comprehensive reform through legislation and better election administration, it is great to see the Mayor
step up by helping to ensure that language is not a barrier to participation."

"Language must not be a barrier for eligible voters in New York City. I applaud Mayor Bill de Blasia for
recognizing this truth and for providing voter registration forms in more languages. Doing so accelerates
civic engagement in the immigrant communities that contribute so much to New York's culture and
economy," said Council Member Carlos Menchaca, Chair of the Committee on Immigration.

"New York City is one of the most diverse cities in the world, with hundreds of different languages
spoken," said Council Member Chaim Deutsch. "It is critical that nobody is excluded from exercising
their democratic right to vote simply because of a language barrier. As the representative of a multi-
lingual district, I provide funding for ESL classes, as well as doing educational outreach and offering
social services and entitlement services for those who do not speak English as a first language.
Providing voter registration forms in several new languages is an important step forward as New York
City becomes even more inclusive and supportive of the cultural diversity that is all around us. Thank
you Mayor de Blasia and Commissioner Agarwal for your continued advocacy on behalf of all New
Yorkers!"

"As the proud son of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, the first Russian-speaking City Council
Member, and the elected representative of many immigrants from all around the world, I applaud the
administration for providing voter registration forms in 5 additional languages, expanding on previous
efforts by the New York State Legislature and grassroots community movements to ensure that all
eligible New Yorkers can register to vote, regardless of what language they speak. With the low levels of
voter enrollment and turnout that we see today, it is imperative that we continue to break down barriers
to voter participation throughout the electoral process. The translation of registration forms is an
important first step, and I look forward to working with Commissioner Agarwal and Mayor de Blasia on
ways to extend this increased language access to polling places during elections," said Council
Member Mark Treyger.

"By providing voter registration forms to individuals in their native language, we are making voting more
accessible to the many different people that make up our city," said Council Member Mathieu Eugene.
"New York has struggled with a low voter turnout-but it's up to us in government to remove the barriers
that prevent too many people from voting. The new voter registration forms available in Haitian Creole
and French, as well as three other languages, will empower voters throughout our city and help ensure
that everyone has an equal opportunity to make their voice heard."

"New York City is a melting pot. The district I represent, Flushing, is one of the most diverse in the city.
With such language and cultural diversity, I am committed to enhancing access to public resources and
information. Thanks to Mayor de Blasia and the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs for expanding
language services to the Russian, Haitian, Creole, French, and Arab communities. I urge all New
Yorkers to take advantage of our city's multilingual voter services, to register to vote and raise your voice
on the election day," said Council Member Peter Koo.

"The City's libraries are centers of civic engagement in our neighborhoods and we are proud to partner
with the Mayor's office to improve voter outreach and registration," said Linda E. Johnson, President
and CEO of Brooklyn Public Library. "As a growing number of our patrons speak languages other
than English, providing voter information in additional languages is so critical to ensuring participation in
our democratic process."

Exhibit Page No.: 0165 of CES Response Declaration

"The Shorefront YM-YWHA is pleased that the Russian speaking community, as well as other immigrant
communities in NYC, now will have greater access and understanding of the voter registration
process. We anticipate that even more immigrant residents who now have information and forms in the
language they best understand will become civically active because of their increased voter registration
access," said Sue Fox, Executive Director of Shorefront YM-YWHA.

"At AAFSC, our mission is to empower new immigrants with the tools they need to successfully
acclimate to the world around them, and to become active participants in their communities. Our staff
and volunteers work every day with Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian immigrants from all
five boroughs who need the vital support of our Adult Literacy and English classes, and our linguistically-
competent social services. Arabic is currently the 4th most widely spoken language among English
language learners in New York City, and we are thrilled that Mayor Bill de Blasia has taken this important
step to make civic engagement more accessible to all New Yorkers. In New York, every person has a
voice that matters and deserves to be heard, regardless of what language they speak," said Lena
Alhusseini, Executive Director of the Arab-American Family Support Center.

"GAMBA is proud to stand with the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs today to make registering to vote
easier for citizens who speak Russian, Urdu, French Creole, French and Arabic," said Joanne M.
Oplustil, President and CEO of CAMBA. "For the past four decades, GAMBA has been helping
immigrants resettle here and become hardworking, contributing -and voting -Americans. Our
immigrants deeply value the right to vote, and we are committed to ensuring that they have equal
access to the polls."

"This announcement is welcome news for New York's growing African immigrant communities," said
Amaha Kassa, Executive Director of African Communities Together in the Bronx. "After English,
French is the most widely shared language among New York's Africans. We are especially glad that
New York City partnered with ACT and other immigrant community organizations to make sure that the
translated voter registration forms are clear and culturally competent."

Javier H. Valdes, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York said, "We applaud the de
Blasia administration for its ongoing effort to make voting easier and more accessible, with language
access as a component. Given the challenges that immigrant New Yorkers face when trying to register
and cast their ballots, it's critical that New York City continue to take steps in this direction."

"Registering to vote is one of the closest steps of exercising the rights and responsibilities of an
American citizen. It gives the feeling of being included in the beautifully diverse community and a sense
of shared responsibility to contribute for the common good. This wonderful civic engagement initiative
will reassure us to remember America is not only our home, it is also home for our cultural home-
language too," said Mir Masum Ali, National Civic Engagement Director of Muslim Ummah of North
America (MUNA NY).

"New York City is the most diverse city in world, home to immigrants who speak hundreds of languages.
It is critical that our New American New Yorkers are able to participate in the civic process and that's
why we applaud Mayor Bill de Blasia, the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs, and the Campaign
Finance Board's efforts to expand language translation of voter registration forms to the city's top 10
languages," said Steve Choi, Executive Director of the New York Immigration Coalition. "Ensuring
that voter registration forms are available in Arabic, Chinese, Bangia, Korean, Urdu, Spanish, Russian,
Creole, French, and English will expand our immigrant communities ability to be part of the political
process with more ease and will empower them to vote in this Presidential election. The NYIC

Exhibit Page No.: 0166 of CES Response Declaration

Civic Engagement Collaborative identified the expansion of translated voter information as a high priority
and we are excited to be part of this first step."

"New York City is the ultimate city of immigrants. Council of Peoples Organization (COPO) welcomes
the voter registration forms in multiple languages, which will ensure that more citizens are well-informed
about this process. At COPO, we have translated the current form into many languages and regularly
assist new American citizens in registering to vote. We have found that many new citizens are not aware
of the voter registration process and as a result, they cannot participate in elections. These translated
forms are essential to reaching people in their native languages and ensuring their participation in the
civic life our city, state, and nation. Having these forms available in five new languages will empower
many citizens to finally have a voice for their concerns in politics and city services to which they are
entitled," said Mohammad Razvi, Executive Director of the Council Of Peoples Organization
(COPO).

"The Mayor's decision to provide non-English speaking New Yorkers with voter registration forms in their
languages is another procedure of inclusiveness and respect. It adds to the many steps this
administration has taken to make New York City the City of all its citizens. This move will eliminate the
language barrier for the five groups and enable them to participate in the civic and political activities and
enjoy their right to vote," said Dr. Abdelhafid Djemil, President of the Islamic Leadership Council
(Majlis Shura) of New York.

"It's a proud moment in NYC history that more immigrant communities will have the opportunity to
register to vote where they will no longer experience any language barriers to be a part of the
Democratic process. I am extremely grateful for the visionary leadership of this administration for their
inclusion of all communities. Many New Yorkers will now feel that they are just as important and as
valuable as everyone else. This is truly a great day for New York that it continues to lead the World in
building Bridges and tearing down Walls," said Naji Almontaser, President of the New York Muslim
Voter Information Club.

"Voting is a critical component in the participation of communities and individuals in the democratic
process. Expanding voter registration forms into additional languages makes that process real and
substantive," said Fahd Ahmed, Executive Director of DRUM- Desis Rising Up & Moving.

"Language barriers should never be an impediment to exercising one's right to vote and participate in
choosing one's political representative, a fundamental pillar of our nation's democracy. We applaud the
Mayor's efforts to ensure that citizens of all immigrant backgrounds can fully participate in this process
and fulfill their civic duties, an effort we highly encourage at Chhaya," said Annetta Seecharran,
Interim Executive Director of Chhaya CDC.

"A strong democracy demands all voters have access to the voting process - including those who speak
English as a second language. In a city as diverse as New York, voter registration materials must be
available in a myriad of languages to give every voter a chance to vote. We applaud Mayor de Blasia's
Office of Immigrant Affairs for recognizing the importance of language access and expanding the
translation of voter registration materials to include Arabic, Urdu, Haitian Creole and Russian," said co-
Executive Director Ana Maria Archila, the Center for Popular Democracy.

"We applaud the Mayor for this initiative that recognizes the vital importance new citizens have played in
the civic life of the city for more than 200 years. With Albany's failure to pass meaningful reforms, the
city's ongoing improvements to its voter registration system offers some rare good news for voters," said

Exhibit Page No.: 0167 of CES Response Declaration

Neal Rosenstein, Government Reform Coordinator of the New York Public Interest Research
Group/NYPIRG.

"We welcome translation of voter registration forms as one step towards more inclusivity of new
Americans into the democratic process. Through our work, we have found that language access is one
of the main reasons Arab Americans do not participate, following issues like discrimination and
confusion at the polls," said Mirna Haidar, Lead Organizer at the Arab American Association of New
York.

pressoffice@cityhall.nyc.gov

(212) 788-2958

Exhibit Page No.: 0168 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit J-3
Exhibit Page No.: 0169 of CES Response Declaration
 rll_ S; Healthy recipes, fitness ~ A". W.RH'Il*:BNmH

~ 00 plans&braingames ~ ~~ -
report this ad

SEARCH LOGIN RF.G!STER

BIG GOVERNMENT BIG JOURNALISM BIG HOlLYWOOD NATIONAL SECURITY TECH VIDEO SPORTS THE WIRES 1'016: THE RACE
BREITBART LONDON I BREITBART JERUSALEM I BREITBART TEXAS I BREITBART CALIFORNIA STORE

EFFORT TO OPEN VOTING TO ILLEGAL

IMMIGRANTS UNDERWAY IN NYC
16764 24

BREITBART CONNECT

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

email address SUBMIT
by CAROLINE ~lAY 22 Feb 2016 Jt.o:w l - ~- J
:-- -~o.- ,.,. '"-~"'-" ......... ,.............._. "" ""' - - = - .,
-----~-~

Immigration activists are

pushing for illegal immigrants SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER I
to be granted the right to vote email address SUBMIT I
in New York City and say
legislation to that effect could
be introduced later this year.
The New York Post reports that a proposal to extend voting rights to illegal immigrants,
alluwing them to vote in elections for city-;'l'ide offices, was highlighted at a Black and
Latino Legislative Caucus event.
report this ad
advertisement
"We want to expand the right to vote for everybody, not suppress the vote. What a radical
idea," Bertha Lewis, head of the Black Institute, said according to the Post. The Post notes
she said they expect such legislation to be introduced in the spring. BREITBART VIDEO PICKS
report this ad
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has made extensive efforts on behalf of illegal
immigrants, including offering a city identification card. According to the Post, Lewis said report this ad
she sees the extension of voting rights as part of that effort. advertisement

Exhibit Page No.: 0170 of CES Response Declaration

"People want to come out of the shadows," Lewis said, according to the paper.

As the Post notes, a number of years ago there was an effort to extend voting rights to legal
non-citizen residents. The bill, which as introduced by Queens Councilman Dan Dromm
and co-sponsored by Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, never received a vote.
amazon .......
Lewis has had conversations with legislators including Viverito, Dromm and
Brooklyn Councilman Jumaane Williams, among others, about expanding rights to
illegal aliens.

A Viverito spokesman noted that the council supports extending voting rights to
green-card holders, but he stopped short Sunday of saying she would back voting report this ad
rights for illegal immigrants. advertisement

Williams, however, endorsed the proposal.

"There will be a lot of support for it in the City Council. We want people to participate
in civic life and be invested in what happens. It v.illlead to a healthier community,"
said Williams.

While activists appear enthusiastic about the idea, Conservative Party Chairman Mike
Long told the Post that extending rights to illegal immigrants is "outrageous," telling the
paper, "American Citizens have the right to determine the destiny of towns, villages, cities,
states and the country."

READ MORE STORIES ABOUT: report this ad

2016Presidential Race, Big Govermnent, Immigration, Illegal Immigrants, illegal advertisement
immigration, New York City, voting

EPistl!Jf 36 I YEll AT JI\VONNI

report this ad
Trending Articles
Riclunond Time s-Dispatch: Steve Banno n Discusse s His ...
Graham Moomaw of the Richmond Times-Dispatch interviews Steve Bannon, Donald
Trump's new chief strategist and a ...

EPISODE THIRTY THREE THE

MllO...

CHARlES CRAWFORD, fORMER

BRITISH...

CAM EDWARDS. NRA RADIO HOST

DAVID...

Around The Web Powered By ZergNet

MOST POPULAR
Exhibit Page No.: 0171 of CES Response Declaration
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitJ-4
Exhibit Page No.: 0172 of CES Response Declaration
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit K-1

Exhibit Page No.: 0173 of CES Response Declaration

 NYC Elections Official Scoffs at
Mayor's Call for Him to Resign
Over Voter Fraud Claims
By Madina Toure 10/18/16 4:25pm

Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner

Alan Schulkin speaks at a city Board of Elections
meeting today. Photo: Madina Toure for
Observer

Four days after Mayor Bill de Blasio

called on Manhattan Board of Elections
Commissioner Alan Schulkin to resign
over his claims of voter fraud he said

D
he's staying put-and that the n1ayor
D
"doesn't control" the board.

Exhibit Page No.: 0174 of CES Response Declaration

 Conservative nonprofit Project Veritas
secretly recorded Schulkin, a Democrat,
saying that de Blasio's IDNYC
initiative initiative does not properly vet
applicants and enables them to comn1it
election fraud. He also said people are
unaware that in minority
neighborhoods, organizations "bus
people around to vote" to different
polling sites and accused Muslim women
of using their burqas to hide their
identities. He also called for a voter l.D.
law.

Get the New York Politics newsletter in your in box:

A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New Yor k

Enter your email address Sl lllHII

municipal identification program "crazy"

and proof that he is not fit for his
position.

Exhibit Page No.: 0175 of CES Response Declaration

 "I have no intent to resign," Schulkin
told the Observer today, following a BOE
meeting in Manhattan. "The mayor
doesn't control the Board of Elections."

During the meeting, Susan Lerner,

executive director of good government
group Common Cause, said her
organization and others were surprised
to hear of Schulkin's comments that he
made given his position. She said there
needs to be clarification and serious
consequences for being on the record,
even if he described the individual as
someone who was heckling him as a
representative of a particular
organization. He had to have known that
his comments were not going to be held
privately, she said.

"Your comments about the-even

Get the New York Politics newsletter in your in box:

A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New York

Enter your email address '>Ubt.!l 1

DexplanatiOns that we have read really

D
does not tally."

Schulkin said he was not planning to

speak on the record about the incident
Exhibit Page No.: 0176 of CES Response Declaration
 but that he would address it because
Lerner brought it up. He noted the
incident happened at a Christmas party
last year-well before Donald Trump
began tossing around cavalier claims the
November election will be "rigged" -and
that he did not know who the
woman was.

He said she started talking to him but

admitted that he should not have spoken
with her and insisted that the comments
he made in the video do not represent
his views, in contrast to staten1ents last
week in which he stood by his caught-
on-camera call for requiring voters to
show a photo I.D.

He also said de Blasio was wrong to

characterize his statement as a public
statement, saying that it was a private

Get the New York Politics newsletter in your in box:

A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New York

Enteryouremailaddress 'illl\1111

Dey au agree mey J.<now me very weu

and they didn't take it as an insult."
D
Schulkin also acknowledged he was
initially skeptical of the IDNYC program

Exhibit Page No.: 0177 of CES Response Declaration

 but said the woman did not identify
herself. When Lerner characterized his
response to her concerns as insufficient
given "that there are significant
concerns," Frederic Umane, secretary,
appeared to defend his colleague.

"Isn't part of what your function with

election protection is to make sure that
there's no fraud going at the ballot?"
Umane said. "Isn't that part of what your
observers are looking for while they're
there, to make sure that there is no
,.,
fr au.
d

Lerner insisted instances of in-person

voter fraud in the United States are rare,
and argued that it was important to
eliminate-not create-obstacles at the
polls.

Get the Nevv York Politics newsletter in your in box:

A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New York

Enter your email address Sl JJ:t. t i i

0 0
"I know I shouldn't say anything, but the
people I've talked to tell me they don't
and I've talked to a number of people
from various ethnic groups, elected
Exhibit Page No.: 0178 of CES Response Declaration
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit K-2

Exhibit Page No.: 0179 of CES Response Declaration

WATCH: ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER ADMITS TO WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD ON
HIDDEN CAMERA
A Jack Burns 0 October 12, 2016
Design Your Life

$1ll.Jrns Into $357.24 Daily?

Discover This Secret Method Learn More

A Democratic Party election board representative from Manhattan was caught on camera confirming what a
lot of people already suspect. It's easy to commit voter fraud, and it's made easier by New York's lax voter

identification measures, which really don't exist.

Alan Schulkin, the Democrat Party representative serving on Manhattan's election board, admitted groups

of interested voters get on buses and travel from polling station to polling station casting multiple ballots

for their candidates or their issues. Schul kin said, "You know, I don't think it's too much to ask somebody to

show some kind of an ID ... Like I say, people don't realize, certain neighborhoods, in particular, they bus

people around to vote."

Breaking from his political party's traditional stance against voter Identification of any kind, Schul kin said,

"Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud ." Going further, Shulkin explained the

conundrum New York faces. "You can't ask for ID," he said. He said mayor Bill Di Blasio's attempt to issue

voter ID's is fraught with even more controversy. "He gave out ID cards. DeBlasio. That's in lieu of a driver's

license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didn't vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can

go in there and say I am joe Smith, I want an ID card. It's absurd. There's a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud,

all kinds of fraud," Schulkin explained.

The election board representative's comments were secretly recorded on a hidden camera by Project

Veritas, the same group responsible for catching Planned Parenthood executives on video engaging in

business transactions peddling aborted baby body parts for money. Activist, founder, and proponent of the

Free Press movement, james O'Keefe was immediately targeted by the mainstream media and branded by

liberals as a phony journalist. But without his pioneering work, the world may never have known about

Planned Parenthood's profiting from the sale of aborted body parts.

Exhibit Page No.: 0180 of CES Response Declaration

 How Men Tighten Their Skin
Remove "Old Man" Wrinkles And
Eye-Bags Quickly And Easily

Those conversations, many of which were recorded while the participants were dining, touched off a

firestorm of controversy in the U.S. with many Congressional leaders calling for an end to federal funding

for Planned Parenthood's slaughter ofthe unborn.

Despite the expose' videos, and even with Republicans (traditionally anti-abortion) in charge of the federal
budget, the 1.1 trillion dollar Omnibus spending package was passed with federal funding for the
abortionists intact. Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan (R-WI), was instrumental in the Omnibus' passage,

which many believe should have excluded federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

O'Keefe's and Project Veritas' recording of Schulkin's comments, although they were recorded in December

of 2015, serve to illustrate just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in New York. It's a safe bet that if the

Democrat representative on Manhattan's election board knows there's a systemic problem of voter fraud at
work, then the results of this year's presidential election will probably be wrought with fraud as well.

Republicans, going back many years, have pushed for state legislatures to pass voter ID laws, to ensure

elections are fair and representative of the voter base. Attempts to prevent voter fraud by passing voter

identification laws (which by all accounts should be something on which both Republicans and Democrats

agree) has been vehemently challenged in court by Democrats all across the country.

This summer, voter ID laws in North Carolina and Wisconsin were struck down in the court system amid

concerns the laws made it more difficult for minorities to vote. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ohio, Texas,

Virginia, and Arizona as well, all in an attempt by Democrats to open up the polls to everyone (even illegal

aliens as some allege). Some have accused the Democratic party of creating a climate whereby voter fraud
is easier to commit, such as in New York as Schulkin plainly stated already exists.

Also, if you wish to report suspected cases of voter fraud you may do so by contacting the federal
government, your district or your state's voter fraud divisions. A list of voter fraud contacts by state can be

found by cl icking here.

Exhibit Page No.: 0181 of CES Response Declaration

 HIDDEN CAM: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"

TRENDING Sponsored by Revcontent

Build and Price the 2017 Corvette. 8o Funniest Wedding Dresses Ever These 21 Photos Were Tin1ed to
Read Expe1t Reviews Perfection And They're Hilarious

Exhibit Page No.: 0182 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit K-3

Exhibit Page No.: 0183 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL1

Exhibit Page No.: 0184 of CES Response Declaration

 At Part of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, held in
and for the County of Richmond, at the
Court house thereof located at 26
Central Avenue, Staten lslandf New
York on the 51h day of December, 2016.

PRESENT: Hmt. PhiJip_Q..~1ill<JCd! . . __ . -'"'

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of ~ INDEXNO. /

RONALD CASTOlUNA, JR. and

~ ~J2S 8' 2 V /(o
NICOLE MAUOTAKIS,
: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, :TEMPORARY RESTRA1NING
-against- :ORDER

BILL DEBLASIO. in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK~VfVERITO, in her official oapacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CIDEF OPERATING OFFICER OF TilE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF 'SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS. HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents/Defendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to ArticJe 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

Upon the annexed Affidavit of Petitioner RONALD CASTORINA, JR., ESQ.,

sworn to on the 5th1h day of December, 2016, Petitioner NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, sworn

to on the 51t1 day of December, 2016, Affirmation of Jeffrey Alfano, Esq . affirmed to on

Exhibit Page No.: 0185 of CES Response Declaration

 the 51h day of December 2016 and ail of exhibits annexed therto, and the Memorandum

of Law dated the 5th day of December 2016, and upon all the proceedings heretofore

had herein, let the Respondents, or their attorneys show cause at Part ~ffl (;.

held in and for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County of

Richmond, located at 26 Central Avenue, Staten Island, New York on the day of
fo~Ju-t~ :2 & 7 , -
~cemb.e., 2e1ti at ]' 3t) o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon

thereafter as counsel can be heard why an Order should not be made and entered

granting the Plaintiff the following relief:

1. An Order pursuant to C.P.L.R. Section 7803(2) Prohibiting

Respondents proceeding beyond the jurisdiction afforded to them

as public officers and destroying governmental documentation

collected in connection with the IDNYC program;

An Order declaring New York City Administrative Code Section 3-

115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11 violated FOIL and denying the

enforcement of any part of those sections violating FOIL;

3. Together with such other and further relief as to this Court may

deem just, proper, and equitable.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER:

SUFFICIENT REASON APPEARING, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED, that pending the return date of this motion, the respondents

are hereby enjoined and precluded from the destruction of any and all materials

associated with the IDNYC program , and it is further

Exhibit Page No.: 0186 of CES Response Declaration

the ____ day of December, 2015 be deemed good, $Ufficient and timely service.

ENTER,

Justice of the Supreme Court

Exhibit Page No.: 0187 of CES Response Declaration

SUPREME
COUNTY

In :INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALIOTAKIS,
OF
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, :JEFFREY ALFANO IN SUPPOR~
-against- TRO

BILL DEBLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR

CITY OF NEW YORK,
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity. and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents/Defendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

JEFFREY ALFANO, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State

of New York; affirms the following under penalties of perjury:

1. I am the sole proprietor of the Law Office of Jeffrey Alfano, attorney for

Petitioners, Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis. I am fully familiar with all facts and

circumstances pertaining to the within litigation following the review and analysis of the legal

file maintained by this office.

Exhibit Page No.: 0188 of CES Response Declaration

 202.7(f).

the IDNYC program is digital nature

and is very easily deleted by the custodians of the material.

4. The Mayor, the City Council Speaker, and numerous City representatives
indicated intentions to destroy the materials associated with the IDNYC program on or

before December 31, 2016.

5. To the extent the Mayor, City Council Speaker and other city representatives have

not destroyed the documents it will present a significant hardship to notify the Respondents in

advance of this application seeking a temporary order preventing the destruction of the materials

associated with the IDNYC program.

Dated: December 5, 2016

Staten Island, NY

Exhibit Page No.: 0189 of CES Response Declaration

SUPREME COURT OF THE NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS,
:VERIFIED PETITION
Petitioners,
-against-

BILL DEBLASIO, his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

Petitioners Ronald Castorina, and Nicole Malliotaksi (together "Petitioners") for their

Verified Petition and Complaint, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully allege as

follows:

Exhibit Page No.: 0190 of CES Response Declaration

 INTRODUCTION

1. This proceeding is brought under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law

and Rules ("C.P.L.R."), New York Public Officers Law 84 et seq. (the "Freedom of Information

Law" or "FOIL"), and C.P.L.R. 3001 against Respondents Mayor de Blasio, in his official

capacity ("the Mayor"), the Office of the Mayor of the City ofNew York, Melissa Mark-Viverito,

in her official capacity as the Speaker of the New York City Council, Steven Banks, Commissioner

of the New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services

(hereinafter "New York City HRA''), in his official capacity, Matthew Brune, Chief Operating

Officer of the New York City HRA, in his official capacity, and Ricardo Browne, Executive

Deputy Commissioner, Management Information Systems New York City HRA, in his official

capacity.

2. On June 26, 2014, the New York City Council passed an enabling statute allowing

the Mayor, through the New York City HRA, to create and administer New York City's Municipal

Identification Program (hereinafter, "IDNYC").

3. Respondents threaten to destroy public records connected with the IDNYC program

in contravention of New York State's Freedom of Information Law before any administrative

agency or court of competent jurisdiction evaluates legitimate FOIL requests.

4. Petitioners seek (1) an order pursuant to C.P.LR. 7803(2) prohibiting

Respondents from proceeding with actions in excess of their jurisdiction as public officers; and (2)

a declaration pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 that 68 RCNY 6-11 (Confidentiality ofiDNYC Card

Eligibility Information) violates New York State's Freedom ofinformation Law.

Exhibit Page No.: 0191 of CES Response Declaration

 PARTIES

5. Petitioner, Ronald Castorina, Jr., is a Member of the New York State Assembly

representing the 62nd Assembly District covering the South Shore of Staten Island with his district

office located at 7001 Amboy Road, Suite 202 E, Staten Island, New York 10307. The Assembly

Member sits on the Committee on Banks.

6. Petitioner, Nicole Malliotakis, is a Member of the New York State Assembly

representing the 64 1h Assembly District covering the East Shore of Staten Island and Bay Ridge,

Brooklyn. The Assembly Member has a district office located at 11 Maplewood Place, Staten

Island, New York 10306. The Assembly Member sits on the Committee on Banks.

7. Respondent Bill de Blasio is the Mayor of the City of New York. Upon information

and belief, his principal place of business is located at City Hall, New York, NY 10007.

8. Respondent Office ofthe Mayor of the City ofNew York (the "Mayor's Office")

is an "agency within the meaning of Public Officers Law 86(3).

9. Respondent Melissa Mark-Viverito is the Speaker of the New York City Council.

Upon information and belief, her principal place of business is located at City Hall, New York,

New York 10007.

10. Respondent Steven Banks is the Commissioner of New York City HRA. Upon

information and belief, his principal place of business is located at 4 World Trade Center, 150

Greenwich Street, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10007.

11. Respondent Matthew Brune is the Chief Operating Office ofNew York City HRA.

Upon information and belief, his principal place of business is located at 4 World Trade Center,

150 Greenwich Street, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10007.

Exhibit Page No.: 0192 of CES Response Declaration

 12.

City HRA for Management Systems. Upon information and his principal place

ofbusiness is located at4 World Trade 150 Greenwich Street, 381h Floor, New New

York 10007.

VENUE
13. Venue is proper in Richmond County pursuant to C.P.L.R. 506(b) and 7804(b)

in that Petitioners submitted their FOIL requests from their district otlkes located on Staten Island.

Staten Island residents provided the records sought by the Petitioners to the New York City

government, and received IDNYC identification in New York City HRA offices located on Staten

Island.

JURISDICTION

14. Respondents' threatened actions, destruction of governmental records currently on

file with the City of New York, which form the basis of this Verified Petition and Complaint,

exceed the jurisdiction and authority of executive officers named as Respondents to the action.

The Respondents' collective threatened actions 1) supplant the judicial function of evaluating

FOIL requests from the administrative agencies and reconsideration by the New York State

Supreme Court; and 2) seck to hide governmental actions in contravention of the New York State

Freedom of Information Law. by fiat through the. wholesale destruction of government documents,

rather than utilizing stringent guidelines developed to protect disclosure of personal information.

This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to C.P .L.R. 7801 et seq. and

Public Officers Law 84 et seq.

15. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 to render declaratory

relief.

Exhibit Page No.: 0193 of CES Response Declaration

 FACTS

16. September 1, 20 16, Superintendent of the New York State

Financial Services (hereinafter Superintendent") issued a letter to New York's banking

industry encouraging acceptance ofiDNYC for banking and credit products. See Exhibit A.

17. On October 20, 2016, Petitioner, Assembly Member Castorina, wrote the

Superintendent requesting the reconsideration of the sentiments contained that Exhibit

B.
18. The Superintendent issued no response to Assembly Member Castorina's letter, nor

was it acknowledged in any other way.

19. ln recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his intention to destroy aU records

associated with the issuance of the lDNYC program through his purported authority under

68 RCNY 6-11. See Exhibit C.

20. On November 28, 2016, Petitioners requested Respondents refrain from the

destruction of any government documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program. See

Exhibit D.

21. On November 29, 2016, Respondents rejected Petitioners requests to preserve

documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program through Speaker Mark-Viverito

statement to the press for Petitioners to "go ahead [and] sue us." See Exhibit E.

22. On November 29, 2016, at 12:23:11 p.m., Assembly Member Castorina submitted

a FOIL request seeking:

delivery, to my office address listed above, aH scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital format.

Exhibit F.

Exhibit Page No.: 0194 of CES Response Declaration

 23. On December 2, 2016) at 6:51:06 p.m., Assembly Member Malliotakis submitted a

FOIL request seeking:

delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital format.

Exhibit G.

24. Identification issued through the NYCID program expire five years after it is issued

to an individual.

25. Regulations contained in the New York City Code permit the destruction of records

associated with the NYCID program after two years solely at the discretion of the Respondents.

26. The New York City HRA regulation purportedly grants Respondents unilateral

authority to destroy all records, in the name of preserving participant confidentiality, collected in

connection with administering New York City's IDNYC program on or before December 31,

2016. See NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11.

27. Public statements made by City Council Member, Carlos Menchaca, to the New

York Post on February 15, 2015, indicate Respondents chose December 31, 2016 to destroy

documents, but not to end the program, simply for political purposes. See Exhibit H.

28. City Council Member Menchaca indicated clearly, "In case a Tea Party Republican

comes into office and says, 'We want all ofthe data from all ofthe municipal ID programs in the

country,' we're going to take the data." ld

29. CitY Council Member Menchaca indicated further the December 31, -:w16
document destruction date "allows us [the City Council] to prepare for any new leadership [in

Washington, D.C.]". !d.

Exhibit Page No.: 0195 of CES Response Declaration

 30. City Council Member Menchaca's comments led New York to entitle the

article concerning the NYCID program, "Municipal ID law has delete case of Tea

clause." ld

31. No legitimate government interest can be served by destroying records reasonably

collected to ensure integrity of a governmental identification system for strictly political

reasons.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING A PROHIBITION

OF RESPONDENTS FROM DESTROYING GOVERNMENT
RECORDS KEPT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A
GOVERNMENTAL IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM

32. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.

33. Article 78 provides an appropriate method to restrain public oftlcers from

proceeding in a manner which is not within, or exceeds, their jurisdiction.

34. Under FOIL executive government records are accessible to members of the public,

governmental agencies, and other btanches of both the federal and state governments.

35. FOIL permits the executive to redact governmental records submitted in

accordance with administering programs run by executive agencies to protect the disclosure of

participants' personal information.

36. FOIL permits, further, the denial of access to certain governmental records if

expressly authorized by one of FOIL's specific exemptions. The limited statutory FOIL

exemptions are to be construed narrowly, and the government bears the burden of demonstrating

that documents fall within an asserted exemption.

Exhibit Page No.: 0196 of CES Response Declaration

 37. FOIL does permit government to destroy an documents associated

politically motivated reasons.

whatever format, associated with the IDNYC program will cause, immediate and irreparab1e

harm to the rights guaranteed to Petitioners and to the public at large under FOIL.

39. Respondents' publicly stated course of conduct will render FOIL useless and

exceeds their jurisdiction under law.

40. This Court should issue an Order of Prohibition restraining respondents from

exceeding their jurisdiction and destroying government documents in response to a federal

election.

41. Petitioners have not made any previous request for relief requested herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING A

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT 68 RCNY 6-H AND
NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 3-HS(E)
VIOLATE THE PURPOSE OF FOIL GRANTING
TRANSPARENCY TO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

42. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.

43. The regulations promulgated by Respondents in 68 RCN Y 6-ll and New York City

Administrative Code 3-115(e) contain no method for the public to access the records submitted

in connection with the IDNYC program.

44. New York State policy requires full and open access to government.

45. The New York State legislature clearly maintains:

The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-

making and to review the documents and statistics leading to
determination is basic to our society. Access to such information

Exhibit Page No.: 0197 of CES Response Declaration

 should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or
confidentiality.

84.

46. idea that democratically elected government officials may destroy records

preventing their inspection by the public due to the results of a federal election is against the ideals

of the United States and has no basis in Jaw.

47. This Court should issue an Order declaring New York City's regulations run afoul

of FOIL and deny the enforcement of only those provisions of the IDNYC program.

48. Petitioners have not made any previous request for relief requested herein.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request this Court grant judgment:

a. Prohibiting Respondents from exceeding their jurisdiction and destroying

governmental documentation collected in connection with the IDNYC program in contravention

of FOIL;

b. Declaring New York City Administrative Code 3-115(e) and 68 RCNY 6~11

violate FOIL and denying the enforcement of any part of those sections in contravention to FOIL;

c. Awarding attorney's fees and reasonable litigation costs as allowed under Public

Officers Law 89; and

Exhibit Page No.: 0198 of CES Response Declaration

 d. Granting such and further the Court deems proper.

Dated: December 5, 2016

Staten Island, New York

aw ffice of Jeffrey Alfano

1000 South Avenue, Suite 104
Staten Island, NY 10314
TeL: 718-701-1441
Attorneyfor Petitioners Ronald Castorina,
Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis

10

Exhibit Page No.: 0199 of CES Response Declaration

 VERIFICATION

STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

RonaldCastorin~ Jr. being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a petitioner in this
proceeding, that l have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof, that the same
is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein sta1cd to be alleged on information and
belief; imd that as to those matters I believe them to be true.

~~~&
.wom to before me on this
~dayofDeccmber, 2016

J[fFIEY M. A11ANO
rt41&ry Pubhc: Stale of New Vorll
No. 02_AL6124~96
Qualified Ill R1t.hmond Cou;ttjl .
. Mv Comm. Exsmes Maf. 28 ~

11

Exhibit Page No.: 0200 of CES Response Declaration

STATEOFNEW )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

Nicole Malliotaks, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a petitioner in this
proceeding, that I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; that the same
is true to my own knowledge, except as to therein stated to be alleged on information and
and that as to those matters I believe to be true.

~om to before me on this

.)_ day of December, " 16

12

Exhibit Page No.: 0201 of CES Response Declaration

 EXHIBIT
A

Exhibit Page No.: 0202 of CES Response Declaration

 NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENTof
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Andrew M. Cuomo Maria T. Vullo
Governor Superintendent

September 1, 2016

Michael P. Smith
President and CEO
New York Bankers Association
99 Park Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

William Mellin
President
New York Credit Union Association
P.O. Box 15118
Albany, NY 12212

Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Mellin:

This letter provides guidance by the Department of Financial Services (the "Department") on
whether the New York City Municipal Identification Card ("Municipal ID") can be used by
banks and credit unions to verify the identity of prospective customers under New York's
customer identification program ("CIP") requirements for customers who seek to open bank
accounts.

The Department is committed to ensuring broad access to financial products and services for all
consumers and recognizes the Municipal ID as one method to expand access to financial services
in New York. For individuals, access to bank and credit union accounts helps preserve income,
leads to savings and asset-building opportunities, and improves access to affordable credit
opportunities. Indeed, access to banking services can improve the overall economic well-being
of all New Yorkers and the New York economy.

The Department is aware that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the "Federal Agencies") have previously provided

(800) 342-3736 I ONE STATE STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10004-1511 I WWW.DFS.NY.GOV

Exhibit Page No.: 0203 of CES Response Declaration

guidance on this issue in a letter dated April30, 2015. 1 The federal CIP rule requires banks to
have CIPs for account opening that use risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of each
customer so that the bank can form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the
customer. The minimum information a bank must obtain is the prospective customer's name,
date of birth, address and an identification number. 2

The CIP rule does not prescribe a specific type of government-issued identification card for use
by institutions. Institutions that rely on documentary forms of evidence to verify a customer's
identity should have procedures in place to identify the types of documents the institution will
accept for such verification. Accordingly, it is the Department's position that institutions may
accept the Municipal ID as a means of documentary verification as provided in the institutions'
CIP procedures.

The Department encourages New York state-chartered and licensed financial institutions to
accept the Municipal ID as a form of acceptable identification card, utilizing procedures applied
to all potential customers to assess the risk presented by the customer and any need for additional
documentation or information.

;:;;A
Maria T. Vullo
Superintendent

1
See Federal Agencies' response letter (Apri13o, 2015). The Federal Agencies also concluded that the
identification number included on all Municipal IDs satisfies the non-U.S. person identification number
requirement contained in the federal CIP rules.

2
31 C.F.R. 1020.22oi see 3 NYCRR Part 116.2

Exhibit Page No.: 0204 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0205 of CES Response Declaration
Exhibit Page No.: 0206 of CES Response Declaration
 E HIBIT

Exhibit Page No.: 0207 of CES Response Declaration

 E HI I
c

Exhibit Page No.: 0208 of CES Response Declaration

12/3/2016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News

U.S. HOME CRIME TERRORISM ECONOMY IMMIGRATION DISASTERS MILITARY EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PERSONAL FREEDOMS REGIONS

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal

immigrants
Published November 15.2016
Associated Press

This undated image provided by New York City Hall shows a sample !D card issued by the city. Advocates of last year's municipal tO card program said it would help people
living in the country illegally venture out of the shadows. Now some fear lt could instead expose them to deportation. Since Donald Trump's presidential election victory, the city is
considering destroying the cardholders' personal records. (New York City Hall v1a AP)

NEW YORK- When New York City launched the nation's biggest municipallD card program last year, advocates said it would
help people living in the U.S. illegally to venture out of the shadows.

ADVERTISEMENT

But since Donald Trump was elected president, city officials are instead fielding questions about whether the cards could put
those same people at greater risk of being deported.

The city has vowed to protect cardholders' personal records and might even delete them using a kind of self-destruct provision
that allows for the information to be destroyed at the end of the year.

At least one state lawmaker has criticized that idea, saying it could make it impossible to trace people if they have obtained cards
fraudulently.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 1/4

Exhibit Page No.: 0209 of CES Response Declaration

12/312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News
Some immigrants take comfort in the city's stance, while acknowledging they are still wary.

Alberto Saldivia got his "IDNYC" card this year after spending 15 years in the country without legal authorization.

"It did cause me considerable concern, because they have my information, also the information of my son," the 53-year-old
Mexico native said through an interpreter.

But he felt reassured when Mayor Bill de Blasia said last week that the city would "absolutely" safeguard cardholders' identities.
De Blasia, a Democrat, said officials would assess whether to delete the personal records, a provision that was built into the
program partly over concerns about the possible election of a Republican president such as Trump, whose campaign promises
included a vow to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

Municipai!D programs began in 2007 in New Haven, Conn., and have expanded to about 10 cities, including Los Angeles and
San Francisco. New York's program is the most ambitious, with more than 800,000 cardholders, many of them U.S. citizens or
legal residents.

Officials encouraged everyone in the city to sign up, but the program was aimed at those without other forms of ID, including
homeless people and, especially, the estimated 500,000 immigrants living illegally in the city. The ID would help them do such
everyday things as cash a check or attend a parent-teacher conference at a public school, advocates said.

The program quickly proved popular, with New Yorkers waiting hours in line and months for appointments to register early on.
Pope Francis received a ceremonial one during his visit to the city last year, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
said the card would make him "a real New Yorker."

But civil liberties advocates sounded alarms about the city collecting identity documents that immigration authorities or law
enforcement could request, with a judge's approval.

The program's backers included language that allows for destroying the applicants' identity and residency information at the end
of 2016 if administrators do not move to keep them.

"Protecting it from a possible Republican president was just one of the reasons" for the provision, said City Councilman Carlos
Menchaca, who wrote the law that created the program.

A critic of the program said deleting the records would only compound concerns about it.

"It's completely irresponsible to destroy the documentation of people who applied for a government-issued ID card," said state
Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican.

She said the proof-of-identity requirements may not be stringent enough to prevent fraud, and deleting the records would leave
authorities "no way of knowing who these people are, how they obtained this documentation."

Some immigrants and their advocates remain hopeful that the IDs won't backfire. The extent of the program should thwart using
it to target immigrants here illegally, since they represent only some of the cardholders, said Javier Valdes of Make the Road
New York, an advocacy group that pushed for the program.

Juan Rosas Carrera plans to keep his appointment this weekend to get an IDNYC card, despite a friend's warning that it could be
risky to give authorities his name and address. Rosas Carrera, a Mexican national and construction worker, has been living in the
U.S. illegally for 17 years.

Still, he wants an ID card to open a bank account and feels it's worth the worry.

"I feel safe in New York. I also think that if you don't have a criminal record, nothing bad will really happen," said Rosas Carrera,
48. "But I am a bit worried about Trump."

Trending in U.S.
Why Trump was right to talk with
Taiwan's president

I'm a Democrat and I'm ashamed at

how tone deaf we've become

http:/lwww.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-icl-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 2/4

Exhibit Page No.: 0210 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0211 of CES Response Declaration
 12/4/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1 SIUve.com

alliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy

IDNYC docs

Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina Jr. speak against the IDNYC program in St. George on
Monday, Nov. 28, 2016. (Rachel Shapiro/Staten Island Advance)

By Rachel Shapiro I rshapiro@siadvance.com

Email the author I Follow on Twitter
on November 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, updated December 02, 2016 at 7:05AM

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.- If city officials destroy documents collected from illegal immigrants who apply for municipaiiD cards, they
are creating a "slippery slope" and putting national security at risk, say Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina
Jr., who are calling on officials to hold off.

The Republican Malliotakis has opposed the IDNYC program since its creation, as it exists primarily to provide undocumented
immigrants with photo IDs, something that will help them come out of the shadows, proponents argue.

Her newly-elected colleague, Castorina, also objects to giving government-issued IDs to those in the country illegally,
specifically citing his opposition to allowing banks to accept the ID~

ADVERTISING

in Read invented by Teads

http:/lwww.silive.com/newslindex.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 1/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0212 of CES Response Declaration

 12/4/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs I SIUve.com

On Monday, the two Assembly Republicans spoke outside the Staten Island Business Center on St. Mark's Place in St. George,
where city residents can obtain the ID cards.

They argue that the documents required to obtain an ID card are not solid proof of identification and residency in the city. The
city doesn't consider legal status when determining whether to issue an ID card.

With Donald Trump's election, the liberal-leaning mayor and City Council are in favor of destroying the ID documents for fear they
could be used to locate undocumented immigrants in the city and deport them.

Initially saying on the campaign trail that he hoped to deport the 11 million people in the country illegally, Trump has walked that
back to deporting only those who commit crimes.

The city included a provision when it created the municipaiiD program to destroy all personal records it collected if a "Tea Party
Republican" wins the White House.

It was done for "political reasons" Malliotakis said. "That in itself is concerning."

She noted the 9/11 Commission Report, which states that many of the hijackers used fraudulent documents to obtain IDs.

"That's the concern we have today," she said.

If a person with a city municipaiiD card uses it for nefarious reasons, investigators would need access to the documents given to
the city. If they're destroyed, that could hinder justice, Malliotakis argued.

"It was a mistake to create this program and more of a mistake to destroy documents," she said.

While people applying for the ID must have three points to confirm their identities-- like U.S. or foreign passports, U.S. or
foreign driver's licenses and U.S. or foreign birth certificates-- but they only need one to confirm their city residency.

That could be a utility bill, a bank statement or a letter from the city Housing Authority if the applicant lives in public housing.

Malliotakis often notes that one needs only to reside in a homeless shelter for 15 days before being considered a city resident,
and a letter from the shelter management fulfills the requirement for one proof of residency.

IDNYC can't be used to obtain a driver's license, board an airplane, cross international borders or rent a car.

Castorina called the ID program an "unmitigated disaster" and "an issue of national security."

Castorina, a lawyer and former commissioner for the city Board of Elections, is researching whether destroying the documents is
illegal -- if it is, he'll bring legal action against the city.

"We should not be issuing identification cards to people who are not here legally," he said.

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 2/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0213 of CES Response Declaration

 12/412016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs I Sllive.com

He suspects that in many cases, fraudulent documents are used to obtain the IDs.

Those IDs may be used to get other IDs.

The term "slippery slope" was used several times by both Assembly members.

As for handing over documents to the federal government should it ask for it, "the City of New York has an obligation to follow the
law," Castorina said. "The city is not above the federal government."

A City Hall spokesperson challenged the Assembly members' assertions that the ID program is lax and unsafe.

"The safety of New Yorkers is City Hall's top priority, and that includes the nearly 40 percent of city residents who are foreign
born. We rely on law enforcement professionals from the NYPD to set the bar for security, and IDNYC consistently meets this high
standard. Claims that IDNYC is being used by those intending serious harm is reckless fear-mongering- the IDNYC application
process is similar to DMVs across the country, highly trained staff use state of the art technology to identify instances of fraud,
and IDNYC cannot be used to obtain a driver's license, board a plane, or cross a border. Over 900,000 New Yorkers have IDNYC,
and we are committed to protecting the privacy and security of our data. The City will make a decision regarding record retention
in the near future."

The story was updated to include a comment from the mayor's office.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

2016 Sllive.com. All rights reserved (About Us).

The material on this site may not be reproduced. distributed. transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission
of Sllive.com.

Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.

Ad Choices

http://www.silive.com/newslindex.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 3/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0214 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBI
E

Exhibit Page No.: 0215 of CES Response Declaration

1213/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

D D
City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go
Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed
Immigrant Record Purge
By Madina Toure 11/29/16 6:25pm

Surrounded by Council colleagues, Speaker

Melissa Mark-Viverito lauds the IDNYC program
at a 2015 event. IDNYC

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito

offered a curt retort today to two Staten
Island Republicans preparing legal
action against the city over its plan
to flush municipal identification
records and to shield undocumented
immigrants from President-elect Donald
Trump: "go ahead and sue us."

http://observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 1/5

Exhibit Page No.: 0216 of CES Response Declaration

12/3/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

A legislative trap door in the bill that

created the lDNYC program almost two
years ago enables the city to trash the
data files on its applicants, many of
whom are foreign nationals lacking
other forms of government paperwork,
should a nativist president assume
office. Assemblyman Ronald Castorina
and Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis
contended yesterday that this option, if
Mayor Bill de Blasio utilizes it as
proposed, could make it harder for
federal law enforcement to track
potential terrorists and criminals.

ADVERTISING

The two GOP lawmakers said they

gearing up to take the city to court to
force it to retain the documents.

http:l/observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 2/5

Exhibit Page No.: 0217 of CES Response Declaration

12/3/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

"Go ahead and sue us," Mark-Viverito, a

fierce advocate for both IDNYC and the
undocumented, spat out when the
Observer asked about the potential suit
at an unrelated press conference at City
Hall today.

The speaker, a prominent surrogate for

Hillary Clinton, has attacked Trump
repeatedly on Twitter and vowed that
New York City will remain a sanctuary
city in spite of Republican threats of
economic sanctions. She echoed the
mayor today in pledging that the city will
do whatever is necessary to protect the
program and its applicants from federal
incursions.

"There's a law in place and the law is very

explicit about how information is to be
handled," Mark-Viverito said during the
City Council's monthly pre-stated
meeting. "We are looking at exploring
those options and so we are gonna
exercise whatever rights we have as the
city. They want to raise the funds and
they want to sue the city, they have every
right to do so if that's what they choose
to do."

And Malliotakis, for her part, caught

wind of Mark-Viverito's comments. She
delivered an equally terse response.

http://observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speak.er-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposecl-immigrant-record-purge/ 3/5

Exhibit Page No.: 0218 of CES Response Declaration

12/3/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

"Arrogant," she tweeted. "I guess as long

as taxpayers will be footing the bill to
defend her shady policies in court, it's
0k. "

The de Blasia administration, along with

Mark-Viverito and advocates, has argued
that IDNYC enables undocumented
immigrants to partake in simple, run-of-
the-mill activities that require proof of
identification, such as opening a bank
account. And while the mayor is still
encouraging people to sign up for
IDNYC, Mark-Viverito isn't ready to do
the same.

She said the city is reviewing its legal

options.

"I have not taken that position," she

added. "Obviously we are very concerned
about the [issue] now-between now
and the end of the year and now and
January 20-so we're very
clearly engaged in a conversation as I've
indicated before about one, the data is
secure right now and we're going to
retain a confidentiality."

A City Hall spokesperson told the

Observer yesterday that its staff carefully
verify personal information used to
obtain the municipal identifications, and
that an IDNYC an cannot be used to get
a driver's license, board a plane or cross a
http:/lobserver.com/2016111/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purgel 415

Exhibit Page No.: 0219 of CES Response Declaration

12/3/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

border. The spokesperson also said the

city relies on the NYPD to "set the bar
for security."

This story has been updated to include a

comment from Assemblywoman Nicole
Malliotakis.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-

law of jared Kushner, the publisher of
Observer Media.

ALSO FROM THE WEB

Homeowners Your Go-To Before You 11 Surprising

Must Claim Guide For Join A Meal Causes of Male
their $4271 Perfect Kit Delivery Dysfunction
Sponsored I Sponsored I Sponsored I Sponsored I
Fetch Rate Verizon Wireless HelloFresh Health Central

http:l/observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-aheac:J...and-sue-us-over-proposec:J...immigrant-recorc:J...purgel 515

Exhibit Page No.: 0220 of CES Response Declaration

 E HI I
F

Exhibit Page No.: 0221 of CES Response Declaration

11/29/2016 Thank You from NYC .gov-The Official New York City Web Site

Thank You For Filling Out This Form

Shown below is your submission to NYC.gov on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:23:11

This form res ides at http://www1. nyc. gov /site/hra/about/foil-request. page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Ronald

Last Name: Castorina Jr
Address: 7001 Amboy Road Suite 202 E
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10307
Email: roncastorina@gmail.com
Phone: 718-967-5194
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application
materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys Municipal
Request:
ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including
the Mayors Office in digital format.

2016 The of New York

http:flwww.rrfc.gov/doittcaptchafvalidatecap 1/1

Exhibit Page No.: 0222 of CES Response Declaration

 E HI IT
G

Exhibit Page No.: 0223 of CES Response Declaration

Thank You fror.> NYC.gov -The Official New York City Web Site http://www.nyc.gov/doittcaptcha!validatecap

NYC Resources I 311 j Office of the Mayor

You This

Shown below is your submission to on Friday, December 2, 2016 at 16:51:06

This form resides at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/aboutlfoil-request.page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Nicole

last Name: Malliotakis
Address: 11 Maplewood Place
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10306
Email: nysassembly60@gmail.com
Phone: 718-987-0197
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned
applicationmaterials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys
Request:
MunicipaliD program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency
includingthe Mayors Office in digital format.

Copyright 2016 The City of New York Contact Us I Privacy Policy I Terms of Use

1 ofl Exhibit Page No.: 0224 of CES Response Declaration 12/2/2016 4:51 Pfv
 EXHIBI
H

Exhibit Page No.: 0225 of CES Response Declaration

12/4/2016 MunicipaiiD law has 'delete in case of Tea Party' clause 1 New York Post

unici liD law has 'delete in

rty'clause
By Tara Palmeri February 16, 2015 I 11:27pm

The city's new ID program allows for personal data to be destroyed at the end of 2016 In case a conservative Republican Is elected president, the law's co-
sponsor told The Post.
Photo: Dennis A. Clark

Get the shredders ready- the Tea Party could be coming.

The city's new municipal ID program allows for personal info provided by applicants to be destroyed at the end of 2016, in case a
conservative Republican wins the White House and demands the data, the law's co-sponsor told The Post on Monday.

City Councilman Carlos Menchaca (D-Brooklyn) said the measure was crafted so data submitted by those seeking the cards can be
destroyed on Dec. 31, 2016.

The cards are aimed at undocumented immigrants.

"In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office and says, 'We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country,'
we're going to take the data," he explained.

The next president assumes office Jan. 20, 2017.

"That date is an important signal to the future of immigration reform. That allows us to prepare for any new leadership," Menchaca said.

In order to get an ID, residents must provide their names, addresses, aliases, dates of birth and other information, making it easy for the feds
to identify undocumented immigrants.

Menchaca said the Obama administration has shown no interest in going after the data, but he didn't want to take any chances on the next
administration.

"Though we have not seen documents like this get requested at the level of the federal government. that could be a possibility, so that
really allows us to protect the data," he said.

Immigrant advocates praised the provision.

"It's no secret that one of the biggest sticking points in the ID programs is ensuring that there's confidentiality, that immigrants are
comfortably giving their information to the city," said Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

"The sunset is part and parcel of the effort to ensure confidentiality."

The bill lets the city destroy the info if it determines it's no longer needed.

The cards were first available early last month. Demand has been overwhelming, with more than 200,000 appointments made for the cards
In less than a month.

Additional reporting by Bob Fredericks

Filed under barack obarna , bill de blasio , carlos menchaca , municipal-id program , tea party

htlp://nypost.com/2015/02116/municipal-id-law-has-delete-in-case-of-tea-party-clause/ 1/2

Exhibit Page No.: 0226 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0227 of CES Response Declaration
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

In the Matter of :INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALIOTAKIS,
:AFFIDAVIT OF
Petitioners, :RONALD CASTORINA, JR.
-against-

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VEVERITO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

RONALD CASTORINA, JR., being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the elected representative of the 62nd Assembly District representing the

South Shore of Staten Island, New York. I am the ranking member of the Assembly's Committee

on Banks.

Exhibit Page No.: 0228 of CES Response Declaration

 2. The address to my district office is 7001 Amboy Road, Suite 202 E, Staten Island,

NY 10307.

3. I submit this affidavit in support of the instant special proceeding seeking an Order

pursuant to CPLR 7803(2) prohibiting the respondents from deleting, scrubbing or otherwise

destroying any and all information submitted in connection with New York City's Municipal

Identification Card program (hereinafter "IDNYC"); and a declaratory judgment determining

68 RCNY 6-11 (Confidentiality of IDNYC Card Eligibility Information) violates New York

State's Freedom oflnformation Law (hereinafter "FOIL").

4. On November 29, 2016, at 12:23:11 p.m., I submitted a FOIL request seeking:

I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned

application materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New
York City's Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA
and any other City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital
format.

See Exhibit A.
5. On September 1, 2016, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of

Financial Services, Maria Vullo, provided a letter to New York's banking industry encouraging

the acceptance of IDNYC for banking and credit products. See Exhibit B.

6. On October 20, 2016, I wrote Superintendent Vullo urging her reconsideration of

sentiments contained in her letter. See Exhibit C.

7. I raised my concerns relating to the ease with which individuals may fraudulently

utilize IDNYC to wreak havoc on New York's financial system. Id.

8. I additionally informed Superintendent Vullo her directive to New York's banking

industry may run afoul of multiple federal regulations governing the national banking industry.

Id.

Exhibit Page No.: 0229 of CES Response Declaration

 9. Superintendent Vullo failed to respond or acknowledge my letter dated October

20, 2016.

10. Superintendent's actions leave me with no other option but to introduce legislation

at the State level designed to prevent New York State banks from accepting IDNYC to utilize

financial products. I, however, must access the IDNYC files to determine the level of due

diligence performed by the City before issuing government identification.

11. In recent weeks Mayor De Blasio announced his desire to exercise his purported

authority under 68 RCNY 6-11 and delete all records associated with the issuance of

governmental identification through the IDNYC program. See Exhibit D.

12. When my colleague and co-petitioner, Nicole Maliotakis, and I requested Mayor

De Blasia reconsider his position relating to IDNYC, respondent, City Council Speaker Mark-

Veverito, challenged us to sue to enforce the people's right to preserve and access information

supporting the issuance of government issued identification. See Exhibit E.

13. If Mayor De Blasia, and members of his administration named here as co-

respondents, destroy the IDNYC records I will be unable to conduct a legitimate investigation

before preparing legislation affecting the rights of all New York citizens.

14. Any document destruction policy must, at the very least, maintain the records until

the governmental identification expires. Here, IDNYC identification remains effective for five

years, but the govemment purports to destroy the documents after only retaining them for two

years. This course of conduct proves to be simply illogical and cannot provide the basis for

transparent government espoused by the Mayor and Speaker.

15. The content of my FOIL request proves necessary to perform my duties as a

member of New York State's Assembly. The documents used to support the issuance of a

Exhibit Page No.: 0230 of CES Response Declaration

government identification card ought to remain intact to carry out legitimate govemmental and

public interests.

16. The content, manner, and timing of the disclosure of these governmental

documents must remain subject to New York State's FOIL law.

17. Beyond my need to access these records for a legitimate state interest, the

government must retain governmental identification records and their supporting documentation

leading to its issuance as a matter of national security. It is conceivable~ and likely, a person with

nefarious intent could find their way into appropriating an JDNYC card, and may utilize same to

propagate criminal acts, deleterious to the welfare of our city, state, and nation.

18. It would be jncumbent upon law enforcement agencies to seek out aforementioned

--
docwnentation for the purposes of crime solving, and/or crime deterrence. The destruction of this

docwnentation would render such investigation an impossibility.

.

Dated: December{ 2016

Staten Island, NY

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND ) ,

On .Dt..ti(...~ ~r ~ , 2016, before me personally came Ron. Ronald

Castorina, Jr.. to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the
fore g Affidavit, and duly ac owledge to me that he executed the same.

JEFFREY M.AlfANO
Notary Publt Sta te ol New York
No. 02AL6124696
Qual\lted 1n Rtchmond County_
M-y Cowm. Expues Mar. 28 ~

Exhibit Page No.: 0231 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBIT
A

Exhibit Page No.: 0232 of CES Response Declaration

11/29/2016 Thank You from NYC.gov-The Official New York City Web Site

Thank You Filling Out Form

Shown below is your submission to NYC.gov on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:23:11

This form resides at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/about/foil-request. page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Ronald

Last Name: Castorina Jr
Address: 7001 Amboy Road Suite 202 E
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10307
Email: roncastorina@gmail.com
Phone: 718-967-5194
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application
Request: materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys Municipal
ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including
the Mayors Office in digital format.

of New York

http://www.nyc.gov/doittcaptcha/validatecap 1/1
Exhibit Page No.: 0233 of CES Response Declaration
 EXHIBI
B

Exhibit Page No.: 0234 of CES Response Declaration

 NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENTof
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Andrew M. Cuomo Maria T. Vullo
Governor Superintendent

September 1, 2016

Michael P. Smith
President and CEO
New York Bankers Association
99 Park Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

William Mellin
President
New York Credit Union Association
P.O. Box 15118
Albany, NY 12212

Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Mellin:

This letter provides guidance by the Department of Financial Services (the "Department") on
whether the New York City Municipal Identification Card ("Municipal ID") can be used by
banks and credit unions to verify the identity of prospective customers under New York's
customer identification program ("CIP") requirem~nts for customers who seek to open bank
accounts.

The Department is committed to ensuring broad access to financial products and services for all
consumers and recognizes the Municipal ID as one method to expand access to financial services
in New York. For individuals, access to bank and credit union accounts helps preserve income,
leads to savings and asset-building opportunities, and improves access to affordable credit
opportunities. Indeed, access to banking services can improve the overall economic well-being
of all New Yorkers and the New York economy.

The Department is aware that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the "Federal Agencies") have previously provided

(800) 342-3736 I ONE STATE STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10004-151 I I WWW.DFS.NY.GOV

Exhibit Page No.: 0235 of CES Response Declaration

guidance on this issue in a letter dated April30, 2015. 1 The federal CIP rule requires banks to
have CIPs for account opening that use risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of each
customer so that the bank can form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the
customer. The minimum information a bank must obtain is the prospective customer's name,
date of birth, address and an identification number. 2

The CIP rule does not prescribe a specific type of government-issued identification card for use
by institutions. Institutions that rely on documentary forms of evidence to verify a customer's
identity should have procedures in place to identify the types of documents the institution will
accept for such verification. Accordingly, it is the Department's position that institutions may
accept the Municipal ID as a means of documentary verification as provided in the institutions'
CIP procedures.

The Department encourages New York state-chartered and licensed financial institutions to
accept the Municipal ID as a form of acceptable identification card, utilizing procedures applied
to all potential customers to assess the risk presented by the customer and any need for additional
documentation or information.

J;;A
Maria T. Vullo
Superintendent

2
See Federal Agencies' response letter (April3o, 20:1.5). The Federal Agencies also concluded that the
identification number included on all Municipal IDs satisfies the non-U.S. person identification number
requirement contained in the federal CIP rules.

2
31 C.F.R. :1.020.220; see 3 NYCRR Part u6.2

Exhibit Page No.: 0236 of CES Response Declaration

 E HI IT
c

Exhibit Page No.: 0237 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0238 of CES Response Declaration
Exhibit Page No.: 0239 of CES Response Declaration
Exhibit Page No.: 0240 of CES Response Declaration
12/312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News

On

U.S. HOME CRIME TERRORISM ECONOMY IMMIGRATION DISASTERS MILITARY EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PERSONAL FREEDOMS REGIONS

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal

immigrants
Published November 15,2016
Associated Press

This undated image provided by N~~w York City HaU shows a sample ID card issued by the city. Advocates of last year's municipai!D card program said it would help people
living in the country illegally venture out of the shadows. Now some fear it coukl instead expose them to deportation. Since Donald Trump's presidential election victory, the city is
considering destroying the cardholders' personal records. (New York City Hal! via AP)

NEW YORK- When New York City launched the nation's biggest municipaiiD card program last year, advocates said it would
help people living in the U.S. illegally to venture out of the shadows.

ADVERTISEMENT

But since Donald Trump was elected president, city officials are instead fielding questions about whether the cards could put
those same people at greater risk of being deported.

The city has vowed to protect cardholders' personal records and might even delete them using a kind of self-destruct provision
that allows for the information to be destroyed at the end of the year.

At least one state lawmaker has criticized that idea, saying it could make it impossible to trace people if they have obtained cards
fraudulently.

http:/twww.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-icJ..card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 1/4

Exhibit Page No.: 0241 of CES Response Declaration

12/31201'6 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants I Fox News
Some immigrants take comfort in the city's stance, while acknowledging they are still wary.

Alberto Saldivia got his "IDNYC" card this year after spending 15 years in the country without legal authorization.

"It did cause me considerable concern, because they have my information, also the information of my son," the 53-year-old
Mexico native said through an interpreter.

But he felt reassured when Mayor Bill de Blasio said last week that the city would "absolutely" safeguard cardholders' identities.
De Blasio, a Democrat, said officials would assess whether to delete the personal records, a provision that was built into the
program partly over concerns about the possible election of a Republican president such as Trump, whose campaign promises
included a vow to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

MunicipaiiD programs began in 2007 in New Haven, Conn., and have expanded to about 10 cities, including Los Angeles and
San Francisco. New York's program is the most ambitious, with more than 800,000 cardholders, many of them U.S. citizens or
legal residents.

Officials encouraged everyone in the city to sign up, but the program was aimed at those without other forms of ID, including
homeless people and, especially, the estimated 500,000 immigrants living illegally in the city. The ID would help them do such
everyday things as cash a check or attend a parent-teacher conference at a public school, advocates said.

The program quickly proved popular, with New Yorkers waiting hours in line and months for appointments to register early on.
Pope Francis received a ceremonial one during his visit to the city last year, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
said the card would make him "a real New Yorker."

But civil liberties advocates sounded alarms about the city collecting identity documents that immigration authorities or law
enforcement could request, with a judge's approval.

The program's backers included language that allows for destroying the applicants' identity and residency information at the end
of 2016 if administrators do not move to keep them.

"Protecting it from a possible Republican president was just one of the reasons" for the provision, said City Councilman Carlos
Menchaca, who wrote the law that created the program.

A critic of the program said deleting the records would only compound concerns about it.

"It's completely irresponsible to destroy the documentation of people who applied for a government-issued ID card," said state
Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican.

She said the proof-of-identity requirements may not be stringent enough to prevent fraud, and deleting the records would leave
authorities "no way of knowing who these people are, how they obtained this documentation."

Some immigrants and their advocates remain hopeful that the IDs won't backfire. The extent of the program should thwart using
it to target immigrants here illegally, since they represent only some of the cardholders, said Javier Valdes of Make the Road
New York, an advocacy group that pushed for the program.

Juan Rosas Carrera plans to keep his appointment this weekend to get an IDNYC card, despite a friend's warning that it could be
risky to give authorities his name and address. Rosas Carrera, a Mexican national and construction worker, has been living in the
U.S. illegally for 17 years.

Still, he wants an ID card to open a bank account and feels it's worth the worry.

"I feel safe in New York. I also think that if you don't have a criminal record, nothing bad will really happen," said Rosas Carrera,
48. "But I am a bit worried about Trump."

Trending in U.S.
Why Trump was right to talk with
Taiwan's president

I'm a Democrat and I'm ashamed at

how tone deaf we've become

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 2/4

Exhibit Page No.: 0242 of CES Response Declaration

12/3/2016 New York City may erase 10 card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News
Rep. McCaul: Yes, we will build a wall,
put Mexico on a "payment plan" and
enforce the law

/, Thank God for that awful lady in the

Lexus

Newt Gingrich: We have 1,100 happy

families and a news media unable to
report on success

You Might Also Like Ad Content by

7 Things Glasses Stores Don't Want You To Here's Why You Should Never Buy Glasses Quite Simply The Worst Album Covers
Know at Retail Again Sponsored I The Cheat Sheet
Sponsored I GlassesUSA Sponsored I Glasses USA

Watch a cheetah sprint to 60 mph from a 14-Year-Oid CEO Turns Down $30M Offer for 8 Surprising Facts About Restless Legs
GoPro on its back Vending Machine Biz Syndrome
Sponsored I Digital Trends AY Fox Business Sporls Sponsored 1 Health Central

Sponsored Stories More from Fox News

Do This Every Time You Turn On Your Computer ... (Web Life Advice) Mysterious fireball streaks across night sky in Florida
t::;l
Harry Dent Warns: "This Is Going To Be Worse Than 19311" (Economy (Fox News Science- Video)

and Markets)
Wild chimpanzees spotted 'fishing'
0
11 Surprising Causes of Male Dysfunction (Health Central)
(Fox News Science- Video)

Thinking About Installing Solar Panels? Read This First (Energy Bill
NASA developing new food bars for long Mars missions
Cruncher) t::;l
(Fox News Science- Video)
3 Mistakes People Make When Seeing a Doctor for Osteoarthritis ...
(EverydayHealth.com)
Hillary Clinton Privately Acknowledges She 'Stepped In It' After ...
(Fox Nation)
Strange Dog Keeps Wandering Into Her Home To Sleep ... Then She ...
(95. 7 The Jet)
Gregg Jarrett: Did Hillary Clinton just squander her "get out of..
(Fox News Opinion)

Conway resumes Romney opposition, says Trump loyalists feel ...

(Fox News Politics)

Ad Content by

From Our Partners

Here's What Michelle Obama Had to Say Who Jackie Kennedy Thinks Had Her
After Trump's Victory Husband Killed
Aol.com lrishcentral.com

Rosie O'Donnell Issues an Apology to Bill Clinton's Alleged Ex-Lover Comes Out
Melania Trump With Bombshell Claims
Hollywoodreporter.com Aol.com

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 3/4

Exhibit Page No.: 0243 of CES Response Declaration

12/31201o New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News

Accused Killer of Ex..Jets Star Released Judge Who Handled El Chapo's Cartel Case
Without Charges Assassinated
Nypost.com Nypost.com

The Two People Who May Have Cost Clinton Details You Didn't Know About the Death of
the White House JFK's Son, Patrick
Aol.com lrishcentral.com

A Yellowstone Bison Photo Goes Terribly Michael Moore Has a Message for 'Shocked'
Wrong Democrats
Newser.com lheartcom

This material may not be published, broadcast,

rewritten, or redistributed. 2016 FOX News
Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data
delayed 20 minutes. New Privacy - New Terms of
Use (V\Ihat's New)- FAQ

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 414

Exhibit Page No.: 0244 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBIT
E

Exhibit Page No.: 0245 of CES Response Declaration

 1214/201'8 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1SILive.com

alliotakis, Castorina ask ci not to destroy

ION docs

Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina Jr. speak against the IDNYC program in St. George on
Monday, Nov. 28, 2016. (Rachel Shapiro/Staten Island Advance)

By Rachel Shapiro I rshapiro@siadvance.com

Email the author I Follow on Twitter
on November 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM. updated December 02, 2016 at 7:05AM

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.- If city officials destroy documents collected from illegal immigrants who apply for municipaiiD cards, they
are creating a "slippery slope" and putting national security at risk, say Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina
Jr., who are calling on officials to hold off.

The Republican Malliotakis ha.s opposed the IDNYC program since its creation, as it exists primarily to provide undocumented
immigrants with photo IDs, something that will help them come out of the shadows, proponents argue.

Her newly-elected colleague, Castorina, also objects to giving government-issued IDs to those in the country illegally,
specifically citing his. opposition to allowing ba111<s to accept the .ID.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

http://www.silive.com/newslindex.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 1/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0246 of CES Response Declaration

 12/4/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1 SIUve.com

On Monday, the two Assembly Republicans spoke outside the Staten Island Business Center on St. Mark's Place in St. George,
where city residents can obtain the ID cards.

They argue that the documents required to obtain an ID card are not solid proof of identification and residency in the city. The
city doesn't consider legal status when determining whether to issue an ID card.

With Donald Trump's election, the liberal-leaning mayor and City Council are in favor of destroying the ID documents for fear they
could be used to locate undocumented immigrants in the city and deport them.

Initially saying on the campaign trail that he hoped to deport the 11 million people in the country illegally, Trump has walked that
back to deporting only those who commit crimes.

The city included a provision when it created the municipaiiD program to destroy all personal records it collected if a "Tea Party
Republican" wins the White House.

It was done for "political reasons" Malliotakis said. "That in itself is concerning."

She noted the 9/11 Commission Report, which states that many of the hijackers used fraudulent documents to obtain IDs.

"That's the concern we have today," she said.

If a person with a city municipaiiD card uses it for nefarious reasons, investigators would need access to the documents given to
the city. If they're destroyed, that could hinder justice, Malliotakis argued.

"It was a mistake to create this program and more of a mistake to destroy documents," she said.

While people applying for the ID must have three points to confirm their identities-- like U.S. or foreign passports, U.S. or
foreign driver's licenses and U.S. or foreign birth certificates-- but they only need one to confirm their city residency.

That could be a utility bill, a bank statement or a letter from the city Housing Authority if the applicant lives in public housing.

Malliotakis often notes that one needs only to reside in a homeless shelter for 15 days before being considered a city resident.
and a letter from the shelter management fulfills the requirement for one proof of residency.

IDNYC can't be used to obtain a driver's license, board an airplane, cross international borders or rent a car.

Castorina called the ID program an "unmitigated disaster" and "an issue of national security."

Castorina, a lawyer and former commissioner for the city Board of Elections, is researching whether destroying the documents is
illegal -- if it is, he'll bring legal action against the city.

"We should not be issuing identification cards to people who are not here legally," he said.

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 2/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0247 of CES Response Declaration

 12/41201<5 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1 SIUve.com

He suspects that in many cases, fraudulent documents are used to obtain the IDs.

Those IDs may be used to get other IDs.

The term "slippery slope" was used several times by both Assembly members.

As for handing over documents to the federal government should it ask for it, "the City of New York has an obligation to follow the
law," Castorina said. "The city is not above the federal government."

A City Hall spokesperson challenged the Assembly members' assertions that the ID program is lax and unsafe.

"The safety of New Yorkers is City Hall's top priority, and that includes the nearly 40 percent of city residents who are foreign
born. We rely on law enforcement professionals from the NYPD to set the bar for security, and IDNYC consistently meets this high
standard. Claims that IDNYC is being used by those intending serious harm is reckless fear-mongering- the IDNYC application
process is similar to DMVs across the country, highly trained staff use state of the art technology to identify instances of fraud,
and IDNYC cannot be used to obtain a driver's license, board a plane, or cross a border. Over 900,000 New Yorkers have IDNYC,
and we are committed to protecting the privacy and security of our data. The City will make a decision regarding record retention
in the near future."

The story was updated to include a comment from the mayor's office.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

2016 SILive.com. All rights reserved (About Us).

The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission
of Sllive.com.

Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.

Ad Choices

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 3/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0248 of CES Response Declaration

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

In the Matter of :INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS,
:AFFIDAVIT OF
Petitioners, :NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS
-against-

BILL DEBLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the elected representative of the 64th Assembly District representing parts of

Brooklyn and Staten Island, New York. I am a member of the Assembly's Committee on

Banks.

Exhibit Page No.: 0249 of CES Response Declaration

 2. The address to my district office is 11 Maplewood Place, Staten Island, NY

10306.

3. I submit this affidavit in support of the instant special proceeding seeking an

Order pursuant to CPLR 7803(2) prohibiting the respondents from deleting, scrubbing or

otherwise destroying any and all information submitted in connection with New York City's

Municipal Identification Card program (hereinafter "IDNYC"); and a declaratory judgment

determining 68 RCNY 6-11 (Confidentiality of IDNYC Card Eligibility Information) violates

New York State's Freedom oflnformation Law (hereinafter "FOIL").

4. On December 2, 2016, at 6:51:06 p.m., I submitted a FOIL request seeking:

I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned

application materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New
York City's Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA
and any other City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital
format.

See Exhibit A.

5. On February 18, 2015, I wrote to Mayor Bill de Blasio, City Council Speaker

Melissa Mark-Viverito, Councilmember Daniel Dromm, and Councilmember Carlos Menchaca,

expressing grave concern about the city's plans to destroy the records of individuals who obtain

IDNYC identification cards. See Exhibit B.

6. I suggested amending the law by removing the clause that permits the destruction

of records, and replacing it with language that would require the retention of records acquired

through the IDNYC application process or, at the very least, ensure that the determination made

by the administering agency before the 2016 deadline is made in full consideration of our city's

interest in law enforcement and counterterrorism. /d.

Exhibit Page No.: 0250 of CES Response Declaration

 7. On May 5, 2015, New York City Immigrant Affairs Commissioner Nisha

Agarwal, City Council Speaker Mark-Viverito, Councilmember Dromm, and Councilmember

Menchaca responded to my letter, stating "the provision for review of the document retention

provision .. .is meant to ensure that as IDNYC grows its anti-fraud protections remain strong,

and that the balance between security and privacy remains accurate. Safety and security will

remain paramount during the review process." See Exhibit C.

8. I am currently researching potential legislation that would ameliorate the risk of

an individual acquiring an IDNYC card under false pretenses.

9. In furtherance of the public's interest with regard to the values of public safety

and transparency in government, I require access to the documents acquired through the IDNYC

application process to determine the level of scrutiny applied by the New York City Human

Resources Administration in issuing identification cards.

10. In recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his desire to exercise his purported

authority under 68 RCNY 6-11 and delete aU records associated with the issuance of

governmental identification through the IDNYC program. See Exhibit D.

1L When my colleague and co-petitioner, Ronald Castorina, Jr., and I requested

Mayor de Blasio reconsider his position relating to IDNYC, respondent, City Council Speaker

Mark-Viverito, challenged us to sue to enforce the people's right to preserve and access

information supporting the issuance of government issued identification. See Exhibit E.

12. If Mayor de Blasio, and members of his administration named here as co-

respondents, destroy the IDNYC records I will be unable to conduct a legitimate investigation

before preparing legislation affecting the rights of all New York citizens.

Exhibit Page No.: 0251 of CES Response Declaration

 13. Any document destruction policy must, at the very least, maintain the records

until the governmental identification expires. Here, IDNYC identification :remains effective for

five years, but the government purports to destroy the documents after only retaining them for

two years. This course of conduct proves to be simply illogical and cannot provide the basis for

transparent government espoused by the Mayor and Speaker.

14. The content of my FOIL request proves necessary to perform my duties as a

member of New York State's Assembly. The documents used to support the issuance of a

government identification card ought to remain intact to carry out legitimate governmental and

public interests.

15. The content, manner, and timing of the disclosure of these governmental

documents must remain subject to New York State's FOIL law.

16. Beyond my need to access these records for a legitimate state interest, the

government must retain governmental identification records and their supporting documentation

leading to its issuance as a matter of national security. It is conceivable, and likely, a person

with nefarious intent could use fraudulent documents or reside in a New York City homeless

shelter for 15 days to meet the city's requirements to obtain identification through the IDNYC

program with the sole intention of exploiting it.

Dated: December 2016

Staten Island, NY

Exhibit Page No.: 0252 of CES Response Declaration

STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

On ~ ~ , 2016, before me personally came Nicole Malliotakis,

to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing
Affidavit, ant duly acknowledge to me that he executed the same.

"""":"--.....OAi' ~
UJ_l\1\~\=
NOiAWP$LIC ~
STATE OF NEW YORK

Exhibit Page No.: 0253 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBIT
A

Exhibit Page No.: 0254 of CES Response Declaration

Thank You from NYC.gov -The Official New York City Web Site http://www.nyc.gov/doittcaptcha/validatecap

NYC Resources I 311 j Office of the Mayor

This

Shown below is your submission to on Friday, December 2, 2016 at 16:51:06

This form resides at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/aboutlfoil-request.page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Nicole

Last Name: Malliotakis
Address: 11 Maplewood Place
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10306
Email: nysassembly60@gmail.com
Phone: 718-987-0197
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned
applicationmaterials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys
Request:
MunicipaiiD program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency
includingthe Mayors Office in digital format.

Copyright 2016 The City of New York Contact Us I Privacy Policy I Terms of Use

1 of 1 Exhibit Page No.: 0255 of CES Response Declaration 12/2/2016 4:51PM

 E HIBIT

Exhibit Page No.: 0256 of CES Response Declaration

 February 18, 2015

Hon. Bill de Blasio Hon. Melissa Mark-Viverito Hon. Daniel Dromm Hon. Carlos Menchaca
Mayor Speaker Councilmember Councilmember
City Hall City Hall 37-32 75th Street 4417 4th Avenue
New York, NY 10007 New York, NY 10007 Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Brooklyn, NY 11220

Dear Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Mark-Viverito, Councilmember Dromm, and Councilmember Menchaca:

I write to you with regard to 3-115 of the New York City Administrative Code outlining the New York
City Identification Card ("IDNYC) program, enacted by Int. No. 253-A (2014) co-sponsored by Councilmembers
Dromm and Menchaca. My concern lies more specifically in subsection (e)(2) of the statute which states:

On or before December 31, 2016, the administering agency shall review data collected in
the report described in subdivision h of this section and make a determination regarding
the continuing need to retain records ... and shall make any appropriate modifications to
the policy for retention of records related to the New York city identity card program.
[emphasis added].

This provision orders the administering agency to ascertain, by the end of 2016, whether the records
obtained through the program's administration should be retained or destroyed.

Subsection (e)(3) reads, subsequently:

In the event that: (i) the administering agency fails to make a determination on or before
December 31, 2016 pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subdivision, or (ii) the administering
agency determines that records retention is no longer necessary, then the city shall not retain
originals or copies of records provided by an applicant to prove identity or residency for
a New York city identity card for longer than the time needed to review the application, and
any such records in the city's possession prior to such date shall be destroyed on or before
December 31, 2016 or, in the case of an application pending on such date, as soon as
practicable after a final determination has been made regarding the application.
[emphasis added]

Alarmingly, this provision orders the city to destroy these records should the administering agency fail
to enter the aforementioned determination by the required date, thereby creating a presumption that
retention of records will not be necessary.

Exhibit Page No.: 0257 of CES Response Declaration

 Even more alarming were statements made this week by Councilman Menchaca indicating the reason
1
for the destruction of files would be politically motivated and not based on the safety and security of all New
2
Yorkers I find this reasoning wholly irresponsible.

While the intent of this statute was to provide undocumented residents, including those unlawfully
residing within the country, with government-issued identification, individuals may be taking advantage of this
program for malicious purposes. As you surely recall, the ensuing debate over Int. 253-A yielded concerns
with regard to security and the potential use of the identification cards to pursue committing acts of
terrorism. Many of the program's proponents responded to these concerns with arguments that the cards
would actually increase securitl and aid law enforcement 4 by identifying undocumented individuals living
within New York City, providing an ancillary benefit used to build public support and persuade your colleagues
in government. The purging of data authorized by subsection (e) would more than simply compromise this
benefit, it would create a new risk to the safety of all New York City residents in that, should someone use the
program to create a fake identity for malicious purposes, we would be left without the means to learn how he
or she created it. The City of New York would have issued an estimate half million identification cards and
have no record of who those identification cards were issued to. The records provided to the city in pursuit of
the identification cards carry their own inherent value.

The ever-present fear of terrorism within our city has already been voiced with respect to this issue,
but it must not be overlooked. While over a decade has passed since New York City was attacked on
September 11, 2001, the threat endures. With the announcement of our nation's escalated role in fighting the
most violent and brutal terrorist organization the world has ever known 5, accompanied by reports on how the
6
members of that organization are attempting to infiltrate and attack nations that oppose it , now is not the
time to take a political stance at the expense of our efforts to combat terrorism here at home. It is dangerous
and misguided.

I strongly urge you to amend 3-115 of the New York City Administrative Code by striking subsection
(e) and replacing it with language that would require the retention of records acquired through the IDNYC
application process or, at the very least, ensure that the determination made by the administering agency
before the 2016 deadline is made in full consideration of our city's interest in law enforcement and
counterterrorism.

Furthermore, I remain concerned with how the program is fundamentally administered. Subsection (d)
of the statute lists a variety of documents that can be provided in order to obtain an identification card,

1
Christopher Mathias, How New York City's Municipal ID Program Protects Immigrants From A Tea Party White House, THE
HUFFINGTON POST, Feb. 17, 2015.
2
Tara Palmieri, Municipal ID law has 'delete in case of Tea Party' clause, N.Y. PosT, Feb. 16, 2015.
3
Hearing on lntro. 253 To Create a New York City Identity Card Program Before the New York City Council Comm. on Immigration
(2015) (statement of Mindy Tarlow, Director of the Mayor's Office of Operations). ("Everyone needs identification to live in this city.
In the name of 'Security' a lot of the buildings are asking for I D's before you are allowed to enter the building even public buildings
are asking for !D's and if you don't have an ID you will not want to risk going into that building.")
4
Transcript of the Minutes of the Stated Meeting, June 26, 2014 (2014) (statement by Mark Levine, Member of the New York City
Council). ("[G]ood law enforcement benefits from having IDs for anyone, which law enforcement officials have an encounter.
Having identification facilitates law enforcement.")
5
Letter from Barack Obama, President of the United States, to the United States Congress regarding Authorization for the Use of
United States Armed Forces in connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, (Feb. 11, 2015).
6
Tom Porter, ISIS militants travel to Europe disguised as Syrian refugees, INTERNATIONAL BuSINESS TIMES, Jan. 30, 2015.

Exhibit Page No.: 0258 of CES Response Declaration

ranging from a foreign national identification card 7, to a written verification issued by a homeless shelter that
the applicant has been in the city for at least 15 days 8, to "any other documentation that the administering
agency deems acceptable. 9" While the IDNYC application requires the production of multiple documents,
0
weighted in accordance of their reliability and ability to withstand scrutinl , the lax restrictiveness of the
statute would permit these requirements to be relaxed and allow the IDNYC program to lower the standard
for application. I strongly urge you to amend 3-115 by explicitly identifying which documents are required or,
at the very least, codify the requirements presently indicated on the IDNYC application.

My final concern lies in questions as to how the document requirements were promulgated. Were the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the New York City Police Department Intelligence Division &
Counterterrorism Bureau consulted during the creation of this program? Have you investigated, or
considered, the ramifications of destroying files of hundreds of thousands of applicants who will now have
government-issued identification cards? Further, can you identify controls that have been implemented to
ensure that the documentation provided with an application is not fraudulent?

I thank you in advance for your consideration of my suggestions, and anxiously await your response to
my questions.

Nico Malliotakis
Member of Assembly

cc: Hon. Vincent Gentile, Councilmember, 43rd District

Hon. Vincent lgnizio, Council Minority leader, 51st District
Hon. Steven Matteo, Councilmember, 50th District
Hon. Deborah Rose, Councilmember, 49th District

7
N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE 3-llS(d)(l)(viii).
8
ld. at 3-115(d)(2)(xi).
9
ld. at 3-115(d)(3)(xii).
10
IDNYC Application, http://www.nyc.gov/assets/idnyc/downloads/pdf/application-materials/application_english.pdf.

Exhibit Page No.: 0259 of CES Response Declaration

 EXHI IT
c

Exhibit Page No.: 0260 of CES Response Declaration

 May 5, 2015

Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis

District Office
11 Maplewood Place
Staten Island, New York 10306

Dear Assemblywoman Malliotakis:

Thank you for your letter regarding IDNYC, the City's new municipal identification card
program.

The City launched IDNYC in January. All eligible New York City residents 14 and older
may now obtain the lDNYC card. The card was designed to be attractive and useful for all New
Yorkers. lDNYC cardholders have access to, among many other benefits, free or discounted
admission to cultural institutions and discounts at movie theaters and local businesses. The card
is accepted by the NYPD as valid identification for many purposes, and it even doubles as a
library card. Cardholders may access City buildings and services. Indeed, inclusion is critical to
the success of the IDNYC card, as it brings diverse New Yorkers together and gives all the same
benefits and opportunities. One City-one card. The availability of the card to all New Yorkers
also reduces barriers to full participation in civic life for the elderly, homeless, immigrants,
transgender and other communities that have historically had difficulty obtaining identification.
That makes our City safer. Importantly, we found that those without identification very often do
not engage law enforcement when they witness or are the victim of a crime. With the IDNYC
card, vulnerable New Yorkers can come out ofthe shadows in a safe and secure environment.

Making sure that the IDNYC card is safe and secure was, of course, critical for us. In drafting
the legislation establishing the IDNYC program, as well as the rules governing implementation,
we took great care to minimize the possibility of fraud and maximize security and public safety.
We consulted with experts, including the NYPD and its Intelligence Bureau, who contributed to
the development of security and anti-fraud protections. These experts also helped us formulate
document vetting protocols, as well as the quality control measures we adopted for IDNYC's
critical backend verification process.

It bears noting that the City committed significant resources to building a robust and effective
identification verification process.

Exhibit Page No.: 0261 of CES Response Declaration

 Applicants may only obtain the card if they can provide sufficient acceptable documents to
prove identity and New York City residency. We have established a strong supporting document
criteria system and eligibility verification methods, not unlike those used by the state Department
of Motor Vehicles to deter fraud. The initial identity verification process also utilizes facial
recognition software, so that fraud may be detected during the renewal process. Important
information appearing on all IDNYC cards, including cardholder's name, address, photo. and
other information, is retained indefinitely.

The supporting document retention provisions and protocols, also established in consultation
with the NYPD and other security experts, are designed to ensure the integrity of the card and the
personal safety and privacy interests of New Yorkers. The provision for review of the document
retention provision that you referenced in your letter, is meant to ensure that as IDNYC grows,
its anti-fraud protections remain strong, and that the balance between security and privacy
remains accurate. Safety and security will remain paramount during the review process.

As a result of all these security measures, the NYPD has authorized police officers to accept
the card as valid and sufficient identification for many interactions with the public. Further, the
IDNYC card is considered so secure, that no fewer that twelve banking institutions in the City
accept it for purposes of opening a bank account. While we are confident that the procedures and
card design are strong fraud deterrents, we will remain vigilant regarding card-related security
matters.

Thank you for your concern regarding these matters. If you have any further questions
please contact Bitta Mostofi at 212-676-3024 or via email at J:1!I:',s;':fi'','='===~=..:..

Sincerely,

Nisha Agarwal
Commissioner, NYC Office of Immigrant Affairs

/11~
Melissa Mark Viverito
Speaker, New York City Council

Exhibit Page No.: 0262 of CES Response Declaration

Daniel Dromm
Chair, Committee on Education
New York City Council
lDNYC Bill Sponsor

Carlos Menchaca
Chair, Committee on Immigration
New York City Council
IDNYC Bill Co-Sponsor

Exhibit Page No.: 0263 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBIT
D

Exhibit Page No.: 0264 of CES Response Declaration

12/312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News

On

U.S. HOME CRIME TERRORISM ECONOMY IMMIGRATION DISASTERS MILITARY EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PERSONAL FREEDOMS REGIONS

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal

immigrants
Published November 15, 2016
Associated Press

This undated image provided by New York City Hall shows a sample !0 card issued by the city. Advocates of last year's municipal tO card program said ii would help people
living in the country illegally venture out of the shadows. Now sorne fear rt could instead expose them to deportation. Since Donald Trump's presidential election victory, the city is
considering destroying the cardholders' personal records. (New York City Hal! via AP)

NEW YORK- When New York City launched the nation's biggest municipal ID card program last year, advocates said it would
help people living in the U.S. illegally to venture out of the shadows.

ADVERTISEMENT

But since Donald Trump was elected president, city officials are instead fielding questions about whether the cards could put
those same people at greater risk of being deported.

The city has vowed to protect cardholders' personal records and might even delete them using a kind of self-destruct provision
that allows for the information to be destroyed at the end of the year.

At least one state lawmaker has criticized that idea, saying it could make it impossible to trace people if they have obtained cards
fraudulently.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 1/4

Exhibit Page No.: 0265 of CES Response Declaration

12/312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News
Some immigrants take comfort in the city's stance, while acknowledging they are still wary.

Alberto Saldivia got his "IDNYC" card this year after spending 15 years in the country without legal authorization.

"It did cause me considerable concern, because they have my information, also the information of my son," the 53-year-old
Mexico native said through an interpreter.

But he felt reassured when Mayor Bill de Blasio said last week that the city would "absolutely" safeguard cardholders' identities.
De Blasio, a Democrat, said officials would assess whether to delete the personal records, a provision that was built into the
program partly over concerns about the possible election of a Republican president such as Trump, whose campaign promises
included a vow to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

MunicipaiiD programs began in 2007 in New Haven, Conn., and have expanded to about 10 cities, including Los Angeles and
San Francisco. New York's program is the most ambitious, with more than 800,000 cardholders, many of them U.S. citizens or
legal residents.

Officials encouraged everyone in the city to sign up, but the program was aimed at those without other forms of ID, including
homeless people and, especially, the estimated 500,000 immigrants living illegally in the city. The ID would help them do such
everyday things as cash a check or attend a parent-teacher conference at a public school, advocates said.

The program quickly proved popular, with New Yorkers waiting hours in line and months for appointments to register early on.
Pope Francis received a ceremonial one during his visit to the city last year, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
said the card would make him "a real New Yorker."

But civil liberties advocates sounded alarms about the city collecting identity documents that immigration authorities or law
enforcement could request, with a judge's approval.

The program's backers included language that allows for destroying the applicants' identity and residency information at the end
of 2016 if administrators do not move to keep them.

"Protecting it from a possible Republican president was just one of the reasons" for the provision, said City Councilman Carlos
Menchaca, who wrote the law that created the program.

A critic of the program said deleting the records would only compound concerns about it.

"It's completely irresponsible to destroy the documentation of people who applied for a government-issued ID card," said state
Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican.

She said the proof-of-identity requirements may not be stringent enough to prevent fraud, and deleting the records would leave
authorities "no way of knowing who these people are, how they obtained this documentation."

Some immigrants and their advocates remain hopeful that the IDs won't backfire. The extent of the program should thwart using
it to target immigrants here illegally, since they represent only some of the cardholders, said Javier Valdes of Make the Road
New York, an advocacy group that pushed for the program.

Juan Rosas Carrera plans to keep his appointment this weekend to get an IDNYC card, despite a friend's warning that it could be
risky to give authorities his name and address. Rosas Carrera, a Mexican national and construction worker, has been living in the
U.S. illegally for 17 years.

Still, he wants an ID card to open a bank account and feels it's worth the worry.

"I feel safe in New York. I also think that if you don't have a criminal record, nothing bad will really happen," said Rosas Carrera,
48. "But I am a bit worried about Trump."

Trending in U.S.
Why Trump was right to talk with
Taiwan's president

I'm a Democrat and I'm ashamed at

how tone deaf we've become

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 214
Exhibit Page No.: 0266 of CES Response Declaration
12/3/2016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News
Rep. McCaul: Yes, we will build a wall,
put Mexico on a "payment plan" and
enforce the law

Thank God for that awful lady in the

Lexus

Newt Gingrich: We have 1,100 happy

families and a news media unable to
report on success

You Might Also Like Ad Content by

7 Things Glasses Stores Don't Want You To Here's Why You Should Never Buy Glasses Quite Simply The Worst Album Covers
Know at Retail Again Sponsored 1The Cheat Sheet
Sponsored I GlassesUSA Sponsored I GlassesUSA

Watch a cheetah sprint to 60 mph from a 14-Year-Oid CEO Turns Down $30M Offer for 8 Surprising Facts About Restless Legs
GoPro on its back Vending Machine Biz Syndrome
Sponsored I Digital Trends AY Fox Business Sports Sponsored I Health Central

Sponsored Stories More from Fox News

Do This Every Time You Turn On Your Computer ... (Web Life Advice) Mysterious fireball streaks across night sky in Florida
Ql
Harry Dent Warns: "This Is Going To Be Worse Than 19311" (Economy (Fox News Science- Video)

and Markets)
Wild chimpanzees spotted 'fishing'
Ql
11 Surprising Causes of Male Dysfunction (Health Central)
(Fox News Science- Video)

Thinking About Installing Solar Panels? Read This First (Energy Bill NASA developing new food bars for long Mars miss ions
Cruncher) Ql
(Fox News Science- Video)
3 Mistakes People Make When Seeing a Doctor for Osteoarthritis ..
(EverydayHealth.com)
Hillary Clinton Privately Acknowledges She 'Stepped In It' After ..
(Fox Nation)
Strange Dog Keeps Wandering Into Her Home To Sleep Then She ..
Gregg Jarrett: Did Hillary Clinton just squander her "get out of..
(95. 7 The Jet)
(Fox News Opinion)

Conway resumes Romney opposition, says Trump loyalists feel ..

(Fox News Politics)

Ad Content by

From Our Partners

Here's What Michelle Obama Had to Say Who Jackie Kennedy Thinks Had Her
After Trump's Victory Husband Killed
Aol.com lrishcentral.com

Rosie O'Donnell Issues an Apology to Bill Clinton's Alleged Ex-Lover Comes Out
Melania Trump With Bombshell Claims
Hoiiywoodreporter.com Aol.com

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 3/4
Exhibit Page No.: 0267 of CES Response Declaration
12/3/2016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1Fox News

Accused Killer of Ex-Jets Star Released Judge Who Handled El Chapo's Cartel Case
Without Charges Assassinated
Nypost.com Nypost.com

The Two People Who May Have Cost Clinton Details You Didn't Know About the Death of
the White House JFK's Son, Patrick
Aol.com lrishcentral.com

A YeUowstone Bison Photo Goes Terribly Michael Moore Has a Message for 'Shocked'
Wrong Democrats
Newser.com lheart.com

This material may not be published, broadcast,

rewntten, or redistributed. 2016 FOX News
Netwoli<, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data
delayed 20 minutes. New Privacy - New Terms of
Use (Vvhats New)- FAQ

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 4/4

Exhibit Page No.: 0268 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0269 of CES Response Declaration
 1214/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs I SIUve.com

Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destr

IDNYC docs

Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina Jr. speak against the IDNYC program in St. George on
Monday, Nov. 28, 2016. (Rachel Shapiro/Staten Island Advance)

By Rachel Shapiro I rshapiro@siadvance.com

Email the author I Follow on Twitter
on November 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, updated December 02, 2016 at 7:05AM

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.- If city officials destroy documents collected from illegal immigrants who apply for municipaiiD cards, they
are creating a "slippery slope" and putting national security at risk, say Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina
Jr., who are calling on officials to hold off.

The Republican Malliotakis has opposed the IK?NYCprogram since its creation, as it exists primarily to provide undocumented
immigrants with photo IDs, something that will help them come out of the shadows. proponents argue.

Her newly-elected colleague, Castorina, also objects to giving government-issued IDs to those in the country illegally,
specifically citing his opposition to allowing banks to accept the ID.

ADVERTISING

inHead invented by Teads

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 1/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0270 of CES Response Declaration

 1214/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1SILive.com

On Monday, the two Assembly Republicans spoke outside the Staten Island Business Center on St. Mark's Place in St. George,
where city residents can obtain the ID cards.

They argue that the documents required to obtain an ID card are not solid proof of identification and residency in the city. The
city doesn't consider legal status when determining whether to issue an ID card.

With Donald Trump's election, the liberal-leaning mayor and City Council are in favor of destroying the ID documents for fear they
could be used to locate undocumented immigrants in the city and deport them.

Initially saying on the campaign trail that he hoped to deport the 11 million people in the country illegally, Trump has walked that
back to deporting only those who commit crimes.

The city included a provision when it created the municipaiiD program to destroy all personal records it collected if a "Tea Party
Republican" wins the White House.

It was done for "political reasons" Malliotakis said. "That in itself is concerning."

She noted the 9/11 Commission Report, which states that many of the hijackers used fraudulent documents to obtain IDs.

"That's the concern we have today," she said.

If a person with a city municipaiiD card uses it for nefarious reasons, investigators would need access to the documents given to
the city. If they're destroyed, that could hinder justice, Malliotakis argued.

"It was a mistake to create this program and more of a mistake to destroy documents," she said.

While people applying for the ID must have three points to confirm their identities-- like U.S. or foreign passports, U.S. or
foreign driver's licenses and U.S. or foreign birth certificates -- but they only need one to confirm their city residency.

That could be a utility bill, a bank statement or a letter from the city Housing Authority if the applicant lives in public housing.

Malliotakis often notes that one needs only to reside in a homeless shelter for 15 days before being considered a city resident,
and a letter from the shelter management fulfills the requirement for one proof of residency.

IDNYC can't be used to obtain a driver's license, board an airplane, cross international borders or rent a car.

Castorina called the ID program an "unmitigated disaster" and "an issue of national security."

Castorina, a lawyer and former commissioner for the city Board of Elections, is researching whether destroying the documents is
illegal -- if it is, he'll bring legal action against the city.

"We should not be issuing identification cards to people who are not here legally," he said.

http:llwww.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 213

Exhibit Page No.: 0271 of CES Response Declaration

 12/4/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1 SIUve.com

He suspects that in many cases, fraudulent documents are used to obtain the IDs.

Those IDs may be used to get other IDs.

The term "slippery slope" was used several times by both Assembly members.

As for handing over documents to the federal government should it ask for it, "the City of New York has an obligation to follow the
law," Castorina said. "The city is not above the federal government."

A City Hall spokesperson challenged the Assembly members' assertions that the ID program is lax and unsafe.

"The safety of New Yorkers is City Hall's top priority, and that includes the nearly 40 percent of city residents who are foreign
born. We rely on law enforcement professionals from the NYPD to set the bar for security, and IDNYC consistently meets this high
standard. Claims that IDNYC is being used by those intending serious harm is reckless fear-mongering- the IDNYC application
process is similar to DMVs across the country, highly trained staff use state of the art technology to identify instances of fraud,
and IDNYC cannot be used to obtain a driver's license, board a plane, or cross a border. Over 900,000 New Yorkers have IDNYC,
and we are committed to protecting the privacy and security of our data. The City will make a decision regarding record retention
in the near future."

The story was updated to include a comment from the mayor's office.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

2016 Sllive.com. All rights reserved (About Us).

The material on this site may not be reproduced. distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission
of Sllive.com.

Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.

~"' Ad Choices

http:/twww.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 3/3

Exhibit Page No.: 0272 of CES Response Declaration

 OF YORK

:INDEXNO. - - - - - -
RONALD CASTORINA, and
NICOLE MALLJOTAKIS,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
-against-

BILL DEBLASIO, in official capacity as MAYOR OF

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERlTO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF NEW YORK CITY COUNCU.,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his officia1 capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents/Defendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW' IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS'

OROER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Law Office of Jeffrey Alfano

1000 South A venue
Staten Island, NY 10314
Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis.

On The Brief
Jeffrey Alfano

Exhibit Page No.: 0273 of CES Response Declaration

 TABLE
Page(s)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................... ' ........................ .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT............................................................................ 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................. 6

POINT I

New Yorks Freedom ofinformation Law Requires Respondents Preserve Government

Records Submitted In Connection With The IDNYC Program This Court Must Issue
an Order Prohibiting Respondent From Proceeding Without Jurisdiction to Destroy
These Government Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . 11

POINT II

The IDNYC Enabling Statute and Subsequently Issued Regulations Restricting Ae<:ess
To Records Associated with the lDNYC Program And Calling For Their Arbitrary
Destruction Violate New York State's Freedom of Information Law........................ 13

CONCLUSION ....................................................... ' ......... '......................... 15

Exhibit Page No.: 0274 of CES Response Declaration

 Page(s)

Bradford v. Helman, 24 937 (P1 1965) ..................................... . 12

Newsday, v. Sise, 71 NY2d (1987) .............................................. .. 11

Roche v. Lamb, Misc.2d 633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969),

app. dismissed, 33 AD2d 1102 (41b Dep't 1970), aff'd, 26 NY2d 54 (1970) . .. . ...... 12

Tartan Oil Corp. v. Stat Dep 't ofTaxation & Fin., 239 AD2d 36 (3d Dep't. 1998) .. 11

STATE STATIJTES

C.P.L.R. 7803(2) .... ................. ........................................ ................. 12

Public Officers Law 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Public Officers Law 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

Vehicle and Traffic Law 502 .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . 14

Vehicle and Traffic Law 508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

STATE REGULATIONS

15 NYCRR 160 et seq. . .. .... ..... ... ... . . .. .. ... ... .. .. ........ ......... ... ... ..... . .... .... 14

15 NYCRR 161 et seq. ....................................................................... 14

NEW YORK CITY LOCAl~ LAWS

New York City Local Law 35/2014 .......................................................... 8

NEW YORK REGULATIONS

NYC Administrative Code 3-llS(e) ... ...... ......... .................. ... ............... ... 9, 12, 14

68 RCNY 6-11 ............................ ..... ............................ .... ... .............. 9, 12, 14

Exhibit Page No.: 0275 of CES Response Declaration

 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Mayor de Blasio claimed: "I believe deeply in transparency" and want to make public "a

whole swath of information" about "day-to-day government business." 1 Mayor de Blasio

investigated City agencies' responses to Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") requests his

former role as Public Advocate. During that time he believed mayoral administrations must follow

FOIL and concluded, "the bottom line here is: This is not an optional matter, and we have to stop

letting people get away with it [ignoring/denying FOIL requests]."2 Indeed, Speaker Mark-

Viverito sang the praises of open government data this past April in response to the opening of the

New York City School of Data conference celebrating the fourth anniversary of the city passing

its first open data law. Speaker Mark-Viverito proclaimed this past Spring her vision of open

government technology working "to tell a story, one that has rarely been told rightly before. I

want our data to move people, organizations, and of course, governments to act differently." 3

Inexplicably Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito, two champions of open

government and transparency, seek the destruction of nearly 1,000,000 applications kept in

connection with New York City's Municipal Identification Program ("IDNYC") before the close

of the year. While both Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito only recently voiced their

intention to unilaterally destroy documents associated with the largest municipal government

identification program in the country, they seek the benefit of a poison pill which destroys evidence

of the IDNYC program but keeps the program alive.

Sally Goldenberg, De Blasia to Disclose 'Substantive ' Lobbyist Meetings, POLITICO, May
27,2014 attached to the Affirmation of Jeffrey Alfano ("Alfano Aff.") as Exhibit A.
2 Kate Taylor, De Blasia Pushes on Information Requests, The New York Times, Oct 19,
2011. Alfano Aff. Exh. B.
3 Kaela Sanborn-Hum, New York City's Evolving Approach to Open Data, GOTHAM
GAZETIE, Aprilll, 2016. Alfano Aff. Exh. C.

Exhibit Page No.: 0276 of CES Response Declaration

 m

and says, 'We want all the data from aU

going to take the data. " 4 The New York City Council

amJ Mayor's Office selected the December 31, 2016, data destruction date simply to "allow us

any new leadership [in Washington, D.C.]" according to Council

Member Menchaca. 5

New York's Freedom oflnformation Law ("FOIL") contemplates restricting public access

to public documents in limited circumstances. It does not consider the wholesale destruction of

public records based on the political leanings of democratically elected officials. The presumption

remains documents created the public realm belong to the people and not individual

administrations. This Court cannot and must not allow the Mayor, the Speaker, and their

administrations from taking action far exceeding their collective jurisdictions. Simply stated, the

Respondents announced a course of conduct concerning IDNYC records rejects every American

ideal associated with the free and open operation of government.

4 Tara Palmeir, Municipal!D lmv has 'delete in case ofTea Party' clause, NEW YORK POST,
Feb. 16,2015. Alfano Aff. Exh. D.
5
See/d.

Exhibit Page No.: 0277 of CES Response Declaration

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Creation of the IDNYC Program

The New York City Council ("Council") sought to remedy a number of problems it saw

when it adopted the IDNYC program. A major problem identified by the Council was finding a

solution to provide valid identification for citizens who simply have no reason to drive cars.

During hearings contemplating the introduction of a bill enabling the Mayor to create the IDNYC

took testimony from many stakeholders before submitting the measure to the full Council. One

such witness was Mindy Tarlow, the Director of Mayor's Office of Operations. During her

testimony before the New York City Council's Committee on Immigration envisioned a municipal

identification program relying on an administrative model similar to the State Department of Motor

Vehicles. See Alfano Aff. Ex. E (Transcript of the Minutes of the Committee on Immigration,

April30, 2014) p. 34lines 17-25 (considering application process); p. 35 lines 15-25 (considering

fraud protection for the document). During the same committee meeting, Sue Dom, a leader of

Manhattan Together and Metro-IAF echoed Director Tarlow's sentiment that a New York City

Municipal Identification Card would provide a similar form of identification for her as an 80-year-

old woman without the ''hassle of dealing with New York Stat's DMV." ld. at p. 20 lines 22-25.

When the proposed legislation made it to the floor of the entire Council, Council Member

Levine articulately explained his vote in favor of the measure. The Council Member stated:

New York City is among the localities in America with the lowest
rates of driver's license among its residents. Well under 60% among
adults, and it's plummeting among young people. That number is
trending downward. This at a time when the circumstances in which
we need IDs is rapidly proliferating ... So this provides a solution
for over 40% of adults in New York, a number which is growing,
that do not have municipal IDs.

Exhibit Page No.: 0278 of CES Response Declaration

Alfano Aff. Exh. F (Transcript of the Minutes of the State Meeting, June 26, 2014) p. 61 lines 13-

20).

In the end, IDNYC passed, in part, based on its modeling of the practices and procedures

found in the administration of New York State's Department of Motor Vehicles ensuring the

integrity of the identification.

However, the IDNYC program contains a provision permitting the destruction of

documents submitted to the government to obtain the identification card. Identification issued

through the NYCID program expires five years after it is issued to an individual. The New York

City Code, however, permits the destruction of records associated with the NYCID program after

two years solely at the discretion of the Respondents.

B. Contemplation of The Destruction of Public Records in Violation of FOIL

Council members identified the IDNYC enabling statute contained significant drafting

flaws. Id at p. 42lines 23-25 and p. 43 lines 2-4 6 and p. 64lines 7-19. 7 Glaringly, and identified

by then-Minority Leader Vincent Ignizio, the enabling statute permitted the destruction of public

records leading to serious concerns relating to proper policing within New York City and wherever

IDNYC travel beyond the City's borders. See NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e), 68 RCNY 6-

6 Council Member Garodnick: "'1 'here are open issues here that we are delegating to the
Mayor to sort out, including how to conclusively prevent fraud. I recognize the premium that is
being placed on speed, but my preference for this institution would have been for the Council to
work these questions out in advance."
7 Council Member Greenfield: "[I]t certainly is a complicated issue in terms of Municipal
ID, and I share the concerns that some of the members have raised. I think that we could have had
some tweaks to the bill. We could have had more robust discussion on the bill, and we certainly
could have improvements on the bill. But we in our position as elected offidal[s] don't get to vote
on perfect legislation normal (sic). We generally get to vote on imperfect legislation and try to
figure out the merits of said legislation."

Exhibit Page No.: 0279 of CES Response Declaration

11, New York City Local Law 35/2014, see also Alfano Exh. F (Transcript of the Minutes ofthe

State Meeting, June 26, 2014) p. 52 lines 20-25, p. 53 lines 2-25. 8

In the weeks following the effective date of the enabling statute and accompanying rules,

the public learned the so-called drafting t1aws were not included due to the speed of passage but

were part of a methodically thought out plan to circumvent open government requirements

contained in New York Freedom of Information Law.

In a New York Post article entitled "Municipal ID law has 'delete in case of Tea Party'

clause" Council Member Menchaca bragged about the provision allowing the Respondents to

destroy public records at the end of 2016 was "In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office

and says, 'We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country,' we're

going to take the data." See Alfano Aff. Exh. D. While the article speaks about the document

destruction provision of the law as a ''sunset" provision, nothing can be farther from reality. The

IDNYC program would not come to an end should Respondents exercise the document destruction

provision before December 31,2016. The program, instead, continues but the government records

supporting the distribution of the government identification card would be destroyed.

C. Petitioners' Requests To Preserve Publicly Filed IDNYC Documents

On September 1, 2016, the Superintendent of the New York State Department ofFinancial

Services (hereinafter "the Superintendent") issued a letter to New York's banking industry

encouraging acceptance ofiDN'C~ ~or bankin~and creditprod~cts. See Alfano Aff. Exh. G. Of!

October 20, 2016, Petitioner, Assembly Member Castorina, wrote the Superintendent requesting

8 Council Member Ignizio: "It then goes on to say that we will destroy that documents that
we retain, that we are tak[ing] from those that are seeking [a municipal id] .... I will vote no on this
bill because I believe there are legitimate security concerns that have no[t] been adequately
addressed in it, and notwithstanding the desire of my colleagues to act in a compassionate manner
to ensure that people aren't treated .. unfairly."

Exhibit Page No.: 0280 of CES Response Declaration

the reconsideration of the sentiments contained that Jetter. See Alfano Aff. Exh. H. The

Superintendent issued no response to Assembly Member Castorina's letter, nor was it

acknowledged in any other way. In recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his intention to

destroy all records associated with the issuance of the IDNYC program through his purported

authority under NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11. See Alfano Aff. Exh. I.

On November 28, 2016, Petitioners requested Respondents refrain from destroying any

government documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program. See Alfano Aff. Exh.

J. On November 29, 2016, Respondents publicly rejected Petitioners requests to preserve

documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program through Speaker Mark-Viverito's

statement to the press telling Petitioners to "go ahead [and] sue us." See Alfano Aff. Exh. K.

Petitioners require access to the governmental documents kept in connection with the

IDNYC program in their roles as members of the New York State Assembly's Committee on

Banks to introduce legislation concerning the ID's acceptance in banks governed by New York

law. To preserve these documents Petitioners filed FOIL requests with New York City's

Department of Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services (hereinafter

"New York City HRA").

On November 29, 2016, at 12:23:11 p.m., Assembly Member Castorina submitted a FOIL

request seeking:

delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital format.

See Alfano Aff. Exh. L.

Similarly, on December 2, 2016, at 6:51:06 p.m., Assembly Member Malliotakis submitted

a FOIL request seeking:

Exhibit Page No.: 0281 of CES Response Declaration

 delivery, to address listed above, all scanned application
materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal program) maintained by and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office digital format.

See Alfano Mf. Exh. M.

The Respondents offered no response to either request submitted by Petitioners.

Exhibit Page No.: 0282 of CES Response Declaration

 ARGUMENT

POINT I

NEW YORK'S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW

REQUIRES RESPONDENTS PRESERVE GOVERNMENT
RECORDS SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
IDNYC PROGRAM TB IS COURT MUST ISSUE AN ORDER
PROHIBITING RESJ>ONDENTS .FROM PROCEEDING
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DESTROY THESE
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

New York State Freedom ofinformation Law contemplates the preservation ofthe public

record and liberal access to the workings of government by members of the public. The law states:

As state and local government services increase and public problems

become more sophisticated and complex and therefore harder to
solve, and with the resultant increase in revenues and expenditures,
it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public
accountability wherever and whenever feasible. The people's right
to know the process of governmental decision making and to review
the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our
society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by
shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality. The
legislature therefore declares that government is the public's
business and that the public, individually and collectively and
represented by a free press, should have access to the records of
government in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Public Officers Law 84, See also Newsday, Inc. v. Sise, 71 NY2d 146 (1987) (Freedom of

Information Law was enacted to provide the public with means to access to government records

in order to encourage public awareness, understanding, and participation mgovernment, and to

discourage official secrecy; it is to be liberally construed, and its exemptions narrowly interpreted

so that public is granted maximum access); Tartan Oil Corp. v. Stat Dep 't afTaxation & Fin., 239

AD2d 36 (3d Dep't. 1998) (All record of public agencies are presumptively open to public

inspection, and Freedom of Information Law is to be liberally construed with its exceptions

narrowly interpreted).

11

Exhibit Page No.: 0283 of CES Response Declaration

 Respondents, as public officers, remain bound by New York's Freedom of Infonnation

Law. Respondents, consequently, must preserve rather than destroy public records as they indicate

they will do, or have already done concerning the IDNYC program. Assuming Respondents

continue to respect the Freedom ofinformation Law, this Court must issue an order of prohibition

pursuant to C.P.L.R. 7803(2) preventing Respondents from venturing beyond their jurisdiction

as public officers by destroying documents associated with the IDNYC program. See Bradford v.

Helman, 24 AD2d 937 (1st Dep't 1965) (holding a writ of prohibition acts only to forestall action

and not to review action). Professor Siegel notes in his treatise, New York Practice, that

"prohibition does not lie against strictly administrative action, but only against judicial and quasi-

judicial action." Siegel, NY Prac. 559 at 992 [5 1h Ed. 2011], see also Roche v. Lamb, 61 Misc.2d

633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969), app. dismissed, 33 AD2d 1102 (4th Dep't 1970), aff'd, 26 NY2d 54

(1970) (where city council was proceeding without or in excess of its jurisdiction, petitioner was

entitled to judgment prohibiting such action). Here, Respondents' act in a quasHudicial capacity

rendering a unilateral detennination of which records should be preserved and which should be

destroyed when New York State law indicates public records must be preserved with the public

granted liberal access to them.

The clear language of the enabling statute and the subsequent regulations enacted pursuant

to that statute seek only to obfuscate public access to government records by failing to provide any

avenue for members of the general public to review materials submitted in connection with the

IDNYC program. See NYC Administrati vc Code 3-115(c) and 68 RCNY 6-11. Respondents,

instead, focused their energy devising a methodology wherein public records could be destroyed

if the nation chose a member political party opposing their way of thinking as president. See

Alfano Aff Exh. D. Such an action, if successful, represents a clear violation FOIL. See Public

12

Exhibit Page No.: 0284 of CES Response Declaration

Officers Law 89(8) ("Any person who, with intent to prevent the public inspection of a record

pursuant to this article, willfully conceals or destroys any such record shall be guilty of a

violation.")

Respondents actions cannot serve a legitimate governmental interest and represent actions

taken well beyond their jurisdiction of elected public officers.

POINT II

THE IDNYC ENABLING STATUTE AND SUBSEQUENTLY

ISSUED REGULATIONS RESTRICTING ACCESS TO
RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HlNYC PROGRAM
AND CALLING FOR THEIR ARBITRARY DESTRUCTION
VIOLATE NEW YORK STATE'S FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION LAW.

New York's Freedom oflnformation Law punishes "any person who, with intent to prevent

the public inspection of a record pursuant to this article, willfully conceals or destroys any such

record." Public Officers Law 89. One of the stated purposes of enacting the IDNYC program

was to provide citizens of New York City with access to identification which would ultimately be

treated similarly to a New York State Driver License issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

During floor debate, several members of the Council indicated the disparity between citizens living

in New York City that do not drive cars against those with cars. In fact, Director Tarlow from the

Mayor's Office indicated the IDNYC program should function similar to the state Department of

Motor Vehicles. In fact, Council Members noted the similarity between the IDNYC program and

the licenses issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles to allay their concerns regarding the

possibility of fraud inherent in any governmental identification program.

The Vehicle and Traffic Law governing New York State Driver Licenses contemplate both

the transmission of personal information between governmental bodies and agencies, Le. the

Selective Service, and public access to n.:cords kept in connection with the business conducted by

13

Exhibit Page No.: 0285 of CES Response Declaration

 Department of Motor 502 508. In fact, the

Commissioner Motor Vehicles offer rules concerning the public's access to motor

ven1c1e records. See 15 NYCRR 160 et seq. 15 NYCRR 161 et seq. Noticeably absent

these extensive is any r~gulation permitting the Commissioner of the Department

of Motor Vehides, or from destroying any information submitted by applicants to

obtain an identification through department.

New York City's IDNYC program vests authority to destroy governmental documents

submitted in connection with that program in the unelected bureaucracy ofNew York City's

See NYC Administrative Code 3-llS(c) and 68 RCNY 6-11.

The precedent created by the IDNYC program's confidentiality provisions begin a slippery

slope to government not by the people but rather by executive iiat. While such a solution created

by the Council and the Mayor may haw been crafted with the best intentions not meant to abridge

the rights ofNew Yorkers, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

14

Exhibit Page No.: 0286 of CES Response Declaration

 CONCLUSION

Petitioners respectfully this Court grant its Order to Show Cause seeking an

Order of Prohibition preventing Respondents from exceeding the jurisdiction of their office; 2) an

Order finding the confidentiality provisions of the IDNYC program in violation of New York

State's Freedom of Information and declaring those portions of the IDNYC program

permitting the destruction of public documents by New York City HRA and limiting public access

to the same nuB and void, and 3) for such other and further as this Court deems just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

0
Ofllcc of ffrey Alfano
l 000 South A venue, Suite 104
Staten Island, NY 10314
Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
Ronald Castorina, and Nicole Malliotakis

Dated: Staten Island, New York

December 2016

15

Exhibit Page No.: 0287 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0288 of CES Response Declaration
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

:INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALIOTAKIS,
:AFFIRMATION OF
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, :JEFFREY ALFANO
-against-

BILL DEBLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VNERITO, her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
hls official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. in his official capacity.

Respondents/Defendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the CiviJ Practice Law and

Rules.

JEFFREY ALFANO, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State

ofNew York, affirms the following under penalties of perjury:

1. I am the sole proprietor of the Law Office of Jeffrey Alfano, attorney for

Petitioners, Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Maniotakis. I am fulJy familiar with all facts and

circumstances pertaining to the within litigation following the review and analysis of the legal

file maintained by this office.

Exhibit Page No.: 0289 of CES Response Declaration

 2. I annex true and correct copies of the following documents:

a. Sally Goldenberg, De Blasia to Disclose 'Substantive' Lobbyist Meetings,

May 27, 2014, annexed as Exhibit A.

b. Kate Taylor, De Blasia Pushes on Information Requests, The New York

Times, Oct. 19,2011, annexed as Exhibit B.

c. Kaela Sanbom~Hum, New York City's Evolving Approach to Open Data,

Gotham Gazette, April ll, 2016, annexed as Exhibit C.

d. Tara Palmeir, Municipal/D law has 'delete in case ofTea Party' clause,

New York Post, Feb. 16,2015, annexed as Exhibit D.

e. Transcript of the Minutes of the New York City Council Committee on

Immigration, held on April 30, 2014, annexed as Exhibit

f. Transcript of the Minutes of the New York City Council State Meeting,

held on June 26,2014, annexed as Exhibit F.

g. Letter dated September 1, 2016 from Maria Vullo, Superintendent of the

New York State Department of Financial Services to members of the banking community,

annexed as Exhibit G.

Letter from Assembly Member Castorina to Superintendent Vullo dated

October 20, 2016 annexed as Exhibit

1. Foxnews.com Associated Press Article, "New York City may erase ID

card data to protect illegal immigrants" published November 15, 2016 annexed as Exhibit I.

J. Silive.com article, "Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC

docs" published November 28, 2016 annexed as Exhibit J.

Exhibit Page No.: 0290 of CES Response Declaration

 Observer.com "City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue

Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge published November 29, 2016, annexed as

K.

l. FOIL request submitted by Assembly Member Ronald Castorina, Jr. on

November 29,2016, annexed as Exhibit L.

m. FOIL request submitted by Assembly Member Nicole Malliotakis on

December 2, 2016, annexed as Exhibit M.

Dated: December 5, 2016

Staten Island, NY

Exhibit Page No.: 0291 of CES Response Declaration

 HIBIT
A

Exhibit Page No.: 0292 of CES Response Declaration

8/1712016 DeBlasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

POLITICO
POliTICO NEW YORK

Bill de Blasio I Diana Robinson for the Office of Mayor Bill de Blasio

DeBlasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

By SALLY GOLDENBERG I 05/27/14 03:39PM EDT

Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to disclose "substantive" meetings his administration conducts
with lobbyists, continuing a practice he implemented when he was the city's public
advocate.

"I've tried to, in my time as public advocate and continue as mayor, do something I believe
in," he told reporters on Tuesday, in response to a question about the lack of media access to
events on his public schedule. "For example, when I have any kind of substantive
conversation on a lobbying matter with a lobbyist, I think that should be disclosed. We've
done that voluntarily. That's a standard we'd like to see applied more broadly."

http:ltwww.politico.comlstateslnew-yorklcity-hallfstoryl2014105/de-blasio-to-disclose-substantive-lobbyist-meetings-013228 113
Exhibit Page No.: 0293 of CES Response Declaration
8/17/2016 DeBlasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

A spokesman later confirmed de Blasio "intends to implement" a similar practice as mayor.

The Associated Press posed the question following an unrelated press conference in
Brooklyn, and subsequently posted a story that reported 20 percent of events de Blasio
attends in his capacity as mayor are closed or restricted to reporters, according to his public
schedules.

DeBlasio acknowledged he could "do better" in making more information available to

reporters and, by extension, the public.

"I believe deeply in transparency," he began. "We believe there is a whole swath of
information that needs to be available to the public that we need to do a better job on, a lot
of the day-to-day government business that is appropriately disclosable that we need to do
a better job at."

But he defended the closed-door events, saying he is merely following the rules of the hosts
and "it's not appropriate" to instruct them on their protocols.

"Oftentimes the choice would be, if you want to be a part of the event and that's their plan,
you have to either come and accept that ground rule or not come at all. I think in many
cases it would be unfair or unwise not to show up," he said.

The administration generally releases a transcript of his prepared remarks at private events
via email.

That policy took shape after Capital reported in January that he delivered a pro-Israel
speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee without listing the gala on his daily
schedule.

At the time de Blasia described the omission as a courtesy to AIPAC, which requested the
event be closed to press. Since then, the mayor's schedule has listed appearances that bar
reporters.

"I think this is something we work on all the time, but I try to think about it from the
perspective of what would be helpful for the public to know," he added on Tuesday.

In that vein, he said the public should be informed of the lobbyist meetings "because it has
real impact on how people make decisions."

http://www.politico.com/states/new-yorklcity-hall/story/2014/05/de-blasio-to-disclose-substantive-lobbyist-meetings-013228 2/3
Exhibit Page No.: 0294 of CES Response Declaration
8117/2016 DeBlasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

During the mayoral election last year, the Daily News published a story saying de Blasio
did not actually publicize all his lobbyist meetings as public advocate. His spokesman said
the office disclosed any that were requested of him, but not those he requested.

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2014/05/de-blasio-to-disclose-substantive-lobbyist-meetings-013228 313

Exhibit Page No.: 0295 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBIT

Exhibit Page No.: 0296 of CES Response Declaration

8117/2016 Public Advocate to Investigate Freedom of Information Law Compliance- The New York Times

lf.ork lima http://nyti.ms/rbonjM

N.Y. I REGION

De Blasio Pushes on nformation

Requests
By KATE TAYLOR OCT. 19, 2011

The New York City public advocate, Bill de Blasio, said Wednesday that he was
starting an investigation into city agencies' responses to the state's Freedom of
Information Law requests because he was concerned that the agencies were taking
too long to release public information.

Mr. de Blasio said he also planned a new push for a City Council bill, introduced
by his office last year, that would require agencies to report monthly how many
requests they had received and how the requests were handled.

"It's just gotten ridiculous lately," Mr. de Blasio said. He cited a request his own
office made to the Education Department last November, asking for documentation
on delays in school bus service.

"We get a lovely letter every month telling us they're working on it," Mr. de
Blasio said, but the department has still not provided the documentation.

Mr. de Blasio, who is considering a run for mayor, said his office was planning
to send letters to each of the city's commissioners, asking for a breakdown of all the
FOIL requests received in the first quarter of 2011, including how quickly the agency
responded and whether the request was granted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/nyregionlpublic-advocate-to-investigate-freedom-of-information-law-compliance.htmi?J=O 1/3
Exhibit Page No.: 0297 of CES Response Declaration
8117/2016 Public Advocate to Investigate Freedom of Information Law Compliance- The New York Times

He said that over the last two decades, some mayoral administrations "have
thought it was clearly their responsibility to follow this law" while others withheld
information.

But, he said, "the bottom line here is: This is not an optional matter, and we
have to stop letting people get away with it."

Some of the most public clashes over FOIL requests have involved the New York
Police Department. In 2007, the New York Civil Liberties Union sued the
department after it declined to turn over computerized data on people who had been
stopped and frisked. This week, the group filed a lawsuit challenging the
department's refusal to disclose the daily schedules of Commissioner Raymond W.
Kelly.

John Kaehny, the executive director of Reinvent Albany, an organization that

promotes greater transparency and accountability in state government, said there
was a general consensus that city and state agencies' compliance with the Freedom
of Information Law "has been sliding over the last decade." But, he added, "no one
knows, because we don't have any rigorous analysis or data."

Mr. Kaehny said there were numerous factors contributing to a slip in

compliance, among them that many agencies had made it possible to file requests
online, leading to an enormous increase in requests, without making any
comparable advances in efficiency in their method of responding. Agencies have
also, he said, gotten better at gaming the system - rarely directly denying requests,
but instead providing only partial information and "evolving their practices to kind
of ooze through every crack" in the law.

But, Mr. Kaehny said, he was not sure that a City Council-passed measure
would solve the problem. "Anytime the legislature imposes a reporting mandate on
the executive," he said, "and it does not align with what the agency or the mayor are
trying to do, it's ignored."

A spokeswoman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg declined to comment on Mr.

de Blasia's investigation.

http:/lwww.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/nyregion/public-advocate-to-investigate-freedom-of-information-law-compliance.html?_r=O 213
Exhibit Page No.: 0298 of CES Response Declaration
8/17/2016 Public Advocate to Investigate Freedom of Information Law Compliance- The New York Times

A version of this article appears in print on October 20, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition with the
headline: De Blasia Pushes on Information Requests.

2016 The New York Times Company

http:/lwww.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/nyregion/public-advocate-to-investigate-freedom-of-information-lwv-compliance.html?_r=O 313
Exhibit Page No.: 0299 of CES Response Declaration
 E HIBIT
c

Exhibit Page No.: 0300 of CES Response Declaration

 Home (n Newest Stories (/newest-stories) Subscribe {!eye-opener) Opinion (!opinion}

~jMua.(tlttp://www.gothamgazette.com/#populartopics) Election Coverage Reporters

Contact Us (!contact-us) Jobs (!jobs}

c te {https://www.citizensunionfoundation.org/secure/donatef}

New York City's Evolving Approach to Open Data {/city/6272 ... new ...york-
city-s-evolving-approach-to-open-data)
April 11, 2016 1 by Kaela Sanborn-Hum (/componentlcontactlcontact/1 02)

Exhibit Page No.: 0301 of CES Response Declaration

(photo: Rob Bennett/Mayoral Photography Office)

During the first weekend of March, the New York City School of Data - a network of advocates, activists, and
professionals for an open data ecosystem - hosted a day of panels and workshop sessions in recognition of the
international day celebrating open data and the fourth anniversary of the city passing its first open data law.
City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who have each
promoted open data initiatives, delivered keynote remarks at the event.

"As someone who represents some of the most vulnerable, yet resilient New Yorkers in this city, I want to make
data a priority," Mark-Viverito said at the gathering of tech advocates, civic hackers, and public officials. "I want
our work to tell a story, one that has rarely been told rightly before. I want our data to move people,
organizations, and of course, governments to act differently."

What Mark-Viverito was getting at - something discussed in several forms over the course of the event and on
an ongoing basis- is the idea of using data about civic life, people's needs, and government services to make
things work better while ensuring equity.

Late Last year, the City Council approved the final bills (http://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/121615stated.shtml) of a
package amending and adding to the 2012 Open Data law, which created the Open Data Portal, but the
legislative action has been met with mixed reviews and questions about the portal's effectiveness remain.

The portal is intended to increase information available to the public about city services and government
operations. According to the de Blasio administration, "New Yorkers can use this data to make informed
decisions, become more engaged in their communities, solve tough problems, or turn their dreams into a
reality."

Data available includes (https://data.cityofnewyork.us/dashboard) the extent to which city school buildings are
being used, taxi trip pickups and dropoffs, tree censuses, requests made to the city's 311 help Line, general city
budget spending, and much more.

The two newest laws seek to ensure city agency compliance with the Open Data Law, particularly regarding
timely release of data, and updates to the Open Data Portal with information released through Freedom of
Information Law requests (often known as FOILs). Both are part of ongoing efforts to make the portal more
useful. The more quickly data is released, the more useful it is.

On Nov. 30 of last year, Mayor BiU de Blasio signed into law (http://wwwl.nyc.gov/office-of-the-
mayor/news/893-15/mayor-de- blasio-signs-legislation-creating -office-labor-standard) the five prior bills
from the open data package.

"In 2012 we set a new bar for transparency and civic engagement with passage of the most comprehensive
open data law in the country," said (http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/893-15/mayor-de-
blasio-signs-legislation-creating-office-Labor-standard) Anne Roest, Department of Information Technology

Exhibit Page No.: 0302 of CES Response Declaration

and Telecommunications (DoiTT) Commissioner. "To be as effective as it can for aU New Yorkers, open data
needs to be usable data - and these bills will help us achieve that goaL"

While "open" is important, "usable" is really the key word, according to data experts.

The open data taw and portal are part of efforts to make government transparent and accountable. In theory,
data is to be made easily available- and in a useful format- for interested parties, who can use it to help solve
city problems. The portal currently offers 1400 data sets through dozens of city agencies and other entities.

As stated by the Mayor's Office of Data Analytics, "The Open Data Law mandates full coverage of aU City public
data by 2018. The value is clear - every time a new data set is published on the NYC Open Data Portal, there
are new opportunities for users to find insight."

While there is a wealth of information available, and hundreds of data sets still to come online, it is not always
clear who uses the open data portal and to what end. How many New Yorkers even know about the availability
of so much data?

And, getting back to usability, there are also significant questions about the format in which data sets are often
published.

Still, open government advocates continue to say that it is an essential feature and push to see it improved.
Public, usable data, they say, is key to holding government accountable and opening up policy-making to a
broader audience, including people outside of government able to help solve a wide variety of problems.

BetaNYC, a nonpartisan group comprised of civic hackers and technologists that has worked with government
actors to improve the city's embrace of civic tech and open data, features a digital proiect list
(http://proiects.betanyc.us/#!/)currently being developed by the NYC tech community. HeatSeekNYC
(http://heatseeknyc.comt "a web-enabled hardware platform to detect heating violations in NYC", and NYC
Bus Adherence (http:/ /nathanjohnson.nyc/nycbusperformance/), "tools for analyzing and visualizing MTA Bus
performance data," are two examples of data-based projects moving civic discourse.

Since the passage of the 2012 open data law

(http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/html/open/local law 11 2012.shtmll, there have been other modifications. In
2014, de Blasio signed into law two transparency bills (http://benkaUos.com/press-release/mayor-biLL-de-
blasio-signs-two-transparency-biUs-law-announces-public-private-partner) which require the City Record, a
daily publication of city business, to be published on the open data portal in a machine-readable format; the
City Charter, the Administrative Code, and the Rules of the City of New York to be published online; and the
compilation of laws updated within 30 days of any change.

In July 2015 the de Blasio administration released a new plan for the portal, Open Data for All
(http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/487-15/de-blasio-administration-releases-open-data-aU-
city-s-new-open-data-plant which emphasizes community partnership and focuses on making data sets
accessible and user-friendly for aU New Yorkers.

Exhibit Page No.: 0303 of CES Response Declaration

"[Open Data for AU] means it wiLL be easier for people, even those with no programming experience- like
myself- to find the information they want, and better ways to utilize that information," said
(http:l/wwwl.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/487-15/de-blasio-administration-releases-open-data-aU-
city-s-new-open-data-plan) de BLasio.

De Blasio's rhetoric shows a typical shift from remarks by his predecessor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg
{http://www.nyc.gov/portal!site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?
pageiD=mayor press release&catiD=1194&doc name=http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2012a/pr081-
12.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1), who remarked that sharing data with the public "[catalyzes] the
creativity, intellect, and enterprising spirit of computer programmers to build tools that help us all improve our
lives." The evolution of the portal is aimed at ensuring that every New Yorker, not only computer programmers,
wiU be able to utilize and benefit from the information being made available.

The Mayor's Office of Data Analytics (MODA) and DoiTT led a citywide engagement tour
(http:/ /www.nyc.gov/html!analytics/html!initiatives/open data.shtml), assessing the needs and priorities of
New Yorkers, across user types and domain areas. Throughout the fall, Dr. Amen Ra Mashariki, Chief
Operations Officer at MODA, met with CUNY students, community groups, civic leaders, and others. MODA
intends for the engagement tour to culminate in a Open Data Summit.

"[The summit] will bring people together who we've engaged over the citywide tour and let them know what
we've heard from them and then we will identify strategies," Dr. Mashariki told Gotham Gazette in an interview
late Last year.

In October, Dr. Mashariki testified before the City Council Committee on Technology, reporting on the
progress of the tour at that point and the portal in general. He announced that the Open Data Porta!
(https://data.cityofnewyork.us/data) contained 1,386 data sets -- up from 1,268 in 2014. Still, City Limits
reported (http:l/citylimits.org/2015/12/15/nycs-open-data-law-lacks-teeth-lags-deadlines/?
utm source=twitterfeed&utm medium=twitter) late last year that datasets due to be published are missing
deadlines and that there has been Little enforcement of the Law. Mashariki said
(http://www.nyc.gov/html/doitt/downloads/pdf/MODA Open Data Testimony 2015.pdf) it will not be the
number of published data sets that will determine the success of the portal: "The ultimate success [will be] in
the number of New Yorkers who use open data in their daily lives. And that's not just the tech-savvy New
Yorkers- it's aU New Yorkers, in all five boroughs."

At the "summit," MODA and DoiTT wiLL identify strategies seeking to build an open data ecosystem prioritizing
expanded access to data sets, high data quality, and enhanced portal usability. "Increased access to data is
critical for open government and transparency in the digital age," said Minerva Tantoco, the city's Chief
Technology Officer.

Technical and community engagement challenges remain as the open data portal continues to be refined and
expanded. It is one often Lower-profile way in which the de Blasio administration's reputation for government
transparency and effectiveness will be formed.

Exhibit Page No.: 0304 of CES Response Declaration

Technical challenges for the open data portal
"There are currently many challenges/' said Ben Wellington, visiting assistant professor in the City & Regional
Planning program at The Pratt Institute and creator of the increasingly popular data science and policy blog 1
Quant NY (http://iguantny.tumblr.com/). "One of them is the wide use of PDF documents. PDF is inherently
difficult to analyze, so when an agency is forced to release data but doesn't necessarily want to have it widely
used, PDF is an opportune way to do that."

PDF documents, unlike an Excel spreadsheet, are not in machine-readable format, which Wellington and
others argue creates a long-term problem for civic technologists who end up spending a large amount of their
time extracting data rather than analyzing it.

"It's just not a good use of advocates' time," Wellington told Gotham Gazette. Wellington has become known
for using government data to show trends, point out problems, and identify potential solutions. He delivered a
popular TED talk (https://www.ted.com/speakers/ben wellington) in 2014 using big data to give insight for the
"worst" places to park in New York City. Wellington's blog features many articles crunching numbers to
illuminate topics from "Trump's Unpaid Bills" to pay raises for City Council members.

City Council Member and Chair of the Committee on Technology James Vacca has concerns regarding
another aspect of city data - Like with quality, the timely release of data from city agencies leaves much to be
desired. Vacca sponsored a bilL passed by the City Council (http://council.nyc.gov/html!pr/121615stated.shtml)
and signed into law by Mayor de Blasio, which mandates a city office or agency examine the compliance of
mayoral agencies posting public data sets under the open data law.

"Some agencies are not as diligent as they should be when it comes to posting information, there has to be
good coordination among the city agencies," Vacca explained. "Right now, there really is no enforcement
mechanism if agencies don't comply. We are dependent upon cooperation, which is great, but we need an
enforcement mechanism."

Wellington suggests that a position should be created in every city agency- an "open data Liaison"- to act as a
point of contact for the public and be responsible for any inquiries about information released by the agency.
"Today, there's no way for the public to understand who's responsible for any dataset," Wellington noted,
which can only further obfuscate any process of data clarification, sourcing or transparency.

The New York City Transparency Working Group (NYCTWG), a collection of civic technologists, data
advocates, and good government groups, has argued (http://nyctwg.org/openfoil/) that FOIL (Freedom of
Information Law) requests should be published online through a centralized tracking system akin to the open
data portal. Earlier this month, the de Blasio administration launched "the OpenRECORDS portal (https://a860-
openrecords.nyc.govf)." It is "designed to streamline the process of submitting, tracking, and responding to
Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) records requests as we work toward becoming a more transparent and
effective government," the mayor's press office said in an announcement.

Exhibit Page No.: 0305 of CES Response Declaration

Along with Vacca's bill, another also approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor requires agencies
to individually review aU data released through FOIL requests and determine if the information should be
posted on the open data portal. The thinking goes that if one person or group is interested in a certain data set.
others probably are, and that if the information is being released publicly in one sense, why not make it
generally available.

In 2013, then-Public Advocate Bill de Blasio released a transparency report card

(http://archive.advocate.nyc.gov/foil/report) in which he called for a mandate to publish online the most
commonly-sought information through FOIL requests, asserting "proactive disclosure will save time and
resources by posting minutes, public schedules and license data online for easy access."

As mayor, it took de Blasio some time, testing the patience of open data advocates, but he has now launched a
systemized and centralized portal for FOIL requests.

Community engagement and outreach

Noel Hidalgo, co-founder and executive director of BetaNYC, believes that Open Data for AU is helping to
facilitate more public involvement in the open data portal and wants open data to be used regularly to solve
civic problems.

"We're at the point [with open data] where it's not just about making an app but about making a culture, an
understanding of how to use data for improving New York," Hidalgo told Gotham Gazette.

Last year, Mayor de Blasio announced a public-private partnership to launch Computer Science for All
(http:l/wwwl.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/education-vision-2015-computer-science.page), a computer
science education program for every city public school student. As a new generation of students learn web
design and coding technologies, Hidalgo hopes it wiLL translate to increased interest and participation in civic
hacking.

"We fundamentally believe that there is an opportunity to enhance digital literacy through civic education and
we would love to see that embedded within the computer science program," Hidalgo said on behalf of
Beta NYC.

One essential question for open data is whether it is being used beyond the Ben Wellingtons and Noel
Hidalgos of the world. In other words, are community activists and those without advanced data science
training using the city data?

Juan Camilo Osorio, Director of Research at the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance (NYC-EJA), says, like
Hidalgo, that a cultural shift is necessary to understand the capacity for individuals to be involved in an open
data ecosystem. Osorio wants to challenge the model that community organizations function only for public
outreach. "These organizations are part of community-based planning and can do research provided with the
right technical and financial resources," he said.

Exhibit Page No.: 0306 of CES Response Declaration

Osorio thinks the open data portal has great potential to be used by community organizers - not just computer
programmers or data analysts.

Moreover, he believes the city has a bigger responsibility beyond publishing information on the portal: "It's not
just about opening access, [in order to use it] you still have to know what is the right agency that would have
the data you need and then you will also need to have the basic capacity to process that data. The city should
going a few steps further providing the tools and training to learn how to work with that information."

City CounciL Member Ben Kallos, a software developer and long-time advocate for government transparency
who now chairs the Council's governmental operations committee, agrees that free trainings should be
offered for New Yorkers interested in Learning how to use the open data portal. He suggests partnering with
the city's three public library systems (New York Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library and Queens Public
Library) to train librarians who can teach patrons to use the open data portal as a research resource. Featuring
the open data portal on library websites and other logical online research centers would be helpful in
expanding usership and public awareness.

KaUos acknowledged that New Yorkers must have basic access in order to use the open data portal.

"I want to make sure that every low-income New Yorker has access to free and affordable broadband and Low-
cost computers. That would mean everyone in NYCHA should have free broadband and that anyone who is
low-income should have an affordable internet plan," Kallos told Gotham Gazette. "In order to have a modern
government, we need to make sure that everyone can connect."

Dr. Mashariki, of the Mayor's Office of Data Analytics, certainly sees the portal as a long-term work in progress.
"There's no day I foresee where we stop and say you know, the portal is perfect and it's at its most usable and
we've expanded to it the point where we can't expand it anymore," he said. "This is always going to be a
strategy that we're going to have to adapt and adopt as needed to ensure new uses and new capabilities."

***
by Kaela Sanborn-Hum for Gotham Gazette
@GothamGazette (https://twitter.com/GothamGazette)

TAGS: NEW YORK CITY (fTAGS-MISCONDUCT/3-NEW-YORK-CITY?

TYPES[0]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8) BILL DEBLASIO (fTAGS-MISCONDUCT/63-BILL-DE-
BLASIO?TYPES[Q]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8) DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
& TELECOMMUNICATIONS (fTAGS-MISCONDUCT/206-DEPARTMENT-OF-iNFORMATION-
TECHNOLOGY-TELECOMMUNICATIONS?TYPES[0]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8) TECHNOLOGY
(!TAGS-MISCONDUCT /536-TECHNOLOGY?TYPES[0]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8)

Subscribe To Our Mailing

List. Receive The Eye-
Exhibit Page No.: 0307 of CES Response Declaration
 E HI IT
D

Exhibit Page No.: 0308 of CES Response Declaration

12/412016 MunicipaiiD law has 'delete in case of Tea Party' clause 1New York Post

unicipaiiD law 'delete in case of Tea

Pa 'clause
By Tara Palmeri February 16, 2015 I 11:27pm

The city's new ID program allows for personal data to be destroyed at the end of 2016 in case a conseNatlve Republican is elected president, the law's co-
sponsor told The Post.
Photo: Dennis A. Clark

Get the shredders ready- the Tea Party could be coming.

The city's new municipaiiD program allows for personal info provided by applicants to be destroyed at the end of 2016, in case a
conservative Republican wins the White House and demands the data, the law's co-sponsor told The Post on Monday.

City Councilman Carlos Menchaca (D-Brooklyn) said the measure was crafted so data submitted by those seeking the cards can be
destroyed on Dec. 31, 2016.

The cards are aimed at undocumented immigrants.

"In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office and says, 'We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country,'
we're going to take the data," he explained.

The next president assumes office Jan. 20, 2017.

"That date is an important signal to the future of immigration reform. That allows us to prepare for any new leadership," Menchaca said.

In order to get an ID, residents must provide their names, addresses, aliases, dates of birth and other information, making it easy for the feds
to identify undocumented immigrants.

Menchaca said the Obama administration has shown no interest in going after the data, but he didn't want to take any chances on the next
administration.

"Though we have not seen documents like this get requested at the level of the federal government, that could be a possibility, so that
really allows us to protect the data," he said.

Immigrant advocates praised the provision.

"It's no secret that one of the biggest sticking points in the ID programs is ensuring that there's confidentiality, that immigrants are
comfortably giving their information to the city," said Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

"The sunset is part and parcel of the effort to ensure confidentiality."

The bill lets the city destroy the info if It determines it's no longer needed.

The cards were first available early last month. Demand has been overwhelming, with more than 200,000 appointments made for the cards
in less than a month.

Additional reporting by Bob Fredericks

Filed under barack obarna , bill de blasio , carlos menchaca, municipal-id program , tea party

Exhibit Page No.: 0309 of CES Response Declaration

http:l/nypost.com/2015/02/16/municipal-id-law-has-delete-in-case-of-tea-party-clause/ 1/2
 EXHIBIT
E

Exhibit Page No.: 0310 of CES Response Declaration

 CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEW YORK

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

TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINUTES

Of the

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

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

April 30, 2014

Start: 10:06 a.m.
Recess: 1:48 p.m.

HELD AT: Council Chambers

City Hall

B E F 0 R E:
CARLOS MENCHACA
Chairperson

COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Mathieu Eugene
Daniel Dromm
Peter A. Koo
Rafael L. Espinal, Jr.
Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito
Fernando Cabrera
Ydanis A. Rodriguez
Antonio Reynoso
Jumaane D. Williams
Mark Levine
Brad S. Lander
Deborah L. Rose
Public Advocate Letitia James

World Wide Dictation 545 Saw Mill River Road- Suite 2C, Ardsley, NY 10502
Phone: 914-964-8500 * 800-442-5993 *Fax: 914-964-8470
www.WorldWideDictation.com

Exhibit Page No.: 0311 of CES Response Declaration

 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED)
Lucio Escamilla
NYC Resident

Batya Miller
Manhattan Together

Sue Dorn
Member of Central Synagogue

Bryan Ellicott
NYC Resident

Mindy Tarlow
Director
Mayor's Office of Operations

Nisha Agarwal
Commissioner
Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs

Steven Choi
Executive Director
New York Immigration Coalition

Johanna Miller
Advocacy Director
New York Civil Liberties Union

Emily Tucker
Staff Attorney
Center for Popular Democracy

Deyanira Del Rio

Co-Director
New Economy Project

Esther Sanchez
Faith in New York

Jeong Min Yu
MinKwon Center for Community Action

Exhibit Page No.: 0312 of CES Response Declaration

 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED)
Jason Chang
National Federation of Community
Development Credit Unions

Linda Sarsour
Executive Director
Arab American Association of New York

John Lugo
Unidad Latina en Accion
New Haven, CT

Eric Mar
District 1
San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Arely Gonzalez

Juan Carlos Gomez

Make the Road New York

Jesus Castellanos
Make the Road New York

Carlos Vasquez

Joj o Annobil
Attorney
Legal Aid Society

Jeff Foreman
Policy Director
Care for the Homeless

Jessica Orozco
Director
Immigration and Civic Engagement
Hispanic Federation

Diana Reyna
Brooklyn Borough Deputy President

Exhibit Page No.: 0313 of CES Response Declaration

 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED)
Elana Redfield
Representative
Sylvia Rivera Law Project and
Peter Cicchino Youth Project

Noah Lewis
Staff Attorney
Transgender Legal Defense and Education
Fund

Lynly Egyes
Attorney
Sex Workers Project

Glennda Testone
Executive Director
New York City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Community Center

Mizue Aizeki
Immigrant Defense Project

Mark Noferi
Center for Migration Studies and
New York City Bar Association

Annie Wang
Co-Chair
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Committee
New York Chapter of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association

Owen Rogers
Picture the Homeless

Nancy Mageson [sp?]

Gabriela Sandoval Requena

Policy Analyst
Coalition for the Homeless

Exhibit Page No.: 0314 of CES Response Declaration

 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED)
Rev. Getulio Cruz
Pastor
Monte Sion Christian Church
Manhattan Together and Metro IAF

Laurie Izutsu
Senior Staff Attorney
Brooklyn Legal Services

Yolanda Castro
Mexican Consulate

Lauren Burke
Executive Director
Atlas: DIY

Unknown Speaker
The Fortune Society

Diane Steinman
Director
New York State Interfaith Network

Jeff Weiss
Counsel
Assemblyman Felix Ortiz's Office

Joseph Rosenberg
Executive Director
Catholic Community Relations Council

Louis Quinones
Representing
President George Miranda
Teamsters Joint Council 16

Dr. Paule Cruz-Takash

Oakland City ID

Ethan Carr
MasterCard Worldwide

Exhibit Page No.: 0315 of CES Response Declaration

 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED)
Hally Chu
Representative
Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer

Rev. Terry Troia

Director
Project Hospitality

Liam O'Doherty
Pastor
Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish

Bishop Orlando Findlayter

Chairman
Churches United to Save and Heal

Gene Judy
First Nation Baptist Church

Prof. Raul Hinjosa

UCLA

Daniel Rose
MasterCard

Freddy Cruz Martinez

Volunteer Leader
Little Sisters of the Assumption Family
Health Services, Manhattan Together and
Metro IAF

Exhibit Page No.: 0316 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 7

2 [gavel]

3 [background comments]

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish] 00:00:17

5 and welcome to our City Council Chambers. I am

6 Carlos Menchaca, Chair of the New York City Council's

7 Committee on Immigration. This morning our Committee

8 will consider Int. No. 253, a Local Law to amend the

9 Administrative Code of the City of New York in

10 relation to the creation of a New York City identity

11 card program. I am proud to have co-sponsored this

12 bill with my colleague, Council Member Danny Dromm.

13 The Notion of the New York City identity

14 card is not a recent ideai in fact for many years now

15 the City Council and advocates have learned of the

16 many communities who lack access to basic City

17 services and the foundation of this bill has come out

18 of the experiences of our immigrant community here in

19 New York. We repeatedly heard stories of families

20 not being able to see a doctor or pick up a

21 prescription because they do not have an ID We heard

22 stories of parents who couldn't pick up their kids

23 from school or attend PTA meetings in school because

24 they didn't have an ID. We heard of people too

25 scared to call the police for help or to report a

Exhibit Page No.: 0317 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 8

2 crime simply because they didn't have identification.

3 All of these stories made us realize that there is a

4 serious problem and that we need to find a serious

5 solution and that is what this bill is.

6 But immigrants are not the only New

7 Yorkers who face these issues. In our years of

8 researching we have learned that seniors, homeless;

9 especially our homeless youth, the transgender

10 community who struggle to obtain identification that

11 affirms their gender expression, or making it more

12 convenient, like people ... or for people like me who

13 ride a bike, or prefer to ride a bike, prefer to take

14 public transportation; they could all benefit from a

15 municipal ID program; this is what makes this concept

16 so exciting. And our vision of impact doesn't stop

17 there; whether you are born here or immigrated from

18 another country or another state, we all know that a

19 New Yorker is a special kind of person, and the truth

20 is, when New York [background comments] acts, we have

21 national and global impact; this card can go beyond

22 giving people the right to identify themselves and

23 access basic services, like bank accounts; this card

24 has the ability to unite us as New Yorkers, giving us

25 access to things that make New York New York; our

Exhibit Page No.: 0318 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 9

2 world-class cultural institutions in every borough,

3 our libraries in every borough 1 our Bike Share

4 program, or maybe even one day our subway system.

5 Int. No. 253 presents us with a New York solution to

6 a New York challenge. This creation of a municipal

7 ID card is of importance not only to me, but to my

8 colleagues, including our great Speaker, Melissa

9 Mark-Viverito, as well as Mayor de Blasia. I am

10 happy that this initiative has wide support, both in

11 City Hall and with the City Council. I look forward

12 to hearing from the Mayor's Office of Immigrant

13 Affairs and Operations, immigrant advocates and legal

14 practitioners on how we can make the municipal

15 identification card program the largest of its kind;

16 the most successful of its kind. Int. 253 calls on

17 the Mayor's Office of Operations to create a

18 municipal identification program for all New York

19 City residents. The New York City identity card will

20 help thousands of New Yorkers who lack acceptable

21 identification to access City services, feel safer in

22 their communities and foster a feeling of unity for

23 all New Yorkers; additionally, protections,

24 protections would be built into the program to

25 protect against fraud.

Exhibit Page No.: 0319 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 10

2 I would like to thank everyone for coming

3 to this morning's hearing and I would like to thank

4 everyone in advance for their testimony. And due to

5 the large number of witnesses here today, we will be

6 putting the timer on all our witnesses and also to my

7 colleagues, I will also ask you to keep your

8 questions and comments brief of two minutes, and

9 lastly, I would like to mention that we will be

10 reading people's tweets throughout today's hearing;

11 if you have a comment or a question regarding

12 municipal IDs, we urge you to tweet your comment to

13 NYCCouncil with the #nyciD and before we move

14 further, I want to present to you our incredible

15 Speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, who will be making an

16 opening statement, someone that has been [Spanish]

17 00:04:43 on this topic and so many other ones that

18 are gonna bring more justice and more access and more

19 safety to our New Yorkers, our great Speaker, Melissa

20 Mark-Viverito.

21 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Thank you, Chair

22 Menchaca, [Spanish] 00:04:55, good morning; I have to

23 say that this is an extremely exciting day

24 personally, something that I have been fighting for,

25 along with my great colleague Danny Dromm here for

Exhibit Page No.: 0320 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 11

2 some time and know that this hearing is the first

3 step towards achieving that ultimate goal of the

4 largest municipal ID program in this country; very

5 excited that we're having this hearing today.

6 Before I make my comments, I understand

7 also we do have translation equipment [Spanish]

8 00:05:24. If people need translation equipment, it

9 is in the back and you can feel free to get that, so

10 it's great that we have that available.

11 So again I wanna thank our great Chair,

12 Carlos Menchaca, and thank Council Member Danny Dromm

13 for the introduction of this vitally important

14 legislation.

15 Currently many New York residents have

16 difficulty getting access to basic public services

17 because they do not have a government-issued ID card;

18 this includes some of the most vulnerable among us.

19 This legislation will change that, it will give

20 anyone who lives in the five boroughs the opportunity

21 to obtain a municipal identification card. The

22 legislation will require City agencies to accept this

23 card as a form of valid ID, so those who make use of

24 this program can rest assured that with this ID card

25 they will be able to access essential City services.

Exhibit Page No.: 0321 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 12

2 The bill requires that the card be

3 designed in a way that deters fraud, much like a

4 driver's license or passport does. The Council is

5 very serious about safety and security; we will

6 explore ways to ensure that the ID cards are

7 protected from fraud in this hearing and in continued

8 conversations with stakeholders and the

9 Administration. We do not want these ID cards to end

10 up in the wrong hands and we wanna make sure every

11 step is taken to safeguard users' identities and

12 their privacy.

13 Other municipalities have seen success

14 with their municipal ID programs; it is time to

15 replicate that success on a larger scale here in New

16 York City. This Council also looks forward to

17 continuing our productive conversations with the law

18 enforcement community, along with others from the

19 senior, immigrant, LGBT, youth, and other communities

20 who stand to benefit from this legislation. For too

21 long the Federal Government has lagged behind on

22 immigration reform and it's fallen to municipalities

23 like New York to take the lead and I think that we've

24 done quite a stellar job over the years of making it

25 clear that our immigrant communities are welcome and

Exhibit Page No.: 0322 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 13

2 that we will make sure that we do everything to

3 protect them.

4 While we would like to also see action in

5 Washington, we know that when New York City has big,

6 bold ideas, like muni IDs, that often the rest of the

7 country follows. This hearing is the next stepi I

8 look forward to hearing some of the testimony and let

9 it be known and let it be clear that this is a

10 priority for this New York City Council and we will

11 have municipal IDs in New York City. Thank you.

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you,

13 Speaker. And now we'd like to hear some opening

14 statements from prime sponsor, Danny Dromm, Council

15 Member.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: Thank you very

17 much, Chair Menchacai it's indeed a pleasure to be

18 here today. I want to also start off by thanking

19 Speaker Mark-Viverito for the translation equipment,

20 because if I'm not mistaken, it's the first time

21 we've had translation equipment and that is a great

22 step forwardi I am also going to be using that

23 translation equipment for my hearing on Tuesday, my

24 Education Committee hearing, so that is a great

25 addition to the City Council and you are true to your

Exhibit Page No.: 0323 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 14

2 word in terms of making these hearings more

3 accessible to people, as you have done with many of

4 the proposals put forth just last week, in terms of

5 the budget and the transparency issues that we

6 prioritize here in the Council.

7 You know, for many years Speaker Mark-

8 Viverito and I have wanted to put forth this

9 municipal ID program and now the time is right. We

10 feel that in this Committee and in this Council we

11 have great leadershipi we have leadership from the

12 Mayor's side of the fence as well, and we believe

13 that we have come up with a very good proposal, one

14 that will be a model for the rest of the country and

15 one that will help to move all communities forward.

16 The way that I look at this municipal ID is that it's

17 a municipal ID for all, and we want to make sure that

18 all New Yorkers avail themselves of this

19 identificationi that is crucial to the distribution

20 of these IDs.

21 I wanna thank Chair Menchaca as well for

22 his leadership on this issue and for fighting so hard

23 from the moment he came ini I don't know that he was

24 elected one day that he wasn't knocking at my door

25 saying, where is that bill and we work very closely

Exhibit Page No.: 0324 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 15

2 together to ensure that this piece of legislation has

3 come out. When passed, this is going to be a major

4 benefit for all New Yorkers, and Chair Menchaca, your

5 fingerprints are all over this, so thank you for your

6 leadership on this as well.

7 I do look forward to hearing from people

8 today who will be giving testimony and we'll have a

9 number of questions for the Administration, but this

10 a very proud day for me and for us in the City

11 Council, and thank you to everyone who has come to be

12 a part of this historic day. Thank you very much.

13 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you, Council

14 Member Dromm and I wanna second that partnership that

15 we've built in the Council and as someone who's just

16 come into the City Council, there's no one better to

17 work with than our good Council Member Danny Dromm,

18 who has been, and was the Chair of Immigration

19 before, so it's just been a great thing to kinda take

20 that mantle and to continue it and you have two

21 fighters here. We have also other fighters in this

22 incredible Immigration Committee, Council Member Koo

23 and Council Member Eugene, thank you so much for

24 being here; this is a Committee that is really made

25 up of people who are incredibly passionate about this

Exhibit Page No.: 0325 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 16

2 topic, but really making sure that immigrants in the

3 City continue to prosper and get access.

4 So without further ado I wanna call up

5 the first panel, and we'd like to invite up Batya

6 Miller, Sue Dorn, Bryan Ellicott, [background

7 comment] and Lucio Escamilla [sp?] Thank you. If

8 you have statements, we'll take them as well. We're

9 gonna put the clock at two minutes; we know you have

10 written testimony, so if you don't get through the

11 testimony, just hand it over and we'll take the rest

12 into record, and we'll start with... well actually,

13 we' 11... we're gonna ... let's start from the left over to

14 the right, if that's okay. Go ahead, Mr. Escamilla.

15 Thank you.

16 LUCIO ESCAMILLA: Hello, my name is Lucio

17 Escamilla and I am member of Immaculate Conception

18 church and a leader in South Bronx Churches and

19 Metro-IAF. I know personally how important it is

20 that all New Yorkers have access to an ID that is

21 recognized everywhere in the City. In 2005 I was

22 stopped by the police; they asked to see my ID. I

23 showed them my Mexican Consulate ID card and a valid

24 Michigan driver license and they claimed that both

25 were fake; actually threw them on the ground; then

Exhibit Page No.: 0326 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 17

2 they took me to a holding cell for the night. The

3 next day the judge dismissed the case immediately and

4 I was free to go, but I should not have had to spend

5 the night in jail, my family should not have had to

6 worry. And I know many people in my community, in my

7 church who have also spent the night in the jail only

8 because they did not have a recognized ID. The City

9 of New York has to start to producing its own ID so

10 that this never happens again. People should not be

11 taken to the jail unnecessarily and the police should

12 be able to spend their time on the real criminals.

13 Thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you, Mr.

15 Escamilla.

16 BATYA MILLER: Do I have to press it

17 again?

18 SUE DORN: No, it's on. [background

19 comment]

20 BATYA MILLER: It's on. Okay. Hello, my

21 name is Batya Miller and I am with Manhattan

22 Together. I'm here today to talk about why it is

23 useful and important for all of us to apply for a

24 municipal ID. This City program would finally give

25 countless New Yorkers an important benefit they now

Exhibit Page No.: 0327 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 18

2 lack. While it will certainly help vulnerable New

3 Yorkers like undocumented immigrants/ the homeless

4 and the formerly incarcerated/ it would also improve

5 my life and the lives of many others.

6 Like many other New Yorkers 1 I don't

7 drive and I love living in a city where you don't

8 need to. A driver's license has become the de facto

9 photo ID all over the country 1 [background comment]

10 I've somehow managed to squeak by all these years

11 with... [interpose]

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Ma'am, can you

13 speak closer to the mic so we can... we can hear you...

14 [crosstalk]

15 BATYA MILLER: Oh 1 sorry. I've somehow

16 managed to squeak by all these years with my

17 university library card that has a photo on it and

18 more recently my senior citizen MetroCard when I've

19 been asked to show photo ID. Such situations have

20 been stressful at times 1 as not everyone readily

21 accepted them. I finally hit a brick wall several

22 months ago when I went to return something at a major

23 women's clothing chain; they would not refund the

24 credit charge because they did not view either ID I

25 showed them as official. I was not able to return

Exhibit Page No.: 0328 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 19

2 the item and have never gone back to the store. As a

3 non-driver I am really looking forward to receiving a

4 New York City ID. The ID should be relatively easy

5 to apply for at community-friendly places like

6 libraries and congregations; it can then become a

7 primary or the primary ID for the many non-drivers in

8 this city, citizens and others. I know it will both

9 simplify my life and link me in a small but

10 significant [bell] way to other New Yorkers who

11 contribute to the wonderful diversity of this great

12 city.

13 [background comment]

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

15 for that.

16 SUE DORN: Good morning. My name is Sue

17 Dorn and I am a member of Central Synagogue and a

18 leader of Manhattan Together and Metro-IAF.

19 A hundred and ten years ago this summer a

20 woman left the Ukraine with her three small children;

21 she landed in Boston, made her way across the United

22 States to Oregon where she met her husband who had

23 gone there the year before. He eventually became a

24 citizen, but between raising their 11 children and

25 helping with their small grocery store, she never had

Exhibit Page No.: 0329 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 20

2 the opportunity. Although life was so much better in

3 the United States, she was never completely

4 comfortable because she was not a citizen. As a

5 result, for most of her life she always carried her

6 alien registration card, this card, in the back of

7 her mind she thought someone might pick her up and

8 send her back to the Ukraine, separating her from her

9 family and friends. This apprehension was so intense

10 that she took the card with her to the hospital when

11 she was on death's doorstep. I have this card

12 because she was my grandmother. Even as a small

13 child I understood her uneasiness and how much this

14 card was a lifeline for her. No one should have to

15 walk the streets without recognized identification,

16 things happen, people get stopped, buses jump curbs,

17 and in an era of increasing security, we all need ID

18 to enter places where we have to go. The lack of an

19 easy, accessible ID is a major problem for many,

20 including immigrants, students whose permanent

21 residents are elsewhere, the elderly, and those who

22 do not drive. As an 80-year-old, I won't be driving

23 much longer and would find it helpful to have an

24 easy, attainable [bell] municipal ID than go through

25 the hassle of dealing with New York State's DMV.

Exhibit Page No.: 0330 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 21

2 Metro-IAF looks forward to working with the City to

3 make sure this effort is implemented properly;

4 outreach will be necessary to convince all New

5 Yorkers why it's to their benefit to get the ID.

6 I'll be among the first to be issued one; like my

7 grandmother, I will always carry it.

8 [background comment]

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

10 for that.

11 BRYAN ELLICOTT: Good morning. My name

12 is Bryan Ellicott and I fully support Int. 253 as an

13 open and proud transgender man who is looking forward

14 to the day when I feel appropriate/ my appropriate

15 gender marker is on my identification. I am pleased

16 to see this legislation is co-sponsored by so many

17 members of the City Council and this entire

18 Committee.

19 The idea that New York City will allow me

20 to decide that my true and proper gender identity is

21 one displayed on this piece of identification is

22 something I couldn't be more excited about. Think

23 about the number of times a day you show your ID 1 any

24 given dayr looking at my New York State ID you know

25 my name 1 my birth name 1 where I live and the gender I

Exhibit Page No.: 0331 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 22

2 was born, and it doesn't look like I do now. As my

3 transition has progressed, the idea of a female

4 gender maker on my identification is something that

5 brings a lot of distress and dysphoria to my life,

6 especially going out with friends and coworkers, many

7 who know I'm transgender and some that don't.

8 The protections of Title 8 in New York

9 City define gender in the New York City Human Rights

10 Law, as it was amended in 2002, as your actual or

11 perceived gender identity; self-image; appearance and

12 behavior or expression, or within the identity, self-

13 image, behavior of the invil [sic] assigned at birth.

14 New York State has very strict guidelines for

15 changing your gender marker on pieces of

16 identification, such as birth certificates and the

17 Department of Motor Vehicles.

18 New York State [background comments]

19 Administrative Code says a letter from a surgeon

20 specifying date and place of your type of sexual

21 reassignment, or gender reassignment surgery

22 performed, an operative report and if additional

23 medical information is needed to change your gender

24 marker.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0332 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 23

2 New York City Administrative Code also

3 states that in order to change your gender marker on

4 your birth certificate you also need to have surgery.

5 Insurance companies do not cover these

6 procedures and the State finds it unacceptable for

7 you to change it without so. An estimated close to

8 $30,000 is needed to have these surgeries and then

9 you get your gender markers changes; that's a lot of

10 money, a lot of saving; a lot of fundraising on top

11 of then having [bell] to spend money to have them

12 changed. My suggestion to the Council is to ask for

13 letters from either your health provider or the

14 therapist that can provide your HRT; those are the

15 letters that are needed by the New York State and New

16 York City to change those identifications to prevent

17 fraud.

18 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you, Bryan.

19 And thanks to this first panel; clearly you've now

20 heard from New Yorkers who are engaged in many

21 reasons why municipal IDs could be beneficial. And

22 so I'm gonna open it up to questions that Council

23 Members have, but really I wanna actually start with

24 you, Bryan on the suggestion you just gave us. Can

25 you tell us a little bit about how that suggestion is

Exhibit Page No.: 0333 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 24

2 different from current IDs that you might want to be

3 able to get and how this municipal ID has to be a

4 little bit different?

5 BRYAN ELLICOTT: This... [background

6 comment] What is I'm asking is a suggestion is that

7 you get the letter... that the letters ... we can get

8 those letters easily; the letters come from our

9 therapists, we have to see a therapist in order to

10 get hormone replacement therapy or from the doctor

11 who already provides a hormone replacement therapy.

12 Those letters doctors write easily, they write them

13 pretty much within the five minutes you ask about

14 them. What I'm not asking is that we have to have

15 surgery in order to prove that we have our genders

16 changed, all I'm asking is that we're allowed to use

17 the same letters we need to have surgery and to say

18 that we're ready to have surgery in order to get

19 those IDs without the surgery.

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Great. Thank you

21 for that. And I just wanna let everyone know that

22 our Council Members Koo, Eugene, Dromm, Espinal, and

23 our Speaker are here today, thank you. And any

24 questions from our council members for the panel?

25 [background comment] Council Member Eugene.

Exhibit Page No.: 0334 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 25

2 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: Thank you very

3 much, Mr. Chair. And I want to commend your to come

4 in and thank each one of you from the panel, and

5 thank you also, especially to you gentleman, for your

6 courage, you know for explaining, sharing with us,

7 you know what you went through because of the ID,

8 your ID that you provided to the police officeri you

9 were stopped and arrested. And my question to you,

10 very simplei how do you think that you know the

11 municipal ID will prevent such thing to happen?

12 [background comment]

13 LUCIO ESCAMILLA: The municipal ID is

14 gonna help me about ... I'm gonna work in the City like

15 free and I can prove I live in New York City and also

16 many of my families and especially in my church, in

17 my community, where I know thousands of the people,

18 they need that kind of ID to identify anywhere,

19 especially open accounts in the bank, especially to

20 go to probably places where they can show they live

21 in New York.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: Thank you very

23 much. In your testimony Miss, you mentioned that

24 outreach would be necessary and we know that, but

25 since we are dealing with immigrants and we know the

Exhibit Page No.: 0335 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 26

2 immigrant people are ... they are facing so many

3 challenges in everyday life, because of language,

4 because of difficulty to navigate through the systemi

5 [background comments] what can you tell us, you know,

6 what your organization can do in terms of reaching

7 out to immigrant people, especially those who don't

8 speak English, you know as a first languagei what do

9 you advise to do in term of outreach?

10 SUE DORN: I'm. .. I'm sorryi I...

11 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: In terms of

12 outreach, you know... [interpose]

13 SUE DORN: In the outreach?

14 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: outreach...

15 SUE DORN: Right.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: we know that

17 immigrant people, all of us, especially I'm immigrant

18 too ...

19 SUE DORN: Right.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: and many of

21 immigrant people, you know, they don't speak English

22 proficiently, so whenever there is a service

23 available in the City of New York, they'll face, you

24 know, challenges in term of being able to navigate

25 through the system and get the resources that are

Exhibit Page No.: 0336 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 27

2 available to them. Do you have any idea, any

3 thought, [bell] you know, any advice in terms of how

4 to reach out [background comments] to immigrant

5 people and especially those who don't speak English

6 properly?

7 SUE DORN: Many are members of churches,

8 synagogues, other congregations and through those

9 organizations, through the social service agencies in

10 their communities would be a great way to start with

11 reaching out to people.

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

13 and we're actually... [crosstalk]

14 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: Thank you so

15 muchi appreciate that. Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: gonna be hearing

17 from. .. from some faith leaders later today in

18 testimony. I'm gonna hand it over to Council Member

19 Dromm.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: Thank you, Chair

21 Menchaca. So my question is kind of related a little

22 bit to what Council Member Eugene was getting at as

23 well. Not only the outreach to the community, but I

24 was wondering if you might have ideas about how we

25 would set up offices to begin to do the intake for

Exhibit Page No.: 0337 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 28

2 the documentation so that people can actually apply.

3 Where would places ... what types of places would be

4 most convenience for people to go to [background

5 comments] to apply for the municipal ID?

6 BATYA MILLER: Well I think it's really

7 important if we can possibly set up... [interpose]

8 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Can you speak into

9 the mic a little bit closer?

10 BATYA MILLER: It's really important if

11 we can possibly set up places of application that are

12 known and friendly to the community, whether that be

13 congregations or libraries; [background comment] I

14 think that's a way that_ a non-threatening way that

15 you're going to get people to come. You know 1 I

16 think that's as important{ those kinds of decisions 1

17 as the ... making the process as least cumbersome as

18 possible 1 but to have places that are friendly

19 [background comment] to the community and perceived

20 that way; I think especially churches would be a

21 wonderful way of doing that 1 if you can.

22 BRYAN ELLICOTT: A suggestion I have is

23 that we user for the trans community, the LGBT

24 centers we have in Manhattan 1 Staten Island and

25 Brooklyn 1 as those are places the transgender

Exhibit Page No.: 0338 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 29

2 community and even the immigration community feel

3 safe; that we should use those as open houses to

4 apply for the IDs.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: So one of the

6 concerns that I have is ensuring that we have many...

7 all New Yorkers, 8.5 million New Yorkers, applying

8 for this card. I see an issue, moving forward, that

9 if there is not some type of a benefit attached to

10 it, that those who already have drivers licenses and

11 other types of identification might not be as

12 interested in this; [bell] do you have any

13 suggestions in terms of what type of benefits we

14 might attach to it that would bring other people in

15 who already have some type or form of identification?

16 SUE DORN: One of the thoughts some of us

17 had was if it could be in fact connected to a library

18 card; that that would be good for families as well,

19 and also help bringing children into the library so

20 that there would be another benefit from that.

21 BATYA MILLER: I think another

22 possibility is if you can get discounts, small

23 discounts at major institutions, like museums; that

24 could be very appealing to people, the fact that they

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0339 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 30

2 would save money with this card, you know, which you

3 certainly don't do with your driver's license.

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Right. Thank you

5 for that. And we've been joined by Council Member

6 Cabrera as well. Thank you so much. Thank you so

7 much to this panel and we'll be looking forward to

8 continuing our conversation.

9 We're gonna call up our next panel, Miss

10 Mindy Tarlow from Operations and Commissioner Nisha

11 Agarwal from MOIA, the Mayor's Office of Immigrant

12 Affairs. And Council Members, you have their

13 testimony in front of you. [background comments]

14 Should we leg 'em know? [background comment] Just

15 to clarify on the testimony that we have, there might

16 be a page missing; can we double... [interpose]

17 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Miss Tarlow, on

18 your testimony, I think there might be a page

19 missing.

20 MINDY TARLOW: I think we can provide a

21 new copy. [background comment]

22 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: It's okay; I mean

23 we' 11 lis ... yeah, we '11 just ... just to get this

24 [background comments] .

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0340 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 31

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Let's see if we

3 can get the whole testimony, but we'll go ahead and

4 start with your oral testimony. Thank you.

5 [background comments]

6 MINDY TARLOW: Good morning, Chairman

7 Menchaca, members of the Committee, Speaker Mark-

8 Viverito, colleagues in government, and members of

9 the public. My name's Mindy Tarlow and I'm the

10 Director of the Mayor's Office of Operations and on

11 behalf of the Administration I would like to thank

12 you, Chairman Menchaca and Council Member Dromm, for

13 introducing this vital legislation and for inviting

14 me to testify at this hearing. At the direction of

15 Mayor de Blasia, who has made the creation of a

16 municipal ID a signature priority of this

17 administration, my office has been working closely

18 with Commissioner Agarwal at the Mayor's Office of

19 Immigrant Affairs (MOIA) and numerous City agencies

20 to prepare for the timely and effective

21 implementation of this initiative, should the Council

22 approve it.

23 The municipal ID will be an ID for all,

24 every single New Yorker benefits by having a

25 government-issued photo identification card that can

Exhibit Page No.: 0341 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 32

2 be broadly recognized by New York City government

3 entities and private establishments. We support

4 development of an identification card program that

5 can be both widely utilized by New Yorkers of all

6 backgrounds and easily accessed by marginalized

7 populations.

8 For those of you who aren't familiar with

9 the Mayor's Office of Operations, we are responsible

10 for performance management and accountability across

11 all City agencies and as you probably know, we're

12 responsible for delivery of the Mayor's Management

13 Report, and under the de Blasio administration we

14 have additional functions that have been moved

15 underneath Operations, including the Center for

16 Economic Opportunity and the Mayor's Office of Data

17 Analytics so that we can more fully support the

18 Mayor's equality agenda. Finally, Operations

19 undertakes a range of cross-agency initiatives to

20 facilitate the effective implementation of citywide

21 projects and we're particularly focused on helping to

22 realize the Mayor's priority initiatives/ such as

23 this one, the Municipal ID Program.

24 But before I discuss our planning around

25 the municipal ID I'd like to tell you a little bit

Exhibit Page No.: 0342 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 33

2 about my own experience regarding the importance of

3 expanding access to government identification for

4 marginalized populations.

5 Prior to joining the de Blasio

6 administration, I spent nearly two decades as the

7 founding CEO and Executive Director of the Center for

8 Employment Opportunities. The Center for Employment

9 Opportunities is a New York City-based national

10 organization that's exclusively dedicated to

11 connecting recently incarcerated individuals to

12 employment, and one of the often overlooked barriers

13 to reintegration for people with criminal records is

14 the lack of proper documentation, and my years at the

15 Center for Employment Opportunities vividly

16 demonstrated to me how important the securing of

17 government-issued photo identification can be in

18 helping people start down the pathway to legitimate

19 employment and securing basic essential services; I

20 saw it every day for two decades.

21 This Administration is committed to

22 helping all New Yorkers, including marginalized

23 populations, access the proposed municipal ID;

24 populations such as disconnected young adults,

25 seniors, homeless individuals, undocumented

Exhibit Page No.: 0343 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 34

2 immigrants/ and formerly incarcerated persons are

3 some of the key demographic groups that have

4 historically retained government-issued photo

5 identification at lower rates than the population at

6 large and the municipal ID can and will vastly

7 improve this.

8 We support creating an enrollment model

9 for the municipal ID that will readily facilitate

10 access for all New Yorkers and incorporate fraud

11 prevention and security protocols to ensure the

12 integrity of the identification card. Should the

13 Council approve this legislation/ we support a

14 municipal ID enrollment model that designates

15 multiple sites in each borough where New Yorkers can

16 apply for the municipal ID card.

17 As Council Members Menchaca and Dromm

18 have laid out in this bill 1 the process for applying

19 for a municipal ID card and demonstrating proof of

20 identity and residency will be similar to the

21 Department of Motor Vehicles model -- individuals

22 will be required to demonstrate evidence of their

23 identity and residency by providing acceptable

24 documents and we support a system of weighted values

25 for documentation/ similar to what is used by the

Exhibit Page No.: 0344 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 35

2 DMV. The City would leverage existing facilities as

3 intake centers, looking for sites and convenient

4 locations across a range of agencies covering all

5 five boroughs. We propose having two types of cites

6 where people can sign up for the municipal ID, what

7 we're calling "active sites" would be broadly

8 promoted as places the general public can visit to

9 sign up for the municipal ID. What we're calling

10 "passive sites" would include agencies where many

11 members of the public already go to receive services

12 and are likely to already have brought necessary

13 proof of identity and residency with them so they can

14 access the municipal ID at that time.

15 Turning to fraud prevention, we are

16 working closely with NYPD, other law enforcement

17 entities, government agencies that issue

18 identification cards and cities from around the

19 country who have implemented similar programs to

20 ensure we are incorporating all appropriate fraud

21 prevention and security procedures. Design of the

22 municipal ID card would be inspired by DMV-style

23 government-issued photo identification cards, but

24 with a distinct New York City branding. We would

25 embed a full array of security features into the

Exhibit Page No.: 0345 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 36

2 card, such as holographic laminates, special

3 cardstock material and engraved text.

4 With respect to records retention, we are

5 highly sensitive to the issue of document retention

6 and the concerns that have been raised by Council

7 Members and advocates alike. This administration is

8 emphatically committed to protecting the privacy of

9 the information gathered from this proposed

10 initiative and particularly attuned to safeguarding

11 any and all information that could potentially hint

12 at the immigration status of a cardholder. We would

13 employ every tool at our disposal to guarantee

14 protection of information submitted by applicants.

15 I believe that there is generally broad

16 consensus among the Administration, Council Members

17 and advocates about the municipal ID initiative and I

18 would like to commend the lead sponsors of the

19 legislation, Council Members Menchaca and Dromm, as

20 well as Speaker Mark-Viverito for crafting this bill.

21 I would however like to suggest a few items be

22 revisited. I would strongly encourage the Council to

23 consider allowing for more flexibility in the

24 administration of the municipal ID initiative by

25 mayoral agencies. Under this model the Mayor's

Exhibit Page No.: 0346 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 37

2 office could capitalize on the back end

3 infrastructure of the Human Resources Administration

4 (HRA) to ensure the successful implementation of the

5 municipal ID. My office, the Mayor's Office of

6 Operations, conducted an analysis comparing all City

7 agencies that could potentially perform this back end

8 function, including our own, and determined that HRA

9 is best positioned to undertake the back end

10 responsibilities necessary to successfully implement

11 and operate the municipal ID initiative. HRA has the

12 most relevant expertise in issuing identification

13 cards at scale, including reviewing and verifying the

14 authenticity of the identification. Considering the

15 aggressive timeline to make the municipal ID

16 available to the public this calendar year, HRA's

17 procurement infrastructure and administrative support

18 will cost-efficiently and swiftly get this program up

19 and running. HRA would support day to day

20 administration of the budget, procurement and general

21 back end office functionality regardless of HRA's

22 heavy involvement in the back end; however, they

23 would have no involvement and would not be associated

24 with the public branding of this initiative.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0347 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 38

2 I also wanna emphasize that Mayor de

3 Blasio, Deputy Mayor Barrios-Paoli and HRA

4 Commissioner Steve Banks have committed HRA to a

5 mission of fighting inequality and poverty every

6 single day and the municipal ID is a key initiative

7 that will help HRA realize that essential mission.

8 My team and MOIA have worked closely with HRA

9 throughout the municipal ID planning process and we

10 can say firsthand that the senior leadership at the

11 agency is deeply committed to this initiative and

12 supporting the communities who will benefit from it.

13 I believe the Council and the Administration are

14 equally committed to the successful implementation of

15 the municipal ID and I hope you will consider

16 permitting HRA to conduct the back end office

17 functionality that can best position us to realize

18 that shared objective.

19 I would also like to suggest removing

20 Section 3-139 on penalties from the legislation. The

21 conduct being regulated in this section is already

22 captured by several provisions in the Penal Law.

23 One additional concern about Int. 253

24 that I would like to raise relates to the

25 availability of applications and intake of the

Exhibit Page No.: 0348 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 39

2 municipal ID. The legislation indicates the

3 Administration would make "applications for such card

4 available for pickup and submission at any agency or

5 office where there is substantial contact with the

6 public." This implies that any City facility that

7 serves the public would be a site where New Yorkers

8 could apply for the municipal ID; this would

9 represent thousands of locations around New York City

10 and could be logistically infeasible and cost-

11 prohibitive if it were implemented or taken literally

12 at its word 1 so we strongly suggest working with us

13 so that we can identify the best sites to offer

14 intake for the municipal ID that will navigate the

15 security, the cost, the technology; the staffing so

16 that we can address everything that we're trying to

17 address at each and every municipal ID site.

18 The de Blasio Administration is

19 enthusiastically committed to the swift, [bell]

20 secure and successful implementation of the municipal

21 ID initiative, the Mayor's Office of Immigrant

22 Affairs and the Mayor's Office of Operations will be

23 directly and intimately engaged in the planning and

24 implementation of the municipal ID and we look

25 forward to partnering with individual members of the

Exhibit Page No.: 0349 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 40

2 City Council and the many advocates and supports

3 across the City to generate robust public awareness

4 and tremendous citywide take-up of the municipal ID.

5 Thank you again for this opportunity to

6 testify on the municipal ID and it's now my privilege

7 to turn things over to my new colleague and friend,

8 Nisha Agarwal, Commissioner of the Mayor's Office of

9 Immigrant Affairs and we'll of course both be

10 available to answer any questions you'll have after

11 our testimony.

12 NISHA AGARWAL: Good morning. Thank you,

13 Mindy for the introduction and for so clearly laying

14 out the groundwork on the municipal ID. Thank you

15 again to Chairman Menchaca and Council Member Dromm,

16 members of the Committee, Speaker Mark-Viverito and

17 the Council as a whole for advancing such a critical

18 issue, and thank you, actually, to the first panel of

19 New Yorkers who spoke in support of this issue.

20 My name is Nisha Agarwal and I am the

21 Commissioner of the Mayor's Office of Immigrant

22 Affairs, or MOIAi I welcome the opportunity to speak

23 further about municipal ID.

24 As the Commissioner of MOIA, my role is

25 to advance our City-chartered mandate to work with

Exhibit Page No.: 0350 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 41

2 the Mayor and the Council to create policies and

3 programs that improve the lives of immigrant New

4 Yorkers; this mandate clearly encompasses today's

5 legislation for which we commend the Council's

6 leadership, and Mayor de Blasia's charge to us of

7 ensuring the creation and solid implementation of the

8 municipal ID card.

9 My office's work also includes

10 collaborating across the Administration to support

11 programs that bolster access to services and well-

12 being for all New Yorkers, whether their immigrant

13 ancestry is recent or generations ago. In that light

14 we are clear that the municipal ID is a

15 groundbreaking program that will reach beyond

16 immigrants to all of our communities.

17 Before I discuss the program in more

18 detail I would like to speak briefly about my own

19 professional experience which has centered on

20 increasing access to services for marginalized

21 populations, including but not limited to immigrants.

22 Before I joined the de Blasio Administration I worked

23 on increasing access to legal services for immigrant

24 New Yorkers and improving language access in health

25 care settings and government agencies. As a civil

Exhibit Page No.: 0351 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 42

2 rights lawyer I worked on cases and campaigns to

3 ensure that all New Yorkers, regardless of race,

4 citizenship, language or disability are able to

5 access all our city has to offer on equal terms.

6 Recently I was part of the Center for

7 Popular Democracy's research effort to study the

8 implementation of municipal identification cards

9 across the country as a vehicle to understand how our

10 city could learn and improve upon other cities'

11 programs. As such, increasing access to our city's

12 services, attractions and spaces to more New Yorkers

13 who currently struggle to obtain a basic entryway, a

14 form of government identification is a natural

15 continuation of my work over the years and a key

16 aspect of MOIA's leadership on the issues of equality

17 and unity. It's our view that the proposed municipal

18 identification card will serve as a unifying force

19 across many communities, providing valid

20 identification to many who have lacked access to

21 identification while providing meaningful benefits to

22 those who already have access to ID.

23 It is also our view that the municipal ID

24 would allow more New Yorkers of all backgrounds to

25 more easily access City services, public and private

Exhibit Page No.: 0352 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 43

2 programming and increase participation in our local

3 economy by accessing banking and financial

4 empowerment services.

5 Of course, part of our commitment is a

6 response to the very harsh realities faced by

7 undocumented immigrants, estimated to number

8 approximately half-a-million in New York City who

9 face numerous obstacles as a result of not having

10 government-issued identification. For example,

11 undocumented immigrants and other communities without

12 identification may fear law enforcement, are often

13 afraid to report housing and labor violations, or

14 have a harder time signing leases or opening bank

15 accounts or even visiting their children's schools.

16 I wanna emphasize that these obstacles

17 are not faced by our undocumented communities alone;

18 it is a real issue for many marginalized communities,

19 such as our elders, victims of domestic abuse,

20 runaway and other disconnected youth, the disabled,

21 transgendered individuals, and those who are

22 re-entering our society after incarceration. In

23 other words, it is clear that many communities beyond

24 immigrants will benefit from a municipal ID and

25 indeed, to avoid a reality in which the card is

Exhibit Page No.: 0353 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 44

2 viewed merely as an immigrant card, it is crucial

3 that the card have widespread appeal and we support a

4 program that meets this goal.

5 One of the ways we will meet this goal is

6 to build many benefits into the municipal ID so that

7 the card is meaningful to all New Yorkers. We are

8 still in the early stages of exploring for the

9 municipal ID, but I can share with you some of the

10 benefits that we support. To begin, the municipal ID

11 should be broadly recognized and accepted by City

12 agenciesi we would like to ensure, for example, that

13 parents would be able to use the municipal ID to gain

14 entry into their child's school. Our goal is also

15 that the municipal ID will enable New Yorkers who

16 previously lacked government-issued identification to

17 better access private-sector services. For example,

18 our hope is that the municipal ID will serve as the

19 government-issued photo documented needed to get a

20 bank account so New Yorkers can avoid predatory

21 financial services and check-cashers.

22 These benefits and others will assist

23 communities that have been needlessly marginalized in

24 their day to day interactions with the City. But

25 again, I wanna emphasize that the municipal ID is an

Exhibit Page No.: 0354 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 45

2 identification card that will benefit all New

3 Yorkers, even those with government-issued photo ID.

4 If this legislation is enacted, we would

5 work with City agencies and private-sector entities

6 across the five boroughs to explore how we might

7 embed the municipal ID with benefits and discounts at

8 educational, arts and cultural institutions,

9 restaurants and other small businesses,

10 transportation, and an array of other services.

11 Importantly, even after the municipal ID

12 program has launched, it would important to continue

13 working to expand the suite of benefits available to

14 cardholders to ensure that this is a program that

15 grows over the years. We are open, of course, to

16 hearing ideas from the Council and others on

17 additional benefits and services that could be

18 attached to the card.

19 Beyond the benefits of municipal ID, I'd

20 like to share our ongoing efforts to engage

21 communities and learn from other cities' experiences.

22 To this end we've been hearing and learning from

23 three layers of advisers -- (1) are community

24 advocates representing the diverse communities in New

25 York; (2) municipalities who have implemented similar

Exhibit Page No.: 0355 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 46

2 programs across the country, and (3) our governmental

3 partners to support the program.

4 On the community level we have been in

5 active conversation with many groups -- the Arab

6 American Association of New York, the New York Legal

7 Assistance Group, Make the Road New York, The New

8 Economy Project, Faith in New York, the Center for

9 Popular Democracy, Picture the Homeless, Northern

10 Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the New

11 York Civil Liberties Union, the New York Immigration

12 Coalition, and truly, many other leaders from the

13 advocacy, business and faith communities. These

14 groups, along with many others, have been extremely

15 helpful in informing our thinking.

16 In terms of other municipalities, we have

17 learned from the experiences of Oakland, Los Angeles

18 and San Francisco in California, as well as New Haven

19 in Connecticut. While the scale in these cities is

20 not comparable to New York, we have gleaned many

21 important lessons that will inform our effort here.

22 On the governmental side, we have spoken

23 to the New York City Department of Motor Vehicles at

24 the State level, governmental partners, such as CUNY

25 and all three of New York City's library systems, and

Exhibit Page No.: 0356 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 47

2 many City agencies, including the Department of

3 Homeless Services, the Department of Corrections,

4 NYPD, the Mayor's Community Affairs Unit, the

5 Department of Cultural Affairs, the Department of

6 Finance, the Department of Environmental Protection,

7 the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Taxi and

8 Limousine Commission, the Small Business Services,

9 the Department of Transportation, the Department of

10 Parks and Recreation, and others. Our agencies have

11 been incredibly committed to the success of this

12 proposed program and I have no doubt that robust

13 partnerships with our agencies will be at the heart

14 of the municipal ID.

15 We are clear that the widespread adoption

16 is critical for the card to be most meaningful and

17 have preliminary ideas for an expansive outreach

18 strategy to reach every neighborhood through a

19 citywide campaign. For any outreach effort on

20 municipal ID, MOIA would work closely with the

21 Mayor's Community Affairs Unit and Operations,

22 alongside our trusted community partners who have

23 proposed working closely with us to accomplish our

24 shared goals of seeing the municipal ID get into the

25 hands of as many New Yorkers as possible. We would

Exhibit Page No.: 0357 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 48

2 also look to partner with the Department of Education

3 and other City agencies with strong and widespread

4 touch points across all five boroughs. We would also

5 plan to leverage the capacity of our agencies and the

6 Mayor's Community Affairs Unit 1 who already have

7 relationships in the community, to provide accurate

8 information on the program and help steer residents

9 to efficiently access the card. We would anticipate

10 promoting the card through social media 1 community

11 and educational institutions/ notable New Yorkers,

12 like yourselves/ foreign consulates, faith-based

13 institutions and beyond, and we look forward to the

14 prospect of working with your local offices to help

15 your constituents get the municipal ID and make the

16 program a resounding success.

17 Thank you again for inviting us to

18 provide testimony; I welcome any questions, along

19 with Director Tarlow, now or at any time after the

20 hearing.

21 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you

22 Commissioner and thank you Director 1 and what I wanna

23 just underscore really is your testimony/ both of

24 your testimonies kinda show a real commitment on the

25 Administration to understand this, your multiple

Exhibit Page No.: 0358 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 49

2 conversations with really, probably all agencies kind

3 of show a breath of understanding about how this

4 piece of legislation as it's written is gonna impact

5 the Administration and how to get this out quickly.

6 Every agency adds on the table, so thank you so much

7 for confirming that for us; this is something that

8 we've been engaged in conversation. So I'm gonna

9 start the questions off and then I'm gonna open it up

10 to our council members. But really what I wanted to

11 understand is, in your legislative recommendations,

12 as we kind of continue to evolve this bill, you

13 mentioned increasing agencies that can come in and

14 help out the efficacy of this bill; can you talk a

15 little bit about the procurement process and I think

16 you give the dynamics of it, but what compels the

17 Administration to understand procurement and its

18 benefits [background comment] for HRA?

19 MINDY TARLOW: I think there is multiple

20 things at work here -- (1) I think you pointed out is

21 just the speed and efficacy with which we're trying

22 to get this very important and complex initiative off

23 the ground, [background comment] and the initiative

24 itself has a lot of moving parts; it has to do with

25 technology, it has to do with understanding of how ID

Exhibit Page No.: 0359 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 50

2 cards are put together and used 1 it has to do with

3 just knowledge and experience about procurement in

4 general and the speed with which you can put those

5 things together and having the underlying apparatus

6 and experience to do that. I referenced in my

7 testimony that Operations had done an evaluation of

8 multiple agencies who could conceivably have one or

9 more of those kinds of experience and HRA had all of

10 them 1 and we felt that given the complexity of this

11 initiative 1 the speed with which we're trying to get

12 it to happen and the importance of it to both the

13 Council and to the Administration/ we felt in our due

14 diligence in preparation for hoping that this will go

15 forward, that was the conclusion that we drewr that

16 HRA was the most well-positioned to play that role.

17 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Does that affect

18 cost as well? Is- [interpose]

19 MINDY TARLOW: Uhm...

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: is there a cost

21 savings in moving to this multiple agency approach?

22 MINDY TARLOW: Yesr ultimately I think

23 there will be; we're still of course working out the

24 cost proposals; we're ... we're... [interposer crosstalk]

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0360 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 51

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Can you tell us

3 about what the costs are... [crosstalk]

4 MINDY TARLOW: we're really working on

5 budget process right nowi as everyone knows, we're

6 deeply engaged in that, so what we're trying to do is

7 just develop a budget framework that matches and

8 compliments the vision that I laid out in the

9 testimony and we're working on that right now. But

10 we do think this is the most cost-effective and...

11 because time is money, as we all know, and

12 [background comment] for something to happen quickly,

13 that generally means it's more cost-efficient.

14 NISHA AGARWAL: And the one thing I would

15 just add to what Director Tarlow said is that, you

16 know one possibility, right, would be to create a

17 separate apparatus for implementation of the

18 municipal ID, but of course, that comes with all of

19 its, for lack of a better word, overhead. If we

20 leverage existing agencies that we have that already

21 have the procurement functions, have all of those

22 different administrative functions built in and have

23 been doing it at volume, we save the program a

24 considerable amount of money.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0361 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 52

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Gotcha. Okay. I

3 have some other questions, but I wanna give Council

4 Members the time and opportunity; we've been joined

5 by Council Member Antonio Reynoso and I'm gonna give

6 it up to Council Member Dromm.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: So I just wanna go

8 a little bit more to the cost as well. Have we

9 thought about partnering with businesses or banks,

10 MasterCard, anything like that; there are models in

11 other cities that I've heard of that have done that,

12 that have seen those types of businesses pick up the

13 cost for it; what's your opinion on that; have you

14 thought about that and can you give us a little bit

15 more information about that?

16 NISHA AGARWAL: Sure. So, you know we

17 have conducted research into the feasibility of

18 adding a banking component to the municipal ID; at

19 least at the initial stages we don't anticipate that

20 we'll incorporate a debit component into the

21 municipal ID card when it's issued this year, just

22 because we don't have confidence we can offer a truly

23 safe and affordable product that effectively meets

24 the needs of low-income New Yorkers. If options

25 available were to evolve, we would of course

Exhibit Page No.: 0362 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 53

2 reconsider accordingly; that said, the Administration

3 is working very closely with the Department of

4 Consumer Affairs and the Office of Financial

5 Empowerment to identify banks and credit unions

6 across the City that are eager to accept the

7 municipal ID as a form of identification for

8 accessing bank accounts and non-predatory financial

9 services. So we're confident that the municipality

10 [sic] will provide financial access in that way, from

11 the outset, or at least we're having those initial

12 conversations and they're going well.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: So my question, a

14 little bit different, I think; has there been any

15 consideration about having one of those businesses

16 pick up the cost for that? So in other words, that

17 they would cover the cost of production of the card.

18 NISHA AGARWAL: So, you know I can speak

19 to ... we have not spoken, at least for the financial

20 institutions, about that issue, but we're exploring a

21 variety of different models in terms of the costing

22 and the budgeting at this point, but nothing specific

23 to share.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: So is there any

25 timeline in terms of your mind what you would

Exhibit Page No.: 0363 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 54

2 consider for the vendor to be selected as we move

3 down the road?

4 [background comment]

5 MINDY TARLOW: We have set some

6 timeframes for trying to get this grounded within the

7 calendar year, so that sets the stage and that's one

8 of the reasons we've tried to do a lot of due

9 diligence nowi you know, obviously this is a critical

10 part of the process here today and we're not trying

11 to -- what's the right phrase -- get over our skis,

12 but we're trying to do the due diligence that's

13 necessary so that we're ready to press go and you

14 know we did set this calendar year timeframe in front

15 of us and we're trying to make good on that, should

16 this go forward.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: So I believe that

18 the Mayor originally spoke about allocating about

19 $400,000 for the initial startup of this.

20 MINDY TARLOW: That was in the February

21 financial plan, yes, for the planning process.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: So how much money

23 will be allocated moving forward for outreach and

24 education?

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0364 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 55

2 MINDY TARLOW: We are working on the

3 budget right now and as I said earlier, it has a lot

4 of moving parts, as does the budget as a whole and

5 we're deeply engaged in that right now and trying to

6 create a budget for this project that matches the

7 vision that we laid out in the testimony around the

8 hub and spoke model of having the intake centers and

9 the back end functionality that we described, the

10 kind of outreach that Nisha described; we're trying

11 to put all that together right now and looking at

12 different kinds of modeling and imbedding that within

13 the budget discussions that are going on right now.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: Okay. Thank you,

15 Mr. Chair.

16 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you, Council

17 Member. Council Member Koo.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Thank you Chair

19 Menchaca and Council Member Dromm for this wonderful,

20 very important initiative. Thank you, Commissioners.

21 My first question for you is; you know,

22 we all know this municipal ID card is really good,

23 really important to new immigrants or undocumented

24 immigrants, but there is a stigma attached to it and

25 people told me, why do I wanna apply a card that even

Exhibit Page No.: 0365 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 56

2 though I'm documented? So my thought is, in order to

3 solve that problem we ... like you said, we encourage

4 all citizens from New York City to apply, but why

5 would a citizen or other immigrants that have already

6 proper IDs to apply a municipal ID? So there must be

7 an incentive there, so in order for us, and including

8 our council members; the Mayor may be the first one

9 to apply for one, you know [background comments,

10 laughter] and in order for other people to do the

11 same thing, we have to have some incentive or make it

12 really usable. Now say we combine it with a MTA

13 card, you know, everybody use a MTA card, there's no

14 distinguish when use ... this card... nobody know you're

15 second-class or first-class or whatever, you know.

16 [background comment] So my suggestion is ... because on

17 the MTA card there are a lot of space and like this

18 one is Grand Central Station, do the advertisement

19 there, no, 100 years and this would be one of the

20 ideas you know because I don't know if MTA will agree

21 to that because with this you can add money to the

22 card and you can use every day, and the black one is

23 a ... this a municipal ID card too; just one of the

24 thoughts. [background comments] And another thing I

25 wanna ask you is, with this municipal ID, suppose one

Exhibit Page No.: 0366 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 57

2 carried this and they go on interstate travel on a

3 bus and the bus stop by immigration service, they

4 check IDs, with this_ [bell] is this okay for

5 immigration purpose; would they... would the immigrant

6 official detain the passenger because they carry this

7 kind of municipal ID? [background comment]

8 NISHA AGARWAL: So I can respond about

9 this question. So we could not ... the Administration

10 could not agree more, that this is a card that has to

11 have benefits and incentives built into it that make

12 it appealing to all New Yorkers, which is the reason

13 why we've been having conversations both with other

14 agencies within City government as well as with

15 private-sector entities to figure out, are there ways

16 to get, as was mentioned in the prior panel,

17 discounts at cultural institutions so that parents

18 and students can access all that New York City has to

19 offer and really expand their education, right; make

20 New York City the platform for their education, using

21 the municipal ID card. So that is absolutely

22 something that we are very focused on and working on

23 and when the card is launched, it will have benefits

24 not only for undocumented immigrants, but really that

25 will make you and everyone else wanna sign up first

Exhibit Page No.: 0367 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 58

2 to get the ID, so we are hard at work on that. On

3 the issue of interstate travel and some other issues

4 that cards may be used for, like drivers licenses,

5 one of the things that we should look at is whether

6 we should have warning language on the card about

7 what purposes the card cannot be used for, 'cause we

8 have ... the City has limited authority about what cards

9 can be accepted for state and federal purposes and

10 we'll wanna properly inform and educate the users of

11 the card about the limitations as well, so that's

12 something we've been exploring preliminarily and

13 would certainly continue if this bill were to pass

14 and we were to implement.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Can I... [crosstalk]

16 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

17 Council Member Cabrera.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Can you... can you...

19 one more ... just real quick... [crosstalk]

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Quick follow up.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Can you use the card

22 for like get on the airplanes?

23 NISHA AGARWAL: That's ... the use of

24 identification for that purpose is actually not

25 within the City's authority, that's a federal issue

Exhibit Page No.: 0368 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 59

2 and so we would need to inform people ... the federal

3 government about those limitations.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. We're

6 gonna adhere to the strict two minutes per council

7 member. Council Member Cabrera.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Thank you so

9 much and I'll take 10 seconds of that. To Mr. Chair

10 and Council Member Dromm, I really wanna take a

11 moment to praise you for really putting a tremendous

12 amount of timei I don't think people realize how much

13 time you have dedicated to this cause and I know

14 Council Member Dromm, for years you have, as the

15 former Chair, have indeed given a tremendous amount

16 of effort and now is gonna become a reality, so I

17 compliment both of you. I'm gonna make a quick

18 statement and then I'll follow up with a question,

19 since I only have a minute-and-a-half. I wanna

20 follow up with Council Member Dromm's question, that

21 it would seem to me it will make sense to add the

22 banking piece to it, and let me tell you why, for a

23 couple of reasons -- (1) if we change our minds later

24 on, it's gonna cost us a tremendous amount of money,

25 and to say the least, headachesi (2) why not have a

Exhibit Page No.: 0369 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 60

2 public-private kind of setup that really, it'll

3 defray all the cost; this is gonna cost us millions

4 of dollars; I could tell you, based on what I've seen

5 in Oakland, minimum we're gonna be spending $50

6 million, minimum. I would encourage you to really do

7 the research on this; I would rather use those $50

8 million for something else, and let the private

9 sector pay for it; they have the money, they can

10 afford it, and they wanna do it; that's the really

11 interesting piece here; they really wanna do it and

12 it will be a win-win situation and having said that,

13 the banking piece I think is important; I think we're

14 leaving it to kind of a luck, chance situation and

15 based on the history, what we have seen in other

16 municipalities, banks tend not to [bell] be amicable

17 to the idea of using these IDs in order for them to

18 get banking; I think this would empower our people

19 and, respect to the Chair, I'll stop here. But

20 please, if you could address that; at least stay

21 open-minded as we go through this process.

22 NISHA AGARWAL: Sure. So thank you;

23 that's a very legitimate point. One thing to be very

24 clear on is that we are designing the system, or at

25 least our initial plans would not foreclose the

Exhibit Page No.: 0370 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 61

2 possibility of adding banking features later on, so

3 the concern about the cost escalating because we

4 didn't think of it at the outsight I think is

5 somewhat alleviated, because we're ... that's very much

6 on our radar screen. We also, on the other side,

7 wanna be sure that we are as thoughtful and as

8 protective of the needs of low-income New Yorkers who

9 we wanna be able to provide a safe, affordable,

10 effective financial product to; that's a very serious

11 consideration, and so while we're open-minded, we do

12 wanna be very thoughtful about how we implement that

13 and that's sort of our thinking at the moment.

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

15 Next I wanna give it up to my brother from Brooklyn,

16 Council Member Reynoso.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Thank you,

18 Chair, thank you so much; I'm really happy to be here

19 at this moment with you Chairing this hearing and

20 speaking on an issue that I think is extremely

21 important. I'm gonna say one thing that I haven't

22 thought out and one thing that I have. When it comes

23 to our youth and being able to have them participate

24 in this program, I think it's extremely important; it

25 might be a little difficult, our incentivizing or the

Exhibit Page No.: 0371 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 62

2 programs that we have to incentivize folks to join

3 this program, it might not be attractive to people

4 that have state IDs already; the resources or the

5 gains that they get from having a City ID might not

6 be attractive; I'm hoping that we could implement a

7 very early age in which you can obtain this ID, even

8 as low as 12 years old, because then once they're

9 there, they're gonna cycle through and continue to

10 maintain or have this ID, so maybe in 40, 50, even 60

11 years every single person can have this ID and we

12 would eliminate the stigma of only undocumenteds

13 having it, [background comment] so just being mindful

14 of that. [background comment] And well, what are

15 you thoughts on it?

16 NISHA AGARWAL: Sure. So we ... that's very

17 much something the Administration is looking into and

18 supports and access for young people to this

19 identification is something that we're thinking

20 about; of course, with appropriate protections for

21 minors, you know, that may be necessary and so, I

22 would say I agree and we will also be having

23 conversations with the Department of Ed and other

24 agencies that work with young people to be able to

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0372 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 63

2 leverage some of their resources as well to reach

3 that population.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: And then the

5 last part was -- I'm a biker, I bike, and this might

6 not be popular and I haven't thought this one out,

7 [background comment] but maybe there's an opportunity

8 here for, you know, proper biking, riding in the City

9 of New York and having to go through a course and

10 maybe obtaining this [background comment] ID through

11 that as well; just thought I'd bring it up; maybe

12 it's an idea that could also work. [bell] But thank

13 you for being here and good job, by the way.

14 NISHA AGARWAL: Thank you.

15 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you, Council

16 Member Reynoso. And now we'll hand it over to

17 Council Member Eugene.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: Thank you very

19 much, Mr. Chair and thank you to each one of you for

20 your testimony. To Miss Mindy Tarlow, [background

21 comment] in your testimony you mentioned that we

22 propose; that's your nice pose [sic], we proposing

23 having the two type of site where people can sign up

24 for the municipal ID; you mentioned active site and

25 passive site; where those sites would be located;

Exhibit Page No.: 0373 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 64

2 would they be located in government building, in

3 government agencies, private institution or private

4 organization, and what will be the process to choose

5 them if they would be located in private

6 institutions?

7 MINDY TARLOW: So we're looking at a wide

8 range of sites right now and I- I- I did wanna

9 reference the earlier panel and was encouraged to

10 hear that they were thinking along similar lines;

11 that made us feel that we're also on the right track.

12 We're looking at sites that are government, but also

13 community-based, where people would go for other

14 kinds of services that cover a broad range of things,

15 whether it's parks or whether it's libraries, things

16 like that, where people would normally go; we

17 consider those active sites and we're trying to make

18 sure that they cover a wide range of topics so that

19 it would draw a wide range of people and also make

20 sure that they cover a wide range of geographies and

21 that they cover all boroughs, and we're looking at a

22 number of different options and we're trying to talk

23 to as many people as possible so that we can get the

24 broadest range of options available.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0374 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 65

2 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: In terms of the

3 whole process, will you create an agency to oversee

4 the process or to oversee all the sites?

5 MINDY TARLOW: What we're proposing to do

6 is to have the Mayor's Office, sort of broadly

7 speaking -- Operations, the Mayor's Office of

8 Immigrant Affairs, the Community Assistance Unit, the

9 groups that [bell] Commissioner Agarwal was

10 describing earlier oversee the project at large

11 and make sure that we have the right kind of

12 communication and interaction with the active sites,

13 but also, make sure that we're working closely with

14 the back office operation to make sure that the IDs

15 are properly administered, that the program is

16 properly put on the ground; the technology and

17 procurement process is adequately secured. So we

18 would try to have the Mayor's Office, again, sort of

19 generally speaking, oversee the whole process.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: Thank you very

21 much. [background comment] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

22 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Council

23 Member Eugene. And I 'm gonna round it off with some ...

24 a series of questions, just to kind of really fill in

25 the experience of New Yorkers, and the first one I

Exhibit Page No.: 0375 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 66

2 wanted to ask about was, maybe right after, kinda

3 thinking about the mobility of this program and how

4 it's gonna interact with New Yorkersi how are you

5 gonna evaluate, (1) , and do you have a plan to

6 evaluate the current kind of front end workers, and

7 how are you thinking that out? And on the flip sidei

8 how are you evaluating the experience of every New

9 Yorker, and we've kind of talked a lot about seniors,

10 LGBT community, our undocumented immigrants, and

11 evaluating their experience as well and kinda share

12 that?

13 NISHA AGARWAL: So I can start and then,

14 you know, our goal would be, in terms of the front

15 end staff, to have a very extensive and thorough

16 training program for them to be able to, you know,

17 look at and sort of identify the veracity of

18 documents that are presented for identity and

19 residency and to have a kind of cadre of people who

20 are focused on municipal ID as the individuals who

21 would be doing some of the front end work, and in

22 addition, you know, I think part of what you're

23 asking is, would they have the kind of cultural

24 competency training, the sort of linguistic support,

25 the other kinds of training that's needed to make the

Exhibit Page No.: 0376 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 67

2 card truly accessible at the point of contact, and

3 that's of course something that we would work to

4 ensure is the case so the training is not just, are

5 these documents real or not, but the training is, how

6 do we make this a welcoming process for people who

7 wanna get the card, so absolutely. And then in terms

8 of about ... oh, sorry.

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Before you go to

10 the second component, and just stay on the kind of

11 worker experience, language access; can you really

12 talk about that and really the commitment to language

13 access for New Yorkers?

14 NISHA AGARWAL: Sure. So the commitment

15 on language access, I will say personally is an

16 issue 1 very near and dear to my heart; that's the

17 work I started doing in my career as a lawyer and

18 it's very important to the Mayor, and so in

19 implementing this program 1 along with all of the

20 other major initiatives that have been happening,

21 like universal pre-K, etc., there will be, you know,

22 translated materials available for people, the access

23 to interpretation services, all of the basic language

24 access services, as we have at this hearing, right,

25 to make it possible for New Yorkers of all languages

Exhibit Page No.: 0377 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 68

2 and all backgrounds to be able to access the program.

3 So I'll just emphasize that commitment now.

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And then the

5 second part to the question about the kind of

6 experience that New Yorkers are gonna have and how

7 you plan to evaluate that; how are we gonna know and

8 hopefully in real time that this is a highly

9 accessible, but great experience?

10 MINDY TARLOW: I think that the Mayor's

11 Office of Operations, along with MOIA, we actually

12 have a very close-working relationship around

13 language access and among other things; we do a lot

14 of work around customer service and I think that we

15 will come up with ways of using that experience to

16 make sure that we can test and survey New Yorkers to

17 make sure that their experience is a good experience

18 and use the things at our disposal to make sure that

19 we are finding out how the public is experiencing

20 municipal ID and you know, try to come up with some

21 creative ways to really understand that experience.

22 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Next question is,

23 Director Tarlow, what kind of outreach to previously

24 incarcerated people would be successful in getting

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0378 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 69

2 municipal IDs in... really into their hands and can you

3 kinda drill down on that point for us?

4 MINDY TARLOW: Right and if I had another

5 hat I would put it on right now. [laughter] I think

6 that New York City has one of the strongest

7 community-based apparatus in the country in terms of

8 people who deal with formerly incarcerated people,

9 especially those who are just coming home and

10 reintegrating into their communities, so I would tap

11 into that network; it's quite robust, and that would

12 be my first stop, would be to engage that community,

13 it's where people are going for services, it's where

14 people feel... it's a place of trust and comfort and I

15 think that would be my first thought, would be to

16 engage that community.

17 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And we're really

18 looking forward to your expertise on this as we

19 continue to develop ... develop the program.

20 [interpose, crosstalk]

21 MINDY TARLOW: And I would be delighted

22 to share it.

23 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: The next question

24 is really for ... for you again on... or actually, for

25 both of you on understanding the consulate IDs and it

Exhibit Page No.: 0379 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 70

2 kind of come into ecosystem in New York City, you've

3 heard from the first panelists a little bit about

4 that experience, and so, have you reached out to the

5 consulates and what's your conversation in really

6 understanding what they bring to the table in

7 understanding identification [background comment]

8 being part of the weighted point system to

9 [background comment] get a municipal ID?

10 NISHA AGARWAL: Yes. So we are engaging ...

11 the Mayor's Office of Urban Affairs has historically

12 worked with the consulate offices, as you can

13 imagine, on a range of different issues and we are

14 sitting down with them to learn both about their

15 consular ID process as well as to understand how some

16 of the IDs and the programs that they have may

17 interface with the municipal ID, and so that's a

18 conversation that's ongoing, and you know, I think

19 the consulates will may be important partners in

20 outreach and some of the consulates that have ID

21 programs that have done outreach efforts, they have

22 people coming at 6 in the morning to line up for this

23 card and there's clearly a pent-up demand for

24 identification cards of this sort, and one of things

25 they've done well is actually doing some of that

Exhibit Page No.: 0380 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 71

2 outreach in the community itself, not requiring

3 people to come into Manhattan to obtain the consular

4 ID, and so we'd like to learn from those experiences

5 and we'd like to partner with the consulates very

6 much on outreach in addition to understanding the

7 kind of ID mechanics as well.

8 MINDY TARLOW: Justi not to pick up on

9 that, which I think was beautifully stated, but back

10 to your earlier question, one additional thought is

11 about the Department Probation, which, as you know,

12 is a sentence in and of itself where people are going

13 for the first timei again, another really important

14 agency in the community that might be a very, very

15 important, as we were saying earlier, passive site

16 that people can go to directly to get a municipal ID,

17 because they're going to probation for other

18 services, and I think they're a very important agency

19 to engage and Commissioner Bermudez I'm sure would be

20 a really great active partner in this effort.

21 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And really, in

22 kinda thinking about the kinda mechanics of this, for

23 New Yorkers who are homeless, and really maybe can

24 you describe just the process that you'd imaginei

25 someone goes into a mobile passive active site, they

Exhibit Page No.: 0381 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 72

2 apply; what's the time ... the lag time; [background

3 comment] is it mailed; can you kinda describe a

4 little bit about what you're thinking on that?

5 MINDY TARLOW: Yeah, I mean the idea

6 would be that somebody comes into a site, passively

7 or actively, they sign up for the ID, they give their

8 paperwork, that then gets processed on-site, that

9 gets sent to the back end site for final processing,

10 and when the card is ready it does get mailed out to

11 their official address and we will be working with

12 experts in the field about how you get a card out to

13 somebody who doesn't in fact have a permanent address

14 and there, fortunately or unfortunately, is a lot of

15 expertise out in the field about that, whether it's,

16 you know finding folks who are in shelter or finding

17 folks who are transient and moving from one place to

18 another and we're very committed and have already

19 started some of those conversations about how best to

20 contact those folks who don't have a permanent

21 address.

22 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And last, any

23 other questions ... Council Member Reynoso.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Hi again. When

25 we talk about housing, especially lotteries in

Exhibit Page No.: 0382 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 73

2 affordable housing, a lot of times; actually, all the

3 time you need to input your social security number,

4 you have to add your social security number and

5 unfortunately many folks don't have social security

6 numbers that in the City of New York are allowed to

7 apply, but there's obstacles obviously in the way and

8 that's one of them. I've put in legislation to allow

9 for a tax identification number to be used in place

10 of social security for an application, an affordable

11 housing application; what I'm hoping is that that

12 legislation is obsolete or is not needed, because

13 these IDs will work as an opportunity to apply for

14 affordable housing for anyone that's a resident of

15 the City of New York. Do you think that that's gonna

16 be something that, working alongside HPD we might be

17 able to accomplish through this ID?

18 NISHA AGARWAL: So we are in conversation

19 with many agencies, including HPD, to understand, you

20 know, whether it's signing up for a lease where you

21 have to show identification or accessing different

22 programs, to ensure that the identification card is

23 accepted broadly across City agencies, so that's

24 certainly a commitment. One thing we won't be able

25 to change with the ID card is what the rules and

Exhibit Page No.: 0383 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 74

2 requirements might be that are made at the state or

3 the federal level, so to the extent that there are

4 limitations imposed on that, that's not entirely

5 within our control, but whatever is within our

6 control we will of course wanna increase access to

7 the maximum extent possible.

8 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Council

9 Member Reynoso. And really, I just wanna clarify

10 something -- I'm just kinda reading the Twitter feeds

11 -- and that this card is not gonna be able to be used

12 for interstate travel; this is a municipal ID that

13 will work in New York City and really only in New

14 York City and that this card essentially doesn't

15 really... this card lives within the bounds of the

16 state and federal laws, [background comment] and so

17 do one of you wanna expand on that a little bit?

18 NISHA AGARWAL: Absolutely. There is

19 nothing about this identification card that will

20 break state or federal laws, it is a community-

21 building, it's an access-creating card for New York

22 City and that's some of what its power is, is that

23 it's a New York City card for New Yorkers; well, you

24 know, were we able to change the federal and state

25 laws, I would have a lot of ideas on that, but we

Exhibit Page No.: 0384 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 75

2 are, for now, you know we have the power to do what

3 we can at the city level. [interpose]

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish]

5 [laughter] Okay. Well thank you so much; we're

6 gonna get some other panelists up; [background

7 comment] thank you so much for your time and we look

8 forward to working with you.

9 MINDY TARLOW: Thank you very much.

10 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And our next

11 panel, we'd like to call up Johanna Miller from New

12 York Civil Liberties Union, Emily Tucker from Center

13 for Popular Democracy, Steven Choi from the New York

14 Immigration Coalition, and Miss Deyanira Del Rio from

15 the New Economy Project. Please come on up. And I

16 do wanna say that we had a couple Twitter questions

17 about language access and we asked it; this is from

18 Christina S. Chang, from the MinKwon Center; thank

19 you so much for saying that question, and really

20 continue, if you wanna engage us, on #nyciD. Thank

21 you. And we're waiting for one more. Steven, can

22 you start, please?

23 STEVEN CHOI: Sure.

24 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0385 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 76

2 STEVEN CHOI: Good morning; my name is

3 Steve Choi and I'm the Executive Director of the New

4 York Immigration Coalition, an umbrella organization

5 with nearly 200 member organizations.

6 On behalf of New York City's vibrant and

7 diverse immigrant communities, who continue to face

8 barriers in accessing government-issued

9 identification, we believe that the municipal ID

10 envisioned by this legislation, an ID available to

11 all New Yorkers, would go a long way to break down

12 the stigmatizing barriers for immigrants. My

13 testimony is informed by the New York Immigration

14 Coalition's experiences and the crushing consequences

15 of a lack of proper identification are a common theme

16 in our work. Time and time we've heard stories of

17 individuals who are not able to provide identity to

18 hospitals, of parents who cannot enter their child's

19 school and New Yorkers who cannot open bank accounts.

20 But we've also seen how strong policy can break down

21 these barriers. With the support of the City

22 Council, the NYIC was able to begin the Key to the

23 City Consular ID Initiative to work with the

24 consulates to provide over 19,000 New Yorkers with

25 services and nearly 13,000 people have stood in line

Exhibit Page No.: 0386 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 77

2 for hours to receive these critical identify

3 documents. These consular ID initiatives have not

4 only shown the incredible need in immigrant

5 communities, but have also provided a model structure

6 for engaging partners in successfully reaching

7 diverse communities.

8 I also wanna emphasize today that the

9 best ID for immigrants will be an ID widely adopted

10 by non-immigrants. The muni ID cannot be a proxy for

11 undocumented status; it should be a badge of civic

12 pride that unites all residents, but it will only be

13 so if it is linked to a robust package of discounts,

14 privileges and other benefits that will appeal to

15 everyone. And to that end, we believe it will be

16 critical to establish a joint task force of the

17 Administration, City Council and community

18 organizations to bring this package to life. We must

19 also ensure that the application process is smooth

20 and secure, that City agencies are properly trained

21 and above all, the confidentiality of personal

22 documents and information must be guaranteed. [bell]

23 In conclusion, we at the Coalition look

24 forward to working closely with the Administration

25 and the City Council to make municipal IDs a reality

Exhibit Page No.: 0387 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 78

2 and I know I cannot wait to get my own New York City

3 municipal card myself. Thank you.

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: I'll be right

5 there with you. Thank you. Johanna.

6 JOHANNA MILLER: Hi, good morning. My

7 name is Johanna Milleri I'm the Advocacy Director at

8 the New York Civil Liberties Union, speaking today on

9 behalf of our 50,000 members statewide.

10 We are pleased to be here today to join

11 our allies in supporting the access that the NYC ID

12 promises to diverse New York communities, but in the

13 interest of time I'm gonna focus my comments on one

14 of our primary concerns, which is for the privacy of

15 applicants for the ID card.

16 We commend the City Council for designing

17 legislation that protects against the risks of

18 disclosure of applicants' private information to the

19 maximum extent possible. Closely linked with making

20 the NYC ID appealing to broad communities is the

21 City's promise that people's information will not be

22 entered into a database or shared with third parties.

23 The current language in the bill prohibiting

24 retention is the best way to guarantee this promisei

25 we applaud the Council for including that language.

Exhibit Page No.: 0388 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 79

2 These foundational documents are some of

3 the most sensitive pieces of information that people

4 have -- passports, benefit cards, pay stubs, bank

5 statements, information about their children's public

6 school attendance -- these are things that people

7 don't even want disclosed to family members; it is

8 essential that the City takes the same care in

9 preserving privacy.

10 Revelations about the NSA's domestic

11 spying program and public outrage over New York State

12 Education Department's contract with data servicer

13 inBloom speak loudly to the public's wariness about

14 government abuse of privacy rights. So retaining the

15 documents we think creates an unnecessary risk of

16 disclosure. The threat is not abstract; as you

17 probably know, in New Haven the information about

18 people who had the municipal ID was requested by

19 anti-immigrant activists who said they were gonna

20 turn it over to ICE; New Haven was able to defeat

21 that request, but we think that the threat of

22 something like that actually defeats some of the

23 broad appeal of the ID and could scare away potential

24 applicants [bell] that the City needs to make this

25 program a success. So we fully support the work

Exhibit Page No.: 0389 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 80

2 you've put in to protecting confidentiality and we're

3 happy to continue providing our expertise in that

4 area.

5 EMILY TUCKER: Good afternoon and thanks

6 to Councilman Menchaca and the Immigration Committee

7 for convening today's hearing and for inviting me to

8 testify on this important issue. My name is Emily

9 Tucker and I'm a Staff Attorney at the Center for

10 Popular Democracy in Brooklyn, where I support state

11 and local initiatives to promote immigrant rights and

12 promote racial justice and economic justice.

13 One of the things I've seen over and over

14 again in the communities I work with is how seemingly

15 small changes in circumstances can lead to huge

16 improvements in the well-being of individuals,

17 families and whole cities. At CPD we look for

18 initiatives like this which often simply by removing

19 obstacles to basic goods, like health and security

20 that most of us take for granted will enable people

21 to live better, happier lives. Municipal ID is one

22 such initiative and I'm here today to voice my full

23 support and the support of my organization for this

24 legislation that would bring IDs to New York City.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0390 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 81

2 Access to a widely-accepted form of ID is

3 a right, but increasingly in this country we treat it

4 as a privilege, a privilege that tends to go along

5 with other privileges of race, of class and of

6 citizenship. Many of us take IDs so much for granted

7 that we don't even realize how much we rely on it.

8 Over the last decade it's become increasingly crucial

9 to have ID, increasingly difficult to get ID and

10 increasingly risky to share personal information with

11 the government agencies that issue ID; at the same

12 time, ID continues to gate-keep every aspect of life.

13 In response to this problem, a wave of

14 municipalities across the country have enacted local

15 ID car programs, starting with New Haven, Connecticut

16 and now including San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond,

17 Los Angeles in California, Asbury Park and Mercer

18 County in New Jersey, and Washington D.C. Campaigns

19 are also currently underway in cities as diverse as

20 Phoenix, Philadelphia and Chicago. The programs in

21 these jurisdictions take a variety of forms and have

22 a range of different features tailored to the

23 particular localities they serve; my organization has

24 researched all the existing programs and we've

25 identified several key features that we believe will

Exhibit Page No.: 0391 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 82

2 be important for municipal ID cards to be successful

3 here in New York City.

4 The first of these is accessibility;

5 [bell] in order for a city ID to actually serve the

6 purpose for which it's designed, it has to be more

7 accessible than existing forms of state and federal

8 ID, and that means the application process has to be

9 clear and simple and the methods of proving residency

10 and identity in order to quality for the card must be

11 flexible. That doesn't mean verification of identity

12 and residency can't be robust, it just means the

13 program has to be designed to fit with the particular

14 circumstances of those in this City that typically

15 have trouble getting ID. The next piece is privacy;

16 I'm not gonna go into that, 'cause I think Johanna's

17 covered that very well, but we found that the cities

18 that have the most robust privacy policies -- San

19 Francisco being an example, and you'll hear from

20 someone from San Francisco later today -- tend to

21 have the highest rates of adoption. The last piece

22 is broad appeal -- as other folks have mentioned, we

23 don't want the card to become a scarlet letter where

24 an individual is assumed to be a member of one or

25 more vulnerable groups simply by virtue of being a

Exhibit Page No.: 0392 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 83

2 cardholder and the best way to avoid this is to

3 ensure the card appeals to and is adopted by as broad

4 a cross section of the population as possible; many

5 jurisdictions have done this -- Los Angeles and San

6 Francisco -- and the cards there are viewed as

7 legitimate and viewed as non-stigmatizing.

8 The last thing I wanna say is that it's

9 crucial to all of the communities in New York City

10 that support this card that the NYPD accept it, that

11 they view it as a legitimate way of proving your

12 identity and they accept it for the purpose of

13 issuing summonses.

14 Though there are many variables that can

15 impact the success of an ID card program, our

16 research shows that these are especially fundamental

17 and we're excited to see that the current draft bill

18 addresses all of these points. We're lucky to be in

19 a position to learn from the other jurisdictions that

20 have already implemented municipal ID card programs

21 and we have a chance to make New York [cough] card

22 the best in the country.

23 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you, Miss

24 Tucker. Miss Del Rio.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0393 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 84

2 DEYANIRA DEL RIO: Thanks. Hi, good

3 morning...

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

5 DEYANIRA DEL RIO: thank you for the

6 opportunity to testify. My name's Deyanira Del Rio;

7 I'm the Co-Director of New Economy Project, formerly

8 NEDAP; we're an organization that works with

9 community groups around New York City to fight for

10 economic justice and to build a new economy that

11 works for all.

12 And I specifically want to address in the

13 proposal, which we enthusiastically support, some of

14 the issues around banking access; this is an area in

15 which we've done work for many years, working to hold

16 banks accountable to communities in New York City and

17 also working to eliminate barriers that immigrants,

18 young people and many others, including people in

19 communities of color face to accessing fair and

20 affordable financial services and you know, which

21 leave people not only vulnerable to high-cost and

22 predatory lenders and other institutions, but

23 actually blocks people from all kinds of other

24 economic opportunities by virtue of not having

25 banking or credit histories. Unfortunately, the

Exhibit Page No.: 0394 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 85

2 reality of that today without a banking and credit

3 history, it's increasingly hard to get housing, jobs,

4 insurance, cell phones, and the list is growing,

5 thanks to aggressive marketing by the credit bureaus.

6 The City Council is separately looking at a bill to

7 ban employment credit checks and that would at least

8 eliminate one of these unfair practices. But the

9 implications for being financially excluded are

10 really severe and expansive and that's the point I

11 wanna make, it's not just about saving fees from

12 check-cashing, it's really about economic access as a

13 whole.

14 We are really excited about the potential

15 for the municipal ID to be a tool that the City and

16 New Yorkers and advocacy groups and organizers can

17 use to press for accountable banking in the City and

18 to really expand fair and affordable financial

19 services for all New Yorkers.

20 There is in my testimony lengthy, sort of

21 documentation that the City has put out regarding the

22 numbers of people who right now do not have any

23 credit union or bank account at all; it's somewhere

24 upwards of 800,000 New Yorkers that have no account

25 and that doesn't include many hundreds of thousands

Exhibit Page No.: 0395 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 86

2 more that maybe have an account, but are still

3 relying on high-cost, you know fringe services,

4 [bell] predatory services to meet some of their

5 needs. So literally expanding financial access in a

6 meaningful way could literally put millions of

7 dollars back in the pockets of low-income New Yorkers

8 and their communities and so it's a really, you know

9 critical issue for that reason.

10 I am going to, in the interest of time,

11 just jump ahead a little bit into some of the

12 recommendations that we have to make sure that the ID

13 is an effective tool to promote banking access,

14 because as everyone knows, I believe up here that

15 lack of a government-issued ID is one of the major

16 impediments that people face to getting access to an

17 affordable, safe, regulated bank or credit union

18 account, so not having a government-issued ID, it's

19 not just immigrants; it's all the other communities

20 that you've heard so far face these challenges. One

21 is that we would recommend that the City take into

22 account the federal banking requirements, including,

23 for example, under the Patriot Act, and design the ID

24 to meet those minimum requirements so that banks can

25 accept that ID card as sufficient government ID to

Exhibit Page No.: 0396 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 87

2 open an account, so the Patriot Act sets forth very

3 basic minimum requirements -- name, address, a photo,

4 for example; a birth date, and then, critically, an

5 identification number that's unique. And so making

6 sure there's a unique ID number on the cards will

7 hopefully go far to making sure banks and credit

8 unions accept that card. Second, we urge the City to

9 use its leverage and its relationships with local

10 banks and credit unions to press them to accept the

11 ID not as a second or third ID, but as the primary ID

12 which meets federal law, federal banking

13 requirements, as a primary ID to allow people to open

14 basic, affordable savings and checking accounts. And

15 we think that the City has several leverage points,

16 including the New York City Responsible Banking Act,

17 which gives the City the ability to evaluate how

18 banks are meeting community credit and banking needi

19 when the City is deciding where to put its deposit.

20 And so this, you know acceptance of the ID, service

21 to people who have the ID could be one way that the

22 City evaluates banks under that law. We also think

23 that the City could go a step further and do what we

24 understand San Francisco did, which is, in its

25 statute, it requires all entities that do business

Exhibit Page No.: 0397 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 88

2 with the City to accept the municipal ID card, and so

3 that's yet another kind of hook or leverage with

4 banks and others. And then finally, we would say

5 that we have anecdotally heard from some financial

6 institutions that they are already kind of viewing

7 the IDa little bit skeptically, thinking it's not

8 really a full... a true government-issued ID; it's

9 gonna be a little too flexible or they're saying,

10 well we'll accept it, but we're gonna develop a

11 special product for those people, and you know

12 unfortunately that... for those that do this work, the

13 code there are, you know, inferior products, there

14 are like fewer products and services and you know,

15 things like pre-paid debit cards that aren't

16 federally protected and insured in the same way as

17 other banking services, for example and often have

18 really high and hidden fees for people. So we wanna

19 ask the City to make sure that institutions are

20 viewing the City ID as a true and full government-

21 issued ID; the ID is about unifying and really

22 expanding access, equal access for all New Yorkers,

23 it's not about creating separate and segregated

24 systems and products, so we would want to make sure

25 that the City has its radar up for that.

Exhibit Page No.: 0398 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 89

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Great. I'm gonna

3 pause you there; I just_ (crosstalk]

4 DEYANIRA DEL RIO: Okay. Okay, thank

5 you. That was it.

6 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: I wanna... I wanna

7 make sure that we can ask some questions, and I wanna

8 recognize our great Public Advocate Tish James who's

9 joined us; no stranger to this body and this room,

10 but a fierce fighter for all New Yorkers, and I wanna

11 give you an opportunity to say a few words and to ask

12 a question.

13 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Good morning. I

14 wanna thank Immigration Chair, Council Member Carlos

15 Menchaca for inviting me to speak on the topic of New

16 York City Municipal ID Card Program.

17 Across the country a growing number of

18 municipalities have begun to issue municipal ID cards

19 to their residents; these municipal identification

20 cards typically feature the photo and address of the

21 cardholder. Although typically available to all

22 residents, the cards are particularly valuable for

23 the most vulnerable community residents, undocumented

24 immigrants, homeless populations and others who may

25 have difficulty obtaining and retaining other

Exhibit Page No.: 0399 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 90

2 government-issued ID. As know, governmental

3 identification is needed to obtain access to service

4 most New Yorkers take for granted, like opening bank

5 accounts, access to financial services, leasing

6 apartments, entrance into certain governmental

7 buildings, and even simply getting a library card.

8 Today over half-a-million undocumented New Yorkers

9 unfairly live in the shadows; it's now time that they

10 step out of the shadows, and I am pleased to hear

11 that this Council is considering... I am pleased to

12 hear that this legislation is being considered within

13 the Council and that the Administration has moved

14 forward with the Mayor's Office of Contract Services

15 to secure project management and quality assurance

16 services for the municipal ID application system, as

17 well as a company that would oversee the program. As

18 in the Office of Public Advocate, we also look

19 forward to making sure that that company, that there

20 is some oversight over that program and that company.

21 I would hope to further discuss specifics regarding

22 the procurement process, specifically how

23 registration data will be compiled and secured and

24 accessed both by the contracting company and that

25 individuals' information is safe. And I again thank

Exhibit Page No.: 0400 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 91

2 you for the opportunity to speak on the proposed New

3 York City Municipal ID Card Program, but I want

4 everyone to know that the Office of Public Advocate

5 is a friend to all regardless of status and that we

6 support this initiative going forward and whatever we

7 can do in our capacity to ensure that there is equal

8 opportunity for all, the Office of Public Advocate,

9 the office of Letitia James, is here to serve. Thank

10 you.

11 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Public

12 Advocate Tish James. And really with that note, I

13 wanna hand it ... or direct my question to Johanna from

14 NYCLU and really understand how you envision

15 protecting the privacy during the period in which the

16 City has explained to us that they're gonna take

17 information, the ... well I guess I should just ... I'll

18 leave it there. How did you feel like that's gonna

19 happen from your perspective?

20 JOHANNA MILLER: So as a threshold

21 matter... my understanding is that the City has

22 concerns about whether the people who are kind of the

23 storefront recipients of these applicants in order to

24 make it widespread may not have the correct training

25 to be able to verify documents and so they need to

Exhibit Page No.: 0401 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 92

2 either scan them or retain them in some way to have

3 them-- like a two-step verification process. So as

4 a threshold matter, we don't think that that's a

5 legitimate reason to retain documents, we think that

6 that indicates, quite frankly/ a troubling lack of

7 investment in proper training of those individualsi

8 we think if there is a tension between widespread

9 access and proper training/ the City has to err on

10 the side of training 1 and that's not just a safety

11 concern with verifying the documents 1 but also 1 as

12 you raised yourself 1 a customer service concerni a

13 lot of the populations that are going to be best

14 served by this identification card have had

15 historically from interactions with many government

16 agencies/ including HRA 1 and so I think they're

17 concerned that people won't be trained to verify a

18 paper document 1 whether it's true or not 1 to me

19 raises those secondary concerns about whether those

20 people will actually be trained to handle the many

21 different circumstances that people are going to

22 present and make sure that they have a dignified

23 experience. But as a secondary matter 1 we are not

24 yet convinced that scanning and retaining the

25 documents actually presents the right kind of

Exhibit Page No.: 0402 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 93

2 verification, the means of verification at all; in

3 fact, many of the security features of these types of

4 documents are security features that you can only

5 verify when you have the document in your possession

6 and so scanning them. .. so things like embossed seals,

7 watermarks, things that even a high-quality scanner

8 are not going to show, and so that two-step

9 verification process, we haven't seen evidence yet

10 from the City, we haven't had detailed conversations,

11 but I have not seen evidence that actually would even

12 work at all and in fact there are in-person

13 mechanical verification methods that we would

14 encourage the City to explore, like using UV lamps on

15 some documents where the, you know, watermarks can

16 show up on UV; we think that people can be trained to

17 do this work and we think if that means that there

18 are slightly fewer of them, that's probably the right

19 path to go down.

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. And my

21 next question is to Miss Tucker, you mentioned really

22 the value of NYPD accepting this piece of

23 identification; can you just frame for us the value

24 and why it's so essential for the NYPD to accept

25 this?

Exhibit Page No.: 0403 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 94

2 EMILY TUCKER: Yeah, I mean I think there

3 are a few communities that are represented in our

4 advocacy coalition that could speak to this

5 firsthand, but you know the ... just to give a basic

6 overview, undocumented immigrants are often afraid to

7 take advantage of law enforcement in their

8 communities because they worry that if they have to

9 present identification, that identification might tip

10 law enforcement off to their undocumented status and

11 that that could trigger a pickup by ICE or their

12 personal information being submitted to ICE and

13 consequences not only for themselves and their family

14 members and that has huge consequences we've seen in

15 the domestic violence advocacy circle, many, many

16 examples of individuals who are suffering from

17 domestic violence and fear going to the police

18 because they don't wanna bring to light their status

19 or the status of their family members and there

20 actually have been incidents where individuals have

21 gone to the police in cases of domestic violence and

22 have ended up in deportation proceedings. So that's

23 one example and the other example would be the, for

24 example, homeless individuals who often don't have

25 current forms of identification and will be, you

Exhibit Page No.: 0404 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 95

2 know, they'll be in the subway and have their feet on

3 the seat and it's 3 a.m. and the cops are doing

4 sweeps and aren't able to present a valid form of

5 identification for the purposes of getting a summons

6 and so they end up having to spend the night in jail.

7 So those are some of the examples and it's really/

8 really crucial for NYPD to accept the ID.

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Miss

10 Tucker. Next question from Council Member Reynoso.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Thank you. This

12 is to Mr. Choi. You specifically talked about

13 incentives and discounts; are you saying that maybe

14 we get 10 percent off at Macy's for getting this

15 card; is that what you're implying... [crosstalk]

16 STEVEN CHOI: Think we rely upon you as

17 Council Member to make that happen.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: [laugh] Well, I

19 do want to see if you've thought of any creative ways

20 that you think... [interpose]

21 STEVEN CHOI: Sure.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: you can make

23 this popular and make it attractive to folks and

24 speak to the discounts or incentives that you were

25 talking about.

Exhibit Page No.: 0405 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 96

2 STEVEN CHOI: Absolutely. So as I stated

3 before in my testimony and as you see in the written

4 testimony, we think that this package of potential

5 benefits is going to be the most critical thing. As

6 I said before, the best thing for immigrants about

7 this card is to make sure that non-immigrants are

8 taking advantage of it, and that is gonna be

9 absolutely critical to dealing with the issue of

10 avoiding this being a scarlet letter. And so what I

11 would say is, as I mentioned earlier, we should

12 establish a joint task force, get the Mayor's folks

13 to come together, get the City Council to come

14 together, and this broad network of nonprofit

15 organizations, this robust network that we have here

16 in New York City, get our minds together and lets

17 think together strategically and creatively. If we

18 think about it, there is a whole range of benefits

19 that could be_. that we can make eligible through this

20 card discounts to restaurants, discounts to

21 Macy's, although I don't shop at Macy's, I don't have

22 enough money to shop there, but really thinking

23 through all the different ways in which we could

24 connect it up. We could connect it up with... and this

25 is just some brief brainstorming, but we could

Exhibit Page No.: 0406 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 97

2 connect it up with a restaurant week, we could

3 connect it up with the City Bike system, and this is

4 all just sort of brainstorming that we're thinking

5 about. Procedurally we should create a joint task

6 force; I think we should actually build it into the

7 bill, where we talk about brining these folks

8 together so we're not doing this in a haphazard way,

9 but in a thoughtful and careful and strategic way

10 where we are identifying not only what's best for

11 immigrants, but also what's gonna attract citizens

12 and green card holders and students to all say, I

13 want this bill as well. So ultimately, at the end of

14 the day, there should be this robust package of

15 benefits that every single person in this room should

16 say, there's something in it for me.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Okay. Well with

19 that I think ... I wanna thank you for being on this

20 panel; we're gonna hear from so many other New

21 Yorkers and we're gonna continue our conversations.

22 Thank you for being engaged in this process up until

23 this point; we're gonna continue. So thank you so

24 much. [background comment]

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0407 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 98

2 Our next panel we call up Jason Chang

3 from the National Federation of Community Development

4 Credit Unions, Jeong Ming Yu [sp?] from the MinKwon

5 Center, Linda Sarsour from the Arab American

6 Association of New York, and Esther Sanchez from

7 Faith in New York. Please make your way up to the

8 table. [background comments] [Spanish] 01:46:16 ...

9 [interpose]

10 ESTHER SANCHEZ: [Spanish] 01:46:17

11 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish] 01:46:21

12 Can we have a translator, please?

13 MALE VOICE: [Spanish] 01:46:2 8

14 [interpose]

15 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish] 01:46:31

16 ESTHER SANCHEZ: [Spanish] 01:46:32

17 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

18 [background comment]

19 ESTHER SANCHEZ: [Spanish] 01:46:36

20 [background comment]

21 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish] 01:48:17

22 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: So I'm going to

23 translate and it says, "My name is Esther Sanchez, I

24 living in New York for more than 15 years, a mother

25 of three autistic children and because of the

Exhibit Page No.: 0408 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 99

2 diagnostic or the condition of my children I have to

3 take them constantly to the hospital and on various

4 occasions, because I didn't have an ID, my children

5 were not attended at the hospital and I've had to

6 come back to my house really worried that something

7 bad could happen to my children because they didn't

8 receive medical assistance that day. Also, when I go

9 to my children's school they also ask me for an ID to

10 be able to get in and in various occasions I showed

11 them my consular ID, the ID from my country and I

12 have been discriminated and rejected and I have to

13 always, you know be going through very difficult

14 times and I don't wanna go to my children's school

15 because I don't feel accepted there. So for me this

16 ID will change my life because as a mother I have

17 experienced discrimination and having a municipal ID

18 in New York is really important for me and for a lot

19 of mothers that are in my same situation; it will

20 take me out of the shadows and I would be able to

21 live with tranquility and peace. You know, after so

22 many years of living here I will finally feel that

23 I'm a part of this city.

24 [background comment]

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0409 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 100

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

3 [background comment] Mr. Yu.

4 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Good morning

5 Council Members Menchaca and other council members.

6 Thank you for this hearing and the opportunity to

7 share my experience and my thoughts on the municipal

8 ID program.

9 My name is Jeong Min Yu and I am a member

10 of the MinKwon Center for Community Action. I'm

11 going to hold up my green passport and then just tell

12 you about a recent exchange at a Home Depot while

13 returning an item.

14 The Home Depot rep had said, "Can I see

15 your ID?" And I said, "Yeah, here you go." And then

16 he said, "I'm sorry, but we can't accept this." And

17 then I said to him, "Why?" And he says, "We can only

18 accept U.S. Government IDs here." And I was like,

19 "It's a Korean Passport, it's from Korea." And he

20 said, "Sorry," you know. And so as I walked away I

21 heard another worker say, probably mockinglyi

22 sarcastically, "You know, if you're in America you

23 should have your American ID." And than I shot back,

24 "You know, not everybody can be an American citizen,"

25 sad but true. And so nonetheless, my passport is my

Exhibit Page No.: 0410 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 101

2 only sole documentation of the journey from Korea 33

3 years ago and I was born in Seoul and brought to the

4 States at the age of 1 and my family moved to New

5 York when I was 8; I went to Mark Twain and

6 Stuyvesant High School and went to college and

7 graduated magna cum laude. Even with all this 1 when

8 it comes to being an actual person in the eyes of the

9 law, I continue to live in the shadows. I've aged

10 out of the Deferred Action Program by one year and

11 have not been able to drive, work and travel like my

12 younger stream of [sic] peers; they now have a valid

13 U.S. ID while I still do not.

14 Experiences like the one at Home Depot

15 leave me wondering, what can be done for the people

16 like me, undocumented immigrants without other forms

17 of ID or even international students who might be

18 relying on foreign passports as their sole means of

19 government-issued ID? Banks, post offices and even

20 rental properties can and do ask for secondary forms

21 of IDs, but our very limited options basically

22 imprisons us and our existence in the real world.

23 [bell] This municipal ID program would rectify some

24 of the problems I face as I continue to live in this

25 great city for another, 10, 20; 30 years. While so

Exhibit Page No.: 0411 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 102

2 many of us wait for Congress to act 1 I hope you do

3 pass Int. 253 now, and not just for me, but for the

4 other immigrants who have just arrived or who have

5 been listed as Deferred Action Program, not to

6 mention for the entire immigrant community who every

7 day and in every way wishes to contribute to this

8 great city. Thank you.

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. Next,

10 please.

11 JASON CHANG: Good morning. My name is

12 Jason Chang and I'm with the National Federation of

13 Community Development Credit Unions. The Federation

14 is an association of community development credit

15 unions with more than 250 members across the country,

16 serving over 2.5 million members in urban and rural

17 settings. The Federation works to support member

18 credit unions in their mission to serve under-served

19 populations while complying with Know Your Customer

20 rules and other existing regulations. Community

21 Development Credit Unions, or CDCUs, are in a unique

22 position in the financial sector because they work

23 with immigrants, low- and moderate-income populations

24 and historically under-served communities. As such,

25 CDCUs have an extensive experience working with

Exhibit Page No.: 0412 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 103

2 alternate forms of ID, such as the Matricula

3 Consular. However, while some national consulates

4 are proactive in helping their citizenry, immigrants

5 may not always be able to obtain passports or IDs if

6 they do not have immigration status and may be

7 required to pay hundreds of dollars for services that

8 they cannot necessarily afford. A municipal ID can

9 help remove these barriers for immigrants and expand

10 access by providing a government-issued ID that all

11 New Yorkers can use and CDCUs and other financial

12 institutions can accept to open accounts and provide

13 other needed services. The Federation believes in

14 equal access to financial products and services and

15 therefore wholly supports the efforts to introduce

16 municipal IDs that can help immigrants and all New

17 Yorkers establish banking accounts. We look forward

18 to working with the City Council and a membership to

19 expand and maximize access to financial products and

20 services and we thank you for the time and the

21 opportunity to speak on this important issue.

22 LINDA SARSOUR: Okay. So thank you,

23 Council Members for having us here today. My name is

24 Linda Sarsour and I'm the Executive Director at the

25 Arab American Association of New York and I'm here to

Exhibit Page No.: 0413 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 104

2 wholeheartedly support the creation of a New York

3 City identification card for all New Yorkers. The

4 key here is to ensure that this card has broad appeal

5 to the pastor in Staten Island, the transgendered

6 teen in Queens, successful business owner in the

7 Bronx and the undocumented mom from Brooklyn. Any

8 New Yorker should be proud to carry this new ID; we

9 want to ensure and stress to the New York City

10 Council and Mayor de Blasia that this does not become

11 a scarlet letter. In order to avoid this we call on

12 the New York City Council and the Mayor's Office to

13 pool their resources to implement a robust outreach

14 and marketing campaign that leverages the power and

15 deep routes of ethnic and community-based

16 organizations, chambers of commerce to reach the

17 widest possible audience. A comprehensive media

18 marketing campaign will also need to be a top

19 priority and we hope the Council will commit those

20 resources. We envision this card as the key to New

21 York City, exploring opportunities with museums,

22 other tourist sites, City Bike rental, libraries are

23 just some examples of the potential of this card to

24 appeal to every corner of New York City. We recommit

25 to working with members of the New York City Council

Exhibit Page No.: 0414 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 105

2 and the Mayor's Office to foster the relationships

3 needed to make this a multi-purpose ID. We believe

4 that the aesthetics of the card are important and

5 appealing to a broader base. Ideas around using the

6 Statue of Liberty or other landmarks as part of

7 making this a New York City centric functioning

8 document that also acts as a memento of who we are

9 and what we represent as New York City. This card is

10 long overdue in a city like New York; I know we have

11 a lot of support in the New York City Council and

12 from our Speaker and Mayor; since we're gonna do it,

13 let's do it big and let's do it right. Thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

15 Miss Sarsour for testifying, and thank you all for

16 coming today to talk about your experiences of really

17 all New Yorkers and particularly I wanna ask Mr. Yu

18 to talk a little bit more about the relationship and

19 something we talked earlier about, language access

20 and how language access is such an important

21 component and what that means to you on the ground,

22 understanding it through different programs that

23 you've already been engaged in?

24 JEONG MIN YU: My parents, they own a

25 grocery store and even though they've been here like

Exhibit Page No.: 0415 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 106

2 30 years/ their English is 1 you know 1 somewhat basic ...

3 you know, my English is great 'cause I've been raised

4 here and it's- I think the issue of language access,

5 especially for Korean immigrants, is just so key,

6 because some of these are international students and

7 you know, it does take some time, especially when

8 they come as teenagers, to learn the language

9 basically to move about and stuff like that. I think

10 for them and for all the Asian immigrants and, not

11 just Asian immigrants; Latino immigrants and

12 everybody else, that we have programs to actually

13 benefit them and you know, even for this Deferred

14 Action Program, which I am not a part of right now, I

15 hope that they could actually take part in it and get

16 their own program and even for this ID, I think that

17 would be the right step and to just understand what

18 it entails and to move forward. And especially for

19 educational purposes, when going to college and

20 getting jobs, I think that would be such a huge

21 benefit for them and I think that's what we need to

22 push for as well.

23 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

24 JEONG MIN YU: Thank you.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0416 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 107

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And I have another

3 question, [Spanish] 01:58:29. And then, just to

4 translate, I asked a little bit about the

5 relationship, about her and_ she talked a lot about

6 in her testimony her relationship with her school and

7 agencies, but really on the police side, how she

8 could feel a little bit more secure and safe in

9 talking to the Police Department, for example.

10 ESTHER SANCHEZ: [Spanish] 01:59:12

11 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: So as an immigrant

12 it's terrifying to go to a precinct and report

13 anything because you're afraid that they're gonna

14 arrest you or you're gonna get deported.

15 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish] 01:59:47

16 ESTHER SANCHEZ: [Spanish] 01:59:49

17 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: One time I was

18 talking to my husband on the phone, he was a block

19 away, and out of nowhere he stopped talking to me, I

20 later found out that he was stopped by the police and

21 he was questioned and he was taken in to the precinct

22 because he did not have identification, so the next

23 morning I had to go and look for him; it was a

24 terrible experience because I had not ... I did not know

25 what had happened.

Exhibit Page No.: 0417 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 108

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish]

3 02:01:21. Council Member Reynoso.

4 ESTHER SANCHEZ: [Spanish] 02:01:27

5 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: My question is

6 for Linda; how are you, first? Speaking of being in

7 New York and going big, I think that's extremely

8 important and it not being a scarlet letter; do you

9 think... So originally in the beginning we keep

10 speaking about who we think are gonna be the people

11 most attracted to this card; what place do CBOs like

12 yours have in ensuring that they can get broad

13 support from their membership and even further than

14 that; do you feel that you play a role outside of the

15 City of New York's work in regards to what they need

16 to do? What role do you think you could play in

17 helping with the marketing?

18 LINDA SARSOUR: Thank you for that

19 question and I think that's actually, for me

20 personally, it's the critical point that we have to

21 really clarify here. If we wanna make this broad

22 appeal, I'm all about using existing resources, like

23 the Human Resources Administration, but to be honest

24 with you, let's be serious; the Human Resources

25 Administration has a stigma behind it as an agency

Exhibit Page No.: 0418 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 109

2 that provides services and support to low-income New

3 Yorkers, so if we wanna appeal to the Upper West

4 Side, if we wanna appeal to the people in, you know

5 Greenpoint, Park Slope, you know this kind of ... you

6 know our allies and others in the community, we need

7 to make sure that we're providing access points to

8 people that don't wanna be part of that stigma. And

9 the role of community-based organizations is multi-

10 faceted. First of all, we represent organizations

11 where many of us are multi-lingual, multi-cultural,

12 we understand how to work with our people, and I

13 think that that's why I'm talking about a very robust

14 campaign, similar to that of UPK; I mean there was a

15 lot of resources and marketing around universal pre-K

16 and we think this is just as important if not even

17 more important to ensure that while we're trying to

18 get our kids into a pre-K program, that their parents

19 are not barred from going and being part of their

20 educational experience because of lack of documents.

21 I think our role could be as ... doing education, doing

22 workshops, helping to be part of a committee to look

23 at the translation materials around the marketing;

24 there's a lot of roles for ethnic-based

25 organizations, for the faith-based community, for the

Exhibit Page No.: 0419 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 110

2 financial institutions, for the credit unions, and I

3 think the idea here is, how do we use this as a time

4 in a new administration to build relationships with

5 all the sectors -- government, private, nonprofit.

6 If we can't do it on municipal IDs, then we're gonna

7 be in trouble in the future on future initiatives.

8 So I think that's a conversation to have about how we

9 can ensure that this is not a scarlet letter, that it

10 is not only attractive to the undocumented and to the

11 homeless and to transgender and the LGBT community,

12 but it's something that every single New Yorker --

13 basically, if you are a cool New Yorker and you're a

14 real New Yorker, you're gonna have a municipal ID,

15 and that's the kind of theme that we hope this

16 initiative does.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Miss

19 Sarsour and I think we can put a #coolfactor on that ...

20 on that piece of testimony. [laughter] But thank

21 you for that, and really thank you for everyone who's

22 testified. We're gonna move on to our next panel

23 now, and we have [background comments] folks from

24 other jurisdictions; I wanna call Mr. John Lugo from

25 New Haven to the table, and we have two folks on the

Exhibit Page No.: 0420 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 111

2 phone ... [background comment] and we're gonna have John

3 Lugo go first, or are we ready... [background comments]

4 Great, thank you so much. We're gonna to with John

5 Lugo first 1 who's here, and we'll be testifying from

6 New Haven; this is a panel we've asked and we've

7 compiled from other jurisdictions to give us their

8 perspective. Thank you so much for being here, Mr.

9 Lugo. And when you're ready you can begin.

10 JOHN LUGO: [background comment] Okay.

11 My name is John Jairo Lugo; I am the founding member

12 of Unidad Latina en Accion, a grassroots organization

13 created in 2002 in New Haven 1 Connecticut. At that

14 time 1 immigrant workers came together to seek a

15 driver license, but the bill was defeated in the

16 Connecticut legislature. After that defeat, we

17 decided to create a platform of policies to make New

18 Haven a model city for the integration on new

19 immigrants in the social fabric.

20 One of the most innovative ideas was the

21 creation of the municipal ID card. The reasons were

22 clear, we did not have a driver license, but we still

23 need the ID. Many of our members were detained by

24 the police for simple traffic violations or the

25 police report refused to release them for several

Exhibit Page No.: 0421 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 112

2 days because they could not produce an ID. Without

3 an ID, many immigrants could not open bank accounts

4 and they were targeted by criminals as walking ATMs

5 because they carry cash. In 2006 one of our members,

6 Manuel Santiago Vasquez was murdered during a robbery

7 and we could no longer stay silent. We created

8 alliances with other organizations in the city, we

9 went to Junta for Progressive Action; the Director,

10 Kica Matos agreed to work with us in this platform.

11 We met with the Mayor, John DeStefano, and he was

12 open to the idea; he recruited the Yale Law School

13 for the legal research. They found the municipal ID

14 could not contra ... doesn't contradict the federal or

15 state law. Mayor DeStefano convinced different

16 sectors of the city to support this project. The

17 Board of Aldermen held several public hearings and

18 people from different neighborhoods came in support

19 of the proposal, others questioned the idea [sic]

20 anti-immigrant and neo-Nazi groups came from outside

21 of New Haven to attack the city; they sent hate

22 emails and death threats to the city officials.

23 These groups tried to rally the African American

24 community against the immigrant community, they

25 passed out flyers saying that immigrants were the

Exhibit Page No.: 0422 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 113

2 cause of African American inequality [bell]; however,

3 African Americans saw the immigrants were suffering

4 the same attacks as they have suffered in the past

5 and they came out in support of the ID card; that's

6 how the Board of Aldermen ended voting 25-1 in favor

7 of the ID card, becoming the first city in the nation

8 to create this initiative. Two days later, Federal

9 Immigration agents came to the city of New Haven and

10 raided the homes of immigrants and detained 29

11 people. We later confirmed through a lawsuit that

12 this ICE raid was an act of retaliation against the

13 city. Days after the raid diverse sectors of the

14 city marched to denounce the raids -- immigrants,

15 African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Jews, people of

16 faith and city officials -- they also raised the

17 money to free all these brothers and sisters who were

18 detained. A few weeks later, when New Haven began to

19 issue the ID card, thousands got online and get the

20 document; they were not just Latinos, because people

21 saw the ID card as a way to integrate a society that

22 was segregated and divided. Since then, more than

23 10,000 people have applied for the ID.

24 The advantages are clear, many people can

25 now open bank accounts, so they are not targeted by

Exhibit Page No.: 0423 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 114

2 criminals. The relationship with the police has

3 improved because now we are citizens of the city of

4 New Haven. People coming out from jail who had no

5 documents can apply for the ID card and now they can

6 integrate into the social fabric. High school

7 students, now they have an ID. We're one city,

8 united we stand, divided we fall. Thank you.

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Mr. Lugo

10 for that testimony and so much of what you're talking

11 about is alive and well in New York City and is at

12 the base of what we're trying to do here, so thank

13 you so much for your testimony. What we have ...

14 [background comment] And so, thank you so much.

15 We're gonna go ... you can stay here at the table; we're

16 gonna ... we might have some questions for you. We have

17 Mr. Eric Mar?

18 ERIC MAR: Yes it is.

19 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Mr. Mar, thank

20 you. Can you please identify yourself; we're gonna

21 give you a couple minutes for testimony; I know

22 you're calling from San Francisco.

23 ERIC MAR: Yes; my name's Eric Mar; it's

24 MAR; I'm a member of our Board of Supervisors in

25 San Francisco; I represent District 1, which is Ocean

Exhibit Page No.: 0424 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 115

2 Beach and Golden Gate Park, for those New Yorkers

3 that don't know where it is. [sirens] I've been on

4 our Board of Supervisors since 2009, when we first

5 implemented our San Francisco municipal ID card; I am

6 one of 11 members of our Board of Supervisors. Way

7 back in 2007, when many other parts of the country

8 were facing immigration raids, ICE raids, San

9 Francisco had a group of grassroots, mostly Latino 1

10 immigrant organizations that came together to discuss

11 the need for bringing people out of the shadows,

12 giving dignity and creating more public safety for

13 the immigrant communities; they brought this issue to

14 the Board of Supervisors; Supervisor Tom Ammiano, at

15 the time, he's now a State Assemblyman, took the

16 legislation with others on our Board; they strongly

17 championed it; we planned it for quite a while, about

18 a year-and-a-half. Part of the challenge was, our

19 mayor at the time, Gavin Newsom, who's now our

20 Lieutenant Governor, was more lukewarm on the issue,

21 but our Board of Supervisors and a grassroots

22 coalition from the immigrant community pushed hard

23 and they really tried to frame it as, not just for

24 immigrants or undocumented people, but for homeless

25 people and low-income youth or seniors that needed a

Exhibit Page No.: 0425 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 116

2 sense of legitimacy and also to be able to talk with

3 the police to report crime, so it was about framing

4 it for increasing civic engagement for vulnerable

5 populations/ not just for immigrants. We implemented

6 it in January of 2009; it really took a strong push

7 from our immigrant community organizations through a

8 network called The San Francisco Immigrant Legal and

9 Education Network 1 or SFILEN 1 and I think some of the

10 challenges at the time also were broad public

11 education 1 countering the media's framing in an

12 environment in 2008 [bell] and 2007 of anti-immigrant

13 sentiment, but to frame it as, it's about public

14 safety for immigrant communities and for everyone 1

15 and it was about better access to service for

16 vulnerable populations as well. We have about 40/000

17 ID cards right now; I_ or no 1 20_ 20 000 right now in

1

18 our City of 800 000 people; it's been about 4,000 per
1

19 year and they're heavily from the Latino community/

20 though it's a diverse population of people that have

21 ID cards. It cost us about $828 000 to set it up in

1

22 the first year and part of that was buying the

23 expensive machines that were laser-etching that could

24 create a document that could prevent fraud/ and I

25 think there have been no incidents of fraud reported

Exhibit Page No.: 0426 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 117

2 in San Francisco, so the fear of easy illegal

3 activity are not true, there's no incidents of fraud

4 within our city that we know of. The card...

5 [interpose, crosstalk]

6 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Supervisor Mar...

7 ERIC MAR: also costs $15 per person, but

8 if you're low-income and you could verify that, it's

9 $5.00 per card and we do not ... or, if used for many

10 services like New Haven and other places, as a step

11 towards opening up a checking account or a banking

12 account with our Bank on San Francisco, which other

13 cities use as well, there are 40-50 businesses that

14 allow discounts or other benefits from using the card

15 and I think there's still a broad community of

16 support from the nonprofits and community-based

17 organizations that support this in addition to our

18 whole city government, so all departments are

19 supposed to acknowledge this card. There were

20 initial challenges with the police department that,

21 [background comment] in speaking one of our police

22 commissioners in San Francisco, Angela Chan, who

23 served really with a focus on protecting the

24 immigrant communities on the Police Commission, but

25 she said that at different times police would

Exhibit Page No.: 0427 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 118

2 confiscate the card from someone or they wouldn't

3 know what it is, so we've had to do a lot of broad

4 education with our police department, with our police

5 chief and others to make sure that the law is

6 followed in San Francisco and that the card is used

7 as a key identification purpose whenever somebody

8 wants to report crime or even if you get in a fender-

9 bender. There are some challenges right now also

10 when a car is impounded and somebody needs to get

11 their car back as well. But I think overall, for

12 increasing public safety, expanding access to low-

13 income and immigrant people to services, from health

14 care to other types of services in the city, that

15 it's been a wonderful addition to our city and at a

16 fairly low cost to our city, but really expanding

17 civic engagement and bringing people out of the

18 shadows so that they have legitimacy and a feeling of

19 unity in being a San Franciscan.

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

21 for that testimony. And we're gonna keep you on the

22 phone for a couple minutes; we have a couple

23 questions for you; do you have a couple more minutes?

24 ERIC MAR: Yes I do.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0428 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 119

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: So my first

3 question is, in really understanding the issue of

4 privacy, how has San Francisco ensured privacy for

5 your residents throughout this program?

6 ERIC MAR: Yeah, I think that's a great

7 question. I think for these municipal ID cards, the

8 verification first of using of the documents to show

9 that you are who you are and that you have resided in

10 San Francisco for over 15 days has been a challenge;

11 we've ... actually, before I get to privacy, we've shown

12 some flexibility in how to document that you live in

13 San Francisco and you are who you are; we also allow

14 nonprofit organizations, legitimate nonprofit

15 organizations, to write a letter to verify that a

16 person is who they are and has been living here for a

17 period of time to show residency. So that's another

18 flexibility, because often people weren't able to

19 produce the documents that our County Clerk that

20 verifies everything could use. But none of the

21 information that you show for validity is kept by our

22 County Clerk, so that's a key part of, I think

23 protecting privacy. Also, even Supervisor Ammiano at

24 the time went through the line to get his municipal

25 ID, and he kinda jokes about it in some ways as well;

Exhibit Page No.: 0429 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 120

2 again, he's a State Assemblyman now, but even he

3 could not provide, when we first implemented it in

4 January of 2009, enough evidence to show that he was

5 a resident and who he was. So we've had to deal with

6 the challenges of verification, but we've been

7 flexible. And I think the challenges in setting this

8 up were protecting people's privacy and I know our

9 current Mayor Ed Lee, who was a city administrator at

10 the time, and our police department and many

11 departments really developed a system that is

12 protecting the privacy of especially undocumented

13 people so that no information is reported to the

14 Department of Homeland Security or ICE and that

15 people feel absolutely secure that they could provide

16 the information to get the ID card.

17 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

18 There's two quick questions and then... actually 1 three

19 quick questions, if we can keep them brief; is the

20 confirmation that the SFPD was not part of the

21 creation and implementation of the card program; is

22 that right?

23 ERIC MAR: Actually, I'm not sure. I

24 know that our Police Chief, Heather Fong at the time,

25 there were some challenges in the beginning, but

Exhibit Page No.: 0430 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 121

2 there is a departmental memo from the police chief to

3 the department after long meetings with the city

4 leadership so that the police know that they're

5 supposed to comply with and to accept the use of the

6 card. I know there are some exceptions that the ... if

7 the police reasonably see that there might be fraud

8 involved 1 but again 1 there's been on incidents of

9 fraud; they don't have to accept the ID card. But I

10 think in the early days there were some police

11 officers that were confiscating ID cards, but I think

12 with broader education from our Immigrant Legal

13 Education Network and work with the police that we've

14 cleared up a lot of that confusion about the use of

15 the card. But we'll try to get a copy of the

16 directive from the police chief to the department on

17 how the card is supposed to be accepted by the police

18 as a department.

19 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. And

20 the next question is about how San Francisco allows a

21 designation of gender on the municipal IDs?

22 ERIC MAR: So San Francisco has a strong

23 tradition of equal rights for everyone 1 including

24 transgendered people; our card does not designate

25 gender at all 1 and I think it was specific to be very

Exhibit Page No.: 0431 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 122

2 inclusive to use the card so that transgender people

3 didn't have to be in a situation of having the card

4 questioned by people. So I think that was a key part

5 of our promotion of dignity and civil rights for

6 everyone.

7 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. And we

8 have one question from Council Member Cabrera.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Thank you, Mr.

10 Chair. My question is in reference -- I just wanna

11 understand it right it is about $50, the cost per

12 card in the economy of scalei is it $50 per person

13 and how many people again do you have in San

14 Francisco that are using the ID?

15 ERIC MAR: Thank you. It's not $50i it's

16 $15, one, five ... [interpose]

17 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Okay.

18 ERIC MAR: $15. San Francisco has about

19 800,000 people, though our population doubles or

20 triples during the workday, with many people coming

21 into our city, and there are 20,000 cards issued,

22 about 4,000 per year and the card is_ it lasts for

23 two years and then you have to renew the card.

24

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0432 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 123

2 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: So that's ... just

3 to be clear, the $15 is what people pay or is $15 the

4 cost_ is your cost as a city?

5 ERIC MAR: It costs the person $15. And

6 what ... is there a cost to the city at all? How much

7 you're spending [interpose] or did you RFP this out

8 and there's a private entity involved in this? How

9 is that working out?

10 ERIC MAR: No, it's our City Clerk's

11 Office that administers it. I think it costs roughly

12 the amount that it brings in, so it costs us about

13 $200,000 a year and I think the fees are roughly paid

14 for by that $15 fee. And again, there are $5.00,

15 low-income cards issued and then, there are many

16 homeless people in the city that utilize the card and

17 the fee is waived if you could verify that you are

18 homeless as well. So my understanding is there are

19 hundreds of cards that are for homeless people that

20 provide dignity and bringing them out of the shadows

21 as well.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Thank you so

23 much.

24 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Our next and final

25 question is from Council Member Reynoso.

Exhibit Page No.: 0433 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 124

2 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Hi. I just

3 wanted to ask if there's any advice you would give us

4 to expand on participation? You said 20,000 folks

5 have it out of 800,000i that seems like a low numberi

6 what would you have done different to allow for that

7 number to be larger?

8 ERIC MAR: I think that's a great

9 question. I think one of the challenges, when we

10 first implemented, was an anti-immigrant sentiment

11 and a budget crisis that was going on. I think

12 funding, not only your city's immigrant commissioni

13 we have an Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant

14 Affairs with a director and staffi we have an

15 Immigrant Rights Commissioni we have a network of

16 immigrant rights organizations. I used to be the

17 Director of our Immigrant Rights Coalition in the

18 city in the 90s, but we have a SFILEN network that_

19 our city does some funding for outreach for language

20 access and lots of other needs and services, but I

21 think cities' funding capacity in immigrant

22 communities with the nonprofit organizations and

23 raising awareness early on is important. I think a

24 big blitz with media to frame it not just for

25 immigrants but for everyone, to improve public safety

Exhibit Page No.: 0434 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 125

2 and civic engagement is really critical. I think at

3 the time we implemented ours there was an anti-

4 immigrant hysteria; we had minutemen, right-wing,

5 anti-immigrant minutemen coming to protest at city

6 hall, but it was a climate that was different than

7 what you have. We also had a mayor that was not that

8 supportive, Gavin Newsom, and immigrant communities

9 had to organize like crazy to push it forward with

10 our support of city council I think the vote was

11 10-1 at our city council to support it, so there was

12 near unanimous support. But having Mayor de Blasio

13 and your City Council Chairman and Councilman Dromm

14 and Lander and Menchaca and so many others of you

15 supporting it I think is a big 1 big plus for you.

16 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you

17 Supervisor Mar, and thank you for your time and we

18 look forward to continuing to work with you and

19 follow up on some of the things we brought up during

20 this testimony. Thank you and we'll talk to you

21 soon.

22 ERIC MAR: Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Okay.

24 ERIC MAR: Bye.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0435 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 126

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. And

3 Mr. Lugo -- Does anyone have any questions for

4 Mr. Lugo? I mean I don't know if there's anything

5 that you've heard, but clearly there's [bell] a

6 kinda... a over-arching theme to the way that all these

7 programs have kind of been rooted and it's just great

8 to hear from you and New Haven as the first; it was

9 not easy and now we're here in New York, so just

10 thank you so much for your testimony today.

11 JOHN LUGO: Thank you very much.

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And so we're gonna

13 call up our next panel, Jesus Castellanos, Make the

14 Road, a youth member, Arely Gonzalez, Juan Carlos

15 Gomez, and Carlos Elias Vasquez Zambrano [sp?]. If

16 we can have you to the table, please. Thank you so

17 much. [background comments] And the panel after

18 that, just so you could be ready for this next panel,

19 is Diana Reyna, Brooklyn Deputy Borough President,

20 Jeff Foreman from the Care for the Homeless, Jessica

21 Orozco, Hispanic Federation, and then Jojo Annobil

22 from Legal Aid Society, [background comment] the

23 panel after this. [background comment] [Spanish]

24 02:25:25.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0436 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 127

2 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:25:31_

3 [background comments]

4 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: My name is Arely

5 Gonzalez and I am from ... [interpose]

6 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Could you get him

7 a chair, please?

8 ARELY GONZALEZ: Make the Road.

9 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: Make the Road New

10 York.

11 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:25:56

12 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: I know that the City

13 entirely is emotional about the proposal from the

14 Mayor...

15 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:26:08

16 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: the other forces are

17 pushing for this legislation...

18 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:26:19

19 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: thanks to the

20 leadership of Pechaco [sp?]?

21 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:26:30

22 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: thanks ... thank god... I

23 mean, thanks to the leadership of Mr. Pechaco, the

24 leadership ...

25 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:26:40

Exhibit Page No.: 0437 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 128

2 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: for the community,

3 the immigrant communities and the transgender

4 communities ...

5 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:26:50

6 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: this initiative is

7 very important.

8 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:26:54

9 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: We wanna count on a

10 form of identification that show who we are ...

11 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:27:04

12 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: that we are

13 residents of the State of New York.

14 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:27:11

15 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: Since we know it's

16 difficult, like me, undocumented, having obtaining a

17 piece of identification...

18 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:27:23

19 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: and a lot of us,

20 it's been difficult for us to obtain the ID and come

21 out of the shadow.

22 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:27:38

23 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: We're scared that

24 sometimes when we walk outside that we're gonna walk

25 to ... talk to police officers or other people ...

Exhibit Page No.: 0438 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 129

2 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:27:53

3 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: a part of the

4 community of EBT... [background comment] [Spanish]

5 02:28:02

6 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:28:05

7 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: us, like transgender

8 women, we don't identify with the ID that ... identify...

9 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:28:21

10 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: like our

11 corresponding gender and our names ...

12 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:28:28

13 [bell]

14 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: and it would also

15 reduce the amount of arrests due to not having ID.

16 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:28:38

17 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: The implementation

18 of_ [Spanish] 02:28:44?

19 ARELY GONZALEZ: [Spanish] 02:28:45

20 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: so we could have ...

21 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:28:48

22 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: our names and our

23 preferred genders_

24 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:28:52

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0439 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 130

2 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: will open the doors

3 to our lives_

4 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:28:57

5 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: like people who will

6 form part of the community...

7 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:03

8 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: like members of the

9 community of EBT, I mean [Spanish] 02:29:09 ...

10 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:10

11 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: this initiative is

12 very important for us.

13 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:15

14 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: Like me, as a

15 transgender woman ...

16 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:21

17 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: people make fun of

18 us when the police stop us ...

19 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:29

20 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: to ask for ID.

21 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:32

22 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: they tell us that we

23 are not women...

24 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:37

25 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: they make fun of us ...

Exhibit Page No.: 0440 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 131

2 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:40

3 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: sometimes I don't

4 carry an ID that has my gender and my date of birth...

5 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:49

6 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: because I am ashamed

7 that ... I am embarrassed that maybe someone might see

8 it.

9 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:29:58

10 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: This ID, this form

11 of ID will open our lives much easier ...

12 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:30:10

13 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: we would have

14 something that we can show to the police officers who

15 we are ...

16 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:30:20

17 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: and we could have

18 confidence ...

19 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:30:23

20 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: we would feel like

21 we are more a part of the city...

22 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:30:28

23 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: and would do it

24 strongly.

25 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:30:32

Exhibit Page No.: 0441 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 132

2 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: The ID has to not

3 involve our identity of our gender...

4 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:30:43

5 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: if it's not on the

6 ID, it wouldn't be useful for me or other individuals

7 who are transgender.

8 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:30:55

9 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: For other people ...

10 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:31:03

11 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: For all those

12 reasons ...

13 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:31:06

14 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: I believe that the

15 municipal ID ...

16 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:31:10

17 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: to have the people

18 to sign...

19 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:31:14

20 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: the gender that they

21 have ...

22 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:31:18

23 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: would be a big help.

24 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:31:21

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0442 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 133

2 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: It would help us

3 create a more security city...

4 ARELY GONZALEZ: 02:31:28

5 SPANISH TRANSLATOR: and just with

6 results. Thank you.

7 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: 02:31:34

8 [background comments]

9 JESUS CASTELLANOS: [Spanish] 02:32:05

10 [interpose]

11 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish] 02:34:40

12 So can we ... We 1 re gonna go through the whole panel

13 really quick ... 02:34:48. Okay. [background comments]

14 Yeah, we re ... let s just go through the whole panel,

1 1

15 then we can go back and... and do a quick translation.

16 Okay. [background comments]

17 JUAN CARLOS GOMEZ: Good afternoon...

18 [interpose]

19 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: 02:35:09

20 JUAN CARLOS GOMEZ: Okay. Yeah. Good

21 morning... or good afternoon... [interpose]

22 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: 02:35:21

23 JUAN CARLOS GOMEZ: Okay. Okay. Thank

24 you. Good afternoon members of the Commission of the

25 Immigration and everyone attending to this meeting.

Exhibit Page No.: 0443 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 134

2 My name is Juan Carlos Gomez, member of the Make the

3 Road New York and today I want to share with you only

4 small part of my personal history. In this point I

5 want to switch to Spanish for be more clear.

6 [Spanish] 02:35:51 [bell]

7 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Gracias.

8 CARLOS VASQUEZ: [Spanish] 02:37:50

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: [Spanish] 02:39:00

10 we're not gonna translate for this panel. We have

11 another public hearing in less than an hour, so we

12 wanna make sure everyone that wants to talk about

13 their experience gets to do that; we're gonna change

14 the time to one minute per testimonial. [Spanish)

15 02:39:21.

16 Can we have the next panel that I called

17 earlier, Jojo Annobil, Jessica Orozco, Jeff Foreman,

18 and then our Brooklyn Deputy Borough President, Diana

19 Reyna please? [laugh] Thank you. Okay. And the

20 next panel after that is Miss Glennda Testone, Elana

21 Redfield, Lynly Edgars ... Egyes, from the Sex Workers

22 Project, and Mr. Noah Lewis, from the Transgender

23 Legal Defense and Education Fund; they'll be

24 testifying next. We're gonna try to speed through

25 this; I'm sorry for the speed-through, but we have

Exhibit Page No.: 0444 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 135

2 another really great, important public hearing on

3 Vision Zero, so thanks so much for your appreciation

4 and your consideration.

5 DIANA REYNA: Turn on...

6 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: The mic is on?

7 Thank you so much. [background comment] I'll stop

8 you at one minute.

9 JOJO ANNOBIL: Sure, no problem. [laugh]

10 So my name is Jojo Annobil and I'm the attorney in

11 charge of The Legal Aid Society's Immigration Law

12 Unit. Thank you so much for giving us an opportunity

13 to testify today.

14 We basically agree with a lot of the

15 comments and suggestions made here today; one of the

16 things that we just wanted to highlight is the fact

17 that we all talk about having an identify document

18 which would... this would make a lot of undocumented

19 immigrants be able to get an identity document, but

20 also improving public safety; it will encourage

21 people to feel much more comfortable reporting

22 crimes, but it's a two-way street. If the Police

23 Department is not going to accept these municipal

24 cards as identity documents, then we are going to run

25 into the same whole problem of for simple, non-

Exhibit Page No.: 0445 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 136

2 criminal offenses like riding a bike on the sidewalk,

3 open container of alcohol, all these are non-criminal

4 offenses; however, it allows the Police Department,

5 [bell] if you don't have an ID, to run your

6 fingerprint; once they run your fingerprint you are

7 basically put into a pipeline. [interpose]

8 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

9 JOJO ANNOBIL: Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. And

11 that's been a consistent theme in conversation.

12 JOJO ANNOBIL: Okay.

13 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Next. Thank you.

14 JEFF FOREMAN: Chair Menchaca and members

15 of the Committee, thanks for the opportunity to

16 testify; I'm Jeff Foreman, the Policy Director for

17 Care for the Homeless.

18 If this legislation did nothing more than

19 document undocumented people, it would be a visionary

20 important piece of legislation that we would be very

21 happy to enthusiastically support, but it actually

22 does far more than that, it promises to help people

23 who have lost documents, people who have misplaced

24 documents and certainly help many people who are

25 homeless, like our clients. For all the people that

Exhibit Page No.: 0446 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 137

2 a municipal ID program offers relief, why wouldn't we

3 support our neighbors in need? And this bill wisely

4 also requires not just that IDs be appropriately

5 issued, but that they be promoted to include things

6 like public and private institutions and banking that

7 many poor people desperately need and do not have

8 access to... [bell] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

10 for that support as well. How do you say your last

11 name?

12 JESSICA OROZCO: Orozco.

13 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Orozco. Okay,

14 sorry; I- I couldn't read it. [crosstalk]

15 JESSICA OROZCO: Yes, right; my

16 handwriting ...

17 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: I'm sorry about

18 that.

19 JESSICA OROZCO: It's okay.

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. Go

21 ahead.

22 JESSICA OROZCO: So good afternoon; my

23 name is Jessica Orozco and I'm the Director of

24 Immigration and Civic Engagement at the Hispanic

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0447 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 138

2 Federation; thank you for this opportunity to

3 testify.

4 Hispanic Federation is a premier Latino

5 membership organization in the nation and was founded

6 to address the many inequities confronting Latinos

7 and the nonprofits that serve them. Our member

8 agencies are located within the heart of Latino

9 communities throughout the City and witness the

10 difficulty New Yorkers encounter when attempting to

11 obtain a widely-accepted photo ID. With member

12 agencies like Spanish-speaking Elderly Council and

13 Institute for the Puerto Rico Elderly, which provide

14 access to essential senior services, we see how

15 difficult it is for the City's elderly to acquire a

16 photo ID. For example, in New York for a U.S.-born

17 citizen to obtain a non-driver ID card, they must

18 show their birth certificate, passport or military

19 photo ID to prove date of birth. Seniors living in

20 the City may have been born at home and never

21 obtained a birth certificate or their certificate may

22 have been lost or destroyed over the decades.

23 Additionally, many elderly in New York City may have

24 disabilities that prevent them from getting to the

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0448 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 139

2 DMV or a few agencies that may assist them in getting

3 these documents reissued. [bell]

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you again.

5 JESSICA OROZCO: And I provided written

6 testimony.

7 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Yeah. Thank you

8 so much for your written testimony. And our ... someone

9 that's not a stranger to this amazing body, our great

10 Deputy Borough President from Brooklyn, Diana Reyna.

11 DIANA REYNA: Thank you so much. Good

12 afternoon/ Chairman Menchaca and Committee staffi I

13 want to just 1 for the sake of timer introduce my

14 Brooklyn Borough President 1 Eric Adams 1 who is not

15 here today and on his behalf 1 as his Deputyr I am

16 testifying in support of what would be Int. 253 1

17 Municipal IDs. I just wanted to thank the Speaker/

18 Melissa Mark-Viverito for her staunch support on this

19 proposal and Mayor de Blasio for his unwavering

20 leadership to making this program a reality/ along

21 with the Councili your leadership here is avid and

22 making sure that this continues to be at the

23 forefront of our agenda in government.

24 Each day the gates of New York City civic

25 life are open for those who can prove their identity

Exhibit Page No.: 0449 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 140

2 and display a photo IDi lacking an ID affects the

3 countless numbers of members of New York City's

4 immigrant communities, the growing number of homeless

5 people in our City, children in the foster care

6 system, the elderly, formerly incarcerated

7 individuals, and those who are disabled, mentally ill

8 or from the LGBTQ communities. Our communities grow

9 stronger and our city becomes one [bell] only when

10 all our neighbors can enjoy the multitude of

11 opportunities. I wanted to just express that an ID

12 is not worth the plastic it is printed on unless we

13 have the public's trust [background comment] and I

14 believe that we in Borough Hall, along with what

15 would be your leadership and the Mayor, to be able to

16 work together to provide what would be IDs being

17 processed at the center of our borough's civic

18 universe in Brooklyn Borough Hall, [background

19 comment] and so we want to welcome the opportunity to

20 work with you, we agree with the merits behind this

21 bill, but we also wanna make sure that the access to

22 the processing is one that would garner a lot of

23 synthesizing [background comment] between agencies

24 and working together to making sure that the

25 obstacles are reduced, that the distance is shorter

Exhibit Page No.: 0450 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 141

2 and that the economic barriers are removed. Thank

3 you so much. [crosstalk]

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And that... that is ...

5 that is a priority of this City Council. So thank

6 you so much for... [crosstalk]

7 DIANA REYNA: Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: echoing itr and I

9 do have to say that on Twitter I did see that the

10 Borough President would welcome Borough Hall to be a

11 place where we could have application processes too,

12 so I just wanna acknowledge that.

13 DIANA REYNA: Thank you.

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

15 for this panel. The next panel, if you can come up

16 as I called your name last time, Elana Redfield, Miss

17 Glennda Testone, Lynly Egyes -- please correct me in

18 your pronunciation of your name -- and Noah Lewis.

19 [background comments] Okay. We'll start on this

20 end, please. Identify yourself; thank you so much.

21 Stick to the one minute. Thank you. Actually, the

22 red button. [crosstalk]

23 ELANA REDFIELD: the button. My name is

24 Elana Redfield and I'm speaking today on behalf of

25 the Sylvia Rivera Law Project and also the Peter

Exhibit Page No.: 0451 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 142

2 Cicchino Youth Project. So in my short time today I

3 want to emphasize how critical it is that the Council

4 and the Mayor's Office make these IDs gender-

S affirming. It's an essential component of reducing

6 discrimination; one study found 40 percent of

7 respondents experienced harassment because their ID

8 did not match their gender presentation. In order to

9 make the ID accessible to the most vulnerable people,

10 I must emphasize the critical importance of gender

11 self-determination; no medical evidence should be

12 required. Why is this important? First, every

13 individual is the best expert on their own internal

14 sense of gender/ but secondly 1 many transgender

15 people do not have access to the medical treatments/

16 so providing a doctor's letter may be hard or

17 impossible. Even finding a doctor or affording

18 medical care can be a challenge for low-income trans

19 people 1 especially considering that New York State

20 Medicaid does not cover transgender health care. So

21 this leave many people without the option of

22 obtaining IDs. And by obtaining an ID that affirms

23 their gender accurately/ [bell] trans people can

24 reduce and in some cases eliminate the shame and

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0452 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 143

2 humiliation and harassment of using an ID that

3 doesn't match their gender.

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

5 NOAH LEWIS: I'm Noah Lewis, Staff

6 Attorney with Transgender Legal Defense and Education

7 Fund and I echo Elana Redfield's comments

8 wholeheartedly. Through our name change project

9 we've helped hundreds of transgender New Yorkers

10 change their name and we understand the problems that

11 they do have accessing doctors letters to get their

12 gender record changed and I would emphasize also that

13 New York already recognizes self-designation with

14 regards to access to homeless shelters, people can

15 choose for themselves which shelter best fits themi

16 they are the best determiners of whether they are

17 male or female and the New York City Human Rights Law

18 already makes it unlawful to ask for ID when

19 accessing sex-specific facilities, like restrooms, so

20 people hare already able to use the facilities that

21 match and having ID that matches will just help when

22 they are unlawfully confronted for using those

23 facilities. Thank you.

24

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0453 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 144

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you for

3 that, and well aware of the name change project and

4 thank you so much for that.

5 LYNLY EGYES: Hi, my name is Lynly Egyes;

6 I'm an attorney at the Sex Workers Project ...

7 [interpose]

8 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Can you speak

9 closer to the mic; pull it closer to you?

10 LYNLY EGYES: Sure.

11 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: You can pull it

12 closer to you. Yeah.

13 LYNLY EGYES: I'm an attorney at the Sex

14 Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center; one of

15 the groups that I wanna talk about today that will be

16 impacted by this legislation is victims of

17 trafficking. The best way to explain how this will

18 impact victims of trafficking is to tell you about

19 two of my clients. Rebecca was brought into the

20 United States by a very powerful family, she worked

21 as a nanny, but upon arrival her entire situation

22 changed; she was forced to work up to 20 hours a day

23 without any pay, she was deprived of food, sleep and

24 subjected to sexual and physical abuse; immediately

25 her trafficker took away her passport; when she was

Exhibit Page No.: 0454 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 145

2 able to finally escape, she had to leave her passport

3 behind. Luckily she found her way to my office with

4 her birth certificate in hand, when I suggested that

5 we go and get a new passport for her, she said her

6 traffickers would find her, which they would have.

7 And so she spent all of this time living without ID,

8 which made her fearful to even walk on the street ...

9 [bell] I guess I'm out of time to tell you about my

10 other clients, but this is really important for

11 victims of trafficking to be able to report crimes.

12 So many of my clients actually choose not to report

13 crimes to law enforcement because they don't have

14 proper identification, especially my clients who are

15 transgender, walking into any type of law enforcement

16 office [background comment] they basically choose not

17 to because of the fact that they don't have

18 identification that matches their gender.

19 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

20 And again, all this testimony is gonna be brought in;

21 we're gonna analyze every single piece of it. Miss

22 Testone.

23 GLENNDA TESTONE: Good morning, my name

24 is Glennda Testone; I'm the Executive Director of the

25 New York City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

Exhibit Page No.: 0455 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 146

2 Community Centeri thank you for allowing me to

3 testify today. The Center sees 6,000 unique

4 individuals a week from all over the City and the

5 number one thing that we see firsthand is the power

6 that this proposed legislation has to impact numerous

7 New Yorkers, including many of the LGBT community.

8 In particular I wanna talk today about

9 LGBT youth, immigrants and transgender people.

10 Transgender New Yorkers face unrelenting

11 discrimination and harassment and are placed at the

12 highest riski they tell us every day about the

13 challenges that they face trying to obtain the most

14 basic but vital identification. This municipal ID

15 will allow transgender people to accurately self-

16 identify their genderi it's welcome, vital and

17 overdue. LGBT youth are over-represented among the

18 homeless population in New York City and many young

19 people are forced to run away from their homes

20 without any identification. [bell] LGBT immigrants

21 also face increased barriers to employment, along

22 with increased stigmatization and violence when they

23 don't have accurate ID documents that record their

24 legal status. The Center wholeheartedly supports

25 this municipal identification card as a powerful tool

Exhibit Page No.: 0456 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 147

2 to help some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers step

3 out of the shadows, take better care of themselves

4 and help eliminate the two New York's that we do

5 have, the ones with [background comment] ID and the

6 ones without, and I for one wanna say I look forward

7 to getting my municipal ID.

8 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Great.

9 GLENNDA TESTONE: Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

11 for that enthusiastic support. And thank you so much

12 for this panel [background comment] and for ... make

13 sure that we have your testimony as well.

14 Next panel, Annie Wang, Mark Noferi,

15 Annie ... Annie Wang, from the American Immigration

16 Lawyers Association New York Chapter, and Mizue

17 [background comment] Aizeki, Mizue Aizeki. Thank you

18 so much. And the panel after that, we're gonna have

19 Tawney Mill, Samuel Palmer-Simon, Lucia Gomez, and

20 Gabriela Sandoval Requena. I hope I said those names

21 correctly. And if we can start [background comments]

22 now, maybe with Mizue.

23 MIZUE AIZEKI: Sure. Thank you very much

24 for your time; I know you've taken a lot of time to

25 listen to all our concerns. My name is Mizue Aizeki;

Exhibit Page No.: 0457 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 148

2 I'm with the Immigrant Defense Project and just to

3 really quickly summarize, I think that we all

4 understand that one of the primary ways someone can

5 get deported nowadays is by interaction with the

6 police and so to emphasize the importance, both of

7 the NYPD accepting this ID but not sacrificing the

8 very critical concerns about privacy, right, data-

9 sharing of information, it's a very big concern for

10 immigrant communities as well as the self-designated

11 gender; we think that people need to feel like they

12 own this idea and they're proud to have it. And the

13 other piece I just wanna alert as well; you know,

14 when we do our Know Your Rights trainings in the

15 community, having an ID that the police accept is

16 really critical; for many immigrants we also, in

17 terms of, you know, maybe preventing arrests or

18 deescalating, we wannabe clear to people that that's

19 not gonna prevent your arrest and once you get

20 brought into the precinct your risk of deportation is

21 equally as strong until we have a very robust

22 detainer policy in New York City. So thank you very

23 much [bell] for your time.

24 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you very

25 much for that enthusiastic support again. And I

Exhibit Page No.: 0458 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 149

2 wanted to remind everyone, if we can keep it quiet in

3 the chambers please so we can hear the testimony;

4 it's a real short testimony, but very powerful. Can

5 we have the next person? Thank you.

6 MARK NOFERI: Thank you Council Member,

7 I'm Mark Noferi of the Center for Migration Studies

8 think tank and the New York City Bar Association.

9 Two clarifying points: ( 1) on implement ...

10 [interpose]

11 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Can you talk into

12 the mic closer?

13 MARK NOFERI: Sure.

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Pull it closer to

15 you.

16 MARK NOFERI: (1) on implementation --

17 the Council may want to amend this legislation to

18 clarify the operational responsibilities here so that

19 this program is ensconced beyond this

20 administration's four years [background comments]

21 this is on Page 4 and 5 of my testimony and San

22 Francisco may be a good example here. The San

23 Francisco legislation explicitly directs

24 administration by the Clerk in explicit consultation

25 with the Immigrant Rights Office, under the explicit

Exhibit Page No.: 0459 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 150

2 supervision of the City Administrator. Similar here,

3 New York could explicitly direct administration by

4 the Clerk or HRA or the boroughs, but with an

5 explicit role for MOIA and Commissioner Agarwal and

6 an explicit role for the Office of Operations,

7 although the Office of Operations does innovative

8 work, they don't have the capacity to process

9 potentially 200,000 applications, as they mentioned.

10 Additionally, the San Francisco legislation also

11 gives the Immigrant Affairs Office an explicit role

12 in coordinating with city agencies to promote the

13 card and develop multiple uses for it; (2) on

14 confidentiality-- we support Section 3.136, but the

15 Council could amend it to specifically direct

16 regulations to clarify the outstanding issues, and

17 there are several. For example, whether immigration

18 courts could subpoena ID card records in deportation

19 proceedings, whether these records are exempt under

20 the Freedom of Information Act; whether the City has

21 an obligation to disclose names, if not the records.

22 The San Francisco legislation specifically exempts

23 names as well as records; how long the city will keep

24 these records. All of these might be addressed by

25 regulations to clarify; other parts of the

Exhibit Page No.: 0460 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 151

2 legislation specifically provide for regulations and

3 Section 3.136 could as well. Thank you very much.

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Mark for

5 that. And I think you hit some [bell] big points

6 that are on the table right now in discussion, so

7 we'll be in touch.

8 ANNIE WANG: Good afternoon ... [interpose]

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Can you make sure

10 that the button is pressed?

11 ANNIE WANG: How's that?

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: That's perfect.

13 Thank you so much.

14 ANNIE WANG: Thank you. I'm Annie Wang,

15 Co-Chair of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform

16 Committee of the New York Chapter of the American

17 Immigration Lawyers Association. I don't want to add

18 to the eloquent testimony already given about the

19 need for an accessible and attractive ID cardi I do

20 wanna mention that with regard to undocumented

21 immigrants who would benefit from this card, that

22 there is a unique challenge faced by undocumented

23 youths who were brought to this country at a young

24 age. Even though many of these youths would qualify

25 for deferred action for childhood arrivals, many of

Exhibit Page No.: 0461 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 152

2 these undocumented youths who should qualify for DACA

3 have a very difficult time proving that they have

4 been continuously present in the U.S. In addition,

5 if Congress were to pass immigration reform 1 [bell]

6 it's likely that any future legislation will require

7 similar evidence of continuous presence in the U.S.

8 Thank you for [background comment] allowing me to

9 contribute to this discussion.

10 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Well thank you for

11 much for contributing and again, we all wait for that

12 final federal moment of immigration reform that we've

13 all been fighting for. Thank you so much.

14 [background comments]

15 Next panel please 1 Miss Gabriela Sandoval

16 Requena from the Coalition for the Homeless -- please

17 correct me there if I did not read it correctly

18 Lucia Gomez from La Fuente 1 Samuel Palmer-Simon and

19 Tawney Mill. [background comments] Are the rest of

20 you ... anybody else here on this list? Okay, we're

21 gonna move on... we 1 re gonna add to this panel,

22 [background comment] Nancy Magitzgar or Mogador from

23 Brooklyn, Rev. Getulio Cruz, Rev. Cruz, Manhattan

24 Together, Rogers from Picture the Homeless.

25 [background comments] Come on up. [background

Exhibit Page No.: 0462 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 153

2 comment] Okay, great; thank you so much. And

3 Rogers, can you begin and remember, one minute, if

4 you can end promptly. And you can begin, thank you

5 so much.

6 OWEN ROGERS: I am a member of Picture

7 the Homeless, a local nonprofit group that works with

8 thousands of homeless New Yorkers, many of whom are

9 marginalized because we don't have acceptable

10 identification to work a steady job or to have an

11 apartment. We are many thousands of New Yorkers who

12 need this proposed form of municipal identification.

13 We come from many places in the U.S. and overseas, we

14 come from prisons, we come from shelters, we come

15 from municipalities that don't document births in

16 records the way that New York City does. Some of us

17 came up through the foster care maze, we come from

18 the streets. What we have in common is that we all

19 need to be recognized and affirmed by the City of New

20 York and its agencies and to the businesses to whom

21 we turn for support. We need to be respected as well

22 by law enforcement, we are former felons, we are

23 street homeless people; we're immigrants. All of us

24 are New Yorkers who are running into governmental

25 obstacles when we try to open a bank account, to rent

Exhibit Page No.: 0463 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 154

2 a room, apartment; register for school. I used to

3 work for the Police Department in the City of New

4 York; they have my fingerprints and documents on

5 file, [bell] but without documentation that they will

6 not give to me, I am one of the people who needs

7 municipal ID.

8 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

9 for that. And I just wanna make a quick reminder,

10 for anyone who has already given us your slips,

11 everyone will be testifying today, so don't leave;

12 everyone will have a chance to testify. Next.

13 NANCY MAGESON: My name is Nancy Mageson

14 [sp?] and I would like to speak today about how

15 municipal IDs can be utilized to make New York City

16 transit more accessible to riders with invisible

17 disabilities.

18 Currently the MTA complies with the ADA

19 by asking able-bodied riders to give up their seats

20 to those with disabilities; this works when a

21 disability is plainly evident, but for those with

22 invisible disabilities, this compliance strategy

23 fails. When I haven't needed my seat I have tried to

24 decide if other passengers did, but it is very hard

25 to discern whether someone is chronically ill,

Exhibit Page No.: 0464 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 155

2 suffers from a weakened immune system or cancer, is

3 feeling ill from the first months of pregnancy or has

4 an injury or disability that makes standing painful

5 or difficult, nor should passengers be expected to

6 intuit this information. The voluntary city ID for

7 people with invisible disabilities would begin to

8 address this gap in accessibilityi the ID would

9 require medical documentation, have a clearly printed

10 expiration date and use a logo, perhaps the

11 wheelchair iconi it could be work on a chain or

12 strings or carried by hand. I believe that the

13 majority of New Yorkers would, like me, willingly

14 give up their seats if they knew that others truly

15 needed one. Under the current system, riding public

16 transit can be stressful, painful or simply

17 impossible for those with invisible disabilities,

18 never knowing if a seat will be availablei [bell] is

19 in no way compliant with the ADAi New Yorkers with

20 injuries, illness or disabilities should not have to

21 rely on their negotiating savvy or on good luck in

22 order to be able to ride public transit. Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much,

24 and we ... can we make sure we have a copy of that too?

25 Great. Thank you.

Exhibit Page No.: 0465 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 156

2 GABRIELA SANDOVAL REQUENA: Hi, my name

3 is Gabriela Sandoval Requena, Policy Analyst for

4 Coalition for the Homeless_. [interpose]

5 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Requena.

6 GABRIELA SANDOVAL REQUENA: and the

7 Coalition would like to, first of all, thank the City

8 Council and the Committee on Immigration for this

9 opportunity to testify in support of the municipal ID

10 program. Many New Yorkers who are homeless are not

11 able to obtain one, even if they're able to gather

12 all the documentation and the money to cover the cost

13 they're simply not able because of their lack of

14 fixed residence. So needless to say, creating a

15 municipal identification program that addresses the

16 need of New Yorkers regardless of their housing

17 status will improve the quality of life of homeless

18 individuals and families [sic] tremendously. We

19 strongly support this initiative and we look forward

20 to working with the Administration and the Committee

21 to ensure that the implementation includes rules

22 around proof of residency and waiver of fees that

23 would make new municipal ID cards accessible to all

24 homeless New Yorkers who need it. Thanks.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0466 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 157

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

3 again. Can you reset the clock? Thank you.

4 Reverend.

5 REV. CRUZ : I am Reverend... I am Rev .

6 Getulio Cruz, pastor or [bell] Monte Sion Christian

7 Church on the Lower East Side, I'm also a leader in

8 Manhattan Together and Metro IAF. We are a network

9 of 100 diverse member congregations and other

10 organizations in New York City. My fellow clergy in

11 Metro IAF and in other churches in my council, the

12 Assembly of Christian Churches, have heard too many

13 stories of people's lives being disrupted by the lack

14 of recognized ID; this is why some Metro IAF member

15 organizations started to produce their own IDs; we

16 have worked with the police and other agencies in our

17 communities to ensure they recognize these local IDs.

18 We strongly support the City producing its own ID

19 that all New Yorkers can get. We also know these IDs

20 must be distributed in the right way. Metro IAF is

21 ready to work with the Mayor, Council, the police and

22 the rest of the City to ensure these IDs are designed

23 in a professional manner that will be useful to a

24 wide variety of New Yorkers. We want to encourage

25 thousands of our members to sign up for IDs; if it

Exhibit Page No.: 0467 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 158

2 can be done securely, we would love to have City

3 officials come to our congregations and perhaps

4 [bell] public libraries to sign people up.

5 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And we will be

6 there in your and everybody else's congregations, and

7 you're absolutely right, that the word needs to get

8 out in outreach. So thank you so much for each of

9 your pieces of testimony and we'll be in touch with

10 you and again, make sure that we have copies of what

11 you used to testify.

12 Next we wanna call up Lauren Burke from

13 Atlas, Sunset Park, Yolanda Castro, Dr. Kirk Anthony

14 James, and Laurie Izutsu for this panel. And the

15 panel after that we'll have Gene Judy [sp?} from the

16 Premier Baptist Haitian, [background comments] Joseph

17 Rosenberg, [background comments, laughter] Diane

18 Steinman from the Interfaith Network, Jeffrey Weiss

19 from Assemblyman Ortiz' office. [background

20 comments] And I just wanna acknowledge our Council

21 Member from Brooklyn, Jumaane Williams, is here as

22 well... [background comment] okay -- who will say a few

23 words; we're gonna clock you at one minute.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS: Thank you for

25 allowing me; I was chairing another hearing, so I

Exhibit Page No.: 0468 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 159

2 couldn't be here early, but this issue is very

3 important to me. I wanna thank you and Council

4 Member Dromm for taking the leadership on this. A

5 lot of people ask why I haven't signed on yet; it's

6 not because ... I'm fully supportive of the issue. I do

7 have one concern that I know might've been mentioned

8 here, which is just making sure ... I think it was

9 mentioned, that it doesn't become a scarlet letter,

10 that really concerns me; I wanna make sure that the

11 ID is something that all New Yorkers can use for

12 something or the other; that's very important to me.

13 Just anecdotally, my brother, I learned much later in

14 life, was not a citizen, he was over 50 when I

15 realized and that was because his mother died and he

16 could not go to the funeral, so these issues are

17 issues that really hit home to me.

18 And lastly, I wanna make a plug to

19 anybody who's listening, the Caribbean community has

20 been largely missing from this discussion and I think

21 out Latino brothers and sisters for really taking the

22 helm, but I'm pushing everyone who this will affect

23 to really get their voice be heard, because it

24 touches a lot more, even more than the thousands of

25 people already who have been screaming and yelling,

Exhibit Page No.: 0469 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 160

2 so I wanna make sure that everybody who is an

3 immigrant and have immigrant families get involved in

4 this discussion. Thank you very much.

5 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you Council

6 Member. And if we can begin here on the left-hand

7 side, please. Thank you. Ma'am.

8 LAURIE I ZUTSU: Oh, sorry... Okay, sorry.

9 [laughter, crosstalk]

10 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Sorry i you' re ...

11 you're ... you're up. One minute.

12 LAURIE IZUTSU: Okay. Good afternoon, my

13 name is Laurie Izutsu and I'm a Senior Staff Attorney

14 with Brooklyn Legal Services. My office is a part of

15 Legal Services NYC, the country's largest provider ...

16 [crosstalk]

17 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Can you speak

18 closer to the mic, so... so we can...

19 LAURIE IZUTSU: sure ... for low-income

20 individuals and families. Thank you for the

21 opportunity to provide testimony today. One

22 population I would like to highlight that would be

23 substantially impacted by the ID cards is survivors

24 and victims of domestic violence. The creation of a

25 municipal identify card program enhances the capacity

Exhibit Page No.: 0470 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 161

2 for undocumented domestic violence victims to

3 establish independence from their abusers by improved

4 access to financial services and the ability to sign

5 a lease. Additionally, the program would ease the

6 ability of those without state-issued identification

7 to interact with the police and the criminal justice

8 system, an important measure where often survivors of

9 domestic violence are retraumatized by the very

10 agencies from which they seek help. It is clear

11 based on these circumstances and the testimony you've

12 heard already that the need for municipal ID cards is

13 great; however, I would like to emphasize that it is

14 not just a matter of language access with [bell]

15 implantation of the ID program, but immigrants with

16 limited English proficiency won't reap the full

17 benefits if the City's language access policy isn't

18 also consistently and effectively implemented along

19 with that. Thank you.

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. Thank

21 you for that.

22 YOLANDA CASTRO: Hello, good afternoon.

23 My name is Yolanda Castro; on behalf of the Mexican

24 Consulate we thank you for allowing us to testify

25 today; we are the agency that issues the consular ID

Exhibit Page No.: 0471 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 162

2 cards that have been referred to here by other

3 testimonies; I just wanna let you know that we are ...

4 for our government is paramount importance as our

5 consular ID cards are regarded as a safeguard and

6 secure document and form of identification. We issue

7 them to our citizens; last year we issued 35,000 of

8 these IDs, because we know how important and

9 strategic it is for them to have a form of ID for any

10 type of business and even for survivor matters, so we

11 are very happy to have this new initiative being

12 brought and we are happy to open up and discuss

13 whatever the security characteristics of our consular

14 security ID bears, because we wanna make them

15 available for ... we've [bell ] been working very hard

16 to make them available and secure for everybody and

17 we are open for discussion if you need it. 'Kay.

18 [crosstalk]

19 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you. Miss

20 Castro, one question... [crosstalk]

21 YOLANDA CASTRO: Sure.

22 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: the 35,000 IDs

23 that you've issued out; is that a New York number or

24 is that a national number?

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0472 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 163

2 YOLANDA CASTRO: No, it's just only in

3 the New York area.

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: New York City...

5 incredible. [crosstalk]

6 YOLANDA CASTRO: Yeah, it 's ... the ID, the

7 consular IDs are issued [coughing] to citizens that

8 live in our jurisdiction...

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Right.

10 YOLANDA CASTRO: so in the whole United

11 States it's around one million... [crosstalk]

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: That's amazing.

13 YOLANDA CASTRO: consular ID cards, and

14 in some states are even used to get driver's license,

15 because they have been officially admitted. So we

16 continue to work towards ... with agencies,

17 organizations and we are, you know, welcome any

18 inquiry and in the handouts you can see the very high

19 security traits these_ [crosstalk]

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And on the high

21 security... sorry to interrupt ... this is something that

22 you've been in contact in coordination with our city

23 agencies, including the NYPDi is that right?

24 YOLANDA CASTRO: That's correct, we ... we ...

25 [crosstalk]

Exhibit Page No.: 0473 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 164

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Okay.

3 YOLANDA CASTRO: do seminars and we do a

4 lot of workshops and presentations and we're always

5 welcoming whoever wants to know about them, we will...

6 we happily make a presentation and [interpose]

7 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Right.

8 YOLANDA CASTRO: answer any questions.

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

10 for being here today.

11 YOLANDA CASTRO: Thank you.

12 LAUREN BURKE: Hi. Hello, thank you for

13 having us. My name is Lauren Burke; I'm the

14 Executive Director of Atlas: DIY (Developing

15 Immigrant Youth) , and both my office and my home are

16 located in District 38, so raise the roof to District

17 38. [laugh] Atlas: DIY represents transgender young

18 people, homeless young people, undocumented young

19 people; everybody who's brought up today who would

20 benefit from the issuance of these ID cards. I also

21 have a secret; I have been using my Massachusetts

22 State ID card for the past eight years, due to the

23 fact that I do not have the documents I need because

24 of expiration, divorce, losing cards, etc. So if I

25 myself, a very privileged attorney, 30-year-old

Exhibit Page No.: 0474 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 165

2 citizen of New York City could utilize these, so

3 could everyone else. I also wanna offer that Atlas:

4 DIY is ready and excited to be a site that these

5 could be issued through; we have notaries and

6 attorneys on staff 1 we speak Spanishr English 1

7 Mandarin 1 Urdur and I know that so many other

8 community-based organizations would be thrilled and

9 love to be an organization that could be seen as a

10 host site. Lastly, this is a away to make all New

11 Yorkers feel like they belong to this great city 1

12 it's a place that I've wanted to belong since I was

13 12 1 and so I'm very excited to finally have an ID

14 that proves it. Thank you.

15 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Well said. Well

16 said. [bell] Thank you so much for that.

17 MALE VOICE: Hi 1 I'm here on behalf of

18 the Fortune Societyr which serves over 4 000 citizens 1

19 coming home from prisons and jails across New York

20 City. Many folks leave prisons lacking ID, yet

21 they're expected to obtain jobs, housing and health

22 care without any ID. The municipal ID program must

23 be available to them by way of their discharge

24 papersr meaning that as they leave prison the

25 discharge paper should be enough to obtain an ID and

Exhibit Page No.: 0475 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 166

2 that the chances of these men and women, mothers,

3 fathers, and sisters, their success and integration

4 into the community would be greatly compromised.

5 Many opponents of the municipal ID speak of the

6 possibility of ID fraud, yet the New York State Penal

7 Law already protects other IDs from those measures,

8 and again, the municipal ID program will allow people

9 leaving from prison to obtain the basic human rights

10 guaranteed under the constitution; it will also

11 continue to create a safer New York by allowing

12 formerly incarcerated people to access the tools

13 necessary to become contributing members of our city.

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you again.

15 And our final panel member. [background comment]

16 Panel two. Okay. [bell]

17 DIANE STEINMAN: Good afternoon, I'm

18 Diane Steinman; I'm the Director of the New York

19 State Interfaith Network for Immigration Reform,

20 which is a religiously, racially and ethnically

21 diverse network of faith leaders and organizations

22 that advocates for just and humane comprehensive

23 immigration reform and municipal laws that treat all

24 immigrants, regardless of status, with fairness,

25 justice and compassion and based on our values, we

Exhibit Page No.: 0476 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 167

2 are proud to join the many testifiers who are

3 supporting the creation of a municipal ID and the

4 strategies to promote its widespread use by the

5 diverse communities that need this ID in order to

6 become part of the mainstream of city life. I do

7 wanna amplify one point that the Speaker made this

8 morningi at this watershed moment in the future of

9 our democracy, when many elected officials in

10 Washington and around the country are driven by

11 political self-interest and negative attitudes toward

12 undocumented immigrants, the poor and the

13 marginalized, they're driven by those attitudes to

14 pass laws that do them harm and prevent passage of

15 laws that would do them good. Passing the New York

16 City ID law at this moment would serve as a

17 repudiation of their toxic attitudes and harmful

18 actions and an affirmation that public policies must

19 satisfy the moral requirements to treat all who live

20 among us with dignity, justice and compassion, thus

21 presenting an alternative model for federal, state

22 and local lawmakers to emulate in the critical days

23 ahead.

24 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

25 for that. And if we can... [background comments] And

Exhibit Page No.: 0477 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 168

2 the next panel's names, while you get ready, is Miss

3 Hally Chu, who will be reading testimony on behalf of

4 Gale Brewer, our Borough President, Louis Quinones,

5 Dr. Paule Cruz Takash and Ethan Carr from MasterCard

6 Worldwide. And you can begin. [interpose]

7 JEFF WEISS: I will try to finish up this

8 panel with less than a New York minute. My name is

9 Jeff Weiss; I'm counsel to Assemblyman Felix Ortiz

10 from Sunset Park, Cobble Hill, Bay Ridge, Borough

11 Park, Red Hook; the same district as the Chairman.

12 I'll make two points; that Assemblyman Ortiz is in

13 Albany today in session, but in his capacity in

14 Albany chairs the Puerto Rican and Hispanic Caucus,

15 has a bill in Albany to provide non-resident New

16 Yorkers with a driver's license based on certain

17 federal criteria; he's also a member of the National

18 Conference of State Legislatures Immigration Task

19 Force and has been working in Washington with other

20 states on issues similar to this which he strongly

21 supports and asked me to let you know that he stands

22 ready to work with the Council in Albany and in

23 Washington to achieve the same goals and to thank you

24 very much.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0478 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 169

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

3 for that support and send our best.

4 JOSEPH ROSENBERG: Good afternoon, I'm

5 Joseph Rosenberg; I'm the Executive Director of the

6 Catholic Community Relations Council, a not-for-

7 profit corporation established by the Archdiocese of

8 New York and the Diocese of Brooklyn to represent the

9 church on local legislative and policy matters. I'm

10 pleased to be here to testify strongly in support of

11 Int. 253. By providing the ability for immigrants to

12 obtain identification cards to access government

13 services, this bill will vastly improve the lives of

14 so many residents of our city. We're a city of

15 immigrants, many of us second and third generation;

16 the tradition continues in the instance of the more

17 recent arrivals to our city who will benefit from

18 this bill. The Catholic Church has long been in the

19 forefront of immigration reform and services to

20 immigration communities regardless of one's place of

21 origin or religious beliefs; this legislation will go

22 far in embracing this population.

23 The mission of the Catholic migration

24 services of the Diocese of Brooklyn is to empower

25 underserved immigrant communities in Brooklyn and

Exhibit Page No.: 0479 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 170

2 Queens regardless of religion or ethnicity, their

3 immigrant tenancy advocacy program provides free in-

4 person housing services to help low-income immigrant

5 tenants in their fight for decent, affordable

6 housing. The division of immigrant services for the

7 archdiocese provides a similar comprehensive range of

8 [bell] services, not just in Manhattan, Bronx, but in

9 boroughs upstate, they assist more than 100,000

10 individuals annually, they offer over 55 English as

11 second language courses and [background comment] and

12 provide free legal assistance on deportation

13 proceedings along those lines. They also have a

14 hotline that answers 25,000 calls annually

15 [background comment] in 17 different languages; in

16 short, we embrace this bill, we embrace your

17 leadership for bringing it and we hope that it is

18 soon enacted and signed by the Mayor. Thank you very

19 much.

20 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Well and thank you

21 for that. And let's call the next panel; I'll make a

22 comment, but we recently stood, I think in Corona,

23 Queens with you and other advocates in making sure

24 that immigrants always have a way to connect; this is

25 just another way to do that with an identification

Exhibit Page No.: 0480 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 171

2 card, but our faith leaders and organizations have

3 always been an incredible connector and we need you

4 all to be part of this team and this task force that

5 will make this happen. So thank you so much for

6 coming today.

7 I'm gonna call the next panel up, Ethan...

8 Ethan Carr, MasterCard Worldwide, Dr. Paule Cruz-

9 Takash from the Oakland ID Prepaid SF Global, Louis

10 Quinones, Teamsters -- Teamster are in the house --

11 and Hally Chu from Gale Brewer. [background comment]

12 A reminder, we have one minute and I'll be asking you

13 to keep it to one minute, thank you so much.

14 [background comments] If we can begin at the left

15 here, and make sure to speak into the mic. We have

16 one minute; thank you so much.

17 LOUIS QUINONES: Hi, my name is Louis

18 Quinones; I'm here on behalf of George Miranda,

19 President of Teamsters Joint Council 16; I will read

20 a statement of President Miranda.

21 "Teamsters Joint Council 16 represents

22 120,000 members over the New York area. The New York

23 City Teamsters support municipal identification cards

24 for any New Yorker, regardless of immigration status.

25 This proposal from Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Mark-

Exhibit Page No.: 0481 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 172

2 Viverito, Council Member Dromm and Council Member

3 Menchaca makes sense for a diverse city. Ours is a

4 city of immigrants; with our immigrant community, not

5 only would we lose the art, culture, food and values

6 that make us New Yorkers, our city would literally

7 cease to exist. Immigrants, many of them

8 undocumented, do the jobs that run New York; they do

9 them without the rights and recognition from the city

10 they deserve. The reality for many of our

11 undocumented neighbors is one of exclusion. They can

12 send their children to the public schools, but cannot

13 visit them. They can earn money, but cannot open a

14 bank account to keep it safe. They can call the

15 police, but cannot identify themselves to an officer.

16 With municipal ID cards, undocumented and other New

17 Yorkers will have access to banks, schools, other

18 public and private buildings [bell] and essential

19 services. You have the support of the New York City

20 Teamsters in making the proposal law."

21 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

22 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: Thank you, uhm. ..

23 [interpose]

24 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Make sure that the

25 red button's on.

Exhibit Page No.: 0482 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 173

2 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: Red button is on.

3 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

4 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: Thank you. My

5 name is Dr. Paule Cruz-Takash; I am one of the two

6 intellectual architects of the Oakland City ID and

7 the Richmond City ID prepaid debit card, which is

8 also a MasterCard; we incubated this card in our

9 research center at UCLA, we are activist scholars and

10 we also created a company in order to carry the

11 platform that would allow us to offer low-cost

12 financial services to poor and low-income folks of

13 all nationalities and backgrounds and we are the

14 company that was contracted by the City of Oakland

15 and the City of Richmond; we're about to open up our

16 offices in the City of Richmond; we also are

17 contracted by Casa de Maryland, which is one of the

18 largest immigrant service organizations in the

19 country. Casa de Maryland understood that this issue

20 goes beyond a need for ID, that's a critical ID, but

21 they contracted with us because they said the banks

22 have not responded to the municipal ID cards that are

23 out there and that we need to be able to provide our

24 folks with a low-cost financial alternative [bell].

25 I wanted to bring attention to the costs; our company

Exhibit Page No.: 0483 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 174

2 officers this service in the City of Oakland and

3 Richmond at no cost to the City or to the taxpayers

4 and... [interpose]

5 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

6 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: so I also wanted

7 to say that the San Francisco supervisor estimated

8 that it cost them about $200 000 1 1 but their City

9 Clerk that implements this program has estimated that

10 the card costs about $70 per card for that city

11 [background comment] to implement. You all are

12 talking about... [interpose]

13 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank your do you

14 have ... uh just ...

15 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: multiple sites

16 and also city staff that would be required to

17 implement that program 1 [background comment] so you

18 are talking about a huge, huge budget/ not only to

19 implement this program 1 but to sustain it over timer

20 [interpose]

21 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

22 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: so we would work ...

23 [crosstalk]

24 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And if you have ...

25 if you have ...

Exhibit Page No.: 0484 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 175

2 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: welcome the

3 opportunity to work with you.

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Yeah, thank you,

5 and especially/ you have testimony that talks about

6 those pricings, we'd love to see that analysis.

7 DR. PAULE CRUZ-TAKASH: Yes. Thank you.

8 [crosstalk]

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

10 ETHAN CARR: Good afternoon everyone; I'm

11 Ethan Carr with MasterCard Worldwide; it's a pleasure

12 to be here with you today. [interpose]

13 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you for

14 being here.

15 ETHAN CARR: Okay. What I wanna talk

16 about, basically I wanna ask the question we would

17 like you to consider the financial option as you go

18 forward with this program, [background comment]

19 because we believe it will give greater access to not

20 only city services, but also financial services to

21 your residents. We see all over the country where

22 the governments are at all levels adopting the pre-

23 paid card solution and to look at reducing costs,

24 save money, add convenience and make it more

25 efficient for the organization. Since 1990

Exhibit Page No.: 0485 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 176

2 governments have increasingly migrated to direct

3 deposit and pre-paid cards as a way to distribute

4 over $140 billion in paymentsi this include in the

5 form of grants, unemployment, child support 1 all

6 kinds of means of government disbursement. We think

7 you'd do a great service to your residents if you

8 give them the ability to be included in that

9 financial service spectrum by allowing them to have

10 that option to get disbursed benefits on the card.

11 [bell]

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you for that

13 and thank you for being here.

14 HALLY CHU: Hi 1 good afternooni my name

15 is Hally Chu and thank you for the opportunity to

16 testify on behalf of Borough President Gale Brewer of

17 Manhattan. I'm just gonna summarize some of her

18 recommendations which already have been mentioned by

19 a lot of other people. First is that municipal IDs

20 must not become the de facto form of identification

21 for just undocumented and just to provide being

22 stigmatized and the Borough President recommends a

23 host of different services attached to the card 1

24 which you've already heard. Second is, municipal IDs

25 need to have NYPD support and that includes a lot of

Exhibit Page No.: 0486 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 177

2 safety measures and security that is incorporated

3 into the municipal ID card. And third and also

4 fourth, the municipal IDs must first not be too

5 costly for citizens to_ for New Yorkers to obtain and

6 also not too difficult. So the cost, as you can see

7 some other cities have implemented a sliding scale,

8 and also difficulty, in terms of language access,

9 [bell] the Borough President strongly encourages uses

10 community-based organizations to help with that. So

11 thank you.

12 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you for the

13 voice of the Borough President and send her our best.

14 Thank you so much to this panel. We're gonna call

15 the next panel up and before I do that I wanna just

16 recognize we've been joined by Council Member Rose

17 and Council Member Rodriguez. Gene Judy, Bishop

18 Findlayter from CUSH, Rev. Terry Troia, Project

19 Hospitality, Rev. Liam O'Doherty from Our Lady of

20 Good Counsel Parish. [background comments]

21 And our final panel is Daniel Rose, Dr.

22 Raul Hinjosa and Freddy Martinez from LSA, Manhattan

23 Together. [background comment] But let's have our

24 first panel speak and we'll start over here from the

25 left. Please introduce yourself; make sure that the

Exhibit Page No.: 0487 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 178

2 mic is on [background comments], red light.

3 [background comments] Thank you.

4 REV. TERRY TROIA: Hi, uhm... [background

5 comment] thank you for having me; I'm Rev. Terry

6 Troia, Director of Project Hospitality and I sit on

7 the Board of Directors of El Centro del Immigrante in

8 Staten Island, and hello to our Councilperson, Debi

9 Rose and all the other council people, thank you for

10 having us here. I've worked for more than 30 years

11 with homeless people on Staten Island; there is a

12 group of chronic homeless people in the City of New

13 York, mostly elderly with memory loss who cannot move

14 out of shelters because of lack of appropriate

15 documentation. Even in the aftermath of Hurricane

16 Sandy on Staten Island we served non-immigrant

17 families in the city's evacuation center and in FEMA

18 hotels who did not have sufficient identification to

19 apply for necessary services. A municipal ID card

20 similar to programs set up in other cities would

21 really help us move forward for getting chronic

22 homeless people with severe impairments some level of

23 service and housing. I can cite many examples of

24 local Staten Island residents, mostly impoverished,

25 who have been detained, arrested and held at the

Exhibit Page No.: 0488 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 179

2 precinct because they did not have an ID for these

3 reasons -- they were sleeping in an abandoned

4 building or sleeping in a garage or riding a bicycle

5 on the sidewalk or taking a used newspaper out of a

6 garbage can on the Staten Island Ferry or calling the

7 police to report an incident of domestic violence.

8 [bell] Poor people, disabled people, elderly

9 personS 1 persons with profound memory loss and

10 immigrants who are out of status are among those who

11 bear the suffering of being hauled in 1 disappeared

12 into our criminal justice system [interpose]

13 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

14 REV. TERRY TROIA: for not having an ID.

15 Thank you for ... I... we support Int. 253 with the

16 support and cooperation of the NYPD to protect the

17 civil rights of our neighbors.

18 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And thanks again

19 for coming in today; we'll make sure to take your

20 testimony.

21 LIAM O'DOHERTY: 'Kay. Yes, I am Liam

22 O'Doherty; I'm pastor of Our Lady of Good Counsel

23 Church in Staten Island and also a member of Staten

24 Island Clergy Leadership. Staten Island has the

25 largest percentage increase in immigrant population

Exhibit Page No.: 0489 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 180

2 in the City of New York and a large percentage of

3 these law-abiding citizens of our borough and our

4 city do not have acceptable means of documentation

5 for police stops. For instance, Carlos, not his real

6 name, an elderly man and insulin-dependent diabetic,

7 who collects empty cans for money was arrested for

8 collecting cans in a supermarket cart he had found in

9 an abandoned lot; he was arrested for theft of the

10 cart, he did not have ID; he spent a few days in

11 jail; his family attempted repeatedly to give the

12 police his insulin, but without his insulin he fell

13 into a diabetic coma, ended up in ICU chained to a

14 bed with police assigned to guard his room. After an

15 outcry from the community, the Parish of St. Mary's

16 of the Assumption, in backdoor meetings with the

17 local precinct captain, who explained that he was

18 being held because he did not have acceptable ID.

19 The precinct had agreed to release Carlos from

20 custody; Carlos almost died. It would have been an

21 unbearably high price to pay for the right to feed

22 his family. For the life of Carlos and for the lives

23 of all immigrants like him, I urge you to make this

24 program a reality. Thank you.

25 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much.

Exhibit Page No.: 0490 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 181

2 BISHOP ORLANDO FINDLAYTER: Good

3 afternoon, my name is Bishop Orlando Findlayter; I'm

4 the Chairman of Churches United to Save and Heal, a

5 clergy organization primarily of Caribbean American

6 and African American pastors. We are proud

7 supporters of the rights of all citizens, including

8 those who are undocumented. We applaud Council

9 Member Carlos Menchaca for introducing the Municipal

10 ID bill and we urge members of this body to support

11 the bill, vote for it and let's make municipal IDa

12 reality in New York City. Too many hard-working New

13 Yorkers can't open a bank account, can't enter City

14 buildings, have difficulty registering their children

15 in schools and are fearful every day of being stopped

16 without the ability to produce a valid, government-

17 issued ID. Municipal ID is a step in the right

18 direction for this City; it will restore dignity to

19 hundreds of thousands of our neighbors who have been

20 marginalized by the nation's broken immigration

21 system. We represent the faith community who is

22 overwhelmingly supporting this bill; it is our belief

23 that this a moral issue; every citizen deserves the

24 right to have an ID [bell] and so we urge to pass

25 this bill. Thank you.

Exhibit Page No.: 0491 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 182

2 [laugh]

3 GENE JUDY: Thank you, Chairman and the

4 members of the Committee. My name is Gene Judy from

5 the First Nation Baptist Church; I want to thank the

6 pastors and the secretary and the administration who

7 accompany me today. The NYC needs a general ID to

8 ensure that everybody in New York can be easily

9 identified. Secondly, it will help all New Yorkers

10 to have something in common, regardless of their

11 immigration status. Third, ID card with a waiver

12 component will reduce the stress level of the

13 homeless population, which constantly needs to fight

14 to identify themselves because they have lost their

15 document after losing their bed. Last; not the

16 least, NYC ID will help the undocumented residents to

17 hold a legal document they can call theirs and by

18 simulation they will feel 100 percent New Yorkers.

19 Research shows that it takes seven years for an

20 immigrant to accept their adoptive land; by issuing

21 the ID card you will reduce the stress level on the

22 immigration and help them to integrate the society

23 less than seven years. [bell] Thank you for

24 listening.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0492 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 183

2 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

3 to this panel again. And we'll be in touch with you

4 and all faith leaders really that are coming to us

5 with support. And our final panel, Daniel Rose from

6 MasterCard, Dr. Raul... yes ... Dr. Raul Hinj osa; Freddy

7 Martinez from LSA. And we've been joined by Council

8 Member Brad Lander, Council Member Mark Levine and I

9 think I already mentioned, but Council Member Debi

10 Rose [background comment] from Staten Island.

11 [background comments]

12 COUNCIL MEMBER LANDER: Mr. Chairman,

13 thank you so much for your leadership on this; it's

14 wonderful to be a part of this historic hearing and I

15 appreciate all the testimony; the leadership that you

16 and Council Member Dromm and the Speaker are

17 providing in making this move forward to reality.

18 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you, thank

19 you so much Council Member Lander. And we'll give an

20 opportunity for Council Members to say... quick moment

21 at the end, after this panel. Let's begin.

22 PROF. RAUL HINJOSA: How do you do,

23 members of the Council? I am Professor Raul Hinjosa

24 at UCLA; I'm also the CEO of Liberation Card

25 Services, which is a company dedicated to exactly

Exhibit Page No.: 0493 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 184

2 what we're talking about here, empowering the

3 undocumented and empowering the unbanked throughout

4 cities and we are now actively doing ID cards with

5 banking services built in in California, which I flew

6 out to talk with you for a minute for, but I

7 appreciate the opportunity. We think that the

8 solution that we have now spearheaded in California

9 in the last year is the solution for New York,

10 particularly for the type of issues that were raised

11 here, the scarlet letter issue. While there's half-

12 a-million undocumented in New York, there's almost a

13 million under-banked and people that don't have

14 access to proper identification; that's the way you

15 do it, through a combination of an ID card with an

16 advanced set of financial services at the same time.

17 Second thing, the cost issue is extremely important;

18 [bell] I don't think that it's been even given good,

19 adequate information. What we're seeing in the case

20 of the cities where they -- both New Haven and San

21 Francisco -- they require huge government subsidy;

22 what we have done is not only have extremely low...

23 basically zero cost to the city [background comment]

24 for the implementation of this, but also providing

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0494 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 185

2 financial services, which are the lowest in the

3 country in terms of being able to access... [crosstalk]

4 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

5 PROF. RAUL HINJOSA: zero fee options for

6 people that have this. [crosstalk]

7 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you.

8 PROF. RAUL HINJOSA: Finally, the issue

9 it's not just Macy's that you wanna get involved

10 in this; we provide a mechanism whereby all local

11 businesses can also participate in this program, all

12 built through something that everybody also has in

13 their pockets, which is [background comment] a mobile

14 phone, which is the future, and so I suggest you look

15 at that alternative at the same time that you look at

16 the others. [interpose]

17 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: And we... and we

18 definitely will. And if there's anything you wanna

19 give us ... I know you gave us a packet, thank you so

20 much for that.

21 DANIEL ROSE: Good afternoon; I'm Daniel

22 Rose; I'm from MasterCard, the payments network. I

23 think that the idea, the concept of the ID card is a

24 homerun, so I think... congratulate you on that; I

25 think it's a winner. However, I think you're missing

Exhibit Page No.: 0495 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 186

2 an opportunity and I'm gonna, you know, piggyback off

3 of what Dr. Raul Hinjosa said, that I think financial

4 inclusion is an important aspect that could be

5 addressed with the same imitative. Here in the New

6 York City area, in the New York City metropolitan

7 area, the FDIC did an under-banked study; about 24

8 percent of the households in the metropolitan ... in the

9 New York City area are under-banked, so they don't

10 have access to the financial mainstream. I believe

11 by... and you coupling the payment functionality with

12 the ID card that you'll hit a homerun and address a

13 lot of issues that a lot of these under-banked

14 families have today.

15 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you for

16 that.

17 FREDDY CRUZ MARTINEZ: So good afternoon

18 everyone. My name is Freddy Cruz Martinez; I'm a

19 volunteer leader with Little Sisters of the

20 Assumption Family Health Services, Manhattan Together

21 and Metro IAF, so finally I'm here to testify. Eight

22 years ago, while coming home from late work, I was

23 stopped by the police; they asked, "Do you hear the

24 gunshot?" I said, "No." They asked to see my ID and

25 I show my Mexican consular ID, [background comment]

Exhibit Page No.: 0496 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 187

2 they said this is fake; [background comment] I was

3 afraid because I thought that they would take me to

4 the jail; fortunately, all they did was search me,

5 asked me a few questions and let me go, but others

6 haven't been so lucky. We've heard many story of

7 people in our community that have been taken to the

8 prisons for hours when they couldn't produce an ID

9 that the police recognize. So like Metro IAF, member

10 congregations, we at Little Sisters, we [bell]

11 started produce our own IDs like the police

12 recognize. A local credit union even lets people

13 open up an account with them.

14 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Right.

15 FREDDY CRUZ MARTINEZ: Yes.

16 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: So thank you, and

17 we wanna make sure to take that testimony and again,

18 thank you for your own personal experience and really

19 giving us a sense of what we've been hearing

20 throughout the entire hearings. So thank you to this

21 panel. [crosstalk]

22 FREDDY CRUZ MARTINEZ: Great.

23 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much

24 to this panel. And we're gonna ... I'm gonna allow for

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0497 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 188

2 Council Member Rose to say a few words and then I'm

3 gonna close up and say thank you to all.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: Thank you so much,

5 Chair and I will be brief. I just want to thank you

6 so much for pushing this legislation along; several

7 years ago in my district we had a proliferation of

8 bias crimes against undocumented Mexican residents in

9 my district and we found that one of the major causes

10 were, they were crimes of opportunity, because the

11 day laborers were carrying all of their cash on them

12 because they had no safe way of keeping their funds

13 secure, and because they lacked identification they

14 were not able to open up bank accounts, and so in

15 conjunction with the Mexican Consulate, we, I

16 believe, started the first precursor by getting them

17 at least their Mexican ID so that they have

18 identification and we brokered a deal with the banks

19 to accept that ID so that they could then open up

20 their accounts. And we have subsequently not had

21 anymore of those type of bias crimes. And so we've

22 seen the [background comments] benefit of ID, but ID

23 is important to everyone because it will change the

24 economic disparities in communities where people lack

25 ID. And what happens is, people have to go to

Exhibit Page No.: 0498 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 189

2 predatory services, they have to go to check cashing

3 places, they have to go [bell] to rent-a-centers,

4 they have to go to places where they get less for

5 their dollar and it perpetuates the financial

6 inequities. So I wanna thank you so much, Chairman

7 Menchaca for, you know, pushing this legislation

8 forward.

9 CHAIRPERSON MENCHACA: Thank you so much,

10 Council Member Rose. And really, I think what that

11 says is that so much of this work has really happened

12 even before this session started with so many of our

13 senior council members in the City Council and what I

14 wanna do is just let you know for the record that the

15 Central American Legal Assistance Group, the New York

16 Legal Assistance Group, Safe Horizon, New York City

17 Gay and Lesbian Antiviolence Project, the Coalition

18 for Asian American Children and Families, SEIU 32BJ,

19 NYS Interfaith Network also dropped off testimony for

20 the record. I wanna thank the incredible staff that

21 has put so much time; you heard earlier that day one

22 I came in with the strength of horses really to push

23 this forward, but this would not have happened if it

24 wasn't for Julian Beckford, Jennifer Montalvo [sp?]

25 on the Committee staff, Lee Wellington, my Chief of

Exhibit Page No.: 0499 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 190

2 Staff, Mary Brooke from my office as well, Ivan

3 Luevanos and Faisal Ali, who just joined us,

4 Sebastian McGuire from Danny Dromm's office, and so

5 many more of the Speaker's office that have put so

6 many hours in analyzing this information and will

7 continue to analyze everything we've heard today.

8 And so really in closing/ what I wanna say is that

9 you've heard today no just from organizations and

10 advocates 1 you've heard from New Yorkers at the

11 beginning, you've heard from the Administration/ the

12 Operations and MOIA about the commitment that both

13 the City Council and the Mayor have to making this

14 happen; everyone is at the table under the pillars of

15 this entire project that range from safety and fraud

16 protection and making sure that people have access,

17 not just at our immigrant New Yorkers' base 1 but

18 really everybody that wants to be able to connect and

19 unify around this card is understood and we're gonna

20 keep on moving forward 1 this is our first hearing and

21 we're gonna come back to you with more information

22 and analysis as we move forward. So with that I'm

23 gonna say thank you so much for staying; I know we

24 over-stood our stay and I hope you stay for the next

25 hearing 1 chaired by our Chairman of Transportation/

Exhibit Page No.: 0500 of CES Response Declaration

 1 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION 191

2 Ydanis Rodriguez. Thank you so much and this

3 concludes our hearing.

4 [gavel]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0501 of CES Response Declaration

 C E R T I F I C A T E

World Wide Dictation certifies that the

foregoing transcript is a true and accurate

record of the proceedings. We further certify that

there is no relation to any of the parties to

this action by blood or marriage, and that there

is interest in the outcome of this matter.

Date May 19, 2014

Exhibit Page No.: 0502 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBIT
F

Exhibit Page No.: 0503 of CES Response Declaration

 1
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEW YORK

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

TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINUTES

Of the

STATED MEETING

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

June 26, 2014

Start: 1:56 p.m.
Recess: 4:02 p.m.

HELD AT: Council Chambers - City Hall

B E F 0 R E:
LETITIA JAMES
Chairperson

MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO
Speaker for the Council

COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Maria Del Carmen Arroyo
Inez D. Barron
Fernando Cabrera
Margaret S. Chin
Andrew Cohen
Costa G. Constantinides
Robert E.Cornegy
Elizabeth S. Crowley
Laurie A. Cumbo
Chaim M. Deutsch
Inez E. Dickens
Daniel Dromm
Rafael L.Espinal, Jr.
Mathieu Eugene

World Wide Dictation 545 Saw Mill River Road- Suite 2C, Ardsley, NY 10502
Phone: 914-964-8500 * 800-442-5993 *Fax: 914-964-8470
www. WorldWideDictation.com

Exhibit Page No.: 0504 of CES Response Declaration

 2

Julissa Ferreras
Daniel R. Garodnick
Vincent J. Gentile
Vanessa L. Gibson
David G. Greenfield
Vincent Ignizio
Core D. Johnson
Ben Kallos
Andy L. King
Peter A. Koo
Karen Koslowitz
Rory L. Lancman
Brad S. Lander
Stephen T. Levin
Mark Levine
Alan N. Maisel
Steven Matteo
Darlene Mealy
Carlos Menchaca
Rosie Mendez
I. Daneek Miller
Annabel Palma
Antonio Reynoso
Donovan J. Richards
Ydanis A. Rodriguez
Deborah L. Rose
Helen K. Rosenthal
Ritchie Torres
Mark Treyger
Eric A. Ulrich
James Vacca
Paul A. Vallone
James G. Van Bramer
Mark S. Weprin
Jumaane D. Williams
Ruben Wills

Exhibit Page No.: 0505 of CES Response Declaration

 3

A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED}

Exhibit Page No.: 0506 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 4

2 [sound check]

3 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Twelve hours ago,

4 we passed a great budget for the City of New York,

5 and I want to thank everyone that was here. We are

6 going to started today's Stated with two ceremonials.

7 One by Council Member Koo. We're going to start off

8 with that one. He is giving recognition and issuing

9 proclamations to four Con Ed workers who saw--

10 [background comment] five Con Ed workers who saw two

11 cars collide and raced to rescue a baby and two women

12 after the accident caused a light pole to topple over

13 with live electrical wires and gasoline spreading on

14 the street. These are the kinds of ceremonials that

15 I really enjoy in this chamber, people that step up

16 to the plate. And so, thank you, Council Member Koo,

17 for doing this today.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: [off mic] Well,

19 thank you. [on mic] May I ask the Con Ed employees

20 come up? [applause] Really, Con Ed. Which?

21 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Go right ahead.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Okay, my colleagues,

23 Speaker, and members of the public. They told us

24 [sic] five Con Ed workers when they are working they

25 saw an accident and they rescued a baby and two women

Exhibit Page No.: 0507 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 5

2 trapped in an auto accident. And then when the two

3 cars they were driving collided bringing down a

4 traffic light and exposing the electric wires to

5 spilled gasoline. These workers they immediately run

6 over to the scene, and rescue the baby out of the

7 car, and also the two lady drivers. And so, we are

8 here to commend them for the heroic efforts in

9 addition to their regular work. They are always

10 working very hard to make sure we have energy, we

11 have light, and we have power. It is really

12 critical. People don't realize just how important is

13 it. Once we have a power outage, we realize we

14 cannot do anything. So we are here to recognize the

15 heroic efforts. This is the City Clerk with the

16 proclamation piece.

17 CLERK: Council City of New York

18 Proclamation.

19 Whereas, the Council of the City of New

20 York is proud to honor Rich Coyle, Chris Jensen,

21 Mauricio Rincon, William Connolly, and James DeVita

22 for their heroic life saving rescue in Flushing,

23 Queens, and

24 Whereas, the DMV recorded nearly 295,000

25 car crashes in 2012 in New York State alone and more

Exhibit Page No.: 0508 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 6

2 than 1,000 of those crashes resulted in fatalities.

3 Within New York City, approximately 4,000 New Yorkers

4 are seriously injured, and more than 250 are killed

5 each year in traffic crashes. As the City of New

6 York reaffirms its bold commitment improving street

7 safety through the Vision Zero program and other

8 measures, we are proud to recognize five individuals

9 all Con Edison workers who recently went above and

10 beyond their call of duty to ensure the safety of

11 their fellow New Yorkers, and

12 Whereas, on Tuesday, May 20th, Con Edison

13 Workers James DeVita, Rich Coyle, Chris Jensen,

14 Mauricio Rincon, and William Connolly were in

15 Flushing, Queens installing an overhead transformer

16 new P.S. 62 at the intersection of Francis Lewis

17 Boulevard and 53rd Avenue. From this area perch, the

18 men suddenly heard a tremendous crash as two cars

19 colliding sending one vehicle careening into a

20 pedestrian crossing sign. In a split second a

21 traffic light slammed to the ground, electric wires

22 were exposed and gasoline began to spew from one of

23 the cars. Within this cacophonous scene, the men

24 could see the drivers of both vehicles trying to get

25 out; and

Exhibit Page No.: 0509 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 7

2 Whereas, although they immediately

3 recognized the dangerous mix of gasoline and voltage,

4 these Con Edison workers immediately lowered

5 themselves, and putting the safety of the strangers

6 before their own, they ran toward the crash. As they

7 reached the cars, the gasoline continued to spill,

8 they spotted a baby girl in the back seat. As gas

9 fumes grew stronger, James DeVita, Rich Coyle, and

10 Chris Jensen worked to free the infant from her seat

11 by cutting through the straps and also carrying the

12 unconscious woman from the driver's seat. Meanwhile,

13 Mauricio Rincon pulled another injured woman from

14 behind the wheel of another car through her undamaged

15 rear door. William Connolly immediately dialed 911,

16 and worked with others to get all of the victims far

17 enough away from the accident. And consoled the

18 families until NYPD and FDNY responders arrived to

19 take over the scene.

20 Now, therefore, be it know, that the

21 Council of the City of New York gratefully honors

22 Chris Jensen, James DeVita, Rich Coyle, Mauricio

23 Rincon, and William Connolly for the life saving

24 rescue of two women and a child on May 20, 2014.

25 Melissa Mark-Viverito, Speaker for the entire

Exhibit Page No.: 0510 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 8

2 Council, Peter Koo, Council Member, 20th District

3 Queens. [applause, cheers]

4 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Again, thank you.

5 As the clerk was reading that, wow. Right? The

6 suspense and knowing the danger I mean it really

7 brings to light really what an effort you took to

8 save those lives, and we thank you for that. You not

9 only did this individually, you worked collectively,

10 and you really made something miraculous happen. So

11 thank you so much for your efforts. I'm not sure.

12 Does any one of you want to speak on behalf of the

13 group? Say a few words? Again, we want to thank

14 Peter for bringing this to our Chambers.

15 MALE SPEAKER: So I just want to thank

16 the Chamber for recognizing my crews. Thank you for

17 recognizing. We are very proud of them at Con

18 Edison. We spend a lot of time in training in

19 emergency response, and we're very proud that they

20 were able to protect the public in the manner that

21 they did. So thank you, again. [applause, cheers.]

22 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Thank you. Thank

23 you both. [background comments]

24 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Okay, we have

25 one--one more ceremonial by Council Member Cabrera on

Exhibit Page No.: 0511 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 9

2 behalf of the Bronx Community College Nursing

3 Program, and I'll had it over to the Council Member.

4 Oh, and the Bronx Delegation as well.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Madam Speaker,

6 thank you so much, and I love your T-shirt.

7 Beautiful. Limited Edition. We want to congratulate

8 also the United States Soccer Team for advancing.

9 [applause] Awesome, awesome. But it gives me great

10 honor as Bronx Community College they make their way.

11 It gives me great honor to-- We are going to be

12 facing that way yes. Beautiful. It gives me great

13 honor to talk to you, and to give you the great news

14 that the Nursing Program at Bronx Community College

15 out of 77 practical nursing programs in school in the

16 State of New York were ranked number one [applause,

17 cheers] in the State of New York. As a matter of

18 fact, the ranking was based on the National Council

19 Licensure Examination for Practical Nurse Exam, which

20 is considered one of the best measures to determine

21 how well a school is preparing its students for a

22 career in practical nursing. As a matter of fact,

23 since 1991, from its very first day, every year since

24 1991, every student has aced the exam with 100% score

25 with the exception of three years. This is an

Exhibit Page No.: 0512 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 10

2 amazing program, a program that I always tell young

3 people to go and sign up because if you get in,

4 you're going to come out a five star nurse. And so,

5 congratulations to Bronx Community College Nursing

6 Program. [applause] Madam Speaker. To the clerk

7 to do the reading.

8 CLERK: Council City of New York

9 Proclamation. Since 1957, Bronx Community College,

10 BCC, has advanced from its humble beginnings of 123

11 students to become the educational cornerstone in the

12 success of tens of thousands of students. Over the

13 last 57 years, BC has been a leader in education

14 ensuring that its students receive the quality

15 instruction, skills, and training needed for future

16 success. In 2012, BCC became the nation's first

17 community college campus to be designated a national

18 historical landmark, and

19 Whereas, each semester BCC provides

20 nearly 12,000 students with quality academic

21 programs, and outstanding faculty, and flexible class

22 schedules to equip them for the 21st Century

23 opportunities. These ambitious students represent

24 over 100 countries, but all share a passion for

25 learning and achievement. This is particularly

Exhibit Page No.: 0513 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 11

2 evident in its Licensed Practical Nursing Program, an

3 evening and weekend program within the Department of

4 Nursing and Allied Health Sciences that offers 22

5 transferrable nursing credits to BCC's RN Program.

6 Upon successful completion of the course work,

7 students are eligible to sit for the New York State

8 National Council Licensure Examination for Practical

9 Nurses, and

10 Whereas, this year practicalnursing.org,

11 a national organization dedicated to providing

12 students with better transparency regarding practical

13 and vocational nursing programs recognized Bronx

14 Community College's Licensed Practical Nursing

15 Program number one among New York State's 77

16 practical nursing programs in schools, and

17 Whereas, this ranking based on National

18 Council Licensure Examination passing rates is

19 considered across the country as one of the best

20 measures for determining how well a school is

21 preparing their students for a career in practical

22 nursing. BCC's Licensed Practical Nursing Program was

23 the only one to receive a perfect 100% score. Over

24 the last five years every BCC student, who

25 successfully completed the Practical Nursing Program

Exhibit Page No.: 0514 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 12

2 went on to ace the exam required of all licensed

3 nurses in New York.

4 Now, therefore, be it known that the

5 Council of the City of New York honors and

6 congratulates the Bronx Community College Licensed

7 Practical Nursing Program for its well-earned

8 recognition as the number one practical nursing

9 program in New York State. Melissa Mark-Viverito,

10 Speaker for the entire Council and Fernando Cabrera,

11 Council Member, 14th District Bronx, and the rest of

12 the Council Members of the Bronx Delegation.

13 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Okay. Thank you

14 so much. [applause] To all of you that are here,

15 all those that run the lead--the Nursing Program for

16 Bronx Community College and to the Bronx Delegation

17 for bringing this to our attention. It is a great

18 honor to be able to present you with a proclamation

19 your success. And it's something to be proud of in

20 the City of New York. We definitely encourage people

21 to enroll. So thank you very much for being here.

22 Anybody want to speak on behalf of--? Yes.

23 FEMALE SPEAKER: On behalf of Bronx

24 Community College, our President Dr. Berotte Joseph,

25 the Program Director for the Licensed Practical Nurse

Exhibit Page No.: 0515 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 13

2 Program, who couldn't be here today, Professor Ellen

3 Boyce, we would like to say we are very proud of our

4 achievement. And we would like to thank you very

5 much for honoring us. Thank you. [applause]

6 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: [off mic] Thank

7 you all. And that concludes ceremonials.

8 [Pause]

9 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Ladies and gentlemen,

10 can I have your attention, please? Can I please have

11 your attention. At this time, please place all

12 electronic devices, all electronic devices to

13 vibrate. Will all non-Council employees, non-Council

14 employees please the main floor of the Chambers. We

15 have seating upstairs. Can I have quiet in the

16 Chambers, please?

17 [Pause]

18 [gavel]

19 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

20 PREISDENT JAMES: All rise for the Pledge

21 of Allegiance.

22 [Pledge of Allegiance]

23 FEMALE VOICE: Roll call.

24 CLERK: Arroyo.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER ARROYO: Here.

Exhibit Page No.: 0516 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 14

2 CLERK: Barron.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON: Present.

4 CLERK: Cabrera.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Here.

6 [background noise]

7 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Quiet in the Chambers,

8 please.

9 [gavel]

10 CLERK: Chin.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER CHIN: Here.

12 CLERK: Constantinides.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER CONSTANTINIDES: Here.

14 CLERK: Cohen.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER COHEN: Here.

16 CLERK: Cornegy.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER CORNEGY: Present.

18 CLERK: Crowley.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER CROWLEY: [off mic]

20 CLERK: Cumbo.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER CUMBO: [off mic]

22 CLERK: Deutsch.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER DEUTSCH: Yes.

24 CLERK: Dickens.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER DICKENS: Here.

Exhibit Page No.: 0517 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 15

2 CLERK: Dromm.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: Here.

4 CLERK: Espinal.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER ESPINAL: [off mic]

6 CLERK: Eugene.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: Present.

8 CLERK: Ferreras.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER FERRERAS: [off mic]

10 CLERK: Garodnick.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER GAROLDNICK: Here.

12 CLERK: Gentile.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER GENTILE: Here.

14 CLERK: Gibson.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER GIBSON: Here.

16 CLERK: Greenfield.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER GREENFIELD: Here.

18 PRESIDENT JAMES: Quiet in the Chambers,

19 please for roll call. Please quiet.

20 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Quiet down.

21 CLERK: Johnson.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON: Here.

23 CLERK: Kallos.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER KALLOS: Here.

25 CLERK: King.

Exhibit Page No.: 0518 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 16

2 COUNCIL MEMBER KING: Present.

3 CLERK: Koo.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Present.

5 CLERK: Koslowitz.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER KOSLOWITZ: Here.

7 CLERK: Lancman.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER LANCMAN: Here.

9 CLERK: Lander.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER LANDER: Here.

11 CLERK: Levin.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVIN: Here.

13 CLERK: Levine.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVINE: Here.

15 CLERK: Maisel.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER MAISEL: Here.

17 CLERK: Matteo.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER MATTEO: Here.

19 PRESIDENT JAMES: Please quiet down in

20 the Chambers. Please simmer down. Roll call.

21 CLERK: Mealy.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER MEALY: [off mic)

23 CLERK: Menchaca.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER MENCHACA: Presente.

25 CLERK: Mendez.

Exhibit Page No.: 0519 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 17

2 COUNCIL MEMBER MENDEZ: Here.

3 CLERK: Miller.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER: Here.

5 CLERK: Palma.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER PALMA: [off mic]

7 CLERK: Reynoso.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Present.

9 CLERK: Richards.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER RICHARDS: Present.

11 CLERK: Maisel.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER MAISEL: Here.

13 CLERK: Rodriguez.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER RODRIGUEZ: Present. [off

15 mic]

16 CLERK: Rose.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: Here.

18 CLERK: Rosenthal.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSENTHAL: Here.

20 CLERK: Espinal.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER ESSPINAL: Here.

22 CLERK: Torres.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER TORRES: (off mic]

24 CLERK: Miller.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER: Here.

Exhibit Page No.: 0520 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 18

2 CLERK: Treyger.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER TREYGER: Here.

4 CLERK: Ulrich.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER ULRICH: Here.

6 CLERK: Vacca.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER VACCA: [off mic]

8 CLERK: Vallone.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER VALLONE: Madam Advocate,

10 permission to vote aye on all matters on today's

11 calendar including on Land Use Call-ups.

12 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER VALLONE: Thank you very

14 much.

15 [Pause]

16 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes, taking a

17 vote.

18 CLERK: Weprin.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER WEPRIN: Here.

20 CLERK: Williams.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS: Here.

22 CLERK: Wills.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLS: Here.

24 CLERK: Ignizio.

25 COUNCIL MEMBER IGNIZIO: Here.

Exhibit Page No.: 0521 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 19

2 CLERK: Van Bramer.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER VAN BRAMER: Here.

4 CLERK: Speaker Mark-Viverito.

5 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: [off mic] Here.

6 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Please rise for

7 the Invocation delivered by Reverend Pat Bumgardner,

8 Executive Director of Global Justice Institute,

9 Metropolitan Community Churches. Please rise.

10 Everyone remain quiet.

11 REVEREND BOMGARDNER: [off mic] When New

12 Yorkers woke up this morning [on mic] they learned

13 why this municipality is sometimes dubbed the city

14 that never sleeps. Because you, the members of the

15 New York City Council were hard at work passing a

16 budget that expands daycare programs, and gives every

17 middle-school child the assurance of this day's daily

18 bread. And provides scholarships for some and after

19 school programs for other. You were hard at work on

20 a budget that funds a summer jobs program for teens,

21 and makes sure that community centers stay open. You

22 were working on a budget that invests in affordable

23 housing, and ensures services for mentally ill

24 inmates. The most diverse council in the history of

25 our city did a most amazing thing. It put our money

Exhibit Page No.: 0522 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 20

2 where many of our hearts are with those most in need

3 of our care and protection. As the pastor of a

4 community of faith where many have been among those

5 seeking asylum and a chance at freedom, and a better

6 life. I want to personally thank you for now making

7 sure that every poor, poor and born New Yorker in

8 immigration detention will be able to seek and have

9 legal representation at the deportation hearings.

10 Restoring the promise of a statute not far away,

11 "Give me your poor, your tired, and your huddled

12 masses."

13 Many years ago, the great preacher and

14 prophet, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of

15 Rip Van Winkle as the man who slept through a

16 revolution. When he went up the mount, King said the

17 sign said, King George. And when he came down, it

18 read President George. You have not only remained

19 awake, but positioned yourselves as leaders in a

20 great a revolution of change that sees difference not

21 as something that separates us. But as the very

22 special something that gives us the opportunity to

23 cross previously erected social borders, and be more

24 together than we ever possibly could have been alone

25 or apart.

Exhibit Page No.: 0523 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 21

2 You are helping our city learn the lesson

3 of America's greatness, namely that oneness is not

4 about muting our differences. It is not about

5 uniformity or conformity. Rather, it is about

6 reciprocity and mutuality, and sharing what we have

7 with other who many be different from us on the

8 outside, but bear a strong familiar difference on the

9 inside as members of the one family of God.

10 And so, today as you begin your work, let

11 us pray that God will continue to give you the

12 courage and conviction, the stamina and grace it

13 takes to do the things that will model for the world

14 what a city at peace with its own diversity looks

15 like, and how it is governed. Let us pray that

16 borders and boundaries once used to segregate and

17 exclude become the crossing over places where we have

18 the opportunity to learn together, and expand our

19 horizons together.

20 As we approach this Sunday's LGBT Pride

21 March, may our focus be on all we hold in common, as

22 human beings, and our hope and prayer be for the day

23 when all people, Black people and White people,

24 people of Asian descent and African heritage, Native

25 Americans and immigrants. All people of every sexual

Exhibit Page No.: 0524 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 22

2 orientation and gender identity of every culture,

3 class and creed shall live together in peace. Equal

4 not only in the eyes of God, but under our cities and

5 our nations and our world's codes and covenants. We

6 have won when we are one. May that sacred truth

7 guide every choice and decision. I ask this blessing

8 today in the name of all that's good and holy. Amen.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER: Amen.

10 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Motion to spread

11 the Invocation in full upon the record by Council

12 Member Johnson.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON: Thank you, Madam

14 Public Advocate, and I want to--

15 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Quiet in the

16 Chambers, please.

17 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Quiet down, please.

18 Quiet down.

19 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

20 Johnson.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON: Thank you Madam

22 Public Advocate, and I want to thank Reverend Pat

23 Bumgardner for being here today. Metropolitan

24 Community Church --

25 [background discussion]

Exhibit Page No.: 0525 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 23

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Please, quiet in

3 the Chamber. Please everyone take their seat. Thank

4 you. Council Member Johnson.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON: Metropolitan

6 Community Church of New York is a spiritual home for

7 the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community

8 located on 36th Street in Manhattan in my district,

9 and is open to everyone. Reverend Pat who has been

10 with MCC New York for 30 years, and is a senior

11 pastor. She is also a resident of my district and is

12 nenown around the world for her work on the rights of

13 LGBT people and their families. MCC's work is not

14 just around faith, but working towards of an LGBT

15 person here in New York, the United States and around

16 the world to be treated with dignity and respect.

17 [background discussion.] They do this by housing the

18 Global Justice Initiative, which advocates for human

19 and LGBT rights around the world. They pride

20 themselves on being a safe space for anyone, but in

21 particular LDBT and Queer Youth, many of whom are

22 homeless. MCC is a food pantry program that is open

23 to anyone who is hungry, and perhaps most importantly

24 they shelter LGBT youth in a safe and welcoming

25 environment.

Exhibit Page No.: 0526 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 24

2 Metropolitan Community Church of New York

3 encompasses the values of the Third Council District

4 and of the City of New York. And I believe that

5 today, two days, three days before the 45th

6 anniversary of the Stonewall uprising there is no

7 better person to spread the Invocation here at the

8 City Council than the Reverend Pat Bumgardner, Senior

9 Pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church. I thank

10 you Reverend for a wonderful Invocation, and for all

11 that you have done in our city on a day-to-day basis.

12 Thank you very much.

13 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

14 Vallone.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER VALLONE: Madam Advocate,

16 permission to aye on all matters on today's including

17 the Land Use Call-ups.

18 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER VALLONE: Thank you very

20 much.

21 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

22 Council Member Wills.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLS: May I have a

24 minute to explain my vote?

25 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

Exhibit Page No.: 0527 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 25

2 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLS: Thank you. I do

3 apologize for voting and leaving. I do have a

4 graduation to go to. But I just wanted to say on the

5 record that I had every intention on coming here

6 today and voting no on this bill. I didn't believe

7 that this bill was drafted with everybody in mind,

8 but a certain group. But then, everybody else was

9 included. But the gentleman from Brooklyn, Carlos

10 Menchaca, had a conversation with me yesterday. And I

11 really want to tell you I appreciate it. I do not

12 agree with any group of people that our outside of

13 our lega,l framework with immigration, but I also have

14 to say that I do not believe any group should face

15 any oppression whether it's financial, political,

16 spiritual or any others. People are here inside of

17 our borders for a greater chance at life. This

18 municipal I.D. card has been explained to me in

19 detail, again by the gentleman. And I wanted to just

20 tell you that I do appreciate. Ms. Bertha Lewis

21 [phonetic] gave me stats on how many are actually in

22 my district. This Council has passed funding for

23 citizenship now, which is my office. We have an

24 attorney two days a week, and the stories that have

25 come in have--

Exhibit Page No.: 0528 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 26

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

3 Council Member, can you please bring your comments to

4 a close?

5 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLS: I'm sorry. Yes, I

6 will. So with that, I do want to thank you again.

7 And I keep going over and over again, the gentleman

8 Carlos Menchaca from Brooklyn. You definitely are a

9 gentleman, and because of that and because of your

10 honesty, I vote aye.

11 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

12 Adoption of minutes.

13 CLERK: None.

14 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Messages and

15 paper from the Mayor.

16 CLERK: M80 submitting Cheryl Cohen for

17 appointment to the City Planning Commission.

18 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Rules,

19 Privileges, and Elections.

20 CLERK: M81 submitting Bomee Jung for

21 appointment to the City Planning Commission.

22 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Rules,

23 Privileges, and Elections.

24 CLERK: M82 submitting Marcie Kesner for

25 appointment to the Landmark Preservation Commission.

Exhibit Page No.: 0529 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 27

2 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Rules,

3 Privileges, and Elections.

4 CLERK: M83 submitting Larisa Ortiz for

5 appointment to the City Planning Commission.

6 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Rules,

7 Privileges, and Elections.

8 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Communication

9 from City, County, and Borough Offices.

10 CLERK: None.

11 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Petitions and

12 Communications.

13 CLERK: None.

14 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Land Use Call-

15 Ups.

16 CLERK: None.

17 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Communication

18 from Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.

19 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Thank you, Madam

20 Public Advocate. Not too long ago we all met in

21 these Chambers to pass a wonderful budget. And as

22 was mentioned by Council Member Cabrera before, we

23 took a point of personal privilege earlier. We

24 started a little bit late because we were in the

25 Members' Lounge watching USA play. [whistles] They

Exhibit Page No.: 0530 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 28

2 advanced, which is a good thing. [applause] So, I'm

3 excited for that.

4 One of the items-- I want to talk about

5 a couple of things. One of the items on our agenda

6 today is going to be our street co-naming bill,

7 something we do about twice a year. And as we're

8 voting on that legislation, I wanted to direct

9 everyone's attention to what we will be producing as

10 our new interactive map. It's up here on the screen,

11 which will be available to all New Yorkers to keep

12 them aware of every new co-naming. Every one of

13 those dots is a street that is being co-named. And

14 when you click on it, it pulls up the information of

15 the person that the street is being named after or

16 for the event that the street is being named after.

17 So this is a work in progress, but I wanted to thank

18 Erica Morsales [phonetic] and Maureen Agna for their

19 work on this project. We're going to continue to

20 grow and expand, and hopefully, we can go back as

21 well in time and include others. So it's a great

22 addition to our website.

23 I also wanted to give a special mention

24 before we move onto the next item. It's not normal

25 to go into detail about street co-namings at our

Exhibit Page No.: 0531 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 29

2 stated meetings, but I'm going to make an exception

3 to note that a portion of lOth Avenue in Manhattan is

4 being co-named Stan Brooks Way in this legislation.

5 Stan Brooks is a legendary reporter for 1010 WINS

6 Radio, who in his career covered monumental events

7 including the Attica Prison riot; the Vietnam War

8 protests; civil rights demonstrations; the 1968

9 Democratic National Convention; and the attacks on

10 the World Trade Center. I think everyone here at

11 City Hall has felt the loss since Stan passed last

12 December. And I'm happy that today we're able to

13 honor him for the co-naming that we will be voting

14 on.

15 The main item on our agenda today is the

16 voting on legislation to create the largest municipal

17 ID program in the nation. I'm very, very excited for

18 that. This safe and secure ID will provide

19 identification for many New Yorkers who have never

20 had one before. It is sound policy, and it is humane

21 policy. The New York City Identity Card would be

22 available to any resident of New York City who can

23 establish identity and residency and meet the minimum

24 age requirement for eligibility. Plain and simple,

25 this will be an ID for everyone. It's particularly

Exhibit Page No.: 0532 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 30

2 important for undocumented individuals living in our

3 city, seniors, and displaced youth who may not have

4 access to the documents needed to obtain State ID.

5 The card will include at a minimum the

6 cardholder's photo, name, date of birth, address, and

7 an expiration date. Applicants will be able to elect

8 to include his or her self-designated gender.

9 Through this legislation, we'll also make sure that

10 it's easy for New Yorkers to find application

11 centers. The administering agency will designate

12 access sites for applications to be made available

13 for pickup and submission. At a minimum, there will

14 be one site in each borough.

15 Additionally, applications will be

16 available online. In addition, we'll find ways to

17 incentivize the card to encourage New Yorkers to sign

18 up. To do this, the City will be required to find

19 ways to expand benefits associated with the card,

20 including promoting acceptance of the card by banks

21 and other public and private institutions. The

22 administering agency will determine the fee, if any,

23 to be charged for the card. If a fee is charged, the

24 administering agency is required to provide a full or

25 partial waiver for those who cannot afford it. The

Exhibit Page No.: 0533 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 31

2 cost will be about $8.4 million in Fiscal Year 2015,

3 and is expected to be about $5.6 million in the out

4 years. The card will be designed to protect against

5 fraud, a priority we've made in this process. So to

6 keep the card secure the administering agency will be

7 required to produce the card in a manner that deters

8 fraud.

9 The identification and residency of the

10 requirements while flexible are substantial. And the

11 card does not need to be accepted if City agencies

12 have reason to believe that the individual presenting

13 the card is not the individual to whom the card was

14 issued. It will also help improve interactions with

15 the police. People who are reticent to go to the

16 police to make a complaint or to report a crime

17 because they do not have ID or no longer need to be

18 concerned. This is critical legislation that is

19 going to help make people's lives easier and better.

20 The program can give a helping hand to those who have

21 never had one before. These are people with

22 families, jobs, kids in school, and who pay their

23 taxes. These are undocumented parents who can enter

24 their child's school like everyone else.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0534 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 32

2 The transgender woman who can finally

3 carry an ID that reflects her identity. A New Yorker

4 who is stopped by the police and can avoid arrest, or

5 a homeless teenager who can more easily access city

6 services. This is an ID for all of them. We're

7 committed as a Council to helping New Yorkers, and

8 that is why we scaled up funding for the New York

9 Immigration Immigrant Family Unity Project, which

10 will provide legal representation to immigrants in

11 deportation proceedings, and that is why we're

12 passing this legislation today. When New York leads,

13 the world follows. We can serve as a model for the

14 rest of the nation today. While we wait for

15 immigration reform in Washington, we can take steps

16 to help our own right here. We are a vibrant city

17 forming with a mosaic of different communities, and

18 this is an ID that will be for all of them.

19 I want to thank the Council for their

20 collaboration on this very important issue. I'd like

21 to thank Julian Beckford [phonetic], Jennifer

22 Montalvo [phonetic] from the Legislative staff for

23 their tremendous work on this bill. I want to thank

24 all the staff on my team from the Speaker's office as

25 well. So those are my comments regarding the

Exhibit Page No.: 0535 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 33

2 Municipal I.D. I'd like to ask both Council Members

3 Dromm and Council Members Menchaca, co-lead sponsors

4 of this bill to say a few words.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: Thank you very

6 much, Madam Speaker. Let me start off by thanking my

7 staff and those who were involved in the actual

8 writing of this. I want to thank Julian Beckford,

9 Jennifer Montalvo, Rob Newman, who was an excellent

10 negotiator for the administration on this. My

11 Counsel Sebastian McGuire, who put so many hours of

12 work into this, and Carlos Menchaca's staff person,

13 Lee Wellington as well. Let me thank Carlos Menchaca

14 for everything he did to promote this. He is

15 definitely a gentleman, and I feel very fortunate to

16 have shared this piece of legislation with him.

17 Madam Speaker, you know, this has been a

18 dream for me for about five years from the time

19 before when I was the Immigration Chairperson. And

20 moving this forward is a huge step in the right

21 direction for New York City. The New York City ID

22 for All will in many ways help make the lives of all

23 New Yorkers easier from the homeless family in Sunset

24 Park to the transgender youth in Jackson Heights.

25 Most notably, this program reaffirms the Council's

Exhibit Page No.: 0536 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 34

2 commitment to helping immigrant New Yorkers integrate

3 into the life of our city. Having a widely accepted

4 ID Card will only strengthen relations between our

5 immigrant communities and schools, police, and the

6 other city agencies.

7 Beyond the access so city services that

8 this card will facilitate, are the exciting

9 possibilities for additional benefits to be added.

10 The program outline in the legislation lays the

11 foundation for such growth. Together with the

12 Mayor's stated commitment to dedicating resources to

13 its success, the New York City's ID For All is poised

14 to become the must-have accessory for all New

15 Yorkers. I look forward to lining up with my

16 colleagues to apply for an ID once the program is

17 launched. Thank you very, very much.

18 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

19 Menchaca.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER MENCHACA: Thank you

21 Speaker and I also want to give many, many thank you

22 today. Today is a special day. In the wake of

23 passing the budget, really this morning actually. I

24 know a lot of us have been working around the clock,

25 and there are some incredibly important thank you to

Exhibit Page No.: 0537 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 35

2 move forward with. First, I really want to make sure

3 that everybody on staff including Sebastian from

4 Danny's office, who work in partnership with my Chief

5 of Staff Lee Wellington to really bring the efforts

6 of a City Council Member driven process. This was an

7 incredible team effort with prime sponsored Danny

8 Dromm.

9 And it was a beautiful thing in my first

10 six months to be experiencing such incredible caliber

11 from him and his staff, and allowing me as Chair of

12 Immigration to be moving with his, was such a

13 beautiful experience. The Speaker had been an

14 incredible component to this entire thing. Really,

15 without her and her office and her staff, this would

16 not have been possible. Her staff includes Robert,

17 Rob, Joline, Jennifer, Elizabeth, Joe, Amelia, and

18 Michael. In the Engagement Office Ivan, Joey,

19 Katrina-- Karina, sorry, Pfizo [phonetic], Joyce and

20 the rest of the office was such an important part.

21 They were the ones that were communicating to the

22 community about how important this was.

23 And so I want to make sure that you all

24 get your respect today. And then, of course, the

25 Mayor's office for being at the table the entire

Exhibit Page No.: 0538 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 36

2 time. This was something that no one thought was

3 possible and they were there. NYPD, the Mayor's

4 Office, the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs.

5 Everybody was at the table the entire time working

6 through this, and it is an incredible appreciation.

7 This is an historic moment for us and our city. The

8 precedent setting is modeled for the rest of the

9 country for municipalities to rethink how they can

10 engage their residents. And we're going to be

11 sending a very strong message today as we pass this.

12 We're going to ensure and protect rights

13 for historically under-served and under-represented

14 communities. And give us new ways to engage each and

15 every one of them to increase our specific

16 participation. This landmark legislation is never

17 easy, but this administration proved it today. And

18 so, really what I want to end with, and also I want

19 to thank before I end actually. I want to thank my

20 staff. Back to the reality, this is my first session

21 in the City Council. I would not have been able to

22 do it without Lee and Jorge, and Vlam [phonetic], and

23 Kenneth and Jessie, and Jimmy and Jean, and everybody

24 else who has been supporting us throughout this

25 entire year. Thank you.

Exhibit Page No.: 0539 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 37

2 Then finally, you in January we came in

3 and people wondered what is this progressive Council

4 and progressive mayor going to do. What was going to

5 manifest? This is the direct manifestation of a

6 mayor and city council working together day in and

7 day out. And I look forward to continuing to work

8 for our immigrant communities, our LGBT communities,

9 our seniors. And let us not forget. Thank you. [In

10 Spanish]

11 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Thank you,

12 Council Members. Very exciting. And so I'd like to

13 also acknowledge that today is our Land Use

14 Director's Gail Benjamin's last stated with the

15 Council City. Gail has served this institution for

16 many, many years as a true wealth of knowledge. It

17 has been a pleasure for me to work with her the past

18 eight years, and now as Speaker. So Gail, I don't

19 know if she is around. Where is she? In the back.

20 Oh, there she is in the back. Hi, Gail. Thank you so

21 much. [applause, cheers] It's well deserved, very

22 much well deserved. So Gail, thank you. Thank you

23 so much for your service to the City Council to the

24 City of New York. And I believe I speak on behalf of

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0540 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 38

2 the Council when we say we wish you the best. Thank

3 you so much.

4 And a couple of just quick items before

5 we move on. The blood drive. We have a blood drive

6 always that we hold in this Council. We have one on

7 July 8th. There is always a critical need for

8 donated blood. So I really want to urge everyone to

9 schedule an appointment to give. It takes just about

10 30 minutes out of your day to donate, but for the

11 recipient it could be a lifetime gift. So make sure

12 you're taking iron bills because I know I've been

13 rejected a couple of times because my iron levels

14 were too low. So also the Council outing is on July

15 11th, and I would definitely encourage all of our

16 colleagues to join.

17 And lastly, we have sent out a survey to

18 all of you and all of our members regarding public

19 engagement, and how do we want to increase public

20 engagement through our Internet and through the

21 website, et cetera. So we please as that you submit

22 those by Monday, and anyone can reach Erica Gonzales

23 for more information. So thank you again, all. It's

24 exciting. We are entering the summer. We still meet

25 once a month during the summer months, but it's

Exhibit Page No.: 0541 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 39

2 really been an incredibly productive six months, and

3 I looking forward to oncoming months. Thank you very

4 much, and that concludes the Speaker.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

6 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: The message from

7 the speaker.

8 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

9 Council Member Palma.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER PALMA: Permission to vote

11 on all items on today's calendar.

12 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER PALMA: Congratulations to

14 Danny Dromm and Carlos Menchaca. I vote aye.

15 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

16 Council Member Johnson.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON: Thank you Madam

18 Public Advocate. Today the Council is approving two

19 street renamings in my district. One in Chelsea and

20 one in Hell's Kitchen. Phyllis Gonzalez Way will

21 recognize the tremendous contributions made to the

22 Chelsea community, in particular those at the Elliott

23 Chelsea NYCHA houses in West Chelsea. A born and

24 raised New Yorker, Phyllis passed away at 65 in 2012.

25 She served as President for four terms of the Elliott

Exhibit Page No.: 0542 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 40

2 Chelsea Houses Tenant Association, and was a social

3 worker at the Hudson Guild. There were not many

4 things in Chelsea that Gonzalez was not active in.

5 She was on the PTA of P.S. 33, was a member of

6 Manhattan Community Board 4 at the same time I was.

7 Served on the Hudson Guild Neighborhood Advisory

8 Council. I'm proud that we're taking this step to

9 recognize soneone who worked for the greater good of

10 the community.

11 Further to the north in my district on

12 43rd Street and lOth Avenue, as the Speaker

13 mentioned, we're naming the street in honor of a

14 legendary radio reporter Stan Brooks. Stan was a

15 native New Yorker from the Bronx. From early on in

16 his life he was writing and publishing his own work

17 from the printing press he received for his birthday

18 at the age of 13. Throughout his career he was

19 recognized for his diligence, professionalism, and

20 commitment to top quality journalism. He was a

21 resident at Manhattan Plaza, which is an affordable

22 housing development for artists and actors in Hell's

23 Kitchen.

24 In 2013, Mayor Bloomberg renamed the

25 Radio Reporter's Room in City Hall after Stan, and

Exhibit Page No.: 0543 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 41

2 it's fitting that today reporting his name on a

3 street to always remember a man whose name is

4 synonymous with New York radio and journalism. I ran

5 into Stan many times during the course of my campaign

6 on 43rd Street between 9th and lOth Avenues. He

7 would shop every weekend for his wife at the Farmer's

8 Market and ask me how the campaign was going. Stan

9 was, as many New Yorkers would say, a true mensch.

10 And I'm happy that we are renaming this street after

11 him today. Thank you very much, Madam Public

12 Advocate.

13 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you. This

14 is the discussion of General Orders. Council Member

15 Garodnick.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER GARODNICK: Thank you very

17 much, Madam Public Advocate. I wanted to rise today

18 to speak about the Municipal ID Legislation. I am

19 voting yes on this bill, but I had some concerns

20 about a number of the details, which the Council is

21 delegating to the Mayor to resolve. I know that I'm

22 not alone in the belief that the ID will only work if

23 we find ways to encourage many New Yorkers to sign

24 up. Today, it is not evident why most documented New

25 Yorkers would want or need one. For many, their

Exhibit Page No.: 0544 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 42

2 driver's licenses do them just fine, and they are

3 averse to getting another form of ID that they may

4 not need. If this card does not gain widespread

5 voluntary acceptance, I fear that it will serve the

6 opposite purpose than what is intended, namely that

7 it will, in fact, simply identify the undocumented

8 for the government.

9 There also appears to be considerable

10 disagreement between the banking industry and the

11 advocates about whether this card can actually help

12 you open a ban account. The Patriot Act creates

13 legal liability for any bank that allows someone to

14 open an account without adequate proof of their

15 identity. Will this do it? Will the banks accept

16 it? I hope we will get to a place where that is the

17 case, but it is far from clear. And I think that

18 this detail should have been worked out before we

19 sent this bill over to the Mayor. I fear that

20 despite the way that it's billed, the ID may not

21 resolve our continuing problem of unbanked New

22 Yorkers.

23 There are open issues here that we are

24 delegating to the Mayor to sort out, including how to

25 conclusively prevent fraud. I recognize the premium

Exhibit Page No.: 0545 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 43

2 that is being placed on speed, but my preference for

3 this institution would have been for the Council to

4 work these questions out in advance. I do think they

5 can be worked out, though, and I strong agree that

6 documenting the undocumented is an important goal,

7 and I very much hope that this card will satisfy its

8 intended purpose. I will be voting yes, and I look

9 forward to the follow up with the Administration.

10 Thank you.

11 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

12 Council Member Van Bramer.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER VAN BRAMER: Thank you

14 very much, Madam Public Advocate, and I too rise to

15 talk about the Municipal ID bill. And before I speak

16 to some of the specific issues, I wanted to

17 congratulate our colleagues, Council Members Dromm

18 and Menchaca for this monumental achievement on

19 behalf of all of the people of the City of New York.

20 And there are so many people who will benefit from

21 this including seniors or transgender community, and

22 the undocumented. And I just want to highlight the

23 importance of our cultural institutions and libraries

24 in this very important endeavor. In partial response

25 to some of the comments, that my good friend Council

Exhibit Page No.: 0546 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 44

2 Member Garodnick just made. One of the ways that I

3 believe this card will become so valuable is because

4 we are working with cultural institutions to make

5 sure that there are some terrific incentives that go

6 along with having this card that would bring

7 increased access to our cultural institutions all

8 across the city. I know we've already had some

9 conversations. They're very receptive to this idea,

10 and I will work very closely with my colleagues on

11 this to make sure that our cultures play an

12 incredibly important part of this.

13 But an access point to cultures all

14 across the city would make this card desirable for

15 everybody in the City of New York. And, of course,

16 our libraries are always access points for virtually

17 everybody in the City of New York. They have an

18 important role to play in making sure that this works

19 as well as I believe it will work. So I want to

20 point the importance of those two incredible sectors,

21 and also pledge my support to make sure that both are

22 coming to the table and making this work for all New

23 Yorkers. So congratulations to everybody for this

24 very, very historic achievement. Thank you very

25 much.

Exhibit Page No.: 0547 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 45

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

3 Council Member Williams.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS: Thank you.

5 Today, I have a street renaming in my district for

6 Errol Elijah Duran Aster Millard [phonetic] also

7 known as Prophet, died on Thursday, July 4th 2013 in

8 the City of Shiran in the far off Province of

9 Afghanistan. He was born in Brooklyn on October 5th,

10 1994 to Joanna Millard and Iban Gibson. Elijah was

11 smart and a dynamic man. Elijah was reared and

12 nurtured in a Christian home, and he was especially

13 close to his Great Grandmother Gigi who chronicled

14 his spiritual growth in the family Bible. Her Bible

15 recalls three significant events occurring on

16 Thursdays in Elijah's life. They are Thursday,

17 October 5th at 7:00p.m. his fourth birthday when he

18 said, I would like Jesus to come into my life.

19 Thursday, April 13th at 9:30 he said,

20 Gigi, I want to be baptized. He was six years old.

21 Thursday, July 4th, he went home to be with the Lord.

22 He was 18 years old. Elijah spent his early years in

23 Brooklyn attend the Bible Speaks Elementary and

24 military-- and Middle School. He loved much in

25 which he played violin. He was active in sports and

Exhibit Page No.: 0548 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 46

2 trained in Shodokan, Karate, Obertan [phonetic],

3 Cobocab [phonetic] in Brooklyn along with his cousin

4 Joline. He competed in various tournaments

5 eventually winning first place in his division.

6 Elijah began active duty in the Army in October 2012.

7 Private El Elijah Duran Aster Millard graduated from

8 Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. In February, he was

9 deployed from White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico

10 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

11 He was assigned to the 595th Sapper

12 Company, Second Engineer Battalion and 36th Engineer

13 Grade. [sic] On a mission with the Zuni on July

14 4th, 2013, Private El Elijah Millard was killed in

15 action in Afghanistan. Private Duran, a Combat

16 Engineer was posthumously promoted from Private B2 to

17 Private First Class, and he was awarded the Bronze

18 Star Medal, the Purple Heart, and the Good Conduct

19 Medal. His other awards and decorations include the

20 Army Service Rating, Overseas Global War on Terrorism

21 Expeditionary, NATO Medal and many more. His White

22 Sands Missile Range Commander Brigadier General Glenn

23 Bingham wanted the family to know that our comrade

24 Errol made a positive different daily with his valued

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0549 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 47

2 service, and the ultimate sacrifice that we will

3 never forget him or his family.

4 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

5 Council Member Rose.

6 **COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: Thank you. First

7 I would like to commend Council Members Menchaca and

8 Dromm for their successfully crafting and guiding

9 this bill through the legislative process And thank

10 you to Speaker Mark-Viverito for her leadership in

11 moving this to the floor so swiftly. I am a big

12 proponent of municipal IDs because I've seen first

13 hand how a lack of photo identification can lead to

14 tragic circumstances. A few years ago we witnessed a

15 series of biased attacks within the Mexican community

16 in Port Richmond in my district. Investigations

17 revealed that many of these were crimes of

18 opportunity. Many members of the Mexican immigrant

19 community carry larges amounts of cash on their

20 persons. Working closely with the Mexican Consulate

21 and local banking institutions, we were able to have

22 ID cards issued to the immigrants by the consulate,

23 which could be accepted by the banks. And once

24 people were able to open bank accounts, and stop

25 carrying large amounts of cash, the attacks stopped.

Exhibit Page No.: 0550 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 48

2 So I just want to say that this is not only

3 beneficial to the immigrant community, but it's also

4 beneficial to seniors and to poor New Yorkers who are

5 not able to accumulate the number of points needed to

6 get a New York State non-driver's license. The

7 benefits outweigh the problems that are related to

8 the issuing of these cards. It ensures that people

9 are not also subject to check cashing places, and

10 other predatory services, and that they can access

11 services like all New Yorkers.

12 And I want to say that I have a street

13 naming in my district, Kenneth Cubas Way. Kenneth

14 John -- Ken Cubas was the Vice President at Fiduciary

15 Trust --

16 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

17 Council Member, could you bring your remarks to a

18 close?

19 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: Oh, okay. Sorry.

20 [laughs] Anyway, he was a dutiful son, and he gave

21 his life at the World Trade Center. After having

22 successfully escaped for himself, he went back in

23 numerous times to bring out members of -- His friends

24 and co-workers. He died trying to rescue them after

25 a third time going in so--

Exhibit Page No.: 0551 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 49

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

3 Council Member you can explain during the break.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: [interposing] So I

5 am humble and proud --

6 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

7 Thank you.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: -- about the street

9 naming. Thank you.

10 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

11 Gentile.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER GENTILE: I want to speak

13 about the Municipal ID cards. I'm voting today in

14 support of this legislation because it serves the

15 practical everyday needs of many residents. And

16 hopefully, it will serve, hopefully, as a gateway for

17 those looking to fulfill the dream of becoming an

18 American citizen. America was built on the strength

19 of its immigrants. My mother emigrated from Italy,

20 and it was her dream to become an American citizen

21 and she did. She wanted to be able to fully enjoy

22 all of that, this bountiful and limitless new world

23 had to offer, and she did not want to live in the

24 shadows. So naturally, in support of the immigrants

25 and their rights, and I hope that all immigrants who

Exhibit Page No.: 0552 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 50

2 come to this country have a very strong desire to one

3 day become U.S. citizens. But while there are many

4 things this country could and should do to make new

5 immigrants feel welcome, we must always be mindful

6 not erase the distinction between immigrant and

7 citizen. Rather, we need to encourage immigrants to

8 become citizens through the proper channels and

9 rights of passage just as our ancestors did. And

10 yet, identification documents are critical to

11 performing a wide array of everyday tasks for

12 accessing schools and other city buildings to opening

13 a checking account. Particularly for seniors, many

14 of whom are my constituents and often have access

15 issues without a proper photo ID. This card can be a

16 valuable assist in getting healthcare, picking up

17 grandchildren, possibly opening a bank account,

18 securing a lease, or even helping the senior to get a

19 library card. And this card can be even more useful

20 to get them to other New Yorkers once additional

21 services and benefits become attached to the card

22 over the next year. This aspect of additional

23 benefits is critical to making this truly a card for

24 all. And that with the committed of both co-sponsors

25 that the work in enhancing this card will continue in

Exhibit Page No.: 0553 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 51

2 earnest. So through an application process, we must

3 ensure that only those who truly need or desire this

4 new type of identification be eligible to receive it.

5 It is not a come-one, come-all proposition. Rather,

6 the types of criteria required to gain eligibility

7 such as present a utility bill, a property tax

8 assessment, a statement of a mortgage payment--

9 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

10 Council Member, could you bring your comments to a

11 close?

12 COUNCIL MEMBER GENTILE: Sure. Suggests

13 that by and far that people who already contribute in

14 the form of tax dollars should, therefore, not be

15 stymied from obtaining a beneficial service due lack

16 of a recognized piece of ID. For these and for the

17 fact that the NYPD has made a statement on this bill,

18 I will vote in the affirmative.

19 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

20 Minority Leader Vincent Ignizio.

21 MINORITY LEADER IGNIZIO: Thank you very

22 much, and I welcome my colleagues. I feel like we

23 were just here. I'm proudly wearing U.S. colors

24 because we will be advancing, and thank you, Madam

25 Speaker, for point that out. I wanted to speak about

Exhibit Page No.: 0554 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 52

2 the Municipal I.D. Bill. I understand the good

3 intentions of my colleagues. But the reason why

4 we're here is because of the very failed national

5 immigration policy. I think everyone can agree with

6 that in this room. But the fact that this bill

7 creating a municipal ID has many holes in it with

8 regards to legitimate security concerns, that I feel

9 we all ought to be concerned about.

10 The bill speaks about the identity and

11 residency, proof of identity. And on the bottom of

12 it says, or quote, "Any other documentation that the

13 administering agency deems acceptable." With regards

14 to proof of residency, it talks about some that they

15 could use. And then it goes on to say, "And any other

16 documentation that the administering agency deems

17 acceptable." So we, this Council, are turning over

18 the entire rule making process, the entire law making

19 process to the administration.

20 It then goes on to say that we will

21 destroy that documents that we retain, that we take

22 from those that are seeking it. So, potentially, if

23 we have someone that came here illegally, that

24 created or committed crimes, and we potentially know

25 through that process where that is, we would have to

Exhibit Page No.: 0555 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 53

2 destroy that evidence so we will never be able to

3 trace back to that man or woman that perpetrated that

4 crime. I think that's a mistake.

5 I think the Police Department would and

6 should think that's a mistake, and I hope they would

7 convey that. Of course, we have comparison. Of

8 course we have a responsibility to ensure that people

9 aren't mistreated in this city. But we also have a

10 responsibility to ensure that people much like my

11 colleagues said a moment ago has an immigration

12 status that is consistent with the United States. We

13 want to encourage people to come here legally. There

14 are a countless amount of people around this country,

15 around this world, excuse me, that want to come here

16 legally, and we should encourage that. And we ought

17 to lobby our federal government to ensure that our

18 immigration policy reflects that as well.

19 But I will vote no on this bill because I

20 believe there are legitimate security concerns that

21 have no been adequately addressed in it, and

22 notwithstanding the desire of my colleagues to act in

23 a compassionate manner to ensure that people aren't

24 treated fairly unfairly. I think there are ways

25 we can tighten it up, and I think there is a way we

Exhibit Page No.: 0556 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 54

2 should tighten it up. I don't question anybody's

3 motives. I want to be clear.

4 So, too, an issue was raised about

5 putting the veteran status on this. My colleagues

6 raised this that we would put on the bottom of the

7 Municipal ID if the person, he or she was a veteran

8 of the Unite States. That was dismissed. That

9 wasn't added to this bill. So if somebody went to

10 Home Depot and wanted to get a 10% discount because

11 they're a veteran, the Municipal ID Card, the idea

12 was that it would reflect that on the bottom, this

13 person is a veteran. That's not here. Why? Is that

14 not an easy fix? Is that not something we want to

15 encourage for veterans who served this country to be

16 able to avail themselves of their veteran's rights.

17 That's something that should be fixed, and should

18 this bill pass, which I anticipate it has the ability

19 to do so, this Council should reach out to the Mayor

20 because they gave him full discretion on this bill,

21 and that ask that that be put into the bill. So

22 there is a -- concerns that I have in regards to this

23 bill. That's why I'll be voting no.

24 There is a Council here that seeks to its

25 passage, and I just hope that the rule making ability

Exhibit Page No.: 0557 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 55

2 that we have given over to the administration we're

3 able to engage in to tighten it up, and to ensure

4 that these security concerns are properly addressed.

5 Thank you.

6 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

7 King.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER KING: Thank you Madam

9 Public Advocate. I rise today in the spirit of

10 democracy. As we don the strips of the red, white,

11 and blue, and you wear it quite well, Madam Public

12 Advocate, and we're all excited about what's

13 happening on the soccer field. This piece of

14 legislation and the ideas, while I believed it's

15 great in its principle, in its thinking, I am one

16 that is somewhat concerned. In regards to how do we

17 make sure that these IDs are delivered and the people

18 who can misuse them, who can create an environment of

19 deception, that doesn't get hold of being able to do

20 so. My district is considered one of the largest

21 immigration -- immigrant populations and citizens.

22 Now, we work tirelessly to make sure that our

23 brothers and sisters are on the path of citizenship.

24 And I'm urging us to do more as legislators on the

25 local level to address our colleagues at the federal

Exhibit Page No.: 0558 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 56

2 level. To do something that will allow immigration

3 reform to really be substantial. That we can allow

4 all of our brothers and sisters who want to

5 experience the American dream that there is a path to

6 citizenship that's a little more simplified, and it's

7 less challenging than it is today. But I will be

8 offering my support, but I wanted to be put on the

9 record that I do have some concerns in regards to

10 this piece of legislation. But I think it's good in

11 principle, but I think there is more to be done.

12 Secondly, I want to acknowledge Keith Ferguson's

13 family, Sergeant Keith Ferguson Way, which will be

14 established today, as we voted for in this meeting.

15 [sic] He was a police officer who died in the line

16 of duty. He will never be forgotten as we rename the

17 street out there, and blessings to his family. Thank

18 you.

19 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: And now for the

20 first time speaking on the floor, Council Member

21 Maisel.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER MAISEL: [applause,

23 cheers] How could you tell. I don't often speak. I

24 didn't speak very much in Albany. I usually felt

25 that people had more important things to say, and

Exhibit Page No.: 0559 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 57

2 could day it better than I did. But I did want to

3 speak about this identification bill. There is

4 nothing in the bill that I oppose. There is nothing

5 in the bill that is wrong. I think everything in the

6 bill is appropriate, and just would solve a lot of

7 problems. But I'm concerned about one thing. When

8 we pass laws, we don't pass laws or write laws to

9 protect people from good government. We are supposed

10 to write laws to protect people from bad government.

11 One of the reasons why I was opposed to Mayoral

12 control, was although I never doubted Mayor

13 Bloomberg's motivation, I always had in the back of

14 my mind the return of Jimmy Walker.

15 So this bill has one defect in it, and if

16 someone can explain and correct me and allay my

17 fears. Right now we have an Administration

18 Washington that's friendly to immigration. What

19 happens two years from now or six years from now when

20 we have an administration that is not friendly to

21 immigrants? When we have a House and a Senate that

22 is not friendly to immigration, and undocumented

23 workers. We are basically presenting and preparing a

24 list of undocumented workers to be presented to

25 whatever authority there is that will be able to just

Exhibit Page No.: 0560 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 58

2 take these people and say, Look, we know you're

3 undocumented. We are deporting you. So, it could

4 very well be that these are fears that are maybe not

5 important, or maybe they're not going to be ever

6 realized. But it is a serious concern that I have.

7 I don't think people should be placing themselves in

8 the position where they could be identified when they

9 are not here legally. And if it could be changed in

10 some way, perhaps I would be willing to support it,

11 but otherwise I'm going to abstain. Thank you.

12 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

13 Council Member Chin.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER CHIN: Than you, Madam

15 Public Advocate. At first, I want to speak on two

16 co-naming that I am co-sponsoring with Council

17 Mendez. The first one is the Dashane Santana, a

18 middle school student that was killed on Delancy and

19 Clinton while crossing the street. And because of

20 her death, her grandmother and people in the

21 community came together, and worked together with

22 their elected official and city agency to make that

23 area safer with countdown clocks and redesign. And

24 this is a great way to remember her. And then the

25 second one is Marie Christopher Way. Marie was such

Exhibit Page No.: 0561 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 59

2 a tenant advocate. I think we heard about her in the

3 City Council when she passed away last year. So I

4 really wanted to thank the City Council for doing

5 this, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

6 On the Municipal ID Bill, the ID is the

7 ID for every single New Yorker. We are proud to be

8 residents of New York City. So I think the ID we

9 will have to encourage everyone to apply. It's not

10 just for undocumented immigrants. There are a lot of

11 seniors. There are a lot of people with green cars

12 that don't have ID because they just don't have

13 enough information to go and get a non-driver's ID.

14 Many of us don't drive. So for us to get a non-

15 driver's ID, we have to have so many forms of

16 documents, and where do you go to get a non-driver's

17 ID? It's very difficult to find. I had a hard time

18 finding the Motor Vehicle place to do it. So I think

19 having a Municipal ID we could send a strong message

20 that New York City is a City that loves all its

21 residents, and we will do everything we can to make

22 sure everyone who wants to apply will be able to

23 apply easily, accessible. Hopefully, there will be

24 offices in every borough, and the card should get us

25 benefits, visits to museums, libraries, cultural

Exhibit Page No.: 0562 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 60

2 institutions. It is a way to show that we are proud

3 to be a New York City resident. So I urge my

4 colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

6 Koo.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: Madam Public

8 Advocate. I want to congratulate Council Member

9 Menchaca and Dromm for initiating the Municipal ID

10 Bill. I think this is a good bill. It's not a

11 perfect bill. It has many technical things we have

12 to work out, but like Council Member Chin said before

13 the main purpose is only for identification, that

14 they are New York residents. It is not a universal

15 [sic] card. It is not some document they can use for

16 traveling overseas. But for locally it's really good

17 for them. They can get library cards. They can go

18 to museums. They can open bank accounts if we can

19 talk to some banks to arrange that. So I think this

20 is a good bill. There are some details, but we will

21 have to support this. So I vote yes for this bill.

22 And I also want to use this opportunity to welcome

23 two of my lead hands, Sarah Yang and Emma Larsar

24 [phonetic] If they are here. Can you stand up.

25 [applause]. They have been doing a wonderful job for

Exhibit Page No.: 0563 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 61

2 our office. So thank you very much. And I also want

3 to thank the Speaker for doing a wonderful job for

4 passing the bill this morning. Thank you very much.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

6 Levine.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVINE: Thank you, Madam

8 Public Advocate. I'll be proudly voting in support

9 of the Municipal ID Bill, and I want to respond to

10 some of the criticisms that my colleagues have

11 articulated on this thus far. As Council Member Chin

12 spoke about, the existence of driver's licenses in

13 New York does not render this new ID redundant. In

14 fact, New York City is among the localities in

15 America with the lowest rates of driver's license

16 among its residents. Well under 60% among adults,

17 and it's plummeting among young people. That number

18 is trending downward. This at a time when the

19 circumstances in which we need IDs is rapidly

20 proliferating. You need it to get into a public

21 school, to use it to get into many office buildings,

22 in law enforcement encounters. So this provides a

23 solution for the over 40% of adults in New York, a

24 number which is growing, that do not have municipal

25 IDs. As for security concerns, the law enforcement

Exhibit Page No.: 0564 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 62

2 community in New York City and in other localities

3 where such IDs have been implemented have supported

4 this. Why? Because good law enforcement benefits

5 from having IDs for anyone, which law enforcement

6 officials have an encounter. Having identification

7 facilitates law enforcement. And it's why after very

8 substantial negotiations, the NYPD has come on board

9 with this bill. As for the fact that some of the

10 fact that some of the greatest benefits have yet to

11 be implemented related to banking, cultural

12 discounts, integration with library services, mass

13 transit payments. All of those can and will be

14 implemented as we roll out this important service.

15 But there is no reason to delay by a single day the

16 immediate benefit that this new form of ID will offer

17 all New Yorkers of all documentation statuses. I do

18 believe this will be embraced by a wide section of

19 residents--

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

21 Council member, can you bring you comments to a

22 close?

23 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVINE: --of our city.

24 That's why I proudly support the bill. Thank you.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0565 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 63

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

3 Council Member Constantinides.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER CONSTANTINIDES: Madam

5 Public Advocate. May I be allowed to vote on all

6 items in the general calendar today --

7 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

8 Yes.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER CONSTANTINIDES: -- and

10 explain my vote.

11 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER CONSTANTINIDES: With

13 congratulations to our speakers and the sponsors of

14 the bill, Danny Dromm and Carlos Menchaca, I proudly

15 vote for Intro 253 today that will be transformative

16 and beneficial to all New Yorkers. Lastly, I will

17 say to Gail Benjamin, you rock, and we definitely

18 appreciate you and what you have given us. I vote

19 aye on all. Thank you.

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

21 Council Member Greenfield.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER GREENFIELD: Thank you

23 Madam Public Advocate. You know, the challenge in

24 being an elected official is that actually have to

25 decide things, right. Most people the extent of

Exhibit Page No.: 0566 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 64

2 their decisions perhaps on a daily basis are not

3 necessary weighty. You go into a shop, and you try

4 to decide large Coke, medium Coke, or small Coke.

5 The problem with being an elected official is that

6 people expect you to decide everything, and even when

7 there are complicated issues. And today, it

8 certainly is a complicated issue in terms of

9 Municipal ID, and I share the concerns that some of

10 the members have raised. I think that we could have

11 had some tweaks to the bill. We could have had more

12 robust discussion on the bill, and we certainly could

13 have improvements on the bill.

14 But we in our position as elected

15 official we don't get to vote on perfect legislation

16 normal. We generally get to vote on imperfect

17 legislation and try to figure out the merits of said

18 legislation. And so for me the overwhelming factor

19 is actually on a personal level. There's a small

20 shop in Borough Park, and I shop there frequently.

21 For every Saturday for shabbat obviously I go to the

22 store and I purchase my goods. And there's a young

23 woman who works behind the counter, and after a few

24 weeks she got up the courage to turn to me and she

25 said, Can I ask you a question? I said, Yes. She

Exhibit Page No.: 0567 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 65

2 said you're like a Councilman or something. And I

3 said, Yeah. She said, You know, I need some help

4 with immigration.

5 I'm from Mexico, and I have some issues.

6 She said, You know, between me and you, I'm not

7 exactly legal. I said, Sure. I said, No problem. I

8 said, In my office we happen to have a lawyer. I

9 said, You can come in, and we'll give you those

10 services. And through her, I met some other folks

11 who were affiliated with her. And then one day, I

12 heard from one of her friends that her friend was

13 arrested. Why was her friend arrested? Because he

14 was on his way to work, and he was Mexican as well.

15 He was on his way to work, and he was stopped. And

16 had a piece of paper, some sort of ID Just a few

17 more second, Madam Public Advocate from the

18 Mexican government, and it had a very common name.

19 So they ran his name through the

20 database. It picked him up, and he was in the system

21 for 48 hours. So they reached out and said, Can you

22 help? I tried. I called the police precinct but the

23 end of the day there really was no quick way to

24 resolve it. And I remember thinking back then it was

25 very frustrating all right. This guy did nothing

Exhibit Page No.: 0568 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 66

2 wrong. He walked down the street. It was mistaken

3 identity, and that's what I think this Municipal ID

4 could, in fact, correct. And to the folks who are

5 worried, I give you this assurance that if, in fact,

6 the Mayor, who supports, and the Police Department

7 who supports it, are not able to have an effective

8 ID, I will stand with you the steps of City Hall and

9 be among the first with you to ask for a repeal. But

10 certainly I think we deserve to try to correct those

11 mistakes and those errors--

12 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

13 Council Member, please bring your comments to a

14 close.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER GREENFIELD: --and that's

16 why I support, and thank you very much, Madam Public

17 Advocate.

18 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

19 Council Member Mendez.

20 [Pause]

21 COUNCIL MEMBER MENDEZ: Thank you. I

22 wanted to talk about three of my street co-namings,

23 two with Margaret, and I'm just going to make it very

24 short. Dashane Santana Way and Marie Christopher

25 Way. Dashane's grandmother out of this very tragic

Exhibit Page No.: 0569 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 67

2 event has become an activist, has joined the

3 Community Board, has become very involved in

4 transportation issues, and housing issues in our

5 city. And Marie Christopher, who was like a mother

6 to me, and Margaret and I knew her way before we ever

7 got into this. She became an activist because she

8 was burnt out of her home, and displaced from Harlem.

9 And to our benefit, she was relocated in the Lower

10 East Side, and fought for all kinds of housing, not

11 just for project based Section 8. But for public

12 housing, and private housing, and she's been very

13 much missed. And I want to thank my colleagues for

14 supporting these three co-namings. Thank you.

15 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

16 Lander.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER LANDER: Thank you, Madam

18 Public Advocate. I am so proud today to be voting in

19 favor to the New York City ID For All Card. And I

20 want to say congratulations to the gentlemen both

21 from Queens and from Brooklyn, Council Member

22 Menchaca, and Dromm and the Speaker. I, too,

23 appreciate the concerns being raised, but I really

24 believe that this bill has the right mix of

25 specificity and flexibility that reflects on the

Exhibit Page No.: 0570 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 68

2 lessons learned from L.A. and Oakland and New Haven

3 where everything is already in place. And it's the

4 right balance between authorizing legislation, which

5 is what we do, and administrative implementation,

6 which is how the city runs. I'm really confident

7 that it will work, and Meg and I look very forward to

8 getting our own NYC ID Cards. Both because of the

9 value that it will hold for all New Yorkers, and as a

10 sign of our progressive patriotism as proud residents

11 of this diverse and welcoming city.

12 I also want to note today that we'll be

13 voting to rename Nevins Street between Flatbush and

14 Livingston after the incomparable organizer and my

15 dear friend Jon Kest. John was taken from us far too

16 young, but not before he had worked together with low

17 income and disenfranchised New Yorkers to accomplish

18 more for justice than most of us can ever dream of.

19 As a leader of ACORN, New York Communities for

20 Change, and the Working Families Party. Jon helped

21 New Yorkers come together, organize to build power,

22 raise their voices, and win incredible victories, for

23 living wage jobs, for affordable housing, for good

24 schools for all our kids. And for better

25 neighborhoods for al New Yorkers regardless of where

Exhibit Page No.: 0571 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 69

2 they come from. Jon has extraordinary living

3 legacies as well like the Fast Food Forward Campaign

4 and the Car Wash Campaign, people who are fighting

5 for justice on initiatives that helped them get

6 started. But this street -- and I want to thank

7 Council Member Levin whose district it's in will

8 serve as one more important memory and part of his

9 legacy. I know that today on this day when we're

10 voting for this Municipal ID Card, and when changes

11 in Albany portend an increase in the minimum wage for

12 low wage New Yorkers that Jon is smiling down on us.

13 And I proudly vote aye on all.

14 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

15 Cabrera.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Thank you so

17 much, Madam Public Advocate. I want to congratulate

18 our leading sponsor of the bill, Council Member Dromm

19 and Chair Menchaca for your leadership in the

20 Municipal ID. I just want to address some of the

21 things that were brought out regarding the security

22 issues. You know, we only need to look at the other

23 states. The reality is that we're not the first one.

24 And so, we have no heard from any other places where

25 this has been implemented where this has become an

Exhibit Page No.: 0572 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 70

2 issue. I don't know why it is that New York City we

3 always think that we're going to get it worse, that

4 still is going to show up. And that somehow it's

5 going to be worse here. Other states, other cities

6 have the same concerns that we have when it comes to

7 security concerns. And I believe the NYPD is going

8 to do a tremendous job regarding that.

9 Regarding the veterans designation, I

10 want to strongly suggest the option should be given

11 to those veterans that if they want the designation

12 that it should be there. To be honest with you, they

13 have their own badge. They are our heroes. They are

14 our protectors, and having a father and a grandfather

15 who fought in World War II and a father who served in

16 the military I can truly tell you that they truly

17 deserve that.

18 One piece that I would like to add here

19 that I've been a staunch advocate from day one when

20 it comes to this is the banking piece. Because at

21 one point, this card is going to reach its

22 limitation. There are only going to be so many

23 banking institutions that will accept that. I think

24 that the largest -- larger financial institutions

25 like Master Card and Visa that they option will be

Exhibit Page No.: 0573 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 71

2 given for those who want this ID to have that

3 component regardless of if they are documented or

4 undocumented. Because there is an added advantage

5 that it was mentioned by Council Member Rose for

6 people not to carry cash especially that population

7 that's very vulnerable. Thank you very much.

8 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

9 Rodriguez.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER RODRIGUEZ: First, I would

11 like to say that I'm supporting one of the streets to

12 commend, Emmett Basset, who was a citywide leader who

13 marched against apartheid, against nuclear weapons,

14 and also who marched for immigrant rights. He's a

15 father, he was father of the Health Commissioner of

16 New York City. But also, I would like to, after

17 listening my colleague, Ignizio, I've been motivated

18 to invite him to join me on calling the Republicans

19 at the Congress level to join the Democrats and fight

20 for immigration reform. I think that since we are a

21 national media, it is important that a Republican and

22 the Congress they should know that there are

23 Republicans in cities such as New York City joining

24 the Democrats calling for immigration reform. I also

25 would like to say that the NYPD has been involved in

Exhibit Page No.: 0574 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 72

2 this conversation of the Municipal ID, and

3 Commissioner Bratton he expressed that he is looking

4 for the passage of this legislation.

5 And lastly, I would like to say that

6 everyone, not only undocumented, to get this ID and,

7 you know, we should know that undocumented contribute

8 with billions of dollars to this city and to this

9 state. No one asked for ID when undocumented go to

10 Marshall or Home Depot or to any store to contribute

11 to the economy of our city. So it is our turn also

12 to pay them back for their contribution that they do

13 in our finance. And I would like also to vote yes,

14 and ask permission to leave.

15 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

17 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

18 Kallos.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER KALLOS: The New York City

20 Municipal ID hopes to empower our residents to access

21 services that are currently obstructed by the

22 requirement of government issued identification. I

23 co-sponsored this legislation to remove that hurdle.

24 As the program gets rolled out, I have been promised

25 by my peers and by the Administration, and I plan to

Exhibit Page No.: 0575 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 73

2 act as a guardian to ensure that the City does not

3 require Municipal Identification for any services

4 where identifications not already required to protect

5 individual privacy. To maintain the Municipal

6 Identification as an optional benefit, to protect our

7 residents from a mandatory requirement for Municipal

8 Identification because no American should be forced

9 to carry identification to live here. And to ensure

10 that the Municipal cards can never be used as

11 presented proof of citizen status. I congratulate

12 the Speaker, Council Members Menchaca and Dromm as

13 you move towards a better city, and thank you for

14 your leadership.

15 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

16 Council Member Koslowitz.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER KOSLOWITZ: Thank you. I

18 want to vote. Permission to vote on all general

19 order, and be excused to explain my vote.

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER KOSLOWITZ: I vote aye on

22 General Orders, and I want to congratulate Gail

23 Benjamin. Thank you for all the years you have

24 served the Council, and thank you for building New

25 York City the way it is now. Thank you so much. And

Exhibit Page No.: 0576 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 74

2 I also want to recognize my intern, Alex Anderson,

3 who is with me. [applause] He's going to be working

4 with me this summer. Thank you.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

6 Council Member Weprin.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER WEPRIN: Thank you, Madam

8 Public Advocate. Just briefly on the Municipal ID.

9 I was inspired by hearing some of the comments and

10 concerns of my colleagues to just say relax a little

11 bit. Because this bill -- this bill really authorizes

12 us to create an ID card. It doesn't -- I understand

13 all the details aren't worked out, but they will be

14 eventually. And let's be pragmatic here. By making

15 this statement that we think it's really important to

16 have these IDs so people don't have to live in the

17 shadows, we're getting that process moving forward.

18 Many of them have left, but there are a bay of

19 cameras here from across the country that are

20 covering this story.

21 And we're making a statement, and what's

22 that statement? It's that we live in the coolest

23 city in the world, right? And now we're going to

24 have a membership card, and people are going to want

25 to be part of that club. And the people who live

Exhibit Page No.: 0577 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 75

2 here are going to want one of these cards because

3 they want to be part of New York City, the style and

4 life, and that's what we're going to have. So I

5 think a lot of these concerns about -- You know, the

6 last time I checked, we had a pretty good

7 relationship with the guy across the hall, and we're

8 gong to be working with him on the details. So we'll

9 work that out.

10 We wanted to make a statement here today

11 that some of the people like David Greenfield

12 described who we meet everyday. New Yorkers deal

13 with people who are undocumented everyday of the

14 week, whether they realize it or not or want to admit

15 it or not. They're working in their restaurants, and

16 their stores and paying taxes themselves. And they

17 need to be able to live their lives and raise their

18 family just like the rest of us. So I'm voting for

19 this bill, and I just wanted my colleagues to know

20 that I think that, yeah, let's just relax a little

21 bit. I think some of these fears are unwarranted,

22 but we're going to work together to make sure that

23 they're addressed. Thank you.

24 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

25 Crowley.

Exhibit Page No.: 0578 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 76

2 COUNCIL MEMBER CROWLEY: Thank you Madam

3 Public Advocate. If I could have permission to vote

4 on all calendar items?

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER CROWLEY: I vote aye. I

7 support the Municipal ID Bill, and like my colleague,

8 Council Member Weprin said, I, too believe we do live

9 in the coolest city in the world, and that we should

10 have the right to have Municipal ID for all New York

11 City residents. Thank you.

12 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: And the last

13 speaker on the General Order Calendar, Council Member

14 Torres.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER TORRES: So, I want to

16 congratulate the sponsors of Intro 253, Council

17 Member Danny Dromm and Council Member Carlos

18 Menchaca, two members whom I deeply admire, and I

19 consider them among the finest advocates for

20 immigrants in our city. So the city is lucky to have

21 the both of you. Just one point. I find the

22 criticisms about the lack of detail in the bill to be

23 odd. If we were to craft a bill and micromanaged its

24 implementation I believe that would be curtailment.

25 So I think the bill is appropriately flexible and

Exhibit Page No.: 0579 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 77

2 broad, as legislation should be. And I note the

3 conversation has largely been centered around 253 as

4 an immigration bill, but so many of the actions in

5 which we engage require multiple forms of

6 identification. When I was applying for an

7 apartment, I had to submit multiple forms proofs

8 of residence. And I feel this would be a convenience

9 that would benefit everyone not only immigrants in

10 our city. But the final point is that this

11 fundamentally a debate about equality. We cannot

12 claim to be an equal city when there is a part of our

13 population that does not have equal access to city

14 services. And when it comes to access to city

15 services, this bill will bridge a morally untenable

16 gap between the tale of two cities. So I'm a

17 wholehearted supporter, and again I want to

18 congratulate the Speaker and Council Member Menchaca

19 and Council Member Dromm for making history.

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Seeing no other

21 speakers, on General Orders, Report of Special

22 Committees.

23 CLERK: None.

24 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Reports of

25 Standing Committees?

Exhibit Page No.: 0580 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 78

2 CLERK: Report of the Committee on

3 Immigration, Intro 253-A, New York City Identify Card

4 Program.

5 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: And are getting

6 coupled on General Order.

7 CLERK: General Order Calendar. LU 62

8 and Res 0330 through LU 64 and Res 0332 Zoning

9 Amendment

10 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

11 General Order.

12 CLERK: LU 65 and Res 0333 UDAAP in

13 Manhattan.

14 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

15 General Order.

16 CLERK: LU 71 and Res 0334 Property Tax

17 Exemption.

18 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

19 General Order.

20 CLERK: LU 72 and Res 0335 UDAPP

21 Brooklyn.

22 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled to be

23 filed pursuant to order of withdrawal.

24 CLERK: LU 75 and RES 0336 UDAAP

25 Manhattan.

Exhibit Page No.: 0581 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 79

2 CLERK: LU 76 and Res 0337 Acquisition of

3 property.

4 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on General

5 Order.

6 CLERK: LU 80 and Res 0338 and LU 83 and

7 Res 0339 Property Tax Exemptions.

8 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

9 General Order.

10 CLERK: LU 86 and Res 0340 through LU 88

11 and Res 0342 Zoning Amendments.

12 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

13 General Order.

14 CLERK: LU 90 and Res 0343 through LU 92

15 and Res 0345 Property Tax Exemptions.

16 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

17 General Order.

18 CLERK: LU 93 and Res 0346 and LU 94 and

19 Res 0347 HPD Applications.

20 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

21 General Order.

22 CLERK: Preconsidered Intro 388 Naming of

23 63 thoroughfares and public places.

24 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

25 General Order.

Exhibit Page No.: 0582 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 80

2 CLERK: Resolution Appointing various

3 persons commissioner of deeds.

4 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Coupled on

5 General Order, and would now ask for a roll on all

6 items on the General Order Calendar.

7 CLERK: Arroyo.

8 COUNCIL MEMBER ARROYO:

9 CLERK: Barron.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON: Aye, with the

11 exception of Land Use 88.

12 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Could you repeat

13 your vote, Council Member?

14 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON: Aye on all except

15 Land Use 88.

16 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

17 You're abstaining on the land use?

18 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON: Yes.

19 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [interposing]

20 Roll call.

21 CLERK: Cabrera.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER CABRERA: Aye.

23 CLERK: Chin.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER CHIN: Permission to

25 explain my vote?

Exhibit Page No.: 0583 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 81

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER CHIN: First of all, I

4 want to thank -- say a big thank you to Gail Benjamin

5 for all her guidance and support, and all the new

6 work that we did in the last during District 1. And

7 I also want to congratulate my colleagues, Council

8 Member Dromm and Menchaca, and our Speaker for the

9 Municipal ID Legislation, and I also wanted to

10 welcome a group of my summer interns, Allen Kildare

11 [phonetic], Abe Zinger, Alice Yang, Christine Well,

12 Jessica Chang, Juan Wang, Ashula Rouse [phonetic],

13 Taylor Banning, and Amika Summer. I was very proud

14 of the summer, but welcome, and I proudly vote aye on

15 all. Thank you.

16 CLERK: Cohen.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER COHEN: Aye.

18 CLERK: Cornegy.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER CORNEGY: Aye on all.

20 CLERK: Cumbo.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER CUMBO: Aye.

22 CLERK: Deutsch.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER DEUTSCH: Aye.

24 CLERK: Dickens.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0584 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 82

2 COUNCIL MEMBER DICKENS: Permission to

3 explain my vote.

4 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER DICKENS: I want to say

6 thank you to Gail Benjamin who is probably the

7 smartest woman, or the smartest person that I have

8 met when it comes to New York City land use. I'm

9 going to miss her, and I'm definitely going to miss

10 the institutional knowledge and information that she

11 has shared with all of us. I want to congratulate my

12 colleagues Council Members Dromm and Menchaca and to

13 the Speaker, and I vote aye on all and may everyone

14 have a wonderful summer.

15 CLERK: Dromm.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER DROMM: Aye on all

17 CLERK: Espinal.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ESPINAL: Permission to

19 explain my vote.

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER ESPINAL: Thank you. I

22 just want to talk about a street renaming happening

23 in my district. On behalf of Monsignor John Peyton.

24 He was a pastor in my district for over 25 years, but

25 he did not only serve the people of his parish. He

Exhibit Page No.: 0585 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 83

2 was a dedicated active community leader in East New

3 York. He was responsible for many social programs

4 like soup kitchens, adult literacy classes, and the

5 youth center. And he is the reason I stand her today

6 as a City Councilman. Actually, many years ago when

7 I graduated college, he called me and told me a local

8 politician was looking for an aid in his office, and

9 I rose to the opportunity and took that job. He did

10 pass away three months later. Unfortunately, he did

11 not get to see me elected, but I just want to say

12 Monsignor John Peyton rest in peace and thank you for

13 everything you done for me.

14 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: How do you vote?

15 [Pause]

16 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: How do you vote?

17 COUNCIL MEMBER ESPINAL: I vote aye.

18 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

19 CLERK: Eugene.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER EUGENE: Aye.

21 CLERK: Ferreras.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER FERRERAS: [off mic]

23 CLERK: Garodnick.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER GAROLDNICK: Aye.

25 CLERK: Gentile.

Exhibit Page No.: 0586 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 84

2 COUNCIL MEMBER GENTILE: Aye.

3 CLERK: Gibson.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER GIBSON: Permission to

5 explain my vote.

6 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER GIBSON: Thank you, Madam

8 Public Advocate. I want to speak on one of the

9 street renamings in Intro 388. It is the renaming of

10 the Nelson Avenue between 167 and 168 in the

11 Highbridge Community. After Bishop Wenzell P.

12 Jackson, who was a good friend of mine, a father

13 figure. And he was the Chair of the Bronx Community

14 Board 4, the Vice Chair of the 44th Precinct Council.

15 He was Chair and Founder of the Highbridge Clergy

16 Coalition, and he was Senior Pastor of the Mount

17 Herman Baptist Church. He left a mark on our

18 community. He was also a part of a group that

19 founded the first middle school in the Highbridge

20 community that has a green roof. And we are so

21 excited that last September that opened to 400 middle

22 school students. He was someone who stood so tall

23 for equality and just for so many people, and I am so

24 honored to still be a friend to the Mount Herman

25 Family, his wife of 24 years, First Lady Tarnal

Exhibit Page No.: 0587 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 85

2 Jackson, and the entire Mount Herman Baptist Family.

3 I'm so honored to be a member of this Council to

4 introduce this bill to rename a street so that

5 forever we remember Bishop Wendell Jackson.

6 And in addition, I would just like to

7 offer my strong support for Intro 253, the New York

8 City Municipal ID Program. Certainly this is a wise

9 investment to ensure that all New Yorkers have access

10 to obtain an identification card and access to these

11 services like libraries and museums, banking

12 institutions, and many other critical human services.

13 Many of my residents in the Bronx will significantly

14 benefit from this. I believe this is a great step of

15 progress in the right direction to address many of

16 the challenges facing many New Yorkers.

17 I also urge my colleagues as we work in

18 full implementation and rollout to focus on education

19 and communication. This is the largest city in the

20 nation, and we want to make sure we do this right and

21 serve as a model for others. I want to thank my

22 distinguished colleagues Council Members Dromm and

23 Menchaca for their leadership as well as our Speaker,

24 and I will be voting aye on all.

25 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

Exhibit Page No.: 0588 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 86

2 CLERK: Greenfield.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER GREENFIELD: Thank you.

4 May I explain my vote, please?

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER GREENFIELD: Thank you.

7 I'm very excited today about the co-naming that I

8 will put in for Rabbi Michoel Ber Weissmandl to rename

9 a portion of 50th Street between 14th and 15th Avenue

10 in honor of his memory. Rabbi Weissmandl was born in

11 Hungary in a very small town. He lived his life as a

12 prominent Rabbi, and then when the Nazis came he

13 dedicated his life to saving lives. He created a

14 working group. He went from country to country, and

15 did everything that they could. They pled, the

16 bribed, they threatened, and together they literally

17 saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

18 It was his plan, in fact, which was the

19 plan that would have had the United States on the

20 railways to Auschwitz. It made its way to the

21 President's desk. Unfortunately, the President did

22 not see fit to do so. He reached folks like FDR and

23 Winston Churchill and Pope Pius, and the Archbishop

24 of Canterbury. He was an unassuming man. He was

25 actually on the trains himself to a death camp, and he

Exhibit Page No.: 0589 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 87

2 managed to escape by breaking a lock open with a wire

3 that he had hidden in a loaf of bread. Unfortunately,

4 his family was surrounded and they did not manage to

5 escape. His family had died. When he came to the United

6 States of America, there are reports that he would walk

7 around banging his head on the wall at the inability to

8 save his own family while saving others.

9 But he realized that he had to move on. He

10 remarried. He built a family. He created many

11 congregations, and the renown Shiva called the Knights

12 for Shiva [sic). And, in fact, one of those

13 congregations is currently on 50th Street between 14th

14 and 15th Avenue, which will be renamed in his honor.

15 In my final seconds, I just want to once

16 again acknowledge and thank Gail Benjamin for her

17 outstanding leadership and work service, three decades of

18 being the Land Use guru for not just the New York City

19 Council, but for the City of New York. She is a person

20 of great integrity and her and her knowledge will be

21 sorely missed. Thank you very much.

22 PRESIDENT JAMES: How do you vote?

23 COUNCIL MEMBER GREENFIELD: I'm going to

24 go with aye.

25 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

Exhibit Page No.: 0590 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 88

2 CLERK: Johnson.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON: Permission to

4 explain my vote.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON: Thank you Madam

7 Public Advocate for the opportunity to share my

8 support today for Clinton Urban Renewal Area Site 7,

9 Land Use Item 62 to 65. This project will bring two

10 new buildings, approximately 508 units, 184 to be

11 affordable. That is 39% affordability, 39%

12 affordable housing. And it will come with units from

13 80% to 100% to 130% of area meeting an income; 165%.

14 It is a true mixed-income development. Every unit

15 regardless of the market are affordable. They have

16 the same fixtures, the same finishes so that none of

17 the units are different throughout these buildings.

18 It achieves 82% of distribution so that

19 affordable units are not segregated on certain floors

20 in these buildings. This project will support three

21 new community gardens, 7,000 square feet of new open

22 space. It's going to join network gardens, in-house

23 kitchen operated by the Clinton Housing Land Trust.

24 I'm grateful to Taconic Whitterman [phonetic]

25 Developer for a $200,000 contribution to this land

Exhibit Page No.: 0591 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 89

2 trust to support Dawiccaland [phonetic] Park, an

3 important park in the district. This development

4 should set a new standard for how developers look at

5 the community and the city to achieve high rates of

6 distribution and permanent affordability.

7 Thank you again for letting me comment,

8 and I want to just finish by saying this was one of

9 the, I think final things that Gail Benjamin really

10 put her mark on, worked on, worked with my office on,

11 worked with all of the advocates and the community

12 board on. I spent 8-1/2 years on a community board

13 on the West Side of Manhattan. I chaired a land use

14 committee. Gail Benjamin is invaluable. It is a

15 real loss for the Council, and I'm excited for her,

16 and I just give my deepest gratitude and thank for

17 her tremendous service to the City Council and City

18 of New York. Thank you very much.

19 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you. Quiet

20 in the Chambers, please.

21 CLERK: Kallos.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER KALLOS: Permission to

23 explain my vote?

24 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0592 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 90

2 COUNCIL MEMBER KALLOS: I would like to

3 take a brief moment to acknowledge that Taylor Digby.

4 She's my Senior Fellow and Director of Human

5 Services. I want to thank her for her service, and I

6 also want to take a moment to thank Gail Benjamin for

7 her decades for service to the people of the City of

8 New York and I vote aye on all.

9 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

10 CLERK: King.

11 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: King.

12 COUNCIL MEMBER KING: I will vote aye on

13 all, and I just wanted to thank my new intern Sabrina

14 Guzman [phonetic] joining us for the first time in

15 the Council Chambers.

16 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

17 CLERK: Koo.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER KOO: I vote aye on all,

19 and I also want to wish Gail Benjamin a happy

20 retirement, and I want to wish everyone that you have

21 a good summer. Thank you.

22 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

23 CLERK: Lancman.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER LANCMAN: Aye on all.

25 CLERK: Lander.

Exhibit Page No.: 0593 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 91

2 COUNCIL MEMBER LANDER: I vote aye.

3 CLERK: Levin.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVIN: Permission to

5 explain my vote.

6 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVIN: Thank you, Madam

8 Public Advocate. My colleagues I want to thank and

9 acknowledge Council Members Dromm and Menchaca for

10 their work in passing this bill, and for crafting

11 this bill for Municipal ID because it is going to

12 have a great benefit to countless New Yorkers and

13 change people's lives, and change our city. And it

14 shows that we as New York can be the progressive

15 leaders that we know that we are in this country. I

16 want to take a moment to thank Council Member Brad

17 Lander on working to establish Jon Kest Way on Nevins

18 Street between Flatbush and Livingston. We are

19 honored to be able to do this in honor of a

20 tremendous and compassionate individual.

21 Jon Kest is a great inspiration to many

22 of us, and I'd like to think that one important part

23 of Jon's legacy is where we all are today here in New

24 York City in this Council and working with Mayor de

25 Blasio on and rally working for the people of New

Exhibit Page No.: 0594 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 92

2 York City. And working for working people, and

3 making sure that we have a fair city, and a city that

4 lives up to our ideals. And Jon was such a big part

5 of that, and this is -- I like to think that the work

6 that we're doing today, is really part of his legacy.

7 And lastly, I want to acknowledge the

8 great work of Gail Benjamin, and all the great things

9 that she's done for me personally both in my role as

10 a Council Member and my role as the former Chair of

11 the Subcommittee of Dispositions and Concessions.

12 Gail was always there for me to offer wise and sage

13 advice, and to tell me when I was doing things wrong,

14 and tell me when I was doing things right. And I

15 will miss her very much. Thank you, Gail.

16 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: How do you vote?

17 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVIN: I vote aye on all.

18 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

19 CLERK: Levine.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVINE: Thank you. I

21 want to say a word about Land Use Item 87, which is

22 in my district on 106th Street between Columbus and

23 Amsterdam. This would actually down zone, lower the

24 height and density allowable on this block bringing

25 it in line with a previous down zoning of a broader

Exhibit Page No.: 0595 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 93

2 neighborhood of the Northern Upper West Side. Until

3 six months ago, this area was in the district of then

4 Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito. And I want to

5 acknowledge that she worked tirelessly, and

6 effectively for more than four years to navigate what

7 was a very complicated political and economic and

8 community issue. And I'm happy to be building on her

9 work today in the Council.

10 I also want to say a word about a Land

11 Use Item up for consideration in my district, which

12 would rename the corner of 12lst Street and Broadway

13 in honor of the great George Carlin who grew up on

14 that block. He was not only a world famous

15 entertainer, actor, and comic, but he was also a

16 groundbreaking and influential voice for the

17 principle of expression in the arts. And that's why

18 I'm so pleased that we're going to be honoring him in

19 this important way. And I want to acknowledge local

20 activist Kevin Bartini [sp?], who has worked for

21 years to build a coalition unlike any other I've seen

22 organization for a street naming. And deserves a

23 world of credit on bringing us to this day. Thank

24 you.

25 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: And your vote.

Exhibit Page No.: 0596 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 94

2 COUNCIL MEMBER LEVINE: And I'll be

3 proudly voting aye on all.

4 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

5 CLERK: Maisel.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER MAISEL: I'm going to

7 abstain on Intro 253-A and aye on the rest.

8 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

9 CLERK: Matteo.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER MATTEO: No, on Intro 253-

11 A. Aye on the rest.

12 PRESIDENT JAMES: Thank you.

13 CLERK: Mealy.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER MEALY: [off mic]

15 CLERK: Menchaca.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER MENCHACA: Permission to

17 explain my vote.

18 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

19 COUNCIL MEMBER MENCHACA: Thank you,

20 Public Advocate, and I really want to thank my

21 colleagues today for many of these conversations

22 we've been having for weeks and months. And so I

23 continue to encourage you to engage both Council

24 Member Dromm and I as we move forward to really

25 perfect what we think is an incredible opportunity

Exhibit Page No.: 0597 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 95

2 for this city. Thank you for all those that are in

3 support of this, and I really want to dedicate this

4 vote to the entire coalition of organizations that

5 have been fighting for this and more. As we continue

6 to move through our legislative victories in this

7 Council, that coalition has been strong. They have

8 been meeting with us day in and day out at all hours

9 of the day. And so to them, I dedicate this vote.

10 [Speaking Spanish] I vote aye on all.

11 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

12 CLERK: Mendez.

13 COUNCIL MEMBER MENDEZ: Permission to

14 explain my vote.

15 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER MENDEZ: So first, I want

17 to start off by saying while we're ending this

18 legislative session now in June, we're also coming to

19 the end of Gay Pride Month. I want to wish everyone

20 a happy pride, and ask everyone to march with us on

21 Sunday on the parade. And we have the largest LGBT

22 delegation in this Council now with six members, and

23 we'd be proud to have all the other member march with

24 us on Sunday. And I speak about this also to talk

25 about the Municipal ID bill. It just does not help.

Exhibit Page No.: 0598 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 96

2 I mean it helps immigrants, but it also helps the

3 LGBT community. Today, here, my Brian Allicotte

4 [phonetic] is sitting up there. And this would allow

5 him to get his ID, and to self identify as the man

6 that we know that he is. And, that will be a very

7 good moment for all of us. And for so many of the

8 transgenders who have been going through this

9 problem, and want to self-identify and have the

10 identification adequately say who they are and what

11 they feel. So I proudly vote aye on this bill, and

12 thank my colleagues Danny Dromm and Carlos Menchaca

13 for bringing this bill to the floor. And I also want

14 to say my kudos to Gail Benjamin. She has been an

15 incredible for here. I met here in 2000, and she's

16 been a friend and ally and helped me through lots of

17 land use issues. I will miss you. And I also to

18 thank the Controller Scott Stringer. I understand he

19 signed checks in the Central Park Five. We can make

20 that part of history, and put that behind us. Thank

21 you very much, and I vote aye on all. [applause,

22 cheers]

23 CLERK: Miller.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER: I would listen

25 to-- I would also like to echo the sentiments of

Exhibit Page No.: 0599 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 97

2 Gail Benjamin leaving. She's been stalwart, and very

3 helpful during my brief period of time here in the

4 Council, and she will be sorely missed. I also want

5 to talk about the -- I want to thank the Speaker for

6 her leadership, and the other leaders within the

7 Council here for making my transition here, my first

8 year a smooth and successful year. I thank you very

9 much for that. I would also like to thank my team --

10 Team Miller for the work that they have done.

11 Obviously, Joe Goldblum, Ali Dasumanejad [phonetic]

12 and my interns Jay and Jim, and I'm leaving someone

13 out and that would be Sammy Henson, and I vote aye on

14 all. Thank you.

15 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

16 CLERK: Reynoso.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: Permission to

18 explain my vote.

19 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

20 COUNCIL MEMBER REYNOSO: I'd like to just

21 say that I'm extremely grateful for today living in

22 the greatest city in the world where we actually get

23 things done unlike our counterparts in the federal

24 government and in the state at times. When we live

25 in a country where in some places it's easier to get

Exhibit Page No.: 0600 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 98

2 a gun than it is to get an ID, I think we're doing it

3 the wrong way. I call on my Republican colleagues to

4 co-lead or co-sponsor a resolution to call on

5 immigration reform in the federal government. I hope

6 that they can sponsor with me. And I want to

7 congratulate Council Member Danny Dromm for the great

8 work that he's done in leading this push for the last

9 five years. And to the first Mexican-American

10 elected to office in this state. You truly are a

11 super star, and you're my brother, and, of course, I

12 proudly vote aye. [Speaking Spanish] [laughter]

13 CLERK: Richards.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER RICHARDS: Aye on all.

15 CLERK: Rose.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: Aye.

17 CLERK: Rosenthal.

18 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSENTHAL: Permission to

19 explain my vote in Spanish.

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSENTHAL: All right,

22 here it goes.

23 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Here it goes.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSENTAHL: And --

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0601 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 99

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: You only have

3 three minutes.

4 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSENTHAL: [Speaking

5 Spanish] [applause, cheers] My district and I are

6 very much looking forward to applying for a Municipal

7 ID.

8 CLERK: Torres.

9 COUNCIL MEMBER TORRES: Wow, Helen, you

10 speak better Spanish than I do. I want to commend

11 Gail Benjamin actually. When I joined the Land Use

12 Committee hearing, I pointed out that Gail was two

13 when she started her career in her City Council. I

14 was two when she started. So someone is getting old.

15 I'm getting old. But I was two when Gail began her

16 career in the City Council, and I admire the length

17 and the quality of your service here, and it's an

18 example for all of us. And I thank you for

19 everything you have done. The city has benefitted

20 from your institutional memory and this body as well.

21 And I, too, look forward to the moment when I get a

22 Municipal ID. I proudly vote aye.

23 CLERK: Treyger.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER TREYGER: Permission to

25 explain my vote.

Exhibit Page No.: 0602 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 100

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER TREYGER: When I was a

4 teacher, there was a learning environment survey that

5 we asked parents to return. And the number one group

6 that we had difficulties with getting them back were

7 immigrants because-- And I think Council Member

8 Dromm could agree with that, and others here as well.

9 And the fear was about who will see this information?

10 Where does it go? And this would count against

11 schools not getting a high number of them returned.

12 And I had to go to the painstaking effort of making

13 phone calls, meeting with parents to ensure them that

14 this information would not be used in any way against

15 them. There was nothing on there that could be used

16 against them, anyway. I truly commend and have much

17 respect for my colleagues, Council Member Menchaca,

18 Council Member Dromm. I believe that this is an

19 absolute. The concept is phenomenal. I believe that

20 we need a New York City card. We need a discount

21 card to the culturals, and I can see great potential

22 in this.

23 But the concerns raised by Council Member

24 Maisel are the ones I share as well. For two years,

25 information will be stored in the database, and in

Exhibit Page No.: 0603 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 101

2 two years we'll probably have a new president. And I

3 am concerned that we might be inadvertently

4 unintentionally creating a database that a future

5 president that might not be as friendly to immigrants

6 as our current one is. To look to this to be a

7 database tool to shift through to harass and

8 intimidate immigrant communities. And that is why I

9 look forward to working with my Council colleagues

10 and the Administration to make sure that we correct

11 this potentially fatal flaw.

12 Because immigrants -- those colleagues

13 raised the concerns that-- security concerns that

14 potential criminals could abuse. Immigrants are not

15 criminals. They are the fabric of our city, of our

16 nation. They built this country. But I feel

17 compelled today to abstain until we resolve this

18 potentially fatal flaw that could be used to

19 potentially hurt our immigrant brothers and sisters.

20 So I'm going to abstain on Intro 253-A, and I vote

21 aye on the rest. Thank you.

22 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

23 CLERK: Ulrich.

24 COUNCIL MEMBER ULRICH: Permission to

25 explain my vote.

Exhibit Page No.: 0604 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 102

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes, sir.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER ULRICH: Madam Public

4 Advocate, I have the utmost respect for my two

5 friends and colleagues who are the prime sponsors of

6 Intro 253-A, and I share their passion, and their

7 commitment to fighting for comprehensive immigration

8 reform because I believe it is desperately needed.

9 And as it was said previously, I think that

10 Washington has failed not only our city, but our

11 country--

12 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Excuse me Council

13 Member. Can we have quiet in the Chambers, please.

14 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Quiet in the Chambers,

15 please.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER ULRICH: --in not passing

17 comprehensive immigration reform at the federal

18 level. But I want to identify myself with the

19 comments made by my colleague Council Member

20 Garodnick, and also to a larger extent, Council

21 Member Maisel. I fear that the immigrants that I

22 represent, and the immigrants in our city because of

23 this bill and because of the Municipal ID Card

24 potentially could be lulled into a false sense of

25 security. And that one day when the political tides

Exhibit Page No.: 0605 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 103

2 turn, because it is a pendulum that swings both ways,

3 that immigrants might be targeted because we are

4 collecting this information from them.

5 I'm also disappointed because I had

6 expressed a willingness to support this measure and

7 this bill, and I wanted to see other components

8 included in the final measure including as the

9 Minority Leader mentioned a veteran component. The

10 fact that we allow veterans to identify themselves on

11 a New York State driver's license or a New York State

12 identification card, and we're not doing that here is

13 a disservice to our veterans. It's also

14 disrespectful to our veterans. The fact that an

15 undocumented person in our city can get a Muni ID

16 card and get a discounted at the museum, but a

17 veteran and an American citizen has to pay full price

18 if they don't have that identification because quite

19 frankly they think that they don't need one is also a

20 disservice to those individuals. So I hate to say

21 that I let the perfect be the enemy of the good here,

22 but that is, in fact, the case. So I am respectfully

23 voting no on Intro 253-A and aye on the rest. Thank

24 you.

25 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

Exhibit Page No.: 0606 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 104

2 CLERK: Weprin.

3 COUNCIL MEMBER WEPRIN: Madam, I'd like

4 to explain my vote in Korean.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Please.

6 COUNCIL MEMBER WEPRIN: Okay, I don't

7 speak Korean. Otherwise, I would like to, though.

8 [laughter] No, just briefly. I would be remiss if I

9 didn't mention Gail Benjamin also. Gail is the most

10 knowledgeable person I've met in government. It's a

11 lot of people I'm putting her in the class with, and

12 she is someone we are going to miss tremendously

13 because she has a historical perspective that no one

14 else does, and is knowledgeable on so many aspects of

15 this. And I said the other day that one of the

16 things that is so great about her is that she never

17 acts like she's better than you are, she just is

18 better than you are, [laughter] and I think that's

19 true. So that in mind [Speaks Korean] and I vote

20 aye.

21 CLERK: Williams.

22 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS: Madam, please

23 excuse my vote.

24 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0607 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 105

2 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS: Thank you.

3 First, I do want to say thank you to our Mayor and

4 our Speaker, who are the fabulous teacher, [sic] for

5 providing leadership on this in making the Municipal

6 IDs an issue that was a priority. And, of course,

7 congratulations to Council Members Dromm and Menchaca

8 for this landmark legislation. I, too, like many of

9 my colleagues have some big concerns about how much

10 is left after this bill is passed. I know that we

11 can't. We can't legislate every eventuality. But I

12 wish there were more public statements on three

13 categories: The weighting of what you have to submit

14 to provide who you are area, that the NYPD is going

15 to do with the data, which I know hopefully we'll be

16 seeing quarterly.

17 And most importantly, the incentives that

18 will be made so that people like me and others, who

19 want to get one, will get one. I think that a lot of

20 these things could have been worked out a little more

21 before it was brought to the floor. But it wasn't,

22 and today I'm forced into what is basically a kind of

23 binary choice that has to be made. And so, for my

24 parents who came here as immigrants and now are

25 citizens, but for my brother who is blood who could

Exhibit Page No.: 0608 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 106

2 not go to his mother's funeral because he was

3 undocumented. I'm going to vote to support what I

4 believe is the authorization to create this ID on

5 faith that we will correct a lot of the issues, and

6 really make sure that this is not dangerous those who

7 are actually getting it.

8 Because if we don't, I believe that we

9 will be endangering some people. And if we don't fix

10 those three categories and make it plain, I believe

11 we will not be doing what we achieved to do. And I

12 will be one of the people leading the charge to

13 retract this, and make sure that it doesn't go any

14 further. So I am concerned about these things, but

15 again, I'm going to vote aye with the hope that the

16 final product when it comes out will have addressed

17 these things. So, I'd like to vote aye on all with

18 the exception of L Use -- Land Use 88, and I want to

19 say congratulations to Gail Benjamin.

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Thank you.

21 Council Member, on Land Use 88, you're voting no or

22 you're abstaining on Land Use 88?

23 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS: Sorry. I'm

24 abstaining.

25 CLERK: Ignizio.

Exhibit Page No.: 0609 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 107

2 COUNCIL MEMBER IGNIZIO: I would just

3 like to vote no on 253-A and aye on all others, and I

4 wish Gail Benjamin, a woman I've known for 17 years,

5 a great retirement. When I first came in, Gail

6 taught me the ropes like she taught so many of us,

7 and always helped us. I had more hair. It was

8 blacker. She looks just as beautiful, and I'm sure

9 she's going to enjoy her retirement. I wish her

10 well, and to all my colleagues who effectively are

11 going on recess, I wish you a very good summer. And

12 I see that staff is really happy that we're getting

13 out of town. I just want to be honest with

14 everybody. Thank you all and have a good summer

15 until I see you a couple of weeks.

16 CLERK: Van Bramer.

17 COUNCIL MEMBER VAN BRAMER: Aye on all.

18 CLERK: Speaker Mark-Viverito.

19 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: [off mic]

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: As we await the

21 results, let's congratulate Council Member Richards

22 on his upcoming marriage, and Gail Brewer on his

23 retirement. All items--

24

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0610 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 108

2 COUNCIL MEMBER RICHARDS: I've been

3 wait, wait, wait, wait. I've been married three

4 years. No controversy here.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [laughs] Miller.

6 I'm sorry. Miller. I'm sorry.

7 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Oddo is getting

8 married?

9 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: [laughs] All

10 items on today's General Order Calendar were adopted

11 by a vote of 48 in the affirmative, zero negative,

12 and zero abstentions with the exception of Intro 253-

13 A, which was adopted by a vote of 43 in affirmative,

14 three in the negative, two abstentions. Land Use

15 Call-ups -- Land Use, LU 88 and Res 0342, which was

16 adopted by a vote of 46 in the affirmative, zero

17 negative, two abstentions. Congratulations Council

18 Member Miller. Closing remarks from Speaker Melissa

19 Mark-Viverito.

20 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Thank you again,

21 Madam Public Advocate. Again, this is a really -- I

22 think Council Member Inez Barron had something to

23 say.

24 [Pause]

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0611 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 109

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

3 Inez --

4 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: General

5 discussion.

6 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Yes.

7 Introduction and Reading of Bills. Discussion of the

8 Resolutions. None. Resolutions: None. General

9 Discussion: Council Member Gibson.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER GIBSON: Thank you very

11 much, Madam Public Advocate. Let me take a quick

12 opportunity. Earlier when we voted on the budget, I

13 neglected to acknowledge several people.

14 Unfortunately, my speech was cut short, colleagues.

15 I'm sorry for that. But I do want to thank again--

16 This has been exciting journey for me as someone who

17 worked in Albany for many years starting out as an

18 intern and now coming to this body and working some

19 incredible public servants. It's been an honor, and

20 a true blessing. And I want to thank our Mayor Bill

21 de Blasio, and our Speaker, and the entire Finance

22 Team that I recognized yesterday. But I also want to

23 recognize Latanya McKinney [phonetic], as well as

24 Tanisha Edwards, and my folks Ellen Ang, Regina Ryan,

25 and Isha Wright for all of their work. And I do this

Exhibit Page No.: 0612 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 110

2 as a team. I cannot forget my incredible Budget

3 Director Martin Munoz, who is here with me everyday,

4 as well as my Communications Director, Jamie Gilkey

5 [phonetic]. It has truly been a pleasure working

6 day-to-day with all of you, and now as we embark on

7 this summer season, I want to wish each and every one

8 of you a wonderful and blessed summer season. And to

9 Gail Benjamim, who has made an incredible mark on

10 this Council. Gail, you have been a footprint in the

11 City Council, and you are irreplaceable, and we truly

12 thank you for your dedication, your integrity, your

13 commitment, your character, and your investment in

14 the City of New York. We're going to miss you. But

15 we're going to follow in your foot steps, and

16 continue to create sound development in his City of

17 New York that provides equity for all of our New

18 Yorkers. And with that, I want to thank everyone

19 again for just allowing me to be a part of this City

20 Council family. I've really, really appreciated each

21 and everyone of you, my brothers and sisters. Thank

22 you so much. God bless you all, and congratulations

23 again to Council Members Menchaca and Dromm on this

24 monumental legislation. Thank you again.

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0613 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 111

2 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Quiet. Quiet in

3 the Chambers, please. Council Member Barron.

4 SERGEANT-AT-ARM: Quiet, please.

5 COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON: Thank you, Madam

6 Public Advocate. I'll be brief. I just want to say

7 that last night as I commended this body for

8 presenting a budget that for the first time had an

9 equitable distribution of the funds that we were able

10 to allocate. I forget to commend the Finance Team,

11 my staff, and my interns as well for helping guide me

12 through the process. And I forgot to acknowledge the

13 trailblazers who talked about reform in the City

14 Council. So I want to make sure that it goes on the

15 record that first to my City Council that was headed

16 by Council Member Charles Barren, Allen Jennings, and

17 a group of about 20 other Council members. Thank

18 them for their leadership in that regard.

19 I want to add my comments of appreciation

20 and thanks to Gail Benjamin as she goes forward in

21 her retirement. To the sponsors of the immigration

22 card, I want to commend you. And I want to say this

23 is a card that will also benefit people who need

24 services such as you and senior and homeless. So we

25 want to appreciate the fact that they're working in

Exhibit Page No.: 0614 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 112

2 that regard. And as has already been mentioned,

3 thank you. Last night, I talked about the fact that

4 the Comptroller was dragging his feet. As has been

5 said, he has signed that settlement, and there will

6 be a press conference on the steps of City Hall

7 tomorrow at 1:00, and you are all invited to be

8 there. Thank you.

9 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

10 King.

11 COUNCIL MEMBER KING: Thank you. The

12 DLAC 15-minute meeting inside the Committee Room, and

13 happy summer to everyone. Thank you.

14 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

15 Williams.

16 COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS: Thank you. I,

17 just, too, wanted to make sure I make mention on the

18 record. I thank all those who worked to help Central

19 Park Five get this settlement. I thank the Mayor for

20 pushing it through, and thank you, for the

21 Comptroller Scott Stringer for signing it.

22 Hopefully, we can get this chapter behind us. I know

23 what happened to the young lady was a travesty. I

24 also remember what I felt like as a young Black male

25 in this city during that time, opening papers and

Exhibit Page No.: 0615 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 113

2 seeing people like me being called wolf packs and

3 wilding. And so, I would say hopefully we can move

4 this chapter behind us. And I do want to ask Mr.

5 Donald Trump, if you're not going to apologize for

6 your stupidity 25 years ago, please shut up now.

7 Thank you.

8 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

9 Gentile.

10 COUNCIL MEMBER GENTILE: Just quickly.

11 Illegal building conversions are just that, illegal.

12 So I ask you to look and review Intro 393. It is a

13 bill that I'm introducing that would allow DOB to

14 issue violations for illegal conversions based on

15 observable evidence. Like rebuttable presumption,

16 but observable evidence. So please review, and co-

17 sponsor Intro 393.

18 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

19 Cumbo.

20 [Pause]

21 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

22 Cornegy.

23 COUNCIL MEMBER CORNEGY: Thank you, Madam

24 Public Advocate. I just wanted to invite my

25 colleagues out this Saturday to my district. We will

Exhibit Page No.: 0616 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 114

2 be celebrating the 25th anniversary of Spike Les's Do

3 the Right Thing with a huge block party and street

4 co-naming, which actually had to go through the

5 Mayor's Office. I didn't realize that through the

6 City Council you can't co-name an event, but a

7 person. So please join me from 12:00 to 6:00 on

8 Stuyvesant between Quincy and Lexington to celebrate

9 the 25th Anniversary of Do the Right Thing.

10 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

11 Rose.

12 [background comment]

13 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

14 Rose.

15 COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE: I just want to say

16 to Gail Benjamin, thank you for helping us get the

17 biggest thing that happened to Staten Island, the Big

18 Wheel, and I wish you all the best. Thank you.

19 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

20 Lander.

21 COUNCIL MEMBER LANDER: Well, I do want

22 to congratulate Council Member Levine on George

23 Carlin Way. I do want to object that his speech in

24 nomination was wholly inadequate and insufficiently

25 offensive. And I just want to officially record that

Exhibit Page No.: 0617 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 115

2 we miss Jimmy Oddo, who I believe is the only council

3 member in my tenure who could have respectfully paid

4 sufficient tribute to George Carlin.

5 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Council Member

6 Ulrich.

7 COUNCIL MEMBER ULRICH: Very quick, Madam

8 Public Advocate. I should have brought this up

9 during the introduction of bills, but Council Member

10 Treyger and I are introducing a bill to create a

11 Hurricane Sandy monitor to help the city oversee all

12 the federal, the billions of dollars in federal aid

13 that we are receiving in federal disaster aid.

14 Essentially, it's an IG, but it's not called an IG.

15 We have to call it monitor. It will be under the

16 Department of Investigation. It's Intro 406, and I'm

17 encouraging all of my colleagues who are still here,

18 all 12 or 13 of us to please co-sponsor this piece of

19 legislation.

20 PUBLIC ADVOCATE JAMES: Speaker Melissa

21 Mark-Viverito to close.

22 SPEAKER MARK-VIVERITO: Thank you Madam

23 Public Advocate. Again, thank all my colleagues for

24 a great first part of the session. It's been

25 wonderful. We still meet in the summer, but not as

Exhibit Page No.: 0618 of CES Response Declaration

 1 STATED MEETING 116

2 often. I hope everyone has an enjoyable time with

3 their family, and time off. And again, it's really

4 been great working alongside all of you and the staff

5 has been awesome as well. So with that, it's about 4

6 o'clock, and have a good one everybody. [applause,

7 cheers]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Exhibit Page No.: 0619 of CES Response Declaration

 C E R T I F I C A T E

World Wide Dictation certifies that the

foregoing transcript is a true and accurate

record of the proceedings. We further certify that

there is no relation to any of the parties to

this action by blood or marriage, and that there

is interest in the outcome of this matter.

Date June 29, 2014

Exhibit Page No.: 0620 of CES Response Declaration

 E HI IT
G

Exhibit Page No.: 0621 of CES Response Declaration

 NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENTof
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Andrew M. Cuomo Maria T. Vullo
Governor Superintendent

September 1, 2016

Michael P. Smith
President and CEO
New York Bankers Association
99 Park Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

William Mellin
President
New York Credit Union Association
P.O. Box 15118
Albany, NY 12212

Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Mellin:

This letter provides guidance by the Department of Financial Services (the ''Department") on
whether the New York City Municipal Identification Card ("Municipal ID") can be used by
banks and credit unions to verify the identity of prospective customers under New York's
customer identification program ("CIP") requirements for customers who seek to open bank
accounts.

The Department is committed to ensuring broad access to financial products and services for all
consumers and recognizes the Municipal ID as one method to expand access to financial services
in New York. For individuals, access to bank and credit union accounts helps preserve income,
leads to savings and asset-building opportunities, and improves access to affordable credit
opportunities. Indeed, access to banking services can improve the overall economic well-being
of all New Yorkers and the New York economy.

The Department is aware that the Board of Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of the
Comptroller ofthe Currency (collectively, the "Federal Agencies") have previously provided

(800) 342-3736 I ONE STATE STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10004-1511 I WWW.DFS.NY.GOV

Exhibit Page No.: 0622 of CES Response Declaration

guidance on this issue in a letter dated April 30, 2015. 1 The federal CIP rule requires banks to
have CIPs for account opening that use risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of each
customer so that the bank can form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the
customer. The minimum information a bank must obtain is the prospective customer's name,
date ofbirth, address and an identification number. 2

The CIP rule does not prescribe a specific type of government-issued identification card for use
by institutions. Institutions that rely on documentary forms of evidence to verify a customer's
identity should have procedures in place to identify the types of documents the institution will
accept for such verification. Accordingly, it is the Department's position that institutions may
accept the Municipal ID as a means of documentary verification as provided in the institutions'
CIP procedures.

The Department encourages New York state-chartered and licensed financial institutions to
accept the Municipal ID as a form of acceptable identification card, utilizing procedures applied
to all potential customers to assess the risk presented by the customer and any need for additional
documentation or information.

Maria T. Vullo
Superintendent

1
See Federal Agencies' response letter (April3o, 2015). The Federal Agencies also concluded that the
identification number included on all Municipal IDs satisfies the non-U.S. person identification number
requirement contained in the federal CIP rules.

2
31 C.F.R. 1020.220; see 3 NYCRR Part n6.2

Exhibit Page No.: 0623 of CES Response Declaration

 E HIBIT
H

Exhibit Page No.: 0624 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 0625 of CES Response Declaration
Exhibit Page No.: 0626 of CES Response Declaration
 EXHIBIT
I

Exhibit Page No.: 0627 of CES Response Declaration

12/312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News

U.S. HOME CRIME TERRORISM ECONOMY IMMIGRATION DISASTERS MILITARY EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PERSONAL FREEDOMS REGIONS

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

New York City may erase 10 card data to protect illegal

immigrants
Published November 15,2016
Associated Press

This undated image provided by New York City Hal! shows a sample 10 card issued by the city. Advocates of last year's municipai!D card program said it would help people
living in the country i!legal!y venture out of the shadows. Now some fear it could instead expose them to deportation. Since Donald Trump's presidential election victory, the city is
considering destroying the cardholders' personal records. (New York City Hall via AP)

NEW YORK- When New York City launched the nation's biggest municipaiiD card program last year, advocates said it would
help people living in the U.S. illegally to venture out of the shadows.

ADVERTISEMENT

But since Donald Trump was elected president, city officials are instead fielding questions about whether the cards could put
those same people at greater risk of being deported.

The city has vowed to protect cardholders' personal records and might even delete them using a kind of self-destruct provision
that allows for the information to be destroyed at the end of the year.

At least one state lawmaker has criticized that idea, saying it could make it impossible to trace people if they have obtained cards
fraudulently.

trtt.p:/twww.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 1/4
Exhibit Page No.: 0628 of CES Response Declaration
12/3/2016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants 1 Fox News
Some immigrants take comfort in the city's stance, while acknowledging they are still wary.

Alberto Saldivia got his "IDNYC" card this year after spending 15 years in the country without legal authorization.

"It did cause me considerable concern, because they have my information, also the information of my son," the 53-year-old
Mexico native said through an interpreter.

But he felt reassured when Mayor Bill de Blasia said last week that the city would "absolutely" safeguard cardholders' identities.
De Blasia, a Democrat, said officials would assess whether to delete the personal records, a provision that was built into the
program partly over concerns about the possible election of a Republican president such as Trump, whose campaign promises
included a vow to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

MunicipaiiD programs began in 2007 in New Haven, Conn., and have expanded to about 10 cities, including Los Angeles and
San Francisco. New York's program is the most ambitious, with more than 800,000 cardholders, many of them U.S. citizens or
legal residents.

Officials encouraged everyone in the city to sign up, but the program was aimed at those without other forms of ID, including
homeless people and, especially, the estimated 500,000 immigrants living illegally in the city. The ID would help them do such
everyday things as cash a check or attend a parent-teacher conference at a public school, advocates said.

The program quickly proved popular, with New Yorkers waiting hours in line and months for appointments to register early on.
Pope Francis received a ceremonial one during his visit to the city last year, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
said the card would make him "a real New Yorker."

But civil liberties advocates sounded alarms about the city collecting identity documents that immigration authorities or law
enforcement could request, with a judge's approval.

The program's backers included language that allows for destroying the applicants' identity and residency information at the end
of 2016 if administrators do not move to keep them.

"Protecting it from a possible Republican president was just one of the reasons" for the provision, said City Councilman Carlos
Menchaca, who wrote the law that created the program.

A critic of the program said deleting the records would only compound concerns about it.

"It's completely irresponsible to destroy the documentation of people who applied for a government-issued ID card," said state
Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican.

She said the proof-of-identity requirements may not be stringent enough to prevent fraud, and deleting the records would leave
authorities "no way of knowing who these people are, how they obtained this documentation."

Some immigrants and their advocates remain hopeful that the IDs won't backfire. The extent of the program should thwart using
it to target immigrants here illegally, since they represent only some of the cardholders, said Javier Valdes of Make the Road
New York, an advocacy group that pushed for the program.

Juan Rosas Carrera plans to keep his appointment this weekend to get an IDNYC card, despite a friend's warning that it could be
risky to give authorities his name and address. Rosas Carrera, a Mexican national and construction worker, has been living in the
U.S. illegally for 17 years.

Still, he wants an ID card to open a bank account and feels it's worth the worry.

"I feel safe in New York. I also think that if you don't have a criminal record, nothing bad will really happen," said Rosas Carrera,
48. "But I am a bit worried about Trump."

Trending in U.S.
Why Trump was right to talk with
Taiwan's president

I'm a Democrat and I'm ashamed at

how tone deaf we've become

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 2/4
Exhibit Page No.: 0629 of CES Response Declaration
 XHIBIT
J

Exhibit Page No.: 0630 of CES Response Declaration

 12/4/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1SIUve.com

alliotakis, Castorina ask ci not to destroy

IDNYC docs

Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina Jr. speak against the IDNYC program in St. George on
Monday, Nov. 28, 2016. (Rachel Shapiro/Staten Island Advance)

By Rachel Shapiro I rshapiro@siadvance.com

Email the author I Follow on Twitter
on November 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, updated December 02, 2016 at 7:05AM

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.- If city officials destroy documents collected from illegal immigrants who apply for municipaiiD cards, they
are creating a "slippery slope" and putting national security at risk, say Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina
Jr., who are calling on officials to hold off.

The Republican Malliotakis has opposed the IDN)"C program since its creation, as it exists primarily to provide undocumented
immigrants with photo IDs, something that will help them come out of the shadows, proponents argue.

Her newly-elected colleague, Castorina, also objects to giving government-issued IDs to those in the country illegally,
specifically citing his opposition to allowing banks to (lCCept the I D.

ADVERTISING

in Read invented by Teads

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 1/3
Exhibit Page No.: 0631 of CES Response Declaration
 12/4/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1 SIUve.com

On Monday, the two Assembly Republicans spoke outside the Staten Island Business Center on St. Mark's Place in St. George,
where city residents can obtain the ID cards.

They argue that the documents required to obtain an ID card are not solid proof of identification and residency in the city. The
city doesn't consider legal status when determining whether to issue an ID card.

With Donald Trump's election, the liberal-leaning mayor and City Council are in favor of destroying the ID documents for fear they
could be used to locate undocumented immigrants in the city and deport them.

Initially saying on the campaign trail that he hoped to deport the 11 million people in the country illegally, Trump has walked that
back to deporting only those who commit crimes.

The city included a provision when it created the municipaiiD program to destroy all personal records it collected if a "Tea Party
Republican" wins the White House.

It was done for "political reasons" Malliotakis said. "That in itself is concerning."

She noted the 9/11 Commission Report, which states that many of the hijackers used fraudulent documents to obtain IDs.

"That's the concern we have today," she said.

If a person with a city municipaiiD card uses it for nefarious reasons, investigators would need access to the documents given to
the city. If they're destroyed, that could hinder justice, Malliotakis argued.

"It was a mistake to create this program and more of a mistake to destroy documents," she said.

While people applying for the ID must have three points to confirm their identiti~s --like U.S. or foreign passports, U.S. or
foreign driver's licenses and U.S. or foreign birth certificates -- but they only need one to confirm their city residency.

That could be a utility bill, a bank statement or a letter from the city Housing Authority if the applicant lives in public housing.

Malliotakis often notes that one needs only to reside in a homeless shelter for 15 days before being considered a city resident,
and a letter from the shelter management fulfills the requirement for one proof of residency.

IDNYC can't be used to obtain a driver's license, board an airplane, cross international borders or rent a car.

Castorina called the ID program an "unmitigated disaster" and "an issue of national security."

Castorina, a lawyer and former commissioner for the city Board of Elections, is researching whether destroying the documents is
illegal -- if it is, he'll bring legal action against the city.

"We should not be issuing identification cards to people who are not here legally," he said.

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 2/3
Exhibit Page No.: 0632 of CES Response Declaration
 12/4/2016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs 1 SILive.com

He suspects that in many cases, fraudulent documents are used to obtain the IDs.

Those IDs may be used to get other IDs.

The term "slippery slope" was used several times by both Assembly members.

As for handing over documents to the federal government should it ask for it. "the City of New York has an obligation to follow the
law," Castorina said. "The city is not above the federal government."

A City Hall spokesperson challenged the Assembly members' assertions that the ID program is lax and unsafe.

"The safety of New Yorkers is City Hall's top priority, and that includes the nearly 40 percent of city residents who are foreign
born. We rely on law enforcement professionals from the NYPD to set the bar for security, and !DNYC consistently meets this high
standard. Claims that IDNYC is being used by those intending serious harm is reckless fear-mongering- the IDNYC application
process is similar to DMVs across the country, highly trained staff use state of the art technology to identify instances of fraud,
and IDNYC cannot be used to obtain a driver's license, board a plane, or cross a border. Over 900,000 New Yorkers have IDNYC,
and we are committed to protecting the privacy and security of our data. The City will make a decision regarding record retention
in the near future."

The story was updated to include a comment from the mayor's office.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

2016 Sllive.com. All rights reserved (About Us).

The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission
of Sllive.com.

Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.

[:> Ad Choices

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_cily.html 3/3
Exhibit Page No.: 0633 of CES Response Declaration
 E HIBIT
K

Exhibit Page No.: 0634 of CES Response Declaration

12/3/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

D D
City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go
Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed
Immigrant Record Purge
By Madina Toure 11/29/16 6:25pm

Surrounded by Council colleagues, Speaker

Melissa Mark-Viverito lauds the IDNYC program
at a 2015 event. IDNYC

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito

offered a curt retort today to two Staten
Island Republicans preparing legal
action against the city over its plan
to flush municipal identification
records and to shield undocumented
immigrants from President-elect Donald
Trump: "go ahead and sue us."

http://observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 1/5
Exhibit Page No.: 0635 of CES Response Declaration
1213/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

A legislative trap door in the bill that

created the IDNYC program almost two
years ago enables the city to trash the
data files on its applicants, many of
whom are foreign nationals lacking
other forms of government paperwork,
should a nativist president assume
office. Assemblyman Ronald Castorina
and Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis
contended yesterday that this option, if
Mayor Bill de Blasio utilizes it as
proposed, could make it harder for
federal law enforcement to track
potential terrorists and criminals.

ADVERTISING

The two GOP lawmakers said they

gearing up to take the city to court to
force it to retain the documents.

http://observer.com/2016/11/cily-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 215
Exhibit Page No.: 0636 of CES Response Declaration
12/312016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

"Go ahead and sue us," Mark-Viverito, a

fierce advocate for both IDNYC and the
undocumented, spat out when the
Observer asked about the potential suit
at an unrelated press conference at City
Hall today.

The speaker, a prominent surrogate for

Hillary Clinton, has attacked Trump
repeatedly on Twitter and vowed that
New York City will remain a sanctuary
city in spite of Republican threats of
economic sanctions. She echoed the
mayor today in pledging that the city will
do whatever is necessary to protect the
program and its applicants from federal
incursions.

"There's a law in place and the law is very

explicit about how information is to be
handled," Mark-Viverito said during the
City Council's monthly pre-stated
meeting. "We are looking at exploring
those options and so we are gonna
exercise whatever rights we have as the
city. They want to raise the funds and
they want to sue the city, they have every
right to do so if that's what they choose
to do."

And Malliotakis, for her part, caught

wind of Mark-Viverito's comments. She
delivered an equally terse response.

http://observer.com/2016111/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purgel 315
Exhibit Page No.: 0637 of CES Response Declaration
1213/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

"Arrogant," she tweeted. guess as long

as taxpayers will be footing the bill to
defend her shady policies in court, it's
0k. "

The de Blasio administration, along with

Mark-Viverito and advocates, has argued
that lDNYC enables undocumented
immigrants to partake in simple, run-of-
the-mill activities that require proof of
identification, such as opening a bank
account. And while the mayor is still
encouraging people to sign up for
lDNYC, Mark-Viverito isn't ready to do
the same.

She said the city is reviewing its legal

options.

"1 have not taken that position," she

added. "Obviously we are very concerned
about the [issue] now-between now
and the end of the year and now and
January 20-so we're very
clearly engaged in a conversation as I've
indicated before about one, the data is
secure right now and we're going to
retain a confidentiality."

A City Hall spokesperson told the

Observer yesterday that its staff carefully
verify personal information used to
obtain the municipal identifications, and
that an IDNYC an cannot be used to get
a driver's license, board a plane or cross a
http://observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 415
Exhibit Page No.: 0638 of CES Response Declaration
12/3/2016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

border. The spokesperson also said the

city relies on the NYPD to "set the bar
for security."

This story has been updated to include a

comment from Assemblywoman Nicole
Malliotakis.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-

law of jared Kushner, the publisher of
Observer Media.

CBS Local

ALSO FROM THE WEB

Homeowners Your Go-To re You 11 Surprising

Must Claim Guide For Join A Meal Causes of Male
their $4271 Perfect Kit Delivery Dysfunction
Sponsored I Sponsored I Sponsored I Sponsored I
Fetch Rate Verizon Wireless Hello Fresh Health Central

http://observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 515
Exhibit Page No.: 0639 of CES Response Declaration
 E HIBIT
L

Exhibit Page No.: 0640 of CES Response Declaration

11/29/2016 Thank You from NYC .gov-The Official New York City Web Site

Thank You For Filling Out This Form

Shown below is your submission to NYC.gov on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:23:11

This form resides at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/aboutlfoil-request. page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Ronald

Last Name: Castorina Jr
Address: 7001 Amboy Road Suite 202 E
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10307
Email: roncastorina@gmail.com
Phone: 718-967-5194
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application
materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys Municipal
Request:
ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including
the Mayors Office in digital format.

of New York

http:llwww.nyc.gov/doittcaptchalvalidatecap 1/1
Exhibit Page No.: 0641 of CES Response Declaration
 E HIBIT
M

Exhibit Page No.: 0642 of CES Response Declaration

Thank You from NYC.gov -The Official New York City Web Site http://www.nyc.govI doittcaptc'nalv alidatecap

NYC Resources \ 311 \ Office of the Mayor

This

Shown below is your submission to on Friday, December 2, 2016 at 16:51 :06

This form resides at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/about/foil-request.page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Nicole

Last Name: Malliotakis
Address: 11 Maplewood Place
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10306
Email: nysassembly60@gmail.com
Phone: 718-987-0197
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned
applicationmaterials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys
Request:
MunicipaiiD program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency
includingthe Mayors Office in digital format.

Copyright 2016 The City of New York Contact Us I Privacy Policy I Terms of Use

1 of 1 Exhibit Page No.: 0643 of CES Response Declaration 12/2/2016 4:51 PIV
r
I
SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF RICHMOND Index No. Year
In the Matter of RONALD CASTORINA, JR and NICOLO MALLIOTAKIS

r
I
i
Petitioners/Plaintiffs
-against-
BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacity as the SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
COUNCIL, STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in h'
official capacity, MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity, and RICARDO BROWN,
EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
Respondents/Defendants,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY ALFANO

Attorney(s)for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
O.[flce and Post Office Address, Telephone
1000 SOUTH AVENUE, SUITE 104
STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314
718-7011441

Signature (Rule 130-1.1-a)

Print name beneath

: : of a copy of the within ls hereby ndmitted. J

AUorney(s) for

(' PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

0 NOTICE OF ENTRY
that the within is a (certified} true copy of a

I duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on

0 NOTICE OF SETTlEMENT

that im order of which the within is a true copy

will be presented for settlement to the HON. one .of the judges of the
within named Court, at
on. at M.

Dated, Yours, etc.

LAW OFFICE OF .JEFFREY ALFANO

l
Exhibit Page No.: 0644 of CES Response Declaration


PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL2

Exhibit Page No.: 0645 of CES Response Declaration

 1

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF RICHMOND - CIVIL TERM - PART DCM-6
2 ----------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of
3 RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS,

4 Petitioners,

5 -against-

6
BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as
7 Mayor of the City of New York, et al.

8 Respondents.

9 For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the

Civil Practice Law and Rules
10 ----------------------------------------------X
Supreme Courthouse
11 Staten Island, New York
January 5, 2017
12

13 B E F O R E:

14 HONORABLE PHILIP G. MINARDO

Justice
15

16 A P P E A R A N C E S:

17 THE LAW FIRM OF RAVI BATRA, PC

142 Lexington Avenue
18 New York, New York 10016
BY: RAVI BATRA, ESQ.
19 Attorneys for the Petitioners

20 LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY M. ALFANO

1000 South Avenue, Suite 104
21 Staten Island, New York 10314
BY: JEFFREY ALFANO, ESQ.
22
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
23 BY: PATRICIA B. MILLER, ESQ.
RICHARD P. DEARING, ESQ.
24 Attorneys for the Respondents

25 KELLY C. JENKINS
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0646 of CES Response Declaration

 2
Proceedings

1 COURT CLERK: DCM 6 motion calendar, the

2 Honorable Philip Minardo presiding.

3 THE COURT: Good morning, Everybody; please be

4 seated. First of all, a little housekeeping. There will

5 be no video or still photography in the courtroom during

6 the course of these proceedings.

7 All right, I'm conducting this hearing pursuant

8 to Article 78, and the Court rules, which permit me to

9 take additional evidence in order to decide this

10 particular motion.

11 There is an Article 78 brought by the

12 Petitioners together with their plenary action for

13 declaratory relief.

14 The City has responded by moving -- not by

15 moving -- but in their answer, that this matter be

16 dismissed pursuant to 3211 and I suppose 3212, as well.

17 So the Court is permitted to conduct a hearing

18 in order to supplement -- supplement the papers which

19 form the basis of this action.

20 So, we will begin with the City.

21 MS. MILLER: Yes.

22 THE COURT: I would like a witness who is fully

23 familiar with the formulation and implementation of this

24 addition to the Administrative Code, I believe, it's

25 Section 3-115. Who do you have?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0647 of CES Response Declaration

 3
Proceedings

1 MS. MILLER: We have right here, Nisha Agarwal.

2 THE COURT: Ms. Agarwal, please.

3 (Whereupon, the witness takes the stand.)

4 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, you want me to proceed

5 asking questions?

6 THE COURT: No, I'll ask the questions, and

7 I'll give you an opportunity then to ask questions, as

8 well, and then followed by the Petitioners.

9 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, I wanted to ask you

10 would your Honor be fine with five-minute opening

11 statements from both sides?

12 THE COURT: No; this is not a trial.

13 COURT CLERK: Raise your right hand.

14 N I S H A A G A R W A L, called as a witness, having been

15 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

16 COURT CLERK: Lower your hand. Have a seat.

17 THE COURT: Please be seated.

18 COURT CLERK: State your name and business

19 address for the record.

20 THE WITNESS: Sure, Nisha Agarwal.

21 COURT CLERK: And your business address?

22 THE WITNESS: 253 Broadway, 14th floor, New

23 York, New York 10007.

24 THE COURT: Ms. Agarwal, I am going to ask you

25 questions and so listen carefully to the question and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0648 of CES Response Declaration

 4
Agarwal The Court

1 respond to it directly. Okay?

2 THE WITNESS: Okay.

3 THE COURT: Yes or no answers -- a yes or no is

4 fine, if you need more, you may be responsive to the

5 questions. If you don't understand the question, tell me

6 you don't understand it, either I will rephrase it or

7 whoever is asking the question will rephrase it for you.

8 THE WITNESS: Okay.

9 THE COURT: Make yourself comfortable.

10 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, there is a matter I

11 want to bring to your attention. There are other

12 witnesses in the courtroom, do you wish them to stay or

13 be sequestered?

14 THE COURT: They can stay. They can stay.

15 Now, Ms. Agarwal, what position do you hold --

16 do you hold a position with the City of New York?

17 THE WITNESS: I do.

18 THE COURT: What is it?

19 THE WITNESS: Commissioner of Immigrant

20 Affairs.

21 THE COURT: What are your responsibilities?

22 MR. BATRA: I can't hear, your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Ms. Agarwal, wait a minute. Put

24 that mic on. Is it on? All right, good. In any event,

25 keep your voice up.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0649 of CES Response Declaration

 5
Agarwal The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Okay.

2 THE COURT: What are your responsibilities?

3 THE WITNESS: The Mayor's Office of Immigrant

4 Affairs is responsible for advising on programs and

5 policies related to the well-being of immigrant families

6 in New York City, and as the head of that agency, I help

7 to support that work.

8 THE COURT: Okay. And are you familiar with

9 certain legislation, Section 3-115 of the Adminstrative

10 Code?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes; that is the legislation that

12 creates the City's Municipal ID program.

13 THE COURT: Okay. Were you involved in

14 formulating this legislation which we now have?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.

16 THE COURT: All right. Well, tell us, what was

17 the intent of forming this legislation?

18 THE WITNESS: Sure, so the intent of the

19 legislation was really quite simply to provide

20 government-issued identification cards to --

21 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, I am still having

22 trouble hearing her.

23 THE WITNESS: The intent of the legislation was

24 to provide government-issued identification cards, at the

25 local government level for individual New Yorkers who

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0650 of CES Response Declaration

 6
Agarwal The Court

1 needed it; and the reason for this is simply, uhm, in

2 daily life we often need identification cards to pick up

3 our children from school, to be able to access government

4 buildings and city services, interact with law

5 enforcement, to report crimes, to serve as a witness to

6 crimes, things like that; that was the original goal of

7 the program.

8 And in addition, the program has a number of

9 ways in which it facilitates New Yorkers' access to city

10 life. For example, parents can have -- for their

11 children's card, they can have emergency contact

12 information on the card. The card can double as a

13 library card. With the card, you can access prescription

14 drug discounts through the City's Big Apple RX program.

15 So really, the goal of the card was to help New

16 Yorkers be able to access their city better and more

17 effectively.

18 THE COURT: Who is eligible to receive such a

19 card?

20 THE WITNESS: You're eligible if you are 14

21 years or older and you live in the five boroughs of New

22 York City.

23 THE COURT: Okay. According to some of the

24 reports we have received, there are also members of the

25 various consulates and United Nations who also have

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0651 of CES Response Declaration

 7
Agarwal The Court

1 received these cards; is that correct?

2 THE WITNESS: To my understanding, yes; and

3 those would be also individuals who live within the five

4 boroughs of New York City.

5 THE COURT: Even though they are really not

6 residing here, they are members of a foreign country who

7 happen to be here for governmental business, they're

8 eligible, as well?

9 THE WITNESS: They are eligible in that they

10 likely have -- they are leasing or they are living in New

11 York City while they're here.

12 THE COURT: In addition to citizens of the

13 United States, are undocumented people eligible to

14 receive these cards?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes. Anyone who lives in the

16 five boroughs 14 or older is able to get this

17 identification card.

18 THE COURT: Okay. Now, how does one go about

19 obtaining this card?

20 THE WITNESS: So, first we ask that you make an

21 appointment. We have about 20 enrollment sites around

22 the city in all five boroughs, and when you make an

23 appointment, you arrive at one of the enrollment sites,

24 for example, uhm, the midtown Manhattan library is an

25 enrollment site, a special ID site; when you first come

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0652 of CES Response Declaration

 8
Agarwal The Court

1 in to fill out the application -- these applications are

2 available online or at the enrollment site.

3 THE COURT: Excuse me. I took the liberty

4 of -- actually, my staff took the liberty of downloading

5 a IDNYC application. I'm going to show it to you.

6 (Handing.)

7 That will be deemed, Kelly, as Court's Exhibit

8 1.

9 (Court's Exhibit 1 is deemed marked at this

10 time.)

11 THE COURT: I ask you to look at that document.

12 Are you familiar with it and what is it?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is the IDNYC

14 application.

15 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Put it right

16 there. Now, a person comes in, do they fill that out?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 THE COURT: Okay, now, in order to verify the

19 information -- well, tell us, what information is on that

20 application?

21 THE WITNESS: Sure. So in the first section is

22 "Application Type", which means, is this your first

23 application? Are you filing for a lost or stolen or

24 damaged card? But let's assume for this purpose, it's

25 your first application, so you would check that box.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0653 of CES Response Declaration

 9
Agarwal The Court

1 The next section is "Applicant Information":

2 Your first name, your last name, address, and what

3 borough you live in; and in addition, you can opt to

4 designate a gender and then your date of birth, your eye

5 color, your height, and to the extent that you have a

6 phone or e-mail address.

7 THE COURT: Okay.

8 THE WITNESS: Then, in addition, if you are a

9 veteran and would like the card to reflect that you are a

10 veteran, you can opt to do that and check that box.

11 Then, you can sort of certify that all of the

12 information that you are providing is accurate, that you

13 live in the City of New York, you are 14 years of age or

14 older, et cetera.

15 And then there are a number of optional items

16 at the bottom of the application, for example, if you

17 have a language other than English, if it's your

18 preference, you can list that, and that includes American

19 Sign Language.

20 THE COURT: Does that mean that the card would

21 be issued in a foreign language?

22 THE WITNESS: No, the card would be issued in

23 English, but on the back of the card, it would say your

24 preferred language is, for example, Spanish, which would

25 help you in navigating for city services, if needed.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0654 of CES Response Declaration

 10
Agarwal The Court

1 You can also decide if you want to be an organ

2 or tissue donor on the card, and that is also optional.

3 And then finally, you can list, if you would

4 like, an emergency contact on the back of your card.

5 THE COURT: Okay. Now, for any of this

6 information that you provide, must there be documentation

7 to verify the accuracy of your name, address, and so

8 forth and so on?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.

10 THE COURT: Now, I do have a copy of the

11 legislation here. There are many, many -- it looks

12 like -- well, tell me, what are some of the

13 documentations that must be presented in order and will

14 be acceptable in order to obtain this card?

15 THE WITNESS: Sure, so what I can start with

16 is, the system is a points-based system, so you need

17 three points to establish your identity and one point to

18 establish residency in New York City, and you can use a

19 combination of documents.

20 THE COURT: So you need documentation to

21 establish who you are?

22 THE WITNESS: Correct.

23 THE COURT: And that you are a resident of the

24 City of New York?

25 THE WITNESS: Correct.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0655 of CES Response Declaration

 11
Agarwal The Court

1 THE COURT: Let's start with who you are. What

2 kind of documentation do you need?

3 THE WITNESS: So, as I mentioned, a variety of

4 documentation can be used ranging from passports to

5 driver's licenses, uhm, social security cards, et cetera.

6 And then, for residence, it would be documents like a

7 lease, a utility bill, uhm, other documentation like that

8 that could establish residency.

9 THE COURT: Now, in addition to -- how about

10 birth certificate?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, for identification.

12 THE COURT: For identification, a birth

13 certificate; foreign or a birth certificate within the

14 United States?

15 THE WITNESS: Correct.

16 THE COURT: So you can use a foreign document?

17 THE WITNESS: It has to be certified, yes.

18 THE COURT: The document has to be certified?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes.

20 THE COURT: How about a foreign passport?

21 THE WITNESS: Yes.

22 THE COURT: In addition to a domestic passport?

23 THE WITNESS: Correct.

24 THE COURT: Okay. Who determines the

25 sufficiency of the information provided to substantiate

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0656 of CES Response Declaration

 12
Agarwal The Court

1 the application?

2 THE WITNESS: So, we have a process that we use

3 to determine -- some of the documentation is already in

4 the legislation, as you saw, and then in addition, we

5 work closely with the New York Police Department and the

6 Intelligence Division to sort of sign off on the

7 documentation and the point values, the weight that those

8 documents are given, in addition to the Human Resources

9 Administration's own sort of Anti-fraud Unit, which is

10 called the Investigation Revenue and Enforcement

11 Administration.

12 So we have our experts, City experts on

13 anti-fraud, work and document verification to sort of

14 sign off on the full list.

15 THE COURT: All right, you just said a

16 mouthful. Everyone who makes an application and provides

17 the back up information, is that person's name and/or the

18 back up information submitted to the police department or

19 the criminal justice system in order to make a

20 determination as to the identity of the person who is

21 applying?

22 THE WITNESS: No, but I can explain.

23 THE COURT: Hold on. So the answer is no to

24 that initially?

25 THE WITNESS: So, the information is actually

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0657 of CES Response Declaration

 13
Agarwal The Court

1 run though a variety of different databases. Once the

2 application information is put into our system --

3 THE COURT: A variety of databases, such as?

4 THE WITNESS: So one example would be the

5 Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is apart of the

6 US Department of the Treasury; that actual maintains a

7 list of individuals who are -- you know, either countries

8 that the United States has sanctioned against or other

9 individuals that may cause security concerns, and we'll

10 run names against that database to ensure that we're not

11 giving ID cards to people who may be on that list, as an

12 example.

13 We also have databases that contain sort of

14 general public records, to corroborate that individual's

15 name, their address, and other information. These are

16 sort of the kinds of tools that a variety of different

17 government agencies utilize.

18 We also have machines so that when you are

19 coming to enroll -- to authentic a passport, for example,

20 if it's machine readable, it very similar to the machine

21 that you have when you're traveling on a plane, same

22 thing that the TSA uses to authenticate that the document

23 that you have is valid that is in front of you.

24 So there is a number of different tools that

25 are used to authenticate this information, beyond just

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0658 of CES Response Declaration

 14
Agarwal The Court

1 what the applicant gives us on the application.

2 THE COURT: Do you require fingerprints to be

3 taken?

4 THE WITNESS: No.

5 THE COURT: Okay. Assuming after going through

6 this process, there is nothing that apparently prohibits

7 the applicant from receiving a card, okay, what do you do

8 then?

9 THE WITNESS: So, if the individual -- as we

10 are sort of going through the entire process, there is

11 also, in some instances, an individual may -- there is a

12 Program Integrity Team that might do a deeper dive on an

13 application.

14 For example, if the individual's a survivor of

15 domestic violence and they want to use a safe address,

16 the Program Integrity Team will verify that that

17 information is actually accurate with the state which

18 actually provides the confidentiality address; so there

19 might be a bit more investigation for some applicants.

20 Let's assume an individual makes it all the way

21 through the process, then a card -- if it's approved --

22 will be mailed to the applicant. That's important

23 because it's also its own security feature because it

24 then, essentially, verifies that the address that the

25 individual is giving you is the accurate information and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0659 of CES Response Declaration

 15
Agarwal The Court

1 we're not sending a card -- we're not giving the card to

2 the person at the enrollment site, we are actually

3 mailing it to them.

4 THE COURT: Is there a photograph attached to

5 the card?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 THE COURT: Okay. How long has this program

8 been in effect?

9 THE WITNESS: It's been in effect since

10 January 2015.

11 THE COURT: 20?

12 THE WITNESS: 15.

13 THE COURT: How many applications have been

14 made approximately, if you know?

15 THE WITNESS: Over a million applications have

16 been made, and nearly a million cards have been issued.

17 THE COURT: Nearly?

18 THE WITNESS: Nearly.

19 THE COURT: That means in some cases cards were

20 not issued?

21 THE WITNESS: Correct.

22 THE COURT: Okay. If you suspect that the

23 information provided is fraudulent, not accurate, for

24 instance, someone who takes information from another

25 identity and submits it so that they can get a card but

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0660 of CES Response Declaration

 16
Agarwal The Court

1 they are using information which belongs to another

2 person, which is generally considered a fraud, what steps

3 are taken by the agency here when they suspect a fraud?

4 THE WITNESS: So, if there is a case of

5 suspected fraud, the agency will deny the card and will

6 not allow the individual to have a card.

7 In addition, to the extent that we know, if

8 there is a potential victim, that individual will

9 notified, as well.

10 THE COURT: So if someone has applied for an

11 NYCID card and used their name, you will let them know

12 that someone, in effect, engaged in identity theft?

13 THE WITNESS: Potentially, exactly.

14 THE COURT: What else?

15 THE WITNESS: In addition, we will -- in

16 instances where, for example, one of the security

17 features that we use is facial recognition, so if an

18 individual sort of tries to get multiple cards under

19 different names, we will place the original card under

20 review, and we will deny the second card.

21 So there is a variety of ways to stop cards

22 from being issued or validated in instances of fraud.

23 THE COURT: Now, would you submit this

24 information to either the New York City Police Department

25 the FBI or some other enforcement agent, district or --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0661 of CES Response Declaration

 17
Agarwal The Court

1 THE WITNESS: So we -- when law enforcement

2 comes to us with an administrative judicial warrant or

3 subpoena, we do share that information with law

4 enforcement, yes.

5 THE COURT: But they have to come to you?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 THE COURT: So you do not initiate the

8 investigation by sending the information to say -- let's

9 use the NYPD, New York City Police Department -- you

10 don't say, listen, somebody's applied for a card and it's

11 fraudulent and we're suspicious?

12 Do you go to them so that the police department

13 can then initiate an investigation?

14 THE WITNESS: You know, the fraud process was

15 discussed extensively with them and the sort of

16 conclusion, which is in the law, is that when they come

17 in with a judicial warrant or subpoena, we will share

18 that information. And we are having on-going

19 conversations about how to stay in communication on that.

20 THE COURT: Okay. This brings me to my next

21 question. The back-up documentation that is submitted in

22 order to obtain this card, what do you do with documents?

23 THE WITNESS: So, uhm, the documents were --

24 THE COURT: To date, I mean up-to-date -- at

25 this point?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0662 of CES Response Declaration

 18
Agarwal The Court

1 THE WITNESS: At this point, so, the documents

2 will be scanned and they'll be stored in our system as

3 underlying personal identity and residency documents.

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 THE WITNESS: And so they're held in the

6 program's database.

7 THE COURT: In the --

8 THE WITNESS: The database. In the database.

9 THE COURT: How long do you hold them --

10 THE WITNESS: So --

11 THE COURT: -- in that database?

12 THE WITNESS: So, under the Local Law, the

13 requirement is that at most, the program would hold these

14 documents for two years; and then, the idea beyond that

15 was simply that the program is not meant to be a

16 repository for New Yorkers' personal identification and

17 residency documents. So they're -- you know, under the

18 law, two years was sort of the limit on how long these

19 documents would be held. Then, in addition to --

20 THE COURT: This was an arbitrary decision made

21 that they will hold it for two years? You could have

22 said three years or one year or anything along those

23 lines?

24 THE WITNESS: It was extensively --

25 THE COURT: Was it a judgment call on your

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0663 of CES Response Declaration

 19
Agarwal The Court

1 part?

2 THE WITNESS: Definitely not.

3 THE COURT: Well, not on your part -- I mean --

4 THE WITNESS: It was extensively discussed

5 during the legislative process. It was the bill that

6 City Council passed, that the Mayor signed through

7 legislative discussions.

8 THE COURT: Requiring two years?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.

10 THE COURT: Okay.

11 THE WITNESS: In addition, the legislation

12 requires that on or before December 31, 2016, the

13 administering agency for the program, which is HRA, Human

14 Resources Administration, must make a determination about

15 whether these underlying personal documents should be

16 retained by the program or not.

17 If HRA fails to make that determination, again,

18 the law requires that those documents be removed from the

19 system and that the program not continue to keep those

20 under the law.

21 THE COURT: Do you retain the application for

22 these cards?

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, we do.

24 THE COURT: You do not destroy the application?

25 THE WITNESS: No.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0664 of CES Response Declaration

 20
Agarwal The Court

1 THE COURT: Okay. So the application is

2 retained, but the underlying documentation to establish

3 identity and residence, at this point, is held for two

4 years except that the law now says, within the discretion

5 of HRA, they can be destroyed --

6 THE WITNESS: The law --

7 THE COURT: -- or wiped clean?

8 THE WITNESS: So the law asks HRA to make a

9 determination about whether to retain the documents or

10 not on or before December 31.

11 If HRA failed to make that determination, then

12 the law requires that we destroy those documents and not

13 collect them moving forward.

14 However, in this instance, HRA did make the

15 determination in consultation with the NYPD and a variety

16 of other stakeholders within city government.

17 THE COURT: Just slow down a little bit.

18 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I talk fast.

19 THE COURT: And keep your voice up.

20 THE WITNESS: So, the decision was made to not

21 retain the documents, and that decision was made in

22 consultation with law enforcement.

23 THE COURT: Now, according to the statute,

24 these documents can be obtained pursuant to judicial

25 subpoena, a warrant, or for purposes of litigation. Okay,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0665 of CES Response Declaration

 21
Agarwal The Court

1 if the documents are destroyed, how would it be possible

2 for a judicial subpoena to obtain them or a judicial

3 warrant for litigation, how would they be able to be

4 obtained if, in fact, they are destroyed?

5 THE WITNESS: So -- sorry, sir, I am not sure

6 where it says that litigation would enable the file of an

7 applicant to be obtained. What I do know from the

8 legislation is that if law enforcement requires an

9 applicant's file, that would include the application

10 information, including the photo, and that would be made

11 available based on judicial --

12 THE COURT: The application, the photo and the

13 card?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, exactly. Those we will

15 continue to retain under the program.

16 THE COURT: But the underlying documentation

17 might well have been destroyed by then?

18 THE WITNESS: It could be under the new policy,

19 so you wouldn't have the --

20 THE COURT: For purposes of litigation, it says

21 also -- "also" may be subject to be preserved for

22 purposes of litigation.

23 THE WITNESS: Okay, I see. So if there is

24 litigation that's pending, then the document must be

25 preserved for that purpose. But litigation doesn't

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0666 of CES Response Declaration

 22
Agarwal The Court

1 necessarily provide a predicate for offering those

2 documents, the personal information about individuals.

3 THE COURT: So the current policy as it exists

4 today, since we are beyond December 31, 2016, is that the

5 back-up information, the birth certificate, a copy of it,

6 or as it has been scanned -- the birth certificate, the

7 driver's license, whatever was presented in order to

8 verify the identity and the establishment of residency,

9 as of now, will be destroyed and not retained?

10 THE WITNESS: So, the policy is currently that

11 we -- the program does not sort of make copies of those

12 documents, but we haven't destroyed any documents because

13 of this pending litigation.

14 THE COURT: I understand. Okay, in this

15 litigation at this moment.

16 So you're not making, you're not -- a person

17 who presently submits an application, submits the back-up

18 documentation, and you are not retaining that at all?

19 THE WITNESS: So, what we'll do is, the

20 individuals will come in with original documents, we will

21 still follow the process of what I described before,

22 authenticating the documents, using a technology which we

23 have, and the Program Integrity Staff will be there to do

24 deeper dives and all that.

25 The one piece that we won't be doing is

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0667 of CES Response Declaration

 23
Agarwal The Court

1 actually making copies of those documents.

2 THE COURT: You will not?

3 THE WITNESS: -- not for the personal identity

4 and residency.

5 THE COURT: And those that you already have,

6 will be destroyed?

7 THE WITNESS: What we currently have is being

8 preserved presently because of this.

9 THE COURT: But subsequent, after this

10 litigation, when there is no longer a legal requirement

11 to hold them, they will be destroyed?

12 THE WITNESS: The determination has been made

13 that those documents will not be retained.

14 THE COURT: Not be retained. Okay. Thank you.

15 Now, Ms. Miller, would you like to ask

16 questions of this witness that haven't already been

17 asked?

18 MS. MILLER: Yes.

19 DIRECT EXAMINATION

20 BY MS. MILLER:

21 Q If you don't mind, could we go back to the bill for

22 a second. Specifically, if I could give a copy to the

23 witness. I want you to look at Page 5, which is the

24 retention part of the statute.

25 THE COURT: You have a copy of the bill?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0668 of CES Response Declaration

 24
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 MS. MILLER: Do I? Yes.

2 THE COURT: The Court takes judicial notice of

3 the bill, obviously.

4 MS. MILLER: Thank you.

5 (Handing.)

6 THE COURT: You recognize this, Ms. Agarwal?

7 THE WITNESS: I do.

8 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

9 BY MS. MILLER:

10 Q I want to ask a question -- turn to Page 5 where it

11 says -- and I'm in Section E: Confidentiality of New York

12 City Identity Card eligibility information.

13 You made reference to policy and I just wanted to

14 discuss that for one second.

15 Since you were involved, with respect to this bill

16 and the passing of the bill, can you just explain to the

17 Court exactly how this particular section of the bill works

18 vis-a-vis retention and destruction of documents?

19 A Sure. So, the provision was discussed extensively

20 during the legislative process and Provision 1 says that:

21 The City shall destroy copies of records provided by

22 applicants to prove identity or residency that have been

23 retained for more than two years.

24 So the idea here is, if I applied for my ID card in

25 January of 2015, I knew when I did that that my card

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0669 of CES Response Declaration

 25
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 information or specifically my personal identity and

2 residency information would not be held by the City for more

3 than two years under any circumstance; so that's really what

4 this first provision speaks to.

5 The second provision --

6 Q Excuse me, that's not policy, that is the law as

7 passed by the City Council?

8 A Absolutely.

9 Q Okay; continue.

10 A And then the second provision, again, which is in

11 the law, says that: On or before December 31, the

12 administering agency -- in this case --

13 Q Excuse me. Again, December 31 of 2016?

14 A Yes, 2016.

15 Q Go ahead.

16 A The administering agency shall review data

17 collected during the program, and issue a report on -- and

18 determine whether retention of the records sort of -- if

19 there any need for any modification for the retention of

20 records.

21 And then the third provision says that: In the

22 event that the agency fails to make any determination, the

23 records must be destroyed and the agency is prohibited under

24 the law from being able to continue to obtain those

25 underlying residency and identity documents.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0670 of CES Response Declaration

 26
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 Q So when you said earlier that there was a policy

2 shift, and that going forward, the documents would not be

3 retained, that actually comes from the law?

4 A That's right, and it's really from this provision

5 that requires the HRA to make the determination, which HRA

6 did in collaboration with law enforcement and other

7 stakeholders on the decision.

8 THE COURT: Just for the record, HRA has been

9 designated as the agency to implement this bill?

10 THE WITNESS: Correct.

11 MS. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor.

12 Q With respect to the underlying documents that the

13 Court is asking you about, the documents that are presented

14 to prove residency and to prove I am who I say I am, those

15 are the documents that we are discussing -- excuse me -- that

16 are being discussed in this bill to be destroyed or retained?

17 A Correct.

18 Q And HRA, at some point -- do you know when HRA made

19 a decision or said that, you know, there is no reason to keep

20 those documents?

21 A I believe it was December 7, 2016.

22 Q Okay. When did, if you know, HRA start collecting

23 this documentation? When did the whole process begin where

24 folks could apply for an ID?

25 A January 2015, when the program launched.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0671 of CES Response Declaration

 27
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 Q So the documents we are talking about go from

2 January 2015 to December 2016 -- December 7 of 2016?

3 A Yes.

4 Q So that is the world we are in.

5 Going forward --

6 MR. BATRA: I'm sorry, what was the last -- the

7 second date?

8 THE WITNESS: December 7 --

9 MS. MILLER: December 7, 2016.

10 MR. BATRA: Thank you.

11 Q Going forward, correct me if I'm wrong, pursuant to

12 the law, those documents will no longer be retained?

13 A Correct.

14 Q Now, you mentioned a few minutes ago this bill,

15 specifically, this piece that we are talking about, was

16 something discussed when the bill was obviously being

17 discussed, drafted, and parsed, et cetera?

18 A Very much so.

19 Q And you mentioned law enforcement?

20 A Yes.

21 Q Did you personally have discussions with law

22 enforcement?

23 A I did. They were very involved in the process of

24 both deliberating on the legislation, on advising on what

25 documents we would accept to ensure the validity of the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0672 of CES Response Declaration

 28
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 applicant's information that was being provided, the

2 technologies we use, and they continue to be involved to

3 today in advising on how we implement other components of

4 law.

5 Q And you mentioned HRA being the administering

6 agency. And on December 7, HRA said, no need to retain these

7 documents; if HRA had done nothing, nothing on December 7,

8 did nothing, what would have happened pursuant to the bill?

9 THE COURT: Excuse me? Excuse me? Is the

10 commissioner here from HRA?

11 MS. MILLER: Not yet, he is on his way.

12 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

13 You see, I thought these questions could probably be

14 better directed toward the Commissioner.

15 MS. MILLER: Could be. I am trying to --

16 THE COURT: We will take a little bit more, I

17 don't want duplication here. Go ahead.

18 Q Okay. If the commissioner did nothing, that is,

19 didn't sign the document that said it's okay to go ahead

20 pursuant to the bill, and no one retained these documents,

21 what would have happened according to the bill?

22 A So, according to the bill, Provision E-3 in

23 particular, the City would be required to no longer retain

24 the documents we already collected; specifically, these

25 identity -- copies of the personal identity and residency

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0673 of CES Response Declaration

 29
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 documents, and we would not be allowed to continue to collect

2 those documents moving forward under the law.

3 Q Okay. Okay. Just to be clear, there's been some

4 noise present, otherwise, that there is a purging of

5 documents happening; is there a purge of documents happening?

6 A As I mentioned before, we are going to be holding

7 onto all of the information on the application, we will be

8 keeping photos, and keeping sort of the government

9 administration of documents that we have for this; so we're

10 not purging the entire database.

11 Q So does the documents that you are going to hang on

12 to includes the card, a copy of the card?

13 A Correct; and it includes all the information that's

14 on the card; name, address, uhm, gender, all of the

15 information that is sort of on the application, and the card

16 will continue to be retained and that includes the photo and

17 signature.

18 Q And the photo, that's a recent photo of the person

19 or --

20 A Well, it's as recent as when the person applied in

21 January 2015 or later.

22 Q Who takes the photo?

23 A The photo is taken by program staff themselves.

24 Q So it's as you look when you apply for the card?

25 A Yes. There is special technology that is used for

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0674 of CES Response Declaration

 30
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 taking that photo for the card.

2 Q So the card is being retained not purged, and the

3 copy of it has a recent photo of the individual?

4 A Correct.

5 Q Is there a signature on the card?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Is there an address on the card?

8 A Yes, in most cases.

9 Q And you made reference to domestic violence

10 survivors?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Can you explain that to the judge for a second.

13 A Sure, so in some instances, the law requires us to

14 establish special rules for populations that, for example,

15 may need confidentiality and a safe address, because they are

16 survivors of domestic violence. They don't want their ID

17 card to potentially reflect where they actually live, and to

18 be able to keep them safe against their abuser, what we use

19 is a safe address under the confidentiality program, which is

20 a PO Box address. Typically, we wouldn't accept PO Box

21 addresses for the card, but for this special population, we

22 would; so that's an example.

23 Q So going back to what's retained and what is on the

24 card, is there a signature on the card?

25 A Correct.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0675 of CES Response Declaration

 31
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 Q Okay, so all right, so that's being retained?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Is there an emergency contact on the card?

4 A Yes, but not -- some people don't choose to list an

5 emergency contact.

6 Q What else is on the card? Did I get everything?

7 Did I miss anything?

8 A Preferred language, Veteran designation; there's

9 sort of a number of optional fields that may also be

10 retained.

11 THE COURT: Along with the card, the

12 application form is being retained?

13 THE WITNESS: Correct.

14 Q And we've gone through what is required in the

15 application?

16 A Yes.

17 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else, Ma'am?

18 Q What about one's date of birth; is that on the

19 card?

20 A Yes.

21 MS. MILLER: Just a couple more questions, if I

22 may, your Honor?

23 THE COURT: Sure.

24 MS. MILLER: Thank you.

25 Q The bill also speaks to reporting requirements,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0676 of CES Response Declaration

 32
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 true?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Could you just explain that to the Court?

4 A Sure. So, under the law, the IDNYC program is

5 required to report quarterly to the Mayor and the Speaker of

6 the City Council, and we also post these quarterly reports on

7 our website for public consumption, and a number of different

8 issues, and those are all listed in Section H of the law;

9 these include the number of applications the City has

10 received, the number of cards we've actually issued, the

11 number of cards we've issued to minors, the number of

12 requests that have come in for information, sort of, data

13 about the program from either City agencies or law

14 enforcement. We also have to report on the number of denials

15 of the card that are made, and the outreach that we're doing

16 to perspective applicants, and City acceptance of the ID

17 card.

18 THE COURT: You are promoting acceptance of the

19 ID card?

20 THE WITNESS: Yes, to public and private

21 entities to sort of maximize its utilities.

22 A So there are a number of different things that we

23 are required to report on on a quarterly basis.

24 THE COURT: And you said public and private?

25 THE WITNESS: Yes.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0677 of CES Response Declaration

 33
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 THE COURT: Okay.

2 Q And that, of course, will continue?

3 A Absolutely.

4 Q Nothing's changing about that?

5 A Absolutely, we're going to continue to do that

6 reporting and retain that data.

7 Q All right. As you know, the two Petitioners here

8 have raised issues about banking and the banking permit for

9 the State Assembly in the course of the bill being --

10 THE COURT: Why don't we have them speak to

11 that.

12 MS. MILLER: I just want to make one point.

13 THE COURT: Go ahead.

14 Q Did anybody speak -- I'm sorry, withdrawn.

15 When a bill is being presented, is there testimony

16 given before the City Council?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Do I have that right? Explain that?

19 A Yes, sure. When a bill is being developed, there

20 is testimony before the City Council Immigration Committee,

21 in this case, they held a hearing on this bill.

22 Q Okay. And did anybody from the banking world give

23 testimony?

24 A Yes; we had Mastercard testify on this issue and

25 also other individuals speak to financial access for the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0678 of CES Response Declaration

 34
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 card. Different advocacy groups and other third parties.

2 Q So that was something that City Council considered

3 and heard about, banking issues?

4 A Yes; and the -- the City also convened financial

5 institutions and industry groups on banking throughout this

6 process, before the legislation was finalized to really

7 understand financial issues, it's been a topic of

8 conversation from the beginning of the program.

9 Q Did there come a point in time when there was

10 communication between -- communication from the Federal

11 Reserve, for example, concerning the ID?

12 A Yes. So my office, as well as the Department of

13 Consumer Affairs, met with a number of federal regulators and

14 state regulators on whether the IDNYC could be utilized for

15 the purpose of opening a bank account.

16 We also requested in writing to the New York State

17 Bankers Association guidance from regulators about what the

18 card could be used for, the purpose, and we received guidance

19 from four of the main federal regulators of banks, as well as

20 from state regulators of banks --

21 Q And the conclusion?

22 A -- and other institutions.

23 Q And the conclusion?

24 A So, from the federal regulators, this ID card can

25 be used for purposes of opening bank accounts.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0679 of CES Response Declaration

 35
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 Q When you say "can", they can't tell the bank, you

2 must use it and allow the individual, the applicant, to open

3 the bank account?

4 A No, they cannot issue a mandate to the banks.

5 Q So let's switch over to the other side, the state

6 side; did there come a point in time that you heard from

7 state banking folks?

8 A Yes, we did.

9 Q Who?

10 A From the Department of Financial Services, and they

11 also said that the card can be used for the purposes of

12 opening a bank account.

13 THE COURT: The operative word being "can", not

14 "must"?

15 THE WITNESS: Correct.

16 MS. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor, that was my

17 next question.

18 Q With respect to those two groups, federal and

19 state, what if anything -- the fact that they have said you

20 may -- a bank may or can use the card, what if anything, does

21 that tell you with respect to the integrity of the card?

22 A Well, I think it tells us that there is -- well,

23 the regulators say it suggests a high degree of confidence in

24 the security and validity of the card.

25 In addition, when we launched the program, we had

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0680 of CES Response Declaration

 36
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 about a dozen financial institutions, both banks and credit

2 unions, already choosing to participate in the program, which

3 is also, I think, an indication of the confidence that they

4 have in the ID card.

5 Q And just one more thing.

6 With respect to confidentiality, when an applicant

7 comes in to apply for one of these New York City IDs, what if

8 anything, is the applicant told concerning confidentiality?

9 A We have a special fact sheet, if you will, on

10 privacy and confidentiality, and as mentioned in the law, the

11 program has promised applicants that we will protect their

12 confidentiality to the maximum extent permitted by the law.

13 We share with them information about -- you know, at the

14 time -- that their documents will not be held for more than

15 two years. We provide them with information about their --

16 reassuring them about the privacy and confidentiality of the

17 program, because people are coming to us and they are

18 submitting this personal identity and residency information

19 to make themselves eligible for the card, and even as the

20 legislation was being discussed, there were very strong

21 interests around privacy and making sure that people's

22 information would be protected. And so we reassure

23 individuals, through verbal communication and enrollment

24 assistance, through materials that we provide at the

25 enrollment site, online, and a variety of different ways, and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0681 of CES Response Declaration

 37
Agarwal Direct/Miller

1 really in every public press release that we have issued,

2 again, reassuring New Yorkers that their information would be

3 private and confidential.

4 THE COURT: Thank you.

5 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, let me speak with my

6 consultant. Just one second. I'm good. Thank you.

7 THE COURT: Thank you.

8 MR. BATRA: May I, your Honor?

9 THE COURT: Hold on. Go ahead, Mr. Batra.

10 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor. May I move

11 the lecturn -- the podium, rather?

12 THE COURT: You want it a little closer to you?

13 MR. BATRA: Yes.

14 THE COURT: You can move it to where you just

15 moved it -- where it is now -- and that's it.

16 Go ahead.

17 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

18 CROSS-EXAMINATION

19 BY MR. BATRA:

20 Q Commissioner, good for you to be here.

21 Your background; are you a licensed lawyer in the

22 State of New York?

23 A I am.

24 Q Now, I want to try and go in reverse order because

25 of what was just covered recently, I want to get to that

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0682 of CES Response Declaration

 38
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 first.

2 You were asked the question by my colleague,

3 Patricia Miller, for the City about confidentiality, and you

4 said that the applicants are told that -- about privacy and

5 confidentiality -- that, "we will protect it to the maximum

6 extent of law", correct?

7 A Yes, correct.

8 Q And in the law, we have a pyramid, do we not, we on

9 the very top is the constitution, correct? The federal

10 constitution?

11 THE COURT: Wait. Mr. Batra, please.

12 We are not going through legal questions here

13 as far as what the pyramid of law is and so forth.

14 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, I understand that.

15 THE COURT: You recognize that we have a United

16 States Constitution and New York State Constitution?

17 THE WITNESS: I do.

18 THE COURT: Go ahead.

19 Q And do you also acknowledge that New York City law

20 cannot overrule New York State law; you know that, right?

21 A I know that there are State Law that can preempt

22 local authority and be able to regulate in some areas, but

23 not always.

24 Q I'm not going into the preempt issue, I am simply

25 asking you this question. If there is a conflict between

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0683 of CES Response Declaration

 39
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 Local Law and State Law, State Law trumps, correct?

2 A Okay.

3 THE COURT: That's a question of law. I am

4 taking testimony here, I'll categorize whether the State

5 Law preempts Local Law or whether the Federal Law

6 preempts both State Law and Local law; so ask the

7 question.

8 Q Now, you know that New York State has a FOIL law;

9 are you familiar with that?

10 A Yes.

11 Q And you're familiar that the origin of the FOIL Law

12 is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address?

13 MS. MILLER: Objection.

14 THE COURT: Are you familiar with that?

15 Lincoln himself is the person who initiated this concept

16 of FOIL?

17 THE WITNESS: I was not actually familiar with

18 that.

19 Q Do you know that the State of New York has a strong

20 public policy that the public, which the government serves,

21 should know what the government is doing and why it's doing

22 it, and what the basis for what it is doing is?

23 Are you aware of that?

24 MS. MILLER: Objection.

25 THE COURT: Are you aware of this?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0684 of CES Response Declaration

 40
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 THE WITNESS: I am aware of the sort of broad

2 policy notion behind FOIL.

3 Q Okay. Now, I'll skip for the moment about the

4 banking issue, although I do want to come back to that.

5 Ms. Miller also asked you several times about the

6 policy, that this was the law; correct?

7 A Correct.

8 Q But it's only the law until Justice Minardo says

9 it's the law, correct?

10 A Well --

11 Q After the Judge -- after the Court reviews the

12 Local Law and considers it against New York State law, the

13 New York State Constitution, and any other applicable law

14 that may apply; isn't that correct?

15 MS. MILLER: Wait, I say this with no

16 disrespect; objection, your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Sustained. The law is the law and

18 in effect unless the Court, for some reason, rules

19 otherwise and it's not only my Court, if it comes to

20 that, it will go all the way to the Court of Appeals and

21 ultimately the highest Court in the State will determine

22 whether I have correctly or incorrectly ruled if a

23 certain law violates the constitution or some other

24 prevailing law; but that's for the Court to decide.

25 Let's ask questions of this witness if you have

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0685 of CES Response Declaration

 41
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 questions.

2 MR. BATRA: I am, your Honor.

3 Q You said that MasterCard testified?

4 A Correct.

5 Q And the reason MasterCard testified is because you

6 were considering making the ID card a debit card; isn't that

7 correct?

8 A No; MasterCard testified, to my recollection,

9 advocating for the card to be a debit card, but we decided

10 not to do that.

11 Q Okay. But that was the reason why they were out

12 there testifying, because they were promoting the use of the

13 ID card as a debit card?

14 A They were promoting the use of it, yeah.

15 Q And when this banking issue came up, was the issue

16 of banking to assist people who were, for lack of a better

17 word, underprivileged socio-economically in society, so that

18 they can get access to financial services and have a better

19 life?

20 A Yes, it was very much a part of the testimony that

21 was provided.

22 Q While you were creating -- withdrawn.

23 The idea for an ID card wasn't yours, was it?

24 A Mine alone, no.

25 Q Well, when did you first hear of it before you

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0686 of CES Response Declaration

 42
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 started working on it?

2 A I was familiar from my prior work in this field

3 with the fact that other cities had enacted municipal ID

4 cards.

5 Q I understand that. In New York City, who came up

6 with the idea that we should have an ID card in New York

7 City?

8 MS. MILLER: Objection.

9 Q Leaving aside San Francisco and Oakland --

10 THE COURT: Overruled. If you know.

11 A I think there were probably many people who were

12 talking about the issue, so there were certainly folks in

13 the -- sort of the advocacy world. There's a coalition that

14 we met with regularly, and certainly, City Council

15 legislators and others who were interested in this since they

16 introduced the law.

17 THE COURT: How about the Mayor?

18 THE WITNESS: And the Mayor, also, in his first

19 state of the City address announced being in support for

20 this program.

21 Q The Mayor in his first state of the City address,

22 where he set out a legislative agenda for the City, announced

23 the ID program, correct?

24 A He announced support for the program.

25 Q Of course. Well, an executive can't pass the law,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0687 of CES Response Declaration

 43
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 right? You need a legislature to do that, right? Separation

2 of powers, right?

3 A Right; correct.

4 Q Okay. So the Mayor said, as an executive, I want

5 to make the City more compassionate to our citizens, right?

6 And he says, I want to use the ID for that, correct?

7 A He, to my recollection, said he would like to make

8 the City more inclusive, yes.

9 Q Okay. And of course, he couldn't pass the law by

10 himself by execute order, correct?

11 A He -- he -- we, the City Council, passed the law.

12 Q So the Mayor alone did not executively pass it,

13 correct?

14 A Correct.

15 Q So he needed the legislature to do that, the City

16 Council, correct?

17 A Yes.

18 MS. MILLER: Objection to the word needed.

19 THE COURT: Overruled. You got to have a law

20 passed by the legislature before the executive can sign

21 it into law. Go ahead.

22 Q And, in fact, you testified as part of the City

23 Council deliberations, correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And the committee that you testified before was the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0688 of CES Response Declaration

 44
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 Immigration Committee, correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And before you testified, there was another person

4 who testified, I believe, Mindy Tarlow?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And, in fact, she introduced you as her new friend

7 back then, correct?

8 A Well, sure.

9 Q Now, during this process, before you went to

10 testify in the City Council and before this bill was being

11 deliberated, let alone voted on by the committee and passed

12 by the City Council for the Mayor's consideration and

13 signature or veto, as the case may be, prior to it going to

14 the City Council, did you raise personally a concern for

15 public safety or national security as a consideration to be

16 dealt with?

17 A We -- yes, we were concerned with ensuring that

18 this that card was designed with highest level of security

19 and protection to make the card as effective as it possibly

20 can be.

21 Q Highest level of public safety?

22 A That was --

23 Q Is that what you heard?

24 A It was an important factor; I would say that there

25 were a number of different factors related to this program.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0689 of CES Response Declaration

 45
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 One, ensuring that it was accessible to a broad range of New

2 Yorkers, another, is it a secure program; and a third issue,

3 which was significant, the issue of privacy and

4 confidentiality.

5 Q My question, Ma'am, dealt with public

6 safety/national security; and my question was, was that topic

7 discussed -- withdrawn.

8 Was that topic raised by you while this bill or

9 this idea was being considered by the Mayor?

10 A We were in regular communication with the experts

11 on security, which were our NYPD --

12 Q Not my question. I am asking did you raise it?

13 THE COURT: No, no, sir. You want to know if

14 she raised the topic?

15 MR. BATRA: Yes, absolutely.

16 THE COURT: Did you raise it or were you

17 present when others raised it? Was this topic discussed

18 when the bill was being formulated or the idea was

19 formulated?

20 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, extensively.

21 Q Extensively by you or somebody else?

22 MS. MILLER: Objection.

23 THE COURT: Sustained. She indicated that she

24 was present or if she didn't, she was present when others

25 did; but the issue was raised. Go ahead.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0690 of CES Response Declaration

 46
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 MR. BATRA: Okay.

2 Q Did the Mayor -- did you ever hear the Mayor say to

3 you or any of the other City employees, I want to be nice to

4 the people of New York, but I don't want to put public safety

5 or national security at risk, and your job, as my

6 Commissioner, is to make sure that you be compassionate

7 without putting our City, State, or Nation at risk?

8 THE COURT: Sustained.

9 Q Did you hear the Mayor say that?

10 THE COURT: Give me a question, please.

11 Q Did you hear from the Mayor, who announced the

12 policy for the City of New York in the first state of the

13 City address, that the main concern, offsetting, there is

14 always tension in policy, correct?

15 A Policy is often a balancing act.

16 Q There is also tension between one or the other,

17 it's called the relationship between guns and butter; you can

18 have guns or butter; it's the same issue?

19 MS. MILLER: What?

20 MR. BATRA: Nevermind.

21 Q So, was the number one point of tension that had to

22 be deliberated and solved so the City can be compassionate to

23 the people -- we ought to be, because we are New Yorkers, we

24 are compassionate people -- was the biggest issues of tension

25 one of public safety and national security, especially when

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0691 of CES Response Declaration

 47
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 we've had 9-1-1 right here?

2 MS. MILLER: Objection.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Please, Mr. Batra, you can elicit testimony

5 concerning the issues in this case and you stated in your

6 papers FOIL was a major contention, so please, let's get

7 something that is relevant to the issues raised in the

8 motion -- yeah, the motion and the answer; please.

9 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

10 Q Now, in answer to the Court's questioning, as well

11 as the City's questioning, you clarified that the local law

12 as passed by the City Council and signed by the Mayor, had

13 three provisions for records retention, right?

14 One was -- it said, it laid out a two-year period,

15 correct?

16 A Correct, the first provision.

17 Q And then it said HRA, the agency charged -- as you

18 told the Judge -- uhm, the agency charged with this is HRA;

19 correct?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And that they were empowered by this law, after the

22 City Council passed it, and the Mayor signed it, to make a

23 determination whether or not going forward they are going to

24 maintain the records or destroy them --

25 A No.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0692 of CES Response Declaration

 48
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 Q Or not even take them in the first instance

2 starting January 1, 2017?

3 A No, they're required under the law to make that

4 determination.

5 Q Right. That's what I'm -- that is what you just

6 said. So the law directed the Director of HRA to make that

7 determination?

8 A Yes. And in the event that HRA did not make that

9 determination, the law also requires that those documents not

10 be retained.

11 Q Okay. So, this law had a default provision,

12 correct, which said if the Director of HRA or the

13 Commissioner of HRA, can't quite decide because there are

14 competing issues like whether or not we should keep these

15 records, the law forced the destruction; isn't that correct?

16 MS. MILLER: Objection.

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

18 Q If the Commissioner of HRA didn't decide whether or

19 not to keep or not to keep -- whether that's the agency

20 charged with effectuating this law -- the law directed that

21 their documents be destroyed, correct?

22 A If the determination were not made.

23 Q Right. And if the determination was made to

24 destroy the records, of course, then you destroyed the

25 records, correct?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0693 of CES Response Declaration

 49
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 A If the determination were made that the documents

2 did not need to be retained, then we would follow --

3 Q Right, so if the --

4 MS. MILLER: I'm sorry, she didn't finish her

5 answer. She said we would follow --

6 A We would follow the law; we would follow the sort

7 of process --

8 THE COURT: Could the Commissioner decide that

9 he wanted to retain these back up documents and not

10 destroy them?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes; that's exactly the purpose

12 of the provision is to make a decision.

13 THE COURT: So if the Commissioner decides to

14 destroy or not destroy, retain or not retain, or to not

15 even retain them, when the application is made, not

16 even take them at all initially, that's all within the

17 discretion of the Commissioner of HRA?

18 THE WITNESS: Modifications to the retention

19 policy would be under the Commissioner's discretion as

20 required by the law.

21 Q Look at the law that Ms. Miller gave you, which is

22 in front of you, E (1), which is the one that talks about

23 retention for two years.

24 A Yes.

25 Q Okay. Before I go into the other two sections,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0694 of CES Response Declaration

 50
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 what is the validity of the New York City ID card?

2 A Sorry, can you explain what you mean validity?

3 Q If I came last month -- let's assume for a minute,

4 I was issued an ID card, how long is my card valid for?

5 A Five years.

6 Q Okay. And that is true for everyone you issue it

7 to, right?

8 A Yes.

9 Q So it is not some cards get two years and some get

10 five years?

11 A No.

12 Q Everybody gets five years?

13 A Yes.

14 Q But the law says that you should only keep records

15 for two years even though your card is valid for five; does

16 that make sense to you?

17 MS. MILLER: Objection.

18 THE COURT: Yeah, the last part of the

19 question, does that make sense to you?

20 Q The law says two years, but the card is valid for

21 five, correct?

22 A Correct.

23 Q So, if a person within the five-year period, but

24 more than two years, has a problem with his card for whatever

25 reason, maybe there is an identity -- a theft of the ID, New

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0695 of CES Response Declaration

 51
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 York City ID card, and the applicant comes back to you, how

2 does HRA help that person or give them a replacement card

3 when you've already destroyed your records two years later?

4 A We ask them to come with records and we then put

5 them through our system again, so they would have to

6 re-establish.

7 Q But the system, you say, purges after two years,

8 right, the back-up documents that were initially presented to

9 HRA to get the ID card, right?

10 A Right.

11 Q You have two levels of documentation, one is proof

12 documents for identity, and you may have proof documents for

13 residency, correct?

14 A Correct. Maybe a way to answer this question would

15 be if somebody comes in --

16 Q Let me ask the questions.

17 THE COURT: No. No. Answer the question.

18 A If an individual, for example, comes in and they

19 want to change their address for the card, that is one way

20 you get a replacement card, you still have to bring in your

21 residency documents to establish that your residency has

22 changed.

23 Q But that's not question. I am asking you something

24 else. You've purged -- under the law E (1), you've issued a

25 card, and two years later, you've already purged the proof

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0696 of CES Response Declaration

 52
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 documents for ID or residents; so year three of the ID card

2 system, a person shows up and says, I lost the card, I got

3 mugged, and they say, well, I'd like another one. Based upon

4 the answers I heard you give to both the Court, as well as

5 Ms. Miller, was that the purging of the records is not

6 complete, it's just the proof records both for identity and

7 residents; is that correct?

8 A Correct.

9 Q But you still maintain the application as the Judge

10 asked?

11 A Right.

12 Q And the ID card itself?

13 A Correct, right.

14 Q So if the same person shows up and you can look at

15 their picture, they've gained some weight -- you will

16 discount that -- but you know, it's fine, you know, it's the

17 same person, right; so there is no problem in helping a

18 person who's lost his card in the third year because you

19 still have the photo ID, correct?

20 A I guess. I don't understand what you mean by

21 helping a person.

22 Q I'll move on.

23 Okay. So, let me go to E (2). E (2) is the one

24 that has the default provision, which is says destroy them,

25 correct?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0697 of CES Response Declaration

 53
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 A Okay.

2 Q So, either HRA or the Commissioner says destroy it

3 or the law says, even if you didn't decide, destroy it,

4 correct?

5 A No, the provision says on or before December 31,

6 2016, the administering agency shall review the data

7 collected in order to determine whether any appropriate

8 modifications must be made.

9 Q Right. And then 3 says: If you didn't make the

10 decision under 2, destroy; and if you decided to destroy,

11 destroy; correct?

12 A The third provision says: In the event either the

13 administering agency fails to make a decision or the

14 administering agency determines that records retention is no

15 longer necessary, then the City shall not retain.

16 Q Isn't that what I just said, that is what I just

17 asked you.

18 MS. MILLER: Actually, Counsel --

19 THE COURT: Sir, sir. Editorializing really

20 doesn't count. I can read this law just as well as you

21 can, and so can everybody else. We know exactly what it

22 says. If you want her to give her interpretation of

23 portions of it, please ask her to do that.

24 Q Do you know -- you are aware that the Chairman of

25 the Immigration Committee -- you know his name?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0698 of CES Response Declaration

 54
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 A Carlos Menchaca.

2 Q Councilman?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Do know that he announced very publicly the motive

5 behind that date December 31, 2016, for paragraphs E (2) and

6 E (3); you are aware of that right?

7 A I am aware that he has spoken to this, yes.

8 Q Your awareness, does it confirm that the Chairman

9 of the Immigration Committee said that because it could be a

10 new president from a different party, we want to have that

11 fail-safe provision; you are aware of that, right?

12 MS. MILLER: Objection; relevance.

13 THE COURT: No, I'm interested in this. Go

14 ahead.

15 A You know, I don't -- I can't speak for what he

16 said.

17 Q No, I'm asking you --

18 THE COURT: Are you aware?

19 THE WITNESS: I am aware of what he said.

20 THE COURT: What did he say? What are you

21 aware of what he said during these decisions?

22 THE WITNESS: What I am aware of is not his

23 exact wording, but there was some sort of interest in the

24 provision, in the event that there were some political

25 change, in his opinion.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0699 of CES Response Declaration

 55
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 Q Have you seen the wonderful petition that my

2 colleague Jeff Alfano put together? Have you seen this?

3 A I don't believe so.

4 Q Okay. Well, we've found it in our office, but

5 anyway, the first Exhibit H to the petition is an article

6 printed in the New York Post, dated February 16, 2015, and it

7 cites the Chairman of the Committee, the Immigration

8 Committee, where he announces to the world that the reason

9 this clause is in E 1, 2 and 3 is because he's building in a

10 political safe -- fail-safe clause in the law, simply because

11 we may go from one side of the aisle to the other side of the

12 aisle, when we are proud of our two-party system; are you

13 aware of this?

14 MS. MILLER: Objection.

15 THE COURT: Are you aware of this?

16 THE WITNESS: I'm not quite sure.

17 THE COURT: This is a reference to a newspaper

18 article, a newspaper article?

19 MR. BATRA: It's in the petition.

20 THE COURT: Which reports what allegedly was

21 said by the Council member and is made apart of the

22 Petitioner's papers. Are you aware of what the

23 Councilman said, that the council member said with

24 respect to the possible change of administration, in the

25 presidency; would that be something that they considered

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0700 of CES Response Declaration

 56
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 when putting in this petition?

2 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm generally aware

3 of that he said.

4 THE COURT: Generally.

5 THE WITNESS: That he said that, and that's it.

6 THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.

7 Q And do you vote, Ma'am?

8 A I do.

9 THE COURT: You know -- please, please.

10 MR. BATRA: I will correct it, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: You will correct it. Go ahead.

12 Q Do you vote? Do you vote?

13 A I do.

14 Q Do you have the freedom to pick who you want to

15 lead the city, state or nation?

16 THE COURT: Sustained. Come on. That is the

17 reason why she votes.

18 Q Well, but can a Councilman in the City of New York

19 seek to thwart the will of the electorate of the entire

20 country?

21 THE COURT: Sustained. Gee, you know what,

22 let's take ten minutes. Let's gather ourselves here.

23 Ten minutes, please.

24 (Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

25 COURT CLERK: All rise.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0701 of CES Response Declaration

 57
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 THE COURT: Please be seated. We have other

2 witnesses here, and I'm just reminding you that I just

3 require some information from me to make a decision here.

4 So, let' get right to the point. I'm interested in

5 hearing about your contentions about FOIL, please.

6 MR. BATRA: That's fine.

7 Q Commissioner, you described to the Court when the

8 Court was inquiring about the intake process?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And now the People at HRA that are doing that, uhm,

11 are they law enforcement people?

12 A They are not law enforcement people.

13 Q Are they experts in counterfeiting of foreign

14 documents?

15 A They have been extensively trained by the same

16 industry groups that train, for example, DMV officials on

17 things like the authenticity of documents. They have state

18 of the art technology to assist them, so they have been

19 extensively trained in this area.

20 Q You recall answering the Court's inquiry about

21 whether the consulates or members of the UN or governmental

22 community that live in New York City, that they are eligible

23 to get an ID card; so you are aware that there are consulates

24 in New York City, correct?

25 A Yes?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0702 of CES Response Declaration

 58
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 Q For foreign countries?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Now, are you aware that the ID New York City card

4 process accepts expired foreign documents?

5 A The IDNYC program accepts expired machine readable

6 passports.

7 Q So, the City of New York accepts expired foreign

8 documents, correct?

9 A Not all foreign documents.

10 Q It accepts some of them, correct?

11 A Machine readable expired.

12 Q So if it's a foreign document and it has expired,

13 but it's machine readable, you accept it, correct?

14 A Not all foreign documents.

15 Q I heard that. I accepted your answer.

16 I said, so if it's machine readable --

17 THE COURT: Which documents would you accept?

18 Expired foreign documents, you said not all, which ones?

19 THE WITNESS: Specifically, expired passports

20 that are machine readable that have expired within the

21 last three years; and the reason for that, which has been

22 vetted with our law enforcement and fraud experts, is

23 because those are documents that nevertheless have been

24 verified through our technologies.

25 Q So when you get an expired foreign passport that is

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0703 of CES Response Declaration

 59
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 machine readable, do you send it to the foreign consulate

2 that is in the City of New York to have them verified that it

3 was, in fact, issued by them to this individual with this

4 picture?

5 A What we have at the enrollment sites is the same

6 technology that's used by the TSA. For example, when you are

7 boarding a plane, to actually be able to verify the

8 document's authenticity, that it contains all the different

9 security features that documents from that country are meant

10 to contain.

11 Q Now, my colleague Jeff has just given me some of

12 the City's intake documentation, document acceptability, and

13 it lists under identity: US passport, is that correct -- or

14 US passport card?

15 A Yes.

16 Q That's issued by the Department of State in

17 Washington?

18 A I believe so.

19 Q An expired US passport, correct?

20 A Uhm, on the list?

21 Q Yes.

22 A I would have to look at list to confirm that.

23 Q Well, to my point, it also states: Foreign

24 passport not machine readable. That's also on the list

25 contrary to your testimony. You want to take a look at this?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0704 of CES Response Declaration

 60
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 (Handing.)

2 A Sure.

3 THE COURT: No, no, no. We have them all laid

4 out right here, right? It's right in the bill.

5 MR. BATRA: HRA -- the regulations were passed

6 by HRA, post the bill, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: This is not the bill.

8 MR. BATRA: The regulations; they are HRA

9 regulations.

10 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, this was on the HRA

11 website, it's a Document Calculator, it's put forward by

12 HRA. I can bring up our copy.

13 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, we have a full copy,

14 why don't we just give it to you. Hold on. You have a

15 full copy?

16 THE COURT: Including the amendments and

17 additional information. Officer, please.

18 (Handing.)

19 MS. MILLER: You want to call it Court's 2?

20 MR. BATRA: Petitioner's 1, your Honor?

21 MS. MILLER: Whatever, I don't care.

22 MR. ALFANO: Can we take a look at it, your

23 Honor, to make sure it's the same.

24 THE COURT: I believe, it's Court's 3. It's

25 deemed Court's 3.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0705 of CES Response Declaration

 61
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 (Whereupon, Court's 3 is deemed marked at this

2 time.)

3 THE COURT: Go ahead.

4 MS. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor.

5 Q If you would, flip to the section: Identity.

6 Acceptable documents.

7 A Okay.

8 Q The sixth one, right under foreign passport machine

9 readable, it says: "Foreign passport not machine readable",

10 and in parens (2); that's two points; right?

11 A Yes.

12 Q So you need three points to win, and you get two

13 points for an expired foreign passport that's not machine

14 readable, right?

15 A That is not referring to foreign passports that are

16 not machine readable; this is referring to current passports,

17 not machine readable.

18 Q Not machine readable. Machine readable, you are

19 given two points out of three, right?

20 A Yes.

21 Q Are you aware that in other countries around the

22 world, there are actual mail order passports for sale?

23 MS. MILLER: Objection.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 Q As a City government charged with public safety,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0706 of CES Response Declaration

 62
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 are you -- do you know state aware of what is going on in the

2 world?

3 MS. MILLER: Objection.

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

5 Q Are you aware that 60 Minutes just this Sunday,

6 January 1st --

7 THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

8 Q Aired a program about passports for sale?

9 THE COURT: Sustained.

10 Q Are you familiar with countries selling passports?

11 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, objection.

12 THE COURT: Are you familiar with countries who

13 accept these whatever? Are you?

14 THE WITNESS: No.

15 MR. BATRA: Thank you.

16 Q You are not aware -- are you aware that sometimes

17 people, when they do identity theft, they even do it on

18 passports?

19 A We have -- I will say, I am aware that we've worked

20 with individuals who are very knowledgeable about this in

21 determining a list of documents, it's not my decision alone.

22 Q This is HRA acceptable proof for identity and you

23 give a, not machine readable foreign passport two points,

24 right, out of three?

25 A This is in consultation with the NYPD who have

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0707 of CES Response Declaration

 63
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 signed off on each --

2 Q Ma'am, that is not what I am asking you.

3 THE COURT: No. No. No. You can answer the

4 question. And we have another witness that can better

5 address these issues.

6 MR. BATRA: That's fine.

7 THE COURT: Let's move on.

8 MR. BATRA: That's fine, your Honor.

9 Q Are you familiar with State and Federal Law that

10 deals -- that criminalizes the -- any conduct that provides

11 material support for terrorism?

12 THE COURT: Sustained.

13 Q Are you familiar with -- that people who engage in

14 banking, whether they deposit money or withdraw money,

15 whether it's from elicit drug sales or in support of

16 terrorism, is a crime; are you familiar with this?

17 THE COURT: Sustained.

18 Q Ma'am, do you remember getting a letter from the

19 New York State Bankers Association -- I think you testified

20 to that in your prior examination by I think Ms. Miller?

21 A Uhm, I would be curious to know which letter you

22 are referring to.

23 Q Okay, I'm looking at a letter issued by the New

24 York Bankers Association, dated October 6, 2014, addressed to

25 you as Commissioner of the Mayor's office; and it was also

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0708 of CES Response Declaration

 64
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 copied to the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs

2 Commissioner, Julie Menin; Tamara Lindsay, Office of

3 Financial Empowerment; and Lincoln Restler, Mayor's Office of

4 Operations. And I think, Mindy Tarlow is the Director,

5 correct?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Are you familiar with that letter?

8 A I am. I would have to look at it again to remember

9 the content.

10 Q Okay.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Wait a minute. Do we have a

12 copy of that letter?

13 MS. MILLER: Not the date given by counsel, is

14 that the correct date?

15 MR. BATRA: October 26 -- October 26, 2014. I

16 will get you a copy.

17 THE COURT: Does the Petitioner have a copy of

18 that?

19 MR. ALFANO: Our banking witness brought it in

20 this morning. We're going to make a copy now, your

21 Honor.

22 MS. MILLER: We just want a copy. We're making

23 a copy now.

24 THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you ask another

25 question while we are waiting for the copy.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0709 of CES Response Declaration

 65
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 MR. BATRA: Surely, your Honor. Thank you.

2 Q Now, prior to the law being passed by the City

3 Council and before its being approved by the Mayor -- and

4 those are two discrete acts; correct?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And after the Mayor signed the Local Law, the bill

7 into law, he then directed HRA to come up with regulations

8 effectuating the policy and the law, correct?

9 A Well, the law requires the administering agency to

10 effectuate rules.

11 Q So those are three distinct discrete areas,

12 correct?

13 A Yes.

14 Q One is the legislative process; one is the Mayor

15 agreeing or not agreeing to sign. In case he agreed, and

16 then the law directing HRA to come up with regulations,

17 correct?

18 A The law directs the administering agency; and the

19 administering agency was later determined by the Mayor to be

20 HRA, through an executive order.

21 THE COURT: She now has a copy of that letter.

22 Look at it.

23 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

24 THE COURT: You can take a look at it. Okay.

25 Deem that Court's 4.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0710 of CES Response Declaration

 66
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 (Whereupon, Court's 4 is deemed marked at this

2 time.)

3 MR. BATRA: And that's dated October 6, 2014,

4 your Honor. It's a two-page letter sent by Michael P.

5 Smith, President and CEO, New York State Bankers

6 Association.

7 Q I want to direct your attention, Commissioner, to

8 the first page, the first paragraph, you know, says nice

9 things about how wonderful an idea it is to take care of

10 people.

11 And then I want to direct your attention to

12 Paragraph 2. It says -- and I quote: "Our attached July 9,

13 2014 letter laid out in some detail, the array of laws and

14 regulations including the US Patriot Act, the Bank Secrecy

15 Act, and Anti-Money Laundering Act, all which have been

16 enacted over the past 15 years in response to money

17 laundering, foreign sanctions imposed by the United States

18 Government on certain foreign statutes -- it should say

19 states not statutes -- on foreign states and individuals and

20 concerns about terrorism.

21 It continues quote: We also emphasize that failure

22 to comply with these laws can result in serious consequences

23 to the integrity of the financial system, our nation's

24 security and to the financial institutions deemed to be in

25 violation of the applicable laws.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0711 of CES Response Declaration

 67
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 As such, we will limit this comment letter to

2 several specific concerns we have with the proposed

3 regulation's methodology for determining a New York City

4 resident's qualifications for receiving a municipal ID card.

5 Next page, quote: Before doing so, we note that

6 the City has clearly worked very hard to make its Municipal

7 ID card the most secure and least likely to be fraudulently

8 reproduced of those municipal ID cards in existence to date

9 nationwide, and we very much appreciate those efforts.

10 Nevertheless, some aspects of the regulation's

11 protocols continue to create regulatory compliance challenges

12 for our members. Our first concern is that the card

13 identification requirements do not fulfill the

14 identifications requirement for a non-US person as set out by

15 the US Patriot Act. While Federal Law does provide some

16 degree of flexibility with respect to which documents a

17 financial institution may accept as primary identification,

18 the standards those documents must meet are not flexible.

19 Now, without going further into this for the

20 moment, when you read this third paragraph, the first one on

21 Page 2 of the letter, did that give you pause that the

22 bankers are telling you you're putting them in a Hobson's

23 choice, if they follow your directions, that if they go ahead

24 and accept this, they are going to end up in violation of

25 Federal Law, and the bankers are going to be in trouble and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0712 of CES Response Declaration

 68
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 subject to the US Attorney challenging them or hauling them

2 into Court.

3 Did that -- was that a matter of concern?

4 A Well, what we did in response to these concerns was

5 with the New York State Bankers Association, we wrote to the

6 relevant federal regulators that actually manage and regulate

7 these banks to request written guidance about whether these

8 laws -- whether the municipal ID card would be acceptable for

9 opening the bank account.

10 Q Did you tell the people you were consulting that

11 the law was being passed, that this document destruction

12 provision of two years or if no decision was made, automatic

13 destruction?

14 A We shared --

15 Q On December 31 of 2016?

16 A We shared extensively with both federal regulators

17 and state legislators, the rules, documents accepted, and the

18 security and anti-fraud features that were utilized.

19 Q And then you got a waiver from the Secretary of the

20 United States Treasury, right?

21 A We did not get a waiver.

22 Q You didn't?

23 A We got an opinion that said the ID card be used for

24 the purposes of opening a bank account.

25 Q You didn't get a waiver from the Secretary of

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0713 of CES Response Declaration

 69
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 Treasury of the United States that said even though your

2 regulations violate the Patriot Act, that you can still go

3 ahead?

4 MS. MILLER: Objection.

5 THE COURT: Sustained as to whether they

6 violated the US Patriot Act. Was that the nature of your

7 objection?

8 MS. MILLER: Yes.

9 Q Did you get a waiver, Ma'am?

10 A No, we got an opinion from them saying that the

11 card can be used --

12 Q Do you have that opinion?

13 A Whose?

14 THE COURT: Who is "them". When you say

15 them --

16 THE WITNESS: Four federal regulators and the

17 state regulators and the banks.

18 And we do have a copy of the letter. I don't

19 have it in front of me.

20 MS. MILLER: I have it.

21 THE COURT: Nevermind. Okay.

22 Q The next paragraph, quote: In this regard, we note

23 that the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles issues

24 an identification card which is accepted by many financial

25 institutions as primary identification and acknowledge that

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0714 of CES Response Declaration

 70
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 many of the same documents appear on both the New York City

2 Municipal ID card program and state ID lists of acceptable

3 forms of identification. However, New York City requires

4 only three points of identification, while the State requires

5 six.

6 Did that give you pause that the looser your

7 standards are for authenticity of identity, when identity

8 theft is a civil problem, let alone a crime or terror

9 problem, that the City was trying to be compassionate in the

10 wrong way?

11 MS. MILLER: Objection.

12 THE COURT: You understand that question?

13 THE WITNESS: Sort of.

14 THE COURT: Answer it as best you can,

15 according to the way you understand it.

16 A So, I would say that the point requirement by

17 itself does not necessarily indicate that the card is less

18 secure. Our card program is of an incredibly high degree of

19 security. And again, validated -- we are using state of the

20 art technology to validate this information. Law enforcement

21 has been engaged in every step of the process and we have an

22 incredibly strong process for validating people's identity

23 before they get the card.

24 Q People that have expired foreign passports that are

25 not machine readable are accepted by you, correct?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0715 of CES Response Declaration

 71
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 A No.

2 Q They're not?

3 A No.

4 Q But foreign passports that are not machine readable

5 are acceptable by you, right?

6 A Foreign passports that are not machine readable are

7 acceptable with two points; that individual would have to

8 provide additional identity proof.

9 Q I understand. But you give two points for a

10 foreign passport that is not machine readable, and as part of

11 your normal protocol, you don't send it to the local

12 consulate in New York to verify for each applicant that shows

13 up with an expired foreign -- with a foreign passport that is

14 not machine readable?

15 A I didn't say that. What we have is staff that are

16 fully trained and they use guidance and sample materials that

17 are actually provided by the consulate, and provided in that

18 way, to be able to confirm whether documents are valid.

19 THE COURT: The Court has adequate information

20 regarding the questions you've asked and the answers that

21 you've given on this topic of what is done in order to be

22 sure that they have the proper information and what they

23 do to verify and check. And if you want to supply me

24 with any other thing that you do or do not do with

25 respect to this issue, please do so. Otherwise, let's

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0716 of CES Response Declaration

 72
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 move on because we have -- I don't require anything more

2 from this witness in order to have me decide this motion

3 and we do have another couple other witnesses.

4 MR. BATRA: I will take two more minutes, your

5 Honor. Thank you.

6 Q Okay. You are aware, Ma'am, that New York State

7 has a presumption under New York State FOIL Law that the

8 records are to remain available to the public?

9 MS. MILLER: Objection.

10 THE COURT: What are you aware of concerning

11 the New York State FOIL law as far as document retention?

12 THE WITNESS: I am not very aware of -- I am

13 not a legal expert on the FOIL issue.

14 Q Have you heard Public Offices Law, Section 84 of

15 the FOIL law?

16 A Yes, I have heard of the FOIL Law.

17 Q Have you read it?

18 A I have not read it extensively, no.

19 Q Are you aware of the Court of Appeals cases and

20 Appellate Division cases --

21 A No.

22 Q -- that say that the state law must be followed

23 unless there is a specific exemption in not disclosing --

24 A What case are you talking about, sir?

25 MR. BATRA: Several. Your Honor?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0717 of CES Response Declaration

 73
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 THE COURT: Go ahead.

2 BY MR. BATRA:

3 Q One is the matter of Gannett Satellite Info.

4 Network, Inc. versus County of Putnam, 142 AD 3d 1012 at 1014

5 2d 2016. Quoting the matter of Gould versus the City -- New

6 York City Police Department, Court of Appeals --

7 THE COURT: The Court is well are aware of the

8 matter of Gould, it's a trilogy of cases. Gould and

9 Scott and DeFelice and Barbara, in the Court of Appeals

10 at 89 NY 2d; and I think that is the leading case in this

11 area concerning the FOIL issue by the police, by specific

12 criminal defendants, requesting documentation from the

13 police department. So, I think that would probably be

14 the leading case in the area, but I'm sure there are

15 others. Go ahead.

16 MR. BATRA: Thank you. Since your Honor has

17 already dealt with that, I will move onto the next issue.

18 Q You are aware under FOIL law of the State of New

19 York, the burden is on the City or the agency that doesn't

20 want to disclose information; you are aware of that; right?

21 A I am not -- again, I am not an expert on FOIL law.

22 Q Have you read Public Offices Law, Section 84b?

23 MS. MILLER: Objection. Asked and answered.

24 THE COURT: Are you aware?

25 THE WITNESS: I have not read the FOIL law. I

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0718 of CES Response Declaration

 74
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 am not an expert on it.

2 Q Are you aware that State law mandates that if the

3 municipality denies a FOIL request, it has to do specific

4 exemptions made in state law and that those exemptions are to

5 be narrowly, not liberally, narrowly construed?

6 THE COURT: That is your interpretation of what

7 the FOIL Law is. I think we are through with this

8 witness, sir.

9 MR. BATRA: Last question.

10 THE COURT: All right, I will allow one last

11 question.

12 Q You are aware that DMV has a document retention

13 policy which has a higher point ID -- point level of six

14 rather than New York City's three, with a five-year document

15 retention policy; are you aware of this?

16 MS. MILLER: Objection; relevance.

17 THE COURT: No. No. Overruled. Are you aware

18 of that?

19 THE WITNESS: I am generally aware of different

20 driver's license policies around the county.

21 Q I am asking you about New York State, are you aware

22 that in New York State, the DMV --

23 THE COURT: Are you aware of the criteria that

24 New York State has in order to issue a non-driving

25 driver's license as a form of ID?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0719 of CES Response Declaration

 75
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, but not in detail. I

2 couldn't speak in great detail to their policies.

3 THE COURT: Are you aware their policy is to

4 hold supporting documentation for five years?

5 THE WITNESS: I believe that to be true.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

7 MR. BATRA: Your Honor.

8 Q And finally, you remember issuing a report on

9 December 31, 2016 just last week, to the Mayor and the

10 speaker?

11 A Yes, that is the quarterly report.

12 Q And it was signed by you, along with Steven Banks

13 as Commissioner of HRA and Mindy Tarlow, correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And the report that you issued, you're familiar

16 with, right, it Was only week ago or so?

17 A Yes.

18 Q In that you stated on Page 4 of that letter or

19 report --

20 MS. MILLER: Excuse me, could the witness just

21 have a copy of that. I have a copy. Wait a minute.

22 Q Are you familiar with this report? This is your

23 report?

24 A Yes, I'm familiar with the report.

25 THE COURT: All right. Let's see if she needs

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0720 of CES Response Declaration

 76
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 a copy.

2 MR. BATRA: Could we have this deemed Court's

3 Exhibit 5.

4 THE COURT: We'll deem it Court's Exhibit 5.

5 (Whereupon, Court's 5 is deemed marked at this

6 time.)

7 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

8 Q If you would turn to Page 4, Ma'am, Number 7; it

9 states: The number of New York City identity card applicants

10 whose information was disclosed to law enforcement,

11 disaggregated by whether such disclosure was pursuant to a

12 judicial warrant or judicial subpoena; and the answer to that

13 question was: During this reporting period, IDNYC disclosed

14 information concerning three applicants pursuant to judicial

15 subpoenas; one from the United States Attorneys Office for

16 the District of Connecticut and two from the Manhattan

17 District Attorneys Office.

18 That was your report to the Mayor and the City

19 Council, correct?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And you were able to comply with these judicial

22 subpoenas, so-ordered subpoenas, one from the US Attorney's

23 Office, District of Connecticut, and two from the Manhattan

24 District Attorney's Office because you had no records,

25 correct?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0721 of CES Response Declaration

 77
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 MS. MILLER: Objection.

2 THE COURT: Overruled. Can you answer.

3 A Yes.

4 Q Okay. And so, when you complied with these three

5 subpoenas, you had not just the ID card information that

6 you're keeping, but the identity proof documents and the

7 residency proof documents, correct?

8 A I believe so.

9 Q So the full package of what HRA was originally

10 presented with was shared with law enforcement; correct?

11 A Whatever we had on the applicant's in question, we

12 shared.

13 Q But under the new policy which is starting January

14 1, 2017, which is, you're not keeping any records, you see

15 them, but you don't scan anything, correct?

16 A That's not true, we are keeping name, address

17 signature, photo.

18 THE COURT: The application?

19 THE WITNESS: The application, right.

20 Q But the proof documents, I said to you, you're not

21 keeping any of the proof documents anymore, isn't that

22 correct?

23 A We wouldn't be keeping underlying personal identity

24 and or residency documents.

25 Q So the answer to my question is yes, you're not

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0722 of CES Response Declaration

 78
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 keeping them, correct?

2 A We are not retaining them, yes.

3 Q Thank you.

4 THE COURT: You're done. You said one more.

5 MR. BATRA: It's the same document, Judge, and

6 I'm sitting down. Thirty seconds?

7 THE COURT: That was 30 seconds three minutes

8 ago.

9 MR. BATRA: Please, just one.

10 THE COURT: Very, very last. Now, for the

11 third time, the last question. Go ahead.

12 MR. BATRA: I appreciate the Court's

13 indulgence.

14 Q Paragraph Numbered 8.

15 A Yes.

16 Q The number of occurrences of fraud or other

17 criminal activity related to the issuance of New York City ID

18 cards; that's the question.

19 And the answer is: To date, 102 cases have been

20 detected to have a high likelihood of suspected fraud.

21 Correct?

22 A Correct.

23 Q So, these are the 102 cases you caught; can you

24 tell the Court with any certainty which cases are fraud that

25 you didn't catch?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0723 of CES Response Declaration

 79
Agarwal Cross/Batra

1 MS. MILLER: Objection.

2 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

3 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

4 MS. MILLER: Can I ask just one?

5 THE COURT: One. Go ahead.

6 MS. MILLER: Just one.

7 THE COURT: I will give you one question.

8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY MS. MILLER:

10 Q What was the vote of the City Council on the bill?

11 A Forty-three in favor, three opposed.

12 MS. MILLER: Thanks.

13 THE COURT: You may step down.

14 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, I have a housekeeping

15 question. Court's 2 was which document?

16 COURT CLERK: I think we skipped two for some

17 reason.

18 THE COURT: We will review what I have, it's

19 okay.

20 MS. MILLER: And then, do you need the two

21 letters that were referred to from the financial

22 industry, the state and the federal, or you don't need

23 that?

24 THE COURT: I don't need that. Okay. All

25 right. We have -- do we have Commissioner Banks here?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0724 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL3

Exhibit Page No.: 0725 of CES Response Declaration

 80
Agarwal Redirect/Miller

1 MS. MILLER: Yes. Yes.

2 THE COURT: All right. Let's have Commissioner

3 Banks.

4 S T E V E N B A N K S, called as a witness, having been

5 first duly sworn, was examined and testifies as follows:

6 COURT CLERK: Put your hand down. Have a seat.

7 Give us your name and business address.

8 THE WITNESS: My name is Steven Banks,

9 S-T-E-V-E-N, B-A-N-K-S; my business address is 4 World

10 Trade Center New York, New York.

11 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Banks -- or

12 Commissioner Banks, the questions that are being asked by

13 myself or any of the lawyers, please answer them as

14 directly as you can. If you don't understand them, tell

15 me you don't understand them, and we'll rephrase the

16 question for you.

17 In the meantime, relax and keep your voice up.

18 Tell us what your position is with the City of

19 New York?

20 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

21 I will do that. I'm the Commissioner of the

22 Human Resources Administration and the Department of

23 Social Services, in that role I also work with the

24 Department of Homeless Services.

25 THE COURT: Are you familiar with this

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0726 of CES Response Declaration

 81
Banks The Court

1 legislation, Section 3-115 of the Adminstrative Code,

2 having to deal with the IDNYC cards?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes. The legislation charges me

4 with implementing it.

5 THE COURT: Tell us what your responsibilities

6 are in implementing this legislation?

7 THE WITNESS: By executive order by the Mayor,

8 I was -- my agency was named as the administrator. The

9 legislation refers to the administering agency in

10 multiple places, with respect to different functions and

11 so I'm responsible for those actions. By administration,

12 the legislation refers to eligibility determinations,

13 reporting, and document destruction.

14 THE COURT: Okay. Let's go to document

15 destruction. Under the legislation, you are charged with

16 determining whether or not the documents that are

17 submitted along with the application for an ID card, your

18 agency is to determine how long the supporting documents

19 are kept, and determining whether the data on that

20 information should be destroyed or kept or retained, tell

21 us about that. We've heard initial initially, were you

22 keeping the information back up information for a period

23 of two years, but as of December 31, you would make of

24 2016 you had make a determination as to whether they this

25 information should be destroyed on that date, and whether

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0727 of CES Response Declaration

 82
Banks The Court

1 or not would you retain any of that information for

2 future applications.

3 If you understand my question. Can you address

4 it.

5 THE WITNESS: I do. And if you will give me a

6 little leeway in addressing this.

7 THE COURT: I will give you leeway. Go ahead.

8 THE WITNESS: The legislation that I acted

9 under you gives several options. One option is to do

10 nothing, and if I do nothing, the documents that are of a

11 personal nature are destroyed, simply by operation of the

12 local law.

13 THE COURT: Documents that are supplied,

14 meaning the documents supplied to support the application

15 for the issuance of the cards, correct?

16 THE WITNESS: Correct. Specifically, the

17 personal documents submitted by individuals, now, almost

18 a million people; they fill out an application, but

19 they -- also, and a photo is taken; this provision of

20 legislation does not address destruction of the

21 application or the photo, this part of the legislation

22 addresses only the personal documents. So for example,

23 in my case, I have an ID, I submitted my license and also

24 someone else might submit a marriage document, he might

25 submit a tax return, some personal information; the law

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0728 of CES Response Declaration

 83
Banks The Court

1 provides if I do nothing, all of that information is

2 destroyed.

3 THE COURT: As of December 31, 2016?

4 THE WITNESS: Correct.

5 THE COURT: Subject to the provisions of the

6 Court delaying that process until this case is

7 determined?

8 THE WITNESS: That's correct, your Honor, but

9 as an administrator, that's what I am, as an

10 administrator, the law tells me if I do nothing, the

11 documents are destroyed. The law also tells me that I

12 could make a determination as an administrator, not in a

13 personal capacity, as administrator, I can make a

14 determination to retain documents or to modify the

15 policies. But the first thing that it tells me is, if I

16 do nothing, these documents are destroyed.

17 THE COURT: How has this been implemented?

18 Have you retained documents? Have a destroyed documents?

19 Tell us little bit about it.

20 THE WITNESS: These personal documents,

21 personal documents are retained, because the law provided

22 for the December 31 date, giving me the ability to make a

23 determination; but again, if I did nothing, they're

24 destroyed.

25 THE COURT: You can determine to keep these

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0729 of CES Response Declaration

 84
Banks The Court

1 documents for a period of time or destroy them?

2 THE WITNESS: You could decide to keep these

3 documents, these personal documents, not as a matter of

4 unfettered discretion. The law is very clear, is there

5 any need to retain the documents?

6 The law has the presumes there is no need

7 because automatically the documents are destroyed, if I

8 do nothing.

9 THE COURT: Well, is there something -- some

10 language in there, pursuant to judicial subpoena,

11 judicial warrant or litigation?

12 THE WITNESS: Those are -- that relates to --

13 if I -- for example, if I had an active subpoena on

14 December 31, the law is clear, I couldn't destroy those

15 documents without complying or moving to quash or taking

16 some action on the subpoena or alternatively, if there

17 was some type of judicial matter; but the law again is

18 very clear, come that date, if I do nothing the documents

19 are destroyed.

20 THE COURT: Excuse me. There's been issues

21 raised about the security of the applications. In other

22 words, it's been reported there have been a number of

23 fraudulent applications. We heard a number bandied

24 about, 102 fraudulent applications, and there may be many

25 more, where fraud has been implemented in order to

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0730 of CES Response Declaration

 85
Banks The Court

1 attempt to obtain these cards; what role do you play in

2 that matter?

3 THE WITNESS: Uhm, these are HRA employees that

4 are making those determinations to not give someone a

5 card.

6 If I may, one of the reasons why HRA was

7 selected as the administering agency is that we have

8 expertise in providing benefits and denying benefits to

9 people based upon documents.

10 So, HRA -- quite a part from that particular

11 program -- provides services to three million New Yorkers

12 through the Medicare program, food stamp program, and

13 public assistance programs, and when the Council in the

14 administration were evaluating an agency to choose to be

15 to the administrator, we were looked to because we have

16 expertise in evaluating applications and evaluating

17 documents in making determinations.

18 THE COURT: As to their truthfulness and --

19 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

20 THE COURT: -- in setting up programs to

21 administer benefits?

22 THE WITNESS: So the employees that are

23 involved in the administration of this program are

24 trained to evaluate documents, and in fact, among those

25 that are apart of the process are people who hold the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0731 of CES Response Declaration

 86
Banks The Court

1 title of fraud investigator; that's a particular civil

2 services title. HRA developed that title many years ago

3 under prior administrations. In running our agency, it's

4 a very important part of our program's integrity to have

5 it. So we have staff that are experts in evaluating

6 individuals that come in and present documents, and

7 present information about their identity and their

8 residence. And then, we have also other staff who are

9 experts in giving an extra look into cases that may be

10 flagged. So it's that system that determined that there

11 are 120 cases in which we thought there were issues.

12 Many of those cases involved are photo recognition

13 technology. I did hear Commissioner Agarwal testify

14 about this, but the tools that we've given our staff are

15 the same tools that the TSA has. Uhm, the company that

16 we -- that gave us these tools, it is a company that's

17 responsible for 80 percent of the licenses in the United

18 States, they provide the technology and the tools, the

19 same ones are given to the TSA, to the State Department,

20 the FBI.

21 They have given us the tools to be able to --

22 if someone comes in and uses a photo, we already know

23 that person has a card to identify that that person

24 should not be given the card because of the risk of

25 identity theft, for example; and those are some of the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0732 of CES Response Declaration

 87
Banks The Court

1 denials among that 102.

2 THE COURT: There's been testimony that over a

3 million cards have been issued, is that correct?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, actually over a million

5 applications have been taken and --

6 THE COURT: Excuse me. Go ahead.

7 THE WITNESS: And less than a million, not

8 quite a million cards have been issued?

9 THE COURT: That was my next question.

10 Over a million or so applications, but less

11 than a million cards have been issued --

12 THE WITNESS: That's about the --

13 THE COURT: There's been denial of issuance of

14 cards; is that correct?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, again by staff that we

16 train to evaluate identity/residency.

17 THE COURT: Identity/residency. Okay.

18 Approximately, what percentage is denied?

19 THE WITNESS: About one to two percent.

20 THE COURT: One to two percent?

21 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

22 THE COURT: But of course --

23 THE WITNESS: I don't mean to interrupt, your

24 Honor, but those are the people that complete their

25 applications. Uhm, there are people that come to us, who

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0733 of CES Response Declaration

 88
Banks The Court

1 the first workers that they see tell them you don't

2 have -- you don't have a basis to apply, you're not from

3 New York City, you've got Connecticut documents. So,

4 there are people that don't even submit applications

5 because it's obvious on their face, that they are not

6 going to accept it.

7 THE COURT: Okay. City, questions?

8 MS. MILLER: Just one second.

9 THE COURT: Sure.

10 MS. MILLER: I have no questions, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Go ahead. You want to ask the

12 Commissioner some questions?

13 MR. BATRA: Yes, your Honor. I am going to be

14 asking some questions and my colleague will follow-up

15 with a few. We will try to streamline this.

16 CROSS-EXAMINATION

17 BY MR. BATRA:

18 Q Great to see you, Commissioner.

19 You have a fabulous history in protecting Legal

20 Aid, and you're well familiar from your prior title, of what

21 FOIL does, and how wonderfully useful it is in criminal

22 defense.

23 A It's great to be here in Staten Island because that

24 is where I began by Legal Aid career, right over at 42

25 Richmond Terrace, I have a lot of great memories here.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0734 of CES Response Declaration

 89
Banks Cross/Batra

1 Q For a short time, a year or so, I was --

2 THE COURT: Okay, okay --

3 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I worked there from 1981 to

4 1986 at the old --

5 THE COURT: Criminal Court Supreme?

6 THE WITNESS: I started there as a civil

7 lawyer.

8 THE COURT: Oh, the Civil Division.

9 THE WITNESS: I spent a lot of time at the

10 courthouse; I think, you know, over on Bement and

11 Castleton.

12 THE COURT: Oh, yes.

13 All right; now, that we've gone through all

14 those niceties, let's get to the issue.

15 Q Commissioner, if I heard you correctly, you are the

16 Commissioner of HRA, Department of Social Services and you do

17 something with the homeless you said?

18 A Earlier this year, the Mayor determined to

19 integrate the Department of Homeless Services and HRA under a

20 single commissioner, the Commissioner of the Department of

21 Social Services, which is the title I hold.

22 Q So, if a person was for whatever reason down in

23 their luck and they happen to be in a homeless shelter for 15

24 for more days and had no proof of who they were and what

25 their resident was, could they get an ID card from you?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0735 of CES Response Declaration

 90
Banks Cross/Batra

1 A We would take a letter from an executive level

2 person from the shelter -- but I want to also make it clear

3 that that's pursuant to the legislation. I'm here as

4 administrator, I am not hear as the head of the Legal Aid

5 Society anymore. I'm here as someone simply running a

6 program where the statute has given me the power upon which I

7 would act.

8 Q I'm holding you responsible, that is what the law

9 allows you to do?

10 A I follow the law.

11 Q And the law says, if a person comes having stayed

12 15 or more days in a homeless shelter, with no identity, no

13 documents proving identity or residence, that a letter from

14 the homeless shelter is enough to get an ID card?

15 A That is not exactly the case, that is not the case.

16 Q Can you classify?

17 A As part of the application process, you have to

18 establish identity and residence. The local law provision

19 relates to residence. There are other things that are

20 required in order to establish identity.

21 Q Such as?

22 A The kinds of things that are specified in local law

23 that we then used when we promulgate a rule. So, for

24 example, a benefits card that HRA issues could entitle

25 someone to some number of points to be able to obtain an ID,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0736 of CES Response Declaration

 91
Banks Cross/Batra

1 and of course, uhm, as you know, many people in the shelter

2 system do receive public assistance and they would have such

3 a card.

4 Q So they are already part of your system.

5 A Many people are, yes.

6 Q Now, you said the law has a rebuttable presumption

7 to destroy the documents?

8 A I did not say that.

9 Q Didn't you say the first option was do nothing and

10 then documents are destroyed?

11 A Again, my testimony was the law says very clearly

12 if I do nothing, the documents -- the personal documents only

13 are destroyed.

14 Q The personal documents we are talking about are the

15 proof document for identity or residents?

16 A Yeah, my mortgage documents or my Con Edison bill

17 or my lease, those documents.

18 Q As to location? How about for identity, what about

19 those documents?

20 A Similarly my passport or my, you know, public

21 assistance benefit card, which of course, I would have a

22 great interest in not having people see my public assistance

23 identity card.

24 Q But those identity proof documents and the

25 residence proof documents are destroyed, if you do nothing,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0737 of CES Response Declaration

 92
Banks Cross/Batra

1 correct?

2 A Under the plain language of the law, yes.

3 Q Fine. And now, since you are the Administrator of

4 HRA and Social Services and now also the Department of

5 Homeless is also with you, what is your retention policy for

6 Medicaid beneficiaries, for those documents' retention?

7 MS. MILLER: Objection.

8 THE COURT: Objection. Overruled. Go ahead.

9 A For retaining Medicaid documents, I am governed by

10 the operative law that is in effect for retaining Medicaid

11 documents.

12 Q How long is that?

13 A If you show me a document, if you refresh my

14 recollection; but I can certainly tell you that for each

15 program we administer -- and we have administer many

16 programs -- there are different periods of time that we

17 operate under for eligibility, for operation of the program,

18 including documents.

19 Q And for retention?

20 A Yes. Here, I just have to add -- and I hope it's

21 not a line -- the law here tells me how long to retain things

22 and, again, I am the Administrator, the law says retain

23 things for two years.

24 Q And if you do nothing, destroy it?

25 A Correct.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0738 of CES Response Declaration

 93
Banks Cross/Batra

1 Q But the law did empower you to make a determination

2 if you wanted to?

3 A But not with unfettered.

4 Q I understand that, but it did give you discretion

5 because you are the agency charged with, you know,

6 effectuating the policy.

7 A I think the law is very clear, it speaks for

8 everything, it says everything should be destroyed unless as

9 the Commissioner there is some operational need to keep them.

10 Q Now, you have -- under HRA, you have a seven year

11 retention policy after the closing of an investigation?

12 A If you show me some document, I'd be happy to --

13 Q Do you know?

14 A I don't know what you're showing me?

15 Q Okay.

16 THE COURT: Refresh his recollection.

17 (Handing.)

18 THE COURT: If he wants to refresh his

19 recollection with that document, I am not going to make

20 it a Court exhibit.

21 MS. MILLER: Okay, instead of wasting time, can

22 I stand there to see what he's looking at to refresh his

23 recollection? Can I go up there and see what the witness

24 is looking at to refresh his recollection?

25 THE COURT: No, give it to the witness.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0739 of CES Response Declaration

 94
Banks Cross/Batra

1 MR. BATRA: You can stand next to me, you can

2 see what I am doing.

3 THE COURT: Mind your own business, Mr. Batra.

4 Take a look at it. What is he looking at?

5 Q Sir, turn to Page 42?

6 MS. MILLER: I could have done that.

7 Your Honor, I will take counsel up on his offer

8 to look over his shoulder.

9 MR. BATRA: Page 42, please. Stand with me.

10 THE COURT: You just want him to take a look at

11 it?

12 MS. MILLER: Yeah, okay.

13 MR. BATRA: I got other pages. Stay here.

14 THE COURT: Go ahead.

15 Q Page 42 on the bottom half of the page, do you see

16 the retention period in the box on the right hand side?

17 A I do.

18 Q And after closure of the investigation -- this is

19 Investigative Folders/Immigration and Transit.

20 You see that?

21 A I do see it.

22 Q And it says: Used to verify -- used to verify the

23 legitimacy of immigrants and foreigners requesting welfare.

24 And then it continues on, and it says: The retention period

25 for this is -- after the closure of the investigation --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0740 of CES Response Declaration

 95
Banks Cross/Batra

1 seven years, correct?

2 A With respect to -- I think you're comparing apples

3 to oranges.

4 Q That may be but it says seven years, correct?

5 A With the stipulation that you are comparing apples

6 to oranges, yes.

7 THE COURT: Seven years is what it says. Now,

8 you want to explain that? Go ahead.

9 A The documents here are for purposes relating to the

10 granting of public assistance benefits. The law that I am

11 administering with respect to the IDNYC is adopted

12 specifically by the legislative body that tells me how to

13 operate the program.

14 Q I understand. I was not questioning nor faulting

15 you for the content of the law, but I am asking you, the law

16 empowered you under Paragraph E (2) that you could decide the

17 retention if you wanted it to be different?

18 A If there was an operational need to do so.

19 THE COURT: Yes. All right. I am very, very

20 aware that so we can move on because we're going to

21 finish this witness in another ten minutes, please.

22 MR. BATRA: I will take two more minutes and I

23 will yield the time to Jeff.

24 Q If you to go Page 45, sir. This is HRA, Freedom of

25 Information Law Requests. And this says you keep your

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0741 of CES Response Declaration

 96
Banks Cross/Batra

1 records for five years. Why do you -- why do you keep ID New

2 York City records less, than the five years than you do for

3 everything else in your agency?

4 A I have a specific local law that delineates what my

5 authority is with respect to the IDNYC.

6 Q Did you advise City Council for the Mayor's office

7 that the County of New York is subject to State law?

8 A I'm administrator for the program. When it was

9 determined -- when my agency was determined to be

10 administrator, we complied and implemented the program.

11 Q Right. Did you inform the City either the Speakers

12 office, City Council or the Mayor's Office that the law is in

13 conflict with the State law?

14 MS. MILLER: Objection.

15 THE COURT: Sustained.

16 Q On the same page there is, again, Freedom of

17 Information, where the requests have been denied, and

18 those -- that's also kept for five years, correct?

19 A Same answer as I gave you with the respect to your

20 other question.

21 Q Okay. And the next page?

22 A I'm sorry. With respect to the last question, I

23 want to clarify, it's the same answer I gave with respect to

24 the last question.

25 Q I understand.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0742 of CES Response Declaration

 97
Banks Cross/Batra

1 Pages 46. Page 46. Again, Freedom of Information

2 Law Appealed Requests. That's after the matter is closed,

3 you keep it for four years, correct? Page 46?

4 A Same.

5 THE COURT: The various laws require you to

6 keep certain documents for a certain number of years,

7 sometimes -- sometimes five, sometimes seven; correct?

8 THE WITNESS: That's correct. This particular

9 one says two years, except as of December 31, if you

10 don't require otherwise, they get destroyed?

11 THE COURT: That is correct.

12 THE WITNESS: That's assuming such materials

13 are obtainable under FOIL and all of the various contexts

14 I'm being asked about, some of them are clearly not --

15 they are not obtainable.

16 THE COURT: Right. Let's hear from Mr. Alfano.

17 MR. BATRA: I got one more minute, Judge, if

18 you don't mind.

19 Q You said HRA was selected because it had expertise

20 in giving benefits and denying benefits, correct?

21 A And evaluating and reviewing documents.

22 Q And you said under prior administration, prior

23 administration, something like the fraud investigator title

24 was created, correct?

25 A That is correct.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0743 of CES Response Declaration

 98
Banks Cross/Batra

1 Q That because HRA wasn't able to stop the fraud,

2 even though it has the expertise in denying requests?

3 MS. MILLER: Objection.

4 Q How do you have fraud, if you denied it already?

5 THE COURT: Can you answer that question?

6 A I think that it's very clear that I brought a

7 number of cases against the Giuliani Administration when I

8 was at the Legal Aid Society. When I became the HRA

9 Commissioner, I looked at all the various programs that the

10 Giuliani Administration put in place, and I made a

11 determination about programs that I thought were effective.

12 Retaining a fraud investigator title and program integrity

13 was one of the programs that I thought was very valuable to

14 keep, and that is the program that's part of the IDNYC

15 implementation.

16 Q But my core point is simply this, the reason you

17 have fraud investigators, is that despite the expertise of

18 HRA personnel, there are still people who are successful in

19 committing fraud upon HRA, correct?

20 MS. MILLER: Objection.

21 THE COURT: Yeah, there are people -- even

22 though you take that into consideration. Thank you.

23 Please sit down.

24 Mr. Alfano.

25 MR. ALFANO: Thank you, your Honor.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0744 of CES Response Declaration

 99
Banks Cross/Batra

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. ALFANO:

3 Q Hello, Mr. Banks.

4 A Hello.

5 Q I just have a couple quick questions, just to mop

6 up. Do you remember writing an article or commentary in the

7 Staten Island Advance on December 1st, 2015 that said -- it

8 said: Municipal ID that NYC safer for all New Yorkers?

9 A There are two questions about that; it would be

10 helpful if I could see it.

11 (Handing.)

12 THE COURT: First of all, do you remember the

13 article?

14 THE WITNESS: I do recall the article.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 A Not all of its content, but I recall the article.

17 Q Okay; take a look.

18 THE COURT: To refresh his recollection.

19 MR. BATRA: It's part of the record already,

20 your Honor.

21 THE COURT: All right, then, we are all right.

22 Go ahead.

23 Q In that article, why did you think it was important

24 to let readers know that quote, to get an IDNYC, New York

25 City residents must produce documents that show proof of who

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0745 of CES Response Declaration

 100
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 they are, and that they live in the City, similar to what is

2 required at the state motor vehicles such as passports and

3 birth certificates.

4 A I wanted to communicate to people in New York City

5 about how we were administering the program.

6 Q Okay. Why did you feel it necessary to compare it

7 to a DMV license or a DMV ID card?

8 A I can't recall what was going through my head when

9 I reviewed this and submitted it, but I can tell you that

10 periodically, we convey information about how we run programs

11 and that was the purpose of this commentary.

12 Q To the best of your knowledge, does the Department

13 of Motor Vehicles accept non-readable foreign passports?

14 A The process that we use --

15 Q Just yes or no is fine.

16 THE COURT: No. No. No. Well, are you aware

17 what the Department of Motor Vehicles do?

18 THE WITNESS: I am not aware of all the things

19 the Department of Motor Vehicle does. I do you know what

20 we do, which is that we have a process in -- we are very

21 well-trained people evaluating documents, the same as HRA

22 staff does, throughout numbers of different federal,

23 state and local programs every day. And then we have

24 specially-trained staff with the title of fraud

25 investigators who review documents that would be flagged.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0746 of CES Response Declaration

 101
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 A non-machine readable passport would be flagged and

2 would be reviewed by a fraud investigator who has

3 specific training and expertise in evaluating the

4 authenticity of the document.

5 Mind you, as Commissioner Agarwal testified,

6 such a document would not be entirely dispositive of

7 identity.

8 Q It gives you two points?

9 A It would be part of the determination as to

10 identity.

11 Q Okay. But going back, you recognize that there

12 were over a million or so applications put through, correct?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And last reported, there were nearly two dozen

15 investigators as integrity specialists; does that sound about

16 right; so about 24?

17 A I'd have to look at the staffing level.

18 Q Okay. Public records demonstrate that there are 24

19 people overseeing that.

20 A I'd have to see what records you are referring to.

21 Q All right, let's accept that --

22 A I don't know that that is actually so.

23 THE COURT: All right.

24 Q The program has been in place for two years, over a

25 million documents, approximately 24 people reviewing it,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0747 of CES Response Declaration

 102
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 that's each investigator evaluating approximately 43,817

2 applications over the last two years?

3 THE COURT: No. No. No. They're not all

4 taking a million documents in, 24 of them aren't going to

5 review a million, they get them as they come in; is that

6 correct.

7 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

8 A So, for example, when I got my card, I presented a

9 New York State driver's license, that license --

10 Q That's already been vetted by the state government?

11 A That's what I'm -- I am trying to answer your

12 question about the workload of your staff. The New York

13 State driver's license would be reviewed by the front line

14 staff who have expertise in training in evaluating whether or

15 not that is a valid New York State license. The

16 investigators who have the title fraud investigator, didn't

17 need to look at my New York State license because of the

18 independent validity. If I came forward with a passport, a

19 US passport that's fed through the machine and is machine

20 readable and verified, the investigator wouldn't have to look

21 at that either, because the front line staff has been able to

22 verify using the same tools at a TSA person uses to evaluate

23 my passport, so using these large numbers, and then saying

24 you only have this number of investigators is, again, apples

25 to oranges. It's really not representing the process as I've

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0748 of CES Response Declaration

 103
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 testified to it.

2 Q Commissioner Banks, you're speaking about your

3 front line people, are you aware of an employee Natalia Diaz?

4 MS. MILLER: Objection.

5 THE COURT: Well, are you?

6 THE WITNESS: I read your Court file and you

7 specified two of our employees, I can't recall which one.

8 THE COURT: Are you aware of Natalia Diaz?

9 THE WITNESS: Based upon Court files in this

10 case, yes, I am.

11 Q Would it surprise you to that prior to working for

12 HRA as a front line person, evaluating these documents,

13 according to Linked-In profile, she worked at Abercrombie and

14 Fitch as a sales associate and at Giovanni's Pizza as a

15 hostess?

16 A If I'm not mistaken, that is the same document

17 which also shows that she was an intern in the HR Department

18 at HRA and so she had management experience and training

19 working in our personnel department as an intern; if I'm

20 recalling the right part of your filing.

21 Q As an intern?

22 A We wouldn't allow somebody to be an intern in our

23 personnel department evaluating records unless we had faith

24 and confidence in their skills and abilities.

25 Q All right. I don't disagree with that, however,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0749 of CES Response Declaration

 104
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 how much training would she have gotten between being an

2 intern to evaluating international documents presented or

3 American identification?

4 A So first of all, she had some management experience

5 working in some small business.

6 THE COURT: Excuse me, just for one moment,

7 don't interrupt the witness.

8 By the way, are you now talking about the

9 competency of the people in the HRA who are reviewing

10 these documents? Are we going to go one-by-one?

11 MR. ALFANO: No, no, these were the only two,

12 your Honor. I just wanted -- I'll go onto the next one.

13 MS. MILLER: Can he finish his answer?

14 A So, based upon your filings, she has experience in

15 a management capacity, supervisor capacity, in reputable

16 businesses in the United States; she then was selected to

17 work in our personnel department and then, she was given the

18 training that Commissioner Agarwal testified about, which is

19 the same training that our front line staff get to determine

20 the -- how to operate the same kind of tools that the TSA

21 has.

22 Q So how many years of training did she go through to

23 evaluate foreign documents?

24 A She gets the standard training the HRA employees

25 get to make that kind of determination.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0750 of CES Response Declaration

 105
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 Q That didn't answer my question. How many years --

2 A She gets the standard training HRA employees get.

3 If I could finish.

4 Q Excuse me.

5 How many months --

6 THE COURT: Let's get the ID here; okay.

7 A Were you going to give me another question? If you

8 want to go to the next employee, you can do that.

9 Q Do they have to take some type of test after the

10 training?

11 A Like all employees that we employ, the training is

12 apart of how they're provided with information to be

13 employees and then they're supervised as they conduct them.

14 Q Do they take written examination if, you know?

15 A There is not a written examination for such

16 employees.

17 Q Okay. Now, just to take a step back to that

18 article that was in the Staten Island Advance. You also said

19 that the notion, quote, that this ID would aid terrorists,

20 who would have to have already been in the United States to

21 apply for one, is baseless.

22 How do you explain that large banks express their

23 concerns about money laundering and this ID card?

24 A I think you have to ask someone who is an expert in

25 banking for that question.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0751 of CES Response Declaration

 106
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 Q Okay. Why did you feel the need to put in it the

2 Advance's commentary?

3 A I think it's important when commenting on the

4 integrity of our programs to do so, so I did.

5 Q So, the access to terrorists, the access to all of

6 this is something to assuage the fears of at least Staten

7 Islanders; you acknowledge that, correct? This article?

8 A I'm sorry.

9 Q The article that you wrote?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Was to assuage the fears of Staten Islanders with

12 respect to this identification card, correct?

13 A The purpose of the article was to provide

14 information about our program, so that people could

15 understand it was operated with integrity.

16 Q That is not the question I asked.

17 Yes or no --

18 THE COURT: It's not yes or no, he can answer

19 the question. You know, just because you want a yes or

20 no --

21 Q Did you write that to assuage fear?

22 A No.

23 Q Why did you feel the need to compare it to a

24 driver's license?

25 MS. MILLER: Objection.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0752 of CES Response Declaration

 107
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 A I think I answered that.

2 THE COURT: Sustained.

3 Q So would you agree that a driver license could be

4 considered a goal standard in terms of identification for an

5 state ID card?

6 A I think --

7 MS. MILLER: Objection.

8 THE COURT: Overruled.

9 A I think what is gold standard is using the same

10 tools that TAS uses to determine the authenticity of

11 documents and where there is a question, to have employees

12 with the title of fraud investigator to determine how to

13 resolve questions.

14 THE COURT: A driver's license is an acceptable

15 document to obtain a New York City ID card?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

17 THE COURT: Are you aware of a driver's

18 license, before they are issued, there is some vetting of

19 the applicant for the driver's license, whether a

20 non-driver driver's license?

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, and that was a factor in

22 assigning the number of points to that particular

23 document.

24 Q Okay.

25 THE COURT: One more question, Mr. Alfano.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0753 of CES Response Declaration

 108
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 Q Commissioner Banks, you are aware that the New York

2 State DMV subject to FOIL, correct?

3 A I presume they are.

4 Q In response to a FOIL request, if I FOIL'd you, I

5 could get certain information based on your driver's license.

6 Or if you were in a car accident, I could have my attorney

7 obtain an abstract that contains a certain amount your

8 personal information; correct?

9 MS. MILLER: Objection.

10 THE COURT: Sustained. There's lots of ways of

11 getting information, if you're talking about a --

12 MR. ALFANO: Let me break it down.

13 Q If I did a compound between abstract and FOIL, do

14 you recognize that I can submit a FOIL request to the

15 Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles and obtain

16 records held concerning your personal information in

17 connection with your driver's license?

18 A Meaning?

19 THE COURT: Are you aware of that?

20 A You mean in connection with a car accident?

21 Q No, no, in connection with your driver's license.

22 I submit a FOIL request for Mr. Steven Banks and assume I

23 knew your home address.

24 A Uhm, I don't know all of the processes for FOIL-ing

25 the DMV.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0754 of CES Response Declaration

 109
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 Q Okay. Could you answer why the IDNYC program as

2 its adopted by your agency, provides no methodology for any

3 public access to the actual program?

4 MS. MILLER: Objection.

5 THE COURT: Overruled. You understand that?

6 THE WITNESS: I do not actually understand the

7 question.

8 THE COURT: Rephrase. Last question.

9 Q Are you aware -- can you tell me why the IDNYC

10 regulations and legislation provide no means by which a

11 member of the public can access that government program,

12 unlike the Department of Motor Vehicles, which doesn't?

13 THE COURT: You mean, is there a provision for

14 FOIL-ing information?

15 MR. ALFANO: There is no provision for

16 FOIL-ing, your Honor.

17 Q Why is it different?

18 THE COURT: Not why is it different. What

19 about your agency?

20 THE WITNESS: I mean, our agency, your Honor,

21 receives many FOILs for many different things.

22 THE COURT: All right.

23 THE WITNESS: But one kind of FOIL, such as the

24 FOIL here, that we wouldn't respond to is a FOIL in which

25 there is a request for information that is confidential,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0755 of CES Response Declaration

 110
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 of a confidentiality nature.

2 For example, if you had a card and there was a

3 FOIL received for you and you had submitted your mortgage

4 documents or your tax returns, we believe that is of a

5 confidentiality nature, we should not be submitting that.

6 Similarly, one of the purposes of this program

7 was to give identification to very marginalized people,

8 transgender New Yorkers, domestic violence survivors,

9 uhm, homeless people, and there is a real concern in

10 terms of their safety about disclosing their personal

11 information.

12 For example, if I was to provide information on

13 a FOIL request about a domestic violence survivor who

14 made an application, uhm, that would clearly raise some

15 real safety concerns; so FOIL is not an unfettered access

16 provision, it's a provision that has some very clear

17 exceptions to it. And two of the exceptions are very

18 much present here in running this program, like other

19 programs that run at HRA, and involve the very strong

20 privacy and confidentiality concerns and the safety

21 concerns.

22 THE COURT: It's almost on a case-by-case

23 basis. The FOIL requests may or may not be granted

24 depending upon what is asked for and what the extent of

25 it is, and there is also situations where documents are

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0756 of CES Response Declaration

 111
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 heavily redacted for certain information?

2 THE WITNESS: But here, looking at the

3 applications and looking at the requests, there would be

4 nothing to provide. For example, people are given the

5 option of personal contact information.

6 So, if you give your wife's name and cell phone

7 that's going to have to be redacted. Your actual address

8 is going to have to be redacted. Your name is going to

9 have to be redacted. You are -- there is nothing that's

10 left. You have seen the application form, there's

11 nothing there that could be disclosed.

12 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, by way of argument --

13 THE COURT: By way of nothing. We are

14 adjourned. This witness is through. We will commence

15 again at 2 o'clock.

16 Do you have another City witness?

17 MS. MILLER: If your Honor wants, we should

18 have one other person from the NYPD, if you want.

19 THE COURT: NYPD?

20 MS. MILLER: The police department.

21 THE COURT: Who do you have?

22 MS. MILLER: Deputy Commissioner Miller.

23 MR. BATRA: I thought we were getting John

24 Miller.

25 MS. MILLER: Deputy Commissioner Miller, his

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0757 of CES Response Declaration

 112
Banks Cross/Alfano

1 first name is not Deputy Commissioner, it's John.

2 MR. BATRA: Perfect. Is it possible that we

3 can have Commissioner Banks back for 10 minutes?

4 THE COURT: Nope. I have heard all I need to

5 hear from Commissioner Banks.

6 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, my question is, do you

7 need to hear from the Deputy Commissioner?

8 THE COURT: Yes, I think we do. There's been a

9 big issue about police department involvement in this

10 legislation, so I think we have to hear from him.

11 MS. MILLER: Okay, thank you.

12 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

13 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess is taken.)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0758 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL5
Exhibit Page No.: 0759 of CES Response Declaration
 113
Proceedings

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

2 COURT CLERK: Back on the record.

3 THE COURT: Call your witness.

4 (Whereupon, the witness takes the stand.)

5 J O H N M I L L E R, called as a witness, having been

6 first duly sworn, was examined and testifies as follows:

7 THE COURT: Is it Commissioner Miller? Deputy

8 Commissioner Miller?

9 THE WITNESS: John works fine for me.

10 THE COURT: It may work for you, but I will

11 determine whether we're going to call you John; we don't

12 want to be too friendly here, Commissioner.

13 First of all, Deputy Commissioner John Miller,

14 I will ask you questions, so will the lawyers. Please

15 answer the questions directly. If yes or to answers it,

16 that's fine. If you don't understand it, tell me you

17 don't understand it. I will rephrase my question or

18 they'll rephrase theirs. Keep your voice up, okay?

19 And my first question to you is, what is your

20 current position?

21 THE WITNESS: Deputy Commissioner for

22 Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the New York City

23 Police Department.

24 THE COURT: Okay. Commissioner, you are aware

25 of certain legislation, I think, it's 3-115 of the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0760 of CES Response Declaration

 114
J. Miller The Court

1 Administrative Code concerning the issuance of New York

2 City identification cards?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

4 THE COURT: There has been testimony here by

5 prior witnesses, particularly, Commissioner Agarwal that

6 the police department was involved in the formulation of

7 this legislation, and they were consulted particularly

8 concerning the issues of fraud and national security,

9 criminality, things of that nature. Are you aware of

10 that?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes.

12 THE COURT: All right. Tell us what you know

13 about the police department's participation in the

14 formulation of this legislation and how they were

15 consulted and what they recommended?

16 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, when the concept of

17 the New York City ID card came up, we were contacted --

18 we, the NYPD, was contacted by the Office the Mayor and

19 asked to provide technical assistance in consulting and

20 formulating the processes and requirements for the ID

21 card.

22 THE COURT: Okay. What did you do? What did

23 you do?

24 THE WITNESS: Under the Intelligence and

25 Counterterrorism Bureau, we went through a series of

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0761 of CES Response Declaration

 115
J. Miller The Court

1 meetings with other agencies. HRA, Homeless Services and

2 so on, about requirements for the ID card and in those

3 discussions, we talked about standards for what would be

4 adequate in terms of forms of identification, numbers of

5 points applied to certain things, to cause the issuance

6 of a New York City ID card to a person.

7 THE COURT: Okay. You are aware that if a

8 person applies for one of those ID cards, they have to

9 fill out an application, correct?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

11 THE COURT: And they have to supply certain

12 back up documentation to establish their identity and

13 their residency within the City of New York, because the

14 statue provides that you have to do this with the City of

15 New York in order to obtain this card; and the type of

16 documentation was far-ranging among other things, birth

17 certificates, passports, driver's license, expired

18 passports, and on and on.

19 Did the Police Department review the adequacy

20 of these documents to support the applications?

21 THE WITNESS: We did. And in our discussions

22 with other City agencies, we believed that they were

23 adequate verifiable documents and documentation, and in

24 the case where documents were not verified, in and of

25 themselves, a verification process to vet them was in

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0762 of CES Response Declaration

 116
J. Miller The Court

1 place.

2 THE COURT: You are aware, I believe, that

3 these ID cards are available not only to citizens but to

4 undocumented residents of this City?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes.

6 THE COURT: Do you have a problem with issuing

7 these cards to those who are undocumented?

8 THE WITNESS: No.

9 THE COURT: Why?

10 THE WITNESS: This City is made up of a number

11 of groups, whether it is the homeless or people fleeing

12 domestic violence -- but to speak to your Honor's point,

13 as well as undocumented persons from numerous other

14 countries. These legions of people exist in some ways

15 with no record of their existence, where they don't show

16 up anywhere. And I say this as a police official beyond

17 my position in intelligence and counterterrorism, it

18 causes people to not come forward to accept services, not

19 contact the police, in some cases, not report crimes

20 because they cannot answer the first question, which is,

21 who are you?

22 So, from a standpoint of a police official in

23 general, and an intelligence in general and

24 counterterrorism officer, specifically, the more people

25 out there that we can document the existence of and be

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0763 of CES Response Declaration

 117
J. Miller The Court

1 certain about the identity of, the better off I am.

2 THE COURT: Okay. How do you go about

3 verifying the information that is supplied in support of

4 their application? How does the police department do

5 this?

6 THE WITNESS: We don't do it.

7 THE COURT: You don't do it?

8 THE WITNESS: No, it's done by HRA.

9 THE COURT: By HRA?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

11 THE COURT: Okay.

12 THE WITNESS: And I'm familiar enough with the

13 process to explain it in broad terms.

14 THE COURT: Go ahead.

15 THE WITNESS: But it's not a police department

16 process.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 THE WITNESS: There is a document calculator

19 that says, you know, a passport is worth four points, and

20 a, you know, credit card is worth 1, and uhm, something

21 else is worth two points. I may be screwing up the

22 points a little bit, but it calculates the worth of

23 certain documents to establish identity.

24 And then there is a residency version of the

25 same thing, where it calculates what a bank statement is

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0764 of CES Response Declaration

 118
J. Miller The Court

1 worth versus a Con Ed bill, versus a something else, uhm,

2 you know what a handwritten signed lease is worth. And

3 then it talks about the process, about steps used to

4 verify those documents where they're not verifiable in

5 and of themselves.

6 THE COURT: That would be my next question.

7 How do you verify -- excuse me -- the legitimacy of say a

8 passport, a driver's license, a birth certificate, a

9 baptismal certificate, something along those lines; how

10 is that done?

11 THE WITNESS: In a couple ways, depending on

12 the documents. Many countries have what we call readable

13 passports. There is a machine that is used by all of the

14 countries that are in the cooperative agreement, where

15 you put the passport in, and you know, it reads on a bar

16 code chip, a number of other security features -- that

17 it's probably better that I not get into the specificity

18 of -- where it verifies that within -- within that

19 international system. It says this is legitimate,

20 stolen, or a real passport. There are countries that are

21 not apart of that system, where the passport in this

22 process is accepted with a lower number of points. So

23 that's one way; that's on the high end of the scale, your

24 Honor.

25 On the lower end of the scale, somebody may

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0765 of CES Response Declaration

 119
J. Miller The Court

1 say, uhm, I live at a homeless shelter so at that point

2 they might have to come back with a document, literally a

3 letter from the manager or executive person, in that

4 shelter to say, I know so and so is this person who has

5 been here for a minimum of 15 days, and establish it that

6 way. Another might be a handwritten lease from a

7 landlord, which you could have sat down and written down

8 and at this point, you're in the second stage of a two

9 staple process. You know, you meet a case officer who

10 helps you through the application. Do you have enough

11 documents? Do they make the point spread? How do you

12 execute the paperwork?

13 If they have questions, then that application

14 and all the underlying documents with it go to a

15 integrity officer; this an HRA person who's trained -- a

16 Level 2 fraud investigator, who exams the integrity of

17 the applications, the statements on it, the underlying

18 documents, and they will go about the process of

19 determining either the authenticity of the documents to

20 the satisfaction of the system or a verification process

21 where they may have to contact certain people and say is

22 this person who they say they are, can you supply this

23 letter and so on.

24 THE COURT: There's been some questions raised

25 about a number of fraud cases and somewhere in the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0766 of CES Response Declaration

 120
J. Miller The Court

1 documentation, 102 fraud cases have been established, and

2 then in some instances the United States Attorney for

3 Connecticut was interested and the New York County

4 District Attorney was interested, to what extent is the

5 police department interested when a fraudulent

6 application is submitted or attempted to be submitted?

7 THE WITNESS: We're also interested in fraud in

8 general and identity theft, in particular, or criminal

9 impersonation of another person.

10 So in this case, over the past two years,

11 having consulted with Robert Boice, the Chief of

12 Detectives, as well as the commanding officers of the

13 Grand Larceny Division, which has the identity theft unit

14 in it, New York City IDs have surfaced in four cases over

15 two years; identity theft cases where -- and I want to be

16 clear about that -- where in the course of investigations

17 into identity theft of an individual, the investigation

18 uncovered a New York City ID somewhere in the evidence.

19 I could use the police department as an

20 example, but any law enforcement agency, FBI so forth, if

21 they require information about a certain applicant or a

22 person who's already gotten a card -- well, let me back

23 track. The provisions in the law permit destruction of

24 the back up documents within two years and now, as of

25 December 31 of 2016, the Commissioner the HRA, the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0767 of CES Response Declaration

 121
J. Miller The Court

1 Commissioner can order the destruction of all existing

2 back up documents, and if he does not issue it, then it

3 automatically -- the data on the documents gets destroyed

4 or removed.

5 THE COURT: Is that a concern to the police

6 department that if they were interested in a certain

7 person that they wouldn't have the back up documentation

8 to further their investigation, learn their identity,

9 where they live and so forth and so on. Is that a

10 concern that these documents are being -- these back up

11 documents are being destroyed?

12 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I think as an

13 investigator any investigator would say I want

14 everything, but I think looking at it as a larger matter,

15 as the police department and being the accountable

16 official, who was assigned by the police department to

17 look at this in its broader implications, uhm, the reason

18 that we negotiated with HRA and other City agencies for

19 the two-year retention period to start with, was we

20 wanted a period of time that would establish a baseline,

21 which is over the course of a couple of years, which

22 isn't forever, but it's not a short time; where we can

23 kind of take the temperature of what the potential

24 criminal implications were that might emanate from the

25 New York City ID beyond its intended purposes and as this

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0768 of CES Response Declaration

 122
J. Miller The Court

1 process approached, when we were contacted by the Mayor's

2 office to say -- as we approached the deadline of the

3 two-year agreement to retain the documents --

4 THE COURT: That's December 31, 2016?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

6 -- we were asked, does the Police Department

7 have any issue with ending the retention of these

8 documents? And after looking at my cases on the

9 counterterrorism side and the intelligence side,

10 including the criminal intelligence side, there were no

11 real issues there, and then consulting with the Chief of

12 Detectives and the Grand Larceny Division, they said they

13 had a total of four cases that they didn't encounter New

14 York City IDs in. It seemed that the criminal

15 implications during the pilot period was de minimis.

16 The flip side of that equation, however -- and

17 I don't want to go further than the question -- but the

18 other implication is, there are inherent identity theft

19 risks on a huge scale with the retention of the

20 underlying documents.

21 THE COURT: With the retention of the

22 underlying documents?

23 THE WITNESS: Yes.

24 THE COURT: Go ahead. Explain that.

25 THE WITNESS: Whether you are AOL or you know,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0769 of CES Response Declaration

 123
J. Miller The Court

1 gaming applications like Mindcraft, Apple or Sony or JP

2 Morgan Chase; organizations with extraordinary

3 sophisticated security measures, we have learned from

4 recent elections, that anything that lives on a server

5 can and will be breached at some point, somewhere by

6 somebody, as the criminal capabilities of hackers

7 develop.

8 So the idea of New York City, which is -- and I

9 am familiar with this through my work -- an attempted

10 target of hackers and scams from people all the time, the

11 idea that it would be holding, not just the ID card, a

12 copy, but all the underlying information contained on the

13 application gleaned from the applicant, and the

14 underlying documents, but then the actual underlying

15 documents, if this system were compromised or breached,

16 it could lead to a massive identity fraud opportunity,

17 where people not only had all the requisite data, say,

18 from the application but --

19 THE COURT: Right.

20 THE WITNESS: -- but also the actual building

21 blocks in terms of driver's license, passports, foreign

22 ID, what have you, to recreate people's identity.

23 So, given the risk versus reward, and the de

24 minimis return on our inquiry as to how much of a factor

25 was this criminal activity in the first two years, our

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0770 of CES Response Declaration

 124
J. Miller The Court

1 judgment as the NYPD was we were fine with no retention

2 of the documents or ending the retention during the pilot

3 period, as laid out in the law, as long as they continued

4 to keep the application and the ID card and the basic

5 information and identifiers about the person.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: Sorry for the long answer.

8 THE COURT: No. No, it was fine.

9 City? Any questions.

10 MS. MILLER: Just a couple, if I may.

11 DIRECT EXAMINATION

12 BY MS. MILLER:

13 Q There's been a lot of questions from my learned

14 colleagues over here about terrorisms and baking and whatnot,

15 as a law enforcement person, what threat, if any, does this

16 New York City ID program -- that is, a person having an ID,

17 potentially using it to open a bank account have, vis-a-vis

18 criminal activity or terrorism or anything like that?

19 A Well, in the 21 cases where New York City was

20 either the target of a terrorism plot or a plot emanating

21 from a group in New York City, almost every person -- the

22 suspects in those cases used their own identities, their true

23 names, and had documents that far exceeded the ability of a

24 New York City ID. And I caveat that by saying that during

25 some of that time, the New York City ID didn't exist but

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0771 of CES Response Declaration

 125
J. Miller Direct/Miller

1 during the last half dozen cases that have occurred over the

2 prior three years where I have been in this position, they

3 have had their own driver's licenses, passports, Visas and

4 other documentation, where the existence of a New York City

5 ID would not have advanced their ability to do anything; you

6 cannot get on an airplane with it, you cannot buy a drink

7 with it, you can't get a passport with it, you can't get a

8 driver's license with it.

9 So, I'm not sure -- other than availing themselves

10 of certain City services, how it would provide an advantage

11 within a terrorist plot.

12 On the banking end of your question, Ms. Miller, I

13 would say, I hope every terrorist opens a bank account and

14 uses it during the planning and plotting of their plot.

15 Banks keep records. They report suspicious financial

16 transactions. There are laws concerning structuring. And

17 uhm, it would be a step away from them using money carriers,

18 or as far as where there are no records, it actually gives us

19 a better chance of having them under our radar and likely --

20 it would be -- it would be actually an advantage, as opposed

21 to a detriment.

22 Q Just as was suggested over here, using a New York

23 City ID by someone who happened to be a terrorist who opened

24 up a bank account, is that an advantage or disadvantage to

25 your law enforcement activity?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0772 of CES Response Declaration

 126
J. Miller Direct/Miller

1 A Anything that might put them on the radar is an

2 advantage. Uhm, again, banks collect and keep records, their

3 machines take pictures of people making withdrawals, their

4 facilities are laden with cameras that record images, their

5 systems collect IP addresses from which people log on, up to

6 and including the computer it came from, and the location by

7 country or state that it was in. Banks can be an

8 extraordinarily useful tool on the other end of a search

9 warrant or judicial subpoena.

10 MS. MILLER: Just one second, your Honor.

11 Q There's also been some questions again from my

12 colleagues over here concerning the issuance of driver's

13 license from the DMV.

14 I was wondering if you could comment, is there a

15 different standard between a driver's license, the issuance

16 of a driver's license and the issuance of a New York City ID?

17 A When we had our first discussions, your Honor's

18 questions focused on other City agencies, and what we

19 suggested was, uhm, a modeling in principle, on the standards

20 of the DMV, about having a point spread requiring certain

21 documents, verification of documents. On the other hand,

22 this is a unique ID card that has specific purposes for it,

23 beyond driving. The difference between this and a driver's

24 license is, where the driver's license standards are higher,

25 they have to meet a national criteria set by the Department

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0773 of CES Response Declaration

 127
J. Miller Direct/Miller

1 of Homeland Security. That makes that an identification that

2 allows to you present it at a TSA checkpoint in order to

3 board an airplane.

4 The New York City I will not do that so they have

5 different purposes, they have slightly different standards,

6 although they're modeled on the same principles.

7 MS. MILLER: I have nothing further. Thank

8 you, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Thank you.

10 Mr. Batra or Mr. Alfano?

11 MR. BATRA: I'm up, your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Okay.

13 CROSS-EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. BATRA:

15 Q Commissioner, good to see you again.

16 Happy New Year.

17 A Happy New Year to you.

18 Q How long have you been Commissioner -- Deputy

19 Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism?

20 A Three years.

21 Q And during that three-year period, which of your

22 colleagues in government do you interact with, let's say for

23 example, in Washington?

24 A Uhm, officials of the Department of Homeland

25 Security, Central Intelligence Agency, the National

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0774 of CES Response Declaration

 128
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department the Treasury.

2 Q Department of State?

3 A Department of State.

4 Q How about the United Nations Security Council?

5 A Not much.

6 Q Do you that they have a committee on

7 Counterterrorism and the Chairman on Counterterrorism for the

8 world that comes out of the United Nations Security Council?

9 A I am aware that it exits.

10 Q I have interacted with them for many years so --

11 MS. MILLER: Objection to the commentary.

12 THE COURT: He wants us to know that he is a

13 very important person.

14 MR. BATRA: Your Honor --

15 THE COURT: Go ahead.

16 MR. BATRA: Neither my wife or barber are

17 impressed and my tailor has given up on me, so I'll --

18 Q But my question to you, sir, was in

19 counterterrorism, you said, in answer to the Court's

20 question, any investigator would say I want more because more

21 is better than less?

22 A It's the nature of the beast.

23 Q So, it becomes then a value judgment for an

24 investigator who wants everything, but our duly elected --

25 duly elected representatives of the people say, they want to

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0775 of CES Response Declaration

 129
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 go in a certain direction.

2 A Yes.

3 Q So now, what occurred in the first State of the

4 City address by the Mayor -- and we want to be compassionate,

5 right? New York City has a history of being compassionate to

6 immigrants -- we want to get these people marginalized to

7 kind of help them, right? The NYPD raised the issue to

8 either the Mayor or either the Committee on Immigration of

9 the City Council, that's wonderful, we all want to be -- we

10 just had Christmas last week -- and for Nicole, I know it's

11 coming up in a few days from now -- so you know, we're within

12 Christmas, so being compassionate is --

13 MS. MILLER: Objection to the question.

14 Q -- being compassionate is wonderful, but do we have

15 to balance that against both public safety, of not only our

16 citizens of New York City and New York State, but also

17 National Security?

18 A That was the question we asked, and as testified to

19 earlier, the judgment we came to was that this was the

20 balance struck between public safety and national security,

21 and in the most reasonable way.

22 Q Okay. So when the balance was struck, it was

23 struck because you were deferring and demuring to the

24 political judgment of issuing ID cards?

25 MS. MILLER: Objection to the form.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0776 of CES Response Declaration

 130
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 A That is not true.

2 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The

3 answer will stand, it's not true.

4 Q Did I misunderstand your prior testimony that every

5 investigator wants everything?

6 A As I testified earlier -- and context is important

7 when you're kind of -- when you're coming to a judgment on a

8 large issue like this, you have to make sure that you're not

9 focused on one narrow aspect. One narrow aspect, Counselor,

10 might be every investigator wants everything. If you've ever

11 been in a discovery process in a civil case, every lawyer

12 wants everything, also. But when you measure that against

13 the other factors involved, which is for instance, for

14 example, the risk of massive identity theft if that system

15 was ever breached, and the idea that a government agency was

16 holding personal documents many -- in fact, most of which

17 were not government documents, that's a factor that goes into

18 that judgment.

19 The police department is not a political

20 organization, it's a law enforcement organization. When

21 we're asked a question, we answer it honestly, and when these

22 discussions occurred, they said retention or no retention,

23 and like a police department, it wants to argue for

24 retention, and when that discussion went further, they said,

25 well, retention, you know, for how long, and we were likely

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0777 of CES Response Declaration

 131
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 to say forever.

2 Q Sure.

3 A And the reasonable decision that was made was let's

4 agree to a retention period of two years and see what

5 happens. And in the course of two years, we have not seen

6 New York City IDs surfacing rampantly in terrorism cases,

7 identity theft or other matters.

8 Q As part of your duties as Deputy Commissioner of

9 Counter Intelligence, in addition to Counterterrorism, in

10 addition to Intelligence, when events of terrorism occur that

11 affect part of the human family and other parts of the world,

12 NYPD is known to send a team either to help or to learn?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Because each are -- as you used the words, building

15 blocks earlier -- and the game of terrorism is a zero sum

16 game because we can't even allow one person to get through;

17 isn't that the goal?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Now, if I was a Medicaid agency, you know, helping

20 people out with welfare or food stamps, if somebody defrauded

21 me, they got money, they got food, my City, County and State

22 didn't get blown up, but if I am charged with protecting

23 public safety or national security, I don't want a single act

24 of fraud; isn't that correct?

25 A Zero sum game; whether it's terror or criminal, you

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0778 of CES Response Declaration

 132
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 want no crime, that's not a realistic goal, but it's a goal

2 which we all embrace.

3 Q But even some crime -- we can tolerate a certain

4 level of crime, it's a fact of life, even though crime is low

5 in New York --

6 THE COURT: I don't think we can go there, that

7 we can tolerate certain types of crime, but go ahead.

8 Q But in the case of terror, we really have a zero

9 tolerance policy, don't we? Both City, State and Federal

10 Government, the goal is to prevent every act of terrorism?

11 A Also not a realistic goal, but it's the goal, that

12 is what we shoot for.

13 Q And so we're at our highest DEFCON, if you will,

14 when it comes to preventing terror; fair? We are in a normal

15 state of high alert, it's the nature of New York City as a

16 target, surely, that level of high alert to prevent terror

17 from occurring, is not the level of high alert that we exert

18 as part of our government in dispensing social benefits to

19 our citizens that are in need in real life --

20 THE COURT: Can you tie this into the New York

21 City ID card?

22 MR. BATRA: Yes, your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Please.

24 Q You know, HRA is the one that dispenses help to

25 people who need help, which is a good thing, right? That is

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0779 of CES Response Declaration

 133
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 a compassionate City, and if somebody gets over on our city,

2 and gets away with something, Medicaid fraud or food stamp

3 fraud or welfare fraud, okay, and if it's big enough, the US

4 Attorneys get involved, and the money is either returned,

5 gotten back, or people are sent to jail; but that's the

6 standard that we use for recovery of money, it's not the same

7 standard that we use to block any act of terror; isn't that

8 correct?

9 MS. MILLER: Objection.

10 THE COURT: You understand the question, sir?

11 THE WITNESS: No.

12 THE COURT: Please rephrase.

13 MR. BATRA: All right.

14 Q Do you protect public safety the same way you

15 protect your money?

16 MS. MILLER: Objection.

17 THE COURT: No. Objection sustained, please.

18 Q As a government, do you protect public safety as

19 you protect the treasury?

20 MS. MILLER: Objection.

21 THE COURT: Counselor?

22 MS. MILLER: Objection.

23 A I am not trying to be difficult, but I am having

24 trouble --

25 THE COURT: Excuse me. You don't understand

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0780 of CES Response Declaration

 134
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 the question, talk to me.

2 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't understand

3 the question.

4 THE COURT: Let's move on. Otherwise, you are

5 getting into discussions with him and we will be here for

6 half hour. Go ahead.

7 Q In answer to Justice Minardo's questions earlier,

8 you said we, meaning the NYPD, we don't verify the documents,

9 HRA does; right?

10 A That's correct.

11 Q Why not the NYPD?

12 A Part of -- and this was included in the original

13 discussions which is why I actually have the ability to

14 answer that question -- part of the catalyst going into this

15 was -- uhm, that there are certain groups or classes of New

16 Yorkers, whether they're undocumented persons from foreign

17 countries or whether they're homeless people who have had

18 contact with the police or negative experiences, or others

19 who were suspicious of government, in general, that there

20 would be a turning of the coin, for victims fleeing domestic

21 violence who needed identification, but were also entitled to

22 the same kinds of protections and privacies that they would

23 get from other public and private institutions.

24 So, privacy was a big concern here, in that

25 everybody who walked through the door would not result in

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0781 of CES Response Declaration

 135
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 a -- in a call to the police.

2 Q The privacy concern was not the concern of the

3 NYPD, that was a political concern, correct?

4 A You're asking me to make a judgment for someone

5 else. It was --

6 Q Well, I am asking you --

7 A It was NYPD -- it was stated in the meetings that

8 this was a concern for their clients, those who would seek to

9 obtain the ID card, many of whom had no other way to identify

10 themselves also had and expectation, as well as a right to

11 some privacy in this process.

12 Q That is a perfect segue, sir, to this question of

13 right to privacy. As part of the NYPD for many, many years

14 and you've served this great City with great distinction,

15 you're familiar with New York State law on FOIL?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And you know that New York State law, no pun

18 intended, so I'll say that in advance -- trumps New York City

19 law?

20 A I've heard this.

21 Q So in New York State, FOIL law says that the

22 people -- citizens of the State of New York should know what

23 their government is doing, know why the government is doing

24 what it's doing, and what it's basing it upon, and sets out a

25 whole statutory regime to effectuate the people's right to

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0782 of CES Response Declaration

 136
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 know, which incidentally, also helps law enforcement; isn't

2 that correct?

3 A Well --

4 Q Because if records are being maintained for the

5 public to know, it also helps law enforcement because the

6 records are there?

7 MS. MILLER: Objection to form.

8 THE COURT: Yeah, sustained.

9 You understand that FOIL is there so that

10 citizens can request certain government documents that

11 are not classified, okay, for whatever information the

12 citizens seek; is that generally what you're

13 understanding of FOIL is?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

15 THE COURT: If they ask for government

16 documents or documents held by the government, as long as

17 they're not classified in some way, if you're dealing

18 with the federal documents, particularly, they are --

19 they have certain classifications, you can't get them;

20 but generally speaking, you can get certain

21 documentation, yes, under FOIL?

22 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in my twisted career

23 path, I've been a FOIL-er and a FOIL-ee.

24 THE COURT: There you go.

25 Q Okay. No one could know the tension point better

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0783 of CES Response Declaration

 137
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 than you. You are aware, sir, of course that New York State

2 has a strong public policy of a presumption, a statutory

3 presumption, that the records be made available to the public

4 barring certain narrowly construed exemptions?

5 A Yes.

6 Q You are also aware that New York City Local Law

7 passed Local Law 35 with a presumption that records be

8 destroyed, unless the Commissioner determined otherwise; you

9 are aware of that?

10 A Yes.

11 Q And those two positions, public policy positions,

12 are at odds?

13 A Uhm, not for me to say.

14 Q If one says presumption people should know; and the

15 other says records should be destroyed; would you say that

16 they're not the same position?

17 THE COURT: The Court will take that into

18 consideration in its decision.

19 MR. BATRA: That's fine, your Honor.

20 Q Now, were you at all troubled when you heard the

21 Chairman of the Immigration Committee of the City Council

22 enunciate that the reason for the language of the Local

23 Law -- the bill and then was passed into law when the Mayor

24 signed it -- was because that chairman was concerned about

25 who was going to possibly become president of the United

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0784 of CES Response Declaration

 138
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 States?

2 MS. MILLER: Objection.

3 THE COURT: Can you answer that?

4 A Uhm, I didn't -- I heard Counselors question

5 clearly, I didn't hear the statement by the Chairman of the

6 Immigration Committee of the City Council.

7 Q Do you know the Chairman of the Immigration

8 Committee?

9 A I don't, no. If you told me who that person was I

10 would probably recognize the name.

11 Q Sure. I'm picking up this wonderful petition that

12 Jeff Alfano put together, and Exhibit H has a copy of a New

13 York Post article dated February 16, 2015, which repeats the

14 Chairman of the Immigration Committee who says -- and I have

15 several quotes. Quote: In case the tea party comes into

16 office and says quote, we want all the data from all the

17 municipal ID programs in the country, we're going to take

18 that data, he explained. And then it continues, that data is

19 an important signal to the future of immigration reform that

20 allows us to prepare for any leadership. And it goes

21 further. So, here is the motivation of the Immigration

22 Chairman of the City Council, saying, in spite of our very

23 cherished history of a two-party system, viable two-party

24 system --

25 MS. MILLER: Objection.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0785 of CES Response Declaration

 139
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 Q -- that, if the other side gets in, I want our law,

2 our local law, which is subject to state law and yet subject

3 to Federal Law, to be able to trump Federal Law.

4 MS. MILLER: Objection to the premise.

5 MR. BATRA: No pun intended.

6 MS. MILLER: Objection to the premise and it

7 assumes facts that are not facts.

8 THE COURT: Sustained. The statement that you

9 read that comes from a newspaper, seems to imply that the

10 City of New York would destroy the back up documents so

11 that if there was an administration --

12 MR. BATRA: Across the aisle.

13 THE COURT: -- a new administration, a

14 Republican administration, that they immediately would be

15 seeking out this back up information for purposes of

16 dealing with particularly the undocumented; is that where

17 you are going with that?

18 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, you have said it

19 exactly correctly.

20 THE COURT: Wonderful. Now, if you are aware,

21 was that taken into consideration when you negotiated

22 this bill?

23 THE WITNESS: I think it would be very hard,

24 given my testimony here under oath, to say that

25 approximately two years ago, we sat down and had these

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0786 of CES Response Declaration

 140
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 discussions with officials of the police department and

2 officials of other New York City agencies to be able to

3 predict the outcome of any election.

4 I can represent that in those discussions, our

5 discussions were purely operational, from a police

6 department standpoint, about what we would require in

7 terms of documentation acceptability for an ID card that

8 could cause somebody not to be arrested, but receive a

9 summons instead. We gave what our requirements were, and

10 then our suggestions for retention, which was written

11 into law.

12 You're asking me to make a judgment on a

13 politician's statement about politics. Our discussions

14 were strictly about structure and standards.

15 Q I'm not asking to do you that, sir; what I'm asking

16 you is something else.

17 When bills are considered, whether it's in City

18 Council in New York or in Albany or Congress, the legislative

19 intent, which usually goes in the legislative packet, helps

20 advises a third branch of government, in this case Justice

21 Minardo, as to why the legislature chose a certain policy

22 position, and the policy position, whether it's from a Local

23 Council or a State Assembly or National Congress, is based

24 upon public matters, not political matters. And here, the

25 Chairman of the Immigration Committee stated -- and City

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0787 of CES Response Declaration

 141
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 Council, as well -- stated publicly to the public at large,

2 to the fourth estate, that he was building in a fail safe

3 mechanism, that if perhaps the next administration in

4 Washington was across the aisle -- I'm a Democrat -- for me

5 it's across the aisle -- that therefore, he was putting in a

6 fail safe self-destruct mechanism. I'm asking you is this

7 proper policy?

8 A This legislation was enacted in 2015, January --

9 early January of 2015, that's two years --

10 MS. MILLER: 2014?

11 A That's two years prior to the 2016 presidential

12 election.

13 MR. BATRA: Surely, it was not intended, your

14 Honor, it's like a cyanide pill that we give our agents,

15 saying if something happens use it.

16 THE COURT: I don't know about that.

17 Q So, would I be correct in comprehending that as far

18 as the NYPD is concerned, you prefer more information than

19 less?

20 MS. MILLER: Objection.

21 Q I'm not asking a political question, I'm asking a

22 purely law enforcement question.

23 A So, I would --

24 THE COURT: Go ahead.

25 A I would say that question has been asked and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0788 of CES Response Declaration

 142
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 answered here today.

2 Q In the affirmative?

3 A We looked at this, and the broader implications,

4 and balancing the potential implications on identity theft

5 against the potential implications of criminal activity and

6 fraud, and we said we'd probably need two years to assess

7 that -- which is my recollection of those discussions -- that

8 is how we came up with the two-year pilot program --

9 Q That's not my question.

10 A -- for document retention.

11 THE COURT: Well, let me tell you, that's good,

12 that's good. We are going to get out of that. Sir, I

13 think we're done with this witness, please. You've

14 examination of the Commissioner has been kind of up and

15 down on the issues that he's familiar with in the police

16 department. Let's move on to the Petitioners, please.

17 Thank you.

18 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Okay. All right.

20 MS. MILLER: I was just discussing -- we want

21 to ask some follow-up questions. Could we have another

22 shot at that?

23 THE COURT: You need to ask a follow-up

24 question?

25 MS. MILLER: I was thinking about one; it's

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0789 of CES Response Declaration

 143
J. Miller Cross/Batra

1 your call.

2 THE COURT: Thank you.

3 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

4 THE COURT: It was nice to see you.

5 Take couple minutes, we will go on to the

6 Petitioners, we are very anxious to hear from them.

7 MS. MILLER: Thank you.

8 (Whereupon, a recess is taken.)

9 COURT CLERK: Order.

10 THE COURT: Please be seated, Everyone.

11 Petitioners -- which one of the petitioners would you

12 like to testify first, Mr. Alfano?

13 MR. ALFANO: Mr. Castorina will be testifying

14 first.

15 COURT CLERK: Please. Remain standing, face

16 the clerk.

17 R O N A L D C A S T O R I N A, called as a witness, having

18 been first duly sworn, was examined and testifies as follows:

19 COURT CLERK: You can lower your hand. Have a

20 seat, please. State your name and business address.

21 THE WITNESS: Ronald Castorina, Jr. 7001 Amboy

22 Road, Suite 202, Staten Island New York 10307.

23 THE COURT: Mr. Castorina, are you member of

24 the New York State Assembly.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0790 of CES Response Declaration

 144
Castorina The Court

1 THE COURT: Are you the Petitioner in this

2 matter?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

4 THE COURT: Will you please tell us what the

5 purpose of this petition is?

6 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, as a member of

7 the legislature and as a citizen, I became concerned

8 about the safety and security of not only our citizenry,

9 my constituents, but also the safety and security of

10 banking in New York State. When, on the Friday before

11 Labor Day, 2016, the New York State Superintendent of

12 Department of Financial Services indicated in a one-page

13 letter that the New York City Municipal ID card could be

14 utilized for the purpose of opening bank accounts.

15 I became concerned about that because I've felt

16 and believed in the past that the card had some scant

17 vetting requirements, and that the opportunity for

18 fraudulent activity was present.

19 However, it became a state issue once the

20 Department of Financial Services, Superintendent for the

21 State of New York, indicated that that card could be

22 utilized in conjunction with the opening up of bank

23 accounts. So I surmised that not only would there been

24 the potential of fraud in the appropriation of the ID

25 card, but now one who engaged in that fraudulent activity

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0791 of CES Response Declaration

 145
Castorina The Court

1 could also engage in finance with that card.

2 So, I decided to engage in a FOIL request for

3 certain information concerning to the card, and the

4 background documentation of the card.

5 THE COURT: When did you make the FOIL request

6 and to whom did you make it?

7 THE WITNESS: The FOIL request was made to HRA,

8 it was done in some time in November after I had --

9 THE COURT: November of what year?

10 THE WITNESS: Of 2016. After I had

11 corresponded several times with the superintendent of the

12 Department of Financial services, who failed to respond

13 to any of my correspondence, at that time, I was

14 compelled to obtain the information as I am preparing or

15 the new session, which began yesterday in the State

16 Assembly, to bring forth legislation regarding the

17 utilization of the municipal ID cards, not only here in

18 New York City, but throughout the State, and I deemed it

19 appropriate, as a member of the New York State Banking

20 Committee for the State Assembly, that this information

21 would be perhaps quite useful in determining, going

22 forward, as to how the state ought to move forward on

23 municipal IDs, which seems to be popping up throughout

24 the country.

25 THE COURT: Whom did you FOIL? First of all,

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0792 of CES Response Declaration

 146
Castorina The Court

1 did you have a written request?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, a written request was made,

3 your Honor.

4 THE COURT: For what information? From a

5 particular person?

6 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, I do not have any

7 interest in the names of the people who happen to have

8 the New York City Municipal ID card. What I'm concerned

9 about is the background information, not what appears on

10 an application; what appears on an application is exactly

11 the same information that appears on the face of the

12 card. What I am concerned about is the voracity and the

13 legitimacy of the documentation that is utilized for

14 purposes of appropriating the ID.

15 For instance, the program does allow for the

16 utilization of expired Visas; Visas that are unreadable

17 from a variety of different countries. That has a very

18 high likelihood of counterfeit ability, as well as fraud.

19 That's just one example.

20 I believe that there should be a provision in

21 law and as a legislature; that is something that I plan

22 on doing, bringing a law forward that will prevent the

23 utilization of foreign expired documents that are

24 unreadable for the purposes of appropriating municipal

25 IDs and I believe that that is my prerogative as a member

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0793 of CES Response Declaration

 147
Castorina The Court

1 of the New York State Legislature.

2 THE COURT: You have a right to propose any

3 kind of legislation you choose, and you intend to do so,

4 but as you heard testimony throughout this day about the

5 precautions that are taken when a person applies for one

6 of these cards, the information that they do provide, the

7 vetting process that takes place, you've heard all of

8 that, so how does that meet with your concerns? I mean,

9 you've heard what HRA does with respect to vetting the

10 information that's provided by the applicants?

11 THE WITNESS: Based upon my observations and

12 based upon federal standards, based upon the standards

13 that are promulgated by the State of New York with

14 respect to the New York State DMV for driver licenses and

15 non-driver IDs, I deem in my capacity, the vetting

16 process that is utilized HRA to be deficient, and as

17 such, I believe it's my obligation, my capacity, to move

18 forward with a law to make sure that we can safeguard the

19 situation.

20 I'm not looking to dismantle the IDNYC Program.

21 I believe that it has quite a bit of value, I certainly

22 do, but I think that what is paramount is the safety and

23 the security of our citizenry, and the fact that American

24 blood is at stake here is something that is very, very

25 personal to me as a legislator and as a citizen of the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0794 of CES Response Declaration

 148
Castorina The Court

1 United States.

2 THE COURT: Well, you've heard the Deputy

3 Commissioner Miller just testify that the police

4 department was consulted when they passed in legislation,

5 when they proposed it, put it together, and ultimately

6 came to be -- they put in a form of a bill which passed a

7 body -- City Council, signed by the Mayor. You've heard

8 his testimony that the police department had input to

9 protect against fraud, criminality, so forth and so on.

10 You've heard what he said, he said that they were

11 satisfied with the retention -- well, again, you're more

12 concerned with the retention of documents, are you not?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am, your Honor.

14 THE COURT: You've heard his testimony --

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm concerned --

16 THE COURT: Excuse me -- about the retention

17 documents, the two-year period was first -- in the

18 legislation, it was sort of a test period, and the

19 immediate destruction -- which the City proposes to do --

20 met with the approval of the police department.

21 THE WITNESS: What I heard, your Honor, was

22 political mumble jumble. Let me clarify, I've never

23 considered myself a politician, although I'm an elected

24 official --

25 THE COURT: You are not a politician?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0795 of CES Response Declaration

 149
Castorina The Court

1 THE WITNESS: No, I'm an elected official.

2 I've heard from politicians who just testified here. I

3 heard from the Deputy Commissioner, who indicated that

4 he's got concerns as to whether the City can maintain

5 data, whether the city can maintain identification

6 materials. I have real concerns as to that notion.

7 Maybe we should be getting rid of the data

8 that's stored with the Department of Social Security.

9 Maybe we should get rid of the information that is stored

10 by the Department of Education. Maybe we should get rid

11 of all the documentation that's maintained by any agency

12 in City of New York. That's hog wash. It doesn't make

13 sense. We need to prevent the documentation from being

14 destroyed because we have a specific governmental purpose

15 for the utilization of this information. There are a

16 variety of them, particularly, the legislative branch,

17 particularly, the judicial branch. There are judicial

18 subpoenas that have been issued, they will not be able to

19 be complied with in the future. There has been a

20 demonstrable methodology, by which the Court's -- not

21 only in this jurisdiction, but in others -- have utilized

22 subpoenas to obtain these records. They will no longer

23 be able to do that, your Honor. You know, the judicial

24 branch, not only here but all over the country will no

25 longer be able to obtain that information, which they

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0796 of CES Response Declaration

 150
Castorina The Court

1 seek and think is important.

2 So, there are so many different ways and means

3 that fraud can be perpetrated here, and it's incumbent

4 upon us to make sure that the records are maintained.

5 Those records don't appear on the application

6 face. The application face does not say that the

7 following documents were utilized to vet this

8 application. It appears no where.

9 I will also add that it doesn't indicate on the

10 face of the application, the immigration status for an

11 individual, that's not key here, that's not the issue.

12 The issue is whether or not the voracity and legitimacy

13 of the underlying documentation is such that rises to the

14 level that an identification card with a government logo

15 carrying the full faith and credit of government, with a

16 government seal, can be issued on the basis of that

17 format.

18 THE COURT: That card is valid in the City of

19 New York, the State of New York. Any other city

20 throughout the state doesn't have to give any credibility

21 to that card, it's only relevant within the City of New

22 York, so the rest of the state can totally ignore nor

23 this photo, this New York City ID, for whatever purposes

24 it's intended. You can't use it to get a New York State

25 driver's license. The Department of Motor Vehicles

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0797 of CES Response Declaration

 151
Castorina The Court

1 requires other forms. They're not going to -- I don't

2 believe that they are going to be honoring a New York

3 City ID card as one of the documents they would allow you

4 to get a driver's license or a non-drivers ID with.

5 Isn't that correct? The State of New York doesn't have

6 to accept this card under any circumstances?

7 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor,

8 however the ID card looks very, very similar to the New

9 York State driver's license; it is almost identical.

10 THE COURT: So you think it could be confused

11 with -- is it possible that it may be confused --

12 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. There is no

13 indication on the card that it -- there is no bright

14 lettering indicating that the card can't be used to fly,

15 can't be used to buy alcohol. There is no -- there is no

16 designation on the face of the card -- you would have to

17 know the law. You would have to know the statute to make

18 that determination.

19 So a clerk in a liquor store who, maybe perhaps

20 doesn't, know about the --

21 THE COURT: Or outside the City of New York?

22 THE WITNESS: Outside the City of New York, or

23 within the City of New York, for that matter, could look

24 at the card for face value and engage in commerce based

25 on that card.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0798 of CES Response Declaration

 152
Castorina The Court

1 So, one of the issues that I've been

2 considering with my colleagues is the fact that there

3 should be some type of lettering or denotation on the

4 card, indicating that the card is not to be used for

5 certain things.

6 That would be an interest that I have as a

7 legislator moving forward, to make sure that that card is

8 not used for any other purpose other than what it is

9 designated for.

10 But your Honor, the fact is and remains, that

11 somebody who wants to engage in terrorism can utilize

12 this card to obtain identification and then engage in the

13 finance of terror; that's why this is so important.

14 This issue -- and I've heard some chuckling

15 today in the back of the courtroom from some folks --

16 this is a serious issue, this issue involves the blood of

17 Americans.

18 THE COURT: Okay. Any questions by the City?

19 MR. BATRA: I think Jeff wants to question him.

20 MS. MILLER: You want me to go first?

21 THE COURT: We have been following that

22 routine, but we can reverse it. Go ahead. It's your

23 witness, correct? Go ahead.

24 DIRECT EXAMINATION

25 BY MR. ALFANO:

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0799 of CES Response Declaration

 153
Castorina Direct/Alfano

1 Q Mr. Castorina, am I correct in assuming that you

2 don't want to take away this card, this ID card?

3 A No. Listen, this card is a big help to certain

4 segments of our population, particularly, the homeless,

5 particularly, those who are transgender and others. This is

6 a card that has value to them, and it should help them, and

7 they should utilize this card to obtain services throughout

8 the City. I think it's a good thing. And I certainly

9 commend the City for its interest in helping those segments

10 of population of our society. We should be doing those

11 things. But the safety and the security of our citizenry is

12 paramount to anything else.

13 You know, counsel said before that terrorism is a

14 zero sum game, it truly is. And you know, the Deputy

15 Commissioner testified as to there only being a few cases

16 here or a few cases there. The reality is that it only takes

17 one 9-1-1. It only takes one Berlin bomber. We cannot

18 countenance the value of safety and security over the notion

19 of the privacy of certain segments of our population.

20 Q Under the sum zero format, can you articulate for

21 us how that card would be used by terrorists in order to

22 perpetrate some horrendous act? In your mind, how would this

23 card be instrumental by a terrorist in perpetrating some

24 act -- some violent act?

25 A Okay. Well, the point system that has been created

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0800 of CES Response Declaration

 154
Castorina Direct/Alfano

1 is quite scant and, in fact, if you utilized all of the lower

2 value numbers, you can still come up with a value that is

3 acceptable to get the identification card.

4 Particularly, you only need -- to satisfy the

5 residency requirement, you need only stay in a homeless

6 shelter for a period of 15 days or more, and provide a letter

7 from the homeless shelter. So that residency requirement

8 portion, that's been satisfied.

9 As far as the identification issue, you can use a

10 lease, you can use medical records, you can use records or

11 documents that were not ever vetted by the government, and

12 that combination can create the ability for you to obtain the

13 ID, and once you have the ID, perhaps with alias, with a

14 different name, you now have a different name and, perhaps,

15 the same photograph, because they're taking the picture of

16 you. So you have an alias, you have a photo ID with an

17 alias, and now you have the ability to go to a bank in New

18 York and obtain a bank account, and the sky is the limit.

19 You can engage in the finance of terror, you can engage in

20 wire transfers. Any means that you can contemplate or

21 conceive of the utilization of our financial services in New

22 York, you can utilize going forward in a particular act.

23 THE COURT: Did you hear the Deputy

24 Commissioner say that we welcome terrorists to open a

25 bank account and once more make themselves public? They

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0801 of CES Response Declaration

 155
Castorina Direct/Alfano

1 will be photographed at the bank. At the bank, you have

2 to give certain information. He said, we would welcome

3 terrorists to open bank accounts, and apparently,

4 terrorists aren't prone to be opening bank accounts in

5 order to foster their activity?

6 THE WITNESS: Judge, I found that to be

7 outrageously disingenuous.

8 THE COURT: The statement?

9 THE WITNESS: I will tell you why. What

10 terrorist is going to open up a -- is going to get a New

11 York City Municipal Card in their own name? What

12 terrorist is going to open a bank account in their own

13 name? Clearly, they would have conducted a fraudulent

14 act in obtaining the card in the first place. That is an

15 outrageous statement by the Deputy Commissioner and I

16 absolutely think it's just not to be believed.

17 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Alfano.

18 BY MR. ALFANO:

19 Q Do you have any reason to believe that it's

20 possible to purchase fraudulent documents?

21 A Yes; as a matter of fact, there may have been quite

22 a few investigative reports conducted by various news

23 agencies, as recently this weekend, there was a piece on 60

24 Minutes that I saw, I believe, to be true, it was a piece

25 which showed that you can go to certain countries, and for a

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0802 of CES Response Declaration

 156
Castorina Direct/Alfano

1 fee, you can get a passport. You can get a Visa. You can

2 get these documents wholesale. You can purchase them.

3 Q To the best of knowledge, were the 9-1-1 hijackers

4 ever photographed?

5 A Yes, they were.

6 MS. MILLER: Objection.

7 THE COURT: No, I want to hear this. Go ahead.

8 A In fact, one of the things that I've been speaking

9 about on this issue is with respect to the 9-1-1 Commission

10 Report. In fact, all of the 9-1-1 hijackers had obtained in

11 some way shape or form, government level identification.

12 In fact, if a terrorist act were to be conducted or

13 committed, we would need to do investigative work with

14 respect to the background documents, how was this ID

15 appropriated? If the law goes forward the way it is, those

16 documents will never exist. We will -- we will lose our

17 ability to investigate appropriately. How the individual

18 perpetrated the crime, got the ID and perhaps -- and perhaps,

19 spoil the opportunity to get other terrorists.

20 Q At the same time -- and I think we can leave

21 this -- but to the 9-1-1 victims' family, like my family --

22 THE COURT: No, I'm not going to take this,

23 please.

24 Q How much are we supposed to -- how much reasonable

25 room for doubt should we accept?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0803 of CES Response Declaration

 157
Castorina Direct/Alfano

1 A This is a zero sum game. As I testified, it only

2 takes one act. We need to provide more security, not less.

3 This should at least be up to the standard that the State has

4 maintained with respect to the New York State DMV, not less.

5 We should not be countenance with the safety and security of

6 our citizens so that we can politically gain in other areas,

7 and that is what this is. This is a political act and it's

8 ideology over security, it's agenda over security, and that

9 is why I am fighting for this.

10 MR. ALFANO: I have no further questions.

11 THE COURT: Go ahead.

12 CROSS-EXAMINATION

13 BY MS. MILLER:

14 Q You referred to Commissioner Miller -- Deputy

15 Commissioner Miller's testimony as being -- excuse me --

16 political mumble jumble; I think is what you said?

17 A I didn't say it as sly as you, but yes, I did --

18 yes, I did.

19 Q And you are referring specifically to his comments

20 that retaining information of a private nature on other

21 private people, subjects them to the possibility of identity

22 theft? Remember he said that?

23 A No, I don't. That wasn't part of his testimony. I

24 think you're mistaken.

25 Q Let me ask you -- you remember him saying that

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0804 of CES Response Declaration

 158
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 though, right? That was one of the reasons?

2 A I remember him saying what?

3 Q Let me start again for you.

4 A Please.

5 Q One of the factors to be considered in not

6 retaining this information of private individuals, right, is

7 that?

8 THE COURT: What information are we talking

9 about?

10 MS. MILLER: Back up information.

11 THE COURT: The back up information to support

12 the application?

13 MS. MILLER: Yes.

14 Q One of the reasons for not retaining -- right, by

15 retaining that back up information of private documents of

16 private individuals, right, is that it opens the possibility

17 of identity theft. Remember him testifying about that?

18 A You mean when he said that the City could be

19 hacked?

20 Q Yes.

21 A Oh, you mean that, yes. I thought that to be

22 ridiculous.

23 THE COURT: Why? The City can't be hacked?

24 THE WITNESS: I think the City should be

25 engaging in measures to prevent hacking. By the way, the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0805 of CES Response Declaration

 159
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 City has many more records than the NYCID program. They

2 have tax records, they have so many other records, it's

3 ridiculous listening to him say that.

4 Q Well, you sponsored a bill recently concerning

5 individuals who release personal identifying information

6 should be subject to a felony; remember that bill?

7 A Go ahead. Go through the bill, what's the name of

8 the bill?

9 Q An Act to Amend the Penal Law in relation to

10 Unauthorized Release of Personal Data.

11 You sponsored that, right?

12 A No, I've not been a sponsor of that bill.

13 MS. MILLER: May I approach and show the

14 witness?

15 (Handing.)

16 Q This document that I have --

17 THE COURT: This is being used to refresh your

18 recollection. Take a look at it Assemblyman.

19 Q Is that not you?

20 A Well, I have a not sponsored this session, I don't

21 know when you are talking about. You talking about now?

22 Q How long have you been Assemblyman?

23 A I have been Assemblyman since April of 2016.

24 Q Okay. So since you've been Assemblyman, did you

25 not sponsor that bill?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0806 of CES Response Declaration

 160
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 A Yes.

2 Q And the justification for that bill -- and you were

3 the sponsor of that bill -- releasing personal identifying

4 information to the public is a, quote, a very serious matter?

5 A That's right.

6 Q Particularly, with the advent of the internet and

7 other technological advances, it is easier than ever for

8 copious amounts of people to review information quickly?

9 A Uh-huh.

10 Q Disseminating personal identifying information --

11 disseminating personal identifying information creates a

12 wide-spread opportunity for identity theft. The crime is

13 devastating. Financial consequences have been on the rise in

14 recent years.

15 Right? That was the justification for that bill?

16 A That's right.

17 Q Okay, and so, am I correct then that you agree --

18 I'm sorry, withdrawn.

19 So, the Deputy Commissioner Miller is correct when

20 he says this is a concern, that by keeping private personal

21 information on file, the files can be potentially hacked and

22 now you have identity theft of individuals, which is a very

23 serious matter -- as you said, it's a very serious matter?

24 A It certainly is.

25 Q So we are in agreement that there is a risk if you

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0807 of CES Response Declaration

 161
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 keep private personal information on people?

2 A Well --

3 Q The risk that we have to --

4 A That risk should not be heightened by government,

5 it should be mitigated by government and, in fact, the

6 documentation --

7 Q Is it one way to mitigate?

8 THE COURT: Hold on. Let him finish?

9 A The documents that I requested, I certainly believe

10 would be heavily redacted.

11 THE COURT: Which information are you -- your

12 FOIL requests?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes.

14 A The FOIL request information that I talked about in

15 this bill, I certainly believe would be redacted by the

16 agency under FOIL, and I would be able to get at least the

17 very basic components of what those documents are.

18 I need to know how many foreign expired Visas are

19 being utilized in this program. I need to know how many

20 unreadable passports are being utilized in this program; that

21 is not asking for personal information, and it certainly is

22 congruous with the law that I've sponsored.

23 And I hope that you could get some of my other

24 colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle to come and

25 support this bill. I think it's a good bill.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0808 of CES Response Declaration

 162
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 Q Is it still on the table?

2 A We just started session yesterday. I haven't

3 gotten a chance to bring it to the clerk's office, but I

4 will.

5 Q One way that the government can mitigate -- you

6 said the government should be mitigating -- is to destroy

7 those documents?

8 A That is not mitigating, that is forfeiting their

9 obligation. You see mitigating means that they should have

10 security features installed to make sure that hackers can't

11 get into the system, but still preserve those documents so

12 that people like me in the legislature, people like Judge

13 Minardo in judiciary, can access these documents when

14 necessary.

15 Q So going back to the legislature, naturally, as a

16 legislator, if you have enough votes, you could create some

17 sort of bill, as counsel said, to trump whatever the City is

18 doing, right?

19 A I don't know if that works the way you just said,

20 but normally what would happen is --

21 Q I'm just quoting your --

22 A Normally, what would happen is, uhm, a bill would

23 be introduced and then certainly, there would be interest

24 by -- conceivably by the members, and then it would go into

25 committee, and that committee would then bring it into ways

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0809 of CES Response Declaration

 163
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 and means, and then would it come to the floor for a vote

2 ultimately.

3 Q All right. Well -- so since you are not a

4 politician, you understand that pretty well?

5 A Is that a dig? I am not sure what you're trying to

6 say. If you'd like to go back to that, I can tell you what I

7 meant by that.

8 THE COURT: We are not going to get involved in

9 that stuff, please.

10 Q What I was getting at simply, as pointed out here

11 is, there are three branches of judicial legislature. As far

12 as I know, if you want to change a bill, something that's

13 been passed, such as the City, the City bill, the New York

14 City bill that we are talking about, you as Assemblyman could

15 go and create, draft, sponsor, some other bill, that could

16 somehow trump what the City is doing; you go could do that?

17 A Sure, but it doesn't happen ex --

18 Q Well --

19 A -- it happens with some investigations, and it

20 happens with the appropriation of information; information is

21 what HRA is currently housing, and that is what I seek to

22 obtain.

23 Q Well, so then, if you have in place a law that

24 we've heard testimony -- withdrawn.

25 The law in place right now with the City speaks to

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0810 of CES Response Declaration

 164
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 retention and destruction of documents, right? You heard the

2 testimony about that, right?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Okay. And what you're asking this Court to do

5 would be to actually change that law, right?

6 A No, I am asking -- actually, after you've read the

7 petition, you'll see that the Article that was brought asked

8 for two forms of relief. The first form of relief is known

9 as a Writ of Prohibition, and that Writ of Prohibition is a

10 writ that would prohibit the Mayor from engaging in the

11 destruction or the City from engaging in the destruction of

12 this information as violative of FOIL, as well as --

13 Q You would --

14 A With Congress, State Statute --

15 Q You would --

16 A Can I finish my answer. Thank you.

17 The second form of relief is a declaratory

18 judgment, the declaratory judgment, which I believe is -- to

19 my understanding -- is that that is a matter that would still

20 be pending. We may be entitled to have Council member

21 Menchaca come in and others testify as to that form of

22 relief.

23 Q Okay. But my question was really more along the

24 lines that you certainly are not asking this Judge to change

25 the law, right?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0811 of CES Response Declaration

 165
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 A No.

2 Q You referred to other things, but you are not

3 asking him to rewrite or change the law?

4 MR. BATRA: Objection, your Honor, he is here

5 as a witness, not to argue law.

6 THE COURT: Hold on. The objection is

7 sustained. I can declare a law unconstitutional, I

8 cannot change a law. As such, I either get rid of it or

9 retain it.

10 MS. MILLER: Thank you.

11 Q And with respect to -- with respect to your FOIL

12 request, some of --

13 A Which on?

14 Q The FOIL request that your Honor was asking you

15 about.

16 A I've made several, and they were denied in warp

17 speed, amazingly; and my ability to appeal that FOIL request

18 was denied by the City in warp speed, it was so amazing.

19 Q Can we stick to my question.

20 A Sure. What is that question?

21 THE COURT: Hold on, we are not going to have a

22 dialogue, please. Okay, let's ask a question and you

23 give an answer. I don't want any kind of dialogue.

24 Thank you.

25 Q You made FOIL request in December of 2016?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0812 of CES Response Declaration

 166
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 A I made one in November, as well.

2 Q Okay. One in November and one in December, right,

3 and both of them were asking for the underlying documents

4 related to New York City ID applications, right?

5 A No, that's not exactly correct. The first one was.

6 The second one -- and if perhaps Counsel can refresh my

7 recollection -- requested other information.

8 Q Let me --

9 A I don't recall specifically.

10 Q Let me ask you a question.

11 A I don't want to mistake it under oath.

12 Q Let me make it easy for you.

13 A The question wasn't difficult.

14 Q In either or both of your FOIL requests, you asked

15 at least for the underlying documents that were provided to

16 demonstrate identity and residency, with respect to an

17 application for a New York City ID, true?

18 A Not true, not specifically.

19 Q You didn't ask for those documents?

20 A Can I answer?

21 Q I am just asking, did you ask for those documents

22 or not?

23 A I asked for --

24 MR. BATRA: Objection, your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Hold on. We are not going to have

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0813 of CES Response Declaration

 167
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 a dialogue.

2 MR. BATRA: Could the witness be shown the

3 request, the FOIL request, so we can clarify that.

4 THE COURT: Do you have the FOIL request?

5 MR. BATRA: Yes, your Honor, it's right here.

6 I am looking at Exhibit F of the petition.

7 THE COURT: Counsel, do you have a copy? Show

8 it to him to refresh his recollection. Do you have it,

9 Ms. Miller?

10 MS. MILLER: I do, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: That is the FOIL request, okay.

12 MR. BATRA: It's part of the petition, so it's

13 already --

14 THE COURT: It's already in the record. Show

15 it to the witness, please.

16 MR. BATRA: Let me give it to the Judge.

17 (Handing.)

18 THE WITNESS: This is the second one, the

19 witnesss want to have both.

20 THE COURT: Officer.

21 (Handing.)

22 MR. BATRA: That's dated December 17, 2016.

23 THE COURT: Sir, you have the FOIL requests?

24 THE WITNESS: I do.

25 THE COURT: Do you recognize it?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0814 of CES Response Declaration

 168
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 THE WITNESS: I recognize the both of them,

2 yes.

3 THE COURT: All right.

4 Q So in either or both of those, did you ask at least

5 in part for the underlying documents to support residency and

6 identity of individuals applying for New York City ID?

7 A I simply requested all scanned application

8 materials associated with the IDNYC application --

9 Q Okay. So --

10 A -- maintained by HRA, and any other city agency.

11 Q This digital format and scanned material that you

12 were looking for included, did they not, the underlying

13 documents that supported one's application as to -- with

14 respect to the residency and identification --

15 MR. ALFANO: Objection, your Honor.

16 Q I mean, isn't that why we are?

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 A I would presume so; however, redacted as any FOIL

19 request typically is. I have made them many times in my

20 career as an attorney and certainly, as a private citizen,

21 certainly, they come in redacted format.

22 Q I am asking, did you make that request or not?

23 A Yes.

24 MR. BATRA: Objection; asked and answered.

25 THE COURT: He said yes.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0815 of CES Response Declaration

 169
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 MR. BATRA: I thought he answered that.

2 Q Okay. You realize, of course, that certain

3 individuals -- I'm sorry, withdrawn.

4 What area do you represent, what area?

5 A I represent the 62nd Assembly District of Staten

6 Island, which goes from Tottenville to Todt Hill.

7 Q Okay. And in the area or district that you

8 represent, the area that you represent, are there individuals

9 that have not applied for the New York City ID?

10 A I don't know, because my FOIL request was denied.

11 Q You have no idea if anybody in the area that you

12 represent has applied for this?

13 A I don't know for sure, because my FOIL request --

14 THE COURT: Do you know if anybody applied for

15 an NYCID card?

16 THE WITNESS: I can speculate, yes, but I don't

17 know for sure.

18 THE COURT: You don't know for sure?

19 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

20 THE COURT: Do you have one?

21 THE WITNESS: I do not.

22 Q So you don't have one, so you haven't actually gone

23 through the process of applying for an ID, right, a New York

24 City Identification.

25 A Uhm, no, I don't have one.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0816 of CES Response Declaration

 170
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 Q So you didn't go through the process?

2 THE COURT: Did you apply for one?

3 THE WITNESS: I never applied for one.

4 Q So you've never went down to any of the -- one of

5 the sites --

6 MR. BATRA: Objection; argumentative.

7 THE COURT: Please. Thank you. Go ahead.

8 Q You never went down to one of the sites and tried

9 to get a New York City ID, right?

10 A That's correct.

11 Q Do you know where the sites are?

12 A Uhm, I believe --

13 Q For your area?

14 A Yes, I believe there is one in mid --

15 MR. BATRA: Objection, with respect to this

16 proceeding --

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 A I believe there is a site in midtown.

19 Q Do you know if there is a site in the area that you

20 represent?

21 A I don't believe that there is.

22 Q Do you have any idea one way or another?

23 A I don't believe there is -- as a matter of fact,

24 there is -- yes, there is one in St. George, I think, as the

25 forgotten borough, we probably only have that one site.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0817 of CES Response Declaration

 171
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 THE COURT: The editorialized remark is not

2 necessary. Okay.

3 Q To be clear, though, you have never gone to a site,

4 whether in Staten Island or any --

5 THE COURT: Asked and answered. He said he

6 never did, please.

7 Q So you never actually presented any sort of

8 identification, right, one way or another?

9 MR. BATRA: Objection; asked and answered.

10 THE COURT: Okay. Answer it.

11 Q You haven't, right?

12 A I never applied.

13 Q Okay. And so you never supplied any back up

14 information because you never applied?

15 A Because I never applied --

16 Q And the fact that -- sorry, withdrawn.

17 You testified earlier, that expired unreadable

18 passports could be used in order to obtain a New York City

19 ID?

20 A I testified unreadable and expired foreign Visas.

21 Q You said that that is something that can be used --

22 A That's correct, is it not?

23 Q And furthermore -- excuse me. To be clear, I am

24 going back to the second -- to the FOIL request, the FOIL

25 requests, you probably know -- and I think you said, you as

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0818 of CES Response Declaration

 172
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 an attorney have, but they can be made by anybody, right?

2 Private individual? Anybody?

3 A That's correct.

4 Q And the purpose of a FOIL request is so that you,

5 me, obviously, so that private people can see what the

6 government is up to; is that a fair statement?

7 A Uhm, I believe it has something to do with

8 transparency in government, yes.

9 Q So, private people can go get a New York City ID

10 with private information, right?

11 A And that is why FOIL records are typically

12 redacted, and you --

13 Q Excuse me, you made your FOIL request as a private

14 person or an Assemblyman?

15 A On the form that is provided for, on the bottom,

16 there is a box and I didn't mark that box.

17 Q Were you applying as a private citizen or

18 Assemblyman?

19 A I am both private citizen and Assemblyman, whether

20 I am in the halls of the Capital or the halls of Costco.

21 Q Okay. So then you, either as a private person or a

22 government person, are trying to FOIL private information on

23 other private people?

24 MR. ALFANO: Objection.

25 Q Isn't that what you're doing?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0819 of CES Response Declaration

 173
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 A I'm trying to obtain information regarding the

2 underlying documentation that was utilized to provide the

3 IDNYC card.

4 Q Which may be a private document, a birth

5 certificate --

6 A Can I finish my answer?

7 With the expectation that the private information

8 would, in fact, be redacted because I do not seek that

9 private information. It is not my business. I'm not

10 interested in it. I am, however, interested in the

11 underlying documents, what is being used, why is it being

12 used. How many of these particular documents or the other is

13 being used. And I believe it is within my prerogative to

14 obtain that information.

15 Q Okay. Let's hold off on the redaction piece just

16 one second.

17 A I think this is important, with all due respect --

18 THE COURT: With all due respect, you are not

19 going to dictate what questions are going to be asked.

20 Please, relax. Now, go ahead.

21 THE WITNESS: This is relaxed, Judge, you

22 should see --

23 THE COURT: You want to have the last

24 statement? You want to make the last statement? I don't

25 think so.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0820 of CES Response Declaration

 174
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 Go ahead. Thank you.

2 Q Putting aside the redactions for one second, you

3 are seeking as a private individual and as a government

4 official, private documents on private people, right?

5 MR. BATRA: I thought this was asked and

6 answered.

7 THE COURT: Asked and answered.

8 Q And some of those --

9 THE COURT: He said he's seeking the documents,

10 all he wants is the documents, he doesn't want the

11 private information that is on the documents, he expects

12 it is going to be redacted.

13 MS. MILLER: Okay, I will get to that in a

14 minute.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 Q Some of those individuals you would be seeking

17 information on, are potentially constituents of yours that

18 applied for New York City ID, true?

19 A Perhaps, if they had applied for and obtained ID

20 cards, sure.

21 Q Yeah?

22 A Perhaps, sure.

23 Q Okay. And now let's turn it over to the redaction

24 piece. You say that you want to redact -- you want to redact

25 it heavily, right?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0821 of CES Response Declaration

 175
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 A I don't want to redact it heavily, I said I would

2 assume that it would be redacted to the extent that it marked

3 off or blanked out the type of personal, private information

4 that is restricted by law from being provided to private

5 citizens.

6 Q Well, you realize of course that -- I'm sorry,

7 withdrawn.

8 The documents we are talking about run from January

9 of 2015 up until December 7, 2016; is that your understanding

10 of that or you have no understanding?

11 A From the beginning of the program?

12 Q Right.

13 A Until the time of the FOIL request?

14 Q And those documents would be millions of pieces of

15 paper; true?

16 A Well, I didn't request it in paper form, I

17 requested it in digital form, so it wouldn't be as voluminous

18 as you indicate.

19 Q But they would have to be redacted as you

20 indicated?

21 A Perhaps, right.

22 Q In order to do that, there would have to be some

23 way of going through millions of pieces of paper and making

24 sure everything is redacted so nobody's identity is revealed.

25 A It is my understanding --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0822 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL6

Exhibit Page No.: 0823 of CES Response Declaration

 176
Castorina Cross/Miller

1 Q Is that true?

2 A -- it is my understanding that there are computer

3 programs and software that engage in that redacting, so

4 scribes don't have to do it one at a time.

5 THE COURT: We've now exhausted this topic,

6 please move on if you have anything else on another

7 topic.

8 MS. MILLER: Actually, I probably don't.

9 THE COURT: Good.

10 MR. BATRA: Five minutes?

11 THE COURT: No, you have already had your

12 opportunity.

13 MR. BATRA: I am saying for redirect?

14 THE COURT: No, I don't want any redirect,

15 you're done.

16 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Do we have another witness?

18 MR. BATRA: Yes, your Honor.

19 The Petitioners call Assemblywoman Nicole

20 Malliotakis.

21 THE COURT: Counsel, is she going to need this?

22 MR. BATRA: Yes, please.

23 N I C O L E M A L L I O T A K I S, called as a witness,

24 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testifies as

25 follows:

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0824 of CES Response Declaration

 177
Malliotakis The Court

1 COURT CLERK: You can have a seat. Please

2 state your name and business address.

3 THE WITNESS: Nicole Malliotakis. I'll spell

4 that for you, M-A-L-L-I-O-T-A-K-I-S.

5 COURT CLERK: Address?

6 THE WITNESS: One Maplewood Place, Staten

7 Island, New York 10306.

8 THE COURT: Ms. Malliotakis, are you a member

9 of the New York State Assembly?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

11 THE COURT: And are you a petitioner in this

12 matter?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes.

14 THE COURT: Will you please tell us the basis

15 of your petition concerning the matter before the Court?

16 THE WITNESS: Well, going back to the beginning

17 of when I first contacted the City strictly related to --

18 THE COURT: Why did you bring the petition, as

19 concisely and directly as you can; you're not a

20 government politician or government official --

21 THE WITNESS: I am; some call me both.

22 Back in 2015, when the law was first written

23 and approved --

24 THE COURT: Okay.

25 THE WITNESS: -- I read some comments in the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0825 of CES Response Declaration

 178
Malliotakis The Court

1 publications that were alarming to me that there was a

2 provision put in there that would destroy the documents

3 by the end of the 2016 year.

4 At this time, about February -- it was

5 February 18 actually of 2016, I wrote a letter to the

6 Mayor, the City Council Speaker and 29 sponsors of the

7 legislation, expressing my concerns about the documents

8 and at the same time, there were reports that there were

9 individuals that were using fake passports to infiltrate

10 countries as part of pretending to be refugees. So I had

11 written about my concerns, uhm, quoting the 9-1-1

12 Commission Report -- as my colleague said earlier -- the

13 9-1-1 Commission Report had said that governments should

14 be more strict when issuing any type of ID because all of

15 the 911 terrorists used some form of government

16 identification, mostly obtained by fraudulent means.

17 That is what Page 39 of the 911 Commission Report states.

18 So I had expressed general concern about the

19 well-being of my constituents and all the residents of

20 New York City and our nation, and this letter was

21 responded to approximately -- I did receive a response

22 three months later saying that they do follow similar --

23 the same protocols as that of the DMV.

24 Now, fast forward, though, we learned right

25 before Labor Day that the banking --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0826 of CES Response Declaration

 179
Malliotakis The Court

1 THE COURT: Of the 2016?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, 2016.

3 A We learned that the Superintendent of the State of

4 New York Financial Services said that this card can then be

5 used for opening up bank accounts, and so that raised an

6 additional concern, and at the same time, shortly after that

7 when the election took place, there were comments made by our

8 Mayor and the Council Speaker, that they were indeed going to

9 destroy these documents due to the political outcome of the

10 election.

11 So, we were very concerned that we were now going

12 to be allowing individuals to open up bank accounts using

13 this identification card. We had met with -- or I should say

14 we've spoken with -- in general, generally speaking, we've

15 spoken to people in law enforcement. We've spoken to people

16 in the banking community who shared concerns.

17 Our NYPD Sergeants Union President has strongly

18 said that he feels that this is something that is putting the

19 safety and security of our City and our country at risk.

20 He has said that he strongly urges that they did

21 not destroy these documents in case of April investigation.

22 THE COURT: This is the head of the Sergeants

23 Union?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes; Ed Mullens.

25 THE COURT: Okay.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0827 of CES Response Declaration

 180
Malliotakis The Court

1 A As well as receiving documentation and letters from

2 the New York Banker's Association that we've we obtained --

3 and letters that were written to the Commissioner of

4 Immigration stating that they had concerns about banking.

5 Most recently, we had a conversation with the

6 Director the Security for Northfield Bank, stating that they

7 had a concern that they will not be accepting the

8 identification card because of the way the City is handling

9 the background documentation, they have concerns about using

10 expired documents.

11 THE COURT: Let's be perfectly clear about

12 that. The law itself says a City can seek to encourage

13 eligible persons to apply for the card and to expand the

14 benefits associated with the card, including at a

15 minimum, by promoting acceptance of the card by Banks,

16 and other public and private institutions? Clearly, they

17 are not mandating that banks accept these cards?

18 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

19 THE COURT: We do agree?

20 THE WITNESS: We agree, yes.

21 THE COURT: And you know that banks are

22 governed -- if they are federally chartered banks, they

23 are governed by rules of the Federal Government, and the

24 State chartered banks are governed by the rules of the

25 State of New York?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0828 of CES Response Declaration

 181
Malliotakis The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.

2 THE COURT: And the City of New York cannot

3 impose any measures on a State or Federally chartered

4 bank, right?

5 THE WITNESS: That is correct.

6 THE COURT: So a bank would have perfect right

7 to say we will not accept this card as a form of

8 identification for opening an account or transacting any

9 business, correct?

10 THE WITNESS: But they are encouraging banks --

11 THE COURT: They encourage a lot of people to

12 do a lot of things, right?

13 THE WITNESS: But they are encouraging the

14 banks to --

15 THE COURT: Okay, but they are not mandating

16 them?

17 THE WITNESS: No, but that is one of the

18 reasons why we became concerned that the banks were

19 allowing -- I mean, the State -- the Superintendent is

20 allowing banks to do so. That is one of the reasons why

21 we became concerned.

22 THE COURT: Because you felt the State

23 Superintendent of Banking was permitting banks to do it?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 THE COURT: But not requiring it?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0829 of CES Response Declaration

 182
Malliotakis The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Not requiring it, but allowing

2 them to do so; but that in and of itself is something

3 that should be considered because as legislators, we

4 believe that we have a due diligence of protecting those

5 who we represent, the citizens of our City and our State,

6 and we think that it's important to obtain the documents

7 that we requested in the FOIL, so we are able to see

8 exactly what type of documents or being used or how many

9 of a certain type of document -- for example, an expired

10 foreign document or even an expired domestic document --

11 is being used to obtain an identification card.

12 Since last month, I've become increasingly

13 concerned because of reports that we've been reading all

14 over the world -- all over the world, in Greece, uhm,

15 fake passport factories are being busted; in France, you

16 had an individual who used a deceased soldier's

17 identification, who was from Syria; he had his

18 identification, changed the photograph and was able to

19 enter Paris and become a taxi driver, but he was able to

20 fool French authorities with that ID. And these are

21 publications that are from respectable publications from

22 all over, from Dubai, from Cambodia. The CBC was

23 mentioned in -- 60 Minutes did another documentary,

24 specifically, about passports that are being obtained

25 illegitimately with large money, being purchased from

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0830 of CES Response Declaration

 183
Malliotakis The Court

1 cash starved nations, and being able to be used in ways

2 that they want. And this is our concern here. When you

3 are accepting expired foreign documents, there is an

4 increased potential for fraud, when you obtain a

5 legitimate government ID card, which would be the New

6 York City ID card, and then using it for nefarious acts,

7 that coupled with the banks being now allowed to accept

8 that card, we think is -- it causes concern.

9 THE COURT: You mean allowing the bank to

10 accept the card as a form identification and that card

11 may have been obtained by the use of a fraudulent

12 document or documents?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes. That would be a concern.

14 And we think it could open up a can of worms here in

15 terms of different acts. So money laundering, uhm, any

16 type of, maybe fraud -- funding of terrorism is an issue,

17 and I think that certainly as New York City, we should be

18 doing everything we can to keep our city safe, and we

19 should be doing everything we can to be transparent in

20 government. That has been one of my missions in the

21 State Assembly. Also I try to bring transparency to

22 government when our City government is looking to destroy

23 records. I think that is something that is

24 problematic -- not only problematic, but is against the

25 rules of law and against New York State law, as I see it.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0831 of CES Response Declaration

 184
Malliotakis The Court

1 THE COURT: Which law is that?

2 THE WITNESS: The Freedom of Information Law,

3 and also Federal Law because there is something that's

4 being done here, I think that can be a federal, you know,

5 issue as well.

6 THE COURT: Have you attempted to FOIL any of

7 these documents?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.

9 THE COURT: You have?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes. I submitted a FOIL request

11 at the end of November, I believe, the date was

12 November 28 in which I requested all --

13 MR. BATRA: December 2, your Honor, by counsel,

14 of 2016.

15 THE WITNESS: -- which I requested all of the

16 background documents that were used to apply for an ID

17 card.

18 THE COURT: Did you get a reply?

19 THE WITNESS: No, it was rejected by the City

20 and so we clarified that we wanted all of the

21 documentation that was provided to the City in the

22 application of an ID card with the redaction of personal

23 information.

24 THE COURT: Mr. Alfano, do you have questions

25 of this witness?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0832 of CES Response Declaration

 185
Malliotakis The Court

1 MR. BATRA: I do, your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Thank you.

3 DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. BATRA:

5 Q Ma'am, could you just give me a little background

6 about your ethnic roots?

7 A Uhm --

8 THE COURT: I am not interested, please.

9 MR. BATRA: Okay.

10 Q Do you have -- in bringing this lawsuit, was there

11 any anti --

12 THE COURT: All right. Tell us about your

13 ethic roots, are you born here in New York?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm born here in New York.

15 Q And your parents --

16 A My mother was born in Cuba and my father was born

17 in Greece.

18 Q You don't have any anti-immigrant bias, do you?

19 A No.

20 Q You mentioned in answer to the Court's inquiry,

21 about the state FOIL laws?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Okay. I want to read you one sentence out of the

24 Public Officers Law, Section 84, known as FOIL law, third

25 paragraph, last sentence, quote: Access to such information

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0833 of CES Response Declaration

 186
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of

2 secrecy or confidentiality, end quote.

3 Now, that is the state law, correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And is New York City subject to State law?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And the State law, the architecture of the State of

8 New York is for a transparent government, the government of

9 the People, for and by the people -- I screwed up the of,

10 by and for; but you understand?

11 THE COURT: Among other things.

12 MR. BATRA: It's true, your Honor.

13 Q So as part of that process, the State has

14 recognized that it's very easy to simply claim a shroud of

15 secrecy or confidentiality, so it identified specific

16 categories of exemptions, is that correct?

17 A Yes, that's correct.

18 Q And both the legislative intent and the governor's

19 memorandum, signing the bill into law, and then the case law

20 that followed, said that the exemptions are to be construed

21 narrowly; is that correct?

22 MS. MILLER: Objection.

23 A Yes.

24 THE COURT: I take judicial notice of the FOIL

25 law, the Public Officers Law, what it says and its

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0834 of CES Response Declaration

 187
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 interpretation. Don't ask this witness to interpret what

2 the law says, she may have her own opinion of what the

3 law says, but really, we don't want to just knit pick one

4 or two sentences, unless we are going into the entire

5 thing.

6 Go ahead, Mr. Batra.

7 Q So you, along with your colleague, are asking this

8 Court, this Honorable Court, to do two things: One, you want

9 a Writ of Prohibition, preventing the City from doing what it

10 said it was going to do, which is on December 31, 2016,

11 destroy the records, right?

12 A Yes.

13 Q To the extent that the witnesses for the City have

14 testified that they will be destroyed, and you've said don't

15 do that because it violates state law?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And the second cause of action that you sued under,

18 you're asking for relief, which is a plenary action, full

19 discovery, and so on, that this Court declare that the law

20 passed by the City is illegal under State law, in addition to

21 the Constitution, and maybe something else, right?

22 A That's correct.

23 Q Now, within the architecture of State versus City,

24 are you familiar with the City -- any city, not just New

25 York, but Yonkers, White Plains, New Rochelle, whatever, who

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0835 of CES Response Declaration

 188
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 passed home rule messages?

2 MS. MILLER: Objection.

3 A Generally speaking, there would be a home rule

4 message, that would be sent to the legislature when they --

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 A -- when the City wants to implement a certain type

7 of policy.

8 Q So, if the City wants to do something and wants an

9 adjustment within the State law, which current State law

10 doesn't permit it do to, the normal procedure is for the

11 City -- in this case, the City of New York -- to pass a home

12 rule message and let its delegation carry it in Albany for

13 the people of the State of New York, through their

14 representative in Albany, and the Senate, Assembly and

15 Governor allow the home rule message to become state law;

16 correct?

17 A Yes, with regard --

18 MS. MILLER: Objection.

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

20 A With regard to this particular legislation, I feel

21 that the City has defied both State Law, as well as Federal

22 Law, and it's sort of tried to make its own law --

23 THE COURT: Because the City has a right to

24 pass its own laws without seeking home rule, correct?

25 THE WITNESS: In certain cases.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0836 of CES Response Declaration

 189
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 THE COURT: In certain areas, they must seek

2 home rule message, for instance, taxes; that's very

3 obvious that if the City wants to raise taxes, they got

4 to get the home rule, correct?

5 THE WITNESS: In some cases, yes, that's

6 correct, but also their laws have to be within the law of

7 the State and the Federal Government.

8 THE COURT: Just the way it reads, so State law

9 has to be within the rules and regulations of the

10 constitution of the Federal Laws, so forth and so on;

11 correct?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 Q So there is a pecking order, correct?

14 A You can't make a law that is contrary to a State or

15 Federal Law.

16 Q Okay, so the State Law says that under FOIL, State

17 FOIL Law, you have to keep records for five years?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Now, the State of New York, includes the City of

20 New York, correct?

21 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, I am going to object.

22 Counsel's mischaracterizing the law.

23 THE COURT: Excuse me, I will take notice of

24 what the law says.

25 MS. MILLER: Okay.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0837 of CES Response Declaration

 190
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 THE COURT: We are letting him go on, but I can

2 read and understand FOIL just as easily. Go ahead.

3 Q Knowing what the State law says, you've got to

4 disclose what government is doing, and the back up, and the

5 basis for what the decisions are, can the City simply say I

6 am not going to follow State Law?

7 THE COURT: Please.

8 A I don't believe so.

9 Q You don't believe so? Okay. All right.

10 Now, in this particular case, for the ID New York

11 City program or the Local Law that effectuated it there,

12 there was no home rule message sent by the City of New York

13 to Albany; is that correct?

14 A That's correct.

15 Q And the exemptions that are mentioned under State

16 Law, which are narrowly construed by the legislative memo,

17 the governor's memorandum, and Court cases, and Court

18 precedent, those limited exemptions do not allow this

19 wholesale destruction of documents, do they?

20 MS. MILLER: Objection.

21 THE COURT: Sustained. That is the question

22 for me, not for this witness. This is a fact witness.

23 MR. BATRA: Fine. Fine.

24 Q Ma'am, when you make a FOIL request and you get

25 back a response from the City, which is heavily redacted of

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0838 of CES Response Declaration

 191
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 personal information, the mere fact that you get that

2 redacted response from the City, isn't that your guarantee

3 that the City continues to maintain those records, which are

4 then available for law enforcement without redaction?

5 MS. MILLER: Objection.

6 A That is correct.

7 THE COURT: Overruled.

8 A In addition, to -- well, I think it's very

9 important that -- in addition to legislative purposes -- that

10 we are provided information and City records and that law

11 enforcement or judicial inquiries are also provided

12 background information when subpoenaed. And I fear that with

13 the destruction of these records, who will satisfy those

14 judicial requests going forward? And think that is something

15 that is a true safety, security and also transparency issue

16 that we're facing as a State legislature.

17 Q You were here when -- you heard Deputy Commissioner

18 of the NYPD, John Miller, say that as any investigator, I

19 want more not less?

20 A Yes. And that is the same response I received from

21 the law enforcement that I've met or discussed this issue

22 with, including the Sergeants' Union President Ed Mullens, as

23 well as the retired Sergeants Association, and other

24 Retirement Law Enforcement, and also currently those who have

25 spoken to me off the record --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0839 of CES Response Declaration

 192
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 Q And your colleague, co-petitioner, has received

2 letters of support for the Court, have you not -- which we

3 don't' have a copy of -- to the City's lawyers?

4 A Yes, we have. And we'll provide that to the Court.

5 And we'll just have them deemed marked.

6 THE COURT: One more question, please, we are

7 getting very late here.

8 MR. BATRA: Okay, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Make it a good one.

10 Q There is a difference between committing an act of

11 terror which is an equally foul crime as giving material

12 support of terrorism, isn't that correct?

13 A Yes, but in the end, it's all terrorism, I believe.

14 Q So giving material aid to terror, material support

15 to terror -- which is a term of art -- would be, for example,

16 getting financing for the actual terrorist?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Some people even get -- their families get paid to

19 commit suicide?

20 A Yes. And that is one of the concerns that we have

21 here with the connection of the banking.

22 THE COURT: The fact that the back up material

23 would be destroyed would be a strong contributing factor

24 for terrorists to somehow be able to fulfill their

25 commission due here in the City of New York?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0840 of CES Response Declaration

 193
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 THE WITNESS: Well, it's that, coupled with the

2 fact that they're allowing expired foreign documents to

3 be utilized, which are easily purchased on the black

4 market or stolen -- real ones that are stolen, and the

5 photographs are changed, I believe if someone wanted to

6 obtain a card based on fraudulent information, they

7 absolutely can do so.

8 THE COURT: And you've heard the testimony

9 they've uncovered about a 102 or so -- Miller said they

10 actually investigated four cases out of the million or

11 so --

12 THE WITNESS: That is correct, and I am basing

13 that on the issue of fraudulent passports being

14 purchased. If anyone does a Google search on fake

15 passports, you will see multiple news articles, but in

16 the past two years since we've first brought up our

17 concerns to the City --

18 THE COURT: We are not dealing with fraudulent

19 passports. Sit down, Mr. Batra.

20 MR. BATRA: Well, we could be --

21 THE COURT: We're talking about --

22 A The expired -- the expired foreign passports could

23 certainly be fraudulent, and this is the concern that we

24 have.

25 THE COURT: All right. We're done here. You

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0841 of CES Response Declaration

 194
Malliotakis Direct/Batra

1 have another question, Mr. Alfano?

2 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor --

3 THE COURT: I have heard enough information.

4 Go ahead.

5 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, I want to put on the

6 record that we have witnesses that would rebut the expert

7 testimony on security measures and banking, and they are

8 all available should you want to hear their testimony, as

9 well, to counter what the City has put forward.

10 THE COURT: On banking?

11 MR. ALFANO: On banking and on security issues,

12 as well, with respect to the integrity of documents, what

13 is necessary to maintain the integrity of a ID program.

14 They are all available. Your Honor said that you would

15 let us know, if you thought it necessary. I just wanted

16 to put that on the record.

17 MS. MILLER: I got a couple questions.

18 THE COURT: Sit down, Mr. Batra.

19 MR. BATRA: Sure.

20 THE COURT: Go ahead.

21 CROSS-EXAMINATION

22 BY MS. MILLER:

23 Q Good afternoon.

24 A Good afternoon.

25 Q You referred to your letter that you sent in

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0842 of CES Response Declaration

 195
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 February of 2015 to the Mayor and the Speaker, you remember

2 talking about that just few minutes ago?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And in your letter, you said a lot of stuff. I

5 want to focus on a couple things. You strongly urged that

6 Section 3/115 be amended. Remember saying that in your

7 letter?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And that didn't happen; it was not amended, as you

10 had requested?

11 A It was not amended.

12 Q Okay. But you certainly brought it to their

13 attention; them being the Mayor and other individuals, before

14 the bill was passed, right?

15 A It was -- I believe it was, it may have been --

16 Q Excuse me --

17 A -- right after the bill had been enacted.

18 Q After it was enacted?

19 A Yes. It was the Mayor, the City Council Speaker,

20 and the sponsors of the legislation.

21 Q Okay. You also asked at the very least for

22 assurance that the determination by the Administration Agency

23 before the 2016 deadline be made in full consideration of our

24 City's interest in law enforcement and counter terrorism; you

25 remember saying that?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0843 of CES Response Declaration

 196
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 A Yes.

2 Q That 2016 deadline that you were referring to, that

3 was the deadline of December 31, 2016, that is in the bill?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Okay. And you, of course -- well, I will withdraw

6 that.

7 You read in the bill, I am thinking that the

8 Administrative Agency, in this case HRA, could make some sort

9 of determination --

10 A Well, they could have made a determination or they

11 could do nothing, and then in that case, all the records

12 would sort of self destruct, but I question whether they are

13 doing that in conjunction with the NYPD. If they are not

14 making a determination, they're just -- if they don't do

15 anything, they are self-destructing so.

16 Q So you said, hey, I see that self-destructing

17 piece, but I'm encouraging you to give full consideration to

18 this, and actually make a decision. Wouldn't you have liked

19 to work with the City first instead of coming to Court?

20 A I mean, I get that --

21 Q But did you say that you'd like -- rather than the

22 default of just destruction -- you'd like there to be some

23 consideration and decision made?

24 A Of course.

25 Q That is what happened on December 7, 2016. HRA

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0844 of CES Response Declaration

 197
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 actually made a decision, they did what you asked, right?

2 A I don't know that they did. No one informed me

3 that they did what I asked.

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

5 MR. BATRA: Objection.

6 A I --

7 THE COURT: What did they do? What do you

8 contend HRA did on December 7?

9 Q On December 7 -- this is part of the legislative

10 executive order from the Commissioner, it was issued with

11 respect to the destruction of documents, right? Are you

12 aware?

13 THE COURT: That was what?

14 MS. MILLER: There is in the record, a memo

15 from the Commissioner saying --

16 THE COURT: Banks?

17 MS. MILLER: Yes. To various people within his

18 organization and others, which is a public document, it

19 is on their website with respect to the destruction of

20 the documents --

21 THE COURT: And that was about the destruction,

22 to destroy or not destroy?

23 MS. MILLER: Yes, there is no -- as he

24 testified -- operational need with respect to these

25 documents.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0845 of CES Response Declaration

 198
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 THE COURT: No operational need with respect to

2 these documents?

3 MS. MILLER: Right. I guess what I am

4 asking --

5 MR. ALFANO: Objection, your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Overruled. You are aware that in

7 the bill there is a default that if nothing is done, the

8 documents will be destroyed, that is in the bill, right?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what I had asked to

10 be amended.

11 Q And you said --

12 THE COURT: Mr. Alfano, what is your problem?

13 MR. ALFANO: The memo she's referencing has

14 no --

15 THE COURT: Please sit down, Mr. Alfano.

16 MR. ALFANO: The memo she's referencing, your

17 Honor, does not have any police on the memo.

18 THE COURT: Who is asking about police?

19 MR. ALFANO: No, they are saying it was done in

20 conjunction with the police.

21 THE COURT: Excuse me, you want to interrupt

22 her that she's inaccurate in her questioning? Is that

23 what you're trying to do?

24 MR. ALFANO: No, your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0846 of CES Response Declaration

 199
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 Q Let me put it this way. You've been here for the

2 testimony of Commissioner Banks, right?

3 A Yes.

4 Q You were here for the testimony of the Deputy

5 Commissioner Miller, Right.

6 A Yes.

7 Q And you heard testimony about conversations with

8 respect to various parties and law enforcement prior to the

9 bill being passed, right?

10 A Uhm, after the bill was passed.

11 Q All right. You heard that after the bill was

12 passed? Specifically with respect to the retention of these

13 documents, whether they were necessary to be retained or not?

14 A Yes, right.

15 Q And some of that testimony came directly from

16 Deputy Commissioner Miller, who was part of the Deputy

17 Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism, right?

18 A Yes.

19 Q So you asked back in your letter of February of

20 2015, that there be some consideration of the City's interest

21 in law enforcement and counter terrorism, you got what you

22 asked for, which was consideration?

23 MR. BATRA: Objection; argumentative.

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

25 A I have no knowledge that the Commissioner of HRA

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0847 of CES Response Declaration

 200
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 did indeed have any sign off from the NYPD before destroying

2 the documents, number one; and number 2, from what I heard

3 from the Commissioner, they wanted the records intact for the

4 life of the ID, and that they negotiated it down to two

5 years. That's what I heard from the commissioner today.

6 THE COURT: They did negotiate, and they did go

7 along with the program, right?

8 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

9 THE COURT: But for two years and then destroy?

10 THE WITNESS: But they originally wanted all

11 the information, but they negotiated with the City.

12 THE COURT: Well, I originally wanted to play

13 center field for the Dodgers, but I wound up in this

14 position.

15 MS. MILLER: Now, one more area, if I might? I

16 will be quick.

17 Q There was some testimony here about this default

18 position of the destruction of documents somehow related to

19 what the outcome of the election was going to be; remember

20 the questions from your counsel about that?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Yes.

23 A Yes.

24 Q So the destruction of the documents some how or

25 another would be tied in -- I am not saying that that was the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0848 of CES Response Declaration

 201
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 case -- but there were -- some of the questions asked here

2 were tied into the outcome of the election?

3 A Well, that is what has been said by the counsels

4 sponsor, that is what has been said by the Commissioner of

5 Immigration that testified here today, but in the press --

6 that is what has been said by our Mayor, and that is also

7 what has been said by the speaker --

8 Q And the election was -- I'm going back -- was on

9 November 8?

10 A I think so.

11 Q The 7th, I'm sorry. And you offered to your

12 constituents a shredding event on November 12, right after

13 the election, right?

14 A Right. Yes.

15 Q You did that for them, you shred bank statements

16 and other documents for their safety, right?

17 A Right.

18 Q And in fact, you had a little thing that you posted

19 with the word fraud in a big red letters, to prevent fraud;

20 right?

21 A Yes, we should be taking fraud very seriously in

22 all aspects, especially when issuing identification.

23 Q And the destroying of documents that might be

24 susceptible to people ending up with identity theft, you

25 don't want governments destroying documents?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0849 of CES Response Declaration

 202
Malliotakis Cross/Miller

1 MR. BATRA: What does that have to do with City

2 records, your Honor?

3 THE COURT: Objection overruled. I will take

4 one more question.

5 Q You did this -- you sponsored this event in

6 conjunction with the AARP, right?

7 A Yes.

8 Q And the AARP?

9 A They were going to shred documents so they couldn't

10 be fraudulently obtained. It's a service that AARP provides

11 their partners and numerous elected officials.

12 Q I guess the idea is that the City of New York is

13 shredding documents so they can't be obtained by hacking or

14 otherwise?

15 A Well, the citizens aren't under FOIL law, they

16 don't have to meet FOIL law as the City does.

17 THE COURT: Thank you. I have heard enough

18 today. Thank you very much.

19 Ladies and Gentlemen, come up.

20 MR. BATRA: I will give the Court -- this the

21 Court's copy of the letters to the Court, which I've

22 given already to City counsel.

23 THE COURT: We stand adjourned. Thank you very

24 much, Everyone.

25 (Whereupon, the matter is adjourned.)

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0850 of CES Response Declaration

 203
Proceedings

1 CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE

2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE ORIGINAL STENOGRAPHIC

3 MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING.

4
________________________
5 KELLY C. JENKINS
Senior Court Reporter
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0851 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL7

Exhibit Page No.: 0852 of CES Response Declaration

 204

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF RICHMOND - CIVIL TERM - PART DCM-6
2 ----------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of
3 RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS,

4 Petitioners,

5 -against-

6
BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as
7 Mayor of the City of New York, et al.

8 Respondents.

9 For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the

Civil Practice Law and Rules
10 ----------------------------------------------X
Supreme Courthouse
11 Staten Island, New York
January 18, 2017
12

13 B E F O R E:

14 HONORABLE PHILIP G. MINARDO

Justice
15

16 A P P E A R A N C E S:

17 THE LAW FIRM OF RAVI BATRA, PC

142 Lexington Avenue
18 New York, New York 10016
BY: RAVI BATRA, ESQ.
19 Attorneys for the Petitioners

20 LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY M. ALFANO

1000 South Avenue, Suite 104
21 Staten Island, New York 10314
BY: JEFFREY ALFANO, ESQ.
22
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
23 BY: PATRICIA B. MILLER, ESQ.
RICHARD P. DEARING, ESQ.
24 Attorneys for the Respondents

25 KELLY C. JENKINS
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0853 of CES Response Declaration

 205
Proceedings

1 COURT CLERK: DCM6 motion calendar, the

2 Honorable Philip Minardo presiding.

3 THE COURT: Good morning, Everybody, the sun

4 will eventually come out, maybe in about three or four

5 more weeks. Please be seated.

6 The Court received a request today from New

7 York 1. Where is New York 1? Stand up.

8 You have a request to bring the camera into the

9 courtroom?

10 NEWS REPORTER: Yes.

11 THE COURT: Unfortunately, we appreciate the

12 fact that you do cover this important matter; your

13 request to bring the cameras in the courtroom is denied.

14 You can stay right outside the courtroom in the hallway,

15 that is, but your request for cameras in the courtroom is

16 denied. Thank you.

17 NEWS REPORTER: Okay. My camera is in the

18 hallway.

19 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

20 Counsel, step up.

21 (Whereupon, a discussion is held off the

22 record.)

23 THE COURT: All right. Call your first

24 witness.

25 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, the Petitioners call

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0854 of CES Response Declaration

 206
Proceedings

1 Mr. John Burnett.

2 COURT OFFICER: Step up, face the clerk, remain

3 standing, rise your right hand.

4 J O H N B U R N E T T, called as a witness, having been

5 first duly sworn, was examined and testifies as follows:

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 COURT CLERK: Put your hand down. Have a seat.

8 Please state your name and business address.

9 THE WITNESS: John Burnett, B-U-R-N-E-T-T, like

10 Carol Burnett.

11 THE COURT: Like who?

12 THE WITNESS: Carol Burnett.

13 THE COURT: Are you related?

14 THE WITNESS: Well, I do have a cousin named

15 Carol.

16 THE COURT: Good.

17 THE WITNESS: 421 8th Avenue, Suite 8384, New

18 York, New York 10116. Oh, full service. Thank you.

19 THE COURT: Mr. Burnett, what is your

20 occupation or business?

21 THE WITNESS: I do multiple things, I am an

22 investor in terms of private equity. I also do some

23 financial consulting for big banks, small business --

24 THE COURT: Okay. Well, do you work for

25 yourself or are you are member of a firm?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0855 of CES Response Declaration

 207
Burnett The Court

1 THE WITNESS: I am self-employed with 25 years

2 of service in financial services, I started at 19 years

3 old.

4 THE COURT: Okay. Are you aware of a

5 legislation which created the New York City

6 identification card?

7 THE WITNESS: Yeah -- yes, I am.

8 THE COURT: How do you know that?

9 THE WITNESS: Well, it's in the news, not just

10 from this case, but it goes back, I think, a couple

11 years; and I wrote about it in my Huffington Post

12 Article.

13 THE COURT: What article?

14 THE WITNESS: I am also a writer; so I write

15 about different policy business, different things that

16 affect the overall market, things of that nature.

17 THE COURT: Okay. What is your impression or

18 your idea of what the New York City Identification Card

19 is all about? First of all, who can apply for it?

20 THE WITNESS: Everybody. Anyone can apply for

21 it. I can apply for it --

22 THE COURT: That's not correct.

23 THE WITNESS: I can. I know people that have.

24 THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, that's not correct;

25 you have to be a resident of the City of New York.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0856 of CES Response Declaration

 208
Burnett The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Well, that is what I meant;

2 sorry.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 THE WITNESS: All right.

5 THE COURT: Residents of the City of New York

6 could apply for this New York City identification card,

7 correct?

8 THE WITNESS: Correct.

9 THE COURT: All right. Now, is it limited only

10 to those who are citizens or are undocumented residents

11 eligible to receive this card?

12 THE WITNESS: Both.

13 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, this card

14 entitles you to certain privileges, correct?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 THE COURT: Well, what is your understanding of

17 the effect of the card?

18 THE WITNESS: It better positions an individual

19 who has successfully received the card access to basic

20 services.

21 THE COURT: Such as?

22 THE WITNESS: It could be -- well, one of the

23 intended purposes was to access the banking system, to

24 access anything that requires an official ID.

25 THE COURT: Okay. You know, there are some

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0857 of CES Response Declaration

 209
Burnett The Court

1 fringe benefits, as well, it provided free access to the

2 zoos that are under the jurisdiction of the City of New

3 York; museums, free access; as well as the ability to

4 apply for City services, to use this card as a basis for

5 identification to, in your situation, open a bank account

6 or receive other financial services, correct?

7 THE WITNESS: It's different levels, correct.

8 THE COURT: Okay. All right. You're here to

9 comment on this card, so tell me how does that affect, as

10 far as you're concerned, the banking community and other

11 financial services?

12 THE WITNESS: Well, it's different rules with

13 respect to the federal reserve, the Office of the

14 Comptroller, of the Treasury, they actually establish

15 certain policies, rules an regulations, and there is also

16 some historical rules that govern transactions in how

17 banks should monitor who they allow into the banking

18 system.

19 One of which is the Bank Secrecy Act, which

20 Congress passed in 1970, which -- and all the way up to

21 the Patriot Act -- that requires each bank to establish a

22 risk profile for the bank, as well as risk procedures

23 with respect to opening accounts.

24 THE COURT: Well, how does that relate --

25 THE WITNESS: So one of --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0858 of CES Response Declaration

 210
Burnett The Court

1 THE COURT: How does that relate -- excuse me.

2 Never talk over me.

3 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

4 THE COURT: How does that relate to the New

5 York City identification card?

6 THE WITNESS: Well, with respect to -- as far

7 as my understanding of the big banks, in terms of like

8 Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, they

9 happily accept this New York City ID card as a secondary

10 ID because it doesn't -- or I should say, it's not in

11 line with their risk-based governance profile as mandated

12 by the federal regulations.

13 THE COURT: Okay.

14 THE WITNESS: And one of the -- I'm sorry.

15 THE COURT: Go ahead.

16 THE WITNESS: One of the key underlying

17 concerns of the federal regulations is that each bank

18 must know their client, it's called KYC. So, they

19 require some type of high level identification to make

20 sure that the person that they are allowing into -- not

21 just their banking system -- but the over-arching banking

22 system of the entire community.

23 THE COURT: Okay. Can the bank set the

24 criteria for identification in order to transact

25 business?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0859 of CES Response Declaration

 211
Burnett The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Within their infrastructure?

2 THE COURT: Yes.

3 THE WITNESS: Correct.

4 THE COURT: Now, you are aware that there are

5 bangs that are chartered under the State?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 THE COURT: Banks that are federally chartered?

8 THE WITNESS: Correct.

9 THE COURT: Now, the legislation created the

10 New York City Identification Card, is that a mandate that

11 banks must accept this card as a form of identification?

12 THE WITNESS: They cannot supersede the Federal

13 Government's requirement that they accept it.

14 THE COURT: How about the State?

15 THE WITNESS: Based upon my understanding of

16 the state's jurisdiction and power over the banking

17 system, they cannot force them to do so, they can

18 recommend it.

19 THE COURT: Sure. The legislation

20 recommendations that they accept this card, but they do

21 not require any bank --

22 THE WITNESS: No.

23 THE COURT: -- or any financial institution to

24 accept this as a form of identification that can require

25 either additional forms of identification --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0860 of CES Response Declaration

 212
Burnett The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Right.

2 THE COURT: -- and they're not required to

3 accept this, correct?

4 THE WITNESS: Not at all; they highly recommend

5 it.

6 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So how is this

7 detrimental, this card, how is it detrimental to the

8 banking system and the financial system?

9 THE WITNESS: Well, again, there are certain

10 regulations that require each bank -- they give guidance

11 just like the State does, they give guidance as to the

12 minimum requirements that an ID should have in order to

13 open a bank account, however, they defer to the

14 risk-based analysis, based upon each bank coming up with

15 their own structure, their own governance that tie this

16 to the risk appetite for that bank, in what they think

17 would be satisfactory in fulfilling their due diligence

18 that satisfies the KYC rules.

19 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Alfano? Mr. Batra?

20 MR. BATRA: Thank you. Mr. Alfano will

21 question this witness.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, are we qualifying

24 Mr. Burnett as an expert in financial services?

25 THE COURT: No.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0861 of CES Response Declaration

 213
Burnett The Court

1 MR. ALFANO: Should I go through the

2 questioning?

3 THE COURT: No. I will permit him to offer an

4 opinion, all right, as a person who has a certain

5 expertise -- and I'll accept his -- I'm permitting him to

6 testify, so I'll accept his opinion. He's not a fact

7 witness, so I'll accept his opinion.

8 DIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY MR. ALFANO:

10 Q Mr. Burnett, the Judge asked you a question about

11 whether banks are required to take the ID or not and you

12 answered that they're not required?

13 A Correct.

14 Q During the testimony before the City Council,

15 Ms. Deyanira Del Rio -- and this is part of the Exhibit E to

16 Petitioners' -- Petitioners' motion.

17 MR. ALFANO: I have an excerpt, if it's okay to

18 give for identification?

19 THE COURT: Sure. You want to hand it to this

20 witness?

21 MR. ALFANO: Yes.

22 THE COURT: Sure. You want to show it to

23 Counsel?

24 MR. ALFANO: Yes.

25 MS. MILLER: Thank you very much.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0862 of CES Response Declaration

 214
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 (Handing.)

2 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, would you like a copy?

3 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Okay.

4 Q On Pages 84 to 89, which you I've excerpted for

5 you, Ms. Del Rio testified:

6 "We have anecdotally heard from some financial

7 institutions that they are already kind of viewing the ID a

8 little bit skeptically, thinking it's not really a full -- a

9 true government-issued ID. It's going to be a little too

10 flexible or they're saying, well, we'll accept it, but we're

11 going to develop a special product for those people.

12 Because of this statement, Ms. Del Rio further

13 testified: We urge the City to use its leverage and its

14 relationships with local banks and credit unions to press

15 them to accept the ID not as second or third ID, but as the

16 primary ID, which meets Federal Law and Federal Banking

17 requirements."

18 What do you believe leverage to mean in this

19 situation as a banker?

20 MS. MILLER: Objection.

21 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer,

22 Mr. Burnett.

23 A Leverage in that context, to me, means that they

24 would hold something over the bank's head in order to get

25 their way to do something, within the -- however, within the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0863 of CES Response Declaration

 215
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 financial context, leverage usually relates to debt.

2 Q Do you think she was referring to this as debt or

3 is another context?

4 MS. MILLER: Objection.

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 A I think she was -- she was using it not in the

7 financial terminology, but she was using it in terms of --

8 for example, if you want to do business with the City, you

9 have to accept this card. If you don't accept this card,

10 then you're not allowed to do business with the City;

11 something like that, that would be a good example.

12 Q So, in this context, would it be fair to say that

13 the leverage reference by Ms. Del Rio persuades the financial

14 services industry to view the "may" as a "shall", with

15 respect to accepting the ID?

16 MS. MILLER: Objection.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 A Could you restate the question?

19 Q Sure. Could the leverage referenced by Ms. Del Rio

20 persuade the financial services industry to view the "may"

21 accept the IDNYC to mean they "must" accept the IDNYC?

22 A I think that was -- based upon how you described it

23 and what you read -- uhm, it was more so of a forceful

24 statement to try to persuade them to use it; so it's more so

25 a must.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0864 of CES Response Declaration

 216
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 THE COURT: Really? May means must?

2 THE WITNESS: As far as when you use it in the

3 context -- when you use may in one sentence, and then use

4 leverage in a more forceful language in other.

5 Q Okay. Earlier -- let's backtrack just one piece.

6 Part of your -- as part of your business, do you advise your

7 clients with respect to federal regulatory compliance?

8 A Yes, when appropriate.

9 Q And in that case, you have a come across opinion

10 letters from different federal organizations, correct?

11 A Correct.

12 Q In your opinion, do these opinion letters from

13 federal regulators, do they have the full effect of law?

14 MS. MILLER: Objection.

15 A No.

16 MS. MILLER: Objection; relevance.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 A No.

19 Q Okay. Do you know if opinion letters change

20 depending on whose in charge of the regulatory authority?

21 MS. MILLER: Objection.

22 THE COURT: Well, you know what, I have given

23 you a lot of leeway here, what are we talking about,

24 which regulator, which agency, what kind of an opinion

25 letter, who writes the opinion letter?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0865 of CES Response Declaration

 217
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 MR. ALFANO: We are going back to the opinion

2 letter testified by Ms. Agarwal.

3 THE COURT: Ms. Who?

4 MR. ALFANO: Agarwal.

5 THE COURT: The opinion letter of Ms. Agarwal?

6 MR. ALFANO: The opinion letter that she

7 received from the federal regulators.

8 THE COURT: I see. All right. That was the

9 witness -- the Commissioner. Okay, go ahead.

10 Q So you have reason to go through --

11 THE COURT: Just restate the question, please.

12 MR. ALFANO: Can you repeat that back?

13 (Whereupon, the record is read back.)

14 THE COURT: You can answer that question, I

15 mean.

16 THE WITNESS: I'm just thinking back.

17 THE COURT: All right; think.

18 A Uhm, generally, they provide guidance. What the

19 regulators do not want to do is make an absolute statement or

20 generalize because that can actually come back and bite them,

21 if they say or provide approvals. They never provide

22 approvals. They'll actually state, well, you can do this,

23 this and this, and it's really more so just a restatement of

24 what's already in the rules and regulations, but then on the

25 other side, they also clearly outline -- outline the risks

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0866 of CES Response Declaration

 218
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 associated with non-compliance, and they'll say it is up to

2 you to come up with your own rules and regulations, your own

3 risk-based program, to make sure that you are complying with

4 the rules and regulations.

5 Q Okay. Now, as we had this discussion, I had

6 mentioned to Judge that Ms. Agarwal received an opinion

7 letter from certain federal regulators. In the course of

8 your business, have you had reason to read this letter,

9 because it was made public?

10 A Uhm --

11 THE COURT: First of all, do you know who

12 Ms. Agarwal is?

13 THE WITNESS: I forget her title.

14 THE COURT: Okay. She testified here in Court.

15 She is the commissioner of Immigration for the City of

16 New York.

17 MR. BATRA: In the Mayor's office.

18 THE COURT: Does she not have the title

19 Commissioner?

20 MR. BATRA: You are exactly correct. I am

21 saying that she's within the Mayor's officer rather than

22 an agency, that's all.

23 THE COURT: Okay.

24 MS. MILLER: It's an agency.

25 THE COURT: What?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0867 of CES Response Declaration

 219
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 MS. MILLER: It doesn't matter.

2 THE COURT: Okay. So anyway, she testified

3 here, and she was integrally involved in the formation of

4 this legislation. She testified -- I am not quite sure

5 that I remember that she testified about an opinion

6 letter -- from what agency?

7 MR. ALFANO: She requested an opinion letter

8 from certain federal agencies. During her testimony, she

9 did not specify which agency, and after her testimony, I

10 was able to locate the letter.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Have you come across this

12 letter in your work?

13 THE WITNESS: I think do I believe reading it.

14 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, I would like to have

15 it marked for identification?

16 THE COURT: What is it? A letter from where?

17 MR. ALFANO: A letter from the Board of

18 Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit

19 Insurance Corporation, Financial Crimes Enforcement

20 Network. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. It

21 is dated April 30, 2015, and it is addressed to

22 Commissioner Julie Menin, Commissioner Nisha Agarwal and

23 Michael P. Smith, President and CEO of the New York

24 Bankers Association.

25 THE COURT: Okay. Are you familiar with that

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0868 of CES Response Declaration

 220
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 opinion letter?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes.

3 THE COURT: Did you just receive it or were you

4 aware of it when it was first issued?

5 THE WITNESS: Uhm, somewhere in between.

6 THE COURT: Somewhere in between, okay. What do

7 you want to do with this?

8 MR. ALFANO: I'd like to have it marked.

9 THE COURT: Mark it.

10 (Whereupon, Court's 6 is received and marked

11 for identification.)

12 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, would you like a copy?

13 THE COURT: Thank you.

14 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, we offered this up the

15 other day, I think you said you didn't want it.

16 THE COURT: Well, I guess, I changed my mind.

17 Now, what about it?

18 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, can I have a copy?

19 THE COURT: I want to read it. Okay, there it

20 is.

21 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, I have an extra copy.

22 All right, you're fine. Go ahead.

23 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

24 BY MR. ALFANO:

25 Q How would you describe the guidance contained in

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0869 of CES Response Declaration

 221
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 the letter?

2 MS. MILLER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the

3 question.

4 Q How would you describe the guidance contained in

5 the letter?

6 A It's aligned with what I previously stated with

7 respect to outlining the basic requirements of what an ID

8 should have or what type of identification a bank should

9 accept at the start, or to establish a relationship with a

10 perspective client; with regard to picture, date of birth,

11 basic information, as such.

12 However, as you move forward within the letter, it

13 clearly outlines certain statutes that are applicable to KYC,

14 customer identification program, which requires banks to make

15 sure that they execute full due diligence with respect to KYC

16 in making sure that whatever ID that they receive is

17 credible. And it also refers interested parties to the

18 bank's risk program. Every bank is required to have a risk

19 management program because that's what the regulators will

20 test when they come into a bank to make sure that they --

21 that they -- you are complying with the law, but also they're

22 exercising reasonable oversight over their operations

23 pursuant to their risk management program.

24 Q Okay. In your opinion, does that letter constitute

25 a federal approval -- a federal approval by those regulatory

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0870 of CES Response Declaration

 222
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 agencies of the IDNYC card, as an acceptable form of

2 identification to open a bank account?

3 A Again, when a regulator provides an opinion, it's

4 just a general statement, they will never ever approve

5 anything. They will always defer to the banking

6 institution's risk management profile; because if they

7 actually provide the approval and something happens, then

8 they could be held liable for that approval; so they will

9 only give guidance, and refer any interested party that's

10 inquiring, back to the bank's risk management profile.

11 Q Okay. Ms. Agarwal, the Commissioner from the

12 Mayor's office had testified earlier that this approval or

13 this letter from the federal regulators suggestion a high

14 degree of confidence in the NYCID card's security and

15 validity. Would you agree with that statement?

16 MS. MILLER: Objection.

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 A No, I do not.

19 Q Can you elaborate?

20 A You know, in fact, when you --

21 THE WITNESS: Am I allowed?

22 THE COURT: Go ahead.

23 A When you look at the second to last paragraph, it

24 says: In addition to satisfying CIP -- which is the customer

25 identification program which every bank is required to

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0871 of CES Response Declaration

 223
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 have -- the bank should also assess the AML -- which is

2 anti-money laundering -- risks posed by the customer, and

3 conduct appropriate due diligence to manage those risks.

4 So again, what this opinion letter -- and

5 oftentimes, opinion letters do -- they state the bare bones

6 requirements. Then they state what the risks are, generally,

7 and they defer all risk management in analysis of what a bank

8 should accept, as well as what the requirements are with

9 respect to the bank's risk management profile. Because at

10 the end of the day, if anything happens, it's coming back to

11 the bank, so the bank bears all the risk.

12 THE COURT: In other words -- but Commissioner

13 Agarwal can draw whatever inferences and comforts she

14 feels the letter gives her?

15 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

16 THE COURT: She can have an opinion -- she can

17 have the opinion, I think this is very supportive of the

18 program. You, on the other hand, may have a different

19 opinion?

20 THE WITNESS: Absolutely; but --

21 THE COURT: Right?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 THE COURT: She's not off the charts with her

24 conclusion that, listen, I think that this is very

25 supportive?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0872 of CES Response Declaration

 224
Burnett The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Everyone has an opinion, but all

2 opinions are not fact.

3 THE COURT: All opinions are not fact? Not

4 what?

5 THE WITNESS: Not necessarily a fact.

6 THE COURT: Well, the opinion isn't a fact, the

7 accuracy may not be though, right?

8 THE WITNESS: Well, the fact that that is their

9 opinion, yes.

10 THE COURT: Okay. Now, what I'm gleaning from

11 your answers is it all comes down to the bank policies

12 regarding security, as far as what they would require in

13 order for a customer to do business with them. The Feds

14 can offer opinion guidance and so forth, but the bank

15 makes the decision as to what they will require in order

16 for a customer to transact business from opening an

17 account or whatever other bank business; is that what I

18 take from your testimony?

19 THE WITNESS: If I could add one thing.

20 THE COURT: Sure.

21 THE WITNESS: To your statement?

22 THE COURT: Sure.

23 THE WITNESS: What you said is fact, however, I

24 would add that it's pursuant to the regulations. The

25 bank is not making a decision based unilaterally, based

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0873 of CES Response Declaration

 225
Burnett The Court

1 upon -- well, separate and apart from the regulations.

2 THE COURT: Yes, yes, regulations must be

3 followed.

4 THE WITNESS: I just want to make sure that

5 everything is on record, that the bank is not making a

6 decision separate and apart from the regulation. They're

7 making it through the lenses of the regulation and making

8 sure that they establish a risk management profile.

9 THE COURT: It complies with the regulation.

10 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. That was the only

11 thing missing from your statement.

12 THE COURT: Okay. But generally, of course,

13 they have to comply with regulation, but then they can

14 set their own policy as to what they will accept as proof

15 or what they will receive as proof of identification in

16 dealing with a customer as long as it complies with the

17 regulation, Federal or State, whichever way you're going;

18 correct?

19 THE WITNESS: Right.

20 THE COURT: Because the State has a bunch of

21 regulations -- well, right?

22 THE WITNESS: That's correct. Each bank will

23 analyze -- in fact, they have a book -- I forget who

24 actually publishes it -- but they have a book in terms of

25 what would be an acceptable ID for primary identification

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0874 of CES Response Declaration

 226
Burnett The Court

1 in -- each new account representative, they have -- just

2 in case they forget -- because the banks get so granular,

3 that sometimes they'll have certain regulations with

4 respect to certain IDs for certain countries. So their

5 risk management profile is not just domestic, because

6 many of these banks are global, so they have to look at

7 the global marketplace, because you can open up an

8 account anywhere, generally speaking; so the risk

9 management profile has to be far-reaching and they -- and

10 they have a breakdown as to generally why this ID would

11 be acceptable and why another ID would be accepted, but

12 not as primary.

13 THE COURT: But when all is said and done, the

14 banks are not required by law to accept this as primary

15 or secondary identification; is that correct?

16 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

17 THE COURT: They're not required?

18 THE WITNESS: Because --

19 THE COURT: They can, but they are not

20 required.

21 THE WITNESS: Correct, because at the Federal

22 and State level, once they force a bank to do anything

23 then they're complicit and they are also liable.

24 But they'll give guidance, which is an opinion, but none

25 of the assumption of risk.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0875 of CES Response Declaration

 227
Burnett The Court

1 THE COURT: Sir, do you have any questions of

2 this witness?

3 MR. ALFANO: I just have three or four, if

4 that's okay, your Honor?

5 THE COURT: Go ahead. Ask the next one, but

6 don't be repetitive.

7 MR. ALFANO: No, I am not going to be

8 repetitive.

9 THE COURT: Go ahead.

10 CONTINUED DIRECT-EXAMINATION

11 BY MR. ALFANO:

12 Q This may seem a little more simplistic, but you've

13 been involved in banking for a long time, you've started at

14 the time you were 19; can you explain why the banking

15 industry asks for a driver's license usually when opening an

16 account?

17 A Because, generally, driver's licenses are issued by

18 the State, and the State, when you look at the State's

19 end-to-end process, they require -- I should say, they

20 exercise due diligence in their requirements to obtain the

21 driver's license in terms of address, date of birth, things

22 of that nature, and they have certain guidance as to how a

23 prospective person would -- what they would need to present

24 in order to meet that application for a driver's license --

25 and here's something that is often overlooked, the record

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0876 of CES Response Declaration

 228
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 retention requirements behind the State issuing agency.

2 Q Okay. And am I correct in assuming that in a

3 banking application for financial services products, you

4 would typically -- "you" meaning a bank, would ask for a

5 social security number or tax payer identification number?

6 A Some form of identification number that's

7 industry-wide acceptable.

8 Q And what's the purpose of having those numbers

9 attached to applications for financial services products?

10 A So you can track -- everything has to be -- from an

11 audit perspective, everything has to be auditable, repeatable

12 and verifiable.

13 Q And I am going to fast forward ahead. You've worn

14 many hats and at any point in your career, did you ever work

15 on drafting legislation to develop financial policy?

16 A I never worked in the federal capacity.

17 Q Well, not federal, even state or local, have you

18 contributed to creating financial policy or come with up with

19 a methodology?

20 A Well, what regulators will do is they will -- if

21 they are contemplating a new law or new regulation, what

22 they'll do is issue what they're thinking about doing, how

23 they see the risks, as far as whatever risks they want to

24 address, and they will issue a letter -- and sometimes on

25 white paper -- that supports their proposed legislation or

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0877 of CES Response Declaration

 229
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 rule changes to member firms. Then each member firm will

2 analyze it within -- I should say in-house -- then what

3 they'll do is give back their opinion as to the impact, as to

4 the efficacy of the law or regulation and any additions or

5 subtractions from that legislation or proposed legislation,

6 rule or industry practice.

7 THE COURT: Once, again, the question was did

8 you ever?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was leading up to that.

10 A I wanted to explain the process, how I would be

11 involved, as well as other colleagues, as well as other

12 member firms.

13 Q Okay. And you were once a candidate for office,

14 correct?

15 A For New York City Comptroller 2013.

16 Q And when you were a candidate, you came up with

17 your own policies that you wanted to put into effect as a

18 politician, correct?

19 THE COURT: As an elected official?

20 MR. ALFANO: I use politician; the elected

21 official -- the elected officials are in Albany today.

22 THE COURT: Isn't that wonderful.

23 A Just for the record, I came in second place; I beat

24 three other people.

25 Q So you've done --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0878 of CES Response Declaration

 230
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 THE COURT: Second place is good only in

2 horseshoes. Good.

3 Q So, while you were a politician, you were going to

4 do the work of the people; uhm, these underlying documents

5 that we're requesting -- because my clients are elected

6 officials, and they want to put forward legislation in

7 Albany -- would you believe that -- would you need these

8 documents in order to properly craft policy?

9 MS. MILLER: Objection.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

11 A I think --

12 MS. MILLER: Sorry, your Honor, what documents

13 are we referring to?

14 MR. ALFANO: The documents that we're

15 requesting in this litigation, the underlying identity

16 documents.

17 THE COURT: The documents necessary to

18 accompany the application that would enable you to get

19 the New York City ID card, is that what we are talking

20 about?

21 MR. ALFANO: That's correct, your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 A I think that would be fair and reasonable.

24 THE COURT: Last question.

25 THE WITNESS: Can I expound?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0879 of CES Response Declaration

 231
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 THE COURT: Finish your answer, I'm sorry.

2 A Also, here's one of the things that the regulators

3 often require as a part of a member firm's risk management

4 system, that the firm should engage into a self-examination;

5 so if I were to relate that concept or that expectation to

6 the IDNYC card, I would say the City should routinely,

7 through an independent party -- the Comptroller's office

8 naturally -- go in to do audits as to how the card is being

9 issued, making sure that it's issued in a consistent

10 practice, what type of documents are being accepted, uhm, is

11 there a reasonable record retention policy that is aligned

12 with industry best practices; things of that nature.

13 Q Okay.

14 MR. ALFANO: And your Honor, I have one more

15 question?

16 THE COURT: One more.

17 MR. ALFANO: One more?

18 THE COURT: Go ahead.

19 Q You had just mentioned to the Judge before that you

20 had written an article at the Huffington Post, I have copy of

21 the article, I'd like to introduce it into evidence.

22 THE COURT: Go ahead.

23 (Handing.)

24 MR. ALFANO: If you can mark this for

25 identification.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0880 of CES Response Declaration

 232
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 (Handing.)

2 (Whereupon, Court 7 is received and marked for

3 Identification.)

4 A Which article is this?

5 Q "Bigger Isn't Always Better and Relationships are

6 Key"; appearing in the Huffington Post?

7 A Yeah.

8 THE COURT: We're marked this for

9 identification. Okay.

10 Q If you can explain your thoughts on that?

11 A I wrote that article in response to the New York

12 Times editorial with respect to the IDNYC card, admonishing

13 big banks for not accepting the card as primary ID, in their

14 opinion, as to why that would be -- I think they called it

15 discriminatory -- if I recall correctly -- and again, my

16 response was saying that big banks -- we just went through

17 this in 2008 in terms of big banks taking on greater risks.

18 So the last thing we need to do is to have an ID that is

19 accepted as primary ID where, if I recall correctly -- unless

20 they changed it on my way over here -- that you can stay two

21 weeks or 15 days in a homeless shelter and use that address

22 as the address for the ID, and that's just an example.

23 So, again, going back to KYC and the customer

24 identification program, among a laundry list of other

25 regulations by a laundry list of regulators and regulatory

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0881 of CES Response Declaration

 233
Burnett Direct/Alfano

1 requirements for AML, KYC and so forth, the banks would

2 assume great risk if they accepted an ID like IDNYC as

3 primary identification.

4 THE COURT: So you are --

5 THE WITNESS: So my --

6 THE COURT: So they don't have to accept this

7 as primary or even secondary forms of identification?

8 THE WITNESS: Well, they do? Secondary --

9 THE COURT: You were recommending that they

10 not?

11 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

12 THE COURT: Okay.

13 THE WITNESS: In that State, as well as City,

14 or any editorial board should not force banks or put

15 pressure on banks to accept this ID or provide leverage

16 in terms of -- okay, if you don't do this, if you don't

17 accept this as primary ID, you can't do business with the

18 City.

19 THE COURT: Do you know if that policy is in

20 existence?

21 THE WITNESS: No, but I can't remember where,

22 your Honor, where I read that, but there was certain

23 statements made, insinuating that that should be a policy

24 for consideration if the banks do not accept the IDNYC

25 card.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0882 of CES Response Declaration

 234
Burnett The Court

1 THE COURT: There are people who testified

2 before City Council in this legislation, lay people,

3 people of some experience, and they had an opinion but

4 nowhere in the legislation does it indicate that there

5 will be pressure brought or leverage brought about?

6 THE WITNESS: Right, right. And we're saying

7 the same thing in terms of opinion, I didn't say it was

8 fact or codified anywhere, I'm just saying they actually

9 made that opinion, putting it out there.

10 THE COURT: Right.

11 THE WITNESS: And that's sort of like an

12 indirect threat, the way I see it. I was born in the

13 People's Republic of Brooklyn, when people say stuff like

14 that, that is the way I see it.

15 THE COURT: The People's Republic of Brooklyn.

16 Only the best people are born in Brooklyn.

17 Thank you very much, sir.

18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Do you have questions of this

20 witness?

21 MS. MILLER: Yes, a couple, if that's all

22 right?

23 THE COURT: Go ahead.

24 CROSS-EXAMINATION

25

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0883 of CES Response Declaration

 235
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 BY MS. MILLER:

2 Q Good morning.

3 A Good morning.

4 Q You said that you ran for office for Comptroller?

5 A Correct.

6 Q And what year was that?

7 A That was 2013.

8 Q And you ran against Scott Stringer, he was one of

9 the people that you ran against?

10 A Yes.

11 Q You ran on the Republican ticket, right?

12 A That was one the tickets, I had multiple lines.

13 Q You ran as a Republican, did you not?

14 A Uhm, I had multiple lines; three lines.

15 Q Well, okay.

16 THE COURT: Which lines did you have?

17 A Republican, Conservative, and School Choice.

18 THE COURT: Okay.

19 Q And Scott Stringer actually was elected, right? He

20 finished first, as you put it?

21 A Yeah, it was like one and a half, somewhere around

22 there.

23 Q You know, he is in support of this bill, did you

24 know that he spoke -- as part of the formulation of this

25 bill, he spoke in favor of it; did you know that?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0884 of CES Response Declaration

 236
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 A I would imagine he would, I guess.

2 Q And the article that you wrote, that you just put

3 into --

4 MS. MILLER: Was it marked for identification

5 or put into evidence?

6 THE COURT: Only for ID.

7 Q That was written in January of 2016?

8 A Correct.

9 Q And in that, you actually favored the program, did

10 you not?

11 A No.

12 Q You encouraged, did you not, community banks to --

13 well you -- withdrawn.

14 You encouraged the use of the card as a primary

15 source of identification for Community Banks, did you not?

16 THE COURT: Go ahead.

17 A What I was outlining is the difference between big

18 banks and community banks, and what I did was, I already knew

19 as was reported by the New York Times, that big banks would

20 not, and I went to a couple community banks, and they say

21 that they could accept it, because they're hurting for

22 business, right, and many times, the smaller banks don't

23 provide -- they provide the basic banking services, but they

24 don't have a huge connection that their financial tentacles

25 don't reach as far as big banks, so if it was some sort of

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0885 of CES Response Declaration

 237
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 risk event that happened with the community bank, the

2 community bank would not cause the entire financial system to

3 falter, as we've seen in 2008.

4 So I was making that risk distinction, and you said

5 that -- I'm sorry, withdrawn.

6 Q You referred to Carver Bank, Carver Community Bank?

7 A That's correct.

8 Q Actually, you mentioned Carver Community Bank in

9 your article, right?

10 A Yes.

11 Q You say: Headquartered in Harlem, New York and was

12 founded in 1948 to serve African Americans because of the

13 dearth of mainstream financial services available to black

14 people at the time.

15 You said that in your article, right?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And you said today, Carver is the largest African

18 American operated bank in the United States?

19 A Correct.

20 Q And Carver accepts, you must know, the New York

21 City ID as a primary source of identification?

22 A It's one of the handful of banks that do.

23 Q My question was softer, in particular, you mention

24 in your article, in fact they accept the New York City ID as

25 a primary source of identification; you know that?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0886 of CES Response Declaration

 238
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 A Yes; and of recent years, they have also been

2 placed a watch list so, technically, and I think that was

3 after that article, as well. So, their risk profile has

4 become even more riskier. So if I was writing that letter, I

5 mean, that article in January of 2017 a year later, I would

6 not recommend that based upon their publicly known risk

7 situation.

8 Q But you recommended it at the time of January of

9 2016, that Carver accept this as a primary source of

10 identification?

11 A At that time.

12 Q Right. So but, in fact, you must have known surely

13 when you wrote your article that in January of 2015, Carver

14 was already accepting the New York City ID as a primary

15 source of identification. Did you know that before you wrote

16 your article?

17 A Yes, I called them --

18 Q But then -- so you weren't encouraging them to

19 accept it, they were already accepting it for over a year by

20 the time you wrote your article?

21 A But the distinction, the purpose and the

22 distinction, Counselor, was that the risk profile of a big

23 bank is completely different. I should say the risk profile

24 and risk impact to the financial system is entirely

25 different, a big bank versus a small bank; so that is the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0887 of CES Response Declaration

 239
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 purpose and intent of that article.

2 Q Sure. And you encouraged community banks because

3 they knew customers better than say big banks, to consider

4 this ID?

5 A I did not -- no, I said -- what I was conveying is

6 that they would be able to have -- if accepted, that

7 relationship was accepted into the bank, they would be able

8 to provide more personal relationship banking. Not that they

9 would know the client any different. I just want to make

10 sure I clarify that with specificity.

11 Q Okay. And you realize -- I'm sorry, withdrawn.

12 You said that -- you submitted an affidavit in this

13 case, did you not?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And you submitted the affidavit some time in

16 December of 2016?

17 A Yes.

18 Q You know that?

19 A Correct.

20 Q Okay. And in that you said --

21 MS. MILLER: Sorry, your Honor, just one

22 second, please.

23 Q You said, I initially supported the use of the New

24 York City identification card as a secondary form of

25 identification for larger banks that do not want to assume

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0888 of CES Response Declaration

 240
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 the business risk associated with the IDNYC card; you said

2 that in your affidavit, right?

3 A Yeah, I said that just a few moments ago to the

4 Judge in response to his question.

5 Q So you initially supported --

6 A As a secondary ID.

7 Q For larger banks?

8 A Not primary.

9 Q And primary for the community banks?

10 A No, I said that the community banks, some of them

11 accept it as primary ID.

12 Q Okay. And in fact, what you said --

13 A But they should not force big banks to accept it as

14 primary ID.

15 Q Well, to be clear, though, nobody is forcing

16 anybody to do anything, I think that was the upshot of

17 what --

18 A It all depends on how you define leverage and what

19 context the word leverage is actually being used.

20 Q Well, let me ask you this, on Court Exhibit 6, you

21 still have that in front you, which is the letter from the

22 Federal Board?

23 A Okay. Got it.

24 Q The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve --

25 excuse me. Do you still have that in front of you?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0889 of CES Response Declaration

 241
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 A Yes.

2 Q Okay. Well, so at page -- you are going have to

3 count -- go to the second page of that document.

4 If you look at the third full paragraph from the

5 bottom.

6 A That starts with "Banks"?

7 Q Yup; look towards the bottom of that where it says:

8 therefore.

9 THE COURT: It's in evidence, so you can read

10 it out loud, if you choose to, Mr. Burnett.

11 MS. MILLER: I will read it, your Honor, make

12 it easier.

13 THE COURT: You can read it, too, because it's

14 in evidence. Go ahead.

15 Q It says: Therefore, a bank may accept the ID card

16 as a means of documentary verification as provided in the

17 bank's CIP procedures. Right? They "may"?

18 A Uh-huh.

19 Q Okay. And if you look a little further, in the

20 next paragraph, it says: Because the rule is risk-based, the

21 bank must assess the risk presented by the customer. Right?

22 A Correct, that is what it says.

23 Q Okay. So the information coming from the --

24 A You want to finish reading the paragraph. There is

25 only one more sentence. It's relevant.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0890 of CES Response Declaration

 242
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 Q Let me ask this question. So the information

2 coming from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to

3 various people that are identified on that letter, including

4 the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs, is saying that this

5 card may be accepted, right? And the banks are to assess

6 risk with respect to the customer; isn't that what they're

7 saying?

8 A Yeah. May. Not definite.

9 Q All right. Thank you.

10 A It goes on to say: In some cases, the bank may

11 determine that more information than the ID card is necessary

12 to verify a customers identity.

13 Q Oh, well, thank you very much for pointing that

14 out. So, in fact, the bank could if they wanted to, take

15 more than the ID to assess -- make sure we got the right

16 person here, right?

17 A They need to go a step further in the

18 identification but also a step further with respect to their

19 risk-based program and to consider the validity of the ID,

20 and the practices behind that identification.

21 Q And just looking at the last page, the different

22 people that signed off on this document, you have the

23 director -- you see that, sir?

24 On the last page: The folks that signed this

25 letter. You have the Director of Banking Supervision and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0891 of CES Response Declaration

 243
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 Regulation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

2 See that? That is the first gentleman, Mr. Michael Gibson?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And then you have Doreen Eberley, Division of Risk

5 Management Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance

6 Corporation. She signed off on this letter as well, right?

7 A Uh-huh.

8 Q Is that yes?

9 A Correct.

10 THE COURT: You have to say yes.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry.

12 Q Jamal El-Hindi, Acting Deputy Director of Financial

13 Crimes Enforcement Network?

14 A FinCEN.

15 Q I'm sorry?

16 A It's FinCEN for short.

17 Q The name is Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,

18 but you are calling it FinCEN.

19 That is part of the US Department of Treasury,

20 correct?

21 A Correct.

22 Q And the last person signing off is Jennifer C.

23 Kelly, Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief National Bank

24 Examiner for the Officer of the Comptroller of the Currency?

25 A Correct.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0892 of CES Response Declaration

 244
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 Q And those four individuals that signed the

2 letter --

3 THE COURT: And your point?

4 MS. MILLER: Thank you.

5 Q Point being that all four of these people and

6 different individuals that work in this system, the Federal

7 System, all signed off on this, that the card may be accepted

8 and it's up to the bank to check the risk; isn't that the

9 upshot of that?

10 A As you read, the letter states that in part, but it

11 also states that in addition to satisfying the customer

12 identification program requirements, the bank should also

13 assess -- and it goes through a list of different things that

14 the bank needs to do to make sure, if they do accept it, that

15 there are actually assuming all of these different

16 liabilities and attesting to the fact that they have executed

17 all those things and performed enhanced due diligence.

18 THE COURT: So they can require birth

19 certificates, they can require -- in addition to this,

20 they can require a New York State driver's license, or

21 other forms of identification, which would serve as a

22 basis for allowing the customer to transact?

23 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

24 THE COURT: And that is within the risk

25 management or the risk policy of the bank?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0893 of CES Response Declaration

 245
Burnett Cross/Miller

1 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. This is an opinion

2 letter.

3 THE COURT: Absolutely. Thank you very much.

4 MS. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor. We need

5 nothing more.

6 THE COURT: Thank you.

7 MR. BATRA: No redirect, your Honor.

8 THE COURT: No redirect. I have heard enough

9 from this witness. Thank you. He's been very helpful to

10 the Court. Thank you very much, Mr. Burnett, you may

11 step down; and we will take ten minutes.

12 (Whereupon, a recess is taken.)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0894 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL8

Exhibit Page No.: 0895 of CES Response Declaration

 246
Proceedings

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

3 COURT CLERK: All rise.

4 THE COURT: Thank you, please be seated.

5 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor, I seem to have lost my

6 co-counsel and witness; can I go into the hallway to get

7 them?

8 THE COURT: Officer, can you get Mr. Batra and

9 the witness, please.

10 COURT OFFICER: Ready for the witness, your

11 Honor?

12 MR. BATRA: Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: You have a witness?

14 MR. BATRA: Yes, your Honor. We've selected

15 out of the two, as your Honor wanted, Ed Mullens; and

16 Mike Cutler will stay back unless you want or give us

17 that opportunity.

18 THE COURT: Sure.

19 MR. BATRA: So the Petitioner calls Ed Mullins,

20 your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Ed Mullins. Where is Mr. Mullins?

22 (Whereupon, the witness takes the witness

23 stand.)

24 E D W A R D M U L L I N S, called as a witness, having

25 been first duly sworn, was examined and testifies as follows:

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0896 of CES Response Declaration

 247
Mullins The Court

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

2 COURT CLERK: Put your hand down. Have a seat.

3 State your name, please, and business address.

4 THE WITNESS: My name is Edward Mullins;

5 business address is 35 Worth Street, New York City, New

6 York 10013.

7 THE COURT: You are a police officer with the

8 City of New York, sir? I can see from your badge; is

9 that correct?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

11 THE COURT: And what is your rank?

12 THE WITNESS: I'm sergeant.

13 THE COURT: Okay. And what are your particular

14 duties with the New York City Police Department at this

15 time.

16 THE WITNESS: I'm currently the President of

17 the Sergeants Benevolent Association. I represent about

18 13,000 members, active and retired.

19 Basically, what I do is entail contract

20 negotiations, benefits, and provide legal representation.

21 THE COURT: Okay. Sergeant, are you familiar

22 with the New York City identification card which is the

23 subject of this motion of these proceedings?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Okay. How are you familiar with

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0897 of CES Response Declaration

 248
Mullins The Court

1 this?

2 THE WITNESS: I read about it in the news, i

3 read about it in the paper, did some research on it in

4 the past. You know, just every day conversation at

5 times -- I shouldn't say every day, but at times it comes

6 up.

7 THE COURT: Okay. Were you ever a member of

8 either the Intelligence Division or Counterterrorism

9 Division of the New York City Police Department?

10 THE WITNESS: No, sir.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Sergeant, give us your

12 impression about the card and its intended use relevant

13 to these proceedings. Tell us what you think?

14 THE WITNESS: My understanding is that the card

15 is designed to provide identification for undocumented

16 persons with the ID being to help them facilitate a

17 lifestyle and become acclimated into every-day society

18 within New York City.

19 THE COURT: Are you aware that this card is

20 available for any resident of the City of New York

21 whether undocumented or a citizen?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Citizens are entitled to receive

24 these cards, as well; are you aware of that?

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0898 of CES Response Declaration

 249
Mullins The Court

1 THE COURT: And tell us, what are your concerns

2 about the card itself with respect to its use?

3 THE WITNESS: Uhm, overall --

4 THE COURT: First of all, let me -- I don't

5 mean to cut you off, but I am -- this card, of course, is

6 issued and it can be used for purposes of identification

7 to obtain city services, banking services, and also

8 certain perks, granting free admission to zoos, museums,

9 among other things, that the City has available, as an

10 inducement for obtaining this card; are you aware of

11 that?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, tell us about it

14 now.

15 THE WITNESS: Overall, I understand the value

16 of the card for people who don't have ID, don't have

17 access -- to be quite honest, I believe my mom has one,

18 she's 87 years old, she lost her birth certificate many

19 years ago, and she uses the card just for her little

20 things that she needs to do. She obviously can't fly on

21 a plane with it, and do the things that are necessary

22 that we all would do with our own driver's license. My

23 concerns with it is the destruction of data, and I speak

24 from that viewpoint based on my many years of enforcing

25 the law, both on patrol and an investigative capacity.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0899 of CES Response Declaration

 250
Mullins The Court

1 Every little detail is of value in an investigative

2 capacity. I know there is a lot of talk about terrorism,

3 terrorism, but I'd like to think that I'm speaking on

4 behalf of the every-day victim, which is far more than

5 what we see in the world of terrorism.

6 We have many, many crimes, rapes that don't go

7 reported, and there seems to be a belief that this card

8 would help to have victims come forward to report crimes.

9 But within that world, where these victims aren't

10 documented, it's often people who are also not documented

11 that commit those crimes. And our resource of tracking

12 them down and using every available tool in a

13 investigative capacity helps to speak for the victim,

14 whether the victim remain an every-day victim of a minor

15 crime to the serious crimes of a homicide.

16 Our crimes that we investigate can often take

17 us outside the country. I could go back in time to, I

18 believe it was Police Officer Busack, he was killed, and

19 it took many, many years to bring back his killer from

20 the Dominican Republic.

21 In 1988, we had undocumented worker by the

22 name, I believe, his name was Lorenzo Rojas, who was

23 known as the duct tape rapist, raping 13-year old girls.

24 Fortunately, for us, an off-duty cop made that arrest,

25 but in a case like that, where this individual flees and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0900 of CES Response Declaration

 251
Mullins The Court

1 goes back to his roots, those very documents that gave

2 him that ID card, may assist us in identifying where he

3 is or a starting point to tracking him down.

4 So, what I look at is the idea of speaking for

5 the victims. Someone has to speak for the every day

6 victims, and I don't know if the destruction of that ID

7 is really doing that -- not the ID, the documents that

8 support the ID is really speaking for the victims.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Questions?

10 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

11 DIRECT EXAMINATION

12 BY MR. BATRA:

13 Q Good morning, Sergeant; thank you for being here.

14 A Good morning.

15 Q Thank you for your service to the City.

16 You have issued a letter addressed to Justice

17 Minardo, have you not, sir?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And we've previously turned that letter over to

20 counsel, as well as to the Court; but at this time --

21 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, without objection, I'd

22 like this enter it into evidence, your Honor?

23 THE COURT: Counsel, do you have a copy of this

24 letter?

25 MS. MILLER: Yes.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0901 of CES Response Declaration

 252
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 MR. BATRA: This is a January 4, 2017 letter.

2 MS. MILLER: Yes, your honor.

3 THE COURT: All right. Mark it.

4 (Whereupon, Court's 8 is received and marked

5 into Evidence.)

6 MR. BATRA: This is in evidence, your Honor?

7 THE COURT: Yes, it's in evidence. Seven was

8 only for identification.

9 MR. BATRA: May I continue, your Honor?

10 THE COURT: Sure.

11 BY MR. BATRA:

12 Q Sergeant, in answer to the Court's questions, you

13 draw a distinction between categories of law enforcement

14 challenges, one was terror and the other you said was every

15 day victims; is that correct?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q And then you further separated two categories of

18 assailants, and you said, in answering for every day victims

19 that you could have an undocumented victim who's -- where the

20 assailant was also an undocumented alien; is that correct?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q And obviously there are victims who are citizens of

23 the United States, correct?

24 A Correct.

25 Q And there are assailants that are citizens of the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0902 of CES Response Declaration

 253
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 United States?

2 A That's correct.

3 Q And for those people, they have driver's licenses,

4 passports, et cetera, so there's records all over the place,

5 correct?

6 A Correct.

7 Q So, the weak point for law enforcement is when you

8 have a victim who's undocumented and the assailant is

9 undocumented; is that correct?

10 A Correct.

11 Q So, because if you have document destruction,

12 relative to a citizen who is a victim and an assailant who is

13 a citizens, there's documents in other places?

14 A Correct.

15 Q Because the ID card itself, that information that's

16 on the ID card is maintained by the City?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Okay. So, the whole issue about --

19 THE COURT: Excuse me. Sir, is the application

20 that causes the issuance of the card maintained by the

21 City, the application itself?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 THE COURT: You are aware of that?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 Q So with respect to the back-up documents, both on

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0903 of CES Response Declaration

 254
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 the point system, both for identification -- for ID purposes,

2 and then to prove residency purposes, the weakest point from

3 law enforcement, where the document destruction is really

4 fatal to law enforcement, is when you have an undocumented

5 victim and the assailant is also undocumented; is that

6 correct?

7 MS. MILLER: Objection.

8 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead, you can

9 answer.

10 A Not necessarily; every case is different.

11 Uhm, you could have two citizens, a victim and an

12 assailant, and tracking the assailant could can be very

13 difficult, where there is absolutely fictitious names, you

14 know, we have perpetrators trying to destroy their

15 fingerprints, they change their disguise constantly, they

16 move constantly, they live within communities of people that

17 if 10 of us are sharing an apartment, 11th person might have

18 moved out three months ago, yet we're all under that name --

19 Q All 10 or 11 are under the same name?

20 A It could be, it could be, it's common; in areas of

21 poverty, we see that. So, you know, any tool that helps to

22 facilitate the successful end of an investigation has a value

23 to us. And in today's world, the every day victim or

24 terrorism, we really are putting a cap on something that

25 maybe we shouldn't be.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0904 of CES Response Declaration

 255
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 Q Okay. So, going back to the line of questioning --

2 THE COURT: Hold on, let me -- let me just --

3 putting a cap on something that maybe we shouldn't be.

4 What do you mean by that?

5 THE WITNESS: The idea of -- if I run to get

6 your driver's license or any additional documents, we're

7 able to do record searches for almost everything, death

8 certificates, military records; so we have a lot of data

9 that we're able to go back to. But if an individual

10 flees the country and goes to a country that we're not

11 traveling there every day --

12 THE COURT: This could be a citizen or an

13 undocumented?

14 THE WITNESS: Either one.

15 THE COURT: That you are talking about?

16 THE WITNESS: Well, a citizen would have

17 documents if they've established their well being in the

18 country for a period of time, but in the case -- where it

19 really defines information to this ID card, again, going

20 back to the Busack case, we had an individual go to

21 Dominican Republic, so New York City detectives worked

22 with the marshalls, they land in a foreign country and

23 they are starting from scratch when the only documents

24 that may give them some direction, may be the ones that

25 were used to purchase this ID card to obtain this ID

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0905 of CES Response Declaration

 256
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 card.

2 THE COURT: Let's make it clear, the Busack

3 case has nothing to do with the ID card?

4 THE WITNESS: That's correct; not at all, your

5 Honor.

6 BY MR. BATRA:

7 Q So the destruction of the back-up records that

8 prove the identity and the residence at the time the person

9 seeks a New York City ID card, are really fatal only -- if

10 it's for undocumented aliens, correct?

11 MS. MILLER: Objection.

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

13 Q Because as a citizen the records --

14 THE COURT: Okay. Now you brought in a second

15 part of the question.

16 MR. BATRA: I hadn't finished.

17 THE COURT: Let him answer that.

18 MR. BATRA: Okay.

19 A I think the impact is greatest to an undocumented

20 victim, but a documented victim of an undocumented perp is at

21 the same risk.

22 Q Can you explain that?

23 A Well, you could be a citizen who falls victim to an

24 undocumented individual who now flees the country.

25 Q Okay. So the victim is a citizen, but the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0906 of CES Response Declaration

 257
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 assailants is an undocumented person --

2 A I would --

3 Q -- and flees the country; is that what you said?

4 A Basically, what I'm saying is that the greatest

5 risk to either victim, is an undocumented perpetrator who

6 commits a crime.

7 Q So -- and thank you for sharpening my focus.

8 So, really, the greatest risk is not so much in

9 terms of can we help the undocumented victim of a crime, it's

10 really because if the assailant is undocumented, and those

11 back-up records are destroyed, then law enforcement is being

12 hamstrung in being able to solve that crime and assist the

13 victim; be it an undocumented or a citizen?

14 MS. MILLER: Objection.

15 Q Would that be fair?

16 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer it.

17 A We could be added to be a disadvantage.

18 Q In terms of law enforcement, you heard the term

19 connecting the dots?

20 A Yes.

21 Q When you destroy back up documents that the City

22 itself required to accept the identity of that individual

23 before giving them the ID card, does that make any sense to

24 you as to the destruction of those back up documents?

25 MS. MILLER: Objection.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0907 of CES Response Declaration

 258
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 THE COURT: Overruled.

2 A No, sir.

3 Q Have you come across in your long and distinguished

4 career of serving the People of New York, that people

5 counterfeit documents?

6 A Yes.

7 Q In your long career, have you come across where

8 people adopt aliases?

9 A Yes.

10 Q In fact, the recent attack in Berlin, the Tunisian

11 had 14 aliases, correct?

12 THE COURT: Objection sustained.

13 MS. MILLER: Thank you. I got one.

14 THE COURT: I mean, we'll talk about

15 undocumented and so forth, we don't have to go Tunisia.

16 MR. BATRA: I have nothing against Tunisia,

17 just in terms law enforcement, they did catch this person

18 with 14 aliases, that's all. That is the only point I

19 was making.

20 THE COURT: All right.

21 Q So, now you've read Commissioner John Miller's

22 testimony?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Okay. And he announced in this Court that it was

25 better for the City to destroy or not collect underlying

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0908 of CES Response Declaration

 259
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 identity documents provided to obtain an ID New York City

2 card, to prevent identity theft through hacking.

3 Do you have a comment on that?

4 A Yeah. I'm a little embarrassed by that comment, to

5 be quite honest with you; New York City has over 400,000 city

6 employees who have their paychecks deposited electronically;

7 their pensions are deposited electronically, we have benefit

8 compensation programs that are done electronically, and if

9 we're worried about the hacking of undocumented files, and we

10 don't see the same vulnerability in these 400,000 employees,

11 you know, why is it safe here and it is not safe there? And

12 commissioner Miller is the head of counterterrorism; if he

13 believes that, then we should be doing something to prevent

14 that.

15 Q Okay. Now, and that statement that was announced

16 in this Court under oath, taking it to a logical conclusion,

17 then wouldn't Commissioner Miller's advice to every part of

18 government local, state, and federal be -- not that we should

19 prevent hacking or do something to block hacking, but we

20 should destroy entire government records because we want to

21 protect the privacy of the people whose records the

22 government is keeping?

23 MS. MILLER: Objection.

24 THE COURT: Sustained.

25 MS. MILLER: Does that make any sense to you?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0909 of CES Response Declaration

 260
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q All right. Now, one of the things that Deputy

3 Commissioner miller testified was that originally, NYPD

4 wanted to keep the records for all times; you're familiar

5 with that?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And then the NYPD had to negotiate with the Mayor,

8 correct?

9 A That's my understanding.

10 Q And they had to negotiate with the Speaker of the

11 City Council?

12 A That's my understanding.

13 Q And the NYPD drew a line in the sand for minimal --

14 minimal comfort level for NYPD, that there be records kept

15 for the initial first two years. Do you recall that

16 testimony?

17 MS. MILLER: Objection.

18 THE COURT: Overruled. There was testimony

19 that they did negotiate and that two years was agreed

20 upon. Drawing a line in the sand maybe a little

21 exaggerated, but they did agree on a two-year period of

22 retaining the documents, the City and the Police

23 Department.

24 MR. BATRA: Correct.

25 Q So the NYPD started with a position, I want to keep

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0910 of CES Response Declaration

 261
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 the records, all records for all time, and after negotiating

2 with the Mayor and the City Council, they said well, at least

3 we want -- the least acceptable to us is a two-year trial

4 period. You're familiar with that testimony?

5 A Yes, sir.

6 Q When public safety is at risk or is the issue, does

7 government do the least possible required to protect public

8 safety or the maximum it can do to protect public safety?

9 A Well, they should do the maximum; but there's been

10 times where government has done the least.

11 Q So --

12 THE COURT: Or somewhere in between?

13 THE WITNESS: Or somewhere in between.

14 Q So, as a matter of law enforcement policy, not

15 budgetary policy, not political policy, but law enforcement

16 policy, as someone who's been on the front lines of law

17 enforcement, do you prefer the City to keep records or

18 have -- or see them destroyed?

19 MS. MILLER: Objection.

20 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead, you can

21 render an opinion.

22 A I would prefer that they kept the records. I think

23 that we are creating a presumption of guilt on the people who

24 are receiving these ID cards, by taking the path of

25 destroying the records; we should be taking the presumption

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0911 of CES Response Declaration

 262
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 of innocence, and as an investigator, if we need those

2 records, it would only be for a criminal matter to which we

3 would be looking for someone was part of a criminal

4 investigation.

5 Q And that was something even Deputy Commissioner

6 Miller said that he -- as an investigator, like any

7 investigator, you would want to keep all the records for all

8 time?

9 A Yes.

10 Q But the powers that be politically decided to --

11 the minimum they would give the City, NYPD, was two years;

12 correct?

13 MS. MILLER: Objection to that portion.

14 THE COURT: Well, overruled.

15 Go ahead, you can answer it.

16 A That's my understanding.

17 Q Right. Now, are you familiar that the Federal Law

18 that covers, in fact, makes it a federal felony for anyone,

19 entity -- person, entity or otherwise, who aids or abets

20 illegal aliens; are you familiar with that?

21 A Yes.

22 Q So, before you became a police officer, you went

23 through a police academy, correct?

24 A Correct.

25 Q And as part of the training that you had, you

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0912 of CES Response Declaration

 263
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 learned something about unreasonable searches and seizures,

2 correct?

3 A Correct.

4 Q And that's a constitutional right of citizens to

5 keep their things private, correct?

6 A Correct.

7 Q Unless there was probable cause to pierce that

8 veil?

9 A Correct.

10 Q And during that police academy training, you

11 learned something called the United States Constitution,

12 correct?

13 A Correct.

14 Q And you also learned that New York State has a

15 constitution?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q And you learned that there is Federal Law that

18 governs even local law enforcement?

19 A Correct.

20 Q Including the US Constitution?

21 A Correct.

22 Q And that there is state law that governs law

23 enforcement, correct?

24 A Correct.

25 Q Even when it's local law enforcement?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0913 of CES Response Declaration

 264
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 A Correct.

2 Q So, New York City, as a municipal entity cannot

3 overrule the state policy, correct?

4 A Well, technically they shouldn't.

5 Q Can they?

6 A Not by law.

7 Q Okay. Well, we're a nation of law, so everybody

8 else doesn't count, right?

9 A No.

10 Q So can the City of New York or municipality

11 overrule the Federal Government?

12 A No.

13 Q Now, you are aware that when this law was being

14 considered in the wonderful sausage making that making laws

15 is, the primary reason why there was this rule of self

16 destruct created for December 31, 2016, was to block Federal

17 Law enforcement from carrying out their duties under Federal

18 Law?

19 MS. MILLER: Objection.

20 THE COURT: Sustained.

21 Q You're familiar, sir, that during the time this --

22 the local law was being considered in the City Council, there

23 was a concern that if somebody across the aisle -- I am a

24 Democrat, which means across the aisle -- somebody across the

25 aisle got elected as president, if there was any tension with

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0914 of CES Response Declaration

 265
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 respect to a sanctuary city concept, that therefore, we

2 needed to destroy the records?

3 MS. MILLER: Objection.

4 THE COURT: What is that? Is that a question?

5 MR. BATRA: Yes.

6 THE COURT: Or a statement?

7 MR. BATRA: It's a question.

8 Q Are you aware of that?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Okay.

11 THE COURT: What are you aware of, sir?

12 THE WITNESS: That there was great debate over

13 sanctuary cities and illegal aliens, as far as the ID

14 part of it being destruction of records. I've never

15 heard it come up within a debate. But that the whole

16 immigration issue, I don't think anyone of us could have

17 missed that.

18 Q So, now, if New York City wanted to be

19 compassionate to our fellow New Yorkers, and wanted to create

20 a sanctuary, have you ever come across in your budget

21 negotiations the concept -- have you heard the term "home

22 rule messages"?

23 MS. MILLER: Objection. Objection.

24 A Yes.

25 THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0915 of CES Response Declaration

 266
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 Q When New York City wants an exemption or adjustment

2 or waiver from State Law, not Federal Law, state law, they

3 send -- they pass a home rule message to Albany, correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Because New York State, in Albany, despite whatever

6 works that may exist, is one of the 50 states that has the

7 power of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution; all power's

8 not given to the Federal Government or reserved to the

9 states, correct?

10 A Yes.

11 Q So, if the state agreed with the City of New York

12 that New York City should be a sanctuary, then the State

13 could pass a law as State Law, which would then enshrine it

14 with -- back it up with the 10th Amendment; isn't that

15 correct?

16 MS. MILLER: Objection.

17 THE COURT: Sustained. We are way far afield

18 now.

19 MR. BATRA: I'm only trying to suggest, your

20 Honor, to this Court that --

21 THE COURT: Go ahead.

22 MR. BATRA: -- the lofty goal of being

23 compassionate, which everybody is in favor of, was simply

24 done the wrong way by the City of New York, because they

25 cannot pass a Local Law that reverses State Law and

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0916 of CES Response Declaration

 267
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 Federal Law, it's void ab initia.

2 THE COURT: There is no law this law was

3 intended to supercede any State or Federal Law.

4 MR. BATRA: That's our whole case, your Honor,

5 because Public Officer Law Section 84 et seq. says there

6 is a presumption that records will be kept, a rebuttable

7 presumption, New York City has created Local Law as a

8 rebuttable presumption of destruction; totally opposite.

9 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, taking this apart for

10 a moment, that's argument. We are here for this witness.

11 The question being asked of this witness is way beyond

12 any knowledge of this witness.

13 MR. BATRA: Objection, your Honor.

14 THE COURT: What does this witness know about

15 the intent of the City?

16 MR. BATRA: We spent a lot of time training our

17 law officers, our police officers to avoid 1983 problems,

18 civil rights problems, violation of civil rights of

19 people.

20 MS. MILLER: You don't say.

21 MR. BATRA: I asked him as a predicate, did you

22 learn about the 4th Amendment, unreasonable search and

23 seizure?

24 So for Mr. Miller to suggest -- representing

25 the City of New York -- that our law enforcement don't

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0917 of CES Response Declaration

 268
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 know their every day obligation under the Federal and

2 State --

3 THE COURT: The general idea of the basics of

4 the 4th Amendment the 5th Amendment and so forth, okay.

5 I don't know how many know about the 10th Amendment. Are

6 you familiar with the 10th Amendment of the Constitution?

7 THE WITNESS: Vaguely. I happen to read a lot,

8 I am vaguely familiar.

9 THE COURT: Okay. And you are well aware that

10 if the State felt there was any problem here, the State,

11 having the power, could past legislation effecting the

12 use and the requirement to retain documents, they could

13 pass a law and that law would supersede any City Law

14 because it would be a State issue?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

16 THE COURT: Okay. The legislature has a right

17 to pass any kind of legislation that would affect the

18 security of its citizens and so forth?

19 MR. BATRA: Your Honor --

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. BATRA: Typically legislators, whether it's

22 from Congress, Albany, or City Council, they pass laws to

23 amend Court rulings. This case, in fact, is here -- and

24 you are authorized under this petition, with the awesome

25 power of the Third Branch, to hold this law invalid.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0918 of CES Response Declaration

 269
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 Exactly what you're saying. Because Albany doesn't get

2 their first shot. We have a Constitution with three

3 branches, and this Court and this petition is empowered

4 to look at this awful law and say, excuse me, you can't

5 have a bipolar -- a polar-operative presumption of

6 document destruction, which violates State Law which says

7 it should be kept. That is what declaratory judgment is

8 about.

9 THE COURT: That's your impression of what that

10 case is about.

11 MS. MILLER: Judge, why are we wasting this

12 witness's time?

13 THE COURT: Hold on. Let's sum this up. He's

14 been very cooperative since he's here.

15 MR. BATRA: Okay.

16 Q During your time with the NYPD, during an

17 investigation of a crime, and we'll call it crime, generally,

18 including terror, to a rape, or anything else, was a

19 suspect's country of origin important?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And if a person is undocumented isn't every dot

22 precious to find that person?

23 MS. MILLER: Objection.

24 Q Isn't it?

25 THE COURT: Overruled.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0919 of CES Response Declaration

 270
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 Q Isn't that precious dot of document back up, proof

2 for identity or residence, isn't that critical, not only to

3 punish the person who did it, but to prevent them from doing

4 it again?

5 A Yes.

6 Q So it's not just about punishing for the crime

7 already committed, law enforcement is also about preventing

8 the next crime from the same defendant?

9 A Correct.

10 THE COURT: Let's wrap this up, Mr. Batra.

11 Q Along your long tenure, have you come across

12 Defendants that use multiple aliases?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Use forged documents?

15 A Yes.

16 Q You're familiar with, that to prove a residence, a

17 person applying for this ID card simply has to say that they

18 spent 15 days in a homeless shelter, get a letter to that

19 effect, whether or not they stayed 15 days, just get a letter

20 saying that, and all of sudden, they are who they say they

21 are and get an ID card?

22 A Yes.

23 Q So all the back up documents are out the window,

24 correct?

25 A Correct.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0920 of CES Response Declaration

 271
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 Q You consider that a huge hole in our law

2 enforcement's ability to protect public safety?

3 MS. MILLER: Objection.

4 THE COURT: I will let him answer it.

5 Overruled.

6 A I consider it a disadvantage, uhm, for the victim.

7 Q To the victim?

8 A To the victim.

9 Q Okay. Thank you. You remember Deputy Commissioner

10 Miller saying that he wished everyone would open up a bank

11 account?

12 A Yes.

13 Q That, in fact, is everybody's wish, isn't it,

14 because that would mean that everybody in the world would --

15 there'd be some recordkeeping, way better than New York City

16 does, because banks are required under Federal Law and the

17 Patriot Act, which affects everybody, even if they're state

18 chartered to have real records, correct?

19 A I don't know if it would be everybody's wish, but

20 it certainly be a benefit to law enforcement.

21 Q Now, you just heard the City ask while questioning

22 Mr. Burnett, that Carver Savings Bank, for example, accepts

23 as primary ID the New York City ID card, you heard that?

24 A No, I actually stepped out of the room halfway

25 through his testimony.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0921 of CES Response Declaration

 272
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 Q Well, assume for the moment that that is what

2 occurred, because it occurred, okay; and since the ID card

3 can be obtained simply by being in the homeless shelter for

4 15 days and then you show up, you can say I'm Santa Claus,

5 give me an ID card for Santa Claus, and I live at a homeless

6 shelter, and that ID card is issued, right?

7 MS. MILLER: Objection.

8 THE COURT: You know what the criteria is and

9 how they go about issuing these cards, Sergeant?

10 THE WITNESS: Yeah, there are certain documents

11 that need to be distributed, there is a minimum age of 14

12 years old; uhm, and letters will do -- uhm, if you

13 have --

14 THE COURT: This goes for citizens, as well as

15 undocumented, correct?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

17 THE COURT: Citizens can present fraudulent

18 documents in order to obtain this ID card like they can a

19 whole lot of other stuff?

20 THE WITNESS: Right.

21 THE COURT: It is not only the undocumented,

22 correct?

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 BY MR. BATRA:

25 Q During your long service, have you ever had to go

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0922 of CES Response Declaration

 273
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 to the DA's office to request a subpoena to be judicially

2 so-ordered, either for wire tapping or to get documents from

3 a different agency?

4 A Yes, numerous times.

5 Q Now, if those back up documents are destroyed or

6 worse, not even being kept or they self-destruct the moment

7 the ID card is issued, how does that help you in trying to

8 solve the crime that already occurred and to prevent future

9 crimes from the same person?

10 A Well, it doesn't help if that document is of

11 value --

12 THE COURT: All right, wrap this up, Mr. Batra.

13 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, I have a copy for the

14 Court and would like this to be admitted into evidence.

15 This is minutes from the hearing in the City Council,

16 uhm, Committee on Immigration, and it's Pages 78

17 through --

18 THE COURT: What is the purpose of this?

19 MR. BATRA: Johanna Miller, who is the Advocacy

20 Director at the New York Civil Liberties Union testified

21 when this law was being reconsidered. As for the intent

22 your Honor was asking for, Ms. Agarwal couldn't answer

23 that question, and our request of the Mayor and the

24 Speaker has not yet been complied with, so this would be

25 helpful to the Court.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0923 of CES Response Declaration

 274
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 MS. MILLER: Wait a minute. The witness

2 totally answered the question.

3 THE COURT: No. No. No. We don't need it.

4 This witness can have his own opinion and comment upon

5 what was said at the City Council.

6 The Court is well aware of the fact that there

7 was certain statements made in the City Council when this

8 law was passed. It may or may not --

9 MR. BATRA: This transcript, your Honor only

10 say -- if I just may make a record -- this transcript

11 only says that Ms. Miller testified that to create this

12 system so as to allow and permit New York City to block

13 Federal Government from doing their job, and that is what

14 she testified.

15 THE COURT: Who is Ms. Miller? Who is she?

16 MR. BATRA: She's the head of the New York

17 Civil Liberties Union, and it was considered -- and in

18 fact, the Chairman of the Committee, Immigration

19 Committee, in fact, announced that he had wanted to do

20 this to block immigration, Federal use of Immigration

21 Laws, and I think your Honor should see as much as

22 possible.

23 THE COURT: All right, fine. Put it in.

24 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

25 THE COURT: I have now heard it.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0924 of CES Response Declaration

 275
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 MR. BATRA: For evidence?

2 THE COURT: Okay.

3 MS. MILLER: Okay.

4 MR. BATRA: I will give you another one for the

5 reporter.

6 Q Sir, do you believe that law enforcement not unlike

7 the political branches of government, but law enforcement,

8 should work hand and glove between Local, State, and Federal?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Do you believe that when a criminal is going to

11 commit a crime, that they necessarily go to law school before

12 they commit the crime to figure out -- let me only commit a

13 local crime, but not a state or federal crime?

14 MS. MILLER: Objection.

15 THE COURT: Where are you going with this,

16 please? Sustained. Go ahead.

17 Q Sir, is law enforcement supposed to be a seemless

18 team effort?

19 MS. MILLER: Objection.

20 THE COURT: Sustained. Let's take it -- the

21 Court will take judicial notice that law enforcement is

22 supposed to be seemless and that we're supposed to know

23 the Constitution and so forth and so on. I'll take that

24 all in consideration. I'm well aware of the testimony of

25 this witness and his purpose, and what he has said, that

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0925 of CES Response Declaration

 276
Mullins Direct/Batra

1 documentation that supports the issuance of these cards

2 is necessary for law enforcement in the -- to aid in

3 solving crimes.

4 MR. BATRA: And preventing new crimes and

5 preventing new crimes, I am aware what this witness is

6 saying.

7 THE COURT: I don't need --

8 MR. BATRA: Then I'm good.

9 THE COURT: Thank you.

10 MR. BATRA: Thank you very much, your Honor.

11 MS. MILLER: Can I?

12 THE COURT: Hold on.

13 MS. MILLER: Just a couple questions, your

14 Honor?

15 THE COURT: Sure.

16 CROSS-EXAMINATION

17 BY MS. MILLER:

18 Q Good morning.

19 A Good morning.

20 Q You testified a few minutes ago that your address

21 is at 35 Worth Street?

22 A That's my business address.

23 Q Sorry?

24 A My business address. I believe I was asked for my

25 business address.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0926 of CES Response Declaration

 277
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 Q I'm trying to figure out is that the office of the

2 Sergeants Benevolent Association?

3 A That's correct.

4 Q And you have been the President of -- I'll call it

5 the SBA?

6 A Sergeants Benevolent Association.

7 Q You've been the President of that association

8 since?

9 A 2002.

10 Q So you have been re-elected?

11 A Three times I think.

12 Q Okay. And still that today obviously?

13 A I'm sorry.

14 Q And still that today obviously?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And so, that's where you report to, the 35 Worth

17 Street address?

18 A I could basically report to any facility in the

19 NYPD or 35 Worth Street, or -- today I reported here.

20 Q And I think you said on direct that what you do,

21 for the most part -- what you do is, you negotiate contracts

22 and benefits for your union members?

23 A Those are pretty much the primary things. There is

24 a variety of things we do, we promote the general well-being

25 of all members and we like to think the image of the NYPD to

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0927 of CES Response Declaration

 278
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 some degree.

2 Q I assume that is a full-time job, protecting the

3 interests of 11,000 members?

4 A It's about 13,000.

5 Q Excuse me?

6 A 13,000 members.

7 Q And the last time that you made an arrest was in

8 1993, am I right?

9 A About that, that would be correct.

10 Q Okay. And so as part of your duties, you don't

11 turn out for, like, roll call or anything like that?

12 A Well, I visit roll calls, so I am in precincts.

13 Q And you said a few minutes ago in response to the

14 judge's questioning, that you have never been assigned to

15 Intelligence or the Intelligence Bureau?

16 A Correct.

17 Q Never been assigned to the Counterterrorism Bureau?

18 A Correct.

19 Q And you've never been assigned to the Joint

20 Terrorism Task Force, have you?

21 A No.

22 Q And you've never received any training in

23 investigating terrorism, have you?

24 A No, I have not.

25 Q Did you receive training when you first joined the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0928 of CES Response Declaration

 279
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 academy?

2 A Well, throughout my time in the department, I spent

3 nearly 19 years in the Detective Bureau, plain clothes; I've

4 taken courses -- I have taken my own courses, in addition to

5 the department's.

6 Q That was when you were at the Detective Bureau

7 prior to 2002 -- excuse me -- prior to becoming the President

8 of the Sergeants Benevolent Association?

9 A From the department, but I mean --

10 Q That's what I am talking about?

11 A I am up-to-date on terror, I read about it

12 regularly, pretty regular.

13 Q Oh, you read about it.

14 I meant specific training from the department, any

15 that you received would have been prior to your time as the

16 President or the Sergeant of the Benevolent Association; is

17 that a fair statement?

18 A For terrorism?

19 Q For terrorism, that is what I meant?

20 A Right.

21 THE COURT: Sergeant, what was your

22 responsibility before you became President of the

23 Sergeants Benevolent Association? In other words, where

24 were you assigned and what were your -- or where were

25 you?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0929 of CES Response Declaration

 280
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 THE WITNESS: I worked in the Brooklyn DA's

2 Squad -- Detective Bureau Brooklyn, Special Victims Unit.

3 I worked in the 67th Precinct handling homicides. I was

4 Supervisor Of Detectives pretty much from 1997 up until

5 2002.

6 Q All right. Before that, you were a patrol officer,

7 as well?

8 A I was a detective for -- I believe it was about a

9 year or so, but I -- prior to that -- prior to promotion and

10 somewhere in the area like three years of investigation, I

11 have experience in the detective squad. I worked plain

12 clothes in the Anti-crime Unit for about five years, and I've

13 done time on patrol in uniform.

14 Q How many years are you a police officer?

15 A 35 years next week.

16 THE COURT: Thirty-five?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 THE COURT: You ever hear of retirement?

19 THE WITNESS: It's a great job.

20 THE COURT: I understand.

21 MS. MILLER: Thank you, your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Go ahead.

23 Q You mentioned, in response to some of the

24 questions, that you are familiar with respect to some of the

25 legislative history in this case?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0930 of CES Response Declaration

 281
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 A A bit, yes.

2 Q Did you read the legislative history before you

3 came today?

4 A No, no.

5 Q Did you read the Petition in this case?

6 A No.

7 Q Did you read the Answer to the petition in this

8 case from the City?

9 A No.

10 Q Did you look at any of the exhibits that are

11 attached to the Petition or the Answer or anything like that?

12 A This is my first time here in the courtroom.

13 Q Did you read the testimony -- withdrawn.

14 Counsel read you some of the testimony from, for

15 example, Deputy Commissioner Miller?

16 A I actually read all of his testimony.

17 Q Did you read the rest of the testimony?

18 A I read whatever I had, it's about 20 pages, I

19 think.

20 Q You read whatever was given to you by counsel?

21 A Correct.

22 Q And --

23 MR. BATRA: He is here only as law enforcement,

24 your Honor.

25 THE COURT: What?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0931 of CES Response Declaration

 282
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 MR. BATRA: This witness is only here for law

2 enforcement purposes, nothing else.

3 THE COURT: I understand.

4 MS. MILLER: I have no problem about that.

5 THE COURT: Also, he had some questions about

6 Constitutional Laws --

7 MR. BATRA: That's part of law enforcement.

8 THE COURT: Oh, I see.

9 Q Did you read the law that went into effect to make

10 this New York City ID program?

11 A Bits and pieces of it. To be quite honest, I

12 looked at the process of what's required, uhm, my focus

13 wasn't so much on the law and how it was being crafted, but

14 rather the process as to what would happen with the

15 documents.

16 Q So did you read the section of law that refers to

17 the retention and destruction of materials?

18 A No.

19 Q You did not?

20 A No.

21 Q So, did you not see as you read these materials --

22 I'm sorry -- withdrawn.

23 You did not see anything in the law or portions

24 that you read with respect to a date and time when these

25 underlying documents would be destroyed?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0932 of CES Response Declaration

 283
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 A I didn't see that in the law, but I did see it

2 in -- it was in a newspaper article somewhere, it was going

3 to be a two-year period.

4 Q Putting aside the newspaper articles -- no

5 disrespect to the press -- but you never looked at the --

6 A No. No.

7 Q You never looked at the law?

8 A No. No, Ma'am.

9 Q Now, you were asked some questions about a letter

10 that you wrote to this Court and I believe it's Court Exhibit

11 7.

12 MR. BATRA: 8 in evidence.

13 Q Sergeant, do you still have that in front of you?

14 A Yes.

15 Q You said that -- on the back, on the last page of

16 that document -- you referred to, I believe, that nearly all

17 of the New York City -- I'm sorry, withdrawn.

18 I believe that nearly all of the IDNYC stakeholders

19 would agree that their pedigree information should be

20 maintained by the City. You said that, right?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Okay. You are aware, are you not, that pedigree

23 information is being retained by the City with respect to

24 this program?

25 A I am aware that the information that's being

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0933 of CES Response Declaration

 284
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 retained is the card itself. My understanding of the process

2 and what was crafted and all this political stuff that is

3 occurring, it's within a two-year period, documents would be

4 destroyed.

5 Q I'm sorry. Can you say that last bit again?

6 A Within the two-year period of application of

7 receiving your card, the documents that you provide, whether

8 from your landlord or whatever, that they would be destroyed.

9 Q Okay. You understand, do you not, that that was

10 pursuant to the law as it was passed in 2014?

11 MR. BATRA: Objection.

12 THE COURT: Overruled.

13 A I don't know when it was passed.

14 Q Okay. That was just my understanding of what this

15 process was about, and that, I felt concerning for the People

16 in the field doing investigations.

17 MR. BATRA: Objection, your Honor. This

18 witness is not here to opine on the legality of the law.

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

20 Q Putting aside when the law was passed, is it your

21 understanding that the destruction of the underlying

22 documents is within the law, forget when it was passed?

23 MR. BATRA: Objection.

24 THE COURT: Sir, you asked him all about the

25 documents and the necessity to --

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0934 of CES Response Declaration

 285
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 MR. BATRA: But I didn't ask him to opine on

2 the legality of the Local Law, that is what counsel is

3 doing.

4 MS. MILLER: I'm not asking about --

5 THE COURT: Overruled, please. Maybe the

6 witness can't answer the question.

7 THE WITNESS: I'm not --

8 THE COURT: He is not familiar with it; okay.

9 Q You want me to put it again to you?

10 A I'm actually not familiar with it -- with that

11 part, no.

12 Q Okay. Going back to the pedigree information,

13 though, you are aware that the card will be retained, right?

14 A Yes.

15 Q You are aware that the card -- we'll have a recent

16 photograph, because when an applicant goes in, the picture is

17 taken of the applicant, right?

18 A Yes.

19 Q That's helpful to law enforcement?

20 A Yes.

21 Q Got to be helpful to law enforcement?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And you are aware that the application is retained,

24 as well, right?

25 A Yes.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0935 of CES Response Declaration

 286
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 Q You are?

2 A The application is retained, right, right.

3 MS. MILLER: And I believe, your Honor, it's

4 Court Exhibit 1 or 3. Excuse me, your Honor?

5 THE COURT: Court's 1.

6 Q Are you aware that on the application is pedigree

7 information, right?

8 A Right.

9 Q Like somebody's gender?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Somebody's date of birth? Their address?

12 A Yes.

13 Q At least the address they give for purposes of the

14 application?

15 A Correct.

16 Q And this is being kept, this application; did you

17 understand that prior to testifying --

18 MR. BATRA: Objection; stipulated.

19 A Yes.

20 THE COURT: Overruled.

21 Q You understood that prior to testifying --

22 THE COURT: But this witness has testified that

23 the documents submitted with the application may not

24 be -- is not going to be retained or they're saying they

25 are not going to retain it, that is what he considered to

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0936 of CES Response Declaration

 287
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 be important to be retained; is that correct, the back up

2 documentation?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 THE COURT: Birth certificates, uhm, driver's

5 licenses, uhm, passports, expired passports; there is

6 about 14 different categories of documents that can be

7 submitted in order to get this card, and you're saying

8 that should be retained for the reasons you state in your

9 testimony, correct?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Thank you. You're done.

12 MS. MILLER: May I ask one more question?

13 THE COURT: One more.

14 MS. MILLER: Okay; I should make it a good one.

15 THE COURT: Make it a good one.

16 Q Let me ask you this: You referred in your

17 testimony -- to use an example, a rape victim, remember

18 talking about that?

19 A Okay.

20 Q Let's just assume for a moment that the rape victim

21 is undocumented; okay?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And I think you said that there is -- I mean,

24 obviously, your interest is with the victims of crimes,

25 right, I would imagine?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0937 of CES Response Declaration

 288
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 A It's both, the victims of crime and the

2 investigators handling the cases.

3 THE COURT: And to apprehend the perpetrator?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes.

5 Q With respect to the victim -- I sorry. Withdrawn.

6 You can't apprehend the perpetrator, though, unless

7 someone comes forward to say there's been a crime; fair?

8 A Well, not necessarily true. Uhm, we have

9 apprehended perpetrators and had to spend time locating the

10 victim.

11 Q Okay. Let's use your example --

12 A There should always --

13 Q Go ahead, finish.

14 A There should always be a victim.

15 Q Let's use the example that was given with respect

16 to a rape victim, if the rape victim never comes forward to

17 say the person's been raped or sexually assaulted, you don't

18 necessarily know about it; you, the law enforcement, may not

19 necessarily know about it?

20 A More than likely not, right.

21 Q If the rape victim is undocumented and has no

22 idea -- I'm sorry, let me rephrase.

23 I'm sure in your experience you've heard of

24 undocumented people who have been victims of crimes and don't

25 come forward because they have no form of identification?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0938 of CES Response Declaration

 289
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 A Yes.

2 Q They are in the shadows, as we say?

3 A Correct.

4 Q So, they have to have a New York City ID with some

5 assurance of confidentiality and they might be more likely to

6 come forward and report a rape, for example?

7 MR. BATRA: Objection.

8 Q Would you agree with that?

9 THE COURT: I will let him answer it. Go

10 ahead.

11 A I actually did. I agreed to that earlier, it

12 benefits both the victims; but it also creates a disadvantage

13 for law enforcement.

14 Q Sure, totally; and all this is just a balancing; is

15 it not?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And one way of looking at the balancing is we might

18 want to encourage people who are victims of crimes to come

19 forward in the first instance to report to you in law

20 enforcement, so you can go figure out who did this; fair?

21 MR. BATRA: Objection.

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

23 Believe me, you've made your points here. The

24 Court has received whatever testimony it needs in order

25 to make a decision in this case, so thank you very much.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0939 of CES Response Declaration

 290
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 MR. BATRA: Just as a matter of housekeeping,

2 your Honor, when I was questioning this witness, I was

3 looking for this particular cite for your Honor to take

4 judicial notice of.

5 THE COURT: Yes.

6 MR. BATRA: The Federal Law it's 8 USC Section

7 13.24 Sub A, Sub 1, Sub A, and Sub 3; that's all one

8 cite.

9 And second, your Honor, as a matter of

10 housekeeping, we have given to the Court, and copies of

11 course to counsel, letters of support that have been

12 either written to you or the Petitioners and we ask them

13 to be deemed marked as Court Exhibits.

14 As well, I would at this point --

15 THE COURT: Are they part of the papers that

16 you've presented?

17 MR. BATRA: Not part of the petition.

18 THE COURT: Are they exhibits? Are they part

19 of the exhibits?

20 MR. BATRA: Your Honor?

21 MS. MILLER: I'm sorry?

22 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. I'll deal with

23 that.

24 MS. MILLER: Your Honor, may I ask the Witness

25 one more question. I know you said only one?

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0940 of CES Response Declaration

 291
Mullins Cross/Miller

1 THE COURT: Go ahead, one more question,

2 please.

3 BY MS. MILLER:

4 Q Did you review, by chance, the Affidavit of

5 Collette Saman, as part of the record with this Court?

6 A No.

7 Q Let me ask this question: Are you aware that the

8 patrol guide, the New York City Patrol Guide, was formally

9 revised in May of 2015 to expressly recognize the IDNYC card

10 as an acceptable form of identification?

11 A Yes, it's part of the DOT practice?

12 Q Thank you.

13 THE COURT: Done.

14 MR. BATRA: Could that be marked and received,

15 your Honor?

16 THE COURT: What?

17 MR. BATRA: The letters of support that were

18 previously turned over?

19 THE COURT: I am going to deal with that. I am

20 going to tell you how we're going to do that.

21 MR. BATRA: One last question?

22 THE COURT: Of this witness? No.

23 MR. BATRA: A housekeeping matter.

24 THE COURT: What?

25 MR. BATRA: The items that Mr. Alfano had

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0941 of CES Response Declaration

 292
Proceedings

1 marked for identification, since there is not jury

2 present, could be that received in evidence? There is

3 no -- there is no prejudice.

4 THE COURT: I am going to deal with all of

5 that. Just have a seat.

6 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: You're done.

8 THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Now, the Court has heard all the

10 testimony that it needs to hear in order to supplement

11 the Motion, the Order to Show Cause, the Answer, in other

12 words, what I need to make a decision in this case.

13 I will permit each side to submit a post

14 hearing memo, and in that post hearing memo, all the

15 letters of support on both sides, as well as the

16 documents that were submitted for identification only can

17 be part of, okay, the post hearing memorandum.

18 So, it will come in, the Court will consider

19 it, all right? That's why I wanted to hold you up. This

20 memorandum, however, should be no more than ten or twelve

21 pages, in effect, sort of like a written summation, to

22 convince the Court which testimony, together with the

23 documents, of course, and Motion, the Order to Show

24 Cause, the Answer, how it all dovetails. Okay. And

25 submitted in two weeks.

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0942 of CES Response Declaration

 293
Proceedings

1 MR. DEARING: Respectfully, your Honor, we ask

2 that it be much faster. We are already now almost a

3 month beyond the date that was enacted in the law, so we

4 would say Monday, simultaneously on Monday.

5 THE COURT: Hold. Hold. Please.

6 You are talking about now doing it? I will

7 tell what --

8 MR. BATRA: Can we have until February 6, your

9 Honor? We have to get the transcript from this reporter.

10 THE COURT: No.

11 MR. BATRA: And it's just a --

12 THE COURT: Three weeks period.

13 MR. BATRA: Three weeks. Thank you, your

14 Honor.

15 One last question --uhm, clarification

16 rather -- since Mike Cutler was present and is present

17 today, but your Honor wanted to us select between him and

18 Ed Mullins, could we have an affidavit from him that

19 whatever he would have testified to on direct at least,

20 your Honor --

21 THE COURT: Fine. Fine.

22 MR. BATRA: Thank you, your Honor.

23 MR. DEARING: Your Honor, can we be heard. Two

24 weeks was the original proposal. I don't know why we

25 would extend to it three weeks, a 10-page memo. We have

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0943 of CES Response Declaration

 294
Proceedings

1 been here three times, we're already well passed the

2 deadline that is in the law.

3 MR. BATRA: Your Honor, this is a matter of

4 public safety, and I don't understand why the City wants

5 to rush this Court's judgment. I would think that they

6 would join --

7 THE COURT: Please. Please.

8 MR. BATRA: I would think they would join in

9 the Court having the proper paperwork from us.

10 THE COURT: Please. Please.

11 MR. BATRA: I was only asking for February 6th,

12 just to get the weekend.

13 MR. DEARING: Your Honor, February 1 is plenty

14 of time.

15 THE COURT: February 1 period, that's it.

16 Don't forget, it's only -- you know, to just give me the

17 real essentials of the testimony dovetailing the Motion

18 itself. The Motion and the Order to Show Cause really

19 carries the day. This is to supplement it, okay? I

20 wanted to hear further explanation on the true issues of

21 this case, and that is why we conducted this hearing.

22 MR. BATRA: That's fine, your Honor.

23 Is there any documents that the Court wishes

24 that were on our subpoena list which were, you know, to

25 be so-ordered by the Court? If the Court wants it, the

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0944 of CES Response Declaration

 295
Proceedings

1 Court can certainly.

2 THE COURT: I don't need it. I don't believe

3 I've seen what you've requested --

4 MR. BATRA: We will turn them over to the

5 Court, we will put it in, your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Okay, fine.

7 MR. BATRA: My pleasure as always.

8 MR. ALFANO: Your Honor --

9 THE COURT: Excuse me?

10 MR. ALFANO: Just one question with respect to

11 my letter of January 17 requesting permission to renew my

12 motion to extend --

13 THE COURT: Put it in your memorandum.

14 MR. ALFANO: Thank you, your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Members of the press that are

16 here -- are the members of the press here? Anyone?

17 Now, if you wish to leave a card or contact

18 information, when the Court makes its decision, I will

19 send you a copy of the decision if you give us your

20 information as to where it should be sent; okay? All

21 right? So after we have finished here, then you can come

22 up and submit that information to us, and we will send

23 you a copy of the decision. Okay? Fair enough? Good.

24 Thank you very much.

25 (Whereupon, the matter is adjourned.)

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0945 of CES Response Declaration

 296
Proceedings

1 CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE

2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE ORIGINAL STENOGRAPHIC

3 MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING.

4
________________________
5 KELLY C. JENKINS
Senior Court Reporter
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KCJ

Exhibit Page No.: 0946 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitL9

Exhibit Page No.: 0947 of CES Response Declaration

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the matter of RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, Index No. 80258/16

Petitioners,
Hon. Philip G.
-against- Minardo, J.S.C.

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Decision

New York, THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacity Motion No. 001
as the Speaker of the New York City Council, STEVEN BANKS,
Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources
Administration/Department of Social Services, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, Chief Operating Officer of the New York
City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social
Services, in his official capacity, and RICARDO BROWN,
Executive Deputy Commissioner, Management Information Systems,
New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of
Social Services, in his official capacity,
Respondents,
For a Judgment, Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

The following papers were marked fully submitted on February 1, 2017:

Papers Numbered

P ETITIONERS ' O RDER TO S HOW C AUSE WITH T EMPORARY R ESTRAINING O RDER A ND

V ERIFIED P ETITION D ATED D ECEMBER 5, 2016 W ITH E XHIBITS 1
A FFIRMATION OF J EFFREY A LFANO D ATED D ECEMBER 5, 2016 W ITH E XHIBITS 2
P ETITIONERS ' M EMORANDUM OF L AW IN S UPPORT OF P ETITIONERS /P LAINTIFFS
O RDER TO S HOW C AUSE D ATED D ECEMBER 5, 2016 3
A FFIDAVIT OF N ICOLE M ALLIOTAKIS D ATED D ECEMBER 5, 2016 W ITH E XHIBITS 4
A FFIDAVIT OF R ONALD C ASTORINA , J R . D ATED D ECEMBER 5, 2016 W ITH E XHIBITS 5
R ESPONDENTS ' V ERIFIED A NSWER D ATED D ECEMBER 16, 2016 W ITH E XHIBITS 6
R ESPONDENTS ' M EMORANDUM OF L AW IN S UPPORT OF V ERIFIED A NSWER D ATED
D ECEMBER 16, 2016 7
A FFIRMATION OF M ARTHA C ALHOUN IN SUPPORT OF THE VERIFIED ANSWER
D ATED D ECEMBER 16, 2016 8
A FFIDAVIT OF C OLLETTE S AMMAN IN SUPPORT OF THE VERIFIED ANSWER
D ATED D ECEMBER 16, 2016 9
A FFIDAVIT OF J OHN L. B URNETT D ATED D ECEMBER 16, 2016 10
P ETITIONERS ' P OST H EARING M EMORANDUM IN F URTHER S UPPORT D ATED

Exhibit Page No.: 0948 of CES Response Declaration

F EBRUARY 1, 2017 W ITH E XHIBITS 11
A FFIRMATION OF J EFFREY A LFANO . D ATED F EBRUARY 1, 2017 W ITH E XHIBITS 12
R ESPONDENTS ' P OST H EARING M EMORANDUM OF L AW IN O PPOSITION TO T HE P ETITION D ATED
F EBRUARY 1, 2017 13
A FFIRMATION OF A ARON B LOOM IN S UPPORT OF R ESPONDENTS A NSWER
D ATED F EBRUARY 1, 2017 W ITH E XHIBITS 14
T RANSCRIPT OF P ROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE H ONORABLE P HILIP G M INARDO
B EGINNING J ANUARY 5, 2017 A ND C ONCLUDING J ANUARY 18, 2017 15

On November 19, 1863, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, President Abraham Lincoln declared:

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate
-- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and
dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor
power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long
remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did
here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so
nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great
task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take
increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full
measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead
shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have
a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
President Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, Bliss Copy, Library of Congress
Commanding words from a President who envisioned the rebirth of the democracy that
laid splintered before him. President Lincoln nobly proclaimed that few would note his words
that day, yet it would not be forgotten what the men who battled the Civil War had achieved.

Counsel for petitioner attempted to link the requests before this Court to President
Lincolns bold proclamation of self-government. This Court does not agree with the reference.

The issues before this Court are narrow and identifiable, and do not threaten the stability
of the Union as a whole, as may have been argued. Essentially, this Court must determine: (1)
whether the petitioners have standing to request a declaratory judgment and writ of prohibition
regarding certain application materials retained by the respondents in connection with New
York City Identity Card program (the IDNYC program); (2) whether the Public Officers Law
Article 6, 84-90, otherwise known as New York States FOIL law, allows disclosure of certain
personally identifying information when held by a government agency in New York State; and

Exhibit Page No.: 0949 of CES Response Declaration

(3) whether the respondents have preempted the Public Officers Law Article 6, 84-90, the
New York City Charter 1133, or the Arts and Cultural Affair Law 57.13, when deciding to
destroy retained IDNYC materials, and no longer retain future underlying application materials.

I.BACKGROUND

1. Procedural History
On December 5, 2016, petitioners Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis filed this
Article 78 proceeding by Order to Show Cause with request for a Temporary Restraining Order.

Petitioners are members of the New York State Assembly bringing this Article 78
proceeding under the New York Public Officers Law 84-90, the Freedom of Information Law
or FOIL, and the Civil Practice Law and Rules 3001, in their personal and professional
capacities.
Fundamentally, petitioners claim that respondents destruction of application materials
connected with the IDNYC program, enabled under New York City Administrative Code 3-
115(e) is in contravention of the New York State FOIL law and such action exceeds
respondents jurisdiction as public officers.
Unsurprisingly, petitioners first cause of action seeks a prohibition under CPLR
7803(2) restricting respondents from exceeding their jurisdiction and destroying the application
materials collected for the IDNYC program in response to a federal election.
Petitioners second cause of action seeks a declaratory judgment action that 68 RCNY 6-
11 and NYC Admin Code 3-115(e) violate the purpose of FOIL in granting transparency to
government programs, and therefore, enforcement of those sections in contravention of FOIL
should be denied.
On December 5, 2016, at the request of petitioner with good cause shown, this court
issued a Temporary Restraining Order which provided that pending the return date of the
motion, respondents were enjoined and precluded from the destruction of any and all application
materials associated with the IDNYC program.
Respondents then appealed that order to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The
Appellate Division, Second Department granted the application to the extent that the return date
was advanced to December 21, 2016.

Exhibit Page No.: 0950 of CES Response Declaration

 Respondent City of New York filed an answer on or about December 16, 2016 denying
each allegation and stating the following defenses:
(1) Petitioners fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
(2) The provisions of the IDNYC Law concerning the disposition of records does not violate
or otherwise conflict with FOIL;
(3) Respondents have fully complied with their statutory obligations;
(4) The records subject to this proceeding are exempt from disclosure under New York
Public Officers Law 87(2)(b) because disclosure of such records would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(5) The records that are subject to this proceeding are exempted from disclosure pursuant to
New York Public Officers Law 87(2)(b)(iv) because they contain information of a
personal nature when disclosure would result in economic or personal hardship of the
subject party and such information is not relevant to the work of the agency requesting or
maintaining it;
(6) The records that are subject to this proceeding are exempted from disclosure pursuant to
New York Public Officers Law 87(2)(b)(v) because they contain information of a
personal nature reported in confidence and not relevant to the work of the agency
requesting or maintaining it;
(7) The records that are subject to this proceeding are exempted from disclosure pursuant to
New York Public Officers Law 87(2)(f) because disclosure could endanger the life or
safety of numerous individuals; and
(8) The records that are subject to this proceeding are exempted from disclosure pursuant to
federal and/or state law.
Petitioners also filed a second Order to Show Cause and request for temporary restraining
order on December 20, 2016, requesting leave to amend and supplement the verified petition
dated December 5, 2016. Such order to show cause was declined at that time by this court.
On December 21, 2016, this Court held a hearing with regard to the December 5, 2016
Order to Show Cause. After argument, this Court determined that a hearing on the issues was
necessary pursuant to CPLR 7804(h). Ignizio v, City of New York, 29 Misc. 3D 1231 (Sup. Ct.
Richmond, 2010), judgment reversed on separate issue, 85 A.D.3d 1171 (2nd Dept. 2011).

Exhibit Page No.: 0951 of CES Response Declaration

 On January 5, 2017, a hearing on the issues was held and the City of New York presented
Nisha Agarwal, the Commissioner of Immigrant Affairs in the City of New York, Steven Banks,
the Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration and the Department
of Social Services, the IDNYC program administering agency, and John Miller, the Deputy
Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the New York City Police Department.
Petitioners themselves also testified.
The matter was then adjourned until January 18, 2017, when petitioners presented John
Burnett, as an expert in financial services, and Sergeant Edward Mullins, the president of the
New York City Police Department Sergeants Benevolent Association, on the issue of security
and policing.
The parties were granted permission to submit post-hearing memorandum by February 1,
2017, and the matter was fully submitted on that date.
2. Factual Background
a. IDNYC History

On July 10, 2014, Mayor de Blasio signed into law, New York City Administrative Code
3115, which established the IDNYC program. The IDNYC program allows any city resident
over the age of 14 years old to apply for a city resident identification card, regardless of
immigration status. The card was intended to allow cardholders to access city services and use
the card for identification purposes, such as opening a bank account. It was not intended to be
used to board a plane, cross a border or rent a car. Hearing Transcript pp. 6, 125.
By Executive Order 6 of 2014, Mayor de Blasio designated the New York City Human
Resources Administration (HRA) to administer the IDNYC program. In order to begin
administration of the program, HRA promulgated chapter 6 of title 60 of the Rules of the City of
New York. To obtain a IDNYC card the applicant must execute an application, apply in person
at an enrollment center, and present proof of identity and proof of residency within the City of
New York. NYC Admin. Code section 3115 (d)(1)(2), (f)(1); Samman Aff. 6.
The enrollment center then reviews the identity and residency requirements and the
documents presented by the applicant to evidence each. The staff evaluates the application
information against the documents presented for accuracy using several electronic document
authentication tools and duplicate photo checks to prevent multiple applications and potential
fraud. Samman Aff. 6-11. Acceptable documents include drivers licenses, passports, utility

Exhibit Page No.: 0952 of CES Response Declaration

bills and similar. NYC Admin. Code 3-115(d); 68 RCNY 6-04-6-06. The method of
authentication for the IDNYC cards are issued was developed in conjunction with the New York
City Police Department. Hearing tr. pp. 114-16.
The integrity unit of the IDNYC program may also further investigate the application by
calling the applicants residence or other contacts to verify the applicants identity and/or
residence. Once the application satisfies the integrity unit review, the IDNYC card is mailed to
the cardholder and is valid for five years. Samman Aff. 12.
NYC Admin. Code 3-115 provided that NYC would retain copies of records submitted
by applicants to establish proof of identity and residency for two years. NYC Admin Code
3115 (E) (1). During retention, any information collected concerning the applicants would be
treated as confidential "to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law. NYC Admin.
Code 3115 (E) (4).
Further, NYC Admin. Code 3-115 provided that on or before December 31, 2016, if the
administering agency, designated to be HRA, determined that there was no continuing need to
retain records provided by applicants, or if the administering agency failed to make any
determination with regard to said continuing need by December 31, 2016, then NYC would
destroy such records by December 31, 2016. NYC Admin Code 3-115(e)(5).
There has been over 1 million IDNYC applications received, of those, just less than 1
million IDNYC cards were issued, with only 1 to 2% of submitted applications denied. Hearing
tr. pp. 15-18.
On December 7, 2016, Commissioner Banks of HRA determined that there was no need
to maintain the application materials with regard to the IDNYC program, thereby allowing for
their destruction.
b. FOIL Requests
On November 29, 2016 and December 2, 2016, respectively, petitioners Castorina and
Malliotakis each filed a FOIL request with the City of New York, through NYC.gov. Petition
Exhs. F -G. Petitioners requested the production of all scanned application materials maintained
by any city agency with regard to the IDNYC program. As of the date of the filing of the Order
to Show Clause, neither the City of New York, nor the Human Resources Administration had
responded to the requests.

Exhibit Page No.: 0953 of CES Response Declaration

 However, by emails dated December 7, 2016, HRA denied the FOIL requests declaring
that the requested information was subject to the FOIL exemptions in Public Officers Law
89(2)(B)(iv), the personal information exemption, 89(2)(b)(v), the reported in confidence
exemption, 87(2)(b), the personal privacy exemption, and 87(2)(f), the endangerment
exemption. Answer Exhibit 9; Calhoun Aff. 12, 13.
Martha Calhoun, HRAs FOIL Appeals Officer denied petitioners administrative FOIL
appeals by letter dated January 13, 2017.1 Affirmation of Aaron Bloom in support of
Respondents Answer Exhibit E.
3. Hearing Testimony, in order of testimony
a. Commissioner Nisha Agarwal
Commissioner Nisha Agarwal is the Commissioner for Immigrant Affairs within the City
of New York. The Commissioner was quite familiar with IDNYC program and explained that
the IDNYC card was designed for all city residents. Specifically, the IDNYC program was
intended to assist vulnerable populations, including homeless, victims of domestic violence and
undocumented immigrants.
She testified that the IDNYC program uses a complex system of identification, allotting a
point system to verify eligibility, although there is no criminal investigation of the application.
To obtain an IDNYC card, three points are needed to establish identity and one point to establish
residency. If fraud in the application process is suspected, HRA will deny the card and notify
the potential victim if possible. Commissioner Agarwal testified to 102 known cases of fraud in
the application process.
The IDNYC program promises applicants that application documentation will be kept
confidential to the fullest extent possible. As such, Commissioner Agarwal testified that
application documentation had only been released in full in response to a proper criminal
subpoena.
Under the initial implementation of the IDNYC program, the application documentation
was to be retained for two years. This material could include photographs, drivers licenses,
emergency contacts, date of birth, etc. Prior to December 31, 2016, the administering agency,
designated as HRA, was to determine if continued retention of the applications materials was

1
Respondents waived their right to request petitioners exhaust their administrative remedies
when declaring that any administrative appeal would be denied in their answer.
7

Exhibit Page No.: 0954 of CES Response Declaration

required. If HRA determined that the application documentation was to be destroyed, the
application itself and photograph would be preserved.

b. Commissioner Steven Banks

Commissioner Steven Banks is the head of the joint agencies which encompass the New
York City Human Resources Administration, Department of Social Services and Homeless
Services. Pursuant to an Executive Order, HRA was designated the administering agency for the
IDNYC program. HRA was chosen due to the agencys expertise in its evaluation of
documentation and investigation.
Commissioner Banks testified that over one million applications had been received by
HRA, and of those, less than one million IDNYC cards had been issued. He also testified that
application documentation had only been released pursuant to subpoena and litigation. He
further testified that not all those requests had been granted, since some subpoenas had been
rejected.
Commissioner Banks testified that IDNYC applications were reviewed by HRA
investigators, and those investigators used TSA standards to ensure accuracy.
c. Deputy Commissioner John Miller
Deputy Commissioner John Miller is the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence for the
New York City Police Department (NYPD). Deputy Commissioner Miller testified that the
NYPD was consulted and involved in a series of meetings with HRA and Social Services
regarding the adequate forms of IDNYC identification and the verification process.
The Deputy Commissioner testified that over the two-year period, the issue of retention
was reviewed and as the deadline approached, there was no security issue requiring retention. In
fact, the Deputy Commissioner testified that retention of the application documentation was
considered a greater security risk, since he testified that it was apparent that any network could
be hacked, including that of the City of New York. Deputy Commissioner Miller testified that
he could not recall the policy reasons for the two-year period, yet he did recall that the NYPD
initially requested all documents be retained, yet subsequent negotiations shrunk that to the two-
year period.
He also testified that although the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles needed
to meet the Homeland Security standards, the IDNYC program does not, since it is not to be

Exhibit Page No.: 0955 of CES Response Declaration

used for travel. Deputy Commissioner Miller testified that although the IDNYC card could be
used to open back accounts, this was not a concern when discussing retention. He explained that
if terrorists opened bank accounts with the IDNYC card, it would be helpful in a criminal
investigation.
d. Petitioner Ronald Castorina, Jr.
Petitioner is a member of the New York State Assembly, 62nd Assembly district in the
County of Richmond, New York and a member of the Assembly Banking Committee.
Petitioner Castorina testified that he brought this action out of concern for security and
the use of the IDNYC card to open bank accounts. He testified that he was worried that
terrorists would be able to use the IDNYC as something similar to a drivers license and the loss
of records retention would limit the ability to investigate the cardholder and their application.
Petitioner Castorina testified that the IDNYC card does not delineate in bright line that
the card may not be used for travel, and such non-use would only be known if someone knew the
limits if the enabling law. He testified that the IDNYC card looks similar to a New York State
drivers license and could be easily confused with it and used to obtain other legal identification.
Petitioner Castorina filed his FOIL request in November and filed an additional request
in December, 2016, seeking all documents underlying applications for IDNYC cards. He
expected that his request would be returned with all underlying application documents in
redacted form and realized that this request may encompass millions of pieces of paper.
Petitioner testified that he was seeking information regarding the category of identification used
to grant the IDNYC applications, including how many expired passports were used to apply. In
his testimony, he cited security concerns over the proliferation of the use of forged and expired
passports as identification.
e. Petitioner Nicole Malliotakis
Petitioner is a member of the New York State Assembly in the County of Richmond,
New York and a member of the Assemblys Banking Committee.
Petitioner Malliotakis also filed two FOIL requests for all backup documentation
regarding the IDNYC card application. Petitioner was aware that some material would be
exempted, but expected the FOIL exemptions to be construed narrowly and would allow her a
redacted set of the underlying IDNYC application documents in return.

Exhibit Page No.: 0956 of CES Response Declaration

 As a member of the Banking Committee, she testified that she was concerned that the
IDNYC card could be used to open bank accounts. Further, she testified that the comments by
the Mayor and Council Speaker, regarding the destruction of the underlying IDNYC application
documents were in response to the recent presidential election, and cause for additional concern
regarding the motive for destruction.

f. John L. Burnett
John L. Burnett works in financial services and writes for the Huffington Post. Petitioners
brought this witness as a financial expert. He testified that the IDNYC card could be used to
open bank accounts, but such use could not supersede federal law. He testified that there was a
concern that the City of New York, could leverage those institutions that do business with the
City of New York to use the IDNYC card as identification. Further, the letter of the
Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, dated September 1,
2016, which provides guidance on the use of the IDNYC card as proof of identity for the use in
opening bank accounts could enhance such leverage. Verified Petition Exhibit A.
In his testimony, he explained that to open a banking account, each institution must use
acceptable identification and that drivers licenses are traditionally used because of the diligence
in the application process. The IDNYC card did not use the same verification process as the
Department of Motor Vehicles, and therefore was not as reliable. Specifically, he noted that the
card could be issued to a city resident who was a transient resident in a homeless shelter, since
limited residency identification was required. However, he did testify that the use of the IDNYC
card was not mandatory, and a financial institution could also choose not to accept it.
g. Sergeant Edward Mullins
Edward Mullins is a Sergeant with the New York City Police Department and President
of the Sergeants Benevolent Association. Petitioners brought this witness as an expert in
security.
Sgt. Mullins testified that the respondents decision not to retain backup documentation
limits the ability of the police to investigate criminal matters. He explained that more
information is always preferable than less, particularly in matters involving undocumented
immigrants. In those cases, the underlying application documentation could assist law

10

Exhibit Page No.: 0957 of CES Response Declaration

enforcement in locating a suspect by tracing previous addresses or family, which could be found
in birth certificates, passports, or residency documents.
Sgt. Mullins further testified that he was embarrassed by the comments of Deputy
Commissioner Miller that the City of New York was electronically vulnerable to hackers. He
found it curious that the Deputy Commissioner appeared concerned with the security of IDNYC
applicants, but not the 400,000 New York City employees who have their paychecks
electronically deposited in Back accounts and the various benefit compensation programs run by
the City of New York with electronic transfers. Personal information for these employees and
benefit recipients are held by the City of New York, yet, the deputy Commissioner showed little
concern that such documentation will be accessed inappropriately by hackers.
Public safety was at risk, Sgt. Mullins further explained. Criminal investigations were at
risk. He testified that destruction of the documents allowed a presumption of guilt on behalf of
those who applied for the IDNYC card. He pondered what other concerns the City of New York
might have to destroy the documentation.
Sgt. Mullins did testify that the documentation should only be accessed for criminal
matters.
I.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Venue
This court previously decided that venue in Richmond county was proper pursuant to
CPLR section 506 (B) and 7804 (B). Petitioners submitted their FOIL requests from their district
offices in Richmond County, the IDNYC program is active in all five boroughs including the
borough of Staten Island, and respondents are public officers which represent petitioners in the
county of Richmond.
2. Standing
Petitioners allege injury to their rights to an open government under the Public Officers
Law 84 which states:

84. Legislative declaration.

The legislature hereby finds that a free society is maintained when government is
responsive and responsible to the public, and when the public is aware of governmental
actions. The more open a government is with its citizenry, the greater the understanding
and participation of the public in government.

11

Exhibit Page No.: 0958 of CES Response Declaration

 As state and local government services increase and public problems become more
sophisticated and complex and therefore harder to solve, and with the resultant increase
in revenues and expenditures, it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend
public accountability wherever and whenever feasible.
The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review
the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society. Access to
such information should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or
confidentiality. The legislature therefore declares that government is the public's business
and that the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free press, should
have access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of this
article.

Petitioners allege that denial of their FOIL requests is hostile to the intent of this
legislation as well as New York City Charter 1133 which requires:

No records shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by an agency, officer of employee

of the city unless approval has been obtained from the commissioner of records and
information services, the corporation counsel and the head of the agency which created or
has jurisdiction over the records who shall base their determinations on the potential
administrative, fiscal, legal, research of historical value of the record

Petitioners further allege that their interest in the IDNYC application material is
enhanced by their positions on the New York State Assembly Banking Committee, and the letter
of the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, dated September
1, 2016, which provides guidance to the President of the New York Bankers Association and the
New York Credit Union Association on the use of the IDNYC card as proof of identity for the
use in opening bank accounts. Verified Petition Exhibit A.
Petitioners argue that as members of the Assembly of the State of New York, and
members of the NYS Assembly Banking Committee, the FOIL requested documents are
necessary to carry out legitimate governmental and public interests, but did not clarify further.
In order to seek judicial relief, a party must show standing by showing "injury in fact"
within the zone of interest protected by the relevant statutes. Urban Justice Center v. Pataki, 38
A.D.3d 20, 25 (1st Dep't 2006), appeal dismissed & appeal denied, 8 N.Y.3d 958
(2007); Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761 (1991).
Petitioners challenge the decision of these respondents to not retain underlying
IDNYC application materials. It is alleged that this action undermines a state mandate that
such documents be preserved. However, raising that issue, is not in itself an injury.

12

Exhibit Page No.: 0959 of CES Response Declaration

Petitioners cannot simply raise a grievance on behalf of society, they must show a nexus to
their rights and harm by the decision. Urban Justice Center, supra at 27.
If this Court were to allow petitioners to challenge the actions of this administration
without an allegation of an injury, petitioners assertions would be little more than an
attempt to legislate through the courts Rudder v. Pataki, 93 N.Y.2d 273 (1999), citing
Matter of Transactive Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 92 N.Y.2d
579(1998); Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 428,
433434 (1990).
Standing is a limit on the power of the Courts to interfere with those considerations
of the elected branches of government. In Allen v. Wright, Justice OConnor explained that,

[s]tanding doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of

[] jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another
person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more
appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a
plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.
The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from
the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the
defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested
relief.

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (citations omitted).

This Court recognizes that those initiating the action or dispute should be allowed
access to the Court for a legal determination of the relevant dispute. Society of Plastics
Industry, Inc., supra. The Court contemplates that deciding this threshold issue denies the
parties the right to the determination of the claim by a court of law. However, issues of
public concern are not enough to permit a party access to the Courts, when the issues do
not cause harm or injury to the petitioner. Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. supra.
After a thorough review of the submitted papers, in addition to the testimony
elicited over two hearing days, the Court concludes that petitioners do not have standing to
challenge the jurisdiction of the respondents and the IDNYC enabling law as requested.
Petitioners only possess the right to challenge the denial of their FOIL request, as it was
denied by HRA and the City of New York, as that denial of the FOIL request and failure to
produce the underlying application materials may be considered an injury.

13

Exhibit Page No.: 0960 of CES Response Declaration

 As explained infra, the statute and administrative codes at issue do not present a
distinct path by which petitioners may challenge the actions of respondents. Principally,
Public Officers Law 84 is a legislative declaration that access to government
documents be enabled, yet it does not enact a directive. Thompson v. Wallin, 301 N.Y. 476,
493 (1950). Without a concrete directive, petitioners have nothing further than a promise
of access, without definition, not a right to retention. Additionally, petitioners right to
request the underlying application documentation under FOIL does not grant them any
additional platform to challenge the enactment and implementation of the IDNYC enabling
law.

a. Public Officers Law Article 6

Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, 84-90, or FOIL, allows the public to request
government documents and records from any agency located within the State of New York.
Matter of Newsday, Inc. v. State Dept. of Transp., 5 N.Y.3d 84 (2005); Matter of Fink v.
Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571 (1979). FOIL is not an absolute right to receive the documents,
only a right to request. The purpose is to open government and its decision making to the public,
and allow the public to make informed decisions with respect to government activities. Matter
of New York State United Teachers v. Brighter Choice Charter School, 15 N.Y.3d 560, 564
(2010); Matter of Fink, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571; Matter of Data Tree, LLC v. Romaine, 9 N.Y.3d
454, 462 (2007); Matter of Markowitz v. Serio, 11 N.Y.3d 43, 51 (2008); Matter of Weston v.
Sloan, 84 N.Y.2d 462, 466 (1994) (holding that FOIL was enacted to provide the people with
the means to access governmental records, to assure accountability and to thwart secrecy.)
A FOIL request for disclosure is subject to ten distinct exemptions that can be found
within Public Officers Law 87(2). Matter of Whitfield v. Bailey, 80 A.D.3d 417 (1st Dept.
2011). FOIL is to be applied liberally and the exemptions are to be read narrowly. Buffalo
News, Inc. v. Buffalo Enterprise Development Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 488 (1994); Encore College
Bookstores, Inc. v. Auxiliary Service Corp. of State University of New York at Farmingdale, 87
N.Y.2d 410 (1995).
Unsurprisingly, when a FOIL request is denied, the agency seeking to prevent disclosure
carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested material fits within the FOIL exemption
stated for denial. Data Tree, LLC, 9 N.Y.3d at 463; John H. v. Goord, 27 A.D.3d 798, (3 Dept.

14

Exhibit Page No.: 0961 of CES Response Declaration

2006). Moreover, when only a portion of a document is properly exempt, the agency must
produce a redacted version that discloses all the non-exempt information. Matter of Schenectady
County Socy. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Mills, Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 42, 4546,
(2011); Data Tree, LLC, supra.
Of the exemptions within the Public Officers Law, the following were invoked with
regard to the FOIL requests herein: 89(2)(b)(iv) which exempts from disclosure information
of a personal nature when disclosure would result in economic or personal hardship of the
subject party and such information is not relevant to the work of the agency requesting or
maintaining it; 89(2)(b)(v) which exempts information of a personal nature reported in
confidence and not relevant to the work of the agency requesting or maintaining it; 87(2)(b)
which exempts disclosure which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
and 87(2)(f) which allows the withholding of material which could endanger the life or safety
of any person.
The three former exemptions are applicable to the information at issue, namely,
personally identifying documentation such as passports, birth certificates, drivers license, etc.
This type of information if released, allows the recipient information which could allow
impersonation of the applicant, and access to the applicants economic or personal information.
As such, the exemptions under 89(2)(b)(iv), 89(2)(b)(v), 87(2)(b), apply to any personally
identifying information within the scanned application materials, and as such that particular
information is exempted form petitioners request.
On the other hand, the exemption under 87(2)(f), endangerment of the life or safety of
any person, is not as clear and its application appears limited. This exception may not be
applied simply because there is speculation that harm may result, as in Grabell v. New York City
Police Dept., 47 Misc.3d 203 (Sup. Ct. 2014), affirmed as modified 139 A.D.3d 477, or where no
threat can be shown as in Laveck v. Village Bd. of Trustees of Village of Lansing, 145 A.D.3d
1168 (3d Dept. 2016), where personally identifying information of participants in a deer
management program was disclosable. However, since the personally identifying information
within the scanned application material is exempted under the former sections, the court need not
apply this exemption to the material.
The question becomes, what then did the petitioners request and what are they entitled to.
Petitioners requested the underlying scanned application materials for the IDNYC program.

15

Exhibit Page No.: 0962 of CES Response Declaration

Petitioners cite their positions within the New York State Assembly and the Banking
Commission and their need to carry out their Constitutional duties as the reason for disclosure of
these documents.
There is no general requirement that the requestor present a need or purpose to request
disclosure under FOIL. City of Newark v. Law Dept. of City of New York, 305 A.D.2d 28 (1
Dept. 2003). The documents could be sought for litigation or for no reason at all. Johnson v.
New York City Police Dept. 257 A.D.2d 343(1 Dept. 1999), leave to appeal dismissed 94 N.Y.2d
791. Documents are thus disclosable unless the exemptions under FOIL prevent such complete
disclosure. DJL Restaurant Corp. v. Dept. of Bldgs. of City of New York, 273 A.D.2d 167 (1
Dept. 2000). Such is the case here, where the material must be redacted pursuant to
89(2)(b)(iv), 89(2)(b)(v), 87(2)(b). Prall v. NYC Dept. of Corrections, 129 A.D.3d 734 (2nd
Dept. 2015).
At first blush, this type of production appears burdensome considering the FOIL privacy
exceptions and the need for redaction. Nevertheless, the burden of redaction does not prevent
disclosure, it may simply just delay it.
Significantly, in the matter herein, petitioners do not challenge the applicability of the
exemptions. In fact, petitioners have been clear that their expectation was a redacted response to
their FOIL requests, which would protect the IDNYC participants personal information.
Petition 35. At no time, did petitioners contend that the application materials requested should
be provided unaltered.
Therefore, if strictly interpreted under the Public Officers Law Article 6, petitioners
would be entitled, or have a right, to the redacted copies of the application material requested in
their FOIL requests of November 29, 2016 and December 2, 2016.
In opposition to the production, respondents argue that redaction of this magnitude would
require significant work-hours, and could not be achieved without unreasonable difficulty.
Matter of Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills, 18
N.Y.3d 42, 45 (2011) Such redaction of all personally identifying information under the Public
Officers Law privacy exemptions in 89(2) and 87(2)(b) would require actual review and
exclusion of dates of birth, social security numbers, and similar, and the possible interpretation
of other foreign documents. This type of redaction would require two reviews without

16

Exhibit Page No.: 0963 of CES Response Declaration

automated assistance and respondents have placed the cost of such redaction at more than six
million dollars. Libster Aff. 7-12.
In their post-hearing memorandum, respondents additionally argued that they could not
guarantee the privacy and safety of the applicants information even after redaction since human
error in the redaction and possible accidental release of sensitive information could not be
promised.
Finally, respondents argued that the usefulness of such heavily redacted documents is nil.
Although no specific need is required under FOIL, a common sense purpose for the expenditure
of tax-payer funds may be necessary.
Petitioners argue that the documentation would be useful with respect to the immigration
status of those applying for the IDNYC card, and that as members of the Banking Committee,
their concern for accuracy in financial institution identification was paramount. Petitioners did
not clarify how this highly redacted production would achieve that goal.
After review, in order for this Court to require respondents to engage in an undertaking
that would cost the City of New York up to six million dollars, petitioners would need a showing
of good or reasonable cause. It would be nonsensical for this Court to order such an outrageous
expenditure without a concrete purpose for the documents which would be redacted in large part.
Petitioners may obtain the majority of the information sought through a data dump of the
applicants disclosable IDNYC information, which could be provided by respondents.
Nevertheless, petitioners did not specifically request compliance with their FOIL
requests, they requested separate mandates entirely.
Petitioners seek a ruling that the respondents decision to not retain underlying
application materials collected, and the lack of collection thereon beginning January 2017 into
the future, violates the premise of FOIL and exceeds the jurisdiction of respondents. As
discussed above, FOIL does not mandate the retention of documents, it mandates disclosure of
those documents created or retained by a government agency within New York State and not
subject to the exemptions in 87 or 89. Therefore, the decision by Commissioner Banks for the
City of New York not to continue to retain the underlying application materials does not does
not violate FOIL.
Therefore, no right of action for the petitioners beyond the compliance for document
production under FOIL arises, and this right has not been invoked.

17

Exhibit Page No.: 0964 of CES Response Declaration

 b. The IDNYC Confidentiality provision
As part of the IDNYC program, certain promises were made to applicants regarding the
retention of their personal application materials. Specifically, in response to the question of what
will happen to retained documents, the answer within the FAQ of the IDNYC webpage states:
[t]he City is wholly committed to protecting the privacy of IDNYC applicants and
cardholders. As required by Local Law 35 (the legislation that created the IDNYC
program), the City will protect the confidentiality of all IDNYC applicants to the
maximum extent allowed by applicable federal and state law. In addition, in November
2014, Commissioner Banks of the Human Resources Administration issued
several executive orders that address how confidential information in the IDNYC
program will be handled and stored. These orders were the product of a joint working
group that was focused on addressing community feedback on privacy. The orders
mandate high levels of protection for IDNYC data and stringent processes for dealing
with requests for IDNYC cardholder information.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/idnyc/about/privacy-and-confidentiality.page.

The Confidentiality Provision continues to be established in Executive Orders issued by

HRA, which purport to require the HRA general counsel to sign off on the disclosure of
personally identifying information. Executive Order E-735.
Respondents argue that the government may not break its promise of confidentiality
under FOIL. Harbatkin v. NYC Dept. of Records & Info Servs., 19 N.Y.3d 373, 380-81 (2012).
Despite how enticing this argument may be, the government cannot promise what it cannot
provide, inter alia, the government may not promise a greater level of confidentiality than FOIL
allows. This argument of respondents does not succeed, as it has not been shown in the
papers or evidence, that this was the actual intent of the confidentiality promise, specifically, to
thwart FOIL. Commissioner Banks testified that pursuant to a proper subpoena, information
would be disclosed, and has been disclosed in the past. There has not been an earlier FOIL
request for the underlying scanned application materials, hitherto, what has been provided, under
legal subpoena, has been responded to apparently appropriately.
Consequently, although this provision appears to provide greater confidentiality than
may be permitted by FOIL, it does not run afoul of FOIL nor exceed the jurisdiction of
respondents.
Ergo, no right of action arises from the provision.
c. State Preemption

18

Exhibit Page No.: 0965 of CES Response Declaration

 New York City is a county within the State of New York, and as such, is subject to the
limitations of New York State Law. Petitioner cites the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law 57.13
which states that records need to be systematically managed to ensure ready access to vital
information and to promote the efficient and economical operation of government.
However, this mandate simply states legislative intent and may require local
governments to support a program for the orderly and efficient management of government
documents, especially those of historical significance. Arts and Cultural Affairs Law 57.13-
57.31. Thus, the format for document retention and possible destruction under the IDNYC
program cannot be said to run afoul of this mandate.
Thence, no violation being found, no right of action arises under this section.
Moreover, Public Officers Law 89(8) and Penal Law 240.65 do not preempt the
records retention schedule enacted by respondents. These provisions work to prevent the
destruction of documents requested pursuant to FOIL. These sections do not address record
retention schedules.

I.CONCLUSION

Much ado was made about the recent federal election of a Republican President with an
immigration agenda and petitioners support of the President and the very public opposition of
certain respondents. Notwithstanding these positions, this Court cannot make new law based
upon a political partys agenda.
In consideration of the foregoing, the petition must be denied. Petitioners, under FOIL
are entitled to request the scanned application materials underlying the IDNYC program, and
may be entitled to a redacted and burdensome production of such documents. Petitioners
however, have not specifically requested compliance with FOIL and a response to their FOIL
requests. Considering the lack of a formal request, the unduly financially burdensome nature of
the production, and lack of good cause shown, there is no reason for this Court to order the
production.
To that end, upon searching the record, the petition is dismissed and the remainder of
petitioners contentions and causes of action are denied based upon, inter alia, a lack of
standing, as no further right of action arises for petitioners to challenge the document retention
policy regarding the IDNYC program, and no further authority can be found in the Public

19

Exhibit Page No.: 0966 of CES Response Declaration

Officers Law 84-90, Arts and Cultural Affairs Law 57.13, and/or Penal Law 240.65 which
would allow this Court to mandate the retention or prohibit the destruction of the application
materials in the IDNYC program.
This constitutes the order of the Court. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in
favor of Respondents without costs.

Dated: April 3, 2017 ENTER

/s/ Philip G. Minardo

Honorable Philip G. Minardo, J.S.C

20

Exhibit Page No.: 0967 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitM

Exhibit Page No.: 0968 of CES Response Declaration

 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 10

1 MELODY A. KRAMER, SBN 169984

KRAMER LAW OFFICE, INC.
2
4010 Sorrento Valley Blvd., Ste. 400
3 San Diego, California 92121
Telephone (855) 835-5520
4 kramerlawinc@gmail.com
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
VINZENZ J. KOLLER, an individual and Presidential ) Case No. - - - -
10 Elector, )
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
11
Plaintiffs, ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCT
12 ) RELIEF
v. )
13 )
14 JERRY BROWN, in his official capacity as ))
Governor for the State of California; KAMALA
15 HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney )
16 General for the State of California; ALEX )
PADILLA, in his official capacity as Secretary of)
17 State for the State of California; and DOES 1-1 0;)
)
18 Defendants. )
19 -------------------------------)
20
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
21
Plaintiff Vinzenz J. Koller, a Presidential Elector for the State of California, hereby
22
challenges the constitutionality of California Election Code 6906 and 18002, statutes
23
which restrict, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment, the obligations of presidential
24
electors under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment,
25
and the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.
26
Plaintiff seeks the protection to act as a Presidential Elector not merely by placing a
27
ceremonial vote, but as part of a deliberative body, placing a vote that is most likely to
28

Exhibit Page No.: 0969 of CES Response Declaration

 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 10

1 ensure that only a person with the adequate qualifications for office be voted in as President
2 of the United States.
3 Currently 29 states, including California, have state laws that bind presidential
4 electors to do no more than place a ceremonial vote in accord with their party affiliation or
5 pre-election pledge. Plaintiff here, is joining the path of other electors in the States of
6 Colorado and Washington seeking relief from state statutes that interfere with their right to
7 act as a deliberative body and, if appropriate under the circumstances, place their votes in
8 the best interest of the country, even if they might not be their party's candidate.
9 The relief sought here is narrow - declaratory relief that Election Code 6906 and
10 18002 are unconstitutional restraints on presidential electors, and furthermore, that those
11 sections have the same effect as threats against electors made criminal by Election Code
12 18540(a).
13 Plaintiff, through undersigned counsel, for his complaint against the above-named
14 Defendants avers as follows.
15 PARTIES
16 1. Vinzenz J. Koller is a resident of Monterey County, California, and a du1y
17 chosen Presidential Elector for the 2016 presidential election.
18 2. Defendant Jerry Brown is the Governor of California and, as its chief
19 executive, has the power to enforce the laws of the State of California, including Election
20 Code 6906 and 18002.
21 3. Defendant Kamala Harris the Attorney General of California and, in such
22 capacity, enforces the laws of the State of California, including Election Code 6906 and

23 18002.
24 4. Defendant Alex Padilla is the Secretary of State of California and, as such,
25 gives notice of the time and place for the Presidential Electors to vote, and certifies the
26 results of the Presidential Electors' balloting and votes.
27 5. Defendants DOES 1-10 are other individuals or entities, presently
28 unidentified, that upon infonnation and belief are also engaged, directly or indirectly, in the

Case No. _ _ __ __ _
2.
Exhibit Page No.: 0970 of CES Response Declaration
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 10

1 conduct giving rise to this Complaint. On information and belief, Defendants act as agents
2 of one or more of each other relative to the subject matter of this Complaint.
3
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute as it relates
6 to a federal question, to wit, a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, under 28
7 U.S. C. 1331 as well as 28 U.S. C. 2201 and 2202.
8 7. The federal question presented by this case is the constitutionality of
9 California Election Code 6906 and 18002, which requires electors to vote "for that
10 person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are,
11 respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent . . ." and calls for
12 punishment for "willfully neglect[ ing] or refus[ ing] to perform it" or "knowingly and
13 fraudulently act[ ing] in contravention" to be punished by fine or imprisonment.
14 8. These statutes, Election Code 6906 and 18002, violate Article II of the
15 U.S. Constitution as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and freedom of speech under the
16 First Amendment.
17 9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S. C. 1391(b).
18
19 FACTUALALLEGATIONS
20 10. Plaintiff is a duly authorized Presidential Elector of the Democratic Party and
21 has met all qualifications to be an elector.
22 11. California Election Code 6906 and 18002 require electors to vote "for that
23 person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are,
24 respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent . . ." and calls for
25 punishment for "willfully neglect[ing] or refus[ing] to perform it" or "knowingly and
26 fraudulently act[ ing] in contravention" to be punished by fine or imprisonment.
27 12. The Democratic Presidential candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton and the
28 Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate is Timothy Kaine.
Case No. _ _ _ _ __ _
3.
Exhibit Page No.: 0971 of CES Response Declaration
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 10

1 13. Though the Democratic nominees for President and Vice-President won the
2 nationwide popular vote by at least 2. 7 million votes, and won the California popu1ar vote
3 by a large margin, the various state-by-state popu1ar votes portend that Donald Trump and
4 Michael Pence (the Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees) will win the
5 majority of electoral college votes on December 19, 2016 if the electors in each state vote
6 consistent with the popu1ar vote in their respective states.
7 14. Presidential Electors in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho,
8 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New
9 Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
10 Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia are not, however, bound to simply place a ceremonial
11 vote consistent with their state's popu1ar vote, though they usually do so.
12 15. The remaining states, including California, have laws in place requiring their
13 Presidential Electors to vote consistent with the persons and/or party corresponding to the
14 popu1ar vote in the state.
15 16. California Election Code 6906 requires electors to vote "for that person for
16 President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the
17 candidates of the political party which they represent . . ."
18 17. California Election Code 18002 sets for a punishment for "willfully
19 neglect[ing] or refus[ ing] to perform" duties under state elections laws or "knowingly and
20 fraudulently act[ ing] in contravention" to be punished by fine or imprisonment.
21 18. This state requirement pre-determining the vote to be cast by Presidential
22 Electors violates the plain language of Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, as
23 amended by the Twelfth Amendment, which indicates that there is no way to know in
24 advance what the vote will be -
25
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
26 America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together
with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
27
28
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ __
4.
Exhibit Page No.: 0972 of CES Response Declaration
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 10

1 Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
2
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
3 Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
4
5 The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
6 themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the
number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit
7
sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
8 President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of
the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the
9 votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes
10 shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of
electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority,
11 and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person
12
have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in
13 like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes
shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A
14 quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two
15 thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a
choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the
16 greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if
there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall
17
choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
18 The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day
on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout
19 the United States ... .
20 19. Furthermore, this state requirement pre-determining the vote to be cast by
21 Presidential Electors violates the Founders' intent that the Presidential Electors be a
22 deliberative and independent body free to cast votes for whomever they deem to be the
23 most fit and qualified candidates.
24
See The Federalist, No. 68 (Earle ed., 1937), pp. 441-442:
25 "It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of
the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be
26
answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished
27 body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the
particular conjuncture.
28
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ __
5.
Exhibit Page No.: 0973 of CES Response Declaration
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 6 of 10

1 "It was equally desirable, that the immediate [presidential election] should be
made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
2
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious
3 combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern
their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens
4 from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and
5 discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

6 Quoted in Ray v. Blair, 343 U .S. 214.

7 20. Ironically, the Constitution and the Founders' intent should be protected

8 under California Election Code 18540(a) which makes it a felony offense for "every

9 person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any . . . tactic of coercion or

10 intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote . . . or to vote or refrain from

11
voting for any particular person . . . at any election, or because any person voted or refrained

12 from voting at any election or refrained from voting for any particular person ... "
21. Coercion via statute is not different in result than independent coercion as it
13
14 interferes with the freedom of speech (to voice questions and concerns about the fitness and

15 qualification for office of any potential candidate for President and Vice President) and the

16 obligation and right to act as part of the Presidential Electors to analyz[ e] the qualities

17
adapted to the station," act[] under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern
18
19 their choice" and to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated

20
investigations."

21 22. Though Hillary Clinton and Timothy Kaine won the majority vote m

22 California and are qualified for office, Plaintiff cannot be constitutionally compelled to vote
for them. Plaintiff must be allowed to exercise his judgment and free will to vote for
23
24 whomever he believes to be the most qualified and fit for the offices of President and Vice

25
President within the circumstances and with the knowledge known on December 19, 2016,

26 whether those candidates are Democrats, Republicans, or from a third party.

27

28
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ __
6.
Exhibit Page No.: 0974 of CES Response Declaration
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 7 of 10

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Declaratory Relief)
3 23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-24, above.
4 24. Election Code 6906 and 18002 call for criminal penalties against Plaintiff
5 if Plaintiff does not place his presidential electoral vote for Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine.
6 25. Plaintiff's stated intention to not necessarily place his vote for Hillary Clinton
7 and Tim Kaine, but instead to act with the deliberative intent and care for choosing of
8 qualified persons for the office of President and Vice President called for in the U.S.
9 Constitution, creates a risk of criminal prosecution by the State of California and thus
10 creates an actual controversy within the meaning 28 U.S. C. 220l(a).
11 26. The threat of criminal prosecution against Plaintiff if he acts in any manner in
12 his capacity as Presidential Elector other than as a rubber stamp or ceremonial vote
13 consistent with the popular vote in California, constitutes a violation of his obligations
14 under the U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and his
15 rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
16 27. Plaintiff therefore requests a declaratory judgment by this Court that
17 California Elections Code 6906 and the corresponding penalty for violation thereof in
18 California Elections Code 18002 are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable against
19 Plaintiff and his fellow electors.
20 28. The purpose of the Electoral College, which is made up of electors such as
21 Plaintiff, is to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. There is nothing
22 in the Constitution that permits or requires electors to be bound to vote the same as the
23 popular vote in their states. For the first 100 years of our history, the majority of states did
24 not hold popular votes for the election of president and vice president and, instead, the
25 states themselves appointed the electors who voted for president and vice president.
26 29. Alexander Hamilton explicitly stated "that that the immediate election should
27 be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station." Federalist
28 No. 68. The electors (the "men") would be "most likely to possess the information and

Case No. _ __ __ _ _
7.
Exhibit Page No.: 0975 of CES Response Declaration
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 10

1 discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." !d. The electors were created so
2 that they, as a deliberative body, would be "detached" and less prone to be influenced by
3 the "heats and ferments" of a raucous election. !d. The electors would help ensure "the
4 office of President [would] never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree
5 endowed with the requisite qualifications." !d. The electors create an "obstacle" to "cabal,
6 intrigue, and corruption" and prevent "foreign powers [from] gain[ ing] an improper
7 ascendant in our councils." !d.
8 30. The United States Supreme Court has already partially addressed the question
9 of a state statute that required an elector for a primary election to sign a pledge as to whom
10 they would vote and found the pledge itself constitutional (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214
11 (1952)), the Supreme Court left open the question of whether enforcement of such pledges,
12 or penalties for violating the pledges, or state statutes dictating what votes would be placed,
13 was constitutional. This question is now ripe for review.
14 31. Similarly, while Article II, Section 1 provides that states shall "appoint"
15 electors, but the Constitution does not provide that the states shall have the ability to
16 determine for whom those electors will vote.

17 32. The Electoral College would be rendered superfluous and antithetical to the
18 purpose of the Electoral College as articulated by Alexander Hamilton, for if the electors
19 are merely to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state, then there is no
20 need for the Electoral College at all. While many scholars have advocated for the
21 elimination of the Electoral College, this case does not seek to invalidate the Electoral
22 College; that would be a matter to be changed by constitutional amendment.
23 33. Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent the Defendants from violating
24 Plaintiff's constitutional rights or chilling his exercise of those rights due to the risk of
25 punitive consequence for voting in the broader interest of the country, even if that might not
26 end up aligning with his loyal party affiliation. Without such relief, Plaintiff's right and
27 obligation a Presidential Elector and his right of freedom of speech will be irreparably
28 harmed.

Case No . _ _ _ __ _ _
8.
Exhibit Page No.: 0976 of CES Response Declaration
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 9 of 10

1 34. This Court can provide declaratory relief because an actual and substantial
2 controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants with respect to Plaintiff's
3 rights and Defendants' rights and duties under Elections Code 6906 and 18002.
4 35. Plaintiffs' constitutional rights will be directly, substantially, and irreparably
5 violated, affected, and injured unless and until this Court declares the state law requiring
6 electors to vote consistent with the popular vote in their state, and penalizing an elector for
7 not doing so, is unconstitutional.
8
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to:
11 A. Enter a temporary restraining order (as per the concurrently filed motion for
12 the same);
13 B. Enter an order declaring California Elections Code 6906 and 18002 to the
14 extent it allows for punitive action against a Presidential Elector who exercises independent
15 analysis and judgment and places his vote for President and Vice-President accordingly,
16 even if it is not his party's candidate, to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution,
17 Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and First Amendment.
18 C. Enter an order permanently enjoining the Defendants from prosecuting any
19 presidential elector on the basis of their vote placed for a presidential or vice presidential
20 candidate; and
21 D. For all such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
22
23 Dated this 9th day of December 2016.
24
25 By: Is/ Melody A Kramer
Melody A. Kramer, Esq.
26 KRAMER LAW OFFICE, INC.
27 Attorney for Plaintiff

28
Case No. _ _ __ _ __
9.
Exhibit Page No.: 0977 of CES Response Declaration
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit N

Exhibit Page No.: 0978 of CES Response Declaration

 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS JOHN ARNTZ
City and County of San Francisco Director
www.sfgov .org/elections

Aprill6, 2008

Dear San Francisco Voter:

In the June 3, 2008 Consolidated Statewide Direct Primary Election, voters must vote according to their party
affiliations. Voters who have re~:istered with a particular political party may only receive that party's ballot. and
cannot vote using another party's ballot.

However, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will allow voters who have declined to state a party
affiliation to vote on their party ballots. Decline-to-state voters may also vote a purely nonpartisan ballot, which
includes only state and local measures and the contest for Judge of the Superior Court.

Decline-to-state voters who are also permanent vote-by-mail voters have been mailed a postcard that they can use
to request a Democratic or Republican Party ballot. Decline-to-state voters who vote at polling places on Election
Day must tell the poll worker if they want either of these party ballots. If no request is made, the voter will receive
a nonpartisan ballot.

Please read page 6 of this pamphlet for more information about party-affiliated and decline-to-state voters. The last
day for people to register to vote in this election or to change their party affiliation is May 19.

YOUR BALLOT
The ballot will have partisan candidate contests (if any), the contest for the Judge of the Superior Court, and state
and local measures on the same side. Any candidate contests will appear on the left side of the ballot and the mea-
sures will appear in the middle of the ballot. Also, most ballots have contests on the back of the cards, so remember
to look on both sides of each ballot card before mailing your ballot to the Department of Elections or voting at the
polling place.

VOTING IN CITY HALL

29 days before every election, outside our City Hall office, the Department opens a polling place that is available
for all voters regardless of where they live in the City. Before the May 19 deadline to register to vote, people can
change their registration information such as their party affiliation and then vote the same day. The City Hall poll-
ing place is open during the week from 8 a.m. until5 p.m. and during the two weekends prior to Election Day- May
24 and 25; May 31 and June 1 - from 10 a.m. until4 p.m.

TO CONTACT US
If you have questions or need more information on any issue related to the election, please contact the Department
at 554-4375, 554-4367 (Chinese), or 554-4366 (Spanish). Also, our Web site - www.sfgov.org/elections - is an
excellent source of information and provides materials in English, Chinese, and Spanish.

Respectfully,
John Arntz, Director

Voice (415) 5544375 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 48 Vote-by-Mail Fax (415) 554-4372
Fax (415) 554-7344 San Francisco CA 94102-4634 11lY(415)554-4386

Exhibit Page No.: 0979 of CES Response

IIIIIIIIUIIRIIIIIIIIIIDeclaration
llllllmiiUIIUIIIIII
2 38-CP2-EN-J08
 Purpose of the Voter Information Pamphlet
The purpose of this pamphlet is to provide voters with information about candidates and ballot measures before
each election. In addition to the sample ballot, this pamphlet contains: information about voting in a primary
election; an impartial summary of each local ballot measure prepared by the City's Ballot Simplification
Committee; a financial analysis of each local ballot measure prepared by the City's Controller; an explanation
of how each local ballot measure qualified for the ballot; arguments supporting and opposing local ballot mea-
sures; and the legal text of each local ballot measure.

You may bring this pamphlet with you to your polling place. In addition, every precinct is supplied with a copy
of the Voter Information Pamphlet. Please ask a pollworker if you would like to see it.

The Department of Elections delivers the Voter Information Pamphlets to the Post Office for delivery to indi-
vidual voters. If you do not receive your pamphlet by May 19, 2008, please contact your local Post Office and
the Department of Elections.

This pamphlet is also available in Chinese and Spanish.

m*=-OO~.PxM& , ~~~~Ir2~:stlt& ~Jt~t : (415) 554-4367 o

Este folleto tambien esta disponible en espanol. Para solicitar una copia, por favor llame al 415-554-4366.

The Ballot Simplification Committee

The Ballot Simplification Committee prepares an impartial summary of each local ballot measure. In addition,
the Committee writes or reviews other information in this pamphlet, including the glossary of "Words You Need
to Know" and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The Committee members have backgrounds in
journalism, education and written communication, and they volunteer their time to prepare these informational
materials for voters. The Committee members are:

Betty Packard, Chair

Nominated by the Northern California Broadcasters Association

Suzanne Stassevitch
Nominated by the League of Women Voters

Dana Chisnell
Nominated by the Northern California Media Workers Guild

June Fraps
Nominated by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences

Ann Jorgensen
Nominated by the San Francisco Unified School District

Ann O'Leary, ex officio

Deputy City Attorney

3
Exhibit Page No.: 0980 of CES
38-CP3-EN-J08
UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIII~Declaration
1111111111111Response
 Accessible Voting and Services for Voters With Disabilities
Vote-by-Mail before Election Day - Vote-by-mail voters are mailed an official ballot prior to the
upcoming election, which allows them to vote privately and at their own leisure. Any registered
voter may request to vote by mail in any election. A Vote-by-Mail Application can be found on
the back cover of this pamphlet. For more information, see page 7.

Early Voting in City Hall - During the 29 days prior to an election a voter may come to the De-
partment of Elections on the ground floor of City Hall and vote. City Hall is fully accessible from
any of its four entrances. The polling station at City Hall is equipped with all of the assistance tools
provided at all polling places on Election Day. For more information, see page 7.

Access to the Voter Information Pamphlet - The San Francisco Public Library for the Blind and
Print Disabled, at 100 Larkin Street, distributes recorded copies of the Voter Information Pamphlet
on cassette. To request a copy call Martin Magid at 415-557-4253. These are also available
at the Department of Elections. In addition, you may access a PDF or text copy of the Voter
Information Pamphlet online on the Department of Elections Web site: www.sfgov.org/elections

Accessible Voting Machine -Voters with, but not limited to, sight and mobility impairments
have the option to use an accessible voting machine. This machine is designed to assist voters
with specific needs to vote independently and privately; it is available at every polling place on
Election Day. For instruction on its use, please see page 14.

Other Forms of Assistance at the Polling Place:

Personal Assistance - A voter may bring up to two persons, or pollworkers, into the voting
booth for assistance in marking his or her ballot.

Curbside Voting - If a voter is unable to enter a polling place, pollworkers can be asked to
bring the necessary voting materials to the voter outside the polling place.

Reading Tools - Every polling place is provided with large print instructions on how to mark a
ballot and special optical sheets to magnify the print on the ballot.

Seated Voting - Every polling place has at least one voting booth that allows voters to vote
while in a seated position.

Voting Tools - Every polling place has two easy-grip pens for signing the roster and marking
the ballot.

TTY (Teletypewriter Device) - The Department of Elections can also be reached via TTY by
calling 415-554-4386.

If your polling place is not functionally accessible, you may call 415-554-4551 prior to Elec-
tion Day to find out the location of the nearest accessible polling place within your district. For
accessible polling place information on Election Day, or further information on accessibility for
the upcoming election, please contact the Department of Elections at 415-554-4375.

Exhibit Page No.: 0981 of CES Response ~BIIIEII HI IllDeclaration

4 38-CP4-EN-J08
UIIIIIIIRIIIIIUIIIRIIII
 Primary Election Information for Party-Affiliated and
Decline-to-State (Nonpartisan) Voters
The Department of Elections has provided this sample ballot booklet for the June 3, 2008 Consolidated Statewide Direct
Primary Election for the following qualified parties:

American Independent Party

Democratic Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Peace and Freedom Party
Republican Party

To determine your party registration, look at the box containing your polling place address on the back cover of this booklet. The
party with which you are registered is identified by one of the codes listed below:

AI American Independent Party PF Peace and Freedom Party

DEM Democratic Party REP Republican PartY

--

'"' '
GRN Green Party NP Decline to state a party affiliation (DTS) I
Nonpartisan

LIB libertarian Party

The June 3, 2008 election is a modified closed primary. In this type of election, a voter who has registered with a particular
political party may vote only for candidates from that party. Voters who declined to state a party affiliation at the time of registration
(decline-to-state voters) may request a ballot from one of the parties that allow decline-to-state voters to vote their party ballot in
this election. All registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, may vote in nonpartisan contests and for or against ballot
measures.

In this election, decline-to-state voters may request a party ballot for the following political parties:

The Democratic Party, which allows decline-to-state voters to vote for candidates for all offices except County Central
Committee.
The Republican Party, which allows decline-to-state voters to vote for candidates for all offices except County Central
Committee.

Note: The American Independent Party also allows decline-to-state voters to vote its party ballot in this election. However, there
are no American Independent Party candidates for any partisan contest; instead, a nonpartisan ballot that includes candidates
for nonpartisan office and ballot measures is available.

Decline-to-state voters who wish to receive a ballot from one of the parties listed above must request that ballot from a poll-
worker when signing the roster on Election Day. Decline-to-state voters requesting a vote-by-mail ballot can indicate their choice
on the Vote-by-Mail Application located on the back cover of this Voter Information Pamphlet. Please note that under state law,
when a decline-to-state voter chooses a party ballot, this choice must be noted in the roster of voters and becomes part of the
public record.

Decline-to-state voters who do not request a specific party ballot will be given a nonpartisan ballot that includes only nonpartisan
contests and the measures to be voted on.

Sample ballots begin on page 21. To find the page number of your sample ballot, please refer to the Table of Contents or the front
cover of this pamphlet.

To change your party registration, you must complete and submit a new voter registration card by May 19, 2008. You can
request that a voter registration card be mailed to you on our Web site at sfgov.org/elections or by calling 415-554-4375, or fill
one out in person at the Department of Elections in City Hall.

6
Exhibit Page No.: 0982 of CES
38CP6EN-J08
Response Declaration
~IIIIIIIIIIIRIIIIIUBIIIEIIIIIII
 Multilingual Voter Services:
Voter Assistance in Chinese and Spanish
~~i! ~ ilitD&B:
mit 'o
.:P :Sl: imi~f 5.f :Sl: ~ mDJJ
Servicios Multilingues para los Electores:
a!
Asistencia para los Electores en Chino y Espaiiol
In compliance with federal law and local ordinance, the Department of Elections provides services to voters and
official election materials in Chinese and Spanish, in addition to English. Multilingual voter services include:
Translated election materials including: ballots, voter registration forms, voter notices, vote-by-mail ballot
applications and instructions, and Voter Information Pamphlets.
Telephone assistance in Chinese and Spanish, available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and from
7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day.
Telephone Assistance in Chinese: 415-554-4367
Telephone Assistance in Spanish: 415-554-4366
Instructional signs in English, Chinese and Spanish at all polling places on Election Day.
Chinese and Spanish bilingual pollworker assistance at designated polling places on Election Day.
Voter information in Chinese and Spanish on our Web site at www.sfgov.org/elections

Asistencia para los Electores en Espanol

Conforme a Ia ley federal y el reglamento municipal, el

ft<~~nr:tHffOtt!tn$11' ~~li!~f~~.Rif!JtijiH%fO'B Departamento de Elecciones proporciona materiales electo-
1J~$1H4 o lf!Jtij~~'elJE : rates y asistencia a los electores en espaiiol. Servicios para
los electores en espaiiol incluyen:
Elll~~l1~$~:4 =ttlf!~f2i : ~~ , ~.R~~c~ , Materiales electorates traducidos incluyendo: Ia boleta
~$Hi~, i)1~H~~$~~~fomi1t_x&~-R~*l' electoral, el formulario de inscripci6n para votar, avisos
fll}o a los electores, solicitudes e instrucciones para votar por
correo y el Folleto de lnformaci6n para los Electores.
11 WJ- ~~Jt'Ui.t !f s 1lif ~T !f 5 1lif Ed~~ BJ:.!f Asistencia telef6nica en espaiiol disponible de lunes a
7~~fi${!J:.s ~mf~~Jrf:lx7t~mWJ: 415-554-4367 viernes de 8 a.m. a 5 p.m. yen el Dia de las Elecciones
de 7 a.m. a 8 p.m. llamando al415-554-4366.
tB~~ BtJf!M~~Mm~rf:l)(IJ~BA~~ o
R6tulos con las instrucciones en espanol en los lugares
1B~$Btm~IJ~MMW~rf:lxmi&WJo de votaci6n el Dia de las Elecciones.

Trabajadores electorates bilingOes en los lugares de

tt~~~~M (www.sfgov.org/elections) Wf~$)(~~
votaci6n designados.
ii*4 lnformaci6n electoral en nuestro sitio Web en espaiiol:
www.sfgov.org/elections
!frJtJI&~)B&i:fll.~mt
El Folleto de Informacion para los Electores en espanol
~7~X~~.RW~~fffiz~~~~~m~lf!X~IJ~
Ademas del Folleto de lnformaci6n para los Electores en
.R~:4~fffi o tlD=*f1F~~~~~i)1~H~ft!\-*rf:!X~IJ~ ingles, el Departamento de Elecciones provee un Folleto de
.Ei:JU-l=fffi , m3&m: : 415-554-4367 lnformaci6n para los Electores en espaiiol a los electores
que lo soliciten. Si desea recibir un Folleto de Informacion
para los Electores en espariol, por favor llame al
415-554-4366.

Exhibit Page No.: 0983 of CES

~1111111111Response
111111111 ~ lnllllllllllllDeclaration
38-CP5-EN-J08 5
 CALENDAR Early Voting in Person or by Mail
(Absentee Voting)
Any voter may request a vote-by-mail ballot (absentee ballot). You can request that a ballot be mailed to you, or
you can come to the Department of Elections and vote in person starting on May 5, 2008.

VOTING IN PERSON
You can vote on or before Election Day at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 48.
Office hours for early voting are as follows:
8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, beginning May 5, 2008;
10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, May 24-25 and May 31-June 1;
7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

VOTING BY MAIL FOR THIS ELECTION ONLY

To request a ballot by mail, complete the application on the back cover of this pamphlet, and mail it to the Department of
Elections. You may also request a ballot by sending a written request or postcard to the Department of Elections. Remember to
include your home address, the address to which you want the ballot mailed, your birthdate, name and signature.
Your signature must be included! Mail your request to the address on the front cover of this pamphlet, or fax it to 415-554-4372.
Your request must be received by the Department of Elections before 5 p.m. on May 27, 2008. (By law, the Department of Elections
cannot accept requests for mailed ballots received after 5 p.m. on May 27, 2008, regardless of when these requests were post-
marked!) Once we process your request, a ballot will be sent to you.

When you receive your ballot, please read the instructions carefully. You can mark your ballot using a #2 pencil (recommended) or a
black pen. If you use another type of marking device, the vote-counting machines may not record your votes properly. (Do not use a
felt-tip pen because these can bleed through to the reverse side of the ballot card.) You can mail your ballot back to the Department
of Elections-free-of-charge-by inserting your ballot into the envelope provided, signing and sealing the envelope, and dropping it in
any mailbox-no stamp is required. You can also drop off your voted ballot at any San Francisco polling place on Election Day,
Tuesday, June 3, 2008. The Department of Elections MUST receive your ballot by 8 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

If your ballot is damaged or you make a mistake, check the "Spoiled Ballot" box on the back of the return envelope and return it to the
Department of Elections, no later than 5 p.m. on May 27, 2008, to be mailed a new one. You may also surrender the spoiled ballot at
your polling place or at the Department of Elections in City Hall, Room 48, to obtain a new ballot.

VOTING BY MAIL FOR ALL ELECTIONS

Any voter may request to be a permanent vote-by-mail voter {permanent absentee voter).
Once you are on our permanent vote-by-mail voter mailing list, we will mail you a ballot automatically for every election until you move,
re-register, or do not vote in two consecutive statewide general elections.

If you do not vote in two consecutive statewide general elections, you will no longer be a permanent vote-by-mail voter. However, you
will remain on the voter roll unless the Department of Elections has been informed that you no longer live at the address at which you
are registered. To regain your permanent vote-by-mail status, you will need to re-apply as described below.

To become a permanent vote-by-mail voter, complete the Vote-by-Mail Application on the back cover and return it to the Department of
Elections, or call for an application at 415-554-4375. Be sure to check the box that says, "Permanent Vote-by-Mail Voter'' and sign
your name where indicated.

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PERMANENT VOTE-BY-MAIL VOTERS

If you have already registered as a permanent vote-by-mail voter, your ballot will be mailed on or about May 5.
To find out if you are registered as a permanent vote-by-mail voter, please call the Department of Elections at
415-554-4411. If you have not received your ballot by May 19, please call 415-554-4375.

Track and Confirm Receipt of Your Vote-by-Mail Ballot

Vote-by-mail voters can track and confirm when their voted ballot was received by the Department of Elections. To determine the
receipt status of your ballot, visit our Web site at www.sfgov.org/elections or call the Department of Elections at 415-554-4411.

Exhibit Page No.: 0984 of CES Response URM 1111111111111Declaration

38-CP7-EN-JOB 7
II IIIIIIIRIIIBIIIIIIII
 How to Locate Your Polling Place
Note: Your Polling Place May Have Changed!
Check the back cover of this pamphlet (upper left-hand side):

Back cover

NOTE:
Your polling place address is located on
the upper left-hand side of the back cover
of this pamphlet. Please make a note of it. Check here for whether
Even if you request a vote-by-mail ballot, your polling place is
you may still wish to turn in your ballot at accessible for people
your polling place on Election Day. with disabilities.

Place Address Is: al Access:

Are the entryway and the voting area accessible?
Eureka Valley Playground
100 Collingwood Street YES
Between Stevens and Broadway
PRECINCT 3623 5.1% Slope

Your precinct number A physical description of your polling place

entryway, such as slope, ramped access or
.............. clearance.

Your polling place address is also available at the Department of Elections Web site:
www.sfgov.org/elections

If your polling place is not functionally accessible, you may call 415-554-4551 prior to
Election Day to find the nearest accessible polling place within your district. For
accessible polling place information on Election Day, call 415-554-4375.

Exhibit Page No.: 0985 of CES Response Declaration

~IIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIRIIIIIIIII
8 38CP8ENJ08
Polling Places Change Every Election
Each election an average of 13% of San Francisco's polling places
change due to cancellations. To confirm the location of your polling
place, always check the back cover of your Voter Information
Pamphlet. There you will find the accessibility status and location of
your polling place, including cross-streets.

Check the back cover of your Voter Information Pamphlet before each election.

Change of Polling Place Card

If a polling place becomes unavailable after the Voter Information Pamphlet has
been mailed, the Department of Elections sends change notification postcards to
all registered voters within the precinct to inform them of the new location.

VOTE HERE!
Change of Polling Place Signs
For those voters who are unaware that their polling place has changed, the
Department of Elections posts "Change of Polling Place" signs at the
address of the old location on Election Day. Voters can tear off a sheet of
paper with the location name, address and cross-streets of their new polling
place from a pad attached to the "Change of Polling Place" sign.

Some Voters Must Vote by Mail

Voting precincts with fewer than 250 registered voters
may be designated "Mail Ballot Precincts". An official
ballot and postage-paid return envelope will be mailed
automatically to all voters in those precincts approxi-
mately four weeks before every election.

For those voters who would prefer to drop off their

official mail ballot at a polling place, the location
names and addresses of the two polling places
nearest their precinct are provided with the ballot.

9
Exhibit Page No.: 0986 of CES Response 111111111111Declaration
38CP9-EN-J08
mIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIIUDIU
 Visit our Web site
www.sfgov.org/elections for information on:
(VOTING

Voting by mail
Voting at the polls on Election Day
"""'--.[':ll<dloo"
~1J.Ut--Ohtt,lNObktiDrt.
Tilt-)" J\IAI~l:Oft Polling place and sample ballot look-up

--_
,..~~, ....... ,.iM,.....
Access for voters with disabilities
U..OI"t16f"'ll!!lllt.\69-Mt; tJ 1101
lt!ltin!-,lflr~.a....,.._.....,..,
1Mj'J1, .....
....,_.,~ .......,...,,- Election Results
.... ( MULTILINGUAL VOTER SERVICES

WhafJON.W
-- List of services available in English, Chinese
and Spanish
Contact numbers for Chinese and Spanish
telephone assistance
......__
VoterS.Nte.ea
~Wdl"~~

.........
~-.tiP

Gellnvotvtd
--
--
,...-~

-----~~---
Bilingual voter registration forms and
vote-by-mail ballot applications
Voter Information Pamphlets in Chinese and
Spanish

( UPCOMING ELECTIONS

Election calendar
Official list of local ballot measures
Qualified candidates list
Voter Information Pamphlet

Mulillln~ttal \'lJlrr ~nJt:n:

91-t~..nWotw.-----~-UotfllliPI!'IWI;tet~~~t:l
'Aliltl'tii'04~~~ .... ~tfl~'lklill~
-
'f't.Oill
( HOW TO GET INVOLVED

Become a pollworker on Election Day

~',(,WII,..'Ictt~ ttllr~n High school student pollworker program
Tr~\N--IJgn"'-'W.,....~I!Oif~~~~ ~~
-~CI;IIJIIJI'~-.l~_fi"'II~
'1~~1i"(IWI!tIP1I&~~HWQ!ltftdAr -tt.OV~t'l~"'
~JI!)fo'II!JQli"'I)I'OOtll'lt OADfdtlft-{b~
.. r,..._.~c..tw
.. r~~""~t.. ~!.~
............. P~(;Nf

f41!1]iC.4Jt1

1'!!l'.................. ~at-OO!fir!o~IJi'I~Ol\
--
-..-
Provide your property as a polling place
Voter education programs

--
~lflo1~~~~~~..,...~1fl0,~
l~Oa,-
. ~~"'V ......."ll!o..-~Coll..,.,~-~
.,...fl ( ANNOUNCEMENTS

-
~~~-QIIlne ..
~~lnlH~~\Wf~~~..., ... ~ ..l"t~
~t:ll~~\,.... ~~w.t-.... ......,_.~ICii!IIP'S ~tilllltl
jl)::.WUJiJld~.IVotit~P~~~ . . . . . Qof1'll)t
~!;.4..it-M;J~~tlr~I~I~J~l Press releases and memoranda
Employment opportunities
Local election results

~--)
( ELECTIONS ARCHIVE

Historical Voter Information Pamphlets going

back to 1907!
Election results dating back to 1995
Historical voter turnout records

Your first source for election information is www.sfgov.org/elections

Exhibit Page No.: 0987 of CES Response Declaration

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRIHIIIIIIIII~IIUmllllllll
10 38-CP1 0-EN-JOS
 Contacting the Department of Elections

The Department of Elections has telephone lines for specific purposes:

For general information, call 415-554-4375;
To register to vote, call415-554-4375;
To request a Vote-by-Mail Application, call 415-554-4375;
For assistance in Chinese, call415-554-4367; lf:lxMI'IIb: 415-554-4367;
For assistance in Spanish, call 415-554-4366; Para recibir asistencia en espaftol, llame al 415-554-4366;
For TTY assistance, call415-554-4386;
For information about becoming a pollworker, call 415-554-4395;
For election results on Election Night, call415-554-4375;
To offer your facility as a polling place, call 415-554-4551 ;
To request a voter education presentation or voter education materials for distribution, call 415-554-4340.

Our office hours are Mondays through Fridays (except holidays) from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.

To Vote by Mail
1. Complete and detach the application on the back cover of this pamphlet.
2. Affix sufficient postage where indicated.
3. Drop your completed application into a mailbox.

Applications must be received by the Department of Elections no later than 5 p.m. on

Tuesday, May 27,2008.

Check "the upper left side of "the

back cover of "this vo"ter
pamphle't for "the loca"tion
of your polling place.

Your Polling Place May Have Changed

We urge you to double-check the location of your polling place
printed on the back cover of this pamphlet.

Exhibit Page No.: 0988 of CES Response Declaration

11
38-CP11-EN-J08
~IIIIEIIRIIIII~IIIII~ 1111111111111111~
Voting at Your Polling Place on Election Day
Approach the table where pollworkers are issuing ballots and state your name and address.
When one of the pollworkers finds your name in the roster of voters, the pollworker will
repeat your name and address. Sign your name on the signature line next to your name in
the roster of voters.

The pollworker will give you your ballot and your ballot's stub receipt in a blue secrecy
folder. Your ballot may consist of multiple cards. Take your ballot to one of the voting booths,
where you may mark your ballot in privacy. There will be a special ballot-marking pen in
each voting booth.

Marking the Ballot

You will vote a paper ballot that may be printed on both sides of
the page, unless you prefer to use an accessible touchscreen vot-
ing machine (see page 14). Using the ballot-marking pen provided
at your polling place, mark your ballot by connecting the head and
tail of the arrow pointing to your choice for each contest, as shown
--
---
--
in the picture. Be sure to review both sides of each ballot card!

Please note: the number of candidates you may select for each
contest or choice will be printed above the list of candidate names
for each contest. If you overvote by marking more than the allowed
number of candidates for any contest or choice, or by marking
both "YES" and "NO" in a measure contest, your votes for that
contest cannot be counted!

In addition to the candidates listed on the ballot, there may be other

people running as qualified write-in candidates. For a list of quali-
fied write-in candidates, please ask a pollworker. Voters with mailed
PRESIDENT
ballots may access the list of qualified write-in candidates by visit- Vote For One
ing our Web site at www.sfgov.org/elections or by calling the
Department of Elections at 415-554-4375.

To vote for a qualified write-in candidate, write the name of the

THOMAS A. EDISON
-----------------~
ALBERT EINSTEIN

,...
..
Ill

candidate in the space marked "Write-ln." You must connect the FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE .. ..
head and tail of the arrow pointing to the "Write-In" space for --------------------------
your write-in vote to be counted. Only write-in votes for qualified BOOKER T. WASHINGTON Ill
write-in candidates can be counted. Do not write in a vote for a --------------------------
candidate whose name is printed on the ballot.
WIte-ln~~~ ~
If you make a mistake while voting, ask a pollworker for another
ballot. Voters may request up to two replacement sets of ballots.

Once You Have Marked Your Ballot

I Make sure that your ballot stub receipt has been detached from each ballot card.
Insert your ballot, one card at a time, into the slot in the front of the voting machine.
The ballot can be inserted into the voting machine in any direction: upside down, right
side up, backwards or forwards. The voting machine counts the votes electronically
when the ballots are inserted by the voter. The ballots are stored in a locked compart-
ment inside the voting machine.

12 Exhibit Page No.: 0989 of CES Response Declaration

38-CP12-EN-J08
Guidelines for Provisional Voting
If you are a registered San Francisco voter, you have the right to cast a provisional ballot at your polling place if:

You were issued a vote-by-mail ballot that you are unable to surrender and you want to vote at the polls;
Your name does not appear in the roster of voters for the precinct;
You wish to vote a ballot from a party different from the one listed beside your name in the roster of voters;
You have moved within San Francisco but did not re-register to vote; or
You are a first-time voter listed in the pink Provisional Roster and were unable to provide a valid California driver's
license or state identification number or the last four digits of your Social Security number on your voter registration
form.

How to cast a provisional vote:

You will receive a ballot and the pink provisional ballot envelope from a pollworker. The pollworker will fill out the pollworker
section of the envelope. You must complete the voter's section of the provisional envelope, including providing your name,
date of birth, current address and previous address. You must also sign the declaration confirming that you are a resident of
San Francisco and are registered and eligible to vote in this election. It is very important that you sign your name at the
bottom of the envelope - without your signature your provisional ballot cannot be counted.

Once you have filled out the voter's section of the provisional envelope and marked your ballot, insert your ballot into the provi-
sional envelope, seal the envelope, and return it to a pollworker.

A double-sided receipt on the back of the provisional envelope includes a Web site and a toll-free number which you may use
to find out whether your provisional ballot was counted. To determine the status of your provisional ballot, call1-866-325-9163
or visit the Department of Elections Web site (www.sfelections.org/pv!) no sooner than July 14 and provide the number printed
on your provisional voter receipt.

Your Sample Ballot MEASURES SUIIIIITTEO TO lHE VOTERS

~
MEDIDAS PRESENTADAS A LOS ELECTORES

This pamphlet includes sample ballots for each qualified

political party and for decline-to-state (nonpartisan) vot-
ers. Your current party registration is printed on the back
87
cover of this pamphlet (for more information, see page
6). Please refer to the Table of Contents for the location
of your sample ballot. It is a reduction in size of the
Official Ballot you will use to cast your vote on Election EOOCAnoNf\INDINCI. AU.LPROPEMYPAACEL TAX. NnA"JM::COMITTT\IIlOtW.AENOIWfT NIDSTATVIL
:::::~~~~ .:===-==~~~= ~~;:...~=="
~...-l'/. ~10 :t''IOO ~ IOI'~ ..Ncdon~ ~
Day. Feel free to mark your sample ballot and bring it to tr<UI: t'P BJ~':'Tltflm lllS*ti:~"f!~ft.-~

the polling place to use as a guide on Election Day. {You ~==i:~~::~:::~~~.; m::~:::::~~~ ..
~g~=:: ~~ ll=f'-ltif.f__..t'7 ~,000 ~fr'H,Utl~a.A tltttl!HIIM*-~Ifl
YES/JtAt!sr
~bi.:tf ..
can also use the Ballot Worksheet, located on page 173 88
M"UUT''aoeRI!iPAI'tei:LASOI.~~ MI:UI.TlYAPAJUI._,_

of this pamphlet, for the same purpose.) ~:."'1:=::-::-

~-:::::'~=-~~~~
~ "-l:Rera del~ ...-ai.O.~ CW ~ ~ ~~.
!**,..,.,___....~

==-~~ PU8UCAIWtCitG.

==-=:=:.===z=-~~~=r-~ ~~-=
~TETAXIMCIUME.

.
CAAIPAtOHcotnNDUnONAND!XPl!NOITUAEI.JMITS..

90

SCHOOL PAOPOSITIONS / - / PROPOSICIOHES ESCOURES

Exhibit Page No.: 0990 of CES Response Declaration

13
38-CP13-EN-J08
IIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRMIIIIIII
Voting with the Accessible Touchscreen Voting Machine

For every election, each polling place will have

one accessible touchscreen voting machine
that assists voters with disabilities to vote
independently and privately. This accessi-
ble voting machine allows voters to make
ballot selections using a touchscreen and
review their selections on a paper record
before casting their vote.

Additionally, the touchscreen voting

machine provides an audio ballot
feature that allows voters to listen to
instructions and ballot selections while
voting. The touchscreen machine also
has an option for voters to use their own
personal assistive device such as a sip/puff
switch.

The accessible touchscreen voting machine

will be available for use at each of the City's
polling places and during Early Voting in City
Hall. If you would like to vote using the touch-
screen voting machine on Election Day,
please tell a pollworker.

Audio Ballot and Hand-held Keypad

For audio voting, the accessible voting machine is

equipped with headphones and a Braille embossed
hand-held keypad. When using the audio ballot fea-
ture, the voting machine will provide you with audio
instructions and guide you through the ballot. The
keypad is used to move through the ballot and make
selections. If you would like to use the audio ballot
feature, please tell a pollworker.

Exhibit Page No.: 0991 of CES Response Declaration

IIIIIIIIIRIIIIIIIIBDIIIIIRIIIRIIIIII
14 38-CP14-EN-J08
m
 Steps for Voting Using the Touchscreen
Step 1 : Insert Voter Card Step 2: Select Language
Select the language in which you
want to vote. Voters can chooseji\ English
English, Chinese or Spanish. 1. ~-~----. .
~
~;;-Esp.aftol- ..

Step 3: Select Candidates and Ballot Measure Choices

Make your selections by touch- ELEANOR ROOSEVELT After making your selection, touch the "Next" arrow button at
ing the candidate or choice for CESAR CHAVEZ the bottom of the screen to go to the next contest or mea-
which you intend to cast your sure. Touch the "Back" arrow button to return to the previous
WALTERLUM
vote. A green check mark will screen.

<$J $
appear in the circle indicating JOHN HANCOCK
your selection. MARTIN LUTHER Kl

To change your selection, Touch the "ABC" button to enlarge the text on the screen.
touch your selection again.
The check mark will disappear
and you can make a new ABC~ ABC
selection.

Step 4: Print and Review Selections

At the end of the ballot, a review screen is displayed Write-in Candidates
showing all your selections. Touch Here to Print To vote for a qualified write-in can-
and Review a Paper didate, touch ''Write-in" and a key-
To change a selection, touch the box of the contest or Record of Your Ballot. board will appear on screen. Type
measure and select a new candidate or choice. the name of the candidate and
press "OK."
After completing your ballot review on screen, print and
review a paper record of your ballot. A paper record of
your selections will appear in the window on the left side
of the screen.

Step 5: Cast Ballot or Make Changes

After verifying the paper record touch either "Cast

Ballot" or "Make Changes." Please review the paper
record of your ballot.
Touch "Cast Ballot" to finish voting. The printer will
You may now cast your Ballot Review
show "Accepted" on the paper record. The voter card
ballot or make changes. At any time you can review your
will eject for you to return to the pollworker.
ballot selections by touching
"Review." Jhe review screen will
IMPORTANT! - You cannot change your vote after
"Cast Ballot" is pressed.
I
Make Changes II Cast Ballot show you a summary of your
selections. To change a selection,
touch the box of the contest or
Touch "Make Changes" to change a selection. After measure and select a new candi-
you make a change you can review a new paper date or choice.
record of your ballot.

IMPORTANT! - You can print only two paper records

of your ballot for review. After this you will need to cast
your ballot.

Exhibit Page No.: 0992 of CES

IIIIIIIIIUIIResponse
UIIIIIDIIII Dm111111111~Declaration
38-CP15-EN-J08 15
I Ia
 Eligibility, Registration and
Voting Information
Registration Forms
For this election, the registration deadline is May 19.
To obtain a voter registration form:
Visit www.sfgov.org/elections to fill out or download a form;
Call the Department of Elections at 415-554-4375 and
request that one be mailed to you; or
Pick one up at the Department of Elections in City Hall, the
County Clerk's office, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or
at public libraries and post offices throughout San
Francisco.
Effective January 1, 2006 each registrant must provide a cur-
rent and valid California driver's license or California identifi-
cation number on his or her voter registration form. Registrants
who do not have either must provide the last four digits of
their Social Security number to meet the identification
requirements. If a voter does not have any of these three
forms of identification, a unique identifying number will be
assigned for voter registration purposes only. Any registrant
who does not provide this information prior to Election Day,
June 3, may have to vote a provisional ballot; if the identifica-
tion cannot be confirmed, the provisional ballot cannot be
counted.
Once the Department of Elections receives a completed voter
registration form, the new voter will receive a card in the mail
as proof of his or her right to vote.
New Citizen Registration and Voting
California election law extends the registration and voting
deadline to the rh day before the election tor those who
become new citizens after the close of registration on
May 19. Anyone who becomes a new citizen between May 20
and May 27 must, no later than May 27:
Present your Certificate of U.S. Naturalization to the
Department of Elections;
Complete a voter registration form; and
Vote at the Department of Elections after registering.
Have You Moved?
When voters move, they must inform the Department of
Elections of the address change to update their voter regis-
tration records. Voters must inform the Department of
address changes at least 15 days before an election to vote
in that election. Voters may change their address by:
Completing and submitting a voter registration form; or
Submitting a written notice of their change of address
along with their signature, printed name, date of birth, and
previous and new addresses.
NOTE: Voters who moved within the county and were unable
to change their address prior to the deadline 15 days before
the election are encouraged to:
Exhibit Page No.: 0993 of CES Response Declaration
IIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUUIIIIIIIIIIIII
16 38-CP16-ENJ08-X
Go to their new polling place on Election Day, complete a
new voter registration form to update their registration
information, and cast a provisional ballot; or
Come to City Hall, Room 48, on or before Election Day,
complete a new voter registration form to update their
registration information, and vote at the Department of
Elections.
Not Yet 18?
Any person who will turn 18 years of age on or before the
next election is eligible to register and vote in that election.
To register:
Complete a voter registration form; and
Submit the registration form either in person or by mail no
later than 15 days before that election.
Overseas and Military Voters
Special Overseas and Military Voters are:
Members of the armed forces;
Spouses or dependents of members of the armed forces;
United States citizens temporarily living outside of the
country; or
U.S. citizens serving on a merchant vessel documented
under the laws of the United States.
Special Overseas and Military Voters can register to vote and
receive a vote-by-mail (absentee) ballot by completing the
Federal Post Card Application (FPCA). The application can
be downloaded from http://www.fvap.govlpubslonlinefpca.pdf
or obtained from embassies, consulates, or from military vot-
ing assistance officers.
Ex-Offenders' Right to Vote
In addition to standard voting age and residency require-
ments, California law allows a person who has been con-
victed of a felony to register and vote it he or she:
Has completed his or her prison term for a felony,
including any period of parole or supervised release.
Is on federal or state probation.
Is incarcerated in county jail as a condition of felony
probation or as a result of a misdemeanor sentence.
Additionally, people who have been convicted of a misde-
meanor can register and vote even while on probation, super-
vised release, or incarcerated in county jail.
In order to restore the right to vote, a person only needs to
complete and return a voter registration form. No other docu-
mentation is required.
 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
by the Ballot Simplification Committee

Q- Who can vote?
A- U.S. citizens, 18 years or older, who are registered to
vote in San Francisco on or before May 19, 2008.
Q - When do I vote?
A - Election Day is Tuesday, June 3, 2008. Your polling
place will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Q - Where do I go to vote?
A - Go to your polling place. The address is on the back
cover of this book.
Q - My 18th birthday is after May 19, 2008 but on or
before June 3. May I vote in the June 3 election?
A- Yes, if your 18th birthday is on or before June 3, but after
May 19, you can register to vote on or before May 19 and vote
June 3 - even though you were not 18 at the time you regis-
tered to vote.
Q - If I was arrested or convicted of
a crime, can I still vote?
A- You can register and vote as long
as you are not in prison or on parole
for a felony conviction. You must com-
plete a new registration form on or Q - Who can vote?
before May 19 to vote.
A- U.S. citizens,
Q - I have just become a U.S.
citizen. Can I vote in the June 3 elec- 18 years or older, who
tion?
A - If you became a U.S. citizen on are registered to vote
or before May 19, you may vote in the
election, but you must register to vote in San Francisco on or
by May 19;
before May
OR
If you became a U.S. citizen
after May 19, but on or before May 27,
you may register .and vote at the
Department of Elections office by May
27 with proof of citizenship.
you are at the right place, call the Department of Elections
immediately at 415-554-4375.
Q - If 1 don't know what to do when I get to my polling
place, is there someone there to help me?
A - Yes, the pollworkers at the polling place will help you.
Q - can I take my sample ballot or my own written list
into the voting booth?
A- Yes. Deciding your votes before you get to the polls is
helpful. Your sample ballot is located inside this voter pam-
phlet, or you may use the Ballot Worksheet included in this
pamphlet for this purpose.
Q- Do I have to vote on every item on the ballot?
A - No, you do not. The votes you cast will be counted
whether you have voted on every item or not.
Q - Is there any way to vote instead
of going to the polling place on
Election Day?
A- Yes, you can vote before June 3 if
you:
Fill out and mail the Vote-by-Mail
Application printed on the back cover
of this book. Once we process your
request, a vote-by-mail ballot will be
sent to you. Your request must be
received by the Department of
Elections no later than 5 p.m. on May
27, 2008;
OR
Go to the Department of Elections at
19, 2008. City Hall, 1 Dr. carlton B. Goodlett
Place, Room 48, from May 5 to June 3.
The office hours are: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. Saturday and Sunday on May
24-25 and May 31-June 1; and
7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day, June 3.

Q - I have moved within the county but have not re-
registered. Can I vote in this election?
A- Yes, but you must go to your new polling place or City
Hall, Room 48, and complete a voter registration form to
update your registration information. You can look up the
address of your new polling place by entering your new
home address on the Department of Elections Web site
(www.sfgov.org/elections). You may be asked to vote a pro-
visional ballot at your new polling place.
Q - What do I do if my polling place is not open?
A- Check the back cover of this book to make sure you
have gone to the right place. Polling places often change. If
Q - If I don't use an application, can I get a Vote-by-
Mail Ballot some other way?
A- You can send a note, preferably on a postcard, to the
Department of Elections asking for a ballot. This note must
include: your printed home address, the address where you
want the ballot mailed, your birthdate, your printed name and
your signature. Mail your request to the address on the front
cover of this pamphlet, or fax it to 415-554-4372. Your
request must be received by the Department of Elections no
later than 5 p.m. on May 27, 2008.

20
Exhibit Page No.: 0994 of CES
38-CP20-EN-J08
Response Declaration
~llllmiiDIIIIIIIRIHIIIIIUIIIIRIIIIIR Ill
 Before Casting a Write-In Vote, Read This:
Every write-in vote must be manually reviewed by the
Department of Elections.

Unfortunately, a great majority of write-in votes cast

each election cannot be counted.

Here's why:
The write-in vote was not for a qualified write-in candidate. Only
votes for qualified write-in candidates can be counted. Write-in votes
for anyone else CANNOT be counted. Qualified write-in candidates
can be found on the Certified Write-In List, available at your polling
place, on the Department of Elections Web site (www.sfgov.org/elections)
or by calling the Department of Elections.

The write-in candidate was qualified for a different party's ballot.

In a primary election, any qualified write-in candidates can only be voted
for on the appropriate party ballot. To see the party affiliation of a write-
in candidate, check the Certified Write-in List.

The write-in vote was not correctly marked. Write-in votes must be
indicated by both completing the arrow next to the "Write-In" space and
writing the candidate's name in the space provided.

Overvoting by selecting a candidate listed on the ballot and also

marking a write-in vote for the same candidate will invalidate your
vote for that contest.

Make sure your write-in vote counts!

Exhibit Page No.: 0995 of CES

~ 111111111111Response Declaration
50 38-CP50-EN-J08
UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRIIIIUIIIIIU Ill
 Absentee voting has a new name:

Voting by Mail!
Starting January 1, 2008, "absentee voting" is now referred to as "voting by
mail" in all of the Department of Elections' literature. A new state law mandates
this change, but all the benefits and requirements remain the same!

To receive your ballot in the mail, send in the application on the back cover of
this pamphlet. The Department of Elections must receive your application by
5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 2008.

For more information about voting by mail, see page 7.

76 Exhibit Page No.: 0996 of CES

38-CP76-EN-J08
~IIIIEIIDIIResponse Declaration
HIUIIIUI ~ IIID~IIIIIIIIIII
 Voter Bill of Rights
1. You have the right to cast a ballot if you are a valid registered voter.
A valid registered voter means a United States citizen who is a resident in this state, who is at least
18 years of age and not in prison or on parole for conviction of a felony, and who is registered to
vote at his or her current residence address.

2. You have the right to cast a provisional ballot if your name is not listed on the voting rolls.

3. You have the right to cast a ballot if you are present and in line at the polling place prior to
the close of the polls.

4. You have the right to cast a secret ballot free from intimidation.

5. You have the right to receive a new ballot if, prior to casting your ballot, you believe you
made a mistake.
If, at any time before you finally cast your ballot, you feel you have made a mistake, you have the
right to exchange the spoiled ballot for a new ballot. Vote-by-mail voters may also request and
receive a new ballot if they return their spoiled ballot to an elections official prior to the closing of
the polls on Election Day.

6. You have the right to receive assistance in casting your ballot, if you are unable to vote
without assistance.

7. You have the right to return a completed vote-by-mail ballot to any precinct in the county.

8. You have the right to election materials in another language, if there are sufficient residents
in your precinct to warrant production.

9. You have the right to ask questions about election procedures and observe the elections
process.
You have the right to ask questions of the precinct board and election officials regarding election
procedures and to receive an answer or be directed to the appropriate official for an answer.
However, if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of their duties, the board or election offi-
cials may discontinue responding to questions.

10. You have the right to report any illegal or fraudulent activity to a local elections official or
to the Secretary of State's Office.

If you believe you have been denied any of these rights, or you are aware of any election fraud or
misconduct, please call the Secretary of State's confidential toll-free Voter Protection Hotline at
1-800-345-VOTE (8683).

CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN

Any voter has the right under California Elections Code Sections 9295 and 13314 to seek a writ of
mandate or an injunction, prior to the publication of the Voter Information Pamphlet, requiring any or all
of the materials submitted for publication in the Pamphlet to be amended or deleted.

BB Exhibit Page No.: 0997 of CES

38CP88EN-J08
IIIIIIIIIIRIIResponse Declaration
UIIIIIIRIIIIIIU~IIIIIIIlll~
 Information on Local Ballot Measures
DIGEST AND ARGUMENT PAGES
On the following pages, you will find information about local ballot measures. For each measure, a digest has been
prepared by the Ballot Simplification Committee. This digest includes a brief explanation of "The Way it is Now," what each
proposal would do, what a "Yes" vote means, and what a "No" vote means. Also included is a statement by the City
Controller about the fiscal impact or cost of each measure. There is also a statement of how the measure qualified to be
on the ballot. Following the ballot digest page, you will find arguments for and against each measure.

NOTE: All arguments are strictly the opinions of their authors. They have not been checked for accuracy
by the Department of Elections or any other City official or agency. Arguments and rebuttals are
reproduced as they are submitted, Including any typographical, spelling or grammatical errors.

PROPONENT'S AND OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS

For each measure, one argument in favor of the measure ("Proponent's Argument") and one argument against the
measure ("Opponent's Argument") is printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet free of charge.
The designations "Proponent's Argument" and "Opponent's Argumenf' indicate only that the arguments were selected in
accordance with criteria in Section 540 of the San Francisco Municipal Elections Code and were printed free of charge. The
Director of Elections does not edit the arguments and makes no claims as to the accuracy of statements in the arguments.

SELECTION OF PROPONENT'S AND OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS

The Proponent's Argument and the Opponent's Argument are selected according to the following priorities:

( PROPONENT'S ARGUMENT ~. "-' . OPPONENT ' S ARGUMENT -~,

1. The official proponent of an initiative petition; or the Mayor, 1. For a referendum, the person who files the referendum
the Board of Supervisors, or four or more members petition with the Board of Supervisors.
of the Board, if the measure was submitted

~m\ ....._.../
by same.

2. The Board of Supervisors, or any member or

members designated by the Board. .......
I , . 2. The Board of Supervisors, or any member
or members designated by the Board.

3. The Mayor. 3. The Mayor.

4. Any bona fide association of citizens, or combination of 4. Any bona fide association of citizens, or combination of
voters and association of citizens, any individual voter. voters and association of citizens, any individual voter.

REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS
The author of a Proponent's Argument or an Opponent's Argument may also prepare and submit a rebuttal
argument. Rebuttals are also the opinions of the author and are not checked for accuracy by the Director of Elections or
any other City official or agency. Rebuttal arguments are printed below the corresponding Proponent's Argument and
Opponent's Argument.

PAID ARGUMENTS
In addition to the Proponents' Arguments, Opponents' Arguments, and rebuttals, which are printed without charge, any
eligible voter, group of voters, or association may submit paid arguments.
Paid arguments are printed in the pages following the Proponents' and Opponents' Arguments and rebuttals. All of the
paid arguments in favor of a measure are printed together, followed by the paid arguments opposed to that measure. Paid
arguments for each measure are printed in order of submission.

Arguments and rebuttals are solely the opinions of their authors. Arguments and rebuttals are not checked for accuracy
by the Director of Elections, or by any other City official or agency. Information about those submitting arguments is
available from the Department of Elections.

Exhibit Page No.: 0998 of CES Response Declaration

38CP89EN-J08 89
IIIIIIIIIUII811RIBI U1111111111111111
 Words You Need to Know
by the Ballot Simplification Committee
USTED BELOW ARE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS:
ABSENTEE (VOTE-BY-MAIL) BALLOTS (FREQUENTLY ASKED
QuESTIONS) - Ballots mailed to voters or given to voters in
person at the Department of Elections. Absentee ballots can be
mailed back to the Department of Elections, turned in at the
Department of Elections office in City Hall, or turned in at any
San Francisco polling place on election day. Also known as
vote-by-mail ballots. See page 7 for more information.
ALICE GRIFFITH HousiNG DEVELOPMENT (PROPOSITIONS F AND
G)- The public housing, also known as Double Rock, which
the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco
owns and operates on Candlestick Point for very low income
families.
AMEND (PROPOSITIONS A, B, C, D AND E) - To change.
BAYVIEW (PROPOSITIONS F AND G) - The Bayview Hunters
Point neighborhood of San Francisco.
CANDLESTICK PoiNT (PROPOSITIONS F AND G) - Area in the
Bayview (see Exhibit A, pages 161 and 166).
CHARTER AMENDMENT (PROPOSITIONS 8, C, D AND E) - A
change to the City's Charter. The Charter is the City's
Constitution. The Charter can only be changed by a majority of
the votes cast.
COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN (PROPOSITION D) - A
Charter-created City commission charged with developing and
recommending policies and practices for the City and County
to reduce the particular impacts on women and girls of prob-
lems such as domestic violence, sexual harassment, employ-
ment and health care inequity, and homelessness. The
Commission also advocates on behalf of women and girls in
such areas.
CoMPOUND (PROPOSITION B) -To compute interest on the
sum of the principal and any previously computed interest that
has been added at regular intervals.
CoNCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (PROPOSITIONS F AND G) -A pre-
liminary outline for a proposed real estate development project,
including: a description of the objectives that the project is
intended to achieve, the general location and type of land uses
that would be developed, and the infrastructure that would
serve those uses, such as street layout, transportation and
open space improvements.
Exhibit Page No.: 0999 of CES Response
~IIIIIIIRIIUIDIIIIIUI
~I ~UIIIIIlllllll
90 38-CP90-EN-J08
EARLY VOTING - Voting in person at City Hall before election
day or mailing a vote-by-mail ballot before election day. See
page 7 for more information.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS (PROPOSITION G) - A public
informational process required under the California
Environmental Quality Act for a government agency to con-
sider the physical changes to the environment that a proposed
project may cause before it is approved.
GENERAL, OBLIGATION BoND (PROPOSITION A) - A promise
issued by the City to pay back money borrowed, plus interest,
by a certain date. When the City wants to raise money to pay
for a large public project, it can borrow money by issuing
General Obligation Bonds. The City then repays the money
plus interest over a period of years with property taxes. General
obligation bonds must be approved by the voters.
GREEN OFFICE (PROPOSITION G) - An environmentally sus-
tainable office development that includes buildings designed
and built for energy efficiency and that incorporates non-pollut-
ing building materials; or an office housing an organization that
promotes energy efficiency or conservation.
HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD (PROPOSITIONS F AND G) - Former
federal naval base in the Bayview (see Exhibit A, pages 161
and 166).
INFRASTRUCTURE (PROPOSITION G) -The basiC facilities and
services needed for the functioning of a community, such as
transportation and communications systems, and water and
power lines.
INITIATIVE (PROPOSITIONS F AND G)- A proposition placed on
the ballot by voters. Any voter may place an initiative on the
ballot by gathering the required number of signatures on a peti-
tion.
MASTER TEACHERS (PROPOSITION A) - Experienced teachers
with proven success at increasing student achievement who
act as models and mentors for other teachers. These teachers
are assigned to high need schools where they work directly
with students as classroom teachers and spend at least 20%
of their time directly supporting other teachers.
(continued on the next page)
Declaration
 WORDS YOU NEED TO KNOW (continued)

MIXED-USE PROJECT (PROPOSITIONS F AND G) -A real estate SAN FRANCISCO MEDIAN INCOME (PROPOSITION F) - A level of
development that has multiple significant uses in the project income based on all incomes earned within San Francisco.
site, such as housing, office buildings, research and develop- Half of all San Francisco households have incomes above this
ment facilities, retail spaces and parks. level and half have incomes below this level.

MORAL TURPITUDE (PROPOSITION C) - There is no precise Souc1T (PROPOSITION H) - To try to get something by ask-
definition. Generally, a crime involving moral turpitude is one ing.
that reveals a person's dishonesty, readiness to do evil, bad
character, or moral depravity. The courts decide this on a case- TANGIBLE (PROPOSITION G)- Something recognizable, real or
by-case basis. Examples would include crimes (misdemeanor concrete.
or felony) involving theft, fraud, or breach of public trust.
VESTING ALLOWANCE (PROPOSITION C) - A benefit option avail-
OPEN SPACE (PROPOSITION G) - Land that is not developed able to a worker who terminates employment before retirement,
for private uses, including land in a natural state that is dedi- has 5 or more years of service, and elects to leave all contribu-
cated to the public. tions with the Retirement System rather than have them
refunded.
OPTIONAL ExEMPTION (PROPOSITION A) - To choose to with-
draw from an obligation, duty, or liability to which others are VoLUNTARY DISCLOSURES (PROPOSITION D) - Freely revealed
subject. or uncovered.

ORDINANCE (PROPOSITIONS F, G AND H) - A local law passed VOTING BY MAIL (FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS) - Also
by the Board of Supervisors or by the voters. known as absentee voting. See page 7 for more information.

OVERSIGHT (PROPOSITION A) - Watchful care or management;

supervision.

PARCEL TAX (PROPOSITION A) - A tax that is based on a flat

fee for each unit of real property that receives a separate tax
bill.

PEER ASSISTANCE AND REVIEW PROGRAM (PROPOSITION A) -

Teacher coaches provide peer support for new teachers as well
as veteran teachers whose evaluations reflect less than satis-
factory performance. Teachers are required to meet certain
standards in order to exit the program and continue in the
classroom. This program is a collaborative effort of the School
District and its teacher and administrative unions to support
and renew quality teaching in every classroom.

PROPOSITION (PROPOSITIONS A THROUGH H) - Any measure

that is submitted to the voters for approval or disapproval.

QuALIFIED WRITE-IN CANDIDATE - A person who has com-

pleted the required paperwork and signatures for inclusion as a
write-in candidate. Although the name of this person will not
appear on the ballot, voters can vote for this person by writing
the name of the person in the space on the ballot provided for
write-in votes. The Department of Elections counts write-in
votes only for qualified write-in candidates.
91
Exhibit Page No.: 1000 of CES Response
llllllmiiiiiiiiiiiUII Declaration
UIIIDBIIBIUIIIR
38-CP91-EN-J08
 Changes Affecting Voter Registration
Confidential Voter Records
Changes to Permissible Uses of Voter Registration Information
Beginning in 2006, state law changed the way personal information supplied by voters for the pur-
pose of completing a voter registration affidavit can be used. To protect your privacy and the integ-
rity of voting, new laws that took effect in 2006 create safeguards for voter records as follows:

Information on your voter registration affidavit will be used by

elections officials to send you official information on the voting
process, such as the location of your polling place and the
issues and candidates that will appear on the ballot. Commercial
use of voter registration information is prohibited by law and is a
misdemeanor. Voter information may be provided to a candidate
w'

for office, a ballot measure committee, or other person for elec-

tion, scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes,
as determined by the Secretary of State. Driver's license, state
identification and social security numbers, or your signature as
shown on your voter registration form, cannot be released for these purposes. If you have any
questions about the use of voter information or wish to report suspected misuse of such informa-
tion, please call the Secretary of State's Voter Protection and Assistance Hotline:
1-800-345-VOTE (8683).

Additionally, any person obtaining information on your voter registration affidavit shall not send that
information outside of the United States or make it available in any way electronically to persons
outside the United States, including, but not limited to, access over the Internet.

Secretary of State's "Safe At Home" Program

Certain voters facing life-threatening situations may qualify for confidential voter status. For more
information, please contact the Secretary of State's "Safe At Home" program at 877-322-5227, or
visit the Secretary of State's Web site at www.ss.ca.gov

Exhibit Page No.: 1001 of CES Response Declaration

~ llllllllllllllllllllll 131
38-CP131-EN-J08
IIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIII
 Important Election Dates for the
June 3, 2008
Consolidated Statewide Direct Primary Election

~ Deadline to register to vote (see page 16): May 19, 5 p.m.

~ Deadline to change party affiliation (see page 6): May 19, 5 p.m.

~ Deadline to notify Department of Elections of address change: May 19, 5 p.m.

(see page 16)

~ First day of Early Voting at City Hall (see page 7): MayS

~ Weekend Early Voting at City Hall (see page 7): May 24-25
May 31-June 1

~ Deadline to request a vote-by-mail ballot (see page 7): May 27, 5 p.m.

~ Deadline for new citizens to register and vote (see page 16): May 27,5 p.m.

~ Election Day: June 3, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Exhibit Page No.: 1002 of CES Response

MIIIIEIIUIIIIIIIIIUIIIII Declaration
HDID 1111111111
172 38-CP172-EN-J08
 Ballot Worksheet
Fill in your choices - Cut out and take with you to the polls
Not all voters are eligible to vote on all partisan contests. Your sample ballot includes the contests for
which you are eligible to vote. For more information, see page 6 and your sample ballot.

OFFICES
PARTISAN OFFICES
United States Representative Vote for one
State Senator Vote For one
Member, State Assembly Vote For one
Members, County Central Committee The spaces to the right allow for
the maximum number of County
Central Committee candidates
for which any voter may vote.
Please refer to your sample bal-
lot for the number of candidates
for which you may vote.

NONPARTISAN OFFICES
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #12 Vote for one

Notes:

{The &allot worksheet continues on the next page}

Exhibit Page No.: 1003 of CES

38-CP173-EN-J08
Response
IIIIIIIUIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIII Declaration
~RIIIIIIIIIIUI U 173
 Ballot Worksheet (continued)
Fill in your choices - Cut out and take with you to the polls

PROPOSITIONS
TITLE YES NO
98 : Eminent Domain. limits on Government Authority. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
99 : Eminent Domain. limits on Government Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment.

A :School Parcel Tax

B : Changing Qualifications for Retiree Health and Pension Benefits and Establishing a Retiree
Health Care Trust Fund
c : Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits for Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude in
Connection with City Employment

D : Appointments to City Boards and Commissions

E : Requiring Board of Supervisors' Approval of Mayor's Appointments to the Public Utilities

Commission and Creating Qualifications for Commission Members

F : Affordable Housing Requirement For the Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard
Mixed-Use Development Project

G : Mixed-Use Development Project for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard

H : Prohibiting Elected Officials, Candidates, or Committees They Control from Soliciting or

Accepting Contributions from Certain City Contractors

Notes:

Exhibit Page No.: 1004 of CES Response Declaration

174 38CP17 4-EN-J08
m1111110111111111111111 mRIIR 1111111111
 The Department of Elections makes every effort to print
Candidate Statements and Proposition Arguments exactly
as submitted - mistakes and all.
However, with all the items that are included in the
Voter Information Pamphlet, it is possible that we
have made a mistake of some kind in the layout and
printing process. If we learn of any substantial
errors on our part after the pamphlet has been
printed and mailed out, we will publish a correction
notice in local newspapers in the days preceding
the election.

If necessary, a correction notice will appear in the Public Notices

section of the San Francisco Chronicle and in Sing Tao Daily on
May 20,21 and 22, in El Reportero on May 21 and in El Mensajero
on May 25.

Exhibit38-CP175-EN-J08
Page No.: 1005 of CES Response
IIIIIIEIIRIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Declaration
UIIIR 111111111111 175
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit 0

Exhibit Page No.: 1006 of CES Response Declaration

1211012016 Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Sections I San Francisco Voter Guide

ONLINE EDITION
San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet & Sample Ballot
Consolidated General Election
November 8, 2016

%ft9:X Filipino Espafiol sfelections.org b. Accessibility v J

Search

Ill Non-Citizen Voting in School Board

Ill Elections
Shall the City allow a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is of legal voting age
and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the
San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: The San Francisco Unified School District operates public schools in San Francisco
for students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12.
The San Francisco Board of Education oversees the School District, including
establishing educational goals and standards;
approving curriculum;
setting the district budget;
confirming appointment of all personnel; and
approving purchases of equipment, supplies, services, leases, renovation, construction, and union
contracts.
The Board of Education appoints a superintendent of schools, who is responsible for managing the day-to-
day administration of the district.
The Board of Education has seven members who are elected by San Francisco voters to serve four-year
terms. Elections for members of the Board of Education are held in November of even-numbered years.
San Francisco residents who are 18 years of age or older, United States citizens, and not in prison or on
parole for a felony conviction are eligible to register to vote in San Francisco elections.
The Proposal: Proposition N is a Charter amendment that would allow any non-citizen resident of San
Francisco to vote for members of the Board of Education if the resident:
is the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the School District, and
is of legal voting age and not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction.
Exhibit Page No.: 1007 of CES Response Declaration
http://voti;!J"guide.sfeleclions.org/en/non-citizen-voling-school-board-eleclions 1/3
12/1012016 Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Sections 1San Francisco Voter Guide

proposition N would apply to the November 2018, 2020 and 2022 elections for members of the Board of
1
Education. The measure would expire after the 2022 election unless the Board of Supervisors adopts an
brdinance allowing it to continue.
I

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to allow a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is
.o f legal voting age and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the
San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education.
A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make this change.

Controller's Statement on "N"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition N:
Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, there would be an
additional cost, as estimated by the Department of Elections, of a minimum of $160,000 per election to
print and distribute voting materials, train poll workers and separately register people who would become
eligible to vote in School Board elections. Should the election take place by absentee ballot only, which
would require a subsequent ordinance by the Board, costs may be reduced to approximately $110,000, in
addition to any costs associated with registration processes.
The amendment would permit non-citizens 18 years of age or older who have children residing in the San
'Francisco Unified School District to vote in the elections for the School Board. The amendment would
sunset on December 31, 2022, but could be extended by ordinance.

How "N" Got on the Ballot

On July 26, 2016, the Board of Supervisors voted 10 to 1 to place Proposition N on the ballot. The
Supervisors voted as follows:
es: Avalos, Breed, Campos, Cohen, Kim, Mar, Peskin, Tang, Wiener, Yee.

'No: Farrell.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained
in Words you need to know>. (/node/352}

P t' A t. F fP "f N

R b tt It P t' A t" F fP "f N

0 t' A tA . t P "f N

A BAD LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL- REPEATEDLY DEFEATED AT THE POLLS- THIS ILLEGAL

MEASURE CALLS FOR NON-CITIZENS TO BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN SAN FRANCISCO BOARD
OF EDUCATION ELECTIONS:

Exhibit Page No.: 1008 of CES Response Declaration

http://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/non-citizen-volirg-school-board-elections 213
12/1012016 Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections 1San Francisco Voter Guide

Like a bad penny, this illegal proposal in violation of the California Elections Code has already been
twice defeated by increasing majorities of San Francisco electors- but keeps coming back!!!: It was
defeated in 2004 and 2010.
This unwise measure calls for non-citizens and illegal aliens to vote in San Francisco elections for the '
Board of Education. Vote "NO!" on Proposition N.
This proposal seeks to even allow even illegal aliens on the way to the airport for deportation to cast
their absentee ballots for Board of Education as they leave the United States of America.
Needless to say, American citizens living abroad are not allowed to take part in foreign nations' board
of education or other elections.
It remains an open question whether at some future date the United States federal government might
consider entering into formal treaties with Canada, Mexico, or other closely allied nations to allow
American citizens in those countries and legal foreign aliens from those nations to vote in local board
of education, city council, or other elections. These are major federal foreign policy questions ... and
American citizens should of course be granted equal rights with foreign citizens. Don't vote for this
misguided ballot measure.
Dr. Terence Faulkner*
United States President's Federal Executive Awards Committeeman (1988)
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an
organization.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

R b tt It 0 t' A tA . tP "f N

P "d A t . F fP "f N

P "d A t A . tP "f N

Exhibit Page No.: 1009 of CES Response Declaration

http://voterguide.sfelections.org/enlnon-citizetP-voling-school-board-elections 313
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit P

Exhibit Page No.: 1010 of CES Response Declaration

 . !I

..
....
- - II/JD/tt- .. '
'

~~}
f'V'tyw
~ ju_

-
~
-

Exhibit Page No.: 1011 of CES Response Declaration

 Secretary of State
State of California
Election Voter Complaint Form
Important: Please type or clearly print the information on this form.

Complainant ltlforhlation -
First Name IF_
.._ ra_n_ce_s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____,

LastName ~lA_u_st_in___________ __________ _ _ __ ____~

Street Address ~~7-54_V_i_a_c_ol_in_a_s_ _ _ __ _______ ___.! Apt. # ~~-----.J

City jwestlake Village IState EJ Zip Codej91362 _ l
Daytime Phone Number (include area code) 1(805)374-8253 I
Evening Phone Number (include area code)
~======================~I
!same

Emaitlfran3335@aol.com -,
- '
P~rson(s} or Organization(s) Ag~inst Whom Complaint Is Brought
"' --

Name(s) Tammy, Agnes at Ventura County Elections Division, Secretary of State and CA Assembly Members

Organization(s) State of CA Elections Division, Ventura County, Secretary of State, Sacramento

Position(s) of person(s) (if applicable) VC Elections Division, above referehced SOS, CA Assembly Members
-.

Statement of Eacts

Date(s) and time(s) of alleged event(s) occurred Beginning 10/27/16, during election, 11/08/16, and to date

~and phone calls made repeatedly and ignored; no response. Calts re AB 1461 prior to election also ignored.

~- l~cl al~~e~~~L!A_t_~-~
-~_n_P_re_c_~_c_to_o_o_s_n_s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ ~
-.li!S ana phone numbers of 'W'itresses or other victims {if a ppJicable) !Robert, Michael, Kitty, Julia.

.~at (805)654-2664, w ho said nothing co.ja bE dooe- ro re-register" before election day. Both Tammy and Agnes insisted I ap

ONUNE FOR PERMANENT VOTE BY MAJt. STJ!t">... S:I DD "ttT. At election, at least a dozen other voters were not allowed to vote

except provisionally, i:hough they also c.1d r"C'!. ~ ~VBM. had no letter or info re same, but were stated so on the roster. 0

aJso had no notice of their Polling Plac.= ~ ~ ..~ r: ~ ~ we-e turned away; some thus did not vote; most had to vote

provisionally.llater confirmed Y.-7..... ~ ~ --""St:e:t:r '.ce,. tt",at 1he'e were an unusually high amount of Provisional Ballots cast."

Exhibit Page No.: 1012 of CES Response Declaration

Describe Your Complaint (if necessary-, attat:lf additional sheets) -Continued
Trail Report) at the designation "Rep" DONALD TRUMP'S NAME WAS OMITTED FROM THE TAPE. I showed it to Inspector, Robert, w

said, "I've never seen anything like this before." Clerks Kitty and Julia were also made aware. I do not know what action was taken by

them, but, without a phone myself, I could not take a picture or call anyone just then. I did call Roving inspector, Michael, re that iss

and was told, "It's just a computer glitch". A copy of that tape was to be posted outside the fire-station along with the Master Roster

for a 24 hour period. I called the Fire Station that next day to ask them to retrieve the postings. However, when I came to get them,

the tape, with the missing and omitted name of DONALD TRUMP, was not there. Our firefighters fleroes were most helpful through

and they searched for the tape to no avail. I called VC Elections Divisions at least 5 times to report this~ no response. I called Secy of

State office as well~ no response to i~sue.l also called SofS re the enacting of Assembly Bill1461, ENACTED DURING A CURRENT EL

vote in this election, thus abridging my I all legal citizens' 'full weight and power' of our vote. This is AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND

ILLEGAL ACTION on the part of the State of CA by which ,both ethically and legally, both votes and electors cannot be counted in t

2016 election and continuing forth until such violation of Federal Election laws and the US Constitution is terminated. (e.g. 14th A

Sec.112 Unlawful Transportation ~re the 19861mmigration Reform Act, US Code Sec. 611, Voting by Aliens (a).)

CA and their 55 Presid ential Electors should be disqualified re this election and until such time as correction is made.

Signature - I acknowledge that all of the aboe information Is true arid accu:ra:tely .rele<:ts the.~
matter in question, to the best of my knowledge~

Return fOnn t-e.:

Califownia secretary of State_
lnvesligati'le Sttrvices
tSOO 11th Street 2nd Floort Sac;ramentotCA 95&14 ~
Fax::(916) 653-8728
For more information or a$.srstante:
English:{916) ~7-2166 or (800) 315VOTE (3683)
. Sf>anish: (800) 232-\fOTA (8612)
www.sos.ca.gpv

Print Form . f

Exhibit Page No.: 1013 of CES Response Declaration

 K .. . _ -

1 _,------------------~--

-----
---
----
--
-::...

--
--
-

Exhibit Page No.: 1014 of CES Response Declaration

 Secretary of State
Investigative Services
1500 11 1h St. Second Fioor., Sacramento, CA 95814
.

February 6, 2017

Frances Austin
754 Via Colinas.
Westlake Village CA, 91:362

Dear Frances Austin: t

Thank you for your written complaint received November 30, 2016 through Bruce
Bruno. We reviewed your complaint for evidence of any Election Code violations.
Every complaint received by our office is carefully reviewed for evidence of any
criminal violations.

After careful review of your complaint and all provided materials we have
determined there has been no criminal violation of the California Elections Code,
however; this issue has been brought to the attention of the Registrar of Voters
for your jurisdiction and will be addres~ed through them.

Jf you believe that criminal acts have been committed such as forgery,
embezzlement, theft, etc., such matters should be referred to the local authorities
or the District Attorney's office in the State and County .where the fraudulent acts
allegedly occurred.

Sincerely,

caitbmia Secretary of State

Investigative Services

Investigative Servic~s
INWW.sos.ca.gov
(916) 657-2166

Exhibit Page No.: 1015 of CES Response Declaration

 Secretary of State
Investigative Service$
1
1500 11 h St. Second Floor, Sacramento. CA 95814

March 7. 2017

Frances Austin
754 Via Colinas
Westlake Village CA, 913Ei2

- ----~- ------

Dear Frances Austin,

Thank you for your written complaint received February 6, 2017 received via the
Office of California State Senator Henry Stern. We reviewed your complaint for
evidence of any Election Code violations, Every complaint received by our office
is carefully reviewed for evidence of any criminal violations.

The Secretary of State's office has <;oncluded there is no evidence of a criminal

Elections Code violation. On the basis Qf the information you provided in your
complaint, we have determined that thereis insufficient evidence that would merit
an investigation at this time. We were not able to develop any credible
information that would sustain any further inquiry into your complaint.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. If you should discover any
new or compelling information; please feel free to send a completed complaint
form. Absent any other leads this inquiry is now closed.

- - - - - - ---- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - -------- - - --

Martin K. Oeffee, Chief Investigator

California Secretary of State
Elections Fraud Investigation Unit

Investigative Services
www.sos.ca.gov
<.916) 695-1255

Exhibit Page No.: 1016 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit Q

Exhibit Page No.: 1017 of CES Response Declaration

 PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
i1uprtmr <!tuurt uf t4e ~tate uf Ncut lurk
1\pptllstt liutsiun: ~.ecnnb 3Jubitial ilrpartmrnt
M1704 16
E/sl

THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

2012-05515,2013-06335,2014-00297 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Christopher-Earl Strun}( a llant,

v New York State Board of Elections,
et al., respondents.

(Index No. 6500/11)

Moti n b the a llant prose, inter alia, "for civilian due ocess oflaw" on appeals
from three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated Aprilll, 2012, March 29,2013, and
December 9, 2013, respectively.

thereto, it is
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the appellant's time to perfect the appeal
from the order dated March 29,2013 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2013-06335}, is enlarged until
May 5, 2014, and the record or appendix and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or
before that date.

SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

~~ Clerk ofthe Court

March 4, 2014
STRUNK v NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Four Judge Panel ofNYS Appellate Court admits it is unable to provide "for civilian due process of law"
when under statutory national emergency of 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) proclamation 2040 ofFDR and
continuing under POTUS Commander-in-cx~x:cuSef~ defacto Federal and State Courts.
Exhibit Page No.: 1018 of CES Response Declaration
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit R

Exhibit Page No.: 1019 of CES Response Declaration

 United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
Washington, D.C.

In re USCA Dkt. No. 16-0512

Christopher E.
Strunk,

and DOCKETING NOTICE

Eric J.
Phelps,
Petitioners ORDER

Notice is hereby given that a petition under Rule 67(C) for a 28 USC 1651

special writ of mandamus and injunctive equity relief in the matter of the breach of

contract in 1999 with repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act during the National Banking

Emergency or Time Of War and National Emergency Mandates by the Defacto

Commander-in-Chief, under the Hague Convention, United States Army Field

Manual for Civil Affairs Operations, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and

Constitution of the United States of America was filed under Rule 27(a) on May 2,

2016, and placed on the docket this 5th day of May, 2016. On consideration

thereof, it is, by the Court this 5th day ofMay, 2016,

ORDERED:

That said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and

Exhibit Page No.: 1020 of CES Response Declaration

Strunk, et al., Docket No. 16-0512

That, no further filings will be accepted or docketed by the Court on this

matter.

For the Court,

Is/ William A. DeCicco

Clerk of the Court

cc: Petitioners (Pro Se)

Exhibit Page No.: 1021 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitS

Exhibit Page No.: 1022 of CES Response Declaration

 CIVIL AFFAIRS IN
TIME PHASES
HOSTILITIES
RELATIONSHIP TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT {POLITICAL- ECONOMIC-
SOCIAL MATTERS)-A PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MILITARY
SUPPORTED BY OTHER DESIGNATED US AGENCIES

PEACETIME
RELATIONSHIP TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT (POLinCAI. - ECONOMIC
SOCIAL MATTERS)- A PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF DESIGNATED
US AGENCIES SUPPORTED BY THE MILITARY

Figure 1. Civil af!ains m time phases.,

AGO 6H7B 17

Exhibit Page No.: 1023 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit T

Exhibit Page No.: 1024 of CES Response Declaration

 ~~K Department of
~ATE Motor Vehicles
6 EMPIRE SlATE PLAZA AlBANY, NY 12228

November 4, 2016

Christopher Earl Strunk

141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846

Re: Freedom of Information Law Request #2016-4195

Dear Mr. Strunk:

Your records request of August 25, 2016 has been processed. The status of your completed FOIL
request is as follows:

We have compiled the data for the last four years that is responsive to the following items in your
FOIL request:
Item 1 (b) Traffic fatalities, DWI, plus amount paid of fine for punishment (please
note that the number of traffic fatalities and DWI arrests for each county are
available by accessing the links provided below; a spreadsheet showing the amount
of the fines paid is enclosed);
Item 1 (e) Private persons license suspended then returned in each county;
Item 1 (g) Suspended due to speeding in non-commercial vehicle; and
Item 2 (b) Suspended due to failure to pay child support.

Data on alcohol and drug related crashes and fatalities, as well as licenses and registrations issued
can be found on DMV's website; https:fjdmv.ny.iovjabout-dmv /statistical-summaries.
Data regarding DWI arrests is available on New York State's Open Date website:
bttps://data.ny.gov,/Transportation /Traffic-Ti ckets-Jssued-Four-Year-Windowjq4hy-kbtf.
The information you are seeking in your request, (1) (c) and (d) is not available; DMV does not
store occupation or employment information for motorists.

Jt is unclear what data you are seeking in your requested items (1) (f): "suspended in each county
due to safety Violation past ten" and (2) (a), (2) (c), (2) (d) and (2) (e): "suspended due to
infraction of administrative process"; "Taken due to inability to pay child support"; "Taken
because unable to pay any type of debt to state"; and "Take in each county due to child support".
www.dmv.l\y.gov

Exhibit Page No.: 1025 of CES Response Declaration

FOIL requests must reasonably describe the records being sought (Public Officers Law
{95)(b)(ii)).

We have enclosed a Payment Request We will release the records described above once we have
received your payment Please remit payment to the address printed at the top of this letter. You
may include a copy of the enclosed Payment Request if you choose to pay by credit card.

Very truly yours,

Li4a~T~
Records Access Officer
NYS DMV
6 ESP- Room 327
Albany, NY 12228
Ph: (518) 474-0621
Lisa.Turnbull@dmv.ny.gov

Enclosure

www.dmv.ny.gov
Exhibit Page No.: 1026 of CES Response Declaration
 New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
FOIL Payment Request

Billing Date FOIL Number

11/4/2016 16 - 4195

Christopher Earl Strunk

The Vehicle and Traffic Law requires payment of a
141 Harris Avenue $10 non-refundable search fee for most DMV
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846 records. This fee must be paid whether or not DMV
can find the record(s) that is/are being requested.
The law also requires payment of a $1 copy fee for
each page of a record that DMV provides (a "page''
means both sides of a sheet of paper}.
Description ofRequest:
!acopy of the last tweny years of data free of any personal information
sorted by county for aU licenses in NYS for:
jCommerical and non commercial licenses issued including Cab Train Bus Search Fees I $10.00 !
Traffic fatalities, DWI, plus amount paid of fine for Punishment
1state employees license suspended but returned Total Pages I sj @$1/page 1
!
$8.00 l
!Elected officials license suspended but returned
,Private persons license suspended then returned in each county DiskFee I so.oo I
!

0 t
j
I
$0.00 1
To Pay by MasterCard Ovisa Other .F ee
Credit Card: 0 American Express DDiscover
Hourly
Salary Grade Hours Rate Labor
Credit Card No. ,-18l
L__j I e,ooj x I $51 .61 1 = I $309.66 1
Expiration Date Publication/Manual I $0.oo 1
Zip Code associated with Card Total Fee I $327.66 !

Cardholder Amount Paid To Date ! $o.oo 1

Signature
Refund: I $0.00 l
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH YOUR
PAYMENT. IF YOU DO NOT REPLY WITHIN 30 Balance Due i $327.66 J
DAYS (121212016), WE WILL CLOSE THE FILE ON
THIS REQUEST. Payment Due By I 12/212016!
I

Your record(s) request has been processed. However, you l

Return To: NYS Department of Motor Vehicles must pay the "BALANCE DUE'' before we can release the
FOJL Office, Room 222 record(s) to you.
6 Emptre State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228
MV-520.2 (12/06) \Prepared by (initials): l PJR !
Friday, November 04, 2016

Exhibit Page No.: 1027 of CES Response Declaration

 4
w Department of
RK
~TE Motor Vehicles

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW OFFICE

6 EMPIRE STATE PLAZA. ROOM 222 ALBANY, NY 12228

October 19,2016

Christopher Earl Strunk

141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846

Re: Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request# 20164195

Dear Mr. Strunk:

On August 25, 2016, you requested:

1. The last twenty years of data free of any personal information, sorted by county for all license
in the state of New York for:
a. Commercial and noncommerciallicenses issued, including Cab Train Bus
b. Traffic fatalities, DWI, plus amount paid for fine for punishment
c. State employees license suspended but returned
d. Elected officials license suspended but returned
e. Private persons license suspended then returned in each county
f. Suspended in each county due to safety violation past ten
g. Suspended due to speeding in noncommercial vehicle
2. The last twenty years of data free of any personal information sorted by county for al
Commercial Drivers Licenses:
a. Suspended due to infraction of administrative process
b. Suspended due to failure to pay child support
c. Taken due to inability to pay child support
d. Taken because unable to pay any type of debt to state
e. Take in each county due to child support
3. The last twenty years of data free of any personal information sorted by county for all foreign
licenses suspended due to tickets in commercial vehicle and or money owe in state New
York.

On August 25, 2016 we told you that it could take 40 business days to complete your Freedom of
Information request.

We will need an additional 20 business days to complete your request. The reasons for this delay
are that our office is waiting for records to arrive from another office, and the amount of data you
have requested is substantial.

Respectfully,
Representative
Freedom of Information Law Office
www.dmv.ny.gov

Exhibit Page No.: 1028 of CES Response Declaration

 -
=

Exhibit Page No.: 1029 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitU

Exhibit Page No.: 1030 of CES Response Declaration

 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 33 of 39

UNfTEO STATES DISTRlCT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Civll Case No: 1: l6-cv.. J496 {BKS I DJS)

x---- ------------~---------- --.. - - - -....- --..x

In 1he matter of

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

PJaintitfT Petitioner
versus

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA with Edmund Gerald "JERRY" BROWN Jr., Jndividually
and as Governor; and Alejandro ALEX" PADILLA. Individually and as Secretary of State
(SOS); THE STATE OF NEW YORK with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as
Govemor; THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ELECTIONS; THE CITY OF
NEW YORK (NYC); Warren "BILL DEBLASIO., Wilhelm Jr. Individually and as the
Mayor of NYC; TilE NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NATJONAL ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS ADMINISTRATlON; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS;
Defendants/Respondents
x--------------------------------__...__........-.--.-...-x
ROBERT KENNETH DORNAN AFFIDAVIT
I) Robert Kenneth Doi'UD, state. declare and affmn as a witness in support of Plaintifrs Petition with
Complaint that the following matters 1 believe it to be true. am available fer testimony, and that the

grounds of my belief.;; as to all maners not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3m parties,

books and records, and personal knowledge under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746:.

As personal bllckgrovncl

L I am a former Congressman born in New York City on , W:uA."JE0 to Harry Joseph and

Gertrude(Mickey} McFadden Doman. The middle of three sons, r matried S.allie Hansen of Santa

Monica. California on ber 21st birthday. ~i Df.r::\t:..V married 62 years on April16. 2017. We

have five children and fifteen granddtjfdrellt seven girls and eight boys. and five great-grandcbiJ~

Exhibit Page No.: 1031 of CES Response Declaration

 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23117 Page 34 of 39

three boys and two girls. After graduation from Loyola High School in Los Angeles in 1950, I

1Utended Loyola University through 1952.

2. On 30 January 1953. at age 19, l volunteered for service in the United States Air Force; and after

earning silver wi11gs on 1 February 1953. I served as a fighter pilot flying F-100 Super Sabres with the

world's first supersonic jet fighter wing. In 1958. I left active duty and joined the California Air

National Guard as an F-86 Sabrejet pilot and an intelligence officer. achieving the rank of captain. As

a U.S. Congressman 1C<>i)iloted every aircraft in the U.S. military arseoal, including the B-2 "Spirit,"

B-1 "Lancer." U-2 "Dragon Lady", SR-7J ..Blackbird," AV-8 "Harrier," F-16"Falcon" 7 times andF-

lSE "Eagle" times, as well as the Israeli "Kfir,' and israeli F-15 and lsraeu F-16, the British
"Tornado". "Harrier/' and "Hawk,lf the French "Mirage," and Italian F-104 "Star Fighter". In 1994 I

tlew as a co-pilot "guest" with the Blue Angels and Thunderbird$.

3. 1 produced and hosted my o'M\ television public affairs programs in Los Angeles from 1965 to 1976

for "Tempo". rn 1968 and 1969, J was awarded Emmys for hosting a live four hour daily political
discussion program. then four years of the "live" weekend "Robert K. Doman Show". During the

1960s I was active in domestic civil rights. marched with Martin Luther Kmg on 28 April 1963 in

Washington D.C. and registered black voters in the south in Mississippi and Alabama.

4. I originated both the POW/MIA bnu:elet worn by more than 17 million Americans during and after

the Vietnam War and the "Prisoner of Conscience" bracelet worn for Soviet Jewish and Christian

dissidents in the 1970s.

5. I was a nows correspondent photo joumalist woo traveled extensively over 170 countries, including
12 food-relief night flights to Biafra in May 1969 {15 tons of Protein II Extract per flight). I also

traveled to Vietnam ten times. and Laos and cambodia four times each during the Vietnam War, and

ten times to the USSR behind the Iron Curtain (8 times as a Congressman}; and bere to point as it

applies to this case Affinnant;

a. I was first elected to the U.S. House of Representative Congress in 2 November 1976,

representing California's 27th C.D. along the Pacific coast in western Los Angeles County

Exhibit Page No.: 1032 of CES Response Declaration

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 35 of 39
' '-- . .., ;:_-

IUld served from January 1977 to January 1983. (until the seat was cut into five pieces

attached to five other districts, thereby reapportioned out of existence)!

b. Among the many national security reasons that motivated me to run for Congress was to

defeat the Jesuit lawyer pries~ Dem~ratic Congressman from Massachusetts Robert
Frederick Driaan. SJ. (November 15, 1920- January 28, 2007) who overtly and arrogantly

supported by law abortion (for all nine months) pJayed a key role in the pro-abortion platform

becoming Demoo.ratic Party policy and the now advanced position of all politieians &om

the Kennedy family and by whose casuistry be attempted to tecOnGile his position with

official Church doctrine by stating that while het Congressman Drinan was "personally

opposed to abQrtion", considering it 11virtual infanticide," in his twisted reasoni11g Drinan

stated ''its legality was a separate issue &om its morality."

c. During the October 1979 visit of Pope .John Paul n, Sallie introduced me wbile we were in

the White House receiving line on the North lawn. l spoke to the Pope about Drinants

outrageously "sinful bad example". Pope John Pl\ul said forcefully twice "Write to me, Write

to me." I did immediately! Within weeks the Holy Father directed that Father Drinan not seek

re-election or leave the priesthood. Orinan left Congress.

d. In 1982, r ran unsuccessfulJy for the U.S. Senate; having entered the race 10 mooths late, with

no campaign war<hest, but finished 4th in a field of t 3 candidates.

e. In 6 November 1984, l defeated an entrenched liberal tO year incumbent t() represent

California's 38th Congressional District in central Orange County. Much of the 38th District

was reapportioned into IUl even more Democratic 46th District in 1992~ which I represented

until January 1997. During my entire oongressional career I was eleded in districts that were

majority Democrat by registration.

f. Because of my extensive experience in national security. I was chosen to serve as a member

of the Pennanent Set~ C<lmmiuee on Jntelligence, served as the Chainnan of the

Subcommittee on Tactical and Technical Intelligence: and also served on the National

Exhibit Page No.: 1033 of CES Response Declaration

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 36 of 39

Security Committee (Armed Services) as the Chairman of tbe Militlb)' Personnel

Subcommittee.

g. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I championed such vital defense programs

as the B-1 ''L-ancer" and B-2 "Spirit" bombers. the F/A 18 "Hornet.. and the V-22 "Osprey..

tilt-rotor. antiballistic missile defense (AMD}, development of an effective ground combat

identifiCation system and maintaining proper levels of Guard and Reserve forces. I was also

an acthe leader promoting President Reagans Strategic Defense Initiative (SDJ) for 13 years.

During the Caner!Reagan years. I was point man leader, nicknamed "B-1 Bob'\ in the

oongressional battle to rescue/build one hundred (100) of the supersonic Strategic Air

Command penetrator bombers. the B-1 "Lancerst which were canceled by President Carter
in June of 1977 in his fifth month of office.

h. During the Clinton years: I was a key leader in the successful effort to prevent the

administration from eliminating the prohibition on activist homosexuals in the military. and

was the sponsor of legislation to codify the ban. tn 1995, J passed legislation to place

restriction on a president's ability to place U.S. forces under foreign comm.and. This

legislation had been included in the House GOP's 1994 "Contract with America."

i. Consistent with my life~ long commitment to human rights, I have been a staunch defender of

innocent pre~bom life as the author of four successful Laws to prevent federal abortions in the

District of Columbia {later reversed by by long defea~ liberal Republicaas joining liberal

Democrats to continue virtual genocide in D.C. of "babi-es of color"). The most important

Dornan Law, not a yearly amendment but public Jaw. was I is the banning of abortions in U.S.

Military hospitals worldwide. Also. the ban of abortions in federal female prisons and on

Native American Indian reservations, all still U.S. law. l was the sponsor for years of the

paramount "Human Life" amendment. and am presently assisting the American Life League
in Stafford Virginia.

Exhibit Page No.: 1034 of CES Response Declaration

 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 37 of 39

j. I am a leader in the fight against partial birth infanticide, child abuse and pedophilia I

pederasty extensive in large cities and tolerated by li'betal government inaction; and am able

to speak in n:sponse to questioning under oath as an expert witness as to government negative

involvement or inaction past and present

As to Mr. Strunk

6. During 2006, J spoke with Mr. Strunk concerning the 1997-1998 vote fraud investigation of the

November 5,1996 election conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service {I.N.S.).

That investigation proved thilt l had won the 1996 re--election, and developed knowledge as to the

pattern of corruption with the harboring of iHegal aliens and distribution, without records

required by law of tens of thousands of voter registration forms, and as a matter complained of in

Mr. Strunk's Complaint, he filed in the Western District of New York, and in which my Jetter to

the Honorable Richard Arcara USDJ~ depicted by Mr. Strunk's herein Complaint Exhibit A 3 at 4

Page 7 (attached), that in the November 5, 1996 election the INS found that I was~

"' .. illegally defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a minimum 2,369 alien votes, and
according to f.C.E. (I.N.S.) records of 4,023 alien votes cast in the 1996 California General
Electio~ and that by consensus of both the Republican and Democrat parties behind the
seenes in violation of the majority of voters' rights conspired then and now for control over
illegal alien voting power in California and seemingly nationwide. Aliens illegal voting with
impunity and whereas not a single individual was charged with thousands of felonies having
been cOmmitted, to directly bring about my loss by nine (9) votes -n<>twitbstanding the LC.E.
records to the contrary.." {reference also "Stolen Elections'by John Fund. page 23)

7. During September 2016. Mr. Strunk facilitated contact of my wife, Sallie and me with Dr. Mark

Siedenburg (who had been part of my 1976 West Los Angeles l Santa Monica Qlllpaign for

Congress) of the American lndependent Party (AIP), and who """ruited us to become a TRUMP
PENCE American Independent Party Elector Slate along with my fellow New Yorker by birth,

former Representative John Leboutillier at the 8 November 2016 California General EJection; we

agreed, and are part of the AlP Elector Slate for TRUMPPENCE.

Exhibit Page No.: 1035 of CES Response Declaration

 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 38 of 39

8. On 25 Januaey 2017, Mr. Strunk called and spoke with Sallie and me requesting thi

affi.nnati n in anticipation of this submission in the matter of the pattern of California and

ew York public officer cilitation of vote fraud corruption with sanctuary harboring o

illegal aliens. with whith l have been banned in 1996 defeat. and am personally o wi to

public officials iocluding .S. House members Bill Thomas and Newt Gingrich.. and i.o1er

alia, their use of vote bud for Democratic and Republican Party aggrandizement for unjust

enrichment including co:rn.mercial infanticide as genocide of persons of color: and agree in

what Mr. Strunk characterizes as government assisted abortion in aid of satanic ritual that is

pan of pedophilia within networks throughout Congress and the government agencies.

9. That with permission of the Court. Affirmant is available for televised swom teStimony and
cross examination as to matter referenced above. subject to my security elearan e restrictions,

from the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse 401 Courthouse Square Alexandria. VA 22314

and may be contacted and coordinated through Mr. Strunk.

Dated: March _,.- 201 7

Fairfax ~union. Virginia

Exhibit Page No.: 1036 of CES Response Declaration

:--:"'------------~---------- ~ "~ - .-

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 39 of 39

-
Fotione -v. EAC - WDNY Q6..e...80
EXHIBffD-2

I
The H<W~~Jr.Jl>k R~lbM t.; , IJoro.a,p tl S. f,~ 1'117- t;oi1J
H lJ i \fktr.:-.. f'k- Jl\'**
fi. Juo~nl ;spblr.;a~. t~.Jd~VlllOI \l:E<'75

' l)!,. u... nbfr t ha..!( ~~ fb\~ ' 1'\h"fr~

I t 1..-f th \ nt N ~~ O...th t luun

I
\\ .;~'"'"'" O...tr .. ~rs ...... Y~tt
uw l .. !"Untk~
{ ,.~ r, '" :;.,......,.
0..11'"'- S< , ..... !J1n:

i Tho.: H, >t'I<"Q}.k t lud JuJij~: tltt'h;,.nl J 1\'#&.

f 1ft1 f omu l' S. Hnu-.c ~nt>ltn" a-.,.. 1C..
tktf1'tlfl. pr 'IIC "tdklutb.:!Jtl....,.il~Wfle~. \\ho"ti~l)'~ dl~U) by ~N
t 1t,.'1l<t S..U~-b~:tl>} .a .nimlntltft uf!.)(tft :AA:n' ~*"' .uW ~u~rJiog tt.t tC.E. CtJ~..S.t ~~ -l.i!J
.,Jwfl"~t" 11"-~au,. ,..,-l<l '" t~ IJtJtt c..tif:.;..r.i. ~>r:al~ =wJ d;;tt t, cat)M.'fJ 1.1fbotlt tbe
ft~ru:MtC't~~l . ~W\\1 Dcmocr.ttl<' pwttb hthmtlt .'of'~ Ul ""*"1M oflbc ~of~ nps
t'P~Itf lhc1l :~ftd ,..,. ((If H~lllf\lf C\\U tlk.~l o~lJtn \ulUl!_! f'O'\\Zf II\ C'i~hfonHa iiOO .....'(;fru.n~)
lloil "m" 1\ltO", \ wm~ ttlt."af. \ v1~ fib unp.unit~ :and \\ brlt'a.. U(lt u ""~<' tnd idu:lt -.-... '-itqcd
"uh tfkU'Ildf. f J';:lmu..-.. llJ\ ttl)t ~~ '-'Umnunl!d. au thrcctl~ bnng ;~~m m} !~ by umc 'ot~
""I' tllht.milu'V the l.CI:;. "'l'"rth ht l~' 'IJI)Ir.trV, l Ucr.tt~ ..,. 1..-:dtf)' .and tnf~f'\ '-'ftC in~ of the
.:tlt Ilk~ JlfU ~ f'btrttiff" l :trtn. ~fh Ill tn~ \'1\I,'Jl..:ff-int~ Jod fOr tfx '\UJ\l\ ill of t~r MfJaft ;lj
" \'\ thtll&lhlltlf h:J'uhl".
\.1) Jn:~o.'f mjuf) '" l(t\Jh .. ,nt .att..~~~J "'the ~,.."''t ni Pla~nrd'f" AmcnJ..-d C'omrkum
j'.JraP"".&pll~ ~~~ t 11 ttw\l t Ill .11\d l.t1 \-. Wh tny I.Blct\~o"tllklll U ro,.~ fO ~bfnb iiK'U~) m
ll\1: ta.lfd ,.f thl: ~Ul<L"ft) "'1 f"'- ,,~.,.J;at~ kld u111>re til;~n t.:n ).an_, ud lhilllaJ...o \"Jilh.'tid
~ 1lf 'IU~-.rt Jl"' {.11fT( th-: ...,.,.., h>t f'r"\ VI!!; thetiUJ'llo-rtl .'li\d.('~ U)O(r.rtWU both~~~
.,,( 1 t.-~1 ;Ab,:!k 1.Utd \ill t ;n nJ' i]_"). ( 11tn.-n pl\11ft~~f} \uttft! n p c:,littpbn~l CJ( by PLnnt1ffi.
~'f <hilltiC'O rt'll>Ml'.
\\ d k \C' ,,f tb( { '"*"
_..,~, J,.. ,...,I!Hl
~( &bt: .:urt\."dd Ju.x 4 .:!t~llt> icn otdct of Dt~
"'' t.:"'l"'-on.l h thit .. R..""~- On.;t 7 ttht:tcin tcq&~~Na a...p;a.tl ~tO llir1Ul.....,UJ
liJ J~'''* 4"" Jr: li.n.J..rw-. \I,Jliua the 0 ~~ \'MI. 'f'J(i..-~1) rnor
to fffi,
~ihbt.tJ ll"'P~ 1ft "ft1'-...if ttt the ~u ,.. t'nOtlilll' JoJHth"i). ttPiamutlt '4JI\t\'l:' I dt-<.we
~t,nr~r"-"t'k:a-.~'> """",..,. .. t;Yfra.c... pa .z.....;a,.-J.:wbot~~~....,..,l}>
Ull<k"f ,.wft ,!ft ~\'KJ M tlw rn >.'lo! l'f .-: .."l>.f~)- Tb ~ Z.lCal ~I b;IHn.~' "
.,.''-'f'":"""'-~ .U"t k- Jwl) wnal tJfOJ\ P"'~ ~"hJ ...J that dtif'('w::lte atiJ \.'t.'rtlftnk' f'f ,li!Cf'\. tCt
11-.... , . . ,;g... ::J. Jt..~ttulk ~ ~,.. ~1..,&,.-:

EXHIBIT 0.2

Strunk s RA!ply to Defendants' Response to Remark- Pap 40 of42

. ..Exhibit A-3 .... 007 of 7

Exhibit Page No.: 1037 of CES Response
.... Declaration -
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit V-1

Exhibit Page No.: 1038 of CES Response Declaration

Alex Padilla
California Secretary of State

Provisional Voting
If your name is not on the voter list at your polling place, you have the right to vote a provisional ballot.

What Is a Provisional Ballot?

A provisional ballot is a regular ballot that is placed in a special envelope prior to being put in the ballot box.

Who Casts a Provisional Ballot?

Provisional ballots are ballots cast by voters who:

Believe they are registered to vote even though their names are not on the official voter registration list at the
polling place.
Vote by mail but did not receive their ballot or do not have their ballot with them , and instead want to vote at a
polling place.

What Happens After You Cast a Provisional Ballot?

Your provisional ballot will be counted after elections officials have confirmed that you are registered to vote in that
county and you did not already vote in that election.

You may vote a provisional ballot at any polling place in the county in which you are registered to vote, however, only the
elections contests you are eligible to vote for will be counted.

How Can You Check The Status of Your Provisional Ballot?

Every voter who casts a provisional ballot has the right to find out from their county elections official if the ballot was
counted and, if not, the reason why it was not counted.

c:J Visit www.sos.ca.gov/electionslballot-status (http://www.sos.ca.gov/electionslballot-status) for a list of county

~contacts and information on how to check the status of your provisional ballot.

History Behind Provisional Voting in California

While provisional voting may be relatively new in some areas of the country, California's provisional voting statutes have
been in effect since 1984.

Provisional voting exists in California for two fundamental reasons:

Exhibit Page No.: 1039 of CES Response Declaration

First, provisional voting ensures that no properly registered voter is denied their right to cast a ballot if that voter's name is
not on the polling place roster due to a clerical, processing, computer, or other error.

Second, provisional voting allows elections officials to ensure that no voter votes twice, either intentionally or
inadvertently, in a given election.

The most common circumstances when an elections official will ask a voter to cast a provisional ballot are:

First-time voters. Under federal law, a person who is voting for the first time in a federal election is required to
provide proof of identification , even if their name is on the polling place roster. lfthe voter cannot provide proof of
identification, the voter will be asked to cast a provisional ballot. The elections official will verify the voter's
eligibility by comparing their signature on the provisional ballot envelope with the signature on their voter
registration form and if the signatures match, then the ballot will be counted . (Elections Code sections 1431 O(c),
15350, and 3019.)

Vote-by-mail voters who appear in person. In this instance, the voter's name is on the polling place roster and the
roster notes the voter requested a vote-by-mail ballot. However, the voter states they didn't receive the ballot, lost
the ballot, or spoiled the ballot and doesn't have it with them. After the voter casts a provisional ballot, the
elections official will check the records to ensure that the voter did not cast their vote-by-mail ballot. If this is the
case and the voter's signature on the provisional ballot envelope matches the signature on the voter's registration
card, then the voter's provisional ballot will be counted. (Elections Code sections 3016, 1431 O(f), 15350, 15100 et
seq.) If the voter did vote and return their vote-by-mail ballot before the close of polls on Election Day, then the
vote-by-mail ballot will be counted and the provisional ballot will not be counted. If the voter did vote and return
their vote-by-mail ballot but failed to sign the vote-by-mail ballot envelope, then the voter's provisional ballot will
be counted, provided they complied with the instructions associated with the provisional ballot.

Voters who have moved within their countv without re-registering to vote. The voter's name is not on the polling
place roster because they moved within the county but did not re-register to vote. This also happens when a voter
updates their driver's license with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) but the DMV's computer system
doesn't update the voter's registration information , as it is required to do by law. In either instance, the voter is
entitled to vote a provisional ballot at the polling place based on their current address. The elections official is
required to count the ballot if the voter's signature on the provisional ballot envelope matches the signature on the
voter's prior registration form. The elections official is then required to re-register the voter at their new address for
all future elections. (Elections Code sections 14310, 14311, 15350, 15100 et seq.)

Voters who are not on the polling place roster for an unknown reason. Should this occur, the elections official will
check the county's official registration records after Election Day. lfthe voter was properly registered to vote in the
county and in the precinct in which they voted, their provisional ballot will be counted. lfthe voter was registered
to vote at another address in the county , their votes will be counted in the races they voted on as if they were
voting in their home precinct (i.e., their votes for U.S. President, statewide, and countywide measures will be
counted, but their votes in a city council race may not be counted if the precinct they're registered in is in a
different city council district than the one in which they cast a ballot). If the voter is not registered to vote or is
registered to vote in another county or state, their ballot will not be counted in part or in whole. (Elections Code
section 1431 O(c)(3).

Both federal and state law permit any voter who cast a provisional ballot to find out if their ballot was counted and
Elections Code section 2142 gives voters the right to go to court in order to compel county elections officials to register
them to vote and to count their ballot.

No provisional ballot is counted or precluded from being counted until the elections official goes through the detailed
process to determine whether a voter's provisional ballot should be counted. (Elections Code sections 14310-14311,
15350, and 15100-15112.)

Equally important, every provisional ballot- whether it is counted or rejected -and provisional ballot envelope is kept by
the the elections official for a minimum of 22 months for every election in which a candidate for federal office is on the
ballot. (Elections Code sections 17300-17506.)

Free Access System

Exhibit Page No.: 1040 of CES Response Declaration

The Help America Vote Act of2002 (HAVA) requires each state or local elections official to establish a "Free Access
System," such as a toll-free telephone number for voters to call or an Internet website that voters can access free of
charge, to ascertain if they voted a provisional ballot at the polls, whether or not their vote was counted, and, if it was not
counted, the reason why it was not counted.

Each county elections office has established a free access system for voters to determine if their provisional ballot was
counted and, if it was not counted, the reason why it was not counted . Information on each county elections official's free
access system can be found at Ballot Status (!elections/ballot-status!).

Exhibit Page No.: 1041 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit V-2

Exhibit Page No.: 1042 of CES Response Declaration

 Election Watch

Black Box Voting.org

HOME BLACK BOX VOTING BOOK: FREE DONATE!

Accountability: In governance, accountability means

answerability to the public and the obligation to report, explain
and be held responsible for consequences of decisions.
Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting
practices. Elections accounting involves keeping consistent,
durable records showing who can vote, who did vote, a vote
count that can be authenticated by humans, and proof of intact chain of custody.
Election records must reconcile- that is, the sum must equal the parts. If election
accounting items are missing or can't be inspected, the election is not accountable
regardless of whether results are signed or certified.

Accountability is not limited to complete, reconcilable records. It also means that public
officials can be held responsible for actions, decisions to hire private contractors, and
oversight of employees and contractors. Enforcement of accountability can be
challenging. Enforcement is not limited to governmental authority; independent
watchdog groups, the media, and private citizens can usually achieve some level of
enforcement, by calling for it, insisting on it, and taking various actions to improve
compliance. Methods to enforce accountability include calling for and implementing
inquiries, investigations, and hearings; sanctions, suspension; resignation;
impeachment; recall elections, prosecution; vote of no confidence; demand for
account-giving or formal explanatory report; media publicity; public testimony, and
litigation.

Exhibit Page No.: 1043 of CES Response Declaration

The line between public institutions and private entities blurs \1 "' n private companies,
paid for with public funds, provide election equipment and services. Privatization of
public services does not remove the right of the public to hold service providers
accountable, though it may remove the means by which to do so.

ITEMS RELATED TO ACCOUNTABILITY:

2016-11-24- About Recounts -Recounts are one part of election accountability.

Provides general information about recounts, how they work, costs, controversies

2016-11-21 - About Audits - Provides general information about audits in the greater
context of public integrity and public oversight.

2016-11-18- Audits or Fraudits? - A concise set of pointers to help citizen observers

identify sham audits and faked spot checks.

2016-11-16- The Bra key Method -A simple, yet incredibly powerful way to enable any
person to "do your own recount" or check every ballot to make sure the reported result
is true.

2016-11-02- Ballot Images: a new way to verify that results are true - Shows examples
of ballot images, a key part of The Bra key Method to make public elections
accountable.

2016-07-19- What constitutes an election audit - How to do your own reconciliation of

election records to determine whether reported results can be substantiated

2016-02-01 - Caucus integrity - Provides a detailed, sourced review of accountability

issues with caucuses, including a number of specific examples of accountability
breakdowns in the 2012 Republican caucuses in three states

Exhibit Page No.: 1044 of CES Response Declaration

2016-01-07- Voter data breaches - mentions that voter databases are needed as part
of election accountability arithmetic, while illustrating why safeguards are needed to
prevent misuse.

2013-11-29- Elections in the United States - describes a number of examples of weak

election accountability in U.S.

2013-11-28- Elections in Afghanistan - Several issues have reduced accountability in

Afghan elections; Difficulty ensuring public safety, violence;; men voting for women; no
eligible voter list; 1Ox as many voter cards as voters so used ink on fingers to prevent
double voting

2013-11-26 - Political Money - Both reasonable, accessible costing for election

accountability measures, and full transparency for all public expenditures is needed
because democracy can not work the public can get reliable confirmation of election
results at reasonable cost, and unless we can see how all taxpayers funds are spent.

2013-06-13- Political Corruption - includes a discussion of the role of accountability,

through transparency and enforcement, in deterring corruption

2013-04-23- Testimony by Tom Courbat before the California Assembly Elections

Committee - an example of concise, effective public testimony by a citizen holding local
election official accountable for a purchase which removed tranparency from voting
system

2008-09-25 (AL)- State tries to charge $28.000 for voter list - ridiculous fees for a public
records that is a crucial component of election integrity (should cost only about $25 to
produce)

2008/01/07- New Hampshire election credibility - Video: New Hampshire House

Elections Committee attempts to hold voting system vendor LHS Associates

Exhibit Page No.: 1045 of CES Response Declaration

accountable, questioning john Silvestro in connection with testimony by Harri Hursti
about hacking the system.

2007/01/24- Wyoming: Sheridan County: Hand recounts prohibited - Provides an

example of reduced accountability in Wyoming recounts (prohibiting human validation
of machine counts}, with better accountability after the election because ballots are
open to public records inspections.

2006/11/04- Texas: Williamson County: ES&S voting machines miscount - Williamson

County elections official dodges questions about voting system accountability, assuring
that results would be correct despite two miscounts during testing, lack of paper
ballots, and installation of uncertified software patch.
SEE ALSO:

Accountability: CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Accountability: ELECTION RECORDS

Accountability: Election Records: ALTERED

Accountability: Election records: INACCURATE

Accountability: Election Records: POLL TAPES

Accountability: LAWS, RULES

ABOUT BLACK BOX VOTING!

Exhibit Page No.: 1046 of CES Response Declaration

Black Box Voting, founded in 2003, performs nonpartisan investigative reporting and
public education for elections.

The independence of Black Box Voting comes from support through citizen donations--
always needed and very much appreciated! Please take a moment to become a patron
by setting up a much-needed monthly sponsorship-- or make a very important single
donation: Click HERE.

You may be wondering what the term "black box" means. A "black box" system is non-
transparent; its functions are hidden from the public. Elections, of course, should not
be black box systems.

Influential reporting by Black Box Voting is referenced worldwide. Here is a link to a

free copy of the book, Black Box Voting: HERE . Author Bev Harris became known for
groundbreaking work on electronic voting machines, which can remove transparency
of the vote count; other important reporting pertains to voter lists, election chain of
custody, transparency problems with absentee voting, election industry corporate
governance, and financial accountability in elections.

Opaque, non-transparent voting can afflict voter lists, polllists,vote counting and chain
of custody; political finance can also be "black box." The road to better transparency
begins with knowledge and public, grassroots dedication. I am glad you are here!

Bev Harris
BlackBoxVoting.org

Contact information: 206-335-7747

MEDIA INQUIRIES: for immediate response please send TEXT message
PO Box 72 Carlsborg WA 98324
info@blackboxvoting.org

RECENT POSTS

Exhibit Page No.: 1047 of CES Response Declaration

When is a recount a sham?

About Recounts

Fraction Magic Video

About Audits

Audits or Fraudits?

Actions: The Brakey Method

Ballot Images- A new way to verify that results are true

Stream 'Hacking Democracy'- now on Amazon Video

The truth about exit polls and vote counts: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary

What Constitutes an Election Audit

2017 BlackBoxVoting.org. All Rights Reserved.

Exhibit Page No.: 1048 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit V-3

Exhibit Page No.: 1049 of CES Response Declaration

AUDITS OR FRAUDITS?
By Bev Harris November 18,2016 OBSERVATION No Comments f
1n

Election Watch
e Black Box Votina.org I, but are really
HOME BLACK BOX VOTING BOOK: FREE DONATE! ~

- It is holistic, cross-checking information from a variety of source documents;

- Discrepancies trigger nonrestricted expansion of the audit;

-The entity being audited is not allowed to constrain the audit;

-A real audit involves selections based on hunches, red flags, and suspicions as well
as targeting by random choice.

Why it's important to call it a spot check not an audit: A spot check cannot prove

Exhibit Page No.: 1050 of CES Response Declaration

an election was sound or that its results were accurate. Ballot spot checks can help
to discover errors and may, in some cases, act as a deterrent for certain types of
election fraud, but referring to spot-checks as "audits" produces false confidence and
often causes election officials and the media to overstate the implications of the spot
check.

HOW TO DETECT A SHAM

1. All phases must be publicly observable. Were ballots sorted or chosen before
observers arrived? Was target selection fully transparent and public? Were any
essential records deemed "off limits"?

2. Precinct results must be published and publicly available well before samples are
selected for spot check.

3. Selection must be an unpredictable surprise. UNPREDICTAB "' s not the same

thing as RANDOM. Also, there should not be any unobserved time lapse between
selection and spot check.

Example: Fresno County California was preselecting its spot-check precincts two
months before the election. In the 2004 Ohio presidential recount, Cuyahoga County
employees admitted to choosing their own precincts for a spot check, stating "our
random is our random." (Watch the film "Hacking Democracy" for footage of this
scene, videotaped by a citizen observer.)

4. All ballot questions must be checkable. Random selection of one or two races is
unlikely to pick the most controversial race, or the few races most at risk for fraud.

5. Selection must begin with the whole set of precincts, and public observers must
have a way to confirm that the whole set was used.

Exhibit Page No.: 1051 of CES Response Declaration

Example: Several years ago in West Virginia a county election official chose a
llrandom sample" of precincts using slips of paper in a bag. When an observer,
videotaping the process, asked her to empty out the bag to show that it contained a
slip of paper for every precinct, the official hurriedly left the room (holding the bag)
and then returned with the bag containing all its precincts. Computer selection may
seem more professional than slips in a paper bag but is actually even less
transparent. Observers may have difficulty verifying that every one of the hundreds
of precincts in a large jurisdiction are actually included in the spot check selection
program.

5. Every ballot should have some chance of being audited. There should be no
subset or class of ballots that are excluded from the audit.

Example: in San Diego County after the 2016 primary election, a large subset of vote-
by-mail ballots were excluded from the spot check. Knowing that this set would be
excluded, these vote-by-mail ballots could be targeted for election fraud with little
risk.

6. If the audit does reveal a descrepancy it must have a mechanism to increase

scrutiny, such as taking a larger sample or examining other kinds of records.

Example: In San Diego County after the 2016 primary~ a number of ballots were
observed with White-out" obliterating the original votes. Regardless of whether the
11

reason given for the white-out seems valid, this kind of discrepancy would need to
be examined by expanding the study of all ballots with white-out, and by
incorporating statistical analysis to determine if the white-out disproportionately
affected one class of voters or one candidate.

7. A ballot spot check must be hand counted not machine counted. A machine count
cannot serve as the primary way to authenticate another machine count.

Exhibit Page No.: 1052 of CES Response Declaration

8. There are four areas where election tampering can change results. A spot check or
audit of one area does not cover the others. Tampering in any one of the four areas
can alter the outcome.

FOUR AREAS TO AUDIT

a. Who can vote

b. Who did vote
c. Counting of the vote
d. Chain of custody

Auditing who can vote examines whether:

(1) All eligible voters would have been allowed to vote
(2) Any ineligible voters could have voted.

Auditing who did vote examines whether:

(1) Number of voters matches number of votes, and determining if turnout
percentage was within normal bounds
(2) Any eligible voters were turned away
(3) Any ineligible voters cast votes

Auditing the counting of the vote examines whether:

(1) A human examination of ballots matches results reported by machine
(2) Ballot images* (pictures of ballots) match reported count
(3) Ballot images match actual ballots

Because ballot images are an electronic record, giving public access to all ballot
images can speed up verification of election results as long as the public can
compare ballot images to actual ballots. (See 'The Brakey Method")

Auditing chain of custody examines whether:

Exhibit Page No.: 1053 of CES Response Declaration

{1) The votes counted included all the ballots, extra ballots, or altered ballots
(2) Whether all essential components can be shown to be the original element.

Example: Shelby County Tennessee- August 2010, a records inspection sought to

determine whether poll tapes {results printed from each precinct machine) matched
reported results from the central tabulator. The poll tapes were not made available
until12 days after the election. During the 12-day interval, additional voting
machines were set up in an adjoining room and were observed printing poll tapes.
Prior to that, poll tapes had been observed in a trash bag. Inspectors were not able
to determine whether the poll tapes they were given to inspect were the originals.

*****

The importance of public citizens doing field observation cannot be overstated.

Success of any spot check or audit depends on getting the details right. Without
vigilant public observers, official"verification" of elections can become nothing more
than taxpayer-funded theatre.

COMMENTS

6 comments

Exhibit Page No.: 1054 of CES Response Declaration

 I
5 Comments Sort by l Oldest

Add a comment...

Dael V Escher Social Media Manager at Election Integrity Ohio

Thank you Bev Harris!
Like Reply Nov 19,2016 2:42pm

AQ Freechild
We Need a Recount in Several Key States After Hacks, Exit Poll Red Flags & Irregularities-
please sign the petition and spread the word :
http://petitions.moveon .org/sign/we-need-a-recount-in
Like Reply 1 Nov 20, 2016 10:30pm

Kevin Kane New Orleans, Louisiana

VVhy don't YOU move on. MoveOn.org (a Sores funded Liberal cesspool) among the
idiots who claim voter ID laws are "racist" but can never explain why.
Like Reply Nov 26, 2016 1:45pm

Randy Divinski
Great to see so much new content going up. Very useful and educational stuff.
Like Reply Nov 22, 2016 1:37pm

Ashlea Gottschalk
I was informed my vote was not counted after voting at the Republic of Panama Embassy
because the embassy did not get it to Coos county Oregon on the same day I was allowed to
vote at the Embassy. I am the dad I don t use facebook
Like Reply Nov 23,2016 11 :44pm

Patricia Axelrod
As always Bev Harris keeps us informed and in the know. I support hand cast-hand counted
ballots and shall do so until our nation reverts back to pre-machine times when one could
actually observe counting. And while I know that elections have been stlen pre-machine era I
believe that stlen elections are less likely to happen when election watch dogs are allowed to
watch and and actually count election results.
Like Reply No\f26,20167:27am

-WATCH THIS SECTION GROW-

Exhibit Page No.: 1055 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit V-4

Exhibit Page No.: 1056 of CES Response Declaration

ACTIONS: THE BRAKEY METHOD
By Bev Harris November 15, 2016

ACTIONS, ADVOCACY, IMPROVE TECHNOLOGY, ORGANIZING, ROLE MODELS
f .,
No Comments
in

Put the brakes on ~~mystery elections" once and for all. A simple 3-step
method places public elections back under public control.

THE BRAKEY METHOD

1. Preserve and make public the llballot images"- Modern voting

systems take a picture of every ballot, called a ~~ballot image."
2. Peg the ballot image to the actual ballot using a unique ID number
(not connected to any voter identifier in any way).
3. Make sure ballots are a public record so that any person can
arrange to inspect the actual ballots at any time.

Exhibit Page No.: 1057 of CES Response Declaration

Ballot images can be released electronically, either upon request or-
better- by placing them on the Web, allowing any person to examine
pictures of any or all ballots. These electronic images can be
authenticated by any person by checking any ballot, which must
contain same unique ID number.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. Do all voting systems make ballot images?

A. Most of them do. The best ballot images are actual photographic
images of voter-marked paper ballots, but even the paperless DRE
machines are capable of, and usually do, automatically make ballot
images.

Q, Where do I go to ask to see ballot images?

A. Public records and freedom of information laws direct persons to the

"custodian of the records." For most locations, the custodian of the
records for ballot images is the county elections office. In some
locations, primarily in New England, the custodian of the records is a
municipality.

Q. How do I ask for the ballot images?

A. You can go to the elections office with a USB stick in hand and ask for
a copy as a public records request.

Q. What if they tell me the ballot images don't exist?

Exhibit Page No.: 1058 of CES Response Declaration

A. There are two possible reasons this could be the case: (1) They
destroyed the ballot images, which violates records retention
requirements and destroys a crucial audit record, and, in some states,
constitutes a felony. (Note that one case, in Alameda County Calif,
required an election official to re-run an election after she destroyed
audit records.) Or (2) They are using old, out of date voting machines,
some of which do not produce a ballot image. If they destroyed the
ballot images, seek out a qualified attorney to take appropriate legal
action, or focus on obtaining legislation to require preservation of
ballot images and making them public. If they are using machines
which do not produce the images, focus on public pressure to purchase
the right kind of voting machines next time, and/or on getting
legislation requiring the use of machines that produce ballot images,
plus public release of the images.

Q. What if they won't let me see anything at all?

A. Some states, like Kansas, Utah, and Nevada, have passed

exceptionally undemocratic laws which prohibit any inspection of key
election audit documents. If this is the case, litigation or change of
legislation will be the appropriate action.

Q. How does the Bra key Method address issues like voter purges or
voter ID?

A. It doesn't. The Bra key Method solves transparency problems with the
counting of the vote. There is no magic wand that solves all types of
election integrity issues in one swoop. It helps to parse election
integrity into four components:

Exhibit Page No.: 1059 of CES Response Declaration

-Who can vote (voter lists)

-Who did vote (participating voter lists)

Election Watch

e Black Box Votinu.oru Q llots? Have

HOME BLACK BOX VOTING BOOK: FREE DONATE!

Q. Why is it called The Brakey Method?

A. Actually it has a lengthier pedigree. The first election integrity

advocate to propose using ballot images to authenticate the count was
Harri Hursti, in 2006. Hursti is the computer security expert who
demonstrated hacking voting machines in the film Hacking Democracy.
(See http://hackingdemocracy.com). Black Box Voting promoted this
concept in 2006, working with Hursti to produce a prototype to allow
public, open source, automated counting of ballot images if desired. A
commercial fisherman named Kevin Collins, from Humboldt County
California, together with Carolyn Crnich, a Humboldt County election
official, met with Bev Harris to discuss actually implementing the use of
ballot images to authenticate the count. Humboldt County purchased
an off-the-shelf scanner and began making its ballot images available to
the public in 2008. A Humboldt County citizen named Mitch
Trachtenberg developed free open source software which improved on
the original Hursti prototype. The first time Humboldt County allowed
public authentication of the count using ballot images, it was
discovered that the central tabulator had miscounted. A Colorado

Exhibit Page No.: 1060 of CES Response Declaration

citizen named Marilyn Marks filed/ and won, a succession of lawsuits
establishing that both ballots and ballot images must be treated as
public records in Colorado. But it was in 2016, under the relentless and
strategic efforts of Arizona election integrity advoca "' )hn Bra key, that
the ballot image concept really began to take off.

Bra key requested ballot images from Pima County, was told they were
being destroyed. He sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) to prohibit Arizona officials from destroying the images.
His work mushroomed out into many other U.S. states, generating
cooperation from some and obstruction from others. It is Bra key who
boiled this important transparency measure down into a simple three-
part method (images, connector ID, right to examine actual ballots). It is
Bra key who has been most effective at propagating this excellent
solution. We need a name for it. Bev Harris started calling it The Bra key
Method to make it easy to say and easy to explain as a 1-2-3 process
that:

a. Is already available with most voting systems

b. Is already pinned into Freedom of Information rights in most places

c. Costs little or nothing to implement

OBJECTIONS

"This might allow voters to sell their vote.'/- No, it won't/ and if you
are concerned about that you are against vote-by-mail right?
Because it is far easier to sell a vote by just taking a picture of an

Exhibit Page No.: 1061 of CES Response Declaration

 absentee ballot than by trying to identify an anonymous ballot
image.
"This might jeopardize secrecy of the ballot."- No, it doesn't,
unless your election administration is permitting an identifier on
the ballot which ties back to the voter. One state, Colorado, was
caught doing this, embedding a QR code on each ballot which
connected to vote ID number, permitting election officials and
vendors to see how you voted. The solution is to prohibit printing
identifying information on the ballot. There is no special class of
persons such as election officials or vendors who have a right to see
how you voted.

Using The Bra key Method, it doesn't matter if Attila the Hun owns the
voting machines, the public will once again own its elections.

Work on getting The Bra key Method going in your location. It is, at this
time, the most important thing you can to do protect the counting of
the vote.

COMMENTS

15 comments

8 Comments Sort by Oldest

I.

Exhibit Page No.: 1062 of CES Response Declaration

 Add a comment.. .

Scott Poster
sorry, I don't care about a voter identity marker. I think paper ballots period is
the solution. I want to be certain the ballot I voted on still exists, period.
Like Reply Nov 16,2016 7:53pm

, Charlene Davies
Then get busy and make sure your area has a fool-proof system. It
doesn't happpen by magic. It takes work to force them to do what
they are legally obligated to do. If you want it, make it happen. Or sit
home and make demands and see how far you get.
Like Reply 1 Nov 16,2016 9:05pm

Scott Poster
Charlene Davies Already happened here paper ballots were the only
option.
Like Reply 1 Nov 16,2016 9:12pm

~~ Randy Divinski
VVhile the ballot code in this method isn't tied to a voter, that voter
might be able to make note of the code and review their specific ballot
later under this methodology. That would answer your concern.
However, the best way to secure your personal vote is to have a
system that audits EVERYONE'S vote.
Like Reply 3 Nov 17,2016 3:25pm

Randy Divinski
r
I am very interested in this. Appearing locally with a thumb drive is one
suggestion for receiving the data. Do you have a FOIA right to request the
data from a county in another state? If so, is there a way to receive it without
physically going there? How would the images be organized? (By machine,
precinct, county?) If by machine, does it take a separate request for each
one? Are vote totals reported somewhere in units that match the ballot
images? (For instance, if I have images from one machine and vote totals for
a precinct [with 3 machines] that won't do me much good -- I need to synch
the images with a reported total in some way.)
Like Reply Nov 17,2016 4:38pm Edited

Mat Hyoo
This still doesn't answer the problem of how photos of fake ballots would be
prevented.
I~~~- r""'\ - . - 1 . . 11.1- . . . . . ,.. "1"\.A,.._ Al"\.r*l"\ ___ _

Exhibit Page No.: 1063 of CES Response Declaration

 LIKe Kep1y Nov ., o, Lut o ., u:ouam

Randy Divinski
Can you be more specific? If you mean that touch screen machines
can create a false image at the same time they register a false vote,
you may be right. Those machines are inherently unverifiable, barring
a slip up. But for optiscan, where an original paper ballot exists, if
there is a serial number tying ballots to images, it is possible to detect
if the image was altered. If you mean something, else, like a faked
mail-in or absentee ballot that is then fed into a scanner, yep,
garbage-in, garbage-out. BUT that kind of fraud can only change an
election outcome if done in mass quantities, and a review of images
might uncover a pattern that would expose mass fraud.
Like Reply Nov 18, 2016 3:13pm

Muriel Mary
Can I ask for this from any county, or only my county?
Like Reply Nov 20, 2016 8:57pm

, Frank Henry Works at Retired

Any county.
Like Reply Jan 7, 2017 4:00pm

Jackie Chakhtoura
If anyone tries this, please report back to tell us how it went. I'm skeptical it's
really all that simple. A Wichita State University (Kansas) statistician has been
trying to gain access to paper tapes from voting machines for years -- no luck.
Yes, Ms. Harris listed Kansas among the states prohibiting access to election
documents, but I wonder if this is really as easy as it should be in other
states? Please share your own personal experience, thank you!
http://www. kansas. com/.. ./politics .. ./article61222187. html
Like Reply Nov25,20 1610:22pm Edited

!
Frank Henry Works at Retired
Kansas (and most of our 50 states) election laws/procedures/
pratices are unconstitutional ... therefore will do nothing for the
voters/citizens of their state(s) untill all individual voter's "30
Full Voting Rights" are spelled out in the constitutions and election
laws . .... (Thanks and Good Luck, ... Frank Henry,... Full Voting
Rights Advocate, ... e-mail: fmhenry4@netzero.com)
Like Reply Jan 7, 2017 4 :09pm

Jonah Earl Thomas

Here's how I imagine this working:

You fill out a ballot with pencil or pen, and it goes into a machine which counts

Exhibit Page No.: 1064 of CES Response Declaration

 So to fake ballots you have to create new imagines with the same codes and
different votes, and introduce them into the file of ballots while removing the
old images. Ideally you would download the original file, replace the ones you
want to replace, and then replace the old file with the new one. You'd have to
do that before anybody else could download it.

If people got to see their unique codes then their votes wouldn't be completely
a ... See More

-WATCH THIS SECTION GROW-

INDEX
ACCOUNTABILITY
-- CHAIN OF CUSTODY
-- ELECTION RECORDS
---- Records: ALTERED
---- Records: INACCURATE
---- Records: POLL TAPES
--ENFORCEMENT
-- LAWS, RULES
--TRANSPARENCY
ACTIONS
--ROLE MODELS
--ADVOCACY

Exhibit Page No.: 1065 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit V-5

Exhibit Page No.: 1066 of CES Response Declaration

How the vote is counted in California after
Election Day
By JANIE HAR- Associated Press
Wednesday, November 9, 2016

SAN FRANCISCO (AP)- Voters in California are bound to have questions about the millions of ballots
cast in the Nov. 8 election. Some people may wonder why they had to fill out a provisional ballot or when
results will be fmal. Others may wonder how to verify that their ballots were indeed counted.

Here are answers to some questions about counting ballots:

HOW MANY BALLOTS MIGHT BE OUTSTANDING AFTER TUESDAY?

The secretary of state's office reported Wednesday that counties have already counted nearly 10 million
ballots. A record 19.4 million Californians registered to vote in the presidential election, but it's still not
clear what overall turnout will be, as millions of ballots are outstanding.

Paul Mitchell, vice president of data firm Political Data Inc., had said as many as 3 million ballots may
remain to be counted after Election Day. He posted on Twitter Wednesday that the number of remaining
ballots may be higher.

The lag will likely delay results in several close races, including Proposition 53, an initiative to block
Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to build twin tunnels to divert water from the Sacramento River delta and tight
congressional races in the Sacramento and San Diego areas.

In any case, that's because the state has more than 11 million people registered to vote-by-mail whose
ballots may still be coming in. Also, there was a surge in last-minute voters who will probably have to
cast provisional ballots.

WHAT ARE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS?

Poll workers give provisional backup ballots to people whose voter eligibility cannot be verified
immediately.

For example, voters will be given a provisional ballot if they show up to vote at the wrong polling site.
They will be given a provisional ballot if they showed up at a polling site unaware that they have ballots
at home that they need to surrender before they can get a new ballot.

Exhibit Page No.: 1067 of CES Response Declaration

 .. :. ! .. - ;,.-~ .

Provisional ballots are just like regular ballots. They are counted once the county verifies that the person
is properly registered to vote, and that the person has not already cast a ballot.

WILL ALL BALLOTS BE COUNTED, EVEN AFTER A WINNER IS DECLARED?

Yes, all valid ballots are counted. Counties do not stop processing ballots just because a winner has been
declared or a campaign has conceded.

HOW DO I FIND OUT IF MY BALLOT WAS COUNTED?

Voters who cast a provisional ballot or who mailed in a ballot have a right to know if their ballot was
counted and if not, the reason why it was not counted.

Contact your county elections office for that information.

I FORGOT TO SIGN MY MAIL-IN BALLOT. WHAT CAN I DO?

State law allows voters to fix the problem by submitting a signature by Nov. 16. Some counties will
proactively contact the voter; others will not. Again, contact your county elections office for information.

WHY CAN'T COUNTIES HURRY UP AND COUNT?

"It's our goal to make sure it's done correctly, not quickly," said Melissa Hickok, executive assistant to
Contra Costa County's recorder-registrar, where about 150,000 ballots were still to be processed
Wednesday. "We want to make sure we get it right. We want to make sure provisionals are counted if
countable and we want to make sure people do not double vote."

In Santa Clara, spokeswoman Anita Torres said staff are working around the clock to process ballots. It's
taking longer this year, she said, because of high turnout and the number of issues on the ballot. The
county has about 200,000 vote-by-mail ballots waiting to be processed.

WHEN WILL RESULTS BE FINAL?

It may take days or even weeks to get fmal election results.

That's because it takes time for counties to check all those provisional ballots. Also, mail-in ballots
postmarked by Nov. 8 will be counted if they are received by your county election office within 3 days
after the election. Because of the Veteran's Day holiday, that day extends to Nov. 14 this year.

Exhibit Page No.: 1068 of CES Response Declaration

State law requires county elections officials to report final results to the secretary of state for presidential
electors by December 6. The deadline for all other contests is December 9.

Copyright 2017 The Washington Times, LLC.

Exhibit Page No.: 1069 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit V-6

Exhibit Page No.: 1070 of CES Response Declaration

Did Obama Encourage Illegal Immigrants to Vote? No, But YES.

BY: JAMES BARRETT on NOVEMBER 7, 2016

I
n an interview highlighted by Fox Business News' Neil Cavuto
(http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/11/06/cavuto-stunned-obama-prods-illegals-vote-national-tv-secret-cant-catch-

408989) that's gone viral, President Barack Obama seems to encourage illegal immigrants to vote. In

response to an ambiguously phrased question about illegal immigrants and voting, Obama gives an

equivocal answer that many have interpreted as an open call for illegals to illegally vote.

In an interview (below) with actress and rapper Gina Rodriguez- a Chicago-born American citizen whose

parents are Puerto Rican - Obama discussed the supposed attempts by the Right to suppress voting rights
and tried to encourage Latinos to get to the polls. The eyebrow-raising moment came when Rodriguez told
the president that "millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens" are "fearful of voting," then asked if
some like her were to vote, would immigration authorities be able to track her down and "come for my

family and deport us."

Exhibit Page No.: 1071 of CES Response Declaration

Obama answered emphatically that it's "Not true" that voting could open up someone to being more easily
tracked by the government.

Because of the convoluted phrasing of the question, though, it's unclear if Rodriguez is asking if an illegal
immigrant should fear voting, or someone like herself, a citizen with illegals apparently in her family, should
fear voting to protect her family. After his initial response, Obama notes that Rodriguez is a citizen and
indicates that he means those with "a family member who maybe is undocumented."

Here's the first part of the exchange:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennia/s, Dreamers, undocumented citizens-- and I call them
citizens because they contribute to this country-- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will
immigration know where /live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, fjrst of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And
there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start
investigating, etcetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confjdential in terms of who you voted
for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater
reason to vote.

Rodriguez then repeats that being tracked by immigration is a "huge fear" among those with illegals in their
family. Obama then emphasizes that it is particularly important for people with illegal family members and
friends to vote because their "speaking for family members, friends, classmates":

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don't want people
voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino
citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself.
You're speaking for family members,friends, classmates of yours in school...

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

Exhibit Page No.: 1072 of CES Response Declaration

 OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting
on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

Regardless of the exact phrasing, the president's general point is clear: There will be no immigration
backlash for those who vote.

Exchange begins at the 3:23 mark (full transcript of segment below):

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens --and I call them
citizens because they contribute to this country-- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will
immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And

Exhibit Page No.: 1073 of CES Response Declaration

 there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start
investigating, etcetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly con(ldential in terms of who you voted
tor. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater
reason to vote.

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don't want people voting. People
are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your
voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members,
friends, classmates of yours in school...

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to
make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

After playing a clip of the interview late last week, Cavuto brought on former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for
a follow-up discussion (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/11/06/cavuto-stunned-obama-prods-illegals-vote-national-tv-
secret-cant -catch-408 98 9).

"I can't believe that I heard what I heard!" said the FBN host. "It was very clear that the question that was
being asked was about illegals voting and them being afraid they might be reported to Border Security."

Exhibit Page No.: 1074 of CES Response Declaration



PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR

PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitV7

Exhibit Page No.: 1075 of CES Response Declaration

 Trump taps Pence to head voter
fraud investigation
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 02/05/17 04:36 PM EST

2,740 SHARES SHARE (2.8K) TWEET PLUS ONE

Just In...

Trump WH officials
work their way around President Trump talks Super Bowl LI with Bill O'Reilly | SUPER BOWL LI
ethics rules: report
BLOG BRIEFING ROOM 0S AGO

US conducts tests for

upgraded nuclear bomb
DEFENSE 1H 2M AGO

Senators want more

efficient way to get
food aid to Africa
SENATE 1H 31M AGO

Thousands turn out at

rallies demanding
Trump release tax President Trump will have Vice President Mike Pence oversee a special
returns commission to investigate voter fraud, which he says helped
BLOG BRIEFING ROOM
Hillary Clinton win the popular vote.
2H 25M AGO

Im going to set up a commission to be headed by Vice President Mike

Sunday shows preview: Pence and were going to look at it very, very carefully, Trump told Fox
McMaster hits circuit Newss Bill OReilly in an interview airing Sunday afternoon before the
for second straight
Super Bowl.
week
SUNDAY TALK SHOWS
2H 50M AGO
Look, Bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you
have illegals, you have dead people you have this, its really a bad
situation, its really bad, he said.
North Korean
attempted missile
The announcement came up when Trump was asked about criticism that
launch fails
his claim of voter fraud is not backed up by the data.
NEWS 3H 28M AGO

Many people have come out and said Im right, you know that, Trump
Trump reportedly said. You have illegals, you have dead people its really a bad
annoyed by Time cover situation.
with Bannon
The Washington Post reported that Pence pledged to GOP lawmakers at
ADMINISTRATION 4H 50M AGO
the annual Republican retreat in Philadelphia that the administration
would initiate a full evaluation of voting rolls nationwide.
Clashes erupt at pro-
Trump rally in California But Trumps plans for a major investigation into what he claims were
BLOG BRIEFING ROOM
fraudulent votes by as many as 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants
5H 24M AGO
may not get too far without congressional funding.
VIEW ALL
Exhibit Page No.: 1076 of CES Response Declaration
 Already Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he
doesnt want to spend federal funds on the investigation and leave it to
state authorities.

But Trump on Sunday stuck to his claim of massive voter fraud, which
even Republicans on Capitol Hill have questioned and The New York
Times has dismissed as a lie.

Related News by Trump said there is evidence of votes being attributed to dead people and
of people voting in different states in the same election.

McConnell and other GOP leaders agree there is voter fraud but not on
the scale claimed by Trump.

There is no evidence that it occurred in such a significant number that

Ivanka Trump met would have changed the presidential election, he said on CNNs State of
secretly with Planned the Union Sunday morning.

TAGS HILLARY CLINTON MITCH MCCONNELL MIKE PENCE

SHARE (2.8K) TWEET PLUS ONE

Conway: Media covering

Trump a hot mess on

Poll: Americans uneasy

about Trump handling

Trump feud with Obama

intensifies

THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX
THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE 2017 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Exhibit Page No.: 1077 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

ExhibitW

Exhibit Page No.: 1078 of CES Response Declaration

 Subject: Link to video: "MICHAEL CUTLER MOMENT: LETHAL SANCTUARY CITIES"

From: Michael Cutler (mcutler007@aol.com)

To: mcutler007@aol.com;

Date: Thursday, April13, 2017 8:17PM

Hi Gang:

Kindly forward this e-mail to as many folks as you can and then ask that those to whom you send this, to
forward it along to everyone they can- I am attempting to create a "Bucket Brigade of Truth!"

Please remember to tune into my radio show, "The Michael Cutler Hour" on BlogTalk Radio on Friday
evenings at 7:00 PM, Eastern Time, and find podcasts of my previous programs at:

USA Talk Radio

On April13, 2017 the website, The Glazov Gang posted a video in which I explained my opposition to
the lunacy of Sanctuary Cities.
Here is the link to my video-

THE GLAZOV GANG

MICHAEL CUTLER MOMENT:

LETHAL SANCTUARY CITIES

As I have noted in a number of my articles for a variety of websites, Mayors of "Sanctuary Cities" are not helping
illegal aliens who fall victim to criminals. In point of fact, illegal aliens who assist law enforcement authorities are
able to acquire visas that enable them to live and work legally in the United States. If our political leaders truly want
to assist aliens who fall victim to crimes and they want to go after transnational criminals and human traffickers, they
need to encourage illegal aliens to cooperate with ICE to provide actionable intelligence that can ultimately
identify, investigate, arrest and prosecute these alien criminals.

Shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE is illegal and undermines public safety and national security.

The 9/11 Commission made it clear that terror attacks, and not just the attacks of 9/11 were made possible by multiple
failures of the immigration system.

Exhibit Page No.: 1079 of CES Response Declaration

Therefore, Americans must be willing to stand their ground and not be intimidated by the false accusations- far too
much hangs in the balance! We must speak out against mayors and governors who create "Sanctuary Cities"
and "Sanctuary States."

"Partners in Crime:
On April 4, 2017 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my article,
Mayors of Sanctuary Cities, Human Traffickers and Other Criminals."

On March 31, 2017 FrontPage Magazine published my article, "SANCTUARY CITIES: WHERE
HYPOCRISY RULES- NYC's Mayor Bill DeBlasio blocks the deportation ofcriminal aliens
by ICE."

" The Problem

The Winter 2017 edition of the quarterly publication "The Social Contract" includes my article,
with 'Sanctuary Campuses'- Universities con students into acting against their own
best interests."

Many people have come to complain that we have become too "Politically Correct" to speak the truth about important
issues. My view is that the artful use of language that has been described as examples of political correctness are in
fact, examples of Orwellian "Newspeak."

Having invoked George Orwell, it is appropriate to consider a couple of his brilliant quotes:

Political language-- and with variations this is true of all political parties.
from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable. and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

In a time of universal deceit. telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

It is time that when the "compassion card" is brought out the issue of compassion must first take into account the
safety and wellbeing of America and Americans. There is nothing compassionate about committing suicide!
I urge you to get involved and demand our elected representatives actually represent us- We the People! The
information contained in my article is being provided to educate as many of our fellow Americans as possible so that
they can ask the right questions and make the appropriate demands on our political leaders and representatives and
political candidates.

Please pass this suggestion to as many folks as you can!

America, first and foremost, is comprised of its citizens not rivers parks and cities. We have never had more American
citizens, especially minority citizens, living below the poverty level. We now expect that American kids will not do as
well as their parents. This is not how we will get America to lead.

Simply stated, American Lives Matter!!

One of the points of contention where political "liberals" and political "conservatives" are concerned is how much
government is appropriate, with conservatives demanding less government and liberals generally believing in more
government, an issue that should be agreed upon by all reasonable Americans is the need for our government to secure
our borders and enforce our immigration laws. This should not be a divisive issue- our immigration laws are
completely and utterly blind as to race, religion and ethnicity and were enacted for the two primary purposes of
protecting innocent lives and protecting the jobs of American workers.

Exhibit Page No.: 1080 of CES Response Declaration

All reasonable Americans want to live in safety where the American dream provides opportunities for anyone who is
willing to acquire an education, work hard and benefit from a bit of luck. They want the same for their children and
their children's children. How on earth could there be any controversy about the need to prevent criminals or terrorists
from entering the United States? How on earth could anyone think that it is good for Americans to have to compete
with foreign workers from Third World countries for their jobs- forcing wages down, thereby creating wage
suppression?

If ever there was a ''No brainer" issue- you would have to believe it would be the fair and effective enforcement of our
immigration laws.

Here are links to some of my other commentaries that I hope you will fmd helpful:

"PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
On January 4, 2017 FrontPage Magazine published my article,
IMMIGRATION CHALLENGE: To undo Obama 's catastrophic damage."
The Summer Edition of The Social Contract includes my extensive article,
"The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years
after the Attacks."
On December 26, 2016 FrontPage Magazine published my article, "BERLIN TERROR ATTACK AND
IMMIGRATION LAW VIOLATIONS: What America should learn from this newest horrific lesson."

On December 22,2016 FrontPage Magazine published my article, "FOREIGN STUDENT VISAS:

EDUCATING AMERICA'S ADVERSARIES: Guess who Obama's State Department issues hundreds
of thousands ofstudent visas to? "

"How DHS Ineptitude Facilitates Terrorist

On April20, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article,
Operations A chilling case-in-point from Ohio. "

The Winter Edition of the Social Contract includes my article, Sanctuary Cities Endanger- National
Security and Public Safety

President Obama: Accessory to the Crimes

On April26, 2016 FrontPage Magazine published my article,
Committed By Illegal Aliens? The grim findings unveiled by a House congressional
hearing.

On January 23, 2015 Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) posted my commentary, For America to
Do Well, Americans Must Do Well

On November 13, 2015 the Daily Caller published my article, Political Candidates, Immigration And
Home Repair Con-Artists

On October 20, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article, "Immigration Law Enforcement: Why
Bother? -The crucial issues at stake for American citizens."

On November 6, 2016 FrontPage Magazine published my article: Decoding Politicians' Immigration

Newspeak -The devious manipulation oflanguage employed by the political class.

Exhibit Page No.: 1081 of CES Response Declaration

On January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article: "Sleeper Cells: The Immigration
Component of the Threat."
"Illegal Aliens Are Not 'Law Abiding'- The
On June 28, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article,
vital importance ofAmerica's immigration and inspection laws. "
On July 7, 2014, FrontPage published my article, "Border Security and the Immigration Colander."

Keeping Track of Visa Violators: The

On September 3, 2015 FrontPage Magazine posted my article:
overlooked source of the nation's illegal immigration problems that people are finally talking
about.

Educating Our Adversaries: Why

On September 10, 2015 FrontPage magazine published my article:
educatingforeign STEM students is bad for American workers and national security.

On July 5, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article: One Chance Is All a Terrorist Needs: How
DHS is failing to heed its own warnings.

Syrian 'Refugees' and Immigration

On October 7, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article:
Roulette: How the government is recklessly playing with American lives.

Educating 'Engineers of Jihad' at US

On November 12, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article:
Universities: How the legal immigration system allowed four al-Qaeda-linked terrorists to
attend U.S. colleges and roam free among us.

"Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con

On June 18, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article,
Game How politicians are robbing citizens of access to the American Dream."
On June 27, 2015 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my article, "Heroin Epidemic: The Real
Metric for Determining Border Security. "

On December 19, 2014 Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) posted my extensive article: "Obama's
'Gift' to International Terrorists: Immigration Executive Action."

"Immigration 'Reform': Engineered Destruction

On July 22, 2014 FrontPage Magazine posted my article:
of the Middle Class" The real reason high-tech titans are lining up behind the amnesty
effort.

On February 17, 2015 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my commentary: Effective

Exhibit Page No.: 1082 of CES Response Declaration

Immigration Law Enforcement is 'Pro-Immigrant,' Compassionate

In October 2014 Progressives For Immigration Reform published my policy brief:

The Liberal Case for Effective Immigration Law Enforcement
A video of my presentation of my policy brief at the Progressives For Immigration Reform conference in November
2014 has been posted on You Tube.

On November 15, 2014 I was honored to join three true leaders in the United States Congress in a panel discussion on
immigration- Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressmen Louis Gohmert and John Fleming. A video of this panel
discussion has been posted on the David Horowitz Freedom Center's website under the title, "IMMIGRATION
WARS: An all-star panel takes on America's immigration crisis at Restoration Weekend."

The video has also been posted on YouTube under the title- " Immigration Wars."

The perspectives of these true leaders are well worth listening to.

To provide you with a bit of additional material, during my remarks at the panel discussion, I referenced my June 22,
2007 Op-Ed for the Washington Times that focused on my concerns about the previous attempt to enact
Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Senator Jeff Sessions quoted from my commentary, on three separate dates,
from the floor of the U.S. during the contentious floor debates. In my piece I recommended that Comprehensive
Immigration Reform be given a more honest and descriptive title, I suggested that it be renamed the "Terrorist
Assistance and Facilitation Act!"

I recommend you review Senator

Session's statement on June 27, 2007 from the floor of the U.S.
Senate on the Immigration Bill in which the Senator made reference to my suggested new name to that
disastrous legislation in my Washington Times Op-Ed. His impassioned pleas to his colleagues averted a catastrophe
and that legislation was defeated. However, not unlike Freddy Krueger, Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been
brought back to life through the unilateral actions of President Obama and his proposed executive actions.
Furthermore, there are politicians from both parties willing to give this legislative betrayal of America and Americans
CPR!

My Op-Ed was entitled:

Immigration bill a 'No Go'

Today our nation and our citizens face a list of challenges and threats- nearly every one of which is being exacerbated
by long-standing failures of our nation to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. To be clear, it is not
"Anti-Immigrant" to want these two issues to be dealt with effectively. In point of fact, the same immigration laws
that mandate the categories of aliens to be kept our of our country and the terms under which aliens should be removed
from our country have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity, also provide for the lawful admission
of roughly one million lawful immigrants and the naturalization of hundreds of thousands of new citizens each year.

It is therefore a contradiction in terms and thinking to claim that it is "Anti-Immigrant" to support the effective
enforcement and administration of our immigration laws

Let us be clear in our thinking- it is "Pro-Immigrant" to be "Pro-Enforcement!"

Exhibit Page No.: 1083 of CES Response Declaration

When the issue of immigration comes up most people purely focus on the lack of integrity to the border that
is supposed to separate the United States from America. Clearly that border lacks integrity and represents little more
than a speed bump to smugglers who transport illegal aliens and contraband including record quantities of dangerous
drugs such as heroin and cocaine into the United States.

However, there are many more components to the immigration system including systems by which aliens are granted
visas to enter the United States and various immigration benefits such as conferring employment authorization to aliens
in the United States and also include the adjudications process by which aliens are granted lawful immigrant status and
even United States citizenship.

All of these systems of the immigration system lack integrity. Aliens who have gone on to commit crimes and even
participate in terrorist attacks have often been dissevered to have successfully gamed the immigration benefits program
in order to embed themselves in communities around the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.
On July 2, 2013 the Washington Times published my Op-Ed:
~
CUTLER: Tough questions about immigration 'reform' Who will find the answers while
there's still time to prevent a disaster?

On June 13, 2013 I was interviewed by Neil Cavuto at Fox News on the topic:
"Does immigration reform pose too many risks?"
The interview ran about 4 minutes and is worth watching.

On April4, 2014, CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my commentary that asks the questions all
Americans need to ask their political "representatives." My commentary is aptly titled: "How? Why?,:

In his historic speech before the 3rd Army on May 31, 1944, General GeorgeS. Patton said, on the strategy of holding
a position:

"We're not holding anything, we'll let the Hun do that. We are
advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto
anything except the enemy."
Pushing back against Comprehensive Immigration Reform is the same as holding position. The time has come for us
to advance by demanding that our borders be made truly secure and our immigration laws be effectively administered
and enforced.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform violates all of the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission but no
one is willing to even consider how the lack of real border security and the lack of real integrity to the various
components of the immigration system imperil national security and public safety.
The findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission must be the starting point for any discussion about
immigration legislation. That commission determined that a lack of border security, including the visa process. and
fraud in the immigration benefits program, enabled terrorists to enter and embed themselves in the United States, as
they went about their deadly preparations.

Immigration is not a single issue but a singular issue that impacts nearly every challenge and threat confronting the
United States today! Simply stated, the immigration laws were enacted to save lives and protect the jobs of American
workers. In point of fact, our borders and our immigration laws are America's first line of defense and last line of
defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.

It is not "Anti-Immigrant" to be "Pro-American!"

Exhibit Page No.: 1084 of CES Response Declaration

Our armed force~ charged with securing America's borders externally while the DHS is supposed to secure those
same borders frdm within. The failures of the DHS to live up to its half of the equation are undermining the efforts,
valor and incredible sacrifices of Americas men and women who serve in our military!

If our government's failures to protect American jobs by securing our nation's borders and effectively enforcing our
immigration laws concerns you or especially if it angers you, I ask you to call your Senators and Congressional
"Representative. This is not only your right- it is your obligation!

All I ask is that you make it clear to our politicians that we are not as dumb as they hope we are!

We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the
balance.

American Lives Matter!

This is neither a Conservative issue, nor is it a Liberal issue- simply stated, this is most certainly
an AMERICAN issue!

You are either part of the solution or you are a part of the problem!

Democracy is not a spectator sport!

Lead, follow or get out of the way!

-michael cutler-

Please check out my website:

http://michaelcutler.net/

On Friday evenings from 7:00 PM until 8:00 PM Eastern Time, I host my show, "The Michael Cutler Hour" on the
USA Talk Radio Network on Blog Talk Radio.

Call in and join the conversation! The phone number is 310-982-4145

Here is the link to my program and my archived shows:

USA Talk Radio

Call in via Skype for free here
(while show is Live)

fS
........ CLICK TO TALK

Exhibit Page No.: 1085 of CES Response Declaration

 ;-_l .. . . . - .. : :....-

Attachments

attachment.png (4.01KB)
631D187E-2C46-43BF-AC7A-DDD39E60DA9F.tiff(50.63KB)
PastedGraphic-l.tiff (144.12KB)
F273FF82-7D45-4354-AODD-A1561A453467.jpeg (4.33KB)

Exhibit Page No.: 1086 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit X

Exhibit Page No.: 1087 of CES Response Declaration

IMMIGRATION 'REFORM':
ENGINEERED DESTRUCTION OF
THE MIDDLE CLASS
The plan to reduce 'wage inequality' by making Middle America poorer--
while the super rich pocket the difference.
July 21, 2014 Michael Cutler

(lsites/defau/tlfileslup/oads/2014107/silicon-va//ey_ 01.jpg)Periodically so-called "buzz

words" and "buzz phrases" become fashionable. Of late, the concept of ''wage equality"
has been bandied about by members of the administration, politicians and some media
personalities.

In point of fact, on July 15, 2014, the publication "Mail Online" published a report with a
self- explanatory title: "America's 1 percenters are even richer than we thought: Richest
actually control 37 percent of U.S. Wealth" (http:llwww.dailymail.eo.uk/newslarticle-
2693496/Americas-rich-richer-thought-Top-1-percent-actually-contro/-37-percent-U-S-

Exhibit Page No.: 1088 of CES Response Declaration

wealth-surveys-skewed-elite-househo/ds-dont-respond.html)

It has been said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Similar1y, the term wage
"equality" is an emotionally evocative term that is viewed as something good and
worthwhile to achieve. Generally this is the proper perspective, but of course it is
important to pose some significant questions. For example, "How will equality be
attained?" It is also critical to understand what baseline will be established for achieving
equality. (Will wages be increased or will some wages be decreased to bring about this
change? If, in fact , some wages will be lowered, whose wages will be lowered?)

Finally, as we will see, sometimes inequality in wages may not be a bad thing, after all.

Before we consider the words many politicians use, we would be wise to consider two
important quotes from George Orwell, the author of "1984" and other significant literary
works.

"Political language- and with variations this is true of all political parties
from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Having been forewarned let us now consider the definition of "equality."

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines equality this way:

equal ity

noun \i-'kwa-la-te\

:the quality or state of being equal :the quality or state of having the same
rights, social status, etc.

The term equality is often equated with fairness and an entire government agency, the
EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) was established to combat
discrimination against protected groups of workers who are treated disparately
(unequally) because of factors such as race, religion, gender, disabilities or age.

Even young children inherently understand the concept of fairness - think of how many
times a frustrated child is likely to complain bitter1y that something or someone is "not

Exhibit Page No.: 1089 of CES Response Declaration

fair!"

Recently various talk shows have discussed how the top one percent of Americans
control a huge amount of wealth. Last week, the Los Angeles Times posted a video,
"John Oliver tackles income inequality on 'Last Week Tonight'
(http:l/www.latimes.comlentertainmentltvlshowtrackerlla-et-st-john-oliver-income-
inequa/ity-last-week-tonight-20140714-story.html)" in which Oliver spent considerable
time on this issue.

America has made great strides to create a level playing field to provide all people with
equal protection under our laws - indeed, the goal of the civil rights movement and the
laws it inspired was to provide equal protection under our laws for all people, especially
black Americans, going back to the issue of slavery, with equal treatment in the criminal
justice system, where employment opportunities and where housing issues are
concerned.

In short, equality has taken on the cloak of being, as the saying goes, "As American as
apple pie." Simply uttering the word "equality" evokes the emotional image of an
American flag billowing in a gentle breeze with a clear blue sky serving as a backdrop.

Obviously if "equality" is good, "inequality" is bad. In most situations this is certainly

true.

However, when Obama and other politicians, as well as talk show hosts, bring up wage
inequality, they don't ever discuss whose salaries will be used as the baseline against
which paychecks should be compared as efforts are made to eliminate or reduce wage
inequality. People tend to see and hear what they want to see and hear. It is akin to a
Rorschach or inkblot test where the test subject is supposed to describe what they see
in a blotch of ink.

The question that is never asked (or answered) is, "What groups are to be made more
equal?" Today the average CEO of major corporations often earn salaries that are
hundreds of times greater than the wages paid to the workers earning the least money in
those corporations where, just a few decades ago, this disparity in wages was far
smaller. It is na"ive and, indeed, wishful thinking to believe that the push for "wage
equality" is about narrowing the gap between the CEOs of most companies and the other
employees of those companies, thereby expanding the middle class and increasing the
standard of living for American middle class workers and their families.

In point of fact, the goal of the majority of advocates for the reduction of "wage
inequality" is exactly the opposite: to lower the wages of American middle class workers
and greatly reduce the gap between the middle class Americans and Americans living
below the poverty line.

Exhibit Page No.: 1090 of CES Response Declaration

You will find proof of this in the prepared testimony provided by Alan Greenspan, when
he testified before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee five years ago. We will get to
his testimony shortly. His statements unequivocally dispel any doubt about the true goal
of reducing wage inequality, the engineered destruction of America's middle class.

The American Dream is inextricably linked to a vibrant and upwardly mobile middle
class. The incentives for the creation of the middle class are created by an element of
wage inequality. If this is confusing, consider that it is expected that generally, more
highly skilled or educated workers should expect to eam more money than their lesser
educated or skilled counterparts in the workforce.

This makes perfect sense and has, for generations, provided a strong incentive for
American students, spurring them on to remain in school to obtain college degrees and
even graduate degrees. This is why most people think of the money, time and effort
expended in pursuit of advanced degrees or enhanced skills as an important investment
in their futures. You could say that this is a case of "learn more to eam more."

Where prospects for Americans, even those with the advanced degrees, achieving the
"American Dream" in this economic era are concerned, a four-word phrase sums it up
concisely:

Don't count on it!

In December 2011 "Dan Rather Reports" aired a disconcerting hour-long report, "No
Thanks for Everything" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeoBWziRuic) which
reported on how highly educated and experienced American computer programmers are
being replaced by programmers from India.

On May 15, 2007 a four-minute infuriating video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=TCbFEgFajGU) was aired on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN. It features an immigration
lawyer's conference in which lawyers were being coached to "not find qualified U.S.
workers!" The lecturer is identified in the video as being Lawrence M. Lebowitz, the Vice
President of Marketing for the firm of Cohen & Grigsby.

The Winter 2014 edition of the quarterly journal, "The Social Contract" published my
extensive article on the devastating impact that Comprehensive Immigration Reform
would have on the middle class and on the economy of the United States. My article
was entitled: "American Dream Being Sold at Auction -America's Middle Class to Be Put
on Endangered Species List" (http://www. thesocialcontract. comlpdfltwentyfour-
twaltsc_24_2_cutler.pdf)

Middle class workers and the working poor are clearly getting hammered by the current
importation of foreign workers. In life there are winners and there are losers. If American
workers - especially middle class workers - are losing, and losing big, someone must be

Exhibit Page No.: 1091 of CES Response Declaration

winning. The question is simple, "Who benefits from open borders and failures to enforce
the immigration laws?

The Spring 2012 edition of "The Social Contract," contains a lengthy article which I wrote
that was entitled, "Immigration: The Modem Day Gold Rush."
(http:llwww.thesocialcontract.com/artman21publishltsc_22_31tsc_22_3_cutler.shtml) In
my article I attempted to answer that question as to who the big winners are. Who are
those who are literally and figuratively making out like bandits by the current
circumstances. You might be surprised to find out how many are feeding at that trough.
While it is obvious that employers who hire illegal aliens or who game the system to bring
in foreign workers with visas that enable them to work in the United States for wages that
are far lower than those Americans would be paid, there are others whose ability to profit
financially and/or acquire political power might not be so readily apparent.

The list of these profiteers includes banks and money remitters who become the silent
partner of every person who moves money from the United States to foreign countries. It
includes immigration attorneys who not only represent aliens but employers who seek to
hire foreign workers. Labor unions looking for more members, which translates into more
union dues and more political leverage, are certainly on board with this concept, as are
the National Chamber of Commerce and many but not all local Chambers of Commerce.
Schools are eager to bring in foreign students and at present the GAO estimates that
there are some 10, 000 schools that are authorized to file the appropriate applications to
enable foreign students to come to the United States.

The list goes on - but I think you get the point.

Facilitating the entry of still more foreign workers and more foreign students would create
still more devastation for American workers and their families but would greatly increase
the wealth of the super wealthy who are at the absolute top of the economic food chain in
America.

On August 30, 2013 "Business Insider'' published a Reuters news article: "Poverty
Stresses The Brain So Much That It's Like Losing 13/Q Points
(http://www. business insider. com/poverty-effect-on-inte//igence-2013-8?
utm_source=feedbumer&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+businessinsiderlwarr
oom+(War+Room))."

The title of that alarming report makes it clear that poverty often becomes self-
perpetuating.

Notwithstanding these facts, many corporate executives are eager to import foreign
workers and foreign students, apparently to lower wages and increase corporate profit.
This is seemingly the driving force behind the assertions by such individuals as Bill
Gates, Mike Bloomberg and Mark Zuckerberg, that there are not enough high-tech

Exhibit Page No.: 1092 of CES Response Declaration

 ..
'

workers in the United States and that the United States must import entrepreneurs if
America is to remain successful. What no one seems to have noticed is that they
themselves are all native-born American citizens. Additionally , while Elon Musk, the
founder of Pay-Pal, the Tesla car company and Space-X, was born in South Africa, he
was provided with lawful status in the United States, providing clear evidence that this
component of the immigration system already in place works. However, the lack of
integrity and ability to weed out fraud in work-based visas all too often provides aliens
with visas they would not have been granted if the fraud had been uncovered.

The infamous bank robber, Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks said simply,
"That's where the money is!" Today CEO's seek to find employees oversees in Third
World countries because that where the cheap labor is.

Now we need to consider how the concept of reducing "wage inequality" was used
deceptively by Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal ReseNe Bank, in his
prepared testimony
(http://www.judiciary. senate. govlimo/medialdoclgreenspan_testimony_ 04_ 30_ 09. pdf)
when he addressed a hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security conducted a hearing on
April 30, 2009 on the topic: "Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It
and How?" (http://www. facebook. comlpluginsllike. php?
action=like&app_id=46744042133&channel=http://static.ak.facebook.comlconnectlxd_ar
biterN80PAcvrynR.js ?version=41)

While many disclaimers we hear on television commercials are recited by announcers

sounding ever more like auctioneers, making it all but impossible to actually hear the
verbal equivalent of small print, Alan Greenspan's way of delivering the bad news is to
speak in a droning, syrupy, monotone voice. Greenspan's sentences are often
structured to further obfuscate what he is saying as are the words he carefully selects.

During his testimony at that hearing, Greenspan spoke of the advantages to the
employment of foreign workers - both illegal aliens, as well as high-skilled aliens
admitted into the United States - with visas that enable them to take the high-tech jobs.
In fact, he called for greatly increasing the number of highly skilled (and educated)
foreign workers.

In this excerpt from his testimony, it is clear that he understands what most Americans
want, but he could not care less:

There are two distinctly different policy issues that confront the Congress.
The first is illegal immigration. The notion of rewarding with permanent
resident status those who have broken our immigration laws does not sit
well .with the American people. In a recent poll, two-thirds would like to see

Exhibit Page No.: 1093 of CES Response Declaration

 the number of illegals decreased.

But there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has
made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy. Between 2000
and 2007, for example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in
our total civilian labor force.

lGreen~~-n glossed over the significant costs on state and local governments and
minimized the issue of wage su~gression . When peo~le are among the working RQQrt1
( eve~ cent the~ eam counts. He noted the imROSition of significant costs on some state
land local governments but what is significant is that com.qrations will make more money)
(even as they off-shore their manufacturing facilities and their profits to minimize labor
[ osts, viOlate safe!Y. and environmental laws and standards and certtainl~ dodge pa~ingl
taxes in the United States.

This should surprise no one. What level of empathy would you expect of someone who
could complain about too much money being paid to middle class workers (the privileged
elite as he referred to them)?

This is precisely the position he took when he went on to support the claims that had
been made by Bill Gates at a previous hearing that the United States needs to admit far
more high-skilled workers into the United States. Here is how Greenspan's testimony
addressed this issue:

First, skilled workers and their families form new households. They will, of
necessity, move into vacant housing units, the current glut of which is
depressing prices of American homes. And, of course, house price declines
are a major factor in mortgage foreclosures and the plunge in value of the
vast quantity of U.S. mortgage-backed securities that has contributed
substantially to the disabling of our banking system.

The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of income in

this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would
lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in
America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world
competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism.
In the ~rocess, we have created a rivileged elite whose incomes are being
orted at noncom etitivel high levels by immigration quotas on skilled

Exhibit Page No.: 1094 of CES Response Declaration

I such restrictions would reduce at least some o(J

It is beyond belief that Greenspan could refer to American middle class workers as the
"privileged elite" or that such an outrageous statement could be made at a Senate
hearing and go unreported. Yet this is precisely what happened.

Most people equate Comprehensive Immigration Reform with a massive amnesty for
unknown millions of illegal aliens who have violated America's borders and immigration
laws that are supposed to protect American lives and the jobs of American workers,
thereby creating a national security nightmare.

What is generally not known is that among the provisions of Comprehensive Immigration
Reform, the legislative betrayal of American citizens, is that it would provide for a huge
increase in the number of H-1 B visas for high tech workers and a provision that would,
for the very first time, permit the spouses and adult children of H-1 B visa holders to be
granted Employment Authorization Documents (EAD's) that would give these
nonimmigrant family members as much right to any job as an American worker.

Greenspan said that American workers should no longer be shielded from foreign
,-.--- ....
competition. This is a key area of "reform" that this legislation would deliver. Under the
current immigration laws, Title 8 U.S. Code 1182: (Inadmissible Aliens)
httl!_://www.law.comell.eduluscodeltext/8!11821 enumerates various cat~ories of aliens
who are to be revented from entering the U.S. The list of excludible classes of aliens
includes aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases , severe mental illness ,
fugitives from justice, aliens who are convicted felons , s ies, terrorists, war criminals,
human ri hts violators, and others whose ~resence would undermine national securit

This section of law also addresses the issue of protecting the jobs, wages, and working
conditions of the American worker. Here is the relevant portion of this section of law:

(5) Labor cerlification and qualifications for certain immigrants

(A) Labor certification

(i) In general Any alien who seeks to enter the U.S. for the purpose of
performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of
Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney
General that-

Exhibit Page No.: 1095 of CES Response Declaration

 (I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally
qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the
time of application for a visa and admission to the U.S. and at the place
where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and

(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and
working conditions ofworkers in the U.S. similarly employed.

Eliminating these provisions of our immigration laws would accomplish precisely what
Greenspan called for when he said that American workers should no longer be shielded
from foreign competition so that the ''wage premiums" being paid to American workers
could be eliminated. This is not about decreasing the wage disparity between America's
super wealthy and other Americans but about greatly reducing the wage disparity
between America's middle class and Americans living below the poverty level.

Senator Ted Cruz, however, is truly leading the charge against American high-tech
workers. He provided an amendment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S .744)
referred to as "Cruz 5." The goal of his amendment was made crystal clear in the video of
statements by Cruz (https:llwww.youtube.com/watch?v=GHIG!NwsQbO) at a Senate
hearing on this issue. His amendment provides for a 500% increase in the cap for H-18
visas, increasing the current annual cap of 65,000 such visas to an outrageous 325,000
Science, Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) professionals.

When the Labor Department reports on the unemployment rate - currently estimated to
be 6. 1% -the fact that nearly 100 million Americans of working age are not working is
utterly ignored, both in the statistics and in the way that roughly one-third of American
citizens are left out of the equation. This is a bit like a surgeon conferring with the family
of a patient who has died on the operating table telling the family that the news is not all
bad, at least the deceased in not suffering from a fever.

Politicians - Democrats and Republicans alike - seek every opportunity to call for
educating more foreign students because, they claim, that we need to bring the world's
best and brightest students and workers to the United States so that America can be
successful, often stating that we should be "stapling green cards onto the diplomas and
degrees earned by those foreign students so that they will not go back to their home
countries half-way around the world upon graduating."

What they fail to note is that we have a term for the world's "Best and Brightest" - they
are called Americans!

The assertions about the need to import the world's best and brightest to fill a supposed
lack of qualified workers are utterly false.

Exhibit Page No.: 1096 of CES Response Declaration

On January 2, 2014 the Global Post published a report written by James Tapper.

The title and subtitle of his report summed up his findings succinctly:"The Indian tech
worker H-18 visa scam: (http:llwww.globalpost.comldispatchlnewslregionslasia-
pacificlindia/131210/the-indian-tech-worker-h-1b-visa-scam) More than 1 in 3 US tech
jobs go to foreigners. Americans, and many foreigners, get cheated in the process.
Obama and Zuckerberg want to let in more. "
(http://www.globalpost. com/dispatchlnewslregionslasia-pacificlindia/131210/the-indian-
tech-worker-h-1 b-visa-scam)

Here is an excerpt from Tapper's article:

Unemployment rates are high (http:llcew.georgetown.edulunemployment20131)

for information systems graduates, with 14.7 percent out of work.

The competition from foreign workers also depresses wages for Americans.
The average hourly wage (http://www.epi.org/publicationlpm195-stem-/abor-
shortages-microsoft-report-distortsl) for computer and mathematics graduates
was $37.27 in 2000, and $39.24 in 2011- an average rise of less than 0.5
percent per year.

And research (http:llwww.epi.orglpublicationlbp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-

market-analysisl) from the Economic Policy Institute contends that only half
of American students who graduate with a degree in science, technology,
engineering or maths ends up with a job in that field.

"It has nothing to do with any lack of American workers," Professor Hira
said. "It is simply that the foreign workers will work for less."

\Nhen aliens marry American spouses solely to acquire lawful immigrant status, such an
arrangement is referred to as a "Marriage of Convenience." Such a "marriage" constitutes
a federal crime, one involving fraud, wherein the alien gains lawful immigrant status by
deception and defrauding the government and the citizen "spouse" is paid for involvement
in the scam.

Today there is a new sort of "marriage of convenience" impacting immigration- this one
involves corporate executives who are normally at each other's corporate throats, but
who have joined forces for a common goal- flooding America with as many foreign
workers as possible to drive down wages and other labor-related costs. These CEOs
consistently lie about the supposed need for foreign high-tech workers because of a

Exhibit Page No.: 1097 of CES Response Declaration

purported shortage of qualified Americans. They have also pumped huge sums of
money into this effort to influence politicians about this alleged "shortage."

Politico reported on this "marriage of convenience" in its September 2013 article, "Tech
rivals joining forces on NSA, immigration." (https:lldocs.zoho.comlwriterlixzz2gNNiaQva)

Here is how this report began:

They trash each other in the marketplace and sue each other in courts.

But lately, tech companies and their leaders have been holding hands to fight
for things they care about in Washington, from immigration reform to
National Security Agency damage control.

The report went on to note:

The primary example is immigration reform. Tech company lobbyists and

industry trade groups have linked arms to work for passage of legislation,
holding Monday strategy calls, deploying teams to focus on lawmakers by
party and by chamber and acting as a coordinator among the disparate
groups pushing Congress to act

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has tapped Silicon Valley's leading

executives and investors to join his reform advocacy group, FWD. us. His
group and others in the tech sector are pushing for comprehensive
immigration reform, an evolution from the industry's past strategy of
focusing narrowly on its desire for more high-skilled visas.

Although my focus is the immigration issue, it is important to note that the Politico article
reported that the CEOs of these competing companies are also uniting to push globalist
positions to enable them to move data across international borders.

For these CEOs, profits trump America's national security and the lives and livelihoods
of Americans.

They have even convinced others to get into their "marital bed."

Consider the February 4, 2014 Breitbart report written by Matthew Boyle, "Former
Democrat Operative Helped Prepare Mark Zuckerberg's Amnesty Pitch to GOP."

Exhibit Page No.: 1098 of CES Response Declaration

(http://www. breitbaTt. com/Big-Govemment/2014102104/Democratic-PaTty-operative-
he/ped-prepare-Zuckerberg-s-House-GOP-pro-amnesty-packet)

Here is how this report begins:

FWD. us, the pro-amnesty brainchild of Facebook billionaire Mark

Zuckerberg, made a big splash at the House GOP retreat last week in
Cambridge, Maryland, with a packet distributed to every lawmaker touting the
benefits of a big, comprehensive reform bill.

However, the Republicans who received the document might be interested to

learn that one of its co-authors (Jennifer Martin) is a hardened Democratic
party operative.

The Daily Caller's article, "Zuckerberg's lobby group announces hackathon with illegal
immigrants," (http:l/dailycaller. com/201311 0119/zuckerbergs-/obby-group-announces-
hackathon-with-il/egal-immigrants/) focused on a unique program created by Zuckerberg
and his Silicon Valley cohorts to provide opportunities expressly for illegal aliens.

The article began with this statement:

Tech-sawy illegal immigrants are being given a chance to prove their mettle
alongside renown American technology entrepreneurs in an upcoming
contest in Silicon Valley, where they will code and create projects to promote
comprehensive immigration reform.

Facebook founder and CEO Zuckerberg's political action committee, FWD.us,

is hoping to showcase the programming talents of members of the
technology community who would most directly benefit from comprehensive
immigration reform: illegal immigrants.

The contest, called a hackathon, will be held

(https://docs.zoho.comlwriterl_b/ank) at Linkedln's headquarters in Mountain
View, Calif. from Nov. 20 to 21.

Zuckerberg, Linkedln founder Reid Hoffman, Groupon founder and former

CEO Andrew Mason, and Dropbox founder and CEO Drew Houston are

Exhibit Page No.: 1099 of CES Response Declaration

 expected to work alongside the hackathon's participants as mentors
throughout the event

"Each team will create a project or application that could help supporters
share stories, contact members of Congress or show family and friends why
they want meaningful immigration reform," FWD. us states on its website.

Ironically, Zuckerberg referred to this stunt as a "Hackathon." A computer hacker is one

who accesses computers by breaking in. Here he provided encouragement for illegal
aliens to break into the United States and acquire educational and career opportunities he
would joyfully provide to them, but not to desperate fellow Americans or lawful
immigrants.

have been J>rovided to American children -

Why not provide such opportunities to returning battle-weary and/or wounded members of
the U.S. military?

Zuckerberg and his cohorts know that the administration won't ask them those questions
nor seek to take punitive actions against them for providing such opportunities to illegal
aliens. The DHS, an agency I have come to refer to as the Department of Homeland
Surrender, is no more likely to act against Zuckerberg than it is to act against sanctuary
cities that shield illegal aliens from detection by the federal government.

Some of these "illegal immigrants" may not be who they claim that they are. Some may
have entered the United States with nefarious intentions and may not have actually
entered the United States as children as they claim. This is the same vulnerability with
the "DREAMERS" who have until age 31 to file an application in which they claim to have
entered the United States before the age of 15. There is no record of their entry and their
true identities cannot be verified. Providing high-tech training to such foreign nationals
engenders unacceptable national security risks.

On March 26, 2013 CNBC posted an insightful report that was, itself, predicated on a
Sunlight Foundation report. The title of the CNBC article paints a clear picture, "Our
Massively One-Sided Immigration Debate." (http:llwww.cnbc.com/id/100593528)

Here is an important excerpt from the CNBC report:

I As it turns out, while Americans remain divided on immigration, the

Exhibit Page No.: 1100 of CES Response Declaration

 lobbyists are not

The Sunlight Foundation, a do-gooder government transparency and

accountability outfit formed in 2006, on Monday released "Untangling the
Webs of immigration Lobbying
(http:llsunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013103125/immigrationl), " a report examining
the organizations that have led the charge for changing the rules on
immigration to the United States.

Sunlight dug through 8,000 lobbying reports filed since the last big push for
immigration reform in 2007. Six-thousand seven-hundred and twelve of those
involved immigration lobbying. More than $1.5 billion was spent on this
immense lobbying push.

Members of the leadership in the House of Representatives, perhaps bowing the

pressures of that gargantuan lobbying effort, have expressed a willingness to provide
illegal aliens with lawful status.

On December 4, 2013 The Fiscal Times published an important report: "Obama's

Immigration Sop to Silicon Valley"
(http://www.thefiscaltimes. com/Columns/201311210410bamas-1mmigration-Sop-Silicon-
Valley)

Here is how this report begins:

"Is President Obama's push for more STEM grads and increased H-18 visas
payback to the tech companies that got him re-elected? It seems possible.
While the likes of Google and Microsoft have been sounding alarms over a
shortage of technical workers. other research indicates that in fact we may
have too many college graduates with degrees in science and math. Critics
charge that Silicon Valley has promoted the shortage myth to gain support
for policies - like those promoted by the president- that ultimately aim to
keep a lid on tech pay."

With all of the frustration so many Americans now justifiably feel about their
representation (or lack thereof) by the administration and by Congress, it is essential to
note that one of the implacable stalwart champions and defenders of American workers
and their families is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Exhibit Page No.: 1101 of CES Response Declaration

In fact, on May 16, 2014 Breitbart posted an article with a crystal clear title, "Scholars
Debunk Claims of High-Tech Workers Shortage, Question Industry's 'Free Pass.' "
(http://www. breitbart. com/Big-Govemment/2014105116/Scholars-Debunk-Ciaims-of-High-
Tech-Wolkers-Shortage-Question-/ndustry-s-Free-Pass)

The article noted that

On a Friday conference call that was organized by the office of Sen. Jeff
Sessions (R-AL), who has been relentless in standing up for American
workers and their interests during the amnesty debate, Hal Salzman, a
Rutgers University public policy professor, said current wages in the high-
tech and information technology (IT) industries do not reflect a labor
shortage. Mat/off said the high-tech industry has gotten a "free ride" from the
media and enjoys a very "positive image" in this debate, which he said has
"really been a non-debate."

Here are several additional significant quotes from this article.

The myth (http://www. google.com/uri?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=B&ved=OCCgQFjAA&ur
l=http%3A %2F%2Fwww. breitbart. com%2FBig-
Govemment%2F2013%2F11%2F27%2FReport-Ciaims-of-Shortage-of-High-Tech-
Wolkers-a-
Myth&ei=5YB2U7n5C9GRqgbB 1YHICQ&usg=AFQjCNEtaCY/XbMaSJRRtuErYb Y
DH1S2eA&bvm=bv.66917471,d.b2k) that there are such widespread labor
shortages in the high-tech industry has been debunked
(http://www. breitbart. com/Big-Govemment/2014/031211Atlantic-No-Empirical-
Evidence-to-Support-Claims-of-Shortage-of-American-High-Tech-Wolkers) in
numerous studies, but Republicans (http://www. breitbart. com/Big-
Govemment/20141051151After-Backing-Amnesty-Tea-Party-Express-Chair-Ciaims-
He-Stands-with-Sen-Sessions-American-Wolkers) and Democrats
(http://www. breitbart.com/Big-Govemment/2014105102/Schumer-Biasts-Hatefui-
Steve-King-on-Amnesty-Falsely-Ciaims-High-Tech-Wolker-Shortage) have
continued to, as the scholars noted, perpetuate it without being challenged
on their specious claims. High-tech lobbies like Facebook co-founder Mark
Zuckerberg's FWD. us (http://fwd. us!) have poured in millions of dollars in

Exhibit Page No.: 1102 of CES Response Declaration

 high-profile campaigns to secure more high-tech visas.

And they have partly been succeeding. The Senate's amnesty bill that passed
last year would double and possibly triple the number of high-tech visas and,
as Breitbart News has reported, House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Bob
Goodlatte's (R-VA) "SKILLS" (http:llmashable. com/2013105123/stem-immigration-
visas/) Act that that passed out of his committee would double the number of
H-18 visas.

Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology

who has worked on these issues for more than a decade, sai d on the
conference call that the H-18 visas that are filling the supposed "gaps" are
"doing more harm than good" to the U.S. science and engineering workforce.

He noted that the majority of the H-1B visas are being used for "cheaper
workers .. from abroad and mentioned that offshoring firms used SOO-" of the
cap last year to further their business model of bringing in "lower-cost H-18
workers to replace American workers... Salzman said that even after
American software engineers train their replacements, they cannot speak out
about their experiences for fear of being blackballed or having to forfeit their
severance payments.

Hira said that the H-18 program has run amok because "Congress sets the
wage floors way too low" and "far below the market wages for American
workers" while not placing any "requirement to look for or recruit American
workers first, so there is no displacement of American workers."

"As a result. you are basically inducing companies to game the system to
bring foreign workers to undercut American workers, " Hira noted. "Instead of
complimenting the U.S. workers as it should, it's substituting for the U.S.
workforce and taking away future opportunities by shifting the work
overseas.''

Here is an additional quote from the article:

I IT guest workers are on pace to make up 30-41J0A. of the entire IT worlcforce

Exhibit Page No.: 1103 of CES Response Declaration

 even when there are 50% more (http://issues. org/29-4/what-shortages-the-rea/-
evidence-about-the-stem-workforce/) graduates than job openings in the STEM
fields.

Further, Mat/off emphasized that H1-B visa holders earn 5-10% less on
average than American workers and there is a high churn rate that gives
companies a "never-ending supply of new hires," allowing them to replace
workers over the age of 35 while weakening the "bargaining position of
current workers. "The Senate bill, Mat/off said, exacerbates this problem by
providing 150% of the visas that the IT industry has said they needed at the
beginning of the debate.

"You are replacing more innovative people with less innovative people,
which also will amount to a net loss for the U.S. economy, " Mat/off said,
saying, for instance, that there are fewer patents per capita
(http://heather. cs. ucdavis. edulh 1b. html) produced by those from abroad than
those in America."

As a result, fewer Americans are able to move up the economic ladder

through the high-tech fields. And the problem has gotten worse since the H-
18 spigots were opened in the 1990s.

They are ignoring the obvious: That the best way to make certain that students who
acquire vital education in the United States don't leave the United States is to educate
American students. Upon graduation, rather than go half-way across the planet, they will
simply go half-way across town and take jobs inside the United States. This will help
Americans and also the American economy. Foreign workers, both legally and illegally
working in the United States, last year sent at least 125 billion dollars in remittances
back to their home countries. Economists estimate that because of the multiplier effect
this alone increases America's burgeoning national debt by roughly a half trillion dollars
per year. Now consider the impact this further has on the displacement of American
workers who go from being tax-paying middle class consumers to joining the growing
ranks of Americans living below the poverty line who lose their homes to foreclosure and
lose their disposable income, creating a further drag on our nation's economy.

I would argue that all of America's national debt could be eliminated by effective
immigration law enforcement coupled with "going back to the future" by making certain
that American Citizens be provided with a world class education and preference in the
workforce. This is how the "Greatest Generation" built America's Middle Class and with

Exhibit Page No.: 1104 of CES Response Declaration

it, the American Dream .

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here

(http:l/www.amazon.com/slref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-a/ias%3Ddigital-text&field-
keywords=david+horowitz &rh=n: 133140011%2ck:david+horowitz &ajr=O#Iref=sr_st?
keywords=david+horowitz &qid= 1316459840&rh=n: 133140011%2ck:david+horowitz &sort
=daterank).

Subscribe (http://horowitzfreedomcenter. us 1./ist-manage.com/subscribe?

u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&id=c761755bdf) to Frontpage's TV show, The Glazov
Gang, and LIKE (https:llwww.facebook.com/glazovgang) it on Facebook.
(https:/lwww. facebook. comlglazovgang)

Tags: Immigration, Amnesty, reform, workers

ABOUT MICHAEL CUTLER

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and
Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an
Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent
who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his
career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a
dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as
state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at
issue. He hosts his radio show, "The Michael Cutler Hour," on Friday evenings on
BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http:l/michaelcutler.net/.

Exhibit Page No.: 1105 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit Y-1

Exhibit Page No.: 1106 of CES Response Declaration

 A BILL:
DISQUALIFYING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM
PARTICIPATING IN THE 2016 FEDERAL ELECTION

WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon the United States to "guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government," and to "protect each of them against invasion and on
application of the legislature,"- Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4.

WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted California Assembly Bill 1461, which allows
aliens who do not hold legal residency or citizenship in the United States to vote in the 2016
federal election in violation of rights protected under the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,
which declare that "the right of Citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State;

WHEREAS, said bill ofthe State of California is in violation the 1986 Immigration Reform Act,
Section 3 thereof, and Section 112 thereof; by openly working to conceal, harbor, and shield
from detection aliens; and which encourages aliens to enter, and reside in the United States, and
pursuant to said bill, which provides for such aliens to abridge the rights of Citizens of the
United States in a federal election in the United States;

Now, therefore:

1 BE IT ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS

2 HEREBY DISQUALIFIED FROM PARTICIPATING IN ANY FEDERAL ELECTION
3 OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CALIFORNIA

4 ELECTION CODES ARE LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. CALIFORNIA'S 55

s ELECTORAL DELEGATES ARE HERBY DISQUALIFIED FROM PARTICIPATING

6 IN THE 2016 FEDERAL ELECTION AND NO VOTES FROM CALIFORNIA MAY

7 BE COUNTED IN THE FEDERAL ELECTION SCHEDULED TO OCCUR ON

s NOVEMBER 8, 2016 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL ELECTIONS,

9 WHETHER BY DIRECT VOTING OR ABSENTEE BALLOT, OR ANY OTHER

10 FORM OF BALLOT, UNTIL CALIFORNIA ELECTION CODES ARE LAWFUL

11 AND CONSTITUTIONAL;
12 SECTION 1. The State of California took overt illegal and unconstitutional actions in

13 California Assembly Bill 1461, with the overt intent to abridge, defined as

14 "to lessen the strength or effect of" the Right of every "legal Citizen" of

15 California to vote, by extending to "illegal aliens" (non-citizens) illegally

Exhibit Page No.: 1107 of CES Response Declaration

16 residing in California, voting Rights equal to that of legal California

17 Citizens, and thereby making it impossible to ascertain which California

18 votes are legal or illegal in nature. California has thereby disqualified their

19 own voters and electors from the 2016 Federal Elections and no votes or

20 electors from the State of California will be counted in the 2016 Federal

21 election.

22 SECTION 2. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution identifies only those "born

23 in, or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the Unites States" as

24 "citizens," eligible to vote, establishing that "illegal migrants" and

25 "foreign refugees" are not recognized as "citizens" eligible to vote in U.S.

26 elections. "The right of Citizens of the United States to vote shall not be

27 denied or abridged by the United States or by any State;"- specifically

28 protected by U.S. Constitutional Amendments 15, 19, 24 and 26.

29 SECTION 3. In direct violation of SEC. 112. UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION OF ALIENS

30 TO THE UNITED STATES of the 19861mmigration Reform Act, the State of

31 California has acted illegally and unconstitutionally in Assembly Bill1461,

32 to "unlawfully transport, conceal, harbor, and shield from detection, or

33 attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any

34 place, including any building or any means oftransportation; and

35 encourage or induce illegal aliens to come to, enter, or reside in the

36 United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such

37 coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law, and shall be

38 fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not

39 more than five years, or both, for each alien in respect to whom any

40 violation of this subsection occurs.

41 SECTION 4. In direct violation of 18 U.S. Code 611- Voting by aliens-

42 {a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or

43 in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of

44 President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate,

45 Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District

46 of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner;

Exhibit Page No.: 1108 of CES Response Declaration

47 (b) the State of California has acted to abridge the constitutionally

48 protected Right of every Citizen of California to enjoy the full force of

49 their vote, by enacting Assembly Bill1461, thereby diluting legal

50 Citizen votes with illegal alien votes and making the two
51 indistinguishable, rendering California election results null and void

52 and such practices unconstitutional and in direct violation of Federal

53 Election Jaws.

54 SECTION 5. The House Committee on House Administration shall be responsible for

55 the enforcement of this bill, using all Federal Law Enforcement agencies

56 at their disposal to assure the American People that no "illegal" (non-

57 citizens} will be allowed to vote, or be counted, in any Federal Election.

58 A. Penalties for violating this law include immediate disqualification

59 from Federal Elections, fines, imprisonment, or both, as may be

60 further established by congress.

61 B. All Federal Immigration and Naturalization Agencies shall be

62 authorized to investigate and enforce this law.

63 SECTION 6. Because the State of California has taken these actions during a current

64 presidential election, for the sole purpose of using illegal voters to

65 manipulate the outcome of the 2016 election, the effective date of the

66 bill is immediately upon its adoption by the U.S. Congress.

67 SECTION 7. All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.

Introduced for Congressional Debate by _ __

Exhibit Page No.: 1109 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit Y-2

Exhibit Page No.: 1110 of CES Response Declaration

 0 United States Residents Born Between 193~
II and 1966 Are In For a Big Surprise ~

Additional Titles
Other Federal laws which are
Williams CALIFORNIA DISQUALIFIED themselves
Articles: "unconstitutionaJ"enjoy
FROM 2016 ELECTIONS? no force oflaw at all,
Never Give Up our much less any form of
Electoral Colle~ federal supremacy. The
By J .B. Williams tenth amendment
NVVVStore protects the states and the
Books October 27, 2016
NewsWithViews. com people from
DVDs unconstitutional acts of
Merchandise The most sacred right of every legal American citizen is the right to vote - the the Federal Government.
Writers right to not have their vote infringed or abridged by any Federal, State or Local
Advertise action. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of this
Submit Story land. The rights of the people protected by these documents, belong to legal
ContactNWV American citizens and no one else.
DonatetoNWV
AboutNWV Federal laws which are themselves "unconstitutional" enjoy no force oflaw at
all, much less any form of federal supremacy. The tenth amendment protects
1\'VVV Horne the states and the people from unconstitutional acts of the Federal
Government.

~
However, constitutional acts ofthe Federal Government, such as constitutional
Wi11iams Federal Election Laws consistent with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,
Articles: do indeed hold ''legal supremacy" over any state or local laws at odds with
Federal Law.

Approaching the 2016 Primary season, the state of California took illegal and
unconstitutional action in direct violation with Federal Election Laws by
enacting Assembly Bil11461, with the clear stated intent to abridge legal
American votes with illegal alien voters.

By enacting Assembly Bil11461, the State of California created a circumstance

in which it allows illegal aliens to vote in the 2016 elections, thereby abridging
the legal right of every legal American citizen living in California to enjoy the
full weight and power of their vote, countered by illegal votes making it
impossible to identify "legal" versus "illegal" votes in the State of California.

Because of California's illegal action, the nation cannot rely upon the validity of
California votes. By this action, California has disqualified California election
results from the 2016 elections and California votes and electors cannot be
legally or ethically counted in the 2016 election, or until such time that
California election laws are no longer in violation of Federal Election laws and
the U.S. Constitution.

Exhibit Page No.: 1111 of CES Response Declaration

 The North American Law Center has issued a proposed DRAFf BILL for the
U.S. Congress which officially disqualifies the State of California from being
counted in the 2016 elections. As established in the proposed BILL. California
must be disqualified from the 2016 elections on the following legal grounds;

1. The State of California took overt illegal and unconstitutional

actions in California Assembly Bill1461

2. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution identifies only

those ''born in, or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the
Unites States" as "citizens," eligible to vote

3- In direct violation of SEC. 112. UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION

OF ALIENS TO THE UNITED STATES of the 1986 Immigration
Reform Act, the State of California has acted illegally and
unconstitutionally in Assembly Bill1461, to "unlawfully transport,
conceal, harbor, and shield from detection, or attempt to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including
any building or any means of transportation;"

4 In direct violation of 18 U.S. Code 611- Voting by aliens- (a) It

shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or
in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of
President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the
Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the
District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner;

s. Because the State of California has taken these actions during a

current presidential election, for the sole purpose of using illegal
voters to manipulate the outcome of the 2016 election, the effective
date of the bill is immediately upon its adoption by the U.S.
Congress.

FULL COPY OF THE PROPOSED BILL HERE

Any election which is illegal and unconstitutional on its face is not a legitimate
election. By enacting Assembly Bill1461 with the intended purpose of
abridging the legal votes oflegal California citizens via illegal alien votes, the
State of California has delegitimized its own election process and invalidated
their own election results.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews
Daily Email Alerts
Email Address

First Name

Exhibit Page No.: 1112 of CES Response Declaration

 Subscribe required field

Thus, it is both legal and ethical for the balance of the nation to disqualify the
State of California and their 55 presidential electors from the 2016 elections
until California corrects its election laws to comply with Federal Election laws
and the Constitutionally protected rights of all "legal" California voters.

The North American Law Center DRAFf BILL has been given to select
members ofthe U.S. House for immediate consideration.
To support this effort to prevent illegal votes from deciding the 2016 elections,
please contact your House member today and call upon them to co-sponsor
and pass this DRAFf BILL prior to the November 8th Elections.

CONTACT HOUSE MEMBERS HERE IMMEDIATELY

2016 JB Williams -All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

Printer Friendly I
D IJ ~ CS Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with

more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He is co-author of
the just released book- TRUMPED - The New American Revolution - with
co-author Timothy Harrington, published by COFBooks.com. He has a
decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters ofFreedom, the men and
women who have paid the price offreedom and liberty for all, and action
oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a
husband, a father, a researcher, author and writer as well as a small business
owner. He is co:founder ofaction organizations The United States Patriots
Union , a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders ofAmerica.
He is also co:founder of The North American Law Center. a citizen run
investigative legal research and activism organization focused upon
constitutionally protected Natural Rights under Natural Law. Williams also
co-hosts TNALCRadio every Sunday evening at s:oo PM ETwith TNALC
Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and he receives mail at: ib.uspu@gmail.com

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web sites: www.patriotvoice.netjTNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com

Home

Exhibit Page No.: 1113 of CES Response Declaration

PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR
PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION WITH COMPLAINT

Exhibit Z

Exhibit Page No.: 1114 of CES Response Declaration

 www.TNALC.org

REPORT ON USA PATRIOT ACT VIOLATIONS

Of Hungarian-American citizen Gyorgy Schwartz, AKA George Soros

Published in the Public Interest of National Security and Sovereignty

March 2017

CONTENT

1. Official TNALC Position on the U.S. Patriot Act

2. The Stated Purpose of the Patriot Act
3. Related Provisions ofthe U.S. Patriot Act
4. Biographical Information on Gyorgy Schwartz, AKA George Soros
5. Statements by Gyorgy Schwartz, aka, George Soros regarding his involvement with Nazis
6. "Revolutions" financed and run by Gyorgy Schwartz, AKA George Soros
7. Soros Blue Print for "Velvet Revolution" (aka, Purple Revolution in the U.S.A.)
8. Soros Network of NGOs (non-governmental organizations)*
9. Soros NGO activities that violate U.S. law and the Patriot Act*
10. Affiliated NGOs and their role in the "Purple Revolution"*
11. Remedies Under the Patriot Act
12. Responsible U.S. Departments and Contact Information

*NGOs are nan-governmental organizations, usually tax-exempt and/or tax-deductible, SOl, 527, private
PACs, foundations or non-profits, think tanks, often receiving government grants and foreign donations
to finance operations, not always within the purview of the organizations publicly stated purpose.

Exhibit Page No.: 1115 of CES Response Declaration

Official TNALC Position on the U.S. Patriot Act

As a pro-Constitution citizen-operated education, investigation and activism non-profit organization

with a fundamental focus upon the Charters of Freedom, Liberty, National Sovereignty and Security, the
North American law Center (TNAlC) has taken issue with the overly broad powers of the U.S. Patriot
Act. While we acknowledge the need for improved intelligence gathering, sharing among agencies and
national security tools in a post-911 America, we also oppose in general, the overreaching nature of the
Patriot Act, in particular, the overly broad use of the term "domestic terrorist" and the suspension of
habeas corpus provided for in the Patriot Act.

While such a powerful weapon may indeed provide for a more secure country at a time in history when
international terrorism poses a significant threat to all peaceful societies, that weapon can also be used,
and to some degree, has been used, as a weapon to silence honest peaceful dissenting political
grievances among legal American citizens deeply concerned about the future of freedom and liberty in
America.

This report is based upon existing U.S. Codes related to anti-terrorism measures designed to prevent
those who intend harm to the United States, the U.S. Constitution, our Republican form of government,
duly elected representatives of the American people and the American people themselves, from
carrying out any form of subversion, sedition, treachery, treason, tyranny, terrorism, insurrection or
internal insurgency against the United States.

So long as the Patriot Act remains part of U.S. Code designed to protect the United States against such
individuals, organizations and acts on American soil, these laws should be applied evenly to all who
operate in violation of these laws, with a clear purpose or intent to harm the United States.

Once the United States accepted foreign terrorists on U.S. soil, and vandalism or violence as a form of
"free speech," acting as though there is a "constitutional right" to terrorize this country within, the need
for a law such as the Patriot Act would become inevitable.

It is our position that the Patriot Act should not be used against peaceful legal citizens with dissenting
political views who express those views in a manner protected by the First Amendment - nor should
such a law even be necessary in the United States- and that if applied properly to all bad-actors who
violate these and other U.S. laws, the Act should and will become obsolete in the future.

The Stated Purpose of the Patriot Act

The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on
October 26, 2001. With its ten-letter abbreviation (USA PATRIOT) expanded, the full title is "Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
of 2001".

Prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. which resulted
in the death of over 3000 innocent American men, women and children, the primary function of the U.S.
Department of Justice was not counter-terrorism. It's primary function within the Federal Government
was to provide for the equal application and enforcement of U.S. laws and uphold the U.S. Constitution
and Bill of Rights.

Exhibit Page No.: 1116 of CES Response Declaration

However, with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department has taken the position that
"The Department of Justice's first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks."

In a post-911 America, the USA PATRIOT Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and
357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum. According to the
U.S. Department of Justice, the stated purpose ofthe USA PATRIOT Act is //Preserving life and Liberty."

"Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key
part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent
Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of
life. While the results have been important, in passing the Patriot Act, Congress provided for
only modest, incremental changes in the law. Congress simply took existing legal principles and
retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges
posed by a global terrorist network."

... " the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful
operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying
America and our way of life."

Vet, known terrorists have been allowed to operate with immunity on U.S. soil before, during and since
September 11, 2001- in the form of known Islamic terror training camps- terror-funding or organizing
Mosques- as well as known national and global NGOs (non-governmental organizations) highly
organized, trained and funded by a relatively small number of anti-American insurgents with a clear,
stated intent to undermine and destroy the duly elected government of the United States, and our way
of life.

The USA PATRIOT Act was designed and passed for the single purpose of preventing such activities on
U.S. soil and they should be used judiciously for that purpose.

Related Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act

Gyorgy Schwartz, aka George Soros and his nearly endless list of national and international NGOs are
internationally notorious for their global nation-wrecking operations. Other nations like Hungary are
taking swift governmental actions to crack down on or "sweep out" all Soros NGOs from their countries,
often introducing new legislations for that sole purpose.

But in the United States, the activities of Soros NGOs are easily identified as violations of the already
existing USA PATRIOT Act. Simplistically, among numerous other laws and provisions, the following
provisions of the Act can and should be applied to the entire Soros NGO network immediately.
(https://www .justice .govI archive/11/high lights.htm)

Under updates to the original PATRIOT Act, Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52)
expanded the definition of terrorism to cover "domestic," as opposed to international, terrorism. A
person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life," including the
following acts;

(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

Exhibit Page No.: 1117 of CES Response Declaration

 (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or
kidnapping.

Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Seizure of assets Sec. 806: Section 806 of the Act could result in the civil seizure of their assets
without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime. It is by far the most
significant change of which political organizations need to be aware. Section 806 amended the
civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit: all assets, foreign
or domestic;

(i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of
domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all
assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such
entity or organization or
(ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting,
planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against
the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or
(iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic
or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents ofthe United
States, or their property.

The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government
can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe
that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is
given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the
government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required
to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence.
Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at
public expense ifthey cannot afford to pay an attorney. The time between seizure and
forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are
seized are forced to make do without the assets. Only the most financially flush non-profit
organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture.
In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can
bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism. (ACLU)

Biographical Information on Gyorgy Schwartz, AKA George Soros

George Soros was born Gyorgy Schwartz on August 12, 1930 in Budapest, Hungary. He graduated the
london School of Economics and Political Science and the University of Toronto Mississauga in 1954 and
has five children, Alexander Soros, Jonathan Soros, Andrea Soros, Robert Soros and Gregory Soros.

Exhibit Page No.: 1118 of CES Response Declaration

Soros founded the highly profitable Soros Fund Management llC and Quantum Fund and has an
estimated net worth of $26.5 Billion.

He moved to New York City in 1956 and was employed as an arbitrage trader for F.M. Mayer till1959.
Afterwards he became a financial analyst for Wertheim & Co., a position he held till1963. Soros
allegedly became a dual citizen of the United States and Hungary in 1961.

Influenced by Karl Popper's views, he adapted the philosopher's ideas to develop a social theory of
'reflexivity' that could explain the market valuation of assets in the market.

In 1963 he was appointed the vice president of Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder. However, he did not find
much fulfillment in the job though he held it till1973.

He founded the Quantum Group of Funds, privately owned hedge funds, in partnership with Jim
Rogers in 1973.

During the 16 September 1992 currency crisis in the U.K. known as 'Black Wednesday', Soros made a
profit of U.S. $1 billion through short selling Sterling, gaining the name 'The Man Who Broke the Bank of
England'

He began his philanthropic activities in the 1970's when he started forming a network of foundations
mostly based in countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Soviet Union and Africa which allegedly work
to promote democratization, education and public health. The Soros Foundations operate in more than
60 countries worldwide.

He formed the first Open Society Institute in Hungary in 1984 with a budget of $3 million.

He founded the Open Society Foundations (OSF), headquartered in New York City, in 1993. The
foundations claim to support initiatives in the areas of education, rule of law and independent media
among several others.

A fervent supporter of open-border progressive and liberal political views, he donated heavily to the
U.S. political causes to support Democrats in the 2004 election. He gave $3 million to the Center for
American Progress and $20 million to America Coming Together.

He supported the economist Jeffrey Sachs in his endeavor, the Millennium Promise to provide
educational and medical aid to poverty-stricken villages in Africa. He pledged $50 million to the initiative
in 2006.

He helped found the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) in 2009 with an initial funding of $50
million. The institute is a nonprofit globalism think tank based in New York City.
He donated $1 million to the Drug Policy Alliance campaign in 2010 to fund Proposition 19 to legalize
marijuana in the state of California. But the Proposition did not pass in the November 2010 elections.

He has authored or co-authored several books on financial and political issues including 'Open
Society: Reforming Global Capitalism' (2001) and 'The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on
Terror' (2006).

Exhibit Page No.: 1119 of CES Response Declaration

He was presented the Yale International Center for Finance Award from the Yale School of Management
in 2000. Read more at http://www.thefamouspeople.com/prafiles/george-soros-
1510.php#53iQLIJqDZz9171r.99

Statements by Gyorgy Schwartz, aka, George Soros regarding his involvement with Nazis

The nefarious activities of George Soros have spanned the globe for decades. Much like Karl Marx, who
often spoke eloquently of "democracy" with great reverence, but also stated that "democracy is the
road to communism," Soros too has a strange view of democracy and freedom. In a May 2014 interview
with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Soros was asked about his involvement in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine
and Georgia, ultimately contributing to the overthrow of elected leaders and the installation of a junta
handpicked by the U.S. State Department.

Fareed Zakaria- "First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you
was that you during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society
groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in
Ukraine?"

George Soros- "Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of
Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in
events now."

The Soros insurgency model is based on his use of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to organize
and mobilize anti-government activists and anarchists to undermine official laws and policies, often
funded by taxpayers through tax-exempt and tax-deductible "charities" operating under the guise of
"volunteer democratic" purposes, always targeting those taxpayers and volunteers in the end.

Soros has repeatedly stated in interviews, including in a 60 Minutes expose', that "1944 was the best
year of his life." 1944 was the year that 70% of his fellow Jews were murdered in cold blood by Hitler's
Nazis, whom Soros, then age 14, admittedly openly collaborated with in that horrific event.

The exchange that then took place with 60 Minutes host Steve Kroft, was absolutely horrifying..

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you
were his adopted godson.

SOROS: "Yes. Yes."

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews,
friends and neighbors.

SOROS: "Yes. That's right. Yes."

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric
couch for many, many, years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: "No, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it."

KROFT: No feelings of guilt?

Exhibit Page No.: 1120 of CES Response Declaration

 SOROS: "No, only feelings of absolute power."

George Soros has demonstrated throughout his life that he has no conscience, no soul, no sense of
responsibility or loyalty to anyone beyond himself. He has proven again and again that his personal
quest for wealth and power has no limits- That there is no one, no country, he will not destroy for the
sake of his own personal gain and no limit to the many methods of terror he is willing to employ in
pursuit of his ultimate agenda. He has also repeatedly demonstrated hate for the United States and the
U.S. Constitution. George Soros is best described as a white-collar Bin Laden.

Soros has wreaked havoc on nations all over the globe and is a wanted man in some countries, as a
result. Now, Soros uses the same constantly successful NGO model to destroy the United States from
within.

Seven "revolutions" financed and run by Gyorgy Schwartz, AKA George Soros

1. The 'Bulldozer Revolution' in Serbia- October 5, 2000

2. The "Rose Revolution" in Georgia- November 2003
3. The "Orange Revolution" Ukraine- November 2004
4. Soros' Radical in the White House 2004-2008- Barack Hussein Obama
5. Soros, the "Founding Father of Isla mist Turkey"- June 2006
6. Soros generated civil unrest in Egypt- May 2007
7. Soros' "Purple Revolution" in the United States- 2014 to present

These notable events are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg... George Soros has been nation-wrecking
ever since his involvement with Nazis in Hungary as a youth. The evil he faced in youth influenced his
world view and his drive to destroy governments, economies, currencies and people all over the globe.

Between 2004 and 2008, Soros focused his billions upon seating a known left-wing Islamic radical in the
U.S. White House, working in concert with the Democratic Party, international anti-American state
sponsors of terrorism, 60s radicals associated with Obama through William Ayers Weather Underground
and the Kennedy family to achieve that goal.

Soros Blue Print for "Velvet Revolution" (aka, Purple Revolution) in the U.S.A.

Between January 2009 and today, Soros has built an enormous network of NGOs here and abroad and
his blue print for toppling governments around the globe, across the Middle East and the United States
"the Great Satan," has never changed. His model for nation wrecking remains the same throughout the
world, as was well outlined in a 2004 three-part essay by author Richard Poe, titled Velvet Revolution,
USA;

1. Form a Shadow Government [of powerful NGOs]

2. Control the airwaves- ["fake news"]
3. Bleed the State dry- [Cioward-Piven Strategy]
4. Sow unrest- [Ferguson, Berkeley, D.C., mass divisions and riots during elections and post-
election town hall and legislative insurrections, backed by media coverage]
5. Provoke election crisis- ["rigged elections"- Russian hacking, etc.]

Exhibit Page No.: 1121 of CES Response Declaration

 6. Take the Streets- [operation indivisible, OFA (Organizing For Action), Netroots, CAIR, MoveOn,
Code Pink, NOW, Muslim Brotherhood, LaRaza, race-baiting congressional caucuses, the
Southern Poverty Law Center and the Clinton Foundation, etc.]
7. Above all else, Outlast your Opponents

This is the NGO model Soros has used in Serbia, Turkey, Georgia, Ukraine, Hungary, the Middle East,
Britain, the EU and now the United States. The revolution names and places change, but the Soros
pattern and NGO model remains the same.

The NGO model allows Soros' global partners to funnel billions through a network on NGOs, many of
which are 501 tax-deductible and tax-exempt organizations in the United States, often receiving Federal
grants and government access to policy-makers sympathetic to the global left's anti-American agenda,
while remaining at an "arms-length" away from Soros himself for purposes of plausible deniability.

Numerous countries that have suffered the impact of a Soros NGO assault on their nations are now
moving to shut down Soros NGO operations within their borders and stop the intentional wrecking of
their people by Soros and friends.

Bloomberg reported 10, January, 2017 -"Hungary plans to crack down on non-governmental
organizations linked to billionaire George Soros now that Donald Trump will occupy the White House,
according to the deputy head of Prime Minister Viktor Orban's party. The European Union member will
use "all the tools at its disposal" to "sweep out" NGOs funded by the Hungarian-born financier, which
"serve global capitalists and back political correctness over national governments," Szilard Nemeth, a
vice president ofthe ruling Fidesz party, told reporters on Tuesday."

The New York Times reported 1, March, 2017 - "BUDAPEST- Emboldened by encouraging signals from
the Trump administration, populist leaders across Central and Eastern Europe are mounting
simultaneous crackdowns on nongovernmental organizations, once protected by Washington, that
promote open government, aid refugees and often serve as checks on authoritarian governments."

Why has the United States allowed Soros NGOs to wage war on other countries and the United States
from the safe haven of New York City? Simply follow the political campaign money for the answer to this
question.

Soros Network of NGOs (non-governmental organizations)

Organizations that, in recent years, have received direct funding and assistance from George Soros and
his Open Society Foundations {OSF) include the following. {Comprehensive profiles of each are available
in the "Groups" section of DiscoverTheNetworks.org):

Advancement Project: This organization works to organize "communities of color" into politically
cohesive units while disseminating its leftist worldviews and values as broadly as possible by way of a
sophisticated communications department.

Air America Radio: Now defunct, this was a self-identified "liberal" radio network.

AI-Haq: This NGO produces highly politicized reports, papers, books and legal analyses
propaganda regarding alleged Israeli human-rights abuses committed against Palestinians.

Exhibit Page No.: 1122 of CES Response Declaration

 All of Us or None: This organization seeks to change voting laws-- which vary from state to state
-- so as to allow ex-inmates, parolees and even current inmates to cast their ballots in political elections.
(Now expanding to illegal alien voters, Muslim refugees and lowering the voting age to 16)

Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis-a-vis the appointment of progressive federal
judges. This group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as "extremists."

America Coming Together: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was
to coordinate and organize pro-Democrat voter-mobilization programs. (often including busing voters to
multiple districts)

America Votes: Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote
campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters.

America's Voice: This open-borders group seeks to promote 11COmprehensive" immigration

reform that includes a robust agenda in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.

American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy: This organization "opposes laws
that require employers and persons providing education, health care, or other social services to verify
citizenship or immigration status."

American Bridge 21st Century: This Super PAC conducts opposition research designed to help
Democratic political candidates defeat their Republican foes.

American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security
measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of
suspected terrorists and their abettors and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its
Advisory Board.

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: This Washington, DC-based think tank seeks
to move American jurisprudence to the left by recruiting, indoctrinating and mobilizing young law
students, helping them acquire positions of power. It also provides leftist Democrats with a bully pulpit
from which to denounce their political adversaries.

American Family Voices: This group creates and coordinates media campaigns charging
Republicans with wrongdoing.

American Federation ofTeachers: After longtime AFT President Albert Shanker died in in 1997,
he was succeeded by Sandra Feldman, who slowly lire-branded" the union, allying it with some of the
most powerful left-wing elements of the New Labor Movement. When Feldman died in 2004, Edward
McElroy took her place, followed by Randi Weingarten in 2008. All of them kept the union on the
leftward course it had adopted in its post-Shanker period.

American Friends Service Committee: This group views the United States as the principal cause
of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America's unilateral disarmament, the
dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty and the
repeal of the Patriot Act.

American Immigration Council: This non-profit organization is a prominent member of the open-
borders lobby. It advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

Exhibit Page No.: 1123 of CES Response Declaration

 American Immigration law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose
behalf it litigates against the u.s. government.

American Independent News Network: This organization promotes "impact journalism" that
advocates progressive change. (fake news)

American Institute for Social Justice: AISJ's goal is to produce skilled community organizers who
can "transform poor communities" by agitating for increased government spending on city services,
drug interdiction, crime prevention, housing, public-sector jobs, access to healthcare and public schools.

American Library Association: This group has been an outspoken critic of the Bush
administration's War on Terror-- most particularly, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which it calls "a
present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users."

The American Prospect, Inc.: This corporation trains and mentors young leftwingjournalists and
organizes strategy meetings for leftist leaders.

Amnesty International: This organization directs a grossly disproportionate share of its criticism
for human rights violations at the United States and Israel.

Applied Research Center: Viewing the United States as a nation where "structural racism" is
deeply "embedded in the fabric of society," ARC seeks to "build a fair and equal society" by demanding
"concrete change from our most powerful institutions."

Arab American Institute Foundation: The Arab American Institute denounces the purportedly
widespread civil liberty's violations directed against Arab Americans in the post-9/11 period and
characterizes Israel as a brutal oppressor of the Palestinian people.

Aspen Institute: This organization promotes radical environmentalism and views America as a
nation plagued by deep-seated "structural racism."

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now: This group conducts voter
mobilization drives on behalf of leftist Democrats. These initiatives have been notoriously marred by
fraud and corruption.

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center: This organization seeks to advance "a national progressive
strategy'' by means of ballot measures-state-level legislative proposals that pass successfully through a
petition ("initiative") process and are then voted upon by the public.

Bend The Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice: This organization condemns Voter ID laws as
barriers that "make it harder for communities of color, women, first-time voters, the elderly and the
poor to cast their vote."

Bill of Rights Defense Committee: This group provides a detailed blueprint for activists
interested in getting their local towns, cities and even college campuses to publicly declare their
opposition to the Patriot Act and to designate themselves "Civil liberties Safe Zones." The organization
also came to the defense of self-described radical attorney lynne Stewart, who was convicted in 2005 of
providing material support for terrorism.

Exhibit Page No.: 1124 of CES Response Declaration

 Black Alliance for Just Immigration: This organization seeks to create a unified movement for
"social and economic justice" centered on black racial identity.

Blueprint North Carolina: This group seeks to "influence state policy in North Carolina so that
residents of the state benefit from more progressive policies such as better access to health care, higher
wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment and access to reproductive health
services."

Brennan Center for Justice: This think tank/legal activist group generates scholarly studies,
mounts media campaigns, files amicus briefs, gives pro bono support to activists and litigates test cases
in pursuit of radical"change."

Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and
state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-
dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on
trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children.
Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.

Campaign for America's Future: This group supports tax hikes, socialized medicine and a
dramatic expansion of social welfare programs.

Campaign for Better Health Care: This organization favors a single-payer, government-run,
universal health care system.

Campaign for Youth Justice: This organization contends that "transferring juveniles to the adult
criminal-justice system leads to higher rates of recidivism, puts incarcerated and detained youth at
unnecessary risk, has little deterrence value and does not increase public safety."

Campus Progress: A project ofthe Soros-bankrolled Center for American Progress, this group
seeks to "strengthen progressive voices on college and university campuses, counter the growing
influence of right-wing groups on campus and empower new generations of progressive leaders."

Casa de Maryland: This organization aggressively lobbies legislators to vote in favor of policies
that promote expanded rights, including amnesty, for illegal aliens currently residing in the United
States.

Catalist: This is a for-profit political consultancy that seeks "to help progressive organizations
realize measurable increases in civic participation and electoral success by building and operating a
robust national voter database of every voting-age American."

Catholics for Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women's right to abortion-
on-demand.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: This political nonprofit group is dedicated to
generating support from the Catholic community for leftwing candidates, causes and legislation.

Center for American Progress: This leftist think tank is headed by former Clinton chief of staff
John Podesta, works closely with Hillary Clinton, and employs numerous former Clinton administration
staffers. It is committed to "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a
forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."

Exhibit Page No.: 1125 of CES Response Declaration

 Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist
"political issue campaigns." Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing
"attention to major national issues related to poverty." The Center bases its training programs on the
techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.

Center for Constitutional Rights: This pro-Castro organization is a core member of the open
border's lobby, has opposed virtually all post-9/11 anti-terrorism measures by the U.S. government and
alleges that American injustice provokes acts of international terrorism.

Center for Economic and Policy Research: This group opposed welfare reform, supports "living
wage" laws, rejects tax cuts and consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes,
most notably Venezuela.

Center for International Policy: This organization uses advocacy, policy research, media outreach
and educational initiatives to promote "transparency and accountability" in U.S. foreign policy and
global relations. It generally views America as a disruptive, negative force in the world.

Center for Reproductive Rights: CRR's mission is to guarantee safe, affordable contraception and
abortion-on-demand for all women, including adolescents. The organization has filed state and federal
lawsuits demanding access to taxpayer-funded abortions {through Medicaid) for low-income women.

Center for Responsible Lending: This organization was a major player in the subprime mortgage
crisis. According to Phil Kerpen {vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity), CRL"sh[ook]
down and harass[ed] banks into making bad loans to unqualified borrowers." Moreover, CRL negotiated
a contract enabling it to operate as a conduit of high-risk loans to Fannie Mae.

Center for Social Inclusion: This organization seeks to counteract America's "structural racism"
by means of taxpayer-funded policy initiatives.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Reasoning from the premise that tax cuts generally help
only the wealthy, this organization advocates greater tax expenditures on social welfare programs for
low earners.

Center on Wisconsin Strategy {COWS): Aiming to redistribute wealth by way of higher taxes
imposed on those whose incomes are above average, COWS contend that "it is important that state
government be able to harness fair contribution from all parts of society- including corporations and
the wealthy."

Change America Now: Formed in December 2006, Change America Now describes itself as "i;m
independent political organization created to educate citizens on the failed policies of the Republican
Congress and to contrast that record of failure with the promise offered by a Democratic agenda."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: This group litigates and brings ethics
charges against "government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests" and "betray
the public trust." Almost all of its targets are Republicans.

Coalition for an International Criminal Court: This group seeks to subordinate American criminal-
justice procedures to those of an international court.

Exhibit Page No.: 1126 of CES Response Declaration

 Color Of Change: This organization was founded to combat what it views as "systemic racism"
pervading America generally and conservatism in particular.

Common Cause: This organization aims to bring about campaign-finance reform, pursue media
reform resembling the Fairness Doctrine, and cut military budgets in favor of increased social-welfare
and environmental spending.

Constitution Project: This organization seeks to challenge the legality of military commissions;
end the detainment of "enemy combatants"; condemn government surveillance of terrorists; and limit
the President's executive privileges.

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Defenders of Wildlife opposes oil exploration in Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It condemns logging, ranching, mining and even the use of recreational
motorized vehicles as activities that are destructive to the environment.

Democracy Alliance: This self-described "liberal organization" aims to raise $200 million to
develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups. Soros is a major donor to this group.

Democracy 21: This group is a staunch supporter ofthe Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

Democracy Now!: Democracy Now! was created in 1996 by WBAI radio news director Amy
Goodman and four partners to provide "perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored
media," i.e., the views of radical and foreign journalists, left and labor activists and ideological foes of
capitalism.

Democratic Justice Fund: DJF opposes the Patriot Act and most efforts to restrict or regulate
immigration into the United States-- particularly from countries designated by the State Department as
"terrorist nations."

Democratic Party: Soros' funding activities are devoted largely to helping the Democratic Party
solidify its power base. In a November 2003 interview, Soros stated that defeating President Bush in
2004 "is the central focus of my life" ... "a matter of life and death." He pledged to raise $75 million to
defeat Bush and personally donated nearly a third of that amount to anti-Bush organizations. "America
under Bush," he said, "is a danger to the world and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."

Demos: This organization lobbies federal and state policymakers to "addres[s] the economic
insecurity and inequality that characterize American society today"; promotes "ideas for reducing gaps
in wealth, income and political influence"; and favors tax hikes for the wealthy.

Drum Major Institute: This group describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit think tank
generating the ideas that fuel the progressive movement," with the ultimate aim of persuading
"policymakers and opinion-leaders" to take steps that advance its vision of "social and economic
justice."

Earthjustice: This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may
be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses and the use of
motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.

Exhibit Page No.: 1127 of CES Response Declaration

 Economic Policy Institute: This organization believes that "government must play an active role
in protecting the economically vulnerable, ensuring equal opportunity and improving the well-being of
all Americans."

Electronic Privacy Information Center: This organization has been a harsh critic of the USA
PATRIOT Act and has joined the American Civil liberties Union in litigating two cases calling for the FBI
"to publicly release or account for thousands of pages of information about the government's use of
PATRIOT Act powers."

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: Co-founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones, this
anti-poverty organization claims that "decades of disinvestment in our cities" --compounded by
"excessive, racist policing and over-incarceration"-- have "led to despair and homelessness."

EMILY's list: This political network raises money for Democratic female political candidates who
support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

Energy Action Coalition: Founded in 2004, this group describes itself as "a coalition of SO youth-
led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and
climate movement." For EAC, this means "dismantling oppression" according to its principles of
environmental justice.

Equal Justice USA: This group claims that America's criminal-justice system is plagued by
"significant race and class biases," and thus seeks to promote major reforms.

Fair Immigration Reform Movement: This is the open-border's arm of the Center for Community
Change.

Faithful America: This organization promotes the redistribution of wealth, an end to enhanced
interrogation procedures vis a vis prisoners-of-war, the enactment of policies to combat global warming,
and the creation of a government-run heath care system.

Families USA: This Washington-based health-care advocacy group favors ever-increasing

government control of the American healthcare system.

Feminist Majority: Characterizing the United States as an inherently sexist nation, this group
focuses on "advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the
backlash to women's advancement and recruiting and training young feminists to encourage future
leadership for the feminist movement in the United States."

Four Freedoms Fund: This organization was designed to serve as a conduit through which large
foundations could fund state-based open-borders organizations more flexibly and quickly.

Free Exchange on Campus: This organization was created solely to oppose the efforts of one
individual, David Horowitz, and his campaign to have universities adopt an "Academic Bill of Rights," as
well as to denounce Horowitz's 2006 book The Professors. Member organizations of FEC include Campus
Progress (a project of the Center for American Progress); the American Association of University
Professors; the American Civil Liberties Union; People For the American Way; the United States Student
Association; the Center for Campus Free Speech; the American library Association; Free Press; and the
National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups.

Exhibit Page No.: 1128 of CES Response Declaration

 Free Press: This "media reform" organization has worked closely with many notable leftists and
such organizations as Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, Global Exchange, Code Pink,
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Mother Jones magazine and
Pacifica Radio.

Funding Exchange: Dedicated to the concept of philanthropy as a vehicle for social change, this
organization pairs leftist donors and foundations with likeminded groups and activists who are
dedicated to bringing about their own version of "progressive" change and social justice. Many of these
grantees assume that American society is rife with racism, discrimination, exploitation, and inequity and
needs to be overhauled via sustained education, activism and social agitation.

Gamaliel Foundation: Modeling its tactics on those of the radical Sixties activist Saul Alinsky, this
group takes a strong stand against current homeland security measures and immigration restrictions.

Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement: This anti-Israel organization
seeks to help Palestinians "exercise their right to freedom of movement."

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: This group contends that when a state proves
either unable or unwilling to protect civilians from mass atrocities occurring within its borders, it is the
responsibility of the international community to intervene -- peacefully if possible, but with military
force if necessary.

Global Exchange: Established in 1988 by pro-Castro radical Medea Benjamin. This group
consistently condemns America's foreign policy, business practices and domestic life. Following the 9/11
terrorist attacks, Global Exchange advised Americans to examine "the root causes of resentment against
the United States in the Arab world-- from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil to our biased policy
towards Israel."

Grantmakers Without Borders: GWB tends to be very supportive of leftist environmental, anti-
war and civil rights groups. It is also generally hostile to capitalism, which it deems one of the chief
"political, economic and social systems" that give rise to a host of "social ills."

Green For All: This group was created by Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy and
economic policy initiatives.

Health Care for America Now: This group supports a "single payer" model where the federal
government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.

Human Rights Campaign: The largest "lesbian-gay- bisexual-transgender" lobbying group in the
United States. HRC supports political candidates and legislation that will advance the LGBT agenda.
Historically, HRC has most vigorously championed HIV/AIDS-related legislation, "hate crime" laws, the
abrogation of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and the legalization of gay marriage.

Human Rights First: This group supports open borders and the rights of illegal aliens; charges
that the Patriot Act severely erodes Americans' civil liberties; has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of
terror suspect Jose Padilla; and deplores the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities.

Exhibit Page No.: 1129 of CES Response Declaration

 Human Rights Watch: This group directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at the United
States and Israel. It opposes the death penalty in all cases and supports open borders and amnesty for
illegal aliens.

l'lam: This anti-Israel NGO seeks "to develop and empower the Arab media and to give voice to
Palestinian issues."

Immigrant Defense Project: To advance the cause of illegal immigrants, the IDP provides
immigration law backup support and counseling to New York defense attorneys and others who
represent or assist illegal migrants in criminal justice and immigration systems, as well as to migrants
themselves.

Immigrant Legal Resource Center: This group claims to have helped gain amnesty for some three
million illegal aliens in the U.S. and in the 1980s was part of the sanctuary movement which sought to
grant asylum to refugees from the failed Communist states of Central America.

Immigrant Workers Citizenship Project: This open-border's organization advocates mass illegal
immigration to the U.S.

Immigration Advocates Network: This alliance of illegal immigrant-right's groups seeks to

"increase access to justice for low-income immigrants and strengthen the capacity of organizations
serving them."

Immigration Policy Center: IPC is an advocate of open borders and contends that the massive
influx of illegal immigrants into America is due to U.S. government policy, since "the broken immigration
system [ ... ] spurs unauthorized immigration in the first place."

Independent Media Center: This Internet-based, news and events bulletin board represents an
invariably leftist, anti-capitalist perspective and serves as a mouthpiece for anti-globalization/anti-
American themes.

Independent Media Institute: IMI administers the SPIN Project (Strategic Press Information
Network), which provides leftist organizations with "accessible and affordable strategic communications
consulting, training, coaching, networking opportunities and concrete tools" to help them "achieve their
social justice goals."

Institute for America's Future: IAF supports socialized medicine, increased government funding
for education and the creation of an infrastructure "to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority
is heard."

Institute for New Economic Thinking: Seeking to create a new worldwide "economic paradigm,"
this organization is staffed by numerous individuals who favor government intervention in national
economies and who view capitalism as a flawed system.

Institute for Policy Studies: This think tank has long supported Communist and anti-American
causes around the world. Viewing capitalism as a breeding ground for "unrestrained greed," IPS seeks to
provide a corrective to "unrestrained markets and individualism." Professing an unquestioning faith in
the righteousness of the United Nations, it aims to bring American foreign policy under UN control.

Exhibit Page No.: 1130 of CES Response Declaration

 Institute for Public Accuracy: This anti-American, anti-capitalist organization sponsored actor
Sean Penn's celebrated visit to Baghdad in 2002. It also sponsored visits to Iraq by Democratic
Congressmen Nick Rahall and former Democrat Senator James Abourezk

Institute for Women's Policy Research: This group views the U.S. as a nation rife with
discrimination against women, and publishes research to draw attention to this alleged state of affairs. It
also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, stating that "access to
abortion is essential to the economic well-being of women and girls."

International Crisis Group: One of this organization's leading figures is its Mideast Director,
Robert Malley, who was President Bill Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs. His analysis of
the Mideast conflict is markedly pro-Palestinian.

J Street: This anti-Israel group warns that Israel's choice to take military action to stop Hamas'
terrorist attacks "will prove counter-productive and only deepen the cycle of violence in the region"

Jewish Funds for Justice: This organization views government intervention and taxpayer funding
as crucial components of enlightened social policy. It seeks to redistribute wealth from Jewish donors to
low-income communities "to combat the root causes of domestic economic and social injustice." By JFJ's
reckoning, chief among those root causes are the inherently negative by-products of capitalism -most
notably "racism and gross economic inequality."

Joint Victory Campaign 2004: Founded by George Soros and Harold Ickes, this group was a major
fundraising entity for Democrats during the 2004 election cycle. It collected contributions (including
large amounts from Soros personally) and disbursed them to two other groups, America Coming
Together and the Media Fund, which also worked on behalf of Democrats.

Justice at Stake: This coalition calls for judges to be appointed by nonpartisan, independent
commissions in a process known as "merit selection," rather than elected by the voting public.

Latino Justice PRLDF: This organization supports bilingual education, the racial gerrymandering
of voting districts and expanded rights for all illegal aliens.

lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under law: This group views America as an unremittingly
racist nation; uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and
academia; has filed briefs against the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to limit the wholesale
granting of green cards and to identify potential terrorists; condemns the Patriot Act; and calls on
Americans to "recognize the contribution" of illegal aliens.

leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: This organization views the United States as a
nation rife with racism, sexism and all manner of social injustice. It uses legislative advocacy to push for
"progressive change" that will create "a more open and just society."

League of United Latin American Citizens: This group views America as a nation plagued by "an
alarming increase in xenophobia and anti-Hispanic sentiment"; favors racial preferences; supports the
legalization of illegal Hispanic aliens; opposes military surveillance of U.S. borders; opposes making
English America's official language; favors open borders; and rejects anti-terrorism legislation like the
Patriot Act.

Exhibit Page No.: 1131 of CES Response Declaration

 league of Women Voters Education Fund: The league supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-
demand; supports "motor-voter" registration, which allows anyone with a driver's license to become a
voter, regardless of citizenship status; and supports tax hikes and socialized medicine.

league of Young Voters: This organization seeks to "empower young people nationwide" to
"participate in the democratic process and create progressive political change on the local, state and
nationallevel[s]."

lynne Stewart Defense Committee: IRS records indicate that Soros's Open Society Institute
made a September 2002 grant of $20,000 to this organization. Stewart was the criminal-defense
attorney who was later convicted for abetting her client, the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman, in
terrorist activities connected with his Islamic Group.

Machsom Watch: This organization describes itself as "a movement of Israeli women, peace
activists from all sectors of Israeli society, who oppose the Israeli occupation and the denial of
Palestinians' rights to move freely in their land."

MADRE: This international women's organization deems America the world's foremost violator
of human rights. As such, it seeks to "communicate[e) the real-life impact of U.S. policies on women and
families confronting violence, poverty and repression around the world," and to "demand alternatives to
destructive U.S. policies." It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: This group views the U.S. as a nation replete with racism and
discrimination against blacks; seeks to establish an independent black nation in the southeastern United
States; and demands reparations for slavery.

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition: This group calls for the expansion of
civil rights and liberties for illegal aliens; laments that illegal aliens in America are commonly subjected
to "worker exploitation"; supports tuition-assistance programs for illegal aliens attending college; and
characterizes the Patriot Act as a "very troubHng" assault on civil liberties.

Media Fund: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to
conceptualize, produce and place political ads on television, radio, print and the Internet.

Media Matters for America: This organization is a "web-based, not-for-profit ... progressive
research and information center" seeking to "systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast,
cable, radio and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation." This group works closely with
the Soros-backed Center for American Progress and is heavily funded by Democracy Alliance, of which
Soros is a major financier.

Mercy Corps: Vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mercy Corps places all blame for Palestinian
poverty and suffering directly on Israel.

Mexican American legal Defense and Education Fund: This group advocates open borders, free
college tuition for illegal aliens, lowered educational standards to accommodate Hispanics and voting
rights for criminals. In MALDEF's view, supporters of making English the official language ofthe United
States are "motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments," while advocates of sanctions against
employers reliant on illegal labor seek to discriminate against "brown-skinned people."

Exhibit Page No.: 1132 of CES Response Declaration

 Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein, PC: This influential defender of Big labor is headed by
Democrat operative Harold Ickes.

Midwest Academy: This entity trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, targeting,
confrontation and intimidation.

Migration Policy Institute: This group seeks to create "a North America with gradually
disappearing border controls ... with permanent migration remaining at moderate levels."

Military Families Speak Out: This group ascribes the U.S. invasion of Iraq to American
imperialism and lust for oil.

Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment: This group is the rebranded Missouri
branch of the now-defunct, pro-socialist, community organization ACORN.

MoveOn.org: This Web-based organization supports Democratic political candidates through

fundraising, advertising and get-out-the-vote drives.

Ms. Foundation for Women: This group laments what it views as the widespread and enduring
flaws of American society: racism, sexism, homophobia and the violation of civil rights and liberties. It
focuses its philanthropy on groups that promote affirmative action for women, unfettered access to
taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, amnesty for illegal aliens and big government generally.

Muslim Advocates: Opposed to U.S. counter-terrorism strategies that make use of sting
operations and informants, MA characterizes such tactics as forms of "entrapment" that are inherently
discriminatory against Muslims.

NARAl Pro-Choice America: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand and

works to elect pro-abortion Democrats.

NAACP legal Defense and Education Fund: The NAACP supports racial preferences in
employment and education, as well as the racial gerrymandering of voting districts. Underpinning its
support for race preferences is the fervent belief that white racism in the United States remains an
intractable, largely undiminished, phenomenon.

The Nation Institute: This nonprofit entity sponsors leftist conferences, fellowships, awards for
radical activists and journalism internships.

National Abortion Federation: This group opposes any restrictions on abortion at either the
state or federal levels and champions the introduction of unrestricted abortion into developing regions
of the world.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty: This group was established in 1976 as the first
"fully staffed national organization exclusively devoted to abolishing capital punishment."

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: This group depicts the United States as a
nation in need of dramatic structural change financed by philanthropic organizations (NGOs). It
overwhelmingly promotes grant-makers and grantees with leftist agendas, while criticizing their
conservative counterparts.

Exhibit Page No.: 1133 of CES Response Declaration

 National Committee for Voting Integrity: This group opposes "the implementation of proof of
citizenship and photo identification requirements for eligible voters or electors in American elections as
the means of assuring election integrity."

National Council for Research on Women: This group supports big government, high taxes,
military spending cuts, increased social welfare spending and the unrestricted right to taxpayer-funded
abortion-on-demand.

National Council of La Raza: This group lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education,
stricter hate-crime laws, mass immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.

National Council of Women's Organizations: This group views the United States as a nation rife
with injustice against girls and women. It advocates high levels of spending for social welfare programs
and supports race and gender preferences for minorities and women in business and academia.

National Immigration Forum: Opposing the enforcement of present immigration laws, this
organization urges the American government to "legalize" en masse all illegal aliens currently in the
United States who have no criminal records and to dramatically increase the number of visas available
for those wishing to migrate to the U.S. The Forum is particularly committed to opening the borders to
unskilled, low-income workers and immediately making them eligible for welfare and social service
programs.

National Immigration law Center: This group seeks to win unrestricted access to government-
funded social welfare programs for illegal aliens.

National Lawyers Guild: This group promotes open borders; seeks to weaken America's
intelligence-gathering agencies; condemns the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties; rejects
capitalism as an unviable economic system; has rushed to the defense of convicted terrorists and their
abettors; and generally, opposes all U.S. foreign policy positions, just as it did during the Cold War when
it sided with the Soviets.

National Organization for Women: This group advocates the unfettered right to taxpayer-funded
abortion-on-demand; seeks to "eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia" from American society;
attacks Christianity and traditional religious values; and supports gender-based preferences for women.

National Partnership for Women and Families: This organization supports race- and sex-based
preferences in employment and education. It also advocates for the universal"right" of women to
undergo taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason.

National Priorities Project: This group supports government-mandated redistribution of wealth -

-through higher taxes and greater expenditures on social welfare programs. NPP exhorts the
government to redirect a significant portion of its military funding toward public education, universal
health insurance, environmentalist projects and welfare programs.

National Public Radio: Founded in 1970 with 90 public radio stations as charter members, NPR is
today a loose network of more than 750 U.S. radio stations across the country, many of which are based
on college and university campuses. (government-funded propaganda machine)

Exhibit Page No.: 1134 of CES Response Declaration

 National Security Archive Fund: This group collects and publishes declassified documents
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act to a degree that compromises American national
security and the safety of intelligence agents.

National Women's law Center: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand;

lobbies against conservative judicial appointees; advocates increased welfare spending to help low-
income mothers; and favors higher taxes for the purpose of generating more funds for such government
programs as Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, foster care, health care, child-support enforcement and
student loans.

Natural Resources Defense Council: One of the most influential environmentalist lobbying
groups in the United States, the Council claims a membership of one million people.

New America Foundation: This organization uses policy papers, media articles, books, and
educational events to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism, energy
policy, the Mideast conflict, global governance and much more.

New Israel Fund: This organization gives support to NGOs that regularly produce reports
accusing Israel of human-rights violations and religious persecution.

NewsCorpWatch: A project of Media Matters For America, NewsCorpWatch was established

with the help of a $1 million George Soros grant to Media Matters.

Pacifica Foundation: This entity owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the
socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and hatred for capitalism.

Palestinian Center for Human Rights: This NGO investigates and documents what it views as
Israeli human-rights violations against Palestinians.

Peace and Security Funders Group: This is an association of more than 60 foundations that give
money to leftist anti-war and environmentalist causes. Its members tend to depict America as the
world's chief source of international conflict, environmental destruction, and economic inequalities.

Peace Development Fund: In PDF's estimates, the United States needs a massive overhaul of its
social and economic institutions. "Recently," explains PDF, "we have witnessed the negative effects of
neo-liberalism and the globalization of capitalism, the de-industrialization of the U.S. and the growing
gap between the rich and poor ... "

People for the American Way: This group opposes the Patriot Act, anti-terrorism measures
generally, and the allegedly growing influence of the "religious right."

People Improving Communities Through Organizing: This group uses Alinsky-style organizing
tactics to advance the doctrines of the religious left.

Physicians for Human Right's: This group is selectively and disproportionately critical of the
United States and Israel in its condemnations of human right's violations.

Physicians for Social Responsibility: This is an anti-U.S.-military organization that also embraces
the tenets of radical environmentalism.

Exhibit Page No.: 1135 of CES Response Declaration

 Planned Parenthood: This group is the largest abortion provider in the United States and
advocates taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

Ploughshares Fund: This public grantmaking foundation opposes America's development of a

missile defense system, and contributes to many organizations that are highly critical of U.S. foreign
policies and military ventures.

Prepare New York: This group supported the proposed construction of a Muslim Community
Center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan- a project known as the Cordoba Initiative, headed by
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Presidential Climate Action Project: PCAP's mission is to create a new 21st-century economy,
completely carbon-free and based largely on renewable energy. A key advisor to the organization is the
revolutionary communist Van Jones.

Prison Moratorium Project: This initiative was created in 1995 for the express purpose of
working for the elimination of all prisons in the United States and the release of all inmates. Reasoning
from the premise that incarceration is never an appropriate means of dealing with crime, it deems
American society's inherent inequities the root of all criminal behavior.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee: This organization works "to elect bold progressive
candidates to federal office ana to help [them] and their campaigns save money, work smarter and win
more often."

Progressive States Network: PSN's mission is to "pass progressive legislation in all fifty states by
providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state legislators."

Project Vote: This is the voter-mobilization arm of the Soros-funded ACORN. A persistent
pattern of lawlessness and corruption has followed ACORN/Project Vote activities over the years.

Pro Publica: Claiming that 11 investigative journalism is at risk," this group aims to remedy this
lacuna in news publishing by 11expos[ing] abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by
government, business and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur
reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.''

Proteus Fund: This foundation directs its philanthropy toward a number of radicalleftwing
organizations.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility: This anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-military, anti-

American organization 11 Uses psychological knowledge and skills to promote peace with social justice at
the community, national and international levels."
Public Citizen Foundation: Public Citizen seeks increased government intervention and litigation
against corporations-- a practice founded on the notion that American corporations, like the capitalist
system of which they are a part, are inherently inclined toward corruption.

Public Justice Center: Viewing America as a nation rife with injustice and discrimination, this
organization engages in legislative and policy advocacy to promote "systemic change for the
disenfranchised."

Exhibit Page No.: 1136 of CES Response Declaration

 Rebuild and Renew America Now (a.k.a. Unity '09): Spearheaded by MoveOn.org and overseen
by longtime activist Heather Booth, this coalition was formed to facilitate the passage of President
Obama's "historic" $3.5 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010.

Res Publica: Seeking to advance far-left agendas in places all around the world, RP specializes in
"E-advocacy," or web-based movement-building.

Roosevelt Institute: Proceeding from the premise that free-market capitalism is inherently
unjust and prone to periodic collapses caused by its own structural flaws, Rl currently administers
several major projects aimed at reshaping the American economy to more closely resemble a socialist
system.

Secretary of State Project (SOS): This project was launched in July 2006 as an independent "527"
organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of Secretary of State in selected
swing, or battleground, states.

Sentencing Project: Asserting that prison-sentencing patterns are racially discriminatory, this
initiative advocates voting rights for felons.

Social Justice Leadership: This organization seeks to transform an allegedly inequitable America
into a "just society" by means of "a renewed social-justice movement."

Shadow Democratic Party: This is an elaborate network of non-profit activist groups organized
by George Soros and others to mobilize resources-- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign
advertising, and policy indicatives --to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party
towards the left.

Sojourners: This evangelical Christian ministry preaches radicalleftwing politics. During the
1980s, it championed Communist revolution in Central America and chastised U.S. policy-makers for
their tendency "to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts." More recently, Sojourners
has taken up the cause of environmental activism, opposed welfare reform as a "mean-spirited
Republican agenda," and mounted a defense of affirmative action.

Southern Poverty Law Center: This organization monitors the activities of what it calls "hate
groups" in the United States. It exaggerates the prevalence of white racism directed against American
minorities.

State Voices: This coalition helps independent local activist groups in 22 states work
collaboratively on a year-round basis, so as to maximize the impact of their efforts.

Talking Transition: This was a two-week project launched in early November 2013 to "help
shape the transition" to City Hall for the newly elected Democratic mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio.

Think Progress: This Internet blog "pushes back, daily," by its own account, against its
conservative targets, and seeks to transform "progressive ideas into policy through rapid response
communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other
progressive leaders throughout the country and the world."

Thunder Road Group: This political consultancy, in whose creation Soros had a hand,
coordinates strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming Together, and America Votes.

Exhibit Page No.: 1137 of CES Response Declaration

 Tides Foundation and Tides Center: Tides is a major funder of the radical left.

U.S. Public Interest Research Group: This is an umbrella organization of student groups that
support leftist agendas.

Universal Healthcare Action Network: This organization supports a single-payer health care
system controlled by the federal government.

Urban Institute: This research organization favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal
welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.

USAction Education Fund: USAction lists its priorities as: "fighting the right wing agenda";
"building grassroots political power"; winning "social, racial and economic justice for all"; supporting a
system of taxpayer-funded socialized medicine; reversing "reckless tax cuts for millionaires and
corporations" which shield the "wealthy" from paying their "fair share"; advocating for "pro-consumer
and environmental regulation of corporate abuse"; "strengthening progressive voices on local, state and
national issues"; and working to "register, educate and get out the vote ... [to] help progressives get
elected at all levels of government."

Voter Participation Center: This organization seeks to increase voter turnout among unmarried
women, "people of color," and 18-to-29-year-olds --demographics that are heavily pro-Democrat.

Vote Latino: This group seeks to mobilize Latin-Americans to become registered voters and
political activists.

We Are America Alliance: This coalition promotes "increased civic participation by illegal
immigrants" in the American political process.

Working Families Party: An outgrowth ofthe socialist New Party, WFP seeks to help push the
Democratic Party farther toward the left.

World Organization Against Torture: This coalition works closely with groups that condemn
Israeli security measures against Palestinian terrorism.

YWCA World Office, Switzerland: The YWCA opposes abstinence education; supports universal
access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; and opposes school vouchers.

"Secondary" or "Indirect" Affiliates of the George Soros Network

By Discover The Networks

In addition to those organizations that are funded directly by George Soros and his Open Society
Foundations (OSF), there are also numerous "secondary" or "indirect" affiliates of the Soros network.
These include organizations which do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSF, but which are
funded by one or more organizations that do.

Center for Progressive Leadership: Funded by the Sores-bankrolled Democracy Alliance, this
anti-capitalist organization is dedicated to training future leftist political leaders.

Exhibit Page No.: 1138 of CES Response Declaration

 John Adams Project: This project of the American Civil liberties Union was accused of: (a) having
1red investigators to photograph CIA officers thought to have been involved in enhanced interrogations
.Jf terror suspects detained in Guantanamo and then, (b) showing the photos to the attorneys of those
suspects, some of whom were senior ai-Qaeda operatives.

Moving Ideas Network (MIN): This coalition of more than 250 leftwing activist groups is a
partner organization ofthe Soros-backed Center for American Progress. MIN was originally a project of
the Soros-backed American Prospect and, as such, received indirect funding from the Open Society
Institute. In early 2006, The American Prospect relinquished control of the Moving Ideas Network.

New Organizing Institute: Created by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org, this group "trains young,
technology-enabled political organizers to work for progressive campaigns and organizations."

Think Progress: This "project" ofthe American Progress Action Fund, which is a "sister advocacy
organization "of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and Campus Progress, seeks to
transform "progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action,
grassroots organizing and advocacy- and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the
country and the world."

Vote for Change: Coordinated by the political action committee of the Soros-funded
MoveOn.org, Vote for Change was a group of 41 musicians and bands that performed concerts in
several key election "battleground" states during October 2004, to raise money in support of Democrat
John Kerry's presidential bid.

Working Families Party: Created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left, this
front group for the Soros-funded ACORN functions as a political party that promotes ACORN-friendly
candidates.

NOTE: During the Obama Administration, numerous Congressional Caucuses changed from
congressional bodies to private NGOs under 501/.R.S. status, all of which work in concert with the Soros
NGOs, often receiving taxpayer grants to fund their "Purple Revolution" against America.

Soros NGO activities that violate U.S. Law and the Patriot Act

Under the PATRIOT Act, "domestic terrorism" includes anyone engaged in the following activities;

a. intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

b. influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
c. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or
kidnapping.

George Soros, his NGOs and all second-tier NGOs funded directly or indirectly by Soros or his NGOs have
been engaged in the following events inside the United States;

The airport riots over Trump's anti-terrorism travel ban

The Berkeley riots to shut down free speech on the college campus
The riots at Trump rallies resulting in the shutting down of the rally in Chicago
Ferguson Missouri riots over police reaction to racial violence

Exhibit Page No.: 1139 of CES Response Declaration

 Destruction of private and public property intended to intimidate the public
240 arrested for Inauguration Day rioting, vandalism and violence against Trump supporters
The women's day (pro-abortion) march on DC following the Inauguration
The Standing Rock protests
Violent protests against Supreme Court Nominee Judge Gorsuch
Funding "fake news" through "Media Matters" and countless news outlets, primary and
secondary
Working with OFA {Organizing For Action) to threaten the safety and security of and intimidate
federal and state level legislators at town hall meetings and legislative events across the country
via "operation indivisible"
Manipulation of the U.S. dollar and economy with the overt intent to profit on the demise of all
American citizens and the U.S. system of self-governance
The assault on all law enforcement agents and agencies
Too many to list here... but all of it a matter of public records

According to detailed reports from DC leaks -

"George Soros is a Hungarian-American business magnate, investor, philanthropist, political

activist and author who is of Hungarian-Jewish ancestry and holds dual citizenship. He drives
more than 50 global and regional programs and foundations. Soros is named an architect and a
sponsor of almost every revolution and coup around the world for the last 25 years. The USA is
thought to be a vampire due to him and his puppets, not a lighthouse of freedom and
democracy. His minions spill blood of millions and millions of people just to make him even
more rich. Soros is an oligarch sponsoring the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, hundreds of
politicians all over the world. This website is designed to let everyone inside George Soros' Open
Society Foundation and related organizations. We present you the workplans, strategies,
priorities and other activities of Soros. These documents shed light on one of the most
influential networks operating worldwide." - http://soros.dcleaks.com/

In short, every NGO involved in these activities is operating in violation of the USA PATRIOT Act. Soros
himself is a greater threat to the future of the United States than AI Qaeda and ISIS combined, yet he is
allowed to operate from New York City with total immunity even as his home country of Hungary rushes
to shut him and his evil NGOs down.

In fact, the USA PATRIOT Act was created precisely for the purpose of granting the federal government
broad powers to eliminate these types of threats presented by a maniacal madman like Soros. This
individual and his network of organizations are the embodiment of anti-American evil and there can be
no "draining of the swamp" so long as this individual and his network of NGOs are allowed to exist
within the United States.

Affiliated NGOs and their role in the "Purple Revolution"

In the "Velvet Revolution" model Soros has used to destroy governments and nations around the globe,
Soros now leads a "Purple Revolution" inside the United States against the duly elected government of
the American people.

Exhibit Page No.: 1140 of CES Response Declaration

Working with Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama through their foundations (NGOs),
Soros has launched the "Purple Revolution" in the United States after Trump's victory in the 2016
election. The "Purple Revolution" will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against
the globalist policies of the Clintons and ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution also seeks to
make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption
aimed at making Trump appear to be unfit for office.

From the Inauguration Day riots to U.C. Berkeley- the disruption of town hall meetings in the home
districts of the U.S. legislators to disruptions in state legislative affairs- racial divisions- sexual
orientation battles- vandalism and violence - bodily threats to Trump and his supporters- all of it is
part of the Purple Revolution organized and funded primarily by Soros and Soros NGOs.

The use of a network of NGOs is again, a method of laundering money from Soros through a network to
key NGOs, political figures and media outlets while maintaining "plausible deniability" among the
recipients of that funding. They can state "we are not funded by George Soros" so long as that money
came in laundered through one or more of the Soros related NGOs or Soros employees thereof. It's all a
ruse intended to conceal the very real fact that nation-wrecker Soros has the United States in his
crosshairs and many friends on his side in this battle.

The Purple Revolution against Trump, 63 million voters and America is identical in nature to the Soros
Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Velvet Revolution in Hungary and his
"open society" revolution across the Middle East.

Remedies Under the Patriot Act

After September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act was created for just such a circumstance, wherein an
individual or groups of individuals were conspiring to overthrow the duly elected U.S. Government using
a multitude of revolutionary tactics to undermine, subvert, undermine and destroy the Constitutional
system of government that provides for the American way of life.

As demonstrated in detail above, Section 802 ofthe USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) includes all of
the activities of Soros and his network of NGOs under the definition of "domestic terrorism." As a result,
Soros, his NGOs and all secondary related NGOs funded and/or controlled, or otherwise affiliated with
Soros for the purpose of carrying out his Purple Revolution, can be shut down, detained, charged,
prosecuted and convicted under the USA PATRIOT Act as acknowledged by even the ACLU.

Further, under Seizure of assets - Sec. 806: -All national and international personal, business, NGO and
related NGO assets can be immediately frozen, seized and ultimately forfeited to the United States
Federal Government, putting the entire Soros NGO Revolution against America out of business
immediately.

The U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Justice are well-equipped to fully investigate, detain,
seize and prosecute the case against the most dangerous anti-American network of terrorists
threatening the security and sovereignty of the United States today.

Exhibit Page No.: 1141 of CES Response Declaration

These Departments under the Trump Administration must move swiftly to end the assault on the United
States emanating from Soros and his network of NGOs before they destroy Trump, his administration
and the future ofthe United States.

Responsible U.S. Departments and Contact Information

To take citizen action on behalf of this report, please contact the following agencies ...

Attorney General Jefferson Sessions

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Department Comment Line: 202-353-1555
Department of Justice Main Switchboard: 202-514-2000

The Honorable John F. Kelly

Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
Operator Number: 202-282-8000
Comment line: 202-282-8495

Exhibit Page No.: 1142 of CES Response Declaration

Exhibit Page No.: 1143 of CES Response Declaration
 PROSE

U.S.Distr ictCour t
Nor ther nDistr ictofNewYor k-MainOffice(Syr acuse)[LIVE-Ver sion6.1.1]
(Albany)
CIVILDOCKETFORCASE#:1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJ S

Strunkv.TheStateofCaliforniaetal DateFiled:12/15/2016
Assignedto:JudgeBrendaK.Sannes JuryDemand:None
Referredto:MagistrateJudgeDanielJ.Stewart NatureofSuit:441CivilRights:Voting
Cause:42:1983CivilRightsAct Jurisdiction:U.S.GovernmentDefendant
Plaintiff
Chr istopher Ear lStr unk representedby Chr istopher Ear lStr unk
IndividuallyofNewYork 141HarrisAvenue
LakeLuzerne,NY12846
718-414-3760
PROSE

V.
Defendant
TheStateofCalifor nia representedby Tamar Pachter
CaliforniaDepartmentofJustice
455GoldGateAvenue,Suite11000
SanFrancisco,CA94102
415-703-5500
Fax:415-703-1234
Email:tamar.pachter@doj.ca.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Defendant
EdmundGer aldBr own,J r . representedby Tamar Pachter
IndividuallyandasGovernor (Seeaboveforaddress)
alsoknownas LEADATTORNEY
Jerry ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED

Defendant
Alejandr oPadilla representedby Tamar Pachter
IndividuallyandasSecretaryofState (Seeaboveforaddress)
(SOS) LEADATTORNEY
alsoknownas ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Alex
Defendant
TheStateofNewYor k representedby J oshuaE.McMahon
AndrewM.Cuomo,individuallyandas
Governor
Defendant
TheStateofNewYor kBoar dof
Elections
withRepublicanPeterS.Kosinski/Co-
Chair,DemocratDouglasA.Kellner/
Co-Chair,RepublicanAndrewJ.Spano/
CommissionerandDemocratGregoryP.
Peterson/Commissioner
Defendant
TheCityofNewYor k
Defendant
War r enWilhelm,J r .
MayoroftheCityofNewYork
alsoknownas
BillDeBlasio
Defendant
TheNewYor kCityBoar dofElections
withCommissionersofElections:Maria
R.GuastellaPresident,FredericM.
UmaneSecretary,JoseMiguelAraujo,
JohnFateau,Ph.D.,LisaGrey,Michael
Michel,MichaelA.Rendino,Alan
Schulkin,SimonShamoun,Rosanna
Vargas,Commissioners
Defendant
NationalAr chivesandRecor ds
Administr ation
NewYorkStateAttorneyGeneral-
Albany
TheCapitol
Albany,NY12224
518-776-2603
Email:joshua.mcmahon@ag.ny.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
representedby J oshuaE.McMahon
(Seeaboveforaddress)
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
representedby DanielW.Coffey
Bowitch,CoffeyLawFirm
17ElkStreet
Albany,NY12207
518-813-9500
Fax:518-207-1916
Email:coffey@bcalbany.com
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
representedby DanielW.Coffey
(Seeaboveforaddress)
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
representedby DanielW.Coffey
(Seeaboveforaddress)
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
representedby J ohnD.Hoggan,J r .
U.S.DepartmentofJustice-Albany
Office
445Broadway
 JamesT.FoleyCourthouse
Albany,NY12201
518-431-0247
Fax:518-431-0386
Email:john.hoggan@usdoj.gov
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Defendant
Pr esidentoftheUnitedStatesSenate representedby J ohnD.Hoggan,J r .
(Seeaboveforaddress)
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED
Defendant
UnitedStatesDepar tmentof representedby J ohnD.Hoggan,J r .
Commer ceBur eauoftheCensus (Seeaboveforaddress)
LEADATTORNEY
ATTORNEYTOBENOTICED

DateFiled # DocketText
12/15/2016 1 COMPLAINTagainstEdmundGeraldBrown,Jr.,NationalArchivesandRecords
Administration,AlejandroPadilla,PresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenate,TheCity
ofNewYork,TheNewYorkCityBoardofElections,TheStateofCalifornia,The
StateofNewYork,TheStateofNewYorkBoardofElections,UnitedStates
DepartmentofCommerceBureauoftheCensus,WarrenWilhelm,Jr.(Filingfee
$400receiptnumberALB010158)filedbyChristopherEarlStrunk.(Attachments:
#1ExhibitA,#2ExhibitB,#3ExhibitC,#4ExhibitD,#5ExhibitE,#6
ExhibitF,#7ExhibitgG,#8ExhibitH,#9ExhibitI,#10ExhibitJ,#11Exhibit
K,#12ExhibitL,#13ExhibitM,#14CivilCoverSheet)(khr)(Entered:
12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 2 SummonsIssuedastoTheStateofCalifornia.(Attachments:#1astoEdmund
Brown,Jr.,#2astoAlejandroPadilla,#3astoTheStateofNewYork,#4New
YorkStateofBoardofElection,#5TheCityofNewYork,#6WarrenWilhelm,
Jr.,#7TheNewYorkCityBoardofElections,#8NationalArchivesand
RFecordsAdministration,#9PresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenate,#10United
StatesDepartmentofCommerceBureau)(khr)(Entered:12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 3 G.O.25FILINGORDERISSUED:InitialConferencesetfor3/16/201710:00AM
inAlbanybeforeMagistrateJudgeDanielJ.Stewart.CivilCaseManagementPlan
mustbefiledandMandatoryDisclosuresaretobeexchangedbythepartiesonor
before3/9/2017.(PursuanttoLocalRule26.2,mandatorydisclosuresaretobe
exchangedamongthepartiesbutareNOTtobefiledwiththeCourt.)(khr)
(Entered:12/16/2016)

12/15/2016 4 PROSEHANDBOOKandNOTICEissuedandexplainedtoproseplaintiffat
timecomplaintwasfiledon12/15/2016atthecounter.(khr)(Entered:12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 5 ORDERTOSHOWCAUSEMOTIONforTemporaryRestrainingOrderby
ChristopherEarlStrunk.(Attachments:#1MemorandumofLaw,#2Exhibit-
Complaint,#3ExhibitA,#4ExhibitB,#5ExhibitC,#6ExhibitD,#7Exhibit
E,#8ExhibitF,#9ExhibitG,#10ExhibitH,#11ExhibitI,#12ExhibitJ,#13
ExhibitK,#14ExhibitL,#15ExhibitM)(khr)(Entered:12/16/2016)
12/16/2016 6 TEXTORDER:TheCourthasreviewedPlaintiff's"Ordertoshowcausewith
temporaryrestrainingorder"andattacheddocuments.(Dkt.No.5).TheLocal
Rulesrequirethemovingpartyto"serveanyapplicationfortemporaryrestraining
orderonallotherparties"(N.D.N.Y.L.R.7.1(f)),that"amotionbroughtbyOrder
toShowCause...includeanaffidavitclearlyandspecificallyshowinggoodand
sufficientcausewhythestandardNoticeofMotionprocedurecannotbeused,"and
thatthe"movingpartygivereasonableadvancenoticeoftheapplicationforan
OrdertoShowCausetotheotherparties,exceptinthosecircumstanceswherethe
movantcandemonstrate,inadetailedandspecificaffidavit,goodcauseand
substantialprejudicethatwouldresultfromtherequirementofreasonablenotice."
N.D.N.Y.L.R.7.1(e).ThereisnoindicationinPlaintiff'spapersthatheservedhis
filingonDefendants,orthathegaveDefendantsreasonableadvancenoticeofhis
application.NorhasPlaintifffiledanaffidavitshowing"goodandsufficientcause
whythestandardtheNoticeofMotionprocedurecannotbeused."Accordingly,
Plaintiff'sproposedorder(Dkt.No.5)isdeniedwithoutprejudicetorefiling
followingserviceofthefilinganduponcuringtheabove-identifieddefects.Any
refilingshouldincludebriefingontheapplicabilityof28U.S.C.2284(a)tothe
allegationsintheComplaint.SOORDERED.SignedbyJudgeBrendaK.Sannes
on12/16/2016.(Copyservedviaregularmail)(sr,)(Entered:12/16/2016)
12/30/2016 7 SUMMONSRETURNEDEXECUTED:FiledbyChristopherEarlStrunk,ProSe.
EdmundGeraldBrown,Jr.servedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017National
ArchivesandRecordsAdministrationservedon12/23/2016,answerdue
2/24/2017AlejandroPadillaservedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017
PresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenateservedon12/23/2016,answerdue2/24/2017
TheCityofNewYorkservedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017TheNew
YorkCityBoardofElectionsservedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017The
StateofCaliforniaservedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017TheStateofNew
Yorkservedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017TheStateofNewYorkBoard
ofElectionsservedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017UnitedStates
DepartmentofCommerceBureauoftheCensusservedon12/23/2016,answerdue
2/24/2017WarrenWilhelm,Jr.servedon12/23/2016,answerdue1/17/2017.
(Attachments:#1CoverLetter,#2MailingEnvelope)(rep)(Entered:01/04/2017)

12/30/2016 8 ORDERTOSHOWCAUSEMOTIONforTemporaryRestrainingOrderfiledby
ChristopherEarlStrunk,ProSe.{Supportingexhibitsattached}.(Attachments:#1
AffidavitwithExhibits,#2CoverLetterwithAffidavitofService,#3Mailing
Envelope)(rep)(Entered:01/04/2017)
01/04/2017 9 NOTICEofAppearancebyJohnD.Hoggan,JronbehalfofNationalArchivesand
RecordsAdministration,PresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenate,UnitedStates
DepartmentofCommerceBureauoftheCensus(Attachments:#1Certificateof
Service)(Hoggan,John)(Entered:01/04/2017)
01/11/2017 10 NOTICEofAppearancebyDanielW.CoffeyonbehalfofTheCityofNewYork,
TheNewYorkCityBoardofElections,WarrenWilhelm,Jr.(Attachments:#1
 AffirmationCertificateofService)(Coffey,Daniel)(Entered:01/11/2017)
01/11/2017 11 TEXTORDER:DefendantsaredirectedtofilearesponsetoPlaintiff's8Orderto
ShowCauseMotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderbyJanuary25,2017.Reply
papersshallbyfiledbyFebruary1,2017.Thismotionwillbeheardonsubmission
ofthepapers.Thepartieswillbenotifiediforalargumentisnecessary.SO
ORDEREDbyJudgeBrendaK.Sanneson1/11/17.(Copyservedonplaintiffvia
regularmail)(rjb,)(Entered:01/11/2017)
01/13/2017 12 NOTICEofAppearancebyJoshuaE.McMahononbehalfofTheStateofNew
York,TheStateofNewYorkBoardofElections(Attachments:#1Coverletter
andrequestforextensiontosubmitananswerormakemotions,#2Certificateof
Service)(McMahon,Joshua)(Entered:01/13/2017)
01/13/2017 13 LetterMotionfromDanielW.Coffey,Esq.forTheCityofNewYork,TheNew
YorkCityBoardofElections,WarrenWilhelm,Jr.requestingextensionoftimeto
respondtocomplaintsubmittedtoJudgeStewart.(Attachments:#1Affidavit
CertificateofService)(Coffey,Daniel)(Entered:01/13/2017)
01/18/2017 14 LETTERRESPONSEbyChristopherEarlStrunkre13LetterMotionfromDaniel
W.Coffey,Esq.forTheCityofNewYork,TheNewYorkCityBoardof
Elections,WarrenWilhelm,Jr.requestingextensionoftimetorespondto
complaintsubmittedtoJudgeStewart(khr)(Entered:01/18/2017)
01/18/2017 15 TEXTORDER:OnJanuary13,2017,DefendantsTheCityofNewYork,Warren
Wilhelm,Jr.andTheNewYorkCityBoardofElectionsfiledaLetterRequset
seekinganextensionoftimetofileanAnswerorotherwiserespondtothe
Complaintinthismatter.Dkt.No.13.OnJanuary18,2017,Plaintifffileda
responseinoppositiontoDefendants'request.Dkt.No.14.Notwithstanding
Plaintiff'sobjection,therequestisGRANTEDandDefendantsTheCityofNew
York,WarrenWilhelm,Jr.andTheNewYorkCityBoardofElectionsshallfile
theirresponsetotheComplaintonorbeforeFebruary17,2017.SOORDEREDby
MagistrateJudgeDanielJ.Stewarton1/18/2017.(Copyserveduponprose
plaintiffbyregularmail).(mab)(Entered:01/18/2017)
01/25/2017 16 RESPONSETOORDERTOSHOWCAUSEfiledbyTheStateofNewYork,The
StateofNewYorkBoardofElections.(Attachments:#1CertificateofService)
(McMahon,Joshua)(Entered:01/25/2017)
01/25/2017 17 RESPONSETOORDERTOSHOWCAUSEfiledbyTheCityofNewYork,The
NewYorkCityBoardofElections.(Attachments:#1Exhibit(s)SectionofNYC
AdministrativeCode,#2AffidavitRichmanDeclaration,#3Exhibit(s)Retention
andDisposalSchedule,#4AffidavitCertificateofService)(Coffey,Daniel)
(Entered:01/25/2017)
01/25/2017 18 RESPONSEinOppositionre8MOTIONforTemporaryRestrainingOrder
(FederalDefendants'MemorandumofLawInOoppositiontoPlaintiff'sMotion
ForTemporaryRestrainingOrder)filedbyUnitedStatesDepartmentof
CommerceBureauoftheCensus,NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration
andPresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenate(Attachments:#1CertificateofService)
(Hoggan,John)Modifiedon1/26/2017(khr).(MainDocument18replacedon
1/26/2017)(khr,).(Entered:01/25/2017)
01/26/2017 CLERK'SCORRECTIONOFDOCKETENTRYre18ResponseinOppositionto
 Motion.ModifiedtexttoincludetheindividualnamesoftheFederaldefendants.
(khr)(Entered:01/26/2017)
01/26/2017 CLERK'SCORRECTIONOFDOCKETENTRYre18ResponseinOppositionto
Motion.OriginalMemorandumofLawhadatypographicalerror.Replacedwith
correctedMemorandumofLaw.(khr)(Entered:01/26/2017)

01/26/2017 19 CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEbyNationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,
PresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenate,UnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerce
BureauoftheCensusre18ResponseinOppositiontoMotion,(forcorrected
MemorandumofLaw)(Hoggan,John)(Entered:01/26/2017)
02/03/2017 20 REPLYtoResponsetoMotionre8MOTIONforTemporaryRestrainingOrder
filedbyChristopherEarlStrunk.(Attachments:#1CoverLetter)(khr)(Entered:
02/03/2017)
02/06/2017 21 LetterMotionfromJoshuaE.McMahonforTheStateofNewYork,TheStateof
NewYorkBoardofElectionsrequestingthirty(30)dayextensionoftimetosubmit
anAnswerorMotionsubmittedtoJudgeDanielJ.Stewart.(Attachments:#1
CertificateofService)(McMahon,Joshua)(Entered:02/06/2017)
02/07/2017 22 TEXTORDER:OnFebruary6,2017,Defendants,TheStateofNewandTheState
ofNewYorkBoardofElections,filedaLetterRequestseekinganextensionof
timetofileanAnswerorotherwiserespondtotheComplaintinthismatter.Dkt.
No.21.Baseduponthereasonssetforthintheirsubmission,therequestis
GRANTEDandDefendants,TheStateofNewYorkandTheStateofNewYork
BoardofElections,shallfiletheirresponsetotheComplaintonorbeforeMarch9,
2017.SOORDEREDbyMagistrateJudgeDanielJ.Stewarton2/7/2017.(Copy
servedtoproseplaintiffbyregularmail).(mab)(Entered:02/07/2017)
02/16/2017 23 MOTIONtoDismissforFailuretoStateaClaim,MOTIONtoDismissforLack
ofSubjectMatterJurisdictionMotionHearingsetfor4/6/201710:00AMin
SyracusebeforeJudgeBrendaK.SannesResponsetoMotiondueby3/20/2017
ReplytoResponsetoMotiondueby3/27/2017.filedbyTheCityofNewYork,
TheNewYorkCityBoardofElections.(Attachments:#1MemorandumofLaw,#
2Exhibit(s)unpublisheddecision,#3Exhibit(s)NYCAdminCode)(Coffey,
Daniel)(Entered:02/16/2017)
02/22/2017 24 ORDERdenying8MotionforTRO.Thepartiesaredirectedtofileletterbriefsby
March22,2017addressingwhether,underthestandardarticulatedinShapirov.
McManus,___U.S.___,136S.Ct.450,455-56(2015),Plaintiff'sallegations
concerningtheconstitutionalityoftheapportionmentofmembersoftheUnited
StatesHouseofRepresentativesrequiresathree-judgepaneltobeconvenedunder
28U.S.C.2284.SignedbyJudgeBrendaK.Sanneson2/22/17.(Copyservedon
plaintiffviaregularmail)(rjb,)(Entered:02/22/2017)
02/23/2017 25 MOTIONtoDismissforLackofPersonalJurisdiction,MOTIONtoDismissfor
FailuretoStateaClaimMotionHearingsetfor4/6/201710:00AMinSyracuse
beforeJudgeBrendaK.SannesResponsetoMotiondueby3/20/2017Replyto
ResponsetoMotiondueby3/27/2017.filedbyEdmundGeraldBrown,Jr.,
AlejandroPadilla,TheStateofCalifornia.(Attachments:#1Memorandumof
Law,#2Affidavit)(Pachter,Tamar)(Entered:02/23/2017)
02/24/2017 26 MOTIONtoDismissforFailuretoStateaClaim,MOTIONtoDismissforLack
 ofPersonalJurisdictionMotionHearingsetfor4/6/201710:00AMinSyracuse
beforeJudgeBrendaK.SannesResponsetoMotiondueby3/20/2017Replyto
ResponsetoMotiondueby3/27/2017.filedbyNationalArchivesandRecords
Administration,PresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenate,UnitedStatesDepartmentof
CommerceBureauoftheCensus.(Attachments:#1MemorandumofLaw,#2
CertificateofService)(Hoggan,John)(Entered:02/24/2017)
03/08/2017 27 LetterMotionfromDanielW.Coffey,Esq.,attorneyforNYCDefendants,forThe
CityofNewYork,TheNewYorkCityBoardofElectionsrequestingadjournment
ofRule16conferencesubmittedtoJudgeStewart.(Coffey,Daniel)(Entered:
03/08/2017)
03/09/2017 28 TEXTORDER:OnMarch8,2017,theCityofNewYorkDefendantsfiledaLetter
RequestseekingtoadjourntheRule16InitialConferenceinthismatterinlightof
thependingdispositivemotions.Dkt.No.27.TherequestisGRANTEDandthe
Rule16InitialConferencescheduledforMarch16,2017beforetheundersigned
andthedeadlinetofileaproposedCivilCaseManagementPlanandexchange
MandatoryDisclosuresareADJOURNEDwithoutdatependingadecisiononthe
dispositivemotions.SOORDEREDbyMagistrateJudgeDanielJ.Stewarton
3/9/2017.(Copyservedtoproseplaintiffbyregularmail).(mab)(Entered:
03/09/2017)
03/09/2017 29 MOTIONtoDismissforFailuretoStateaClaimandLackofSubjectMatter
JurisdictionMotionHearingsetfor4/20/201710:00AMinSyracusebeforeJudge
BrendaK.SannesResponsetoMotiondueby4/3/2017ReplytoResponseto
Motiondueby4/10/2017.filedbyTheStateofNewYork,TheStateofNewYork
BoardofElections.(Attachments:#1MemorandumofLaw,#2Declarationof
Service)(McMahon,Joshua)(Entered:03/09/2017)
03/14/2017 30 LetterMotiondated3/13/2017filedbyChristopherEarlStrunk,ProSerequesting
anadjournmentoftheresponsedeadlinetothependingmotonssubmittedtoJudge
BrendaK.Sannes.(Attachments:#1CoverLetter,CertificateofServiceand
MailingEnvelope)(jmb)(Entered:03/14/2017)

03/20/2017 31 TEXTORDERgranting30LetterRequestforanextensionoftimetorespondto
the25MOTIONtoDismissforLackofPersonalJurisdictionMOTIONtoDismiss
forFailuretoStateaClaim,23MOTIONtoDismissforFailuretoStateaClaim
MOTIONtoDismissforLackofSubjectMatterJurisdiction,29MOTIONto
DismissforFailuretoStateaClaimandLackofSubjectMatterJurisdiction,26
MOTIONtoDismissforFailuretoStateaClaimMOTIONtoDismissforLackof
PersonalJurisdiction:Responsesdueby4/19/2017Repliesdueby4/26/2017.SO
ORDEREDbyJudgeBrendaK.Sanneson3/20/17.(Copyservedonplaintiffvia
regularmail)(rjb,)(Entered:03/20/2017)
03/21/2017 32 LETTERBRIEFbyTheCityofNewYork,TheNewYorkCityBoardof
Elections,TheStateofNewYork,TheStateofNewYorkBoardofElections.
(Coffey,Daniel)(Entered:03/21/2017)
03/22/2017 33 LETTERBRIEFbyEdmundGeraldBrown,Jr.,AlejandroPadilla,TheStateof
California.(Pachter,Tamar)(Entered:03/22/2017)
03/22/2017 34 LETTERBRIEFbyNationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration,Presidentof
theUnitedStatesSenate,UnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerceBureauofthe
 Census.(Attachments:#1CertificateofService)(Hoggan,John)(Entered:
03/22/2017)
03/23/2017 35 LETTERBRIEFbyChristopherEarlStrunk.(Attachments:#1Coverletterwith
CertificateofServiceandEnvelope)(khr)(Entered:03/24/2017)

PACERSer viceCenter
Tr ansactionReceipt
03/25/201702:43:04
PACER Client
CESTRUNCK:5104752:0 sanctuary
Login: Code:
Sear ch 1:16-cv-01496-
Descr iption: DocketReport
Cr iter ia: BKS-DJS
Billable
6 Cost: 0.60
Pages:
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 39
0

, lJ I ~ y
Christopher Earl St.runk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona F ILF 0
for CHRJSTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris A venue
Lake Luzeme, New York 12846
I MAR 23 2017 I
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yaboo.com AT

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, U.S. DiJtrict Judge

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
US District Court Northern District of New York
James M. Hanley Federal Building
I00 S. Clinton SL
Syracuse, NY 13261

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

Subject: There is a substan tive request for Three Judge Court with 28 USC 2284

The Bon. Brenda K. Sannes, U.S. District Judge,

Undersigned, National Citizen I Republican and New York Citizen, hereby complies
with the 22 February 2017 Court ORDER (see Exhibit A) to file letter briefs by March 22,2017
addressing whether, under the standard articulated in Shapiro v. McManus, _U.S._, 136
S.Ct. 450, 45556 (201 5), therein Plaintifl's allegations concerning the constitutionality of the
apportionment of members of the United States House of Representatives requires a three judge
panel to be convened under 28 U.S.C. 2284 (see Exhibit B); and herein as a matter of brevity
focuses on the proper joinder of the California Defendants as to a Federal Question with a
substantial Constitutional claim, and defers my detailed response to the California, NYS, NYC
and USA Defendants respective motions to dismiss now ordered by the I 9 April 2017 deadline.
Wben absent a substantial federal question. even a single-judge district court lacks
jurisdiction, and "[a) three-judge court is not required where the district court itself lacks
jurisdiction of the complaint or the complaint is not justiciable in the federal courts.'' Gonzalez v.
Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 100 (1974).

Is tbere a Federal Question when:

State and or Municipal illegal alien Harboring prohibited by 8 USC 1324

o interferes with the privileges and immunities of a National Citizen, Republican and
Citizen ofNew York too?
o obfuscates the purpose of full faith and credit provisions uses documents to facilitate
impersonation of a domiciliary US Citizen with exclusive liberties?
o Registers illegal aliens under NVRA I HAVA then with CA-AB 1461 held hannless?
o on 8 November 2016 provide "provisional ballots" under HAVA to say 750,000
persons under seal of whom 400,000 were recorded to have voted by absentee ballot?
o hires the counter revolutionary Eric Holder to resist disclosure of harboring?
o the San Francisco municipality elects not to aid the Joint anti-terrorist task force?
o schedules a referendum election for the secession of the state from the Union?
o fail to provide for a Constitutional republican form of government?
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 39

State of California Election Code 690 1 Cl) with related code sanctions out of state American
Independent Party (AlP) POTUS Electors at the 8 November 2016 General Election that
triggers a privilege and immunities protection requirement for a National Citizen, Republican
and resident Citizen of New York too?
Sacramento County is the ONLY County to apply Election Code for legal POTUS Elector
slate ballots at the 8 November 2016 General Election- thereby nullifies the election? and or
The TRUMP-PENCE slate wins statewide with vote overage of say over 312,000 votes? etc.

Is there 8 USC 1324 Harboring of illegal aliens by the State and or munic:ipality?

ARIZONA v. UNfJED STATES 9th Circuit 641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded. Held:

1. The Federal Government's broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status
rests, in part, on its constitutional power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"
Art. l, 8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign
relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (http:llwww.law.comell.edulsupremecourt//text/458/l).
Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among otber things, federal law specifies
categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C.
1 I 82); requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of
status, 1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized
workers, J324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for
doing so, see 1227.

Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion
exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
lmmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of
Homeland Security, is responsible for identifymg, apprehending, and removing illegal
aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which provides immigration
status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2-7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may
contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g.. Chamber of Commerce of United
States ofAmerica v. Jfhi!lng, 563 U. S. __, _ , but state law must also give way to
federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating
conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive
governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88
(hnp:l/www.law.comell.edulsuprernecowtl/tcxt/505/88). Intent can be inferred from a
framework of regulation "so pervasive ... that Congress left no room for the States to
supplement it" or where a "federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be

1
Califania Ek:ctioos Code Section 6901: Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section
7100, 7300, 1578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary of State its certified list of nominees for electors of
President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify eacb candi&te for
elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the
candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties to be placed upon the ballot
for the ensuing general election.
2
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 39

assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Rice y. Santa Fe
E/evqtor Com., 331 U. S. 218 (http://www.law.corneU.edu/supremecourt//text/331/218).
Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when
they stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz. 312 U. S. 52
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeoourt//text/312152). Pp. 7- 8.

ARGUENDO: circumstances referenced above and the Petition with Complaint, Undersigned
among those similarly situated have a direct interest in the California November 8, 2016 general
election with four (4) out-of-state Trump-Pence Electors, and each National Citizen I Republican
status under the jurisdictional equal protection of the state of California substantive due process.

Is there a breaeb of fiduciary duty tbat is a ripe substantial constitutional claim?

There is a pattern of malicious action by California with prima facie proof starting at the 1996
General Election of Federal officers as to then California State resident Robert K. Doman, a
National Citizen along with Undersigned, and who according to his Affidavit of March 5, 2017
is a Virginia State Resident (see Exhibit g supports the causes of action complained of as to
California Defendants with sufficient probable cause evidence of harm and rights infringement.

Is there a substantial constitutional claim?

"[C]onstitutional claims will not lightly be found insubstantial for purposes of" the three-judge-
court statute. Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservqtion, 441 U.S. 134, 147-
148 (1980). The Fourteenth Amendment (was ratified by New York on January 10, 1867 and
by California on May 6, 1959), particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of
the Constitution, fonning the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education
(1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000)
regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local
officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

Is there 1 malicious failure of Defendants to enforce its Election Law or Code It the
POTUS election and sucb constitute a basis for a 14th Amendment infringement violation?

The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges
or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause
provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred ScoN
v. Sand(ord (1851), which bad held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be
citizens of the United States, thereafter resolved by the Civil War the 13th 14th and 15th
Amendments to the Constitution as relate to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Is there a Privileges or Immunities Clause infringement violation'!

The Privileges or Immunities Clause protects the privileges and immunities of national
citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and Immunities
Clause of Article IV,[ Berger, Raoul (1997). Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of
the Fourteenth Amendment (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. p. 58. ISBN 0865971447]
3
-- Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 39

which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other
states. In the Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Supreme Coun concluded that the
Constitution recognized two separate types of citizenship -"national citizenship" and "state
citizenship"-and the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from
interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of national citizenship. The
Court concluded that the privileges and immunit.ies of national citizenship included only those
rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its
Constitution, or its laws." The Court recognized few such rights, including access to seaports and
navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government
while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of
go~ernment, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the
wnt of habeas corpus, and the right to participate in the government's administration. This
decision has not been overruled and has been specifically reaffirmed several times; and largely as
a result of the narrowness of the Slaughter House opinion, that lay dormant for a century.
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving
persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been
used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as
to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.

h tbere a Full Faith and Credit Clause infringement violation?

Application of State actor doctrine, Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States
Constitution, other than the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, protect not against actions
by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. Regarding the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Coun ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer ( 1948): "[T]he action
inhibited by the first section of the Founeenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be
said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct.
however discriminatory or wrongful." The coun added in Civil Rights Cases ( 1883): "It is State
action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not
the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes
void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."
Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is
"state action" meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental
power. In Ex parte Virginia (1880), the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the
Founeenth Amendment
"have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State,
by whatever Instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by
its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The
constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the
officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue ofpublic position under
a State government, deprives another ofproperty, life, or liberty, withow due process of
law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional
inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and Is clothed with the State's
power, his act is that ofthe State."
4
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 5 of 39

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all
people within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting
irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

As a matter of equal protection does a state bave a compelling duty to provide an illegal
alien with a driven license and or suffrage privilege and or immunity?

Given the above referenced circumstances along with the Petition with Complaint, the second,
third, and fourth sections of the 14th amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second
section's reference to "rebellion and other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for
felony disenfranchisement herein with available remedy not least of which is proportionate
reduction of House seats, bar from holding office, claw back of stolen funds and or segregation
of ill-gotten gains and or debt from any obligation of righteous citizens.

The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by
"appropriate legislation". However, under Citv of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress's
enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the
amendment as applies to the decision of a Three Judge Court trial and findings.

ln Conclusion, there are several Federal questions along with substantial Constitutional claims
raised above in support of the Petition with Complaint that requires readily available punishment
and relief that according to Congress only a Three Judge Court is able to reapportion the
remaining House seats in preparation for the 2018 interim election and or reapportionment of
House district that would otherwise be elected at large until the Census enumeration of2020; and
for the above and further reasons Undersigned contends that with the affidavit of Robert K.
Doman proving a pattern of malicious infringement that there is a substantive request for Three
Judge Court with 28 USC 2284 for enforcement of the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment as to all defendants subject to the further and different reason and f provided in
the Undersigned's response to the Defendants Motions iss due on Ap 19, 17.

w~
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
furCHRmTOPHEREARLSTRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
State of New Yone )
l $$.
County of King.s )

BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk, known to me to be the person
described herein and who solemnly affinned under the penalties of peljwy that every statement given
above was the whole !1\fth to the best of his knowledge.
,J
Subscribed and Affinned before me on this ~day of March, 2017.
ZEMIN WU
OTARY PUBLICSIATE OF NEW YORk
- ......, 41
Notary PQ1!4kfled In Qu. .nt County
My commluton Exphe Stplombe 20, 20111
5
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 6 of 39

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris

sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New Yorlc 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

Bon. Brenda K. Sannes, U.S. District J udge

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
US District Court Northern District of New York
James M. Hanley Federal Building
I00 S. Clinton St.
Syracuse, NY 13261

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

Subject: There is a substantive request ror Thr ee Judge Court with 28 USC 2284

Exhibit A
 . .
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 7 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKSDJS Document 24 Filed 02122117 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:16-CV-1496 (BKSIDJS)

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA with Edmund Gerald

"JERRY" BROWN Jr., individually and as Governor;
ud Alejandro "ALEX" PADILLA, Individually and as
Sec:retllry of State (SOS); THE STATE OF NEW YORK
with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as
Governor; THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD OF
ELECTIONS with Republican Peter S. Kosinski I Co-
Chair, Democrat Douglas A. Kellner I Co-Chair,
Republican Andrew J. Spano I Commissioner and
Democrat Gregory P. Peterson I Commissioner; THE
CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC); Warren "BILL DE
BLASIO" Wilhelm Jr., Individually and as the Mayor of
NYC; THE NYC BOARD OF ELETIONS witb
Commissioners or Elections: Maria R. Guastella President,
Frederic M. Umane Secretary, Jose Miguel Araujo, John
Flatcau, Ph.D., Lisa Grey, Michael Michel, Michael A.
Rendino, Alan Scbulkla, Simon Sbamoun, Rosanna
Va111as, Commissioners; NATJONAL ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS,

Defendants.1

1
Plaintiff has also named as panics-in-intereSt": "Qualified Political Parties: American Independent Pany (AlP);
Democratic Pany, Green Party, Libertarian Pany; Peace and Freedom Party; Republican Party; Independence Party;
Senator Bernie Sanden; California AG; New Yorlc AG; NYC Corporation Counsel; and U.S. Anomey.~ (Okt. No.
I). As there is no indication Plaintiff intends these "panies-in-interest" to be defendants in this case, the Court has
deleted them !Tom the caption.
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 8 of 39
case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02122/17 Page 2 of 14

Appearan:S:

Christopher Earl Strunk

Lake Luzerne, NY 12846
PlaintiffPro Se

Daniel W. Coffey
Bowitcb & Coffey LLC
17 Elk St.
Albany, NY 12207
For Defendants The City ofNew York, Warren "Bill de Blasia " Wilhelm Jr., NYC Board of
Elections, Maria R. Guastella, Frederic M. Umane, Jose Miguel Araujo. John Flateau, Lisa
Grey, Michael Michel, Michael A. Rendina, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, and Rosanna
Vargas

Richard S. Hartun ian

United States Attorney
John D. Hoggan, Jr.
Assistant United States Attorney
445 Broadway
Albany, NY 12201
For Defendants The National Archives and Records Administration, President of the United
States Senate, and the United States Department ofCommerce Bureau ofthe Census

Eric T. Schneidennan
Attorney General of the State of New York
Joshua E. McMahon
Assistant Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
For Defendants The State ofNew York and The State ofNew York Board ofElections

Roo. Brenda K. Sannes, United States Distrkt Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

l. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk, proceeding prose, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C.

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

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

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

2
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 9 of 39
case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 14

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

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

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

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

for the ... reapportionment of bouse districts without illegal aliens."2 (ld.). The Complaint

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

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

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

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

partisan unjust enrichment," and "insurrection using illegal aliens against the United States." (Jd.

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

of California, and Alex Padilla, the California Secretary of State (the "California Defendants");

the State ofNew York, Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and the State of New York

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

The Constitution requires an "actual Enumerationn of the population every 10 years and vests
Congress with the aulhority to conduct that census ~in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Art. I, 2, cl. 3. Through the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. I et seq., Congress has delegated to the
Secretary of the Department of Commerce the responsibility to tal<e "a decennial census oflthe]
population ln such form and content as he may detennlnc." 141(a). The Secretllf)' is assisted in
the performance of that responsibility by the Bureau of the Census and its head, the Director of the
Census. See 2; 21 ("[The] Director shall perform such duties as may be imposed upon him by
law, regulations, or orders of the Seer~).

The Constitution provides that the results of the census shall be used to apportion the Members of
the House of Representatives among the State5. See Art. I, 2, ct. 3 ("Representatives shall be
apportioned among the several Sillies according to their respective Numbers."); Amdt. 14, 2
("Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State. "). Because the Constitution
provides that the number of Representatives apportioned to each State determines in part the
aUo.:ation to each State of votes for the election of the President, the decennial census also affects
the allo.:ation of members of the electoral college. See Art. n, I, cl. 2 ("Each Slllle shall appoint
a Number of Electors, equal to the wbole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the
State may be entitled in the Congress.n).

Wisconsin v. City ofN.Y., 511 U.S. I, .Hi (1996} (internal ellipses omitted).

3
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 10 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 14

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

and Bill DeBlasio, the Mayor of New York City, the New York City Board of Elections and its

Commissioners (the "NYC Defendants"); and the National Archives and Records

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

Commerce Bureau of the Census (the "Federal Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff requests that

a three-judge panel be convened under 28 U.S.C. 2284 to adjudicate this case, (id.), and seeks a

temporary restraining order. (Dkt. No. 8). The New York, NYC, and Federal Defendants oppose

Plaintiff's motion. (Dkt. Nos. 16-18). The California Defendants have not appeared in this

action. For the reasons that foUow, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is denied

and the Court reserves decision pending further briefmg on whether to convene a three-judge

panel.

U. COMPLAINT

A. AJiegations

Though disjointed and incomprehensible at points, 3 construed liberally, the Complaint,

which Plaintiff filed pro se, contains the following allegations: Plaintiff is a "person domiciled

and registered to vote in the State ofNew York." (Dkt. No. I, ~ 1). The "19651mmigration and

Nationality Laws" were enacted to protected United States citizens "against economic injury

brought by overwhelming invasion of aliens into the USA." (Id. at, 25). "De facto public

officers," however, failed to enforce those laws. (Jd.). The Complaint further alleges that unlike

the 1990 decennial census, the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses "did not ask if a person is a US

Citizen." (/d. at W39-40).

1The Defendants have cited to Plaintiff's history of litigation, which the New York Defendants characterize as
"unequivocally frivolous, patently absurd and largely unintelligible.~ Dkt. No. 16,1 3; see Dkt. No. 17, p.S; Dkt.
No.l8, p .2.
4
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 11 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02122117 Page 5 of 14

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

other outlaw States," (id. at~ 41), and have two of the "largest unauthorized immigrant

populations" in the country, (id. at 1 42), are "sanctuary States for illegal aliens that have their

domicile in a foreign state." (!d. at ~ 41 ). "[T]ogetber the outlaw States have a substantial

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

U.S. House representation as if illegal aliens had a domicile within the USA." (Jd.).

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

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

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

Independent Party)" and does not "meet the requirements of the California Election Code." (!d.

at ~'1128-29). The Complaint contains similar allegations under the New York Election Code

concerning the slates of electors in New York. (/d. at 34-38).

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

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

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

especially related to 8 U.S.C. 1324." (/d. at~ 44-45). Plaintiff alleges that by allowing illegal

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

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

vote." (!d. at~ 46). Consequently, Plaintiff asserts, the California 2016 presidential election

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

election." (/d. at~ 48).

According to the Complaint, in 2014, the NYC Defendants "started issuing NYC

Identification to illegal aliens." (!d. at~ 51). The Complaint next describes various aspects of the

5
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 12 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22/17 Page 6 of 14

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

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

ballot under the Help America Vote Act" ("HA VA"), 42 U.S.C. 15301 et seq. (Jd. at 1 52). The

Complaint alleges that, in violation of New York Election Law and HA VA, which require "any

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

Public Officer verification may thereafter vote without challenge at the polling place," NYC

Mayor DiBlasio "publicly advertised that any person with a NYC Identification intending to vote

at the General Election may obtain a State of New York Identification." (Jd. at 1 55). 4

The Complaint also purports to provide statistics concerning presidential voting patterns

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

a higher percentage of votes than Republican candidates, and "an analysis ofNew York's voting

record in presidential elections from 1900 to 2016." (ld. at 1M! 59-60). Additionally, it recounts

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

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

control of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate." (!d. at Tlf 5~5). Finally, it refers to a lawsuit

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

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

Northern District of California, which, according to Plaintiff, arises from ''the California Jaw that

tells presidential electors to vote in the electoral college for the nominee of their party." (!d. at,

66-67).

The paragraphs that follow this allegation appear to address how a minority political party gains party status in the
states of New York and Georgia, and al.lege that the wRepublican-Demoerat Party bi-partisan power sharing
conspiracy" harms "New York ballot access." (Dkt. No. I, ft 56-58). lt is not clear bow this allegation relates to
the claims Plaintiff asserts in this case.

6
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 13 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02122/17 Page 7 of 14

B. Causes of Action

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

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

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

vote property and expectation of a fair ballot at the" November 8, 2016 presidential election. (Jd.

at p. 26). Plaintiff seeks to preclude "any person from holding any public office of profit or

trust." (Jd.).

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

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

before the ... General Election with proper notice to the voters." (Jd. ).

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

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

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

or citizen persons of the equal protection of the laws." (Jd. at p. 27). As a remedy, Plaintiffseeks

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

decennial census allotment for the respective state's reapportionment of house districts." (/d.).

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

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

of illegal aliens to suppress citizen Plaintiff's speech and association among those similarly

situated," in violation of the First Amendment. (!d. at 29).

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

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

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

7
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 14 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02122/17 Page 8 of 14

disproportionately diminished, in violation of8 U.S.C. 1324,2 U.S.C. 2a(cX4), and 18

U.S.C. 61 1. (!d. at pp. 29-30).

In the Sixth Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "dilute[d) and

disproportionately diminish[ed] vote property using aliens." (Jd. at p. 31). Plaintiff asserts that

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

of illegal aliens both illegally resident in any or every state of the several states and who have

participated in elections." (ld. at p. 32). Plaintiff further seeks sanctions and requests and a

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

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

using illegal aliens against the United States." (ld.). Plaintiffseeks an order reducing "US House

representation to (1) House member each for California and New York respectively and

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

state's reapportionment of house districts without illegal aliens." (Jd.).

As a remedy for the alleged violations, Plaintiffseeks to enjoin: (1) the ''National

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

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

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

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

"Elector Tall[ies]" to the "NARA Archivist and or President of the US Senate;" (4) and

Defendants "from destroying or alternating any record of the 20 16 Election Cycle back until the

2012 Election Cycle." (Dkt. No. 1, pp. 32-33). Plaintiff also seeks an order directing: (1) the

United States Attorney and the Attorneys General of California and New York to "assist the

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

8
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 15 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22/17 Page 9 of 14

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

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

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

enumerated in every state ... since the 2000 census .. .." (/d. at p. 34). Plaintiff seeks a

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

m. DISCUSSION

A. Three-Judge Panel - 28 U.S.C. l l84(a)

Section 2284 provides, in relevant part: "A district court oftbreejudges 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.

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

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

notify the chiefjudge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges, at least one of whom

shall be a circuit judge." /d. at 2284(b)( 1).

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

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

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

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

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

by 2284(a)-no more, no less." !d. at 455 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

However, "(a]bsent a substantial federal question, even a single-judge district court lacks

9
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 16 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22/17 Page 10 of 14

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

jurisdiction of the complaint or the complaint is not justiciable in the federal courts.'" !d.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

representation as if illegal aliens bad a domicile within the USA." (Dkt. No. 1, ~ 41). The

Complaint also contains a request to "proportionately reduce House members to be elected at

large until the 2020 decennial census allotment for the respective state's reapportionment of

house districts." 5 (ld. at~ 81). As none of the parties have addressed the applicability of

2284(a) under Shapiro, and in light of Plaintiff's allegations regarding the inclusion of aliens in

the determination of the apportionment of members of the United States House of

Representatives in New York and California, the Court reserves decision on that matter.

' This request for relief appears in connection not wilh Plaintiff's claims regarding apportionment but with his
allegation that Defendants oonspired to allow noncitizens to vole in violation of the equal protection clause. (Dirt.
No. I, 1 81). Reading the Complaint liberally, however, the Court oonstrues it as part of his reapportionment claim.

10
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 17 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22/17 Page 11 of 14

However, even if a three-judge panel is required, 2284 allows a single judge to "grant a

temporary restraining order" pending "hearing and determination by the district court of three

judges of an application for a preliminary injunction." 28 U.S.C. 2284(b)(3). Accordingly, the

Court turns to Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order.

B. Temporary Restraining Order

t. Standard

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs temporary restraining orders and

preliminary injunctions. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 65(a) and (b). In the Second Circuit, the standard for

issuance of a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction.

Fairfield Cty. Med. Ass 'n v. United Healthcare ofNew England, 985 F. Supp. 2d 262, 270 (D.

Conn. 20 13) aff'd as modified sub nom. Fairfield Cty. Med. Ass 'n v. United Healthcare ofNew

England, Inc., 557 F. App'x 53 (2d Cir. 2014); AFA Dispensing Grp. B. V. v. Anheuser- Busch,

Inc., 740 F. Supp. 2d 465,471 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("It is well established that the standard for an

entry of a temporary restraining order is the same as for a preliminary injunction."). "A party

seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) 'a likelihood of success on the merits or

sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a

balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiffs favor;' (2) a likelihood of'irreparable

injury in the absence of an injunction'; (3) that 'the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs

favor;' and (4) that the 'public interest would not be disserved' by the issuance of an injunction."

Benihana.lnc. v. Benihana ofTokyo, LLC, 784 F.3d 887, 895 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Salinger v.

Colling, 607 F.3d 68,79-80 (2d Cir.2010) (alterations omitted).6

6
"However, when a party seeks an injunction !hal will affect govemmenlal action taken in the public interest
pursuant to a stalulory or regulatory scheme, the plaintiff must typically show a likelihood of success on the
merits-a serious question going to the merits is usually insufficient, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly
in tbe applicant's favor." Mullins v. City ofNew York, 626 F.3d 47,53 (2d Cir. 2010)

II
 .......
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 18 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22/17 Page 12 of 14

The moving party must "meet a higher standard where: (i) an injunction will alter, rather

than maintain, the status quo, or (ii) an injunction will provide the movant with substantially all

the relief sought and that relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a trial on the

merits." Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm 't, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 33-34 (2d Cir. 1995). A

court can issue a mandatory injunction "only upon a clear showing that the moving party is

entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from a denial

of preliminary relief." /d. at 34.

In considering Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court has

reviewed the Complaint, its attachments, Plaintiff's affidavits, and other documentary evidence

the parties submitted in connection with the pending motion. See United States v. Buddhu, No.

08 Civ. 0074,2008 WL 2355930, at *I n.2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57728, at *3 n.2 (D. Conn.

June 5, 2008) ("In considering a motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court may rely on

affidavits, depositions, and sworn testimony, even when they include hearsay." (citations

omitted)

2. Elector Tames

As Defendants note, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief with respect to the 2016

presidential election and elector tallies are now moot. The Electoral College voted on December

19, 2016, and the President and Vice President were elected and have been inaugurated. See

Pope v. Cty. ofAlbany, 687 F.3d 565, 569 (2d Cir. 2012) ("'The occurrence of the action sought

to be enjoined normally moots the request for preliminary injunctive relief because this Court has

no effective relief to offer once the action has occurred."') (quoting Moore v. Consol. Edison Co.

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

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

12
 ,_
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 19 of 39
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22117 Page 13 of 14

54, 58 (2d Cir. 1998). While there is an "exception to mootness for cases 'capable of repetition,

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

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

here. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order with respect to the

delivery of "the Elector Tally of either California or New York," (Dkl No. 8,, 6(A}-(D)), is

denied as mool Strunk v. United States House ofRepresentatives, 24 F. App'x 21 , 22- 23 (2d

Cir. 200 I) ("Strunk's request for injunctive relief is moot because the presidential electors were

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

Vice President of the United States have been elected.").

3. Destruction of Records

Plaintiff next requests an order prohibiting Defendants from destroying any records from

the 2016 and 2012 election cycles as well as any "NYC ldentificatioo records." (Dkt. No.8,,

6(E)-(F)). As Plainti If has adduced 110 evidence that such rec{)rds are in danger of destruction,7

he has failed to show irreparable harm. s Accordingly Plaintiff's request for a temporary

restraining order preventing the destruction of records (Dkt. No. 8, 1 6(E)-(F)) is denied.

4. Production & Review of Records

Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order directing the United States Attorney and the California

and New York Attorneys General to "assist the court in comparison or' federal and state voting

and motor vehicle records and the Director of the United States Bureau of the Census to deliver a

record of all noncitizens or illegal aliens "enumerated in every state . .. since the 2000 census."

1
In his affidavit, Plaintiff avers that be spoke with an attorney rqnsenting a party in a separau: action who
"exp~ concern about destruction of!DNYC records." (Dkt. No. 8-1 , 13). There is no indication lhateilher
Plaintiffor the auomey be spoke with bas any pcaonal knowledge regarding these records.
1 Plaintiff attached a letter &om the New Yod< Slale Department of Motor Vehicles iDdicalinglhat the "statutory

retention period for" cenain records is four years. (Dirt. No. S-1, pp. 4~50). There is no evidence, bowevt1
concerning election or NYC idemification records.

13
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 20 of 39
case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 24 Filed 02/22117 Page 14 of 14

(Dkt. No. 8,1f6(H)-(l)). As an initial matter, the Complaint does not name any of these

individuals as Defendants. (Dkt. No. I). Injunctive relief is available against non-parties only

under very limited circumstances, none of which are present here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2);

Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Reinert & Duree, P.C., 191 F.3d 297, 302-03 (2d Cir. I999); United

States v. Regan, 858 F.2d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 1988); see also In re Rationis Enterprises, Inc. of

Panama, 261 F.3d 264, 270 (2d Cir. 2001) ("A court may not grant a final, or even an

interlocutory, injunction over a party over whom it does not have personal jurisdiction.").

Further, Plaintiff fails to meet the requisite standard for mandatory injunctive relief. See Tom

Doherty Assocs., 60 F.3d at 33-34, supra. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief

with respect to these individuals (Dkt. No. 8, 1f6(H)-(I)) is denied.

IV. CONCLUSJON

For these reasons, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 8) is

DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties are directed to tile letter briefs by March 22, 20 17 addressing

whether, under the standard articulated in Shapiro v. McManus, _ u.s._, 136 S.Ct. 450, 455-
56 (20 15), Plaintiff's allegations concerning the constitutionality of the apportionment of

members of the United States House of Representatives requires a three-judge panel to be

convened under 28 U.S.C. 2284.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~cleAt~
Dated: February 22, 2017

Brenda K. Sannes
u.s. District Judge

14
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 21 of 39

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris

sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL SlRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, U.S. District Judge

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
US District Court Northern District of New York
James M. Hanley Federal Building
I00 S. Clinton St.
Syracuse, NY 13261

Re STRUNK v. TilE STATE Of CALIFORNIA eta!. NYND 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)

Subject: There is a substantive request for Three Judge Cou rt w ith 28 USC 2284

Exhibit B
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 22 of 39

OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1

Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

SHAPIRO ET AL. v. McMANUS, CHAIRMAN,

MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUlT
No. 14-990. Argued November 4, 2015-Decided December 8, 2015
Since 1976, federal law haa mandated that a "district court <1! three
judges shall be convened ... when an action is filed challenging the
constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts .. . ,"
28 U. S. C. 2284(a), and haa provided that "the judge (presented
with a request for a threejudge court] shall, unless he determines
that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge
of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges" to serve,
2284(b)(l).
Petitioners requested that a three-judge court be convened to con
sider ~heir claim that Maryland's 2011 congressional t;ldistricting
plan burdens their First Amendment right of politicol association.
Concluding that no relief could be granted for this claim, the District
Judge dismissed the action inatead of notifying the Chief Judge of the
Circuit to convene a threejudge court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
lleld: Section 2284 entitles petitioners to make their case before a
three-judge court. Pp. 3-8.
(a) Sootion 2284(<~)' prescription could not be clearer. Because the
present suit is indisputably an action . . . challenging the COillltitu
tionality of the apportiotllllllnt of congressional districts," the District
Judge waa required to rofer the case to a three.judge court. Section
2284(a) admits of no exception, and "the mandatory 'shall' .. . nor-
molly creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion." Lex-
econ Inc. v. Milberg lVeiss :&rshad Izynes & Lerach, 523 U. S. 26, 35.
The subsequent provision of 2284(bXl), that the district judge shall
commence the process for appointment of a t!u-oo-judge panel "unless
be determines t hat three judges are not required," should be read not
as a grant of discretion to the district judge to ignore 2284(a), but aa
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 23 of 39

2 SHAPIRO v. McMANUS

SyUabua
a compatible adminatrative detail requiring diauid judp ID c~e
termio(e)" only whotber the "r.queat for th:tee judges is made in a
cue covered by 2284(a). This conclusion is bolstered by
2284(b)(3Ya e:q>hc:it command that [a] oingle judge shall not ... en
tor Jud(ment on the menta. Pp. 3-6.
(b) Reopoodente' alternative argument, that tbe Di.strict Judge
should have dami8Mld petitioners' claDn as "constitutionally insub-
stantial" under Goo.by v. Ouu, 409 U. S. 512, is unper$uaaive. This
Court baa looa diatioawabed between failing to raise a substantial
lederal queotion for juriadictiooal purpoee&-What Goosby ad
dreeeed-<lod faillnr to alate a claim for relief on the merits-what
the District Judge found here; only "wholly inaubatantial and frivo-
lous clal.m.o implicate the former, Bell v. Hood, 827 U. S. 678, 682-
683. Abeeot ouch obvioua frivolity, the failure ID state a proper
cauee or action caUa for a judgment on the merit& and not for a dl...
miesal for want of juriadiction. Id., at 682. Petitioners' plea for re
lief, which wu baaed on a legal theory put forward in JUSTICE KEN
Neov'a coru:urrenoa in Voeth v. J ..~lirer, Ml U. S. 267, 316, and
uneootraclicted in aubeequ.ent majority opinions, easily clears
Ooosby'slow bar. Pp. 6-7.
584 Fed. Appx. 140, reversed and remanded.

SCALIA,J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 24 of 39

Cite as: 577 U. S. _ (2016) 1

Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No.14--990

STEPHEN M. SHAPIRO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.

DAVID J. McMANUS, JR., CHAIRMAN, MARYLAND
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
(December 8, 2016]

JUSTICE SCAUA delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider under what circumstances, if any, a district
judge is free to "determin[e] that three judges are not
required" for an action "challenging the constitutionality
of the apportionment of congressional districts." 28
U. S. C. 2284(a), (b)(l).
I
A
Rare today, three-judge district courts were more com-
mon in the decades before 1976, when they were required
for various adjudications, including the grant of an "inter
locutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforce
ment, operation or execution of any State statute ... upon
the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute." 28
U.S. C. 2281 (1970 ed.), repealed, Pub. L. 94-381, 1, 90
Stat. 1119. See Currie, The Three-Judge District Court
in Constitutional Litigation, 32 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 3-12
(1964). Decisions ofthree-judge courts could, then as now,
be appealed as of right directly to this Court. 28 U. S. C.
1253.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 25 of 39

2 SHAPIRO v. MCMANUS

Opinion o the Court

In 1976, Congress substantially curtailed the circum-
stances under which a three-judge court is required. It
was no longer required for the grant of an injunction
against state statutes, see Pub. L. 94-381, 1, 90 Stat.
1119 (repealing 28 U.S. C. 2281), but was mandated for
"an action . . . challenging the constitutionality of the
apportionment of congressional districts or the apportion-
ment of any statewide legislative body." ld., 3, now
codified at 28 U. S. C. 2284(a).
Simultaneously, Congress amended the procedures
governing three-judge district courts. The prior statute
had provided: ''The district judge to whom the application
for injunction or other relief is presented shall constitute
one member of [the three-judge] court. On the filing of the
application, he shall immediately notify the chief judge of
the circuit, who shall designate two other judges" to serve.
28 U. S. C. 2284(1) (1970 ed.). The amended statute
provides: "Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the
judge to whom the request is presented shall, unless he
determines that three judges are not required, immediately
notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate
two other judges" to serve. 28 U. S. C. 2284(b)(l) (2012
ed.) (emphasis added). The dispute here concerns the
scope of the italicized text.
B
In response to the 2010 Census, Maryland enacted a
statute in October 2011 establishing-or, more pejora-
tively, gerrymandering-the districts for the State's eight
congressional seats. Dissatisfied with the crazy-quilt
results, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a, petitioners, a bipar-
tisan group of citi:rens, filed suit prose in Federal District
Court. Their amended complaint alleges, inter alia, that
Maryland's redistricting plan burdens their First Amend-
ment right of political association. Petitioners also re-
quested that a three-judge court be convened to hear the
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 26 of 39

Cite 11.9: 677 U.S. _(2015) 3

Opinion of the Court

case.
The District Judge, however, thought the claim "not one
for which relief can be granted." Benisek v. Mack, 11
F. Supp. 3d 516, 526 (Md. 2014). "[N]othing about the
congressional districts at issue in this case affects in any
proscribed way [petitioners') ability to participate in the
political debate in any of the Maryland congressional
districts in which they might find themselves. They are
free to join preexisting political committees, form new
ones, or use whatever other means are at their disposal to
influence the opinions of their congressional representa
tives." Ibid. (brackets, ellipsis, and internal quotation
marks omitted).
For that reason, instead of notifying the Chief Judge of
the Circuit of the need for a three-judge court, the District
Judge dismissed the action. The Fourth Circuit summar-
ily affirmed in an unpublished disposition. Benisek v.
Mack, 584 Fed. Appx. 140 (CA4 2014). Seeking review in
this Court, petitioners pointed out that at lea&-t two other
Circuits consider it reversible error for a district judge to
dismiss a case unde.r 2284 for failure to state a claim for
relief rather than refer it for transfer to a three-judge
court. See LaRouche v. Fowler, 152 F. 3d 974, 981-983
(CADC 1998); LULAC v. Texas, 113 F. 3d 53, 55-56 (CA5
1997) (per curiam). We granted certiorari. Shapiro v.
Mack, 576 U. S. _ (2015).
II
Petitioners' sole contention is that the District Judge
had no authority to dismiss the case rather than initiate
the procedures to convene a three-judge court. Not so,
argue respondents; the 1976 addition to 2284(b)(1) of the
clause "unless he determines that three judges are not
required" is precisely such a grant of authority. Moreover,
say respondents, Congress declined to specify a standard
to constrain the exercise of this authority. Choosing, as
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 27 of 39

4 SHAPIRO v. McMANUS

Opinion of Ute Court

the District Judge did, the familiar standard for dismissal

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) best serves
the purposes of a three-judge court. which (in respondents'
view) is to protect Sta~s from "hasty, imprudent invalids-
tion" of their statutes by rogue district judges acting alone.
Brief for Respondents 27.
Wha~ver the purposes of a three-judge court may be,
respondents' argument needleasly produces a contradic-
tion in the statutory text. That text's initial prescription
could not be clearer: ~A district court of three judges shall
be convened ... when an action is filed challenging the
constitutionality o( the apportionment of congressional
districts ... ." 28 U.S. C. 2284(a) (emphasis added).
Nobody disputes that the present suit is "an action ...
challenging the constitutionality of the apJ2ortionment of
congressional districts." It follows that the district judge
was required to refer the case to a three-judge court, for
2284(a) admits of no exception, and "the mandatory
'shall' . . . normally creates an obligation impervious to
judicial discretion." Lexl!con Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershod
Hynes & Leroch, 523 U. S. 26, 35 (1998); see also National
A8sn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S.
6<14, 66 t-662 (2007) (same).
The subsequent provision of 2284(b)(l), that the dis-
trict judge &ball commence the pTOcess for appointment of
a three-judge panel "unleas he determines that three
judges are not required," need not and therefore should
not be read &fl a grant of discretion to the district judge to
1gnore 2284(a). It is not even framed as a provieo, or an
exception from that provision, but rather as an adminis
trative detail that is entirely compatible with 2284(a).
The old 2284(1) triggered the district judge's duty to refer
the matter for the convening of a three-judge court "[o)n
the filing of the application" to enjoin an unconstitutional
state law. By contrast, the current 2284(b)(l) triggers
the district judge's duty ~[u]pon the filing of a request for
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 28 of 39

Cite as: 577 U. S , _ (2Ql5} 5

Opinion of the Court

three judges" (emphasis added). But of \!ourse a party

may-whether in good faith or bad, through ignorance or
hope or malice-tile a request for a three-judge court even
if the case does not merit one under 2284(a). Section
2284(b)(l) merely clarifies that a district judge need not
unthinkingly initiate the procedures to convene a three-
judge court without first examining the allegationsJ n the
complaint. In short, all the district judge must "deter-
min[e]" .is whether the "request for three judges'' is made
in a case covered by 2284(a)-no more, no less.
That conclusion is bolstered by 2284(b)(3)'s explicit
command that "[aj single judge shall not ... enter judg-
ment on the merits." It would be an odd interpretation
that allowed a district judge to do under 2284(b)(l) what
he is forbidden to do under 2284(b)(3). More likely that
Congress intended a threejudge court, and not a single
district judge, to enter all final judgments in cases satisfy-
ing the criteria of 2284(a).
m
Respondents argue in the alternative that a district
judge is not required to refer a case for the convening of a
three-judge court if the constitutional claim is (as they
assert petitioners' claim to be) "insubstantial." In Goosby
v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512 (1973), we stated that the tiling of a
"constitutionally insubstantial" claim did not trigger the
three-judge-court requirement under the pre-1976 statu-
tory regime. !d., at 518. Goosby rested not on an interpre
tation of statutory text, but on the familiar proposition
that "[i}n the absence of diversity of citizenship, it is es
sential to jurisdi<:tion that a st~bstantial federal question
should be pregented." Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S, 30, 31
(1933) (per curiam) (emphasis added). Absent a substan-
tial federal question, even a single-judge district court
lacks jurisdi~iion, and "[a} tliree-judge court is not re
quired where the district court itself lacks jurisdiction of
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 29 of 39

6 SHAPffiO v. McMANUS

Opinion of the Court

the complaint or the complaint is not justiciable in the

federal courts." Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit
Union, 419 U.S. 90, 100 (1974).
In the present case, however, the District Judge dis
missed petitioners' complaint not because he thought he
lacked jurisdiction, but because he concluded that the
allegations failed to state a claim for relief on the merits,
citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662 (2009), and Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. 1\vombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). See 11
.F. Supp. 3d, at 520. That was in accord with Fourth Cir-
cuit precedent, which holds that where the "pleadings do
not state a claim, then by definition thy are insc,bstantial
and so properly are subject to dismissal by the district
court without convening a three-judge court." Dz,ckworth
v. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws, 332 F. 3d 769, 772-
773 (CA4 2003) (emphasis added).
We think this standard both too demanding andJncon-
sistent with our precedents. "[C)onstitutional claims will
not lightly be found insubstantial for purposes of" the
three-judge-court statute. Wa.~hington v. Confederated
Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 147- 148
(1980). We have long distinguished between failing to
raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional
purposes-which is what Goosby addressed-and failing to
state a claim for relief on the merits; only "wholly insub-
stantial and frivolous" claims implicate the former. Bell v.
Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 68:H>83 (1946); see also Hannis
Distilling Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 216
U. S. 285, 288 (1910) ("obviously frivolous or plainly in
substantial"); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962)
(per curiam) ("wholly insubstantial," "legally speaking
non-existent," "essentially fictitious"); Steel Co. v. Citizens
for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 89 (1998) ("frivolous
or immaterial"). Absent such frivolity, "the failure to state
a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits
and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction." Bell,
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 30 of 39

Cite as: 677 U.S. _{2016) 7

Opinion of the Court

supra, at 682. Consistent with this principle, Goosby
clarified that K'[c]onstitutional insubstantiality' for this
purpose has been equated with such concepts as 'essen-
tially fictitious,' 'wholly insubstantial,' 'obviously frivolous,'
and 'obviously without merit.'" 409 U.S., at 518 (citations
omitted). And the adverbs were no mere throwaways;
"[t]he limiting words 'wholly' and 'obviously' have cogent
legal significance." Ibid.
Without expressing any view on the merits of petition-
ers' claim, we believe it easily clears Goosby's low bar;
after all, the amended complaint specifically challenges
Maryland's apportionment "along the lines suggested by
Justice Kennedy in his concurrence in Vieth [v. Jubelirer,
541 U.S. 267 (2004))." App. to Brief in Opposition 44.
Although the Vieth plurality thought all political gerry-
mandering claims nonjueticiable, JUSTICE KENNEDY,
concurring in the judgment, surmised that if "a State did
impose burdens and restrictions on groups or persons by
reason of their views, there would likely be a First
Amendment violation, unless the State shows some com-
pelling interest.... Where it is alleged that a gerryman-
der had the purpose and effect of...imposing burdens on a
disfavored party and its voters, the First Amendment may
offer a sounder and more prudential basis for intervention
than <toes the Equal Protection Clause." Vieth v. Ju-
belirer, 541 U. S. 267, 315 (2004). Whatever "wholly in-
substantial," "obviously frivolous," etc., mean. at a mini-
mum they cannot include a plea for relief based on a legal
theory put forward by a Justice of this Court and uncon-
tradicted by the majority in any of our cases. Accordingly,
the.District Judge 11hould not have dismissed the claim as
"constitutionally insubstantial" under Goosby. Perhaps
petitioners will ultimately fail on the merits of their suit,
but 2284 entitles them to make their case before a three-
judge district court.
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 31 of 39

8 SHAPIRO v. M cMANUS

Opinion ol the Court

The judgment of the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 32 of 39

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris

sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New Yorlc 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

Bon. Brenda K. Sannes, U.S. District J udge

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
US District Court Northern District of New York
James M. Hanley Federal Building
100 S. Clinton St.
Syracuse, NY 13261

Re STRUNK v. TilE STATE OF CALIFORNIA eta!. NYND 16-cv-1496 (BKS /DJS)

Subject: There is a substantive request for Three Judge Court witb 28 USC 2284

Exhibit C
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 33 of 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

)(---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually ofNew York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner
versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

)(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROBERT KENNETH DORNAN AFFIDAVIT

I, Robert Kenneth Dornan, state, declare and affirm as a witness in support of Plaintiffs Petition with

Complaint that the following matters I believe it to be true, am available for testimony, and that the

grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3"' parties,

books and records, and personal knowledge under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746:

As personal baekgrouod

I. I am a former Congressman born in New York City on , REOfeiEO to Hany Joseph and

Gertrude(Mickey) McFadden Doman. The middle of three sons, I married Sallie Hansen of Santa

Monica, California on her 21st birthday, Q\t otcn:w married 62 years on April 16, 2017. We

have five children and fifteen grandchildren, seven girls and eight boys, and five great-grandchildren,

1
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 34 of 39

three boys and two girls. After graduation from Loyola High School in Los Angeles in 1950, I

attended Loyola University through 1952.

2. On 30 January 1953, at age 19, I volunteered tor service in the United States Air Force; and after

earning silver wings on I February 1953, I served as a fighter pilot flying F-100 Super Sabres with the

world's first supersonic jet tighter wing. In 1958, I left active duty and joined the California Air

National Guard as an F-86 Sabrejet pilot and an intelligence officer, achieving the rank of captain. As

a U.S. Congressman I co-piloted every aircraft in the U.S. military arsenal, including the B-2 "Spirit,"

B-1 "Lancer," U-2 "Dragon Lady", SR-71 "Blackbird," AV-8 "Harrier," F-16 "Falcon" 7 times and F-

15E "Eagle" times, as well as the Israeli "Kfir,' and Israeli F-15 and Israeli F-16, the British

"Tornado", "Harrier," and "Hawk," the French "Mirage," and Italian F-104 "Star Fighter". In 1994 I

flew as a co-pilot "guest" with the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds.

3. I produced and hosted my own television public affairs programs in Los Angeles &om 1965 to 1976

for "Tempo". In 1968 and 1969, I was awarded Emmys for hosting a live four hour daily political

discussion program, then four years of the "live" weekend "Robert K. Doman Show". During the

1960s I was active in domestic civil rights, marched with Martin Luther King on 28 April 1963 in

Washington D.C. and registered black voters in the south in Mississippi and Alabama

4. 1 originated both the POW/MIA bracelet worn by more than 17 million Americans during and after

the Vietnam War and the "Prisoner of Conscience" bracelet worn for Soviet Jewish and Christian

dissidents in the 1970s.

5. I was a news correspondent photo journalist who traveled extensively over 170 countries, including

12 food-relief night tligbts to Biafra in May 1969 (15 tons of Protein II Extract per flight). I also

traveled to Vietnam ten times, and Laos and Cambodia four times each during the Vietnam War, and

ten times to the USSR behind the iron Curtain (8 times as a Congressman); and here to point as it

applies to this case Affirmant:

a I was ftrst elected to the U.S. House of Representative Congress in 2 November 1976,

representing California's 27th C.D. along the Pacific coast in western Los Angeles County

2
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 35 of 39
.. " .... . . -

and served from January 1977 to January 1983. (until the seat was cut into five pieces

attached to five other districts, thereby reapportioned out of existence);

b. Among the many national security reasons that motivated me to run for Congress was to

defeat the Jesuit lawyer prie;'t, Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts Robert

Frederick Drlnan, S.J. (November 15, 1920- January 28, 2007) who overtly and arrogantly

supported by law abortion (for all nine months) played a key role in the pro-abortion platform

becoming Democratic Party policy and the now advanced position of all politicians from

the Kennedy family and by whose casuistry he attempted to reconcile his position with

official Church doctrine by stating that while he, Congressman Drinan was "personally

opposed to abortion", considering it "virtual infanticide," in his twisted reasoning Drinan

stated "its legality was a separate issue from its morality."

c. During the October 1979 visit of Pope Iobn Paul ll, Sallie introduced me while we were in

the White House receiving line on the North Lawn. I spoke to the Pope about Drinan's

outrageously "sinful bad example". Pope John Paul said forcefully twice "Write to me, Write

to me." I did immediately! Within weeks the Holy Father directed that Father Drinan not seek

re-election or leave the priesthood, Orin an left Congress.

d. In 1982, I ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate; having entered the race 10 months late, with

no campaign war-chest, but finished 4th in a field of 13 candidates.

e. In 6 November 1984, I defeated an entrenched liberal I 0 year incumbent to represent

California's 38th Congressional District in central Orange County. Much of the 38th District

was reapportioned into an even more Democratic 46th District in 1992, which I represented

until January 1997. During my entire congressional career I was elected in districts that were

majority Democrat by registration.

f. Because of my extensive experience in national security, I was chosen to serve as a member

of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, served as the Chairman of the

Subcommittee on Tactical and Technical Intelligence; and also served on the National

3
Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 36 of 39

Security Committee (Anned Services) as the Chaitman of the Military Personnel

Subcommittee.

g. As a member of the Anned Services Committee, I championed such vital defense programs

as the B-1 "Lancer" and B-2 "Spirit" bombers, the F/A 18 "Hornet" and the V-22 "Osprey"

tilt-rotor, antiballistic missile defense (AMD), development of an effective ground combat

identification system and maintaining proper levels of Guard and Reserve forces. I was also

an active leader promoting President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SOl) for 13 years.

During the Carter/Reagan years, I was point man leader, nicknamed "B-1 Bob", in the

congressional battle to rescue/build one hundred (100) of the supersonic Strategic Air

Command penetrator bombers, the B- I "Lancers," which were canceled by President Carter

in June of 1977 in his ftfth month of office.

h. During the Clinton years: I was a key leader in the successful effort to prevent the

administration from eliminating the prohibition on activist homosexuals in the military, and

was the sponsor of legislation to codify the ban. In 1995, I passed legislation to place

restriction on a president's ability to place U.S. forces under foreign command. This

legislation bad been included in the House GOP's 1994 "Contract with America."

1. Consistent with my life-long commitment to human rights, I have been a staunch defender of

innocent pre-born life as the author of four successful Laws to prevent federal abortions in the

District of Columbia (later reversed by by long defeated liberal Republicans joining liberal

Democrats to continue virtual genocide io D.C. of "babies of color"). The most important

Doman Law, not a yearly amendment but public law, was I is the banning of abortions in U.S.

Military hospitals worldwide. Also, the ban of abortions in federal female prisons and on

Native American Indian reservations, all still U.S. law. I was the sponsor for years of the

paramount "Human Life" amendment, and am presently assisting the American Life League

in Stafford Virginia.

4
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 37 of 39

J. I am a leader in the fight against partial birth infanticide, child abuse and pedophilia I

pederasty extensive in large cities and tolerated by liberal government inaction; and am able

to speak in response to questioning under oath as an expert witness as to government negative

involvement or inaction past and present.

As to Mr. Strunk

6. During 2006, I spoke with Mr. Strunk concerning the 1997-1998 vote fraud investigation of the

November 5,1996 election conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (J.N.S.).

That investigation proved that I had won the 1996 reooelection, and developed knowledge as to the

pattern of corruption with the harboring of illegal aliens and distribution, without records

required by law of tens of thousands of voter registration forms, and as a matter complained of in

Mr. Strunk's Complaint, he filed in the Western District of New York, and in which my letter to

the Honorable Richard Arcara USDJ, depicted by Mr. Strunk's herein Complaint Exhibit A-3 at

P.age 7 (attached), that in the November 5, 1996 election the NS found that I was:

"...illegally defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a minimum 2,369 alien votes, and
according to I.C.E. (I.N.S.) records of 4,023 alien votes cast in the 1996 California General
Election; and that by consensus of both the Republican and Democrat parties behind the
scenes in violation of the majority of voters' rights conspired then and now for control over
illegal alien voting power in California and seemingly nationwide. Aliens illegal voting with
impunity and whereas not a single individual was charged with thousands of felonies having
been committed, to directly bring about my loss by nine (9) votes - notwithstanding the l.C.E.
records to the contrary..." (reference also "Stolen Elections"by John Fund, page 23)

7. During September 2016, Mr. Strunk facilitated contact of my wife, Sallie and me with Dr. Mark

Siedenburg (who had been part of my 1976 West Los Angeles I Santa Monica campaign for

Congress) of the American Independent Party (AlP), and who recruited us to become a TRUMP-

PENCE American Independent Party Elector Slate along with my fellow New Yorker by birth,

former Representative John Leboutillier at the 8 November 2016 California General Election; we

agreed, and are part of the AlP Elector Slate for TRUMP-PENCE.

5
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 38 of 39

8. On 25 January 2017, Mr. Strunk called and spoke with Sallie and me requesting this

affirmation in anticipation of this submission in the matter of the pattern of California and

New York public officer facilitation of vote fraud corruption with sanctuary harboring of

illegal aliens, with which I have been harmed in 1996 defeat, and am personally a witness to

such crimes because of the pattern of enterprise corruption that has been aided and abetted by

public officials including U.S. House members Bill Thomas and Newt Gingrich, and inter

alia, their use of vote fraud for Democratic and Republican Party aggrandizement for unjust

enrichment including commercial infanticide as genocide of persons of color; and agree in

what Mr. Strunk characterizes as government assisted abortion in aid of satanic ritual that is

part of pedophilia within networks throughout Congress and the government agencies.

9. That with permission of the Court, Affirmant is available for televised sworn testimony and

cross examination as to matter referenced above, subject to my security clearance restrictions,

from the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse 401 Courthouse Square Alexandria, VA 22314,

and may be contacted and coordinated through Mr. Strunk.

Dated: March S' 2017

Fairfax Station Virginia

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

6
 Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Document 35 Filed 03/23/17 Page 39 of 39
-
Fo~one v. EAC- WDNY 06-cv-80
EXHIBIT D-2
The H,..,.,,..bk R~ K Dotn;on tL s. C"<'fllln:ss t)n - tl'l71
\ 1\.&l -\nJr~' flK",l R-.,a.J
<;., Jun t r.,.tr.aoo. Colo!".,., .. oJ:615

Jul) 5. 2tMW>
n ... H,>n.'I"JM< t llf JuJ11< Rtd:ud J -\r.:-.1r.a
h d.: l nn,"\1 ~t.u""' 0~-.tn~.t l \ltan
\\..: . ,\.,.., o. ..u~ \)f'\.,..,~ ,,,...t
lflo& l ' l -"!.U1h,..USC'
~ (\llr1 ~lf\'\.'1
Bull".al\1. "'" y,.,.~ I.IZU2
R~: t"iMI' <'~t!l o t:. fC,tul WOS\'tW...--l<IIIRJ.\)
~ltj~d: lptmqtln tp ef Bhts tJlf' P Rk l.ftel
Ttl.: Hvn.-<n~k ( hod JuJ~ Ro<h.ru J -\n..ra.
I am fomlCI' l ' S. H""'"' Rcpre<entatl\'<' Robert K.
Oum:an. pro...:" 11hou1 bcu111 .>n muornc:y. who "as OUir.IJ;COUSly ol.:fe:ncd tUcpUt by Dcrnoc~
L,>MI S.an<h<Z b) 111111Ul1Utn uf 2.J(olalk:n '''"'' Jnd .a.-ccrJmg to I.C.E. ( lN.S.t n.wN -1.112J
.olocn ''"'" olkg.olly <I on ohc I~~~> ( 'olifO!ni t;mer.~l El.:ction: no.l d!:lt by coos.:n.,,. llflxuh the
Rerul>loc.an .onJ Delllocr.IIIC ran!C' hcbilkllhc ,;eeoc IR \lolauon oflbc tnajonty ofvntcnf rights
"""'pored tlwn and""" fM <l'llllrnl "' cr oll<)!lll .alien '"''"1' 1'0''"' tn Cal1fomia unoJ...,.,mongl)
"'''""" ,.~<, ,, lien aile~ I. """!! "oth omrunit~ and" he rea '"" a <mgle ino.li tdwtl """charged
"uh """'"'""' ,,f t'i:l<'lll< h.l\ ani("'""' e~n1nuu.:d. tu dorectl~ brmg abl>ul my '"""by tune 'otC'
""'" olh>t.onJm~:h~ I.C.I: ''"'' ''"' 10 th< <llltrnry. I """"' "' ,,,ufy .utd 1111-:n one in urron of the
<tnh<lllf,'\1 rro...: l'loolllifl', lll'f\'10, b<>lh In Ill} <IWO scff.int<t'<'>l JnJ for the ,uni\lll of 001 nahCIII ~<
J t:lahiiiUih'n.al r..:ru"h(,
\I) ,hl\:<1 IIIJIII) 111 1'1% ;utd afternmd ''the >Ub)':ct o>t'l'lomtiff~ Am<nJ.:d Complatnl
l'"'"~ph i2. 117thru liN""" 1-17 \' '""h my tOI<n~tton ~ rcquir,..tto <:>~obli>h ...-curac) tn
the"'""" .,r the unol.:rl)"'l.' rrnH'Cdln~.,. dount! ""ck """" thon len y.:tr>. onJ that I oJ...o '''"'''""
"111 -urport 1\11 1~'111\llhc "'''' loc rro\ln!\ the fYIIcm and condocl a:t.oc:latcd ,.,111 bolh harix>nn~
nf ollol:i'l "'"'"' nol \lolatt\lll of U.S ('""""I'"
'I'"'"" I') \Otllll( nW>t compl:nra:d of by l'l.untitf,
unJ.:r <o"l RICO pn>"'""''
\\ oth k-c ,,f the ( ''"" .afi<r Jo,rotoon of tb.: ....,.,"" J~moe -1 .:!tMW> te<t order of Otfendonl
,,, r-...J tn the "Rcn~arlr." Ot>. k<t n tthctcin ~'<''l"''''"'~ a -rcaal ma>tl'l'tO ~'flaltluthorny
.and JUr....loc1104 '""' ol.:fcnJ.ont, "uhtn the''"'" oOI"" Yotlt -rccfocll> prtor 10 Plou11offi
IW>h<btcd r<'t""""' on Of'r<"'lll>n '"the '.,,...,. "'""'''"to Ji-mosl. of Ploin1111io -un ""' I Jc-.on;
,,, '"''''""'nc r'""'"'tl) under rtO\ "''""" off'RC~P Ruk 2-'fal.-M 01 be- @-i"--m "'~ ''-" ~uf)t
uoklcr '"''" ,,. ttl.: "'"'"' ,.(the rn><"'"'"' .K"c.nl!llll). Thor b)l21 rub I hac uu~..t llu>
<"fl\."('<'flll..'l\ ' "..., Juh "'",.)upon.,.,;.... "'"""'" :md that a dt'!'lic21< ,no) cMofonr<' <'f _....I<'<'
'' '''''"' nh .tt.~~:h.:J . R'r<"'llulh -ubm111~ for ""'tOO by:
. . ~

P~./,P. Z/~sf ,
~~ ~Etll OUQ.SA.'oe
( ~ ll l fi '-':t\0: otl ~1\ h,'~

I; I ' Pl.aonllfl' pro> "'

!X!i:n.lnl <'''"''"~
EXHIBIT D-2

Strunk's Reply to Defendants' Response to Remark- Page 40 of 42

- Exhibit A-3 Page 007 of 7

-_... ."' .. - ...
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris A venue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

1 February 2017

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Federal Building & Courthouse
P.O. Box 7367
Syracuse NY 13261-7367

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

Subject: File Documents

Dear Clerk of the Court,

In conformance with the Rules, Undersigned hereby files three sets of documents:

1. PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS
BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT with Exhibits 9 thru 17

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris

sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
furCfllUSTOPHEREARLSTRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK
CivilCaseNo:1:16cv1496(BKS/DJS)

xx

Inthematterof:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,IndividuallyofNewYork;

Plaintiff,Petitioner

versus

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA with Edmund GeraldJERRYBROWN Jr.,Individually and

as Governor; and Alejandro ALEX PADILLA, Individually and as Secretary of State (SOS);
THE STATE OF NEW YORK with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as Governor;
THESTATEOF NEW YORKBOARD OFELECTIONS; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC);
Warren BILL DE BLASIO Wilhelm Jr., Individually and as the Mayor of NYC; THE NYC
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION;
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCEBUREAUOFTHECENSUS;

Defendants/Respondents

PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

This is the combined reply affidavit to the Respondents' 25 January 2017 filed opposition (NYC,

NYS, USA and unopposed by California) by Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris sole

beneficiary agent in propria persona for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Petitioner / Plaintiff,

1
Strunk), in further support of an order to show cause varying the usual motion schedule with

a temporary restraint order preserving all records of the 8 November 2016 General Election of

POTUS for expedited discovery along with a preliminary injunction restraint of Defendants and

or their agents from harboring illegal aliens as defined under 8 USC 1324 pending a 28 USC

2284 three judge court in the matter of enforcing 14th Amendment rights infringement.

1. In general, Petitioner in propria persona, not "PRO SE" for which there is a clear legal

distinction, has an obligation to inform the Court of prior cases that may relate to this filing,

and did so accordingly, in that this case of first impression is submitted for de novo review of

the failure of a joint resolution of POTUS Candidate Slates that rises to the level of California

and New York US House of Representative reduction as the Constitutional penalty under the

14th Amendment going into 2020 census enumeration and midterm 2018 US House election.

2. All Respondents have been duly served the Petition with Complaint and associated papers as

the PDF of the Return Receipt cards show (see Exhibit 9), and according to the latest Docket

report (see Exhibit 10) the state of California Defendants had until 17 January 2017 to

answer and or appear for a time extension - do not oppose this instant action for restraint; and

with permission of the Court, Petitioner will file a motion for summary judgment.

3. First in reply to Mr. Joshua E. McMahon NYS Assistant Attorney General representing the

State of New York and political hybrid New York State Board of Elections (NYS). Strunk

complains of Mr. McMahon's abuse of process by using the NYS response opposition to

relief format by improperly characterizing this case and Strunk motives as frivolous without

complying with FRCP Rule 11 "safe harbor" provisions.

4. That Mr. Joshua E. McMahon defamed Petitioner by improperly conflating Catholicism

with the actions and purpose of the Society of a Jesus that is a military order Praetorian

2
 Guard of the Jesuit Pope Francis I, and are responsible for the Council of Trent inquisition

that has been properly described in my recently published ebook entitled Jesuit Social Justice

versus Le Droit Des Gens: The Global estate versus Nation States (October 2016).

5. That Mr. Joshua E. McMahon neglects the relevance of Strunk's long list of prior actions

must include Arbor Hill v The County of Albany etal regarding redistricting before Judge

Norman Mordue, Forjone etal v EAC etal WDNY 04-cv-080 before Judge Arcara involving

the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) and private enforcement of the Help America to Vote

Act (HAVA) with the related case Loeber etal v Spargo etal similarly HAVA with state
(1)
redistricting issues before Judge Kahn , and upon transfer of Forjone etal v EAC etal with

the order to drop the EAC to NDNY became Forjone etal. v California etal was assigned to

Judge Kahn following an appearance before Judge Gary Sharpe then assigned to hear the

HAVA database / voting machine enforcement matter in United States v. New York (N.D.N.Y.

1:06-cv-263 that on March 1, 2006, the Justice Department filed a federal complaint against

New York in the Northern District of New York for failure to comply with HAVA section

301 concerning voting mechanisms and failure to comply with HAVA section 303(a)

concerning statewide voter registration lists. Three weeks later, Judge Gary L. Sharpe issued

a preliminary injunction requiring New York to submit to the court a plan for compliance;

and as far a Strunk is concerned, New Yorks compliance efforts remain underway involving

8 USC 1324 violations with use of the voter registration database.

1
Loeber v. Spargo (N.D.N.Y. 1:04-cv-1193). In a pro se complaint, 11 plaintiffs characterizing
themselves as Ad Hoc New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative Redistricting, filed an
October 15, 2004, challenge to the 2002 districting of New Yorks legislature. Among the plaintiffs
claims was one that the allocation of HAVA funds to New York was improper because it was based on
the voting age population instead of the citizen voting age population. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn
determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the funding scheme, and the court of
appeals affirmed.

3
6. As for Mr. McMahon's reference to the 2008 POTUS Ballot challenge Strunk v NYS BOE

etal 2011-6500 in Kings County State Supreme Court assigned to Arthur M. Schack JSC,

wherein central to the complaint still unheard by any court in the United States is the NYS

BOE's arbitrary invention and use of the term "born-a-citizen" eligibility for three (3)

POTUS candidates (2) onto the NYS BOE ballot at the 2008 General Election that did not

meet the "natural-born-citizen" (NBC) Constitutional eligibility for ballot access; and in

which inter alia, Strunk sought a declaratory judgment on New York's continued use of NBC

in Real Property Law as the term of art "natural-born citizen" is only a person born on soil

to US Citizens parents. The obscene cherry picking and groveling done by the McCain and

Soros stooge Arthur M. Schack JSC, the progressive socialist sinecure who should have

never been put on the bench by Gerry Kassar and his neo-con Brooklyn henchmen, remains

to be settled by President TRUMP soon by the new SCOTUS. Thank GOD this case has no

NBC issue.

7. More on point in this combined reply, the terms that do apply in this case, as a distinction the

term "immigration" per se must not be confused with "colonization", as the present full

spectrum invasion of "Illegal aliens" with 8 USC 1324 harboring is in fact colonization not

"illegal immigration" (a conflated conflict in terms), and that the colonization per se we now

experience is combined with suffrage and domiciliary aid that abets degrees of genocide as

defined under Hague Conventions and the Proxmire Act must be seen under the lens of the

Communist Control Act of 1954 (CCA) U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 637, Chp. 886, p.

2
(1) John S. McCain born in Colon the Republic of Panama to unmarried US Citizen natural parents
according to Mexican Spanish language documents on file since 2008 in the Superior Court for
Hidalgo County in Lawrenceburg New Mexico, (2) Roger Calero with only a green card born in
Nicaragua of Nicaraguan parents, and (3) the CIA's Soebarkah or whatever his name is, was born
someplace to a foreign student alien father when married to an underage US Citizen mother- we still do
not know the birth location; and at best each candidate in that 2008 case as with Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio and others in 2016 may only be a statutory naturalized US Citizen.

4
 775-780 - 50 U.S. Code 843 - Application of Internal Security Act of 1950 to members of

Communist Party and other subversive organizations with Communist Party defined (see

Exhibit 11) an act to outlaw the Communist Party, to prohibit members of Communist

organizations from serving in certain representative capacities, and for other purposes

including the controversial activities of Misters Brown, De Blasio and Cuomo.

8. No matter what Strunk wishes to be done, Petitioner has no authority to enforce the law(s)

outside of mere petitioning short of bring back dueling in the street at sunrise, and such is

especially so since the Clinton thru Obama regime malfeasance has destroyed administration

of law by the Justice Department and or Courts per se; and compounded now, Strunk is

without the use of the False Claims Act, being barred from in propria persona use in 2nd

Circuit along with 18 USC 1963(c) RICO matters - despite the pattern facts and elements of

enterprise corruption that herein warrants a RICO Statement is only possible with Court

permission for this or any action to be filed still requires an attorney willing to litigate.

9. Secondly in reply to John D. Hoggan, Jr. U.S. Department of Justice Albany Office

representing the NationalArchives and RecordsAdministration (NARA);President ofthe

United States Senate (VPOTUS); United States Department Of Commerce Bureau of the

Census(BOC)thematterbeforetheCourtforrestraintisnotmootasthepermanentrecord

beingtheresponsibility ofNARAmustberesolvedherein astorightsinfringementin the

formation of the New York and California elector slate as both deny equal protection for

votersaswellassubstantivedueprocessofStateLaworCodecompoundedbythe8USC

1324harboringissues,andthateveryPublicOfficialactivelyinvolvedinviolationof8USC

1324 should have been arrested already based upon the public admissions of each alone

and then convicted of a crimes defined under USC Title 18, especially with the less than

5
 rarelyused:18 U.S. Code 2381 - Treason, 18 U.S. Code 2382 - Misprision of treason, 18

U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S. Code 2384 - Seditious conspiracy, 18

U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government, 18 U.S. Code 2386 -

Registration of certain organizations but mostly guilty of the harboring enticements aiding

and abetting the false impersonation of a US Citizen with domiciliary rights to food, shelter,

education, health care, and most egregiously including suffrage Mr. Hoggan Jr. has the

authority to investigate and apply the laws accordingly especially to pay for the investigation

herein with use of the 31 U.S. Code 3729 - False claims enforcement funds recovered

against NYC, NYS and California naked notorious harboring by Public Officers using illegal

aliens seeking Federal funding for food, shelter, education, health care, and most egregiously

includes suffrage under NVRA/HAVA. President Trump has issued Executive Orders to date

(see Exhibit 12) that support Petitioners demand for relief especially items 11 thru 13 so far.

10. On 9 January 2017, Michael Cutler reports at Frontpagemag.com that Congressman (PA-11)

Lou Barletta's Bill H.R. 83, the third to defund Sanctuary Cities (see Exhibit 13) since 2011.

11. The Respondent BOC becomes an essential party to act when a three-judge court enforces a

proportional reduction in US House representation for California and New York whatever

total that turns out to be is a matter for three judge court and if not that a Jury of twelve at

trial before a single judge.

12. Thirdly in reply to Mr. Daniel W. Coffey Esq, of Bowitch, Coffey Law Firm representing

the City of New York (NYC) NYC Mayor De Blasio and the NYC Board of Elections, did a

notable summary with exhibits and to wit Petitioner asks the Court to extend Petitioners time

to extend his reply as to matters germane herein to NYC, because the Honorable Phillip

Minardo JSC in the case Ronald Castorina, Tr. etal. v. BILL DEBLASIO etal. Article 78

6
 Petition 080258/2016 OSC w TRO continues from 5 December 2016 on 18 January 2017 as

ordered after the completion of testimony (Strunk attended) that both counsels prepare and

submit a summary on 1 February 2017 shown on the court docket (see Exhibit 14) after

which the Court would rule on retaining and disposition of foundational documents used for

the IDNYC identification program since 2013 that is now used by residents of NYC

including illegal aliens.

13. That as of October 11, 2016 as at trial with a subpoena for Commissioner Alan Schulkin to

testify herein in that the Elections Official was caught on video blasting de Balsio's ID

program in which he expressed knowledge of illegal voting (see Exhibit 15).

14. That as of 30 January 2017, Yoav Gonen of METRO reported (see Exhibit 16) that Mayor

De Blasio express reconsideration on helping the Feds with illegal aliens / colonists (S.I.C.

"illegal immigrants").

15. That Petitioner contends that a restraint of NYC, NYS and California is necessary from their

use of illegal aliens for budgeting for federal funds expenditure for the remaining fiscal year

and the new Budget(s) due on or about 15 March 2017.

16. As for the California Defendants, on 30 January 2017 as re[ported by CBS Los Angeles

reported that the California scofflaw may enact legislation that would prohibit municipal law

enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities regarding harboring defined under 8

USC 1324. (see Exhibit 17).

Wherefore in Petitioner prays of the Court for an order

A. extending the time for Petitioner to provide this court with the NYC record established in the

State Supreme Court case Ronald Castorina, Tr. etal. v. BILL DEBLASIO etal. Article 78

7
Petition 080258/2016 with sworn testimony and counsels summaries along with the Court

decision to follow after 1 February 2017,

B. That Strunk be granted permission to file a motion for summary judgment against the

California defendants;

C. that addition to the associated papers in support of the petition for the OSC with TRO with

time as the essence before the NYC I NYS budget date of 15 March 2017 using expenditures for

harboring illegal aliens, and as applies to a 28 USC 2284 Three-judge Court be gran!~d; and

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris

sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

Acknowledgment:
State of New York )
} ss.
County of Kings )

BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk, known to me to be the
person described herein Subject: PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL. SCHEDULE FOR
CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT with exhibits and who solemnly affirmed under the penalties of perjury that every
statement given above was the whole truth to the best of his knowledge.

s1- r-e l{;I)'~

Subscribed and Affirmed before me on this ~day of~' 2017.

_/~~NEW
. ?lo. 06228541
YORK

Qualified in Queen s County

My commission Expires Seplemb~i 20. 201S
8
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)

)(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

)(--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 9
 SENDER: COtviPLETE THIS SECTION

Complete items 1, 2, and s.

Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attlleh thfs card to the back of the mallplece,
or un the front If space (lefmlts.
1. Article Addressed to:

Rich~rd S. lllirtunian l .S. .\rtoroey for the :"\0"\Y

-145 Broadway, ~<>Om 21!1
.\lbanr. :\ct' York 12207-2924

flfllllllllllllll Ill 111111111 11111111111 ~ 1111

9590 9402 2443 6249 6198 46

Complete items 1, 2, and 3.

Print your name and address on the rev~
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front lf
1.

fHE \t;W \ ORK ('IT\' 90.\RO or Jo:I.H ")10\S

f.ccutiH Oflirl"
32-.12 Broaday
7th Floor
'le'' \or!-. \el\ \ ork 1000-1

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9402 2443 6249 6188 25
.2..h'llcle
7015
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7531Hl2-000-9053 Domestic Retum Receipt 1
I

SENDER: COt'>~PLETE THIS SECT/Or,

Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.

Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if

Ttl f. ST.<\ f f. OF C.\UH)R:'\1.\

Gowrnnr Jc rl) lko,.. n
c/u State< apitol. Suite 1173
Sacramrnto,.C\ 9581~

1111111111111111111111111111111 1111!11111111!1
9590 9402 2443 6249 6187 40
2 . AlliClO Number (7hmsft>r from liflfV/w

7016 0910 0001 3385 7500

PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02~9063 "' Domestic Return Receipt
 Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if
1. Article

t:dmund G~rald ".JERRY" RROW,. Jr.

( ;ov<"rnor Jern Urnwn
c/o Srarr Capit~l. Suire 1173
Sacramcnro, L\ '15814

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

PSForm Domestic Return Receipt ;

i

Complete items 1, 2, and 3.

Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece,
or on the

ONo

fHt: nn Ot' \W, OK!.:

lo \~ ( ' ( 'ORf>OR.\110... <Ol':\Sf:J
I 00 ( hurch Str~rl . -
'\ r\\ \ <ork. ,~,,- \ orl.: l 00117

3~'S'ervlce Type

llllll~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 0 Adult SignaiUia

0 Adult Signature Resltlcted Oellvefy
o Certified Maile
9590 9402 2443 6249 6187 64 'Certified Mail~ OeiMIIy
0 Qlllect on Delvety
-,-e-N-:-u-mber.,..--::(li=-iansfer----::--::from-_-se-rv-:lce--::fabel)....,..-,,...-----1 o Collect on Oellvery Aeslrk:led Delivery
-z--=-_-Articl.,...,._
D Insured Mal
7015 1730 0001 4312 3552 Cli=~RestrictedOellvery

.
, PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02.000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

COmplete items 1, 2, and 3.

Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this caJtl to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if

<- [} 'larri\. California Att~'me~ General

-I
..,._.ur,,l ,l
I (' \
- f h. c~'-tlomia \.ttl'fn<!\ ,cn.:ra
Of!n:.:- o I ~ "' ' -
13\JD "1" Street
Sacramento. CA 95R14-29\9

1111111111111 ~111111~ III~IIIH~IIIIIIIIIll

9590 9402 2443 6249 6186 96

7014 3490 0000 105& 49 29

PSForm , July 2015 PS.~ 7530-il2-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt :
 Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
Print your nat"flO and ~dress on the reverse
so that we catHe1tJrn itie card to you.
Attach thls card-to-#le back of the mallplece,
or on the front ir
1.
ONo
~i. \TI0'\'.\1. .\ROfl\'f.S ,\:1;0 Rf:COROS
:\[).,11'\'IHRATIO'-
b~ :\r~hi~i~t IH.\'10 S. rf.RRit:RO
8601 .\delphi Road
<unC):e Park, .\la~ fand 20H0-6001

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1111
9590 9402 2443 6249 6.188 49
D Pr1ority Mall~
0 Regtste<&d Mall"'
0 ~eted Mall Reslricled
0 Return Receipt frlr
Merchandl...
0 Slgnattnl C<Jnftmlllllon"'
0 Signature Conf1nmlllorJ
ReslrlotedOell\lery

PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-o2-()00-9053 Domestic Return Receipt :

'

Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.

Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece,
or on the front If
1. o. Is detlvety address ~erent from Item 1?
If YES, enter delillel1 ad~ below: _,21 No
'1. ,

' E\\ \OR!.: s 1'.\TJ<: OF BOARO Of- t:U:CJ'IO:\

40 \urth l'rarl Street
StJitr 5
.\lblln), :'I.e" York I 2207-2729

3. Service Type

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
959b 9402 2443 6249 6187 88
0 Adult Slgnahn
Cl Adult Signatufto ~Datively
Certified Maill!>
nu.;erm,..., Mail Resll!oted OeWYeiY
De\fery
DeilWIY Restricted DalNe!y
,...... -;..-:,;:'-'"'' Aesblcted Delivery

PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530..02000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt \

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COr.1PLETE 1HIS SECTION ON DELIVERY

a Complete item~ 1, 2, and a. A. Signature

0Agent
Print your name and address on the reverse. X
so that we can return the card to you. DAddressee
C. Date of D&livery
Attach this card to the back of the maJ1piece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Miele Addressed to: 0 Yes
ONo
\lejandro "\I.EX" f'ADfl.l..\
C\I.IFOR\1 \ St:CRET.\R\' OF ST.\ n:
1500 lith Strt'('l
S~rr'!.mrnto. C\ IJ5814

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9402 2443 6249 6187 95
2.. Ar:tk:[e Number (TI'8f!sfer from service JabeQ
7015 1730 0001-4312 3439'
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-o2.()()Q..9oSs -L~:::::.:=-------Dom-e-stic_Re_tu_m_R_ecetp
___t_
 Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the cald to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece,
or on the front if
1. Article to:

\hrrtn "BILL DF:RL\SIO" \\ilhthn .h

\Ia~ or of the ('j~ of:\t" Yurk
Cit\ llall
:'Itt'~ York, :\e" York 10007
. I

11111111\lllllllllllllliiiiUUIIIIIIIllllllll

Domestic Return Receipt

Complete items 1, 2, and 3.

on the reverse
Print your name and address
so that We can retum the cam to you.. Ieee
Attach this card to the baCk of the maiiP
or on the front If If YES, enter deliverY address belOW:

TUF. ST.\TE Of :\1-:\\ \'OR~

l
(;owrnor N'ORr.W :\1. (T().\10
Stat~ Capitol Buitdin~
.\lbany. :\ew \ 'ork 12224 -=
0 Pl\OIItY Mail~
s. Service Type o fleglslel9d Mail"'
\lll~\11\1\\11\\\ll\\\ll\\\\"1 \1\\\\\\\1\l\\ Q~== ~~~:~~
959 0 9402 2443 6249 6188 01
--:-:-:~~:;:::::;m;;;;t,;j;M;sei~;lai;e;)---lg
- 2.7015
Article Number (f~fer ~ ~
1730 0001 4312
labeQ
-
3446
=
CN!lf
IJelNeiY

uti'Jd Mail
0 ~~.....
:Oelive!Y ResiJict8d De!lverv o s;g~ature
R9str\cledeonftmlatlon
_tg:.~~s;;j~Mai\;LR:"':Irie\::ed:Oel=iveiY=--~=:;;;~;;;:Re~~
OeliveiY

oomesticRstumReceipt 1

~ PS Fonn 3811, july 201~ f!iSQ-02-000-9053.

Complete items 1, 2, and 3.

Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if
1. 1?
enter delivery addresi below:
Tille ST.\ n: OF '\t:W \ OIU~ N'IS DEPT OF LAW
:\e" York Attorn c) Ccllcral Eric T. Schneiderman Ollicc 0 , ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
th~ \llurnev Ctntr~l
The Capiloi
.\lbany. :\el\ \'ork 12224-0341
ll
3. Service 1YPe

lllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllll
9590 9402 2443 6249 6198 53
D /dAtSignalunl
D ldAt Slgnalt.le Resb1cted Dei1vely
~Maile
~Mail Resb1cted Dellvety
-;;-;::;::--:-::-=~==:-;:--:-.....,-.~:-----10 Colleclon Delivery
_b~labeiJ g=~liveryReslrl<;tedOelivel'y
7014 3490 DODD 1058 4912 D~~~~ed~~
PS Fonn 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-ooa-9053 Domestic Retum l'leceipt :
I
 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
'
Complete items 1, 2, and 3. A. Signature
[J Agent
Print your name and address on the reverse X
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, e. of Delivery
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to: Yes
If YES, enter delive!y adchss below: 0 No

l'HESIIH:'i'r OF Tlit: l':\ITf.J) STA TS St::\"A H: '1-GSJ/ . .U

b) \"irr l'rr<;ident vf the l"nited State~ JOE BIOE'
16UO Pcnns\'haoia .hcnur 'i\\
\hshingtmi Oistrirt or Cnlumbia 20!100

1111111111111 111111111111111111111 till! I~ lllr

0 Prklr!ty Mall ExpressQt
0 Reglsr-d Maif"'
0 ~erlJCI Mal Res1rlctad

o=~~tcr
D Stgnalll'e Conllrrnatton"'
0 Signall.l1! ConflrmaiJon
Re$llictell DeliYely

Domestic Return Receipt :

I
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

)(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

)(--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 10
1/3012017 CMIECF LIVE- U.S. District Court- NYND

PROSE

U.S. District Court

Northern District of New York- Main Office (Syracuse) [LIVE- Version 6.1.1]
(Albany)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS

Strunk v. The State of California et al Date Filed: 12/15/2016

Assigned to: Judge Brenda K. Sannes Jury Demand: None
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
Christopher Earl Strunk represented by Christopher Earl Strunk
Individually ofNew York 141 Harris A venue
Lake Luzerne~ NY 12846
718-414-3760
PROSE

v.
Defendant
The State of California

Defendant
Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr.
Individually and as Governor
also known as
Jerry

Defendant
Alejandro Padilla
Individually and as Secretary ofState
(SOS)
also known as
Alex

Defendant
The State of New York represented by Joshua E. McMahon
Andrew M Cuomo, individually and as New York State Attorney General -
Governor Albany
The Capitol
Albany~ NY 12224
518-776-2603
Email: joshua.mcmahon@ag.ny.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
https:l/ecf.nynd. uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pi?158128905165506-L_1_~ 1 1/6
113012017 CMIECF UVE- U.S. District Court- NYND

Defendant
The State of New York Board of represented by Joshua E. McMahon
Elections (See above for address)
with Republican Peter S. Kosinski I Co- LEADA1TORNEY
Chair, Democrat Douglas A. Kellner I AITORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Co-Chair, Republican Andrew J. Spano I
Commissioner and Democrat Gregory P.
Peterson I Commissioner

Defendant
The City of New York represented by Daniel W. Coffey
Bowitch, Coffey Law Finn
17 Elk Street
Albany, NY 12207
518-813-9500
Fax:518-207-1916
Email: coffey@bcalbany.com
LEAD A1TORNEY
A1TORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Warren Wilhelm, Jr. represented by Daniel W. Coffey
Mayor of the City ofNew York (See above for address)
also known as LEAD A1TORNEY
Bill De Blasio ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
The New York City Board of Elections represented by Daniel W. Coffey
with Commissioners ofElections: Maria (See above for address)
R. Guastella President, Frederic M LEADA1TORNEY
Umane Secretary, Jose Miguel Araujo, AITORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Fateau, Ph.D., Lisa Grey, Michael
Michel, Michael A. Rendino, Alan
Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, Rosanna
Vargas, Commissioners

Defendant
National Archives and Records represented by John D. Hoggan, Jr.
Administration U.S. Department of Justice -Albany
Office
445 Broadway
James T. Foley Courthouse
Albany, NY 12201
518-431-0247
Fax: 518-431-0386
Email: john.hoggan@usdoj .gov
LEADA1TORNEY
A1TORNEY TO BE NOTICED
https://ecf.nyrd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pi?158128905165506-L_1_0-1 2/6
113012017 CMIECF LIVE- U.S. District Court- NYND

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

Date Filed # Docket Text

12115/2016 1 COMPLAINT against Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., National Archives and Records
Administration, Alejandro Padilla, President of the United States Senate, The City
of New York, The New York City Board of Elections, The State of California, The
State of New York, The State ofNew York Board of Elections, United States
Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census, Warren Wilhelm, Jr. (Filing fee
$400 receipt number ALB010158) filed by Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # J. Exhibit C, # ~ Exhibit D, # l Exhibit E, # 2
Exhibit F, # 1 Exhibitg G, # .8. Exhibit H, # 2 Exhibit I,# 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit
K, # 12 Exhibit L, # l l Exhibit M, # 14 Civil Cover Sheet)(khr) (Entered:
12/16/20 16)
12/15/2016 2 Summons Issued as to The State of California. (Attachments: # 1 as to Edmund
Brown, Jr., # 2 as to Alejandro Padilla, # J. as to The State of New York, # ~ New
York State of Board of Election,# l The City ofNew York,# 2 Warren Wilhelm,
Jr., # 1 The New York City Board of Elections, # .8. National Archives and
RFecords Administration,# 2 President of the United States Senate,# 10 United
States Department of Commerce Bureau)(khr) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 J. G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED: Initial Conference set for 3/16/2017 10:00 AM
in Albany before Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart. Civil Case Management Plan
must be filed and Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by the parties on or
before 3/9/2017. (Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, mandatory disclosures are to be
exchanged among the parties but are NOT to be filed with the Court.) (khr)
(Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/15/2016 ~ PRO SE HANDBOOK and NOTICE issued and explained to pro se plaintiff at
time complaint was filed on 12/15/2016 at the counter. (khr) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/15/2016 l ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by
Christopher Earl Strunk. (Attachments:# 1 Memorandum of Law,# 2 Exhibit-
Complaint, # J. Exhibit A, # ~ Exhibit B, # l Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 1 Exhibit
E, # .8. Exhibit F, # .2. Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I,# 12 Exhibit J, # ll
Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # .li Exhibit M)(khr) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/16/2016 6 TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's "Order to show cause with
temporary restraining order" and attached documents. (Dkt. No. l ). The Local
https:/lecf_nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDkiRpl.pi?15B128905165506-L_1_(}.1 316
1/3012017 CMIECF LIVE- U.S. District Court- NYND

Rules require the moving party to "serve any application for temporary restraining
order on all other parties" (N.D.N. Y. L.R. 7.1 (f)), that "a motion brought by Order
to Show Cause ... include an affidavit clearly and specifically showing good and
sufficient cause why the standard Notice of Motion procedure cannot be used," and
that the "moving party give reasonable advance notice of the application for an
Order to Show Cause to the other parties, except in those circumstances where the
movant can demonstrate, in a detailed and specific affidavit, good cause and
substantial prejudice that would result from the requirement of reasonable notice."
N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(e). There is no indication in Plaintiffs papers that he served his
filing on Defendants, or that he gave Defendants reasonable advance notice of his
application. Nor has Plaintiff filed an affidavit showing "good and sufficient cause
why the standard the Notice of Motion procedure cannot be used." Accordingly,
Plaintiffs proposed order (Dkt. No. 2 ) is denied without prejudice to refiling
following service of the filing and upon curing the above-identified defects. Any
refiling should include briefing on the applicability of28 U.S.C. 2284(a) to the
allegations in the Complaint. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes
on 12/16/2016. (Copy served via regular mail)(sr,) (Entered: 12116/2016)
12/30/2016 1 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Filed by Christopher Earl Strunk, Pro Se.
Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr. served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017; National
Archives and Records Administration served on 12/23/2016, answer due
2/24/2017; Alejandro Padilla served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1117/2017;
President ofthe United States Senate served on 12/23/2016, answer due 2/24/2017;
The City ofNew York served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017; The New
York City Board ofE1ections served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1117/2017; The
State of California served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1117/2017; The State ofNew
York served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1/17/2017; The State ofNew York Board
of Elections served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1117/2017; United States
Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census served on 12/23/2016, answer due
2/24/2017; Warren Wilhelm, Jr. served on 12/23/2016, answer due 1117/2017.
(Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Mailing Envelope)(rep) (Entered: 01104/20 17)
12/30/2016 .8. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by
Christopher Earl Strunk, ProSe. {Supporting exhibits attached}. (Attachments:# 1
Affidavit with Exhibits, # 2. Cover Letter with Affidavit of Service, # .1 Mailing
Envelope)(rep) (Entered: 01104/20 17)
01/04/2017 2 NOTICE of Appearance by John D. Hoggan, Jr on behalf of National Archives and
Records Administration, President of the United States Senate, United States
Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of
Service)(Hoggan, John) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
0111112017 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel W. Coffey on behalf of The City ofNew York,
The New York City Board of Elections, Warren Wilhelm, Jr. (Attachments:# 1
Affirmation Certificate of Service)(Coffey, Daniel) (Entered: 0111112017)

0111112017 11 TEXT ORDER: Defendants are directed to file a response to Plaintiffs .8. Order to
Show Cause Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by January 25, 2017. Reply
papers shall by filed by February 1, 2017. This motion will be heard on submission
of the papers. The parties will be notified if oral argument is necessary. SO
ORDERED by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1111117. (Copy served on plaintiff via
regular mail)(rjb,) (Entered: 01/1112017)
https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bilvDktRpt.pi?158128905165506-L_1_Q.1 416
1/3012017 CMIECF LIVE- U.S. District Court- NYND

01113/2017 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua E. McMahon on behalf of The State of New

York, The State ofNew York Board of Elections (Attachments: # 1 Cover letter
and request for extension to submit an answer or make motions, # 2. Certificate of
Service)(McMahon, Joshua) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
01113/2017 l l Letter Motion from Daniel W. Coffey, Esq. for The City of New York, The New
York City Board ofElections, Warren Wilhelm, Jr. requesting extension of time to
respond to complaint submitted to Judge Stewart. (Attachments:# 1 Affidavit
Certificate of Service)(Coffey, Daniel) (Entered: Ol/13/2017)
01118/2017 14 LETTER RESPONSE by Christopher Earl Strunk re .U Letter Motion from Daniel
W. Coffey, Esq. for The City of New York, The New York City Board of
Elections, Warren Wilhelm, Jr. requesting extension of time to respond to
complaint submitted to Judge Stewart (khr) (Entered: 01118/2017)
01118/2017 15 TEXT ORDER: On January 13, 2017, Defendants The City ofNew York, Warren
Wilhelm, Jr. and The New York City Board of Elections filed a Letter Requset
seeking an extension of time to file an Answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint in this matter. Dkt. No . .U . On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition to Defendants' request. Dkt. No. 14 . Notwithstanding
Plaintiffs objection, the request is GRANTED and Defendants The City of New
York, Warren Wilhelm, Jr. and The New York City Board ofE1ections shall file
their response to the Complaint on or before February 17, 2017. SO ORDERED by
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 1118/2017. (Copy served upon prose
plaintiff by regular mail). (mab) (Entered: 01118/2017)
01125/2017 16 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by The State of New York, The
State ofNew York Board ofE1ections. (Attachments:# 1 Certificate of Service)
(McMahon, Joshua) (Entered: 01125/2017)
01125/2017 17 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by The City ofNew York, The
New York City Board of Elections. (Attachments:# 1 Exhibit(s) Section ofNYC
Administrative Code,# 2. Affidavit Richman Declaration,# .3. Exhibit(s) Retention
and Disposal Schedule,# 1 Affidavit Certificate ofService)(Coffey, Daniel)
(Entered: 0 l/25/20 17)
01125/2017 l l RESPONSE in Opposition re ~ MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order
(Federal Defendants' Memorandum ofLaw In Oopposition to Plaintiffs Motion
For Temporary Restraining Order) filed by United States Department of
Commerce Bureau of the Census, National Archives and Records Administration
and President of the United States Senate (Attachments:# 1 Certificate of Service)
(Hoggan, John) Modified on 1126/2017 (khr). (Main Document 18 replaced on
1126/20 17) (khr, ). (Entered: 01125/20 17)
01126/2017 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re ~Response in Opposition to
Motion. Modified text to include the individual names of the Federal defendants.
(khr) (Entered: 01126/20 17)
01126/2017 CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re l l Response in Opposition to
Motion. Original Memorandum of Law had a typographical error. Replaced with
corrected Memorandum ofLaw. (khr) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
01/26/2017 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Archives and Records Administration,
President of the United States Senate, United States Department of Commerce
htlps:l/ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pi?1581289051655CJ6.L_1_(}-1 516
1/300017 CMIECF UVE- U.S. District Court- NYND

Bureau of the Census re ll. Response in Opposition to Motion, (for corrected

Memorandum ofLaw) (Hoggan, John) (Entered: 01126/2017)

I PACER Service Center I

I Transaction Receipt I
I 01/30/2017 14:38:22 I
PACER Client
Login: ICESTRUNCK:5104752:0 1
Code: I I
Description: !Docket Report ISearch 1 :16-cv-01496-
. Criteria: BKS-DJS
Billable
Pages: Is 181o.so I

https:l/ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pi?158128905165506-L_1_(}.1 616
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 11
1129/2017 American History Documents II

Documents of American History II

M2010

1950s: Communist Control Act of 1954

U.S. Statutes at Large, Public Law 637, Chp. 886, p. 775-780

AN ACT

To outlaw the Communist Party, to prohibit members of Communist organizations from serving in certain
representative capacities, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That this Act may be cited as the "Communist Control Act of 1954".

Findings of Fact

Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although
purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United
States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges
accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political
parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of
individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the
policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world
Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to
party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for
indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry into
action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist
Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The
Communist Party is relatively small numerically , and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by
lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to
acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present
constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including
resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its rote as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its
existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby
individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed
and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party
should be outlawed.

Proscribed Organizations

Sec. 3. The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed
name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any
State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and
violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under
the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges,
and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the
laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated: Provided, however, That nothing
in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended.

Sec. 4. Whoever knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of (1) the Communist Party, or (2) any other
organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control conduct, seizure, or overthrow of
the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of
force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such organization shall be subject to all the
provisions and penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended, as a member of a "Communist-action"
organization.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "Communist Party" means the organization now known as the
Communist Party of the United States of America, the Communist Party of any State or subdivision thereof, and any
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.czl-calda/Documents/1950s/Communist_54.html 1/4
1/2912017 American History Documents II

unit or subdivision of any such organization, whether or not any change is hereafter made in the name thereof.

Sec. 5. In determining membership or participation in the Communist Party or any other organization defined in this
Act, or knowledge of the purpose or objective of such party or organization, the jury, under instructions from the
court, shall consider evidence, if presented, as to whether the accused person:
(1} Has been listed to his knowledge as a member in any book or any of the lists, records, correspondence, or any
other document of the organization;
(2) Has made financial contribution to the organization in dues, assessments, loans, or in any other form;
(3} Has made himself subject to the discipline of the organization in any form whatsoever,
(4} Has executed orders, plans, or directives of any kind of the organization;
(5} Has acted as an agent, courier, messenger, correspondent, organizer, or in any other capacity in behalf of the
organization;
(6} Has conferred with officers or other members of the organization in behalf of any plan or enterprise of the
organization;
(7} Has been accepted to his knowledge as an officer or member of the organization or as one to be called upon for
services by other officers or members of the organization;
(8} Has written, spoken or in any other way communicated by signal, semaphore, sign, or in any other form of
communication orders, directives, or plans of the organization;
(9} Has prepared documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, or any other type of publication in behalf of the objectives
and purposes of the organization;
(10) Has mailed, shipped, circulated, distributed, delivered, or in any other way sent or delivered to others material or
propaganda of any kind in behalf of the organization;
(11) Has advised, counseled or in any other way imparted information, suggestions, recommendations to officers or
members of the organization or to anyone else in behalf of the objectives of the organization;
(12) Has indicated by word, action, conduct, writing or in any other way a willingness to carry out in any manner and
to any degree the plans, designs, objectives, or purposes of the organization;
(13} Has in any other way participated in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of the organization;
(14) The enumeration of the above subjects of evidence on membership or participation in the Communist Party or
any other organization as above defined, shall not limit the inquiry into and consideration of any other subject of
evidence on membership and participation as herein stated.

Subversive Activities Control Act Amendment

Sec. 6. Subsection 5 (a) (1) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S. C. 784) is amended by striking
out the period at the end thereof and inserting lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: "or
"(E) to hold office or employment with any labor organization, as that term is defined in section 2 (5} of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U. S. C. 152}, or to represent any employer in any matter or proceeding arising
or pending under that Act."

Communist-Infiltrated Organizations

Sec. 7. (a) Section 3 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (50 U. S. C. 782) is amended by inserting,
immediately after paragraph (4} thereof, the following new paragraph:

"(4A) The term 'Communist-infiltrated organization' means any organization in the United States (other than a
Communist-action organization or a Communist-front organization) which (A) is substantially directed, dominated, or
controlled by an individual or individuals who are, or who within three years have been actively engaged in, giving aid
or support to a Communist- action organization, a Communist foreign government, or the wortd Communist
movement referred to in section 2 of this title, and (B) is serving, or within three years has served, as a means for (i)
the giving of aid or support to any such organization, government, or movement, or (ii) the impairment of the military
strength of the United States or its industrial capacity to furnish logistical or other material support required by its
Armed Forces: Provided, however, That any labor organization which is an affiliate in good standing of a national
federation or other labor organization whose policies and activities have been directed to opposing Communist
organizations, any Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement, shall be presumed prima
facie not to be a 'Communist-infiltrated organization'."
(b) Paragraph (5} of such section is amended to read as follows:

"(5) The term 'Communist organization' means any Communist-action organization, Communist-front organization, or
Communist-infiltrated organization."
(c) Subsections 5 (c) and 6 (c) of such Act are repealed.

htlp:/Jtucnak.fsv.CU'li .czJ-calda/Documents/1950s/Commlrist_54.hbnl 2/4

1/2912017 American History Documents II

Sec. 8. (a} Section 10 of such Act (50 U. S. C. 789} is amended by inserting, immediately after the words "final order
of the Board requiring it to register under section 7", the words "or determining that it is a Communist-infiltrated
organization".
(b) Subsections (a} and (b) of section 11 of such Act (50 U. S. C. 790) are amended by inserting immediately
preceding the period at the end of each such subsection, the following: "or determining that it is a Communist-
infiltrated organization".

Sec. 9. (a} Subsection 12 {e) of such Act {50 U. S. C. 791) is amended by-

(1} striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word "and"; and
(2) inserting at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(3) upon any application made under subsection (a} or subsection (b) of section 13A of this title, to determine
whether any organization is a Communist-infiltrated organization."
(b) The section caption to section 13 of such Act (50 U. S. C. 792) is amended to read as follows: "Registration
Proceedings before the Board".

Sec. 10. Such Act is amended by inserting, immediately after section 13 thereof, the following new section:

"Proceedings with Respect to Communist-Infiltrated Organizations

"Sec. 13A. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any organization is a Communist-infiltrated
organization, he may file with the Board and serve upon such organization a petition for a determination that such
organization is a Communist-infiltrated organization. In any proceeding so instituted, two or more affiliated
organizations may be named as joint respondents. Whenever any such petition is accompanied by a certificate of
the Attorney General to the effect that the proceeding so instituted is one of exceptional public importance, such
proceeding shall be set for hearing at the earliest possible time and all proceedings therein before the Board or any
court shall be expedited to the greatest practicable extent.
"(b) Any organization which has been determined under this section to be a Communist- infiltrated organization may,
within six months after such determination, file with the Board and serve upon the Attorney General a petition for a
determination that such organization no longer is a Communist- infiltrated organization.
"(c) Each such petition shall be verified under oath, and shall contain a statement of the facts relied upon in support
thereof. Upon the filing of any such petition, the Board shall serve upon each party to such proceeding a notice
specifying the time and place for hearing upon such petition. No such hearing shall be conducted within twenty days
after the service of such notice.
"(d) The provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of section 13 shall apply to hearings conducted under this section,
except that upon the failure of any organization named as a party in any petition filed by or duly served upon it
pursuant to this section to appear at any hearing upon such petition, the Board may conduct such hearing in the
absence of such organization and may enter such order under this section as the Board shall determine to be
warranted by evidence presented at such hearing.
"(e) In determining whether any organization is a Communist-infiltrated organization, the Board shall consider-
"(1) to what extent, if any, the effective management of the affairs of such organization is conducted by one or more
individuals who are. or within two years have been, (A) members, agents, or representatives of any Communist
organization, and Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this
title, with knowledge of the nature and purpose thereof, or (B) engaged in giving aid or support to any such
organization, government, or movement with knowledge of the nature and purpose thereof;
"(2) to what extent, if any, the policies of such organization are, or within three years have been, formulated and
carried out pursuant to the direction or advice of any member, agent or representative of any such organization,
government, or movement;
"(3) to what extent, if any, the personnel and resources of such organization are, or within three years have been,
used to further or promote the objectives of any such Communist organization, government, or movement;
"(4) to what extent, if any, such organization within three years has received from, or furnished to or for the use of,
any such Communist organization, government, or movement any funds or other material assistance;
"(5) to what extent, if any, such organization is, or within three years has been, affiliated in any way with any such
Communist organization, government, or movement;
"(6) to what extent, if any, the affiliation of such organization, or of any individual or individuals who are members
thereof or who manage its affairs, with any such Communist organization, government, or movement is concealed
from or is not disclosed to the membership of such organization; and
"(7) to what extent, if any, such organization or any of its members or managers are, or within three years have been,
knowingly engaged-
"(A) in any conduct punishable under section 4 or 15 of this Act or under chapter 37, 105, or 115 of title 18 of the
United States Code; or
hltp://lucnak.fsv.cuni.czl-calda/Docvml;mls/1950s/Commll1ist_54.hlml 314
1/29.'2017 American History Documents II
"(B) with intent to impair the military strength of the United States or its industrial capacity to furnish logistical or
other support required by its armed forces, in any activity resulting in or contributing to any such impairment.
"(f) After hearing upon any petition filed under this section, the Board shall (1) make a support in writing in which it
shall state its findings as to the facts and its conclusions with respect to the issues presented by such petition, (2)
enter its order granting or denying the determination sought by such petition, and (3) serve upon each party to the
proceeding a copy of such order. Any order granting any determination on the question whether any organization is a
Communist-infiltrated organization shall become final as provided in section 14 (b) of this Act.
"(g) When any order has been entered by the Board under this section with respect to any labor organization or
employer (as these terms are defined by section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and which are
organizations within the meaning of section 3 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950), the Board shall serve
a true and correct copy of such order upon the National Labor Relations Board and shall publish in the Federal
Register a statement of the substance of such order and its effective date.
"(h) When there is in effect a final order of the Board determining that any such labor organization is a Communist-
action organization, a Communist-front organization, or a Communist- infiltrated organization, such labor organization
shall be ineligible to-
"(1) act as representative of any employee within the meaning or for the purposes of section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S. C. 157);
"(2) serve as an exclusive representative of employees of any bargaining unit under section 9 of such Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 159);
"(3) make, or obtain any hearing upon, any charge under section 10 of such Act (29 U.S. C. 160); or
"(4) exercise any other right or privilege, or receive any other benefit, substantive or procedural, provided by such Act
for labor organizations.
"(i) When an order of the Board determining that any such labor organization is a Communist-infiltrated organization
has become final, and such labor organization theretofore has been certified under the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, as a representative of employees in any bargaining unit-
"(1) a question of representation affecting commerce, within the meaning of section 9 (c) of such Act, shall be
deemed to exist with respect to such bargaining unit; and
"(2) the National Labor Relations Board, upon petition of not less than 20 per centum of the employees in such
bargaining unit or any person or persons acting in their behalf, shall under section 9 of such Act (notwithstanding any
limitation of time contained therein) direct elections in such bargaining unit or any subdivision thereof (A) for the
selection of a representative thereof for collective bargaining purposes, and (B) to determine whether the employees
thereof desire to rescind any authority previously granted to such labor organization to enter into any agreement with
their employer pursuant to section 8 (a) (3) (ii) of such Act.
"G) When there is in effect a final order of the Board determining that any such employer is a Communist-infiltrated
organization, such employer shall be ineligible to-
"(1) file any petition for an election under section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S. C. 157),
or participate in any proceeding under such section; or
"(2) make or obtain any hearing upon any charge under section 10 of such Act (29 U.S. C. 160); or
"(3) exercise any other right or privilege or receive any other benefit, substantive or procedural, provided by such Act
for employers."

Sec. 11. Subsections (a) and (b) of section 14 of such Act (50 U.S. C. 793) are amended by inserting in each such
subsection, immediately after the words "section 13", a comma and the following: "or subsection (f) of section 13A, ".

Sec. 12. If any provision of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the
remainder of the title, and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected
thereby.

Approved August 24, 1954, 9:40a.m., M.S.T.

Last update: February 27th, 2003.

http:fltucnak.fsv.cuni.czJ-calda/Documents/1950s/Commlilist_54.html 414
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

)(-------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

)(--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion E:xhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 12
POLITICO

Getty Images

The Agenda

All of Trump's executive actions so far

The new president is chipping away at Obama's legacy, and he's not waiting for
Congress to do it.
By AIDAN QUIGLEY I 01/25/17 04:50 PM EST I Updated 01/27117 08:45 PM EST
President Donald Trump has spent his first days using his executive authority to rewrite
American policy and undo a string of decisions made by former president Barack Obama.
Here's a running list of the new president's executive actions:

1. Providing "relief" from the Affordable Care Act

Trump's first executive order on Inauguration Day involved "minimizing the economic
burden" of the Affordable Care Act. This order allows the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the heads of other departments and agencies to waive or delay the
implementation of any ACA provisions that would impose a financial burden or any state
or a regulatory burden on any individuals.

2. Freezing all regulations

Trump froze all pending regulations until they are approved directly by his administration
or by an agency led by Trump appointees. The action, given in a memorandum from White
House chief of staff Reince Priebus, delays all regulations with the exception of health,
safety, financial or national security matters allowed by the Office of Management and
Budget director.

3 Reinstating the "Mexico City" abortion policy

The president reinstated the so-called "Mexico City Policy", which blocks the use of U.S.
taxpayer dollars to fund foreign non-governmental organizations that perform or promote
abortions. It was established by former president Ronald Reagan and has been rescinded
by Democratic presidents and reinstated by Republican presidents ever since.

4 Scrapping the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Trump's next executive action withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which former President Barack Obama negotiated with 11 other pacific
nations. The deal was never ratified by the Senate, so it had not gone into effect. Instead,
the Trump administration says it plans on negotiating bilateral deals with individual
nations.

5 Freezing the federal workforce

Trump issued a presidential memorandum Tuesday that prohibits government agencies
from hiring any new employees, effective as of noon on January 22. The order does not
apply to military personnel and the head of any executive department may exempt
positions that include national security or public safety responsibilities.

6 & 7 Advancing the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines

Trump's next actions encouraged the construction of two controversial pipelines, the
Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL Pipeline. The DAPL action instructs an expedited
review and approval of the remaining construction and operation of the pipeline by the
Army for Civil Works and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Keystone XL action invites
TransCanada, the Canadian energy company behind the pipeline, to re-submit its
application for a presidential permit to construct the pipeline. It also instructs the
Secretary of State to reach a final determination within 6o days.

8. Expediting Environmental Reviews on Infrastructure Projects

On Tuesday, Trump issued an executive order to streamline environmental reviews of high-
priority infrastructure projects. The action states that infrastructure projects in the U.S.
"have been routinely and excessively delayed by agency processes and procedures." The
action instructs the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality to
create expedited procedures and deadlines for environmental reviews and approvals for
high-priority infrastructure projects.

9 Promoting "Made-in-the-USA" pipelines

This memorandum instructs the Secretary of Commerce to create a plan for pipelines
created, repaired or expanded in the United States to use materials and equipment
produced in the country "to the maximum extent possible." It establishes that all steel and
metal used in such pipelines be completely produced in the United States, from the initial
melting stage to the application of coatings.

to. Reviewing domestic manufacturing regulation

Trump issued an action that instructs the Secretary of Commerce to contact stakeholders to
review the impact of Federal regulations on domestic manufacturing. After the review, the
Secretary of Commerce is instructed to create a streamlined Federal permitting process for
domestic manufacturers.

11. Increasing border security measures

Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that directed the secretary of homeland
security to:

Begin planning, designing and constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border,
including identify available federal funds and working with Congress for additional
 funding
Construct and operate detention facilities near the border to make adjudicate asylum
claims, subject to the availability of existing funding,
Hire s,ooo additional Border Patrol agents, subject to the availability of existing
funding,
End "catch and release" policy
Quantify all "sources of direct and indirect Federal aid or assistance to the
Government of Mexico on an annual basis over the past five years"
Take action to empower state and local law enforcement to act as immigration officers

12.Pursuit of undocumented immigrants

Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that directed the secretary of homeland
security to:

Prioritize certain undocumented immigrants for removal, including those with

criminal convictions and those who have only been charged with a crime
Hire 10,000 additional immigration officers at U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, subject to the availability of existing funding,
Prohibit federal funding, with the help of the attorney general, to "sanctuary"
jurisdictions, where local officials have declined to help enforce federal immigration
laws
Reinstate the Secure Communities program, which was terminated in 2014 and
enables state and local law enforcement to effectively act as immigration agents
Sanction countries, with the help of the secretary of state, that refuse to accept the
return of undocumented immigrants deported from the U.S.
Create a list, updated weekly, of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in
sanctuary jurisdictions
Create an "Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens" to "provide
proactive, timely, adequate and professional services to victims of crimes committed
by removable aliens and family members of such victims"

13. Reevaluating visa and refugee programs

Trump signed an executive order Friday evening making significant changes to the visa and
refugee programs in the United States. It includes:

Cuts the number of refugees allowed into the United States in fiscal2017 from no,ooo
to so,ooo
Suspends for 120 days the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which identifies and
processes refugees for resettlement in the United States
 Suspends the entry of all "immigrants and nonimmigrants" from Iraq, Iran, Sudan and
Libya for a period of 90 days. This may also apply to citizens of Libya, Yemen and
Somalia depending on the interpretation.
Bars all Syrian refugees for an indefinite period
Directs the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence and
secretary of state to put together a list of countries that do not provide adequate
information to vet potential entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Foreign
nationals from those countries will be banned from entering the United States.
Directs the secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security, the director of
national intelligence, and the director of the FBI to implement uniform screening
standards for all immigration programs
Directs the secretary of homeland security, upon the resumption of the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program, to "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of
religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority
religion in the individual's country of nationality."
Directs the secretary of homeland security to implement a biometric entry-exit
tracking system
Grants state and local jurisdictions, whenever possible a "role in the process of
determining the placement or settlement" of refugees
Suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows certain people renewing
their visas to skip an in-person interview
Directs the secretary of state to expand the Consular Fellows Program

14. Strengthening the military

The president on Friday issued a presidential memorandum directing the secretary of
defense, James Mattis, to conduct a review on the military's readiness in the next 30 days
and develop a budget for fiscal2018 capable of improving the "readiness conditions." He
also directed Mattis to complete a National Defense Strategy and to review the country's
nuclear capabilities and missile-defense capabilities
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 13
1/31/2017 Congressman Lou Barletta's Bill To Defund Sanctuary Cities 1Frontpage Mag

CONGRESSMAN LOU BARLffiA'S

BILL TO DEFUND SANCTUARY
CITIES
Getting the new year off to agreat start.
January 9, 2017 Michael Cutler

Time and again our elected political"representatives" on all levels of government have
acted in ways that failed to truly represent the best interests of America and Americans.

Time and again my articles have focused on my frustration and anger over how all too
many politicians have obstructed the effective enforcement of our nation's immigration
laws.

I have written extensively about how members of Congress who supported scx:alled,
"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" blithely ignored the findings and, indeed, warnings
about the 9/11 Commission by concocting legislation that would provide unknown
millions of illegal aliens with official identity documents and lawful status even though
there would be no way to conduct interviews or field investigations to screen to combat
immigration fraud. Visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud were identified as key entry
and embedding tactics of international terrorists.

"Sanctuary Cities" created by rogue mayors operate in direct opposition of Title 8 U.S.
Code 1324- (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens)

http:/lwww.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265394/congressman-lou-barlettas-bill-defl.nd.sanctuary-michael-cutler 1/4
1/3112017 Congressman Lou Barletta's Bill To Defuncl Sanctuary Cities 1Frontpage Mag

(https:llwww.law.comell.edu/uscodeltext/811324), an immigration criminal statute that

address harboring, shielding, aiding and abetting, encouraging and inducing aliens to
enter the United States illegally and/or remain in the United States illegally after entry .

Today, however, we have cause to be optimistic. Congressman Lou Barletta who truly
represents the citizens of his home town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania and, in so doing, all
Americans from coast to coast and border to border has, for the third time, introduced
legislation that would strip all federal funding from cities that fail to cooperate fully with
immigration law enforcement activities.

I am proud that Lou has become a personal friend.

Prior to his election to Congress he was the mayor of Hazleton. He was shocked when
his peaceful town was, for lack of a better term, invaded by a violent Dominican
narcotics-trafficking gang that engaged in drug dealing and violent crimes including
murder.

Although he approached the administration of President George W. Bush and asked for
federal assistance in confronting these illegal criminal aliens, the administration refused
to help. As a consequence he promulgated the first ordinances that penalized employers
who knowingly hired illegal aliens and landlords who would knowingly provide housing to
illegal aliens.

He was promptly sued in federal court by advocates for illegal aliens. I was his final
witness at the trial that ensued.

Lou was first elected to Congress in 2011. He is currently a member of several

committees including:

House Homeland Security Committee (http://homeland.house.gov/)

Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security

Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence

Lou is certainly an asset to those committees and to America.

On September 3, 2013 I joined Congressman Lou Barletta on the campus of Embry-

Riddle Aeronautical University tat a town hall meeting, covered by C-SPAN, on the topic
of "Immigration Policy and Homeland Security."

The video of the town hall event (http://www.c-spanvideo.orglprograml314823-1) is well

hllp:/lwww.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2653941congressman-lou-barlettas-bill-defund-sanctuary-michael-cutler 2/4
1/3112017 Congressman Lou Barletta's Bill To Defmd Sanctuary Cities 1Frontpage Mag

worth watching. During our discussion, Lou clearly articulated his concerns about how
failures of immigration law enforcement have cost all too many innocent victims their
lives and leave America and Americans vulnerable to terrorism and crime.

On January 5, 2017 Lou posted a press release with the clear title, "Barletta'S 1st Bill Of
115th Congress: Defund Sanctuary Cities (http:/lbarletta.house.govlmedia-centerlpress-
releaseslbarletta-s-1 st-bill-of-115th-congress-defund-sanctuary-cities)."

Here is how Lou's press release begins:

WASHINGTON- Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) today introduced the

Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 83, which will stop all
federal funds from flowing to states or localities which resist or ban
enforcement of federal immigration laws, or flatly refuse to cooperate
with immigration officials. The bill is the first piece of legislation
introduced by Barletta in the 115th Congress and represents the third
time the congressman has introduced the measure. In 2011, the bill was
the first piece of legislation he ever introduced as a member of
Congress. He introduced it a second time in the 114th Congress in 2015.

"One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens,

and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that
responsibility," Barletta said. "Too many mayors and local governments
think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead
of the safety of their residents. This bill will stop that practice by saying
to these sanctuary cities, 'If you refuse to cooperate with federal
immigration enforcement, you will lose your federal funding."'

Barletta introduced the bill as a freshman congressman in 2011 because

of his personal experience with the danger of sanctuary cities while he
was mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. In 2006, a 29-year-old local father
of three, Derek Kichline, was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had
been released by law enforcement a number of times, including by the
sanctuary city of New York. Additionally, Barletta was spurred to
reintroduce the bill in 2015 following the San Francisco murder of 32-
year-old Kate Steinle, whose accused killer was a seven-time felon who
had been deported five times previously.

http:/lwww.frontpagemag.comlfpm/265394/c ongressman-lou-barlettas-bill-defmd..sancluary- michael-cuUer 314

1/31/2017 Congressman Lou Barletta's Bill To Defi.rld Sanctuary Cities 1Frontpage Mag

Although the Obama administration has paid lip service to speak against sanctuary
cities, the Obama administration has virtually turned the United States into a "Sanctuary
Country" litigating against Arizona and taking other adverse actions against those who
would enforce our immigration laws while releasing tens of thousands of criminal aliens
who subsequently committed more crimes including homicides and violent assaults.

President-elect Trump made effective immigration law enforcement the cornerstone of

his election campaign. Donald Trump promised he would end Sanctuary Cities, putting
the lives of innocent people ahead of the lives of illegal aliens and, in particular, criminal
aliens who have been responsible for massive levels of carnage and violence on the
streets of American cities.

While Obama would never sign the legislation that Lou proposed in the past, it is a near
certainty that Trump would be eager to sign that bill into law thereby helping the soon-to-
be president achieve one of his first goals.

All that would remain would be for Congress to pass Lou's important bill to get it to
President Trump's desk after January 20th.

It is important that you reach out to your member of Congress and insist that he/she
supports this vital legislation.

Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, sanctuary city

ABOUT MICHAEL CUTLER

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and
Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an
Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent
who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his
career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a
dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as
state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at
issue. He hosts his radio show, "The Michael Cutler Hour," on Friday evenings on
BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is http://michaelcutler.net/.

http://www.frontpagemag.comlfpm/265394/congressman-loo.barlettas-bill-defund-sanctuary-michael-culler 414
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)

)(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

)(--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 14
1/3012017 eTrack SL4'1"eme: CASTOR INA, JR., RONALD vs. DEBLASIO, BILL (08025812016) Updated- SLJ"etynomore@gmail.com- Gmail

I no-reply@nycourts.gov
~-~ :~-~
~--------.
r- .
Gmail L- ~--~---. : (... __ ~- -- - -- --~~ ~-------~ ._I
; Move to In box I
t.........- - - - - - --J
I
L

COMPOSE Justice Name: PHILIP G MINARDO

Attorney/Firm for Plaintiff:

lnbox (2,050)
JEFFREY ALFANO, ESQ.
Starred 1000 SOUTH AVE., SUITE 104
STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314
Christopher + Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Status: Active

Attorney/Firm for Plaintiff:

BATRA, RAVI
142 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10016
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Status: Active

Attorney/Firm for Defendant:

CORPORATION COUNSEL
60 BAY ST
STATEN ISLAND, NY 10301
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Make a call Status: Active

Last Appearance:
Also try our mobile apps for
Android and iOS Appearance Date: 01/18/2017 -Information updated
Appearance Time:
On For: Supreme Trial
Appearance Outcome: Adjourned
Justice: PHILIP G MINARDO
Part: DCM PART 6
Comments:

D Future Appearances:
Appearance Date: 9~!9.:1!2PXZ - Information updated

httpe:/lmail.google.com/mail/#searc:hlno-replyo/cAOnycourts.gov/159b540ba7e44bc8 1/1
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 15
METRO

Elections official caught on video blasting de

Blasio's ID program
By Carl Campanile October 11, 2016 I 1:36am

Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin

Gregory P. Mango

The Manhattan Democratic representative on the city's Board of Elections was caught on a secret video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasia's
municipaiiD program as contributing to "all kinds of fraud" - including at the polls.

"He gave out ID cards, de Blasio. That's in lieu of a driver's license, but you can use it for anything," Commissioner Alan Schulkin said in the
undercover video recorded by a muckraker for conservative nonprofit Project Veritas.

"But they didn't vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say, 'I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card,'" he said in the
bombshell tape.

"It's absurd. There is a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud . .. This is why I get more conservative as I get older."

Schulkin didn't hold back to the undercover journalist, who identified herself as a political consultant at a United Federation of Teachers
holiday party on Dec. 16.

Not realizing he was being recorded, he broke with his own party's position that voter ID requirements hurt the poor and minorities.
Schul kin said he backed the IDs to prevent rampant fraud.

"The law says you can't ask for anything. Which they really should be able to do," Schul kin said, according to a copy of the video and
transcript provided to The Post.

HIDDEN CAM: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"

"I believe they should be able to do it," he added.

The videographer asked point-blank, "You think they should have voter ID in New York?"

Schulkin responded, "Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud."

Conservatives claim ID checks help curb voter fraud.

Liberal and civil rights groups argue such rules discourage voting and discriminate against minorities and the poor.

"You know, I don't think it's too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID ... You go into a building, you have to show them your
ID," Schulkin said.

While discussing the potential for fraud, Schulkin volunteered that in some parts of the city, "they bus people around to vote ... They put
them in a bus and go poll site to poll site."

Asked which neighborhoods, Schulkin said, "I don't want to say."

When the undercover mentions black and Hispanic neighborhoods, Schulkin responded, "Yeah ... and Chinese, too."

At another point in the conversation, he discussed potential absentee ballot fraud.

"Oh. there's thousands of absentee ballots ... I don't know where they came from," he said.

The undercover offered that "people can cover t~ir faces" to shield their identity when voting, which triggered a conversation about
burqas. SHARe SeLeCTION

"The Muslims can do that, too. You don't 0 0 e," Schulkin said.
"I mean, I know everything is done with good intentions, but a lot of bad results.n

Reached Monday night, Schul kin defended his videotaped remarks, with slight revisions.

"I should have said 'potential fraud' instead of 'fraud,' n he said.

But he reiterated his support for a voter ID requirement.

He recalled a woman asking him a lot of questions the night he was recorded.

"She was like a nuisance. I was just trying to placate her," he said.

The board has two commissioners- one Democrat, one Republican -from each borough.

FILED UNDER BILL DE BLASIO, FRAUD, MANHAnAN, MUNICIPAL-ID PROGRAM, VOTING

NEVER MISS A STORY

Get The Post delivered directly to your inbox
0 NY Post Morning Report
0 Page Six Daily
0 Breaking News
0 Special Offers

r En-te-r-Yo-
ur_E_m-ail:~-
dr-
es~- - : I
L---..------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
SIGN UP

By clicking above you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

)(-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

)(--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 16


METRO

De Blasia reconsiders helping feds with

illegal immigrants
By Yoav Gonen January 30, 2017 I 10:57pm I Updated

Getty Images

Mayor Bill de Blasio on Monday said for the first time that he is open to expanding the list of 170 offenses
that trigger city cooperation with the feds to transfer undocumented immigrants who have committed
crimes.

The mayor agreed to the change in response to criticism from Assembly member Nicole Malliotakis (R-
Staten Island) that a number of significant crimes - including forcible touching and welfare fraud - were
excluded from the list.

"Why would you protect individuals who are here illegally committing these crimes instead of putting your
DeBlasio: Travel ban may citizenry first?" Malliotakis asked the mayor during his testimony on the state budget.
be 'first step towards a
Muslim registry'

FILED UNDER BILL DE BLASIO, CRIME, IMMIGRANTS

NEVER MISS A STORY
Get The Post delivered directly to your inbox
IZJ NY Post Morning Report
IZJ Page Six Dally
IZJ Breaking News
IZJ Special Offers

1
' Enter Your Email Address
L________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_j
SIGN UP

By clicking above you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER'S COMBINED REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A
MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR
OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT

(Continuation of Motion Exhibits of 1 thru 8)

Exhibit 17
Calif. To Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary
January 30, 2017 11 :18 PM

II
Filed Under: Immigration, Sanctuary, trump

LISTEN LIVE

Fans were Outraged when her secret

was finally revealed! >READ THE STORY
flo~~

FOLLOW US ON
SACRAMENTO (CBSLA.com/AP) -California may prohibit local law
enforcement from coop!3rating with federal immigration authorities,
creating a border-to-border sanctuary in the nation's largest state as
legislative Democrats ramp up their efforts to battle President Donald
Trump's migration policies. B Sign Up for Newsletters

The legislation is scheduled for its first public hearing Tuesday as the
0>
Senate rushes to enact measures that Democratic lawmakers say would
~13' immigrants from the crackdown that the Republican president

has promised.

POPULAR
AP: Trump's Voter-Fo.~ud

Expert Registered In 3 States

 Here's A look At The Reported
Top Contenders For The
Supreme Court

Iranian Couple Released After

22 Hours In Custody At LAX

LIKE THIS
As Anxious Relatives Wsit At
Airports, And Travelers Are
Detained, Trump...

Travel Ban Protests Continue

At lAX

While many of California's largest cities - including Los Angeles, San Mayor Garcetti: 'LA IJIAII Always
Francisco and Sacramento- have so-called sanctuary policies that Be A Place Of Refuge'

prohibit police from cooperating with immigration authorities, much of the

state does not. FOR YOU
Underground Spring Perpetually
RELATED- Mayor Garcetti: 'LA Will Always Be A Place Of Refuge' Flooding Agoura Hills Home

The Democratic legislation, written by Senate President Pro Tern Kevin landslide leaves Hollywood
de Leon of Los Angeles, comes up for debate less than a week after Hills Neighborhood In The Dark

Trump signed an order threatening to withdraw some federal grants from

jurisdictions that bar officials from communicating with federal authorities Tenants At Riverside
about someone's immigration status. Apartment Complex Take Down
Suspected Serial Car Bu ...

The Senate Public Safety Committee considers SB54 Tuesday morning.

The Judiciary Committee will also consider fast-tracked legislation that
would spend state money, in an amount that has not been disclosed, to
provide lawyers for people facing deportation.

Some Republicans have criticized the Democratic reaction to Trump's

policies, saying bombastic rhetoric and provocative legislation will inflame
tensions with the president and harm California.

The debate over sanctuary cities reached a fevered pitch in 2015 after
Kate Steinle, 32, was fatally shot in the back Juan Francisco Lopez-
Sanchez, who was in the country illegally after multiple deportations to his
native Mexico. Lopez-Sanchez, who told police the gun fired by accident,
 had been released from a San Francisco jail despite a request from
federal immigration authorities that he be held in custody for possible
deportation. Trump often cited the Steinle case during the campaign.

Many other cities and counties in California also refuse to detain

immigrants for deportation agents out of legal concerns after a federal
court ruled that immigrants can't be held in jail beyond their scheduled
release dates. Since then, federal agents have been asking local law
enforcement agencies to provide information about immigrants they're
seeking for

(TMand

Comments

SPONSORED CONTENT

Add Some Coffee to Your Ribs

Live life on the edge and try out these mustard and coffee-crusted pork ribs.
Promoted by Connatix

You May Like Sponsored Unks by Taboola {>

Federal 'Mortgage Refund' Just Went Into Effect

HarpConnect.com

The IRS Announces 2017 Standard Mileage Rates

Turbo Tax

Man Trapped In His Own Body For 12 Years Wakes Up, Reveals Heartbreaking
Secret
Answers

I Tried Blue Apron and Here's What Happened

Blue Apron

Republican Clint Eastwood Revealed Who He Voted For, And Fans Are Taken
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)
x------------------ X

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

Plaintiff, Petitioner
versus AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA etal.

Defendants/Respondents
x---------------- - -- - ----------- --- - - -- x
STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS )

Accordingly, I, CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

a. Am over 18 years of age and am Plaintiff Petitioner to this action.

b. On 1 February 2017, Undersigned serve a true conformed copy of PETITIONER'S COMBINED
REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL
SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE
COURT affirmed 1 February 2017 with exhibits by regular mail for delivery by the USPS upon
Respondents or counsels listed below.
c. On 1 February 2017, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular mail that was then
deposited with the USPS for service upon:
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA John D. Hoggan , Jr.
Governor Jerry Brown U.S. Department of Justice Albany Office
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 445 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95814 James T. Foley Courthouse
Albany, NY 12201
Edmund Gerald "JERRY" BROWN Jr.
Governor Jerry Brown Daniel W. Coffey
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 Bowitch, Coffey Law Firm
Sacramento, CA 958 14 17 Elk Street
Albany, NY 12207
Alejandro "ALEX" PADILLA
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE Joshua E. McMahon
1500 11th Street New York State Attorney General - Albany
Sacramento, CA 95814 The Capitol
~~y, NY 12224
i/ ----
Subscribed and Sworn to before me
This _e!_ day of$Mi\:l.a~2017
I
( I
\
:I .....)

' (

C~Earl Strunk
/1

/!-.,.
<;2
\....
0
\~OTARY P\JB LICS:TATE OF NEW YORK
No. QlWU6228541
~ ,__,-.mea n s Co u f1lV
\> 111.<.rTJ I ~~ t
r;R).l!W.C:S1on Expire s September 20. 201
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

December 29,2016

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Federal Building & Courthouse
P.O. Box 7367
Syracuse NY 13261-7367

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

Dear Clerk of the Court,

In conformance with the Rules, Undersigned hereby files three sets of documents:

1. The Proofs of Service upon each of the Respondents of: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitory Relief; Proposed OSC
with TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan;
Dec.14, 2016 10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL
ORDER#25;

2. PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS
BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT with eight bound exhibits
affirmed 12-29-2016 with a bound copy of the Petition for OSC with TRO

3. The Affidavit of Service for the Petitioner's Affidavit item #2 ~ed 12-29-2016

~cz)]~
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICI' OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS I DJS)
x---------------------------------------------------:x
In the matter of: Ouistopher Earl Strunk, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner
versus AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

TilE STATE OF CALIFORNIA etal.

Defendants/Respondents
x------------------------------------------------------------:x
STATEOFNEWYORK )
)ss.
COUNTY Of KINGS )

Accordingly, L FRANK M POHOLE, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
b. My place of business is located at 753 39th Street Brooklyn, NY 11232
c. On December 29, 2016, Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of : PETTI10NER'S AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION
WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT PENDING
A THREE JUDGE COURT with exhtoits affirmed December 29, 2016 by regular mail for delivery by the USPS upon
Respondents or counsels listed below.
d. On December 29, 2016, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by regular mail that was then deposited with
proper postage with the USPS for service upon:

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Edmund Gerald "JERRY" BROWN Jr.
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Alejandro "ALEX" PADILLA
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE
1500 lith Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Governor ANDREW M. CUOMO
State Capitol Building
Albany, New York 12224
NEW YORK STATE OF BOARD OF ELECTION
40 North Pearl Street Suite 5
Albany, New York 12207-2729
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
NYC CORPORATION COUNSEL
I 00 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
Warren "BILL DEBLASIO" Wilhelm Jr.
Mayor of the City of New York
CityHall - COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
New York, New York 10007
TilE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF
ELECTIONS
Executive Office
32-42 Broadway
7th Floor
New York, New York 10004
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADM1N1STRATION
by Archivist DAV1D S. FERRIERO
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, Maryland 20740-6001
'PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE by Vice President of the United
States JOE BIDEN
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington District of Columbia 20500
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
by Director JOHN H. THOMPSON
4600 Silver Hill Road
Washington, DC 20233
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
New York Attorney General Eric T.
Schneiderman Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-Q341
RichardS. Hartunian U.S. Atty for NDNY
445 Broadway, Room 218
Albany, New"York 12207-2924
Kamala D. Harris, California Arty General
Office of the California Attorney General
1300 "1" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2919

'
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK
CivilCaseNo:1:16cv1496(BKS/DJS)

xx

Inthematterof:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,IndividuallyofNewYork;

Plaintiff,Petitioner

versus

THESTATEOFCALIFORNIAwithEdmundGeraldJERRYBROWNJr.,Individuallyand
asGovernor;andAlejandroALEXPADILLA,IndividuallyandasSecretaryofState(SOS);
THESTATEOF NEW YORK with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and asGovernor;
THESTATEOFNEWYORKBOARDOFELECTIONS;THECITYOFNEWYORK(NYC);
WarrenBILLDEBLASIOWilhelmJr.,IndividuallyandastheMayorofNYC;THENYC
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE; UNITED
STATESDEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCEBUREAUOFTHECENSUS;

Defendants/Respondents

PETITIONERSAFFIDAVITINSUPPORTOFORDERTOSHOWCAUSEVARYING
THEUSUALSCHEDULEFORCONSIDERINGAMOTIONWHENATEMPORARY
RESTRAININGORDEROROTHERPROVISIONALREMEDYISBEINGSOUGHT
PENDINGATHREEJUDGECOURT

In compliance with the Text Order (see Exhibit 1) received on 21 December 2016 by regular

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

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (Petitioner / Plaintiff), and upon the annexed Verification of

1
PetitionerCHRISTOPHEREARLSTRUNKaffirmedtoonthe12thdayofDecember,2016,and

all of exhibits annexed thereto, and the verified Memorandum of Law dated 12th day of

December 2016, filed with the clerk on 15 December 2016 for an Order to Show Cause with

TemporaryRestrainingOrderaccompaniedbyasignedcopyofthe14December2016electronic

Notice to those parties in interest (see Exhibit 2), this is Petitioners affidavit in support of an

order to show cause varying the usual schedule for considering a motion when atemporary

restraining orderor otherprovisional remedyis being sought pending a three judge court; as

timeremainsoftheessence,withimminentirreparableharm,alikelihoodofsuccessandwith

noothervenueavailableforremedy.

1. On 21 December 2016, Undersigned phoned JEFFREY ALFANO, ESQ. representing

PetitionersinRonald Castorina, Tr. etal. v. BILL DEBLASIO etal. Article 78 Petition 080258/2016

OSC w TROof5December2016,shownasExhibitLinthePetitionwithComplaintbefore

theHonPhilipG.Minardo JSC,and wasadjournedatthe21December hearingfollowing

thehearingofamotionforchangeofvenuewithoutatranscript(seeExhibit3),theCourt

setareturnhearingdatefor5January2017withoutawrittenorderforacontinuanceofthe

Restraint of Respondents from destroying the IDNYC records scheduled for 31 December

2016undermunicipallaw;and

2. That during the phone conversation, Mr. Alfano stated that the matter of the IDNYC

municipallawineffectisnotaStateorFederallawmatterperse,and

3. ThatMr.AlfanoalsoexpressedconcernaboutdestructionofIDNYCrecords,andwouldnot

oppose an Amicus Curie motion urging a written continuance of theTRO especially since

thenew5January2016hearingwouldfollowthedestructiondate.

2
4. On 23 December 2016, Undersigned rendered service by United States Postal Service

CertifiedMailwithreturnreceiptuponCaptionedRespondentsandlegalrecipientsofeach

Summons,PetitionwithComplaintandPetitioners:MOLinsupportofProhibitoryRelief;

Proposed OSC with TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management

Plan;Dec.14,201610:56PMNoticetoRespondents/agentstofileOSC;NYNDGENERAL

ORDER#25(seeExhibit4).

5. On27December2016,UndersignedsJUDICIAL NOTICE by AMICUS CURIE CHRISTOPHER

EARL STRUNK with annexed documents affirmed 27 December 2016 in the Article 78 Petition

Ronald Castorina, Tr. etal. v. BILL DEBLASIO etal. 080258/2016 OSC w TRO is rendered

served by United States Postal Service overnight mail (see Exhibit 5); and therein, Amicus

urgently requests theHonPhilipG.MinardoJSC quote:

"provide a written TRO continuation prior to the 5 January 2017 hearing of the OSC with
TRO regarding the expected December 31, 2016 destruction of IDNYC records and related
documents to prevent Court embarrassment, in that such records inter alia involve criminal
obstruction spoliation by the Respondents in bad faith to their duties under color of law, and
germane to the case before the Hon. Brenda K. Sannes..."

6. As a separate matter from this case of first impression but germane for a TRO, Undersigned has

been trying to obtain records from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles to prepare

a statistical study involving an equal protection challenge to facilitation of foreign alien

commercial driving privilege harm to national U.S. Citizens in commerce, and have been told

that the NYS DMV does not retain records over four (4) years, destroys them(?), stated quote:

"Pursuant to New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) 201, the statutory retention

period for the data you have requested is four ( 4) years"; and destroyed despite the fact that it

issues an eight (8) year term duration valid Driver's License (see Exhibit 6).

3
7. That Undersigned contends that the "Motor-voter" 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)

and 2002 Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) are used by non-citizens to register to vote and vote

in NewYork,Californiaetc.,asprovenbymyassociatetheHonorableRobertK.Dornanat

the1996CongressionalelectioninCalifornia,shownatPetitionExhibitA3Page7,andthat

satisfiestheprobablecauserequirement,asgoodcauseandsubstantialprejudicethatwould

result from the requirement of reasonable notice, which since 1996 noncitizen voting

contrarytotheseveralstatesConstitutionsviolating18USC611andinteralia8USC1324,

isthenaidedandabettedbyCaliforniaPublicofficersbytheCaliforniaAssemblyBill(AB)

No.1461CHAPTER729,anacttoamendSections2100and2102of,andtoaddChapter4.5

(commencing with Section 2260) to Division 2 of the Elections Code, relating to elections.

[Approved by Governor October 10, 2015. Filed with Secretary of State October 10, 2015.],

shownasPetitionExhibitI,statesintheLEGISLATIVECOUNSELSDIGEST,quote:

AB1461,Gonzalez.Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.Existinglaw,
thefederalNationalVoterRegistrationActof1993,requiresastateto,amongotherthings,
establishproceduresto registerapersontovotebyapplicationmadesimultaneouslywith
an application for a new or renewal of a motor vehicle drivers license. The federal act
requires the motor vehicle drivers license application to serve as an application for voter
registrationwithrespecttoanelectionforfederaloffice,unlesstheapplicantfailstosignthe
application, and requires the application to be considered as updating the applicants
previousvoterregistration,ifany.Thefederalactdefinesmotorvehicledriverslicenseto
includeanypersonalidentificationdocumentissuedbyastatemotorvehicleauthority.

Under existing state law, a person may not be registered to vote except by affidavit of
registration.Existinglawrequiresaproperlyexecutedaffidavitofregistrationtobedeemed
effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if the affidavit is
submittedtotheDepartmentofMotorVehiclesonorbeforethe15thdaybeforetheelection.
ExistingstatelawrequirestheDepartmentofMotorVehiclesandtheSecretaryofStateto
develop a process and the infrastructure to allow a person who is qualified to register to
voteinthestatetoregistertovoteonline.

ExistinglawrequirestheDepartmentofMotorVehiclestoissuedriverslicensesandstate
identification cards to applicants who meet specified criteria and provide the department

4
 withtherequiredinformation.Existinglawgenerallyrequiresanapplicantforanoriginal
drivers license or state identification card to submit satisfactory proof to the department
thattheapplicantspresenceintheUnitedStatesisauthorizedunderfederallaw.

This bill would require the Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles to
establish the California New Motor Voter Program for the purpose of increasing
opportunitiesforvoterregistrationbyanypersonwhoisqualifiedtobeavoter.Underthe
program, after the Secretary of State certifies that certain enumerated conditions are
satisfied,theDepartmentofMotorVehicleswouldberequiredtoelectronicallyprovideto
theSecretaryofStatetherecordsofeachpersonwhoisissuedanoriginalorrenewalofa
driverslicenseorstateidentificationcardorwhoprovidesthedepartmentwithachangeof
address,asspecified.Thepersonsmotorvehiclerecordswouldthenconstituteacompleted
affidavit of registration and the person would be registered to vote, unless the person
affirmativelydeclinedtoberegisteredtovoteduringatransactionwiththedepartment,the
departmentdidnotrepresenttotheSecretaryofStatethatthepersonattestedthatheorshe
meetsallvotereligibilityrequirements,asspecified,ortheSecretaryofStatedeterminesthat
the person is ineligible to vote. The bill would require the Secretary of State to adopt
regulationstoimplementthisprogram,...etcetera,etcetera,etcetera.

8. In October 2007, Undersigned testified in the joint secession of the NY Assembly and NY

Senateagainstissuingillegalaliendriverprivileges,asshowninPetitionExhibitA3Page5;

andnowsinceTestimonysuchisnonethelessaggressivelyaidedandabettedbytheagents

ofMr.DeBlasioandMr.Cuomo,aspublicofficersundercolor,facilitateillegalalienswith

enticementsasifnationalU.S.CitizensdomiciledherethatincludesdrivinginNewYork.

9. That as a result of Undersigneds service of notice of intent to file for a OSC with TRO

shownasExhibit2,GovernorBrownat5PMPSTonFriday16December2016phonedthe

NARA and gave notice of pending Federal Express delivery of the Ascertainment of the

CaliforniaElectorCollegeElectorstomeetonMonday19December2016,forhediscovered

nottoprovidethecertificationwouldprohibitsuchelectorsfromevenmeetingandvoting;

the delivery to NARA on 19 December 2016 is herewith included see Exhibit 7, and

similarlyaswiththeNewYorkStateBoardofElectionscertificateseeExhibit8.

5
10. That material for a three judge panel hearing is deserving of a declaratory judgment as to

infringement harm protected against by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment that would be

availableundermotionpracticeratherthanaOSCwithTRO,andarguablyisthefactthatas

aresultoftheCaliforniaDefendantsmaliciousfailuretoJointlyresolvetheAIP/Republican

PartyelectorslateforTRUMPPENCE,asshowninExhibit7,eachslatewascreditedwitha

votetallyof4,483,810generalelectionvoteseachjointlytotaling8,967,620votesforTRUMP

PENCEthatonitsfacemeansthatCLINTONKAINEwithonlyatotalof8,753,788lostby

213,832 votes, and inter alia goes to California denial of substantive due process under

ElectionCode(CAEC)forlossof17CDs,andassuchappliestoNewYorkunderElection

Law(NYEL)asappliestotheJohnsonWeldslatesshowninExhibit8astolossofOne(1)CD,

compoundedbydenialofequalprotectionandconspiracybystateactorsundercoloroflaw

withorwithoutillegalalienfacilitatedvoting.

11. Knowing NYSBOE, perhaps the Defendants / Respondents would argue that Undersigned

doesnothaveanintangiblepersonalpropertyassetintheformofatimesensitivesinglevote

privilege restricted for use ateach election under the draconian penalties of the respective

CAECandNYELifdeemedbyUndersignedmisuse,couldbeharmed,withdamageinter

aliainmuchthesamewayasanyotherintangibleassetwithoppressiverestrictionsinuse

similarlyprotectedagainstinfringementasamatteroflegalpracticeandprecedent(1).

1 Anintangibleassetisonethathasnophysicalbeing,otherthanawriting,toevidenceitsexistence.
Forexample,thegoodwillofabusinessandapromissorynoteevidencingadebtareintangibleassets.
Intangibleassetsrepresentvalue,butlackaphysicalembodimentabletobeseenandtouched,other
than perhaps being represented by a document. Intellectual property rights, such as patents,
copyrights and trademarks, are intangible assets. Current accounting practices do not routinely
measureorreportonmanyintangibleresources,suchashumancapital,brandandR&Dcapability.As

6
12. Further,aseconomistAlfredE.Kahncharacterizedin1966asthetyrannyofsmalldecisions

applies to Undersigneds intangible personal vote property among those of my fellow US

Citizens, and the damage caused to Undersigneds intangible asset is experienced by the

private national Citizen of the United States of America as a result of the California

infringement,andalsototheprivatecitizenofNewYorkastotheNewYorkinfringement.

13. On19December2016,theElectoralCollegeofthe51Statescasttheir538votes,whichdid

not change the status quo per se, notwithstanding the fact that TRUMPPENCE received

304 votes rather than 306 and CLINTONKAINE received 227 rather 232, as Seven (7)

electors voted for someone other than their partys candidate; and as such Undersigneds

requestforanOSCwithTROthatisprohibitoryremainsjustifiedandwithinthepowerofa

singledistrictjudgeofathreejudgepanel.

14. AsfortheCongressionalprovisionofa28USC2284(a)Threejudgecourtthatdealswith

special categories of cases requiring extraordinary safeguard against arbitrary judicial

political action thatinvolvesuitstoenjoinenforcement ofstateor federal statutes,or state

for *BusinessRelated Intangible Assets (1) Trademarks, Tradenames. (2) Service marks, collective
marks, certification marks. (3) Trade dress (unique color, shape, or package design). (4) Newspaper
mastheads.(5)Internetdomainnames.(6)Noncompetitionagreements.*GoodwillRelatedIntangible
Assets (7) Customer lists. (8) Order or production backlog. (9) Customer contracts and related
customer relationships. (10) Noncontractual customer relationships. *ArtisticRelated Intangible
Assets(11)Plays,operas,ballets.(12)Books,magazines,newspapers,otherliteraryworks.(13)Musical
workssuchascompositions,songlyrics,advertisingjingles.(14)Pictures,photographs.(15)Videoand
audiovisual material, including motion pictures, music videos, television programs. *ContractBased
Intangible Assets (16) Licensing, royalty, standstill agreements. (17) Advertising, construction,
management, service or supply contracts. (18) Lease agreements. (19) Construction permits. (20)
Franchiseagreements.(21)Operatingandbroadcastrights.(22)Userightssuchasdrilling,water,air,
mineral, timber cutting, and route authorities. (23) Servicing contracts such as mortgage servicing
contracts.(24)Employmentcontracts.*TechnologyBasedIntangibleAssets(25)Patentedtechnology.
(26)Computersoftwareandmaskworks.(27)Unpatentedtechnology.(28)Databases,includingtitle
plants.(29)Tradesecrets,suchassecretformulas,processes,recipes.

7
 administrative orders on constitutional grounds as herein challenge to California / New

York and Municipal law, warrants a district court of three judges in this action filed

challengingtheconstitutionalityoftheapportionmentofcongressionaldistrictsresultingby

operation of the Fourteenth Amendment to proportionately reduce House seats as

punishment available since 1868 that is now ripe herein; and that the need that a three

judgecourtisconstitutedwhereaninjunctivereliefissoughttorestraintheenforcementor

execution of a state statute by any officer of the state a is important in formation of the

electoralcollegestuntedinfavorofcorporatespecialinterestunconstitutionallysince1920.

15. ThatthePewFoundationstatistics shownin PetitionExhibit G arequite clear asto who is

andhowtheharboringofalienswithprovisionofvotinganddomiciliaryrightsassiststhe

DemocraticPartyinteraliainviolationof8USC1324fortheaggrandizementofpolitical

powerinUSHouseallotmentwithrelatedfundingandtherebyStateleveldistrictingthatis

far more than a frivolous de minimis value and harm; and is especially harmful and

egregious given the 84 year domination of the national emergency banking power by

military occupation under the Commanderinchief for urban control with extensive

limitationsimposedonruralexclusionaryeconomicssinceimposingtheRioTreatyunderthe

Global 21 Agenda that exceeds even the wildest dreams of Herbert Hoover and George F.

Kennan upon the Hoover Commission creation of General Service Administration (GSA)

regionsthatdissolvestateborderscommerciallyandshelveConstitutionalguarantees.

16. Duringthe50yearssincethepetition STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff, v. The STATE of New

York, et al., Defendants. No. 28 Original. October Term, 1966. July 20, 1966. Motion for

Leave to File Complaint, Complaint and Brief was filed at the SCOTUS, which in

8
 Undersigned opinion was properly denied on 21 November 1966, despite lack of a full

SCOTUScourtuntilaftersayaftertheidesofMarch15,2017,totheextentthattheseatsin

the House have been capped since 1930 are nearly all effectively turned over to special

interestcontrolinpopulacestatesiscompoundedwhencombinedwiththeeffectsofthenon

enforcementoftheprovisionsassociatedwithSimpsonMazolaActasrelatedtoUSCTitle8

after 30 years, such laws are rendered null and void, and as such the Delaware v New York

complaint properly ignored by SCOTUS for good reason then should not be ignored now

underthepresentegregiousstateactionofmaliciousadministrationandenforcementnow.

17. When the Undersigned is given standing with his damage referenced above as applies

underthe14thAmendmentforproportionalreductionofHousemembersaccordingly,only

athreejudgecourtwouldpoliticallysurviveadecisionthatasinglejudgewouldbewantto

render, and the resulting requirement for redistricting before the 2018 midterm election

wouldbeabsolutelyessentialbysuchpanelotherwiserenderbothCaliforniaandNewYork

US Houseseatselectedatlarge
mustbe redrawn before theelection cycle.

18. This affidavit is not meant to grind the minutia of substantive violation of state law due

processthatwillfollowsoonenoughincopiousvolumes,butseekstoestablishthatatthe

6 January 2017 joint session of Congress tally of the electoral college vote there is a court

recognizedchallengetothetotaltheresubmitted,andwereacourttoremainsilentastoa

prohibitory TRO described in the Proposed Order, and questionably rely on a state judge

withoutjurisdictiontooccupythefieldforwhichonlyaFederalCourtmustdo,Undersigned

wantstoknowthatnownotlaterastime,myonlyremainingasset,iswasting.

9
Wherefore in addition to the associated papers in support of the petition for OSC with TRO

with time as the essence before 6 January 2017, and as applies to a 28 USC 2284 Three:..judge

Court be granted by this Court.

Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris

sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

Acknowledgment:

StateofNewYork )
} ss.
County of Kings )

BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk, known to me to be the

person described herein Subject: PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE VARYING THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION

WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS

BEING SOUGHT PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT and who solemnly affirmed under

the penalties of perjury that every statement given above was the whole truth to the best of his

knowledge.

Subscribed and Affirmed before me on this ~day of December, 2016.

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

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 1
CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND-Display Receipt Page 1 of2

MIME-Version:1.0
From:ecf.notification@nynd.uscourts.gov
To:NYND_ECFQC@nynd.uscourts.gov
Bcc:
--Case P a r t i c i p a n t s : J u d g e B r e n d a K. Sannes
(nynd_bks_ecf_notices@nynd.uscourts.gov), M a g i s t r a t e Judge D a n i e l J . S t e w a r t
(nynd_dj s_ecf_notices@nynd.uscourts.gov)
N o n Case P a r t i c i p a n t s :
N o N o t i c e Sent:

M e s s a g e - I d : < 3 8 4 34 7 7 @ n y n d . u s c o u r t s . g o v >
S u b j e c t : A c t i v i t y i n Case 1:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS S t r u n k v . The S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a e t
a l Order
Content-Type: text/html

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the C M / E C F system. Please DO NOT

RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE T O P U B L I C A C C E S S USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy
permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free
electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the
filer. P A C E R access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each
document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free
copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse) [ L I V E - Version 6.1.1]

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 12/16/2016 at 4:31 PM EST and filed on 12/16/2016
Case Name: Strunk v. The State of California et al
Case Number: l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS
Filer:

Document Number: 6(No document attached)

Docket Text:
TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs "Order to show cause with temporary
restraining order" and attached documents. (Dkt. No. [5]). The Local Rules require the
moving party to "serve any application for temporary restraining order on all other
parties" (N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(f)), that "a motion brought by Order to Show Cause... include
an affidavit clearly and specifically showing good and sufficient cause why the standard
Notice of Motion procedure cannot be used," and that the "moving party give
reasonable advance notice of the application for an Order to Show Cause to the other
parties, except in those circumstances where the movant can demonstrate, in a detailed
and specific affidavit, good cause and substantial prejudice that would result from the
requirement of reasonable notice." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(e). There is no indication in
Plaintiffs papers that he served his filing on Defendants, or that he gave Defendants
reasonable advance notice of his application. Nor has Plaintiff filed an affidavit showing
"good and sufficient cause why the standard the Notice of Motion procedure cannot be

https://ecf.nynd.circ2.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl?929454825208973-L_l_0-l 12/19/2016
 iCF LIVE - U.S. District Court - NYND-Display Receipt Page 2 of 2

psed." Accordingly, Plaintiff's proposed order (Dkt. No. [5]) is denied without prejudice
to refiling following service of the filing and upon curing the above-identified defects.
Any refiling should include briefing on the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) to the
allegations in the Complaint. S O O R D E R E D . Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on
12/16/2016. (Copy served via regular mail)(sr,)

l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Notice has been electronically mailed to:

l:16-cv-01496-BKS-DJS Notice has been delivered by other means to:

Christopher Earl Strunk

141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846

https://ecf.nynd.circ2.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl7929454825208973-L_l_0-l 12/19/2016
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT C f D U R T

P.O. BOX 7367 NY X30 Hasier

100 S.CLINTON STREET
SYRACUSE, NEWYORK 13261-7367 m&ec'm 12/19/201 e_ <tnn A

D C K . A . SrE,CIAL BUSINESS
P E N A L T Y F O R P R I V A T E USE, $ 3 0 0
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 2
12/1212016 Print

Subject: PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH TEMPORARY RESTRAINT OF CALIFORNIA AND
NEW YORK in re the 2016 ELECTORAL COLLEGE

From: Christopher Strunk (suretynomore@gmail.com)

amy. bunk@nara. gov; hakohen3@yahoo. com; INFO@elections.ny. gov; enforcement@elections. ny.gov;

mark@masterplanner. com; info@cadem. org; liaison@cagreens. org; office@ca.lp. org;
kevinakin 1950@hotmail. com; info@cagop.org; ttremayne@alpinecountyca. gov;
Elections@amadorgov. org; elections@buttecounty. net; electionsweb@co.calaveras. ca. us;
ccclerk@countyofcolusa. org; voter. services@vote.cccounty. us; anorthrup@co.del-norte.ca. us;
elections@edcgov. us; borth@co. fresno. ca. us; elections@countyofglenn. net;
humboldt_elections@co. humboldt. ca. us; DebbiePorter@co. imperial. ca. us; kfoote@inyocounty. us;
elections@co. kern. ca. us; Jennifer.Scarbrough@co. kings. ca. us; dianef@co.lake.ca.us;
lcclerk@co.lassen. ca. us; voterinfo@rrcc.lacounty.gov; electionsinfo@co.madera.ca.gov;
elections@marincounty.org; cprogner@mariposacounty.org; acr@co.mendocino.ca.us;
To: webmaster@co. merced. ca. us; darcylocken@co. modoc. ca. us; bmusil@mono. ca. gov;
elections@co. napa. ca. us; gregory. diaz@co. nevada.ca. us; ocvoter@ocgov. com; election@placer. ca. gov;
elections@countyofplumas.com; rovweb@co. riverside.ca. us; voterinfo@saccounty. net; cclerk@cosb. us;
rovwebmail@rov. sbcounty.gov; rovmail@sdcounty. ca. gov; sfvote@sfgov. org; vbm@sjgov. org;
elections@co.slo. ca. us; registrar@smcare. org; electionssupport@co. santa-barbara. ca. us;
registrar@rov. sccgov. org; gail. pellerin@santacruzcounty. us; countyclerk@co. shasta. ca. us;
hfoster@sierracounty.ws; csetzer@co. siskiyou. ca.us; elections@solanocounty. com; rov-
voterreg@sonoma-county. org; stanvote@stancounty.com ; jvise@co.tehama. ca. us;
elections@trinitycounty. org; absentee@co. tulare. ca. us; clerk@tuolumnecounty. ca. gov;
cntyclrk@yoloelections. org; elections@co. yuba. ca.us; markyavelli@gmail. com; donegalhill@earthlink. net;
johnlebout@aol.com;

Cc: cestrunck@yahoo. com;

Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 10:56 PM

To be filed in Thursday AM at Courthouse for the USDC of the NDNY as follows duly posted to the
Scribd.com safely:

https://www.scribd.com/document/333934737/0SC-for-restraint-filed-in-NDNY-3-Judge-Court-
ectoral-Colle.:e.~all_ ge the MOL and Summonses follow the Petition

: <?~
1stopher Earl Strunk, in propria persona

141 Harris A venue

Lake Luzerne, New York 12846

Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

htlps://us-mg5.mail _yahoo_com/neo/launch?.rand=b96vmn0flek06 1/1

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

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 3
12/27/2016 Gmail-eTrackSupreme:CASTORINA,JR.,RONALDvs.DEBLASIO,BILL(080258/2016)Updated

ChristopherStrunk<suretynomore@gmail.com>

eTrackSupreme:CASTORINA,JR.,RONALDvs.DEBLASIO,BILL
(080258/2016)Updated
no-reply@nycourts.gov<no-reply@nycourts.gov> Wed,Dec28,2016at3:07PM
To:suretynomore@gmail.com

IndexNumber:080258/2016
ThefollowingcasewhichyouhavesubscribedtoineTrackhasbeenupdated.Changesfromthelastupdateare
showninredandareannotated.

Court:RichmondCivilSupreme
IndexNumber:080258/2016
CaseName:CASTORINA,JR.,RONALDvs.DEBLASIO,BILL
CaseType:Other,NotSpecified
Track:Complex
UpstateRJINumber:
DispositionDate:
DateNOIDue:
NOIFiled:
CalendarNumber:
RJIFiled:12/05/2016
JuryStatus:
JusticeName:PHILIPGMINARDO

Attorney/FirmforPlaintiff:
JEFFREYALFANO,ESQ.
1000SOUTHAVE.,SUITE104
STATENISLAND,NY10314
AttorneyType:AttorneyOfRecord
Status:Active

Attorney/FirmforPlaintiff:
BATRA,RAVI
142LEXINGTONAVENUE
NEWYORK,NY10016
AttorneyType:AttorneyOfRecord
Status:Active

Attorney/FirmforDefendant:
CORPORATIONCOUNSEL
60BAYST
STATENISLAND,NY10301
AttorneyType:AttorneyOfRecord
Status:Active

LastAppearance:
AppearanceDate:12/21/2016
AppearanceTime:
OnFor:Motion
AppearanceOutcome:Adjourned
Justice:PHILIPGMINARDO
Part:DCMPART6M
Comments:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=159470b61322b309&siml=159470b61322b309 1/2
12/27/2016 Gmail-eTrackSupreme:CASTORINA,JR.,RONALDvs.DEBLASIO,BILL(080258/2016)Updated

FutureAppearances:
AppearanceDate:01/05/2017
AppearanceTime:
OnFor:Motion
AppearanceOutcome:
Justice:PHILIPGMINARDO
Part:DCMPART6M
Comments:

AppearanceDate:01/05/2017
AppearanceTime:
OnFor:SupremeTrial
AppearanceOutcome:
Justice:PHILIPGMINARDO
Part:DCMPART6
Comments:

Olderappearancesmayexistbutarenotshown.

Motions:MotionNumber:2
DateFiled:
FiledBy:DEF
ReliefSought:ChangeOfVenue
SubmitDate:
AnswerDemanded:No
Status:Decided:20-DEC-16
SUBMITORDER
BeforeJustice:MINARDO
Decision:Oral
OrderSignedDate:12/27/2016

MotionNumber:1
DateFiled:
FiledBy:PLAINT
ReliefSought:RestrainingOrder
SubmitDate:
AnswerDemanded:No
Status:Open:

BeforeJustice:MINARDO
Decision:
OrderSignedDate:

ScannedDecisions:Noneonfile.

Toaccessthiscasedirectlyclickhere.
Thisisanautomatede-mail.IfyouhavequestionsaboutyourcasepleasecontacttheCourtdirectly.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a479fd9275&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=159470b61322b309&siml=159470b61322b309 2/2
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 4
 ' c::J
Cl (
Cl
c::J

t:-.TIED STATES DEPART:\1ENT OF COMMERCE

BCRE.H ; OF THE CE:\Sl:S
by Director JO!f.'t H. THO:\IPSO:\
4600 Silver Hill Road
Washington, DC 20233

See Reverse for Instructions

Cl
o
c::J
Cl

, CI
IT"
.:t'
m
- - - - - - - - -- ----------- --
12/23/2016 .:t' [Sent 1i - Richard S. Hartunian U.S. Attorney for the NDNY
81'- Siree.
orPOt
445 Broadway, Room 218
~ ~s!ie~i"i-ia-~i PR-SIDE-'iT OF THE I.-xiiTD STA n:s SESATE Albany, New York 12207-2924
)--,---,_--,---- by Vice Presiden~ of the l-nited States JOE BIDE-'i
citY.si
ctty, ;:,t;;,e, z 1600 Pennsylvama Avenue :'I."''
1 PS Form 3800, July 2014 See Reverse tor tnstruclons
Washington District of Columbia 2MM .
i iLiiiUS;t:tti.JfltMI,.J.nr
.... _ .W+P''If:SI*ft"'ai'l!l iP 1 ?!ffi!'"' - ~
" ...........,_-- - - 7'-t1t'W'WfWW11 !;...
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1:16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or

0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name ofindividual) Vice President of the United States JOE BIDEN , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) President of the U.S. Senate

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20500 on (date) ; or

0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

~Other (specifY) : I served by USPS Certified Mail70151730000143123514: Summons, Petition with

Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and$ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: /J.I /z GI/1, l2 i I-

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server 's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1:16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

LJ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ---------------

LJ I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

LJ I served the summons on (name of individual) RichardS . Hartunian U.S. Attorney for the NDNY , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) United States of America
445 Broadway, Room 218 Albany, New York 12207-2924 on (date) ; or
----------~----------~~------------------- ---------------

LJ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

----------------------------------------
~Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail 70143490000010584905: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: / /{ /')., 5 {g t21t

I I
FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 ~ __.! '" ;.:...,

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1:16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) US DEPT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
---------------------------------------------
0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) by Director JOHN H. THOMPSON , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
4600 Silver Hill Road Washington, DC 20233 on (date) ; or
----------------------~~------------------- ---------------
0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

~Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail 70143490000010584899: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and$ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1:16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) NATIONAL ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ---------------

0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) by Archivist DAVIDS. FERRIERO , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) N.A. R.A.
-----------------------
8601 Adelphi Road College Park, Maryland 20740-6001 on (date) ; or
--------~--------~----~~~--------------- ---------------
0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
----------------------------------------
tf Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail 70143490000010584875: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00
---------- ----------

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Server's sig

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server 's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 . . ;... }

ru
1.1')
1.1')
m For delivery information. visit our webslte at wWW.usps.comt>.
ru , NEW YORK' NY 10091 I
~ ~~~~rtilim~ad~M~a~il=-~=e--
$-~-
3 60
~ ------~~--;-----~~f.~
l~~o~L~--~
:r r,s~~~~~~~ ~---~~~~~~70~~
Extra Services & Fees (che-..k box. add lee ~rM!'1'ate)
~ ~
.:. -: ;--.., 40
.-:1 D Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ f.fl ~ nn
t:l 0ReltlrnReceipt(e!ee'.ronic) $~ (2 Postma<!<
c::J OeortifiodMai!RestrictedDelivery $ $0 0(1 . 0 ~> Here
c::J ! QAduliSignarureRequired S -t~ l -

m
3
c::J ~~~~~~~~:~~:ge:lt~Si~~~~~~:a~R:~:ffi~-ct:od~D~~~.;~~~S~===="====~
$6.45
c:J
m $
f'- f'- Total Postageand Fees

--
M 12/23/2016 M
s .12.~5 - -- ----
l.l') -~-=--------____::.....l_ _ _ ___ ___ ___ -
-.-:1
0
f'- "
THE CITY OF :XHr YORK
e o ' i'YC CORPOR-H IO:\ COUNSEL
~ e~~-~~----
f'- S!reet and'
Warren "~L
DEBLASIO" Wilhelm Jr.
Mayor of the City of New York
100 Cbunb Street
cliY,'Siiiie:: City Hall
:'\eH \ 'ork. ~ew York 10007 New York, New York 10007
G

.-=! ~~~~~------~--------7---------~~--~
ru Certified Mail Fee $
~ 's 3 ..., . 70
tt'l .,,. 0304
;E!.,Ja Services & Fees (check box, add fee BJ D1;15r!z..o'!fate) 40
i :..! qeturn Rece'pt (hardcopy) S _ _,J~U"-"!. LI'"!-U-
i D P.:um Receipt(electronic) s $0.
1 Oc-e--t:fi~d Mail Restricted Delivery $~
on Postmark
Here
' :J;..,;, t S'gnature ReqUired $0 00
$
""":;.. :.:.~; s:gnature Re~.icted Oeflvery $
- ~ ~=~:~;:a~;e~~~$~6~-.~~~5~~======~
~ ~ee;;.
LJ"l
'i:o:a: Postage and

s -- ---- -
1
;p :..45
-- --- - ----
12/23/2016
----~_....:...r;.' -

M S,- THE ~EW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS J

c::J
T'-
;-,:;:;;:;:,a Executiw Office 'j
~----_o::_a.:::

l}i#, ,
32-42 Broadway
-rb floor
:\ew York, New York10004 . rnrw
j
 ..... ~

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) THE CITY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

---------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ~--------------

0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
- - - - - - - - -- - - --

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) NYC CORPORATION COUNSEL , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 on (date) ; or
--------------------~----------------------- ------------ - -

0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

----------------------------------------
tf Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail70151730000143123552: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00
---------- ------- -- -

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1:16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ---------------
0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) NYC BOE Executive Office , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) NYC BOARD OF ELECTION
32-42 Broadway 7th Floor New York, New York 10004 on (date) ; or
----------~--------------~----------------- ---------------
0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
----------------------------------------
r/ Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail70151730000143123507: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: /t. ~~ GJZ ~ / ~ T

I I Server's signatur .

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 ......,.. - ~ . ...

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1:16-cv-1496 (BKS/DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) Warren "BILL DE BLASIO" Wilhelm Jr., NYC Mayor
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ---------------

0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) Warren "BILL DEBLASIO" Wilhelm Jr., NYC Mayor , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) Mayor of the City of New York
City Hall New York, New York 10007 on (date) ; or

0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

tf Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail70151730000143123453: Summons, Petition with

Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00
----- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server's signatuv

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 ~ ~--~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~--~ ru l-~~~~~~~~T-~~~~~
t::l
...=! Certified M~\(ee MY 12201
...=! m s ALBA ' _.,,-03.Q4
:r Extra ervicss & Fe~Uot"irJ:>ox, add faa as appropriate) /'"S i A."R;;'\Q.
t::l
t::l
t::l
CJ
, ~.-;-, Postmark
Hera.'
~-
8
1

g
ORe".umReceipt(he$61'\'PU
O Return Re."'<!ip! (ele<;tron\c)
QcertitiedManRestnctedDelivery
OMultSl!l"tureRequlred $
S=
S ~ /-/i~ - ,
~~ O(.r
-~
' :'?/
s ~ .OO = <.-,~y 11
OS

-
Here
.
,
\
I ufc ~ .
~~ QAduttSignatureRestrictedDelivay S _ "l f /-~;""
no, t:J Postage tO. <
1'2123/2016

~ THE STATE OF NEW YORK

-- m ~$~=-=-~~=------------1
~ Total Postage and F\eb 45
$
Sen< .. --------
1212312~
---~-S:----

t::l New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman Office of 1\'EW YORK STATE OF BOARD OF ELECTION
1"- the Attorney General 40 North Pearl Street
The Capitol Suite 5

\
Albany, New York 12224-0341 Albany, New York 12207-2729
....

(
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not he filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTION
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
---------------------------------------------
0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) 'and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) NYS BOARD OF ELECTION
40 North Pearl Street Suite 5 Albany, New York 12207-2729 on (date) ; or
- - -- - - - - - - -- --

0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

- --------------------------------------
rr/ Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail70151730000143123545: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and$ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1:16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) THE STATE OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
---------------------------------------------
0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
- - - - - - - -- - - -- - -

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) STATE OF NEW YORK
Office of NYSAG The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 on (date) ; or

0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

ri Other (specifY): I served by USPS Certified Mail 70143490000010584912: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYND 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) ANDREW M. CUOMO, STATE OF NEW YORK Governor
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

CJ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
---------------

CJ I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) 'and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
- - - - -- - - -- -- - -

0 I served the summons on (name a/individual) Governor ANDREW M. CUOMO , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) STATE OF NEW YORK
State Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 on (date) ; or
------~-------=----~----------------------- - --------------
CJ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

tf Other (specifY): I served by USPS Certified Mail70151730000143123446: Summons, Petition with

Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
~ . Server's signature

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 !T'

~ iiiiaiiiiimu!iii~IG!ImD~~~~!I!!~~~~;;IIII..
cO
1.1') L---~~~--~~----------~~~~~~~~--~ .
LO
' CJ . Certified Mail Fee $3 0 30
,I:()
n ,m
m ~xtra Services & Fees (check i:>o1< add fee ~l.:~ate)
0 Returo Receipt (hardcopy) S --!ll.~-.u."""-
,..:1 0 Rab.rtn Recoipt (electronic) S $0 o 00
CJ 0 C..rtified Mail Restricted Delivery $ $(1 o (1(1
CJ OAduftSigntureRequirod $ $0.00
CJ 0 Adult Signature Restr'.cted DeliVery $

CJ Postage $ ~
5
6
12/23/2016
g;
,...:; $ .
Total Postage and~l...-45...____ _
~ J---~-~2'3/201/r'
_ ____ .,.--
.::t" , - tTo---' - - - - - - -
$
,...:; ,......... Kamala D. Harris. California Attorney General THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~ ,~~1 Office of the California Attorney General Governor Jerrv Brown
' cey,sJ 1300 "I" Street c/o State Capit~l, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814-2919 Sacramento,CA 95814
I tJ!' I 'I

1Foc- delivery information. visit our website at www.usps.com".

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

''.CJ
CJ
,CJ
!CJ

12/23/2016

}C>'~ ~ ALLX" PADll.L\

Edmund Gerald "lERRY" - - - _- - . __ _
<:.\.tl'f'OR: ;H SECRETARY OF STATE Governor Jerrv B BROWN Jr.
c Uda Suttt c/o St
S
. . rown
ate Capitol, Suite lt73
~to. CA95814
acramento, CA 95814
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. tJ YNO I : I~ ... C v.. I i.J 16 (B i<S' / DJ!ij

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be .filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name ofindividual and title, if any) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor Jerry Brown
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ---------------

0 I left the summons at the individual' s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
- -- -- - - - - -- - - --

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) Governor Jerry Brown , who is

----------~--------------------------
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
@The State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 on (date) ; or
-=~--------~------------------------------- ---------------
0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
----------------------------------------
rtf Other (specifY) : I served by USPS Certified Mail70160910000133857500: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 . . ...... , .
_

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) Alejandro "ALEX" PADILLA, California Secretary of State
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- - - - -- - - - - - - - - --

0 I left the summons at the individual' s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
- - - - - - - - - - - -- --

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) ALEX PADILLA, California Secretary of State , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) California Secretary of State
1500 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 on (date) ; or
----------------------~--------------------- - --------------
0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
----------------------------------------
~Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail70151730000143123439: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and$ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server's sign

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server 's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. NYWD I ~Q Ji;,~C\1"... fl./q~ (Bkt/ {)J .r)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) Edmund Gerald "JERRY" BROWN Jr. Governor
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

-----------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ---------------
0 I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) 'and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) Governor Jerry Brown , who is

----------~--------------------------
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 on (date) ; or

0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

'Other (specify) : I served by USPS Certified Mail 70143490000010584882: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and $ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00
--------- - --------- -

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server 's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

CivilActionNo. Nf/JD 1: lfo - c-v ---14.9G { fi?kS' j/JJ"S)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
was received by me on (date) 12/23/2016

0 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

---------------------------------
on (date) ; or
--------------------------------------------- ---------------
0 I left the summons at the individual' s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------------
' a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-------------------------------
on (date) 'and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
---------------

0 I served the summons on (name of individual) Kamala D. Harris, California Attorney General , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1300 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2919 on (date) ; or
--------------------~----------------------- ------------- - -
0 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
----------------------------------------
~Other (specify): I served by USPS Certified Mail 70143490000010584929: Summons, Petition with
Complaint and Petitioner's: MOL in support of Prohibitiory Relief; Proposed OSC with
TRO; Civil Cover Sheet; CASE ASSIGNMENT FORM & Management Plan; Dec.14, 2016
10:56 PM Notice to Respondents I agents to file OSC; NYND GENERAL ORDER #25

My fees are$ 0.00 for travel and$ 5.00 for services, for a total of$ 5.00
---------- - - - -- -- -- - -

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

lz(t 5/2 111 6

Date:
I I I Server's signatur

FRANK M. POHOLE
Printed name and title

753 39th Street

Brooklyn, New York 11232-3209

Server 's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 -----------

Pif 1:..oav ---

Flat Rate Env
---- .,....___ - .. -- - - - - -

<Domestic)
(NEW YORK, NY 10007}
<Flat Rate> BAY RIDGE
<Expected DeliverY Day) 5501 7TH AVf_
<Saturday 12124/2016) BROOKLYN
Certified l $3.30 NY
<USPS Certified Mail#) 11220-9997 ;
<70151730000l4312345~J) 3508030304
Retum 1 $2.70 1.2/2a/2016 <800) 275--8'/77 2: 1'1 PM
Receipt
(@USPS Retur11 Receipt #)
(9590940224436249618818) Procluct Sale Fina.l
PM 1-Day '1 $6.45 Description Qty Price
Flat Rate Env PM 1-Day
~Domestic} 1 $6.45
<NEW YORK . NY 10007) Flat Rate Env
<F lat Rate) <Domestic)
<Expected Delivery Day) <NEW YORK, NY 10004)
<Saturday 12/24/2016} <Flat Rate)
Ce!-t if 1 ed 1 $3 . 30 <Expected Deliver-y Day)
(ijijUSPS Certified Mail #) <Saturday 12/24/2016)
(70151730000143123552) Certified 1 $3.30
Return 1 $2.70 <USPS Cer-tified Mm i #')
Receipt <7015173oooo14at2~1507 l
<@USPS RetUI'Ii Reca i pt #) ReturT1 1 $2.70
{9590940224436249610764) Receipt
PM 2-Day 1 $6 45 <USPS Retur-n Receipt # l
F1a1 Rate Env (9590940224436249618825) .
Woreest ic) PM 2-Day 1 $6.45
-(SACPA~ENTO, CA 95814) Flat Rate Env
(Flat Rate} <Domestic)
\Expected Oel i very Day) \SACRAMENTO, CA 95814.l
:f!edr:esday 12/28/2016) <Flat Rate>
- ~ ~~t'flect 1 $3.30 (Expected Deliver-y Day)
(~S Certif1ed Mail #) <Wednesday 12/28/2016)
(70151730000143123439} Cert i f i ed 1 $3 . :30
Re~urn 1 $2 .70 <USPS Certified ~1ai1 #)
Receipt <70160910000133857500}
(~USPS Return Receipt #) Retut'n 1 $2.70
{959094022443624961fl795) Receipt
~f~ired 1 C$6.22) (@@USPS Return Hecei pt #)
:: :s:a~'a (9590940224436249618740)
! ~ f xed Amount:$6.22} PM 2-Day 1 $12.40
<Domestic)
$85 .88 <SACRAMENTO, CA 95814)
<Weight:1 Lb 9.30 O:z)
: ::0. . ., ;e~ ~ : ~ -~ 85.88 - CExpected Delivery Dav)
... ~-: Ot-e :.a~~: ~-~~: <Wednesday 12/28/2016)
Certified 1 $3.30
{@@USPS Certified Mail #)
(70143490000010584929)
~ ~;~ ~: ~ :~:::~: ~ Return 1 $2 .70
:.:.~ : ;::{" ~ :::_~----~,..~ ;_.~ :.E s Rece ipt
:~~ =~- :: :: {USPS Return Receipt #)
( 9590940224tJ36249618696)
Includes up 'to $50 ifl$Uf'ar.ce PM 2-Day 1 $6.<15
Flat Rate Env
Text. your tracking number to 28Tl7 <Domast ic)
~--:.s> to get the latest status. <ALBANY, NY 1220})
;:;. :;, "'-=:,:.;c .:;j D~!~ r~~!~<> may <Flat Rate)
:: .. ;, ~ . _~ - , com <Expected Delivery Day)
12/28/2016)
<Wednesday
Certified 1 $3. :30
(iiUSPS Certified Mai I #)
r701517300G014:H2354'1\
~e"t . .rn 1 $2.70
Rs:~'ct
JivSPS Return Receipt #)
(35?'J9402244362496l8788)
1 $6.45
 BAY RIDGE
5501 7TH AVE
BROOKLYN
NY
11220-9997
3508030304
12/23/2016 {800>275-8777 2:00 PM
==== = ======~~=======~=~====;==========
Product Sale Final
Description Qty Price
PM 2-tiay f - $6 .'80- -
<Domestic)
<ALBANY, NY 12224}
<Weight:! Lb 9.30 Oz>
<Expected Delivery Day)
<Wednesday 12/28/2016>
Certified 1 $3.30
<USPS Certified Mail #)
(70143490000010584912)
Retur-n 1 $2. 70
Receipt
(@USPS Return Receipt #)
(9590940224436249619853}
PM 2-0ay 1 $6.80
<Domestic)
<ALBANY, NV 12207)
<Weight:! Lb 9.30 Oz>
<Expected Delivery Day)
<Wednesday 12/28/2016>
Certified 1 $3.30
<USPS C~rtified Mail #}
{70143490000010584905}
Return 1 $2.70
Receipt
(@@USPS Return Receipt #}
(9590940224436249619846}
PM 2-0ay 1 $6.45
Flat Rate Env
<Domestic>
<ALBANY, NV 12224}
<Flat Rate)
<Expected Deliver-y Day)
<Wednesday 12/28/2016)
Certified 1 $3 .30
{fj)LJSPS Certified Mail #)
(70151730000143123446}
Return 1 $2.70
Receipt
<USPS Return Receipt #)
(9590940224436249618801)
PM 2-Day 1 $6. 45
Flat Rate Erw
-._.. -: = : ~ <Domestic}
<WASHINGTON, DC 20233)
<Flat Rate)
<Expected Delivery Day)
<Wednesday 12/28/2016}
Cert ified t $3.30
<USPS Certified Mail #)
(70143490000010584899}
~;:_-~ 1 $2.70
... :._:s"::::
-~ Re:....;-~ ;::eceint # )
--~~~'1022!!436249618856 )
1
$6.45
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 5
Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris
sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

Hon. Philip G. Minardo, JSC

NYS Supreme Court for the County of Richmond
DCM-Part6
26 Central A venue Courtroom 430
Staten Island, New York 10301
Chambers: 718-675-8600 Courtroom: 718-675-8602 Fax: 212-952-6471

Re: Ronald Castorina, Tr. etal. v. BILL DEBLASIO etal. Article 78 Petition 080258/2016 OSC w TRO

Subject: JUDICIAL NOTICE by AMICUS CURIE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK

The Honorable Philip G. Minardo,

The Subject Undersigned affirmant as Amicus hereby provides this Judicial Notice not afforded by the
parties herein of the related case Strunk v The State of Cal~(ornia etal in NYND Index No.: 16-cv-1496
(BKS/DJS) with application of a pending 28 USC 2284 Three Judge Court for an OSC with TRO before
the Hon. Brenda K. Sannes USDJ (see the annexed Proposed Order, MOL and Petition with Complaint
herewith); and Amicus urgently requests His Honor provide a written TRO continuation prior to the 5
January 2017 hearing of the OSC with TRO regarding the expected December 31, 2016 destruction of
IDNYC records and related documents to prevent Court embarrassment, in that such records inter alia
involve criminal obstruction spoliation by the Respondents in bad faith to their duties under color of
law, and germane to the case before the Hon. Brenda K. Sann aving yet to TRO according to
the Text Order attached. Respectfully submitted by,

top her Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris

sole beneficiary agent in propria persona
for CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
State ofNew York )
} ss.
Coll!!ty of Kings )

BEFORE ME, on this day personally appeared Christopher Earl Strunk, known to me to be the person described
herein Subject: JUDICIAL NOTICE by AMICUS CURIE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK and who solemnly
affirmed under the penalties of perjury that every statement given above was the whole truth to the best of his
knowledge. ~ I I \ \ 1 ' I

. -rT;} . , : -. ,.\1 .'1 ;~; 1

/ /
' I"' ' " //. "
2,l ..
Subscribed and Affirmed before me on this :::.L_clay of :Bef:ell.lR~r~ '2016.
~. ., " )

,' ;;n1.Jl'.'. t>;! ):' .j) (', ZEMIN WU

1
r ,_l,'.\: , .- ', '~ NbTARY -PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
__.: .. -> ' - 1WU6228541
-', ',~6t?IM-P~biic
-' I -<
,: Q~allfled
I J .) ' l
In Queens County
.
See service liSt of annexed documents a,; follows: " ..- --;;_, ' ' ~ ;. '!i Ylcommlss!on Expires September 20 , 20 1S
/ I ' tj ,.:: I ) ~ j: \ \ \ .
1
i I } I l I \ .
service list of annexed documents as follows:

JEFFREY ALFANO, ESQ.

representing Petitioners
1000 SOUTH AVE., SUITE 104
STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314
Ph.: 718-701-1441

CORPORATION COUNSEL
representing Respondents
60 BAY ST
STATEN ISLAND, NY 10301
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
FOR THE COUNTY OF RICHMOND Index No.: 080258 I 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Hon. Philip G. Minardo JSC
Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Maliotakis.
Petitioners,

-against- AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

BILL DE BLASIO etal.
Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------x

STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KINGS )

Accordingly, I, FRANK M POHOLE, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of
perjury:
a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
b. My place of business is located at 753 39th Street Brooklyn, NY 11232.
c. On December 27, 2016, Christopher Strunk instructed me to serve a true conformed copy of :
JUDICIAL NOTICE by AMICUS CURIE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK WITH annexed
documents affirmed December 27, 2016 in the Article 78 Petition Ronald Castorina, Tr. etal. v. BILL
DEBLASIO etal. 080258/2016 OSC w TRO, by overnight mail for delivery by the USPS upon
Petitioners and Respondents' counsels listed below.
d. On December 27, 2016, I caused each copy with proper postage for service by overnight mail that
was then deposited with proper postage with the USPS for service upon:

JEFFREY ALFANO, ESQ.

representing Petitioners CORPORATION COUNSEL
1000 SOUTH AVE., SUITE 104 representing Respondents
STATEN ISLAND, NY 10314 60BAYST
Ph.: 718-701-1441 STATEN ISLAND, NY 10301

Sworn to before me
~A~ RANKMPOH ' E

This E.!-
day of December 2016
YANYUHUI
~otaryPubUc, State of New York
) ~o. 01YA5025830
c;..._ _.,..
, ......::Q,!Jalitied'" Kings County JJ
,n!l'lmiti!lon Exoims Aoril 4, 20~
 I I IDnl~l~l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
CUSTOMER USE ONLY
FROM: (PLEASE PRINT)
PHONE( ) _______

ce STJ<I..pvK EL 365286155 US
1q I J-/AR.R.t5 AV /: ~
LA~E- Lv2.~~ ~J g~K9lk"
~~mz!IDI i ,...r
~~PS Corporate Acct. No. ' ' ' Federal Agency Acct No or Postal Serv1ce'" ~)U~
0 ~
11
..l "
L u
131~.uNITEDSTI1TEs
posTJJ.LsERvlcE
PRIORI T Y
* MAIL *
EXPREss
I
. .. . .. - . I
D SIGNATURE REQU IRED Note: The mailer must check the "Signature Required" box if the mailer; 1) .JJ.1~ 0 2-Day D Military D DPO i
Requires the addressee's signature; OR 2) Purchases additional insurance; OR 3) Purchases COD seNice; OR 4) 1-::-::-'~~---..-::--=--:-"-.---..,..==----'-------'=----j

mail receptacle or other secure location without attemp.ting to obtain the addressee's signature on delivery.

~~
I
Purchases Return Receipt service. If the box is not checked, the Postal Service will leave the item in the addressee's PO ZIP Code
~
n~~
\ Scheduled Delivery Date
(MM/DD/YY)

.L f"///
Postage

D No Saturday Delivery (delivered next business day) .(...- V \../ / ?.,f') h $

D Sunday/Holiday Delivery Required (additional fee, where available*)
D 10:30 AM Delivery Required (additional fee, where available*) Date Accepted (MM/DD/YY) Schedule~ Delivery Time Insurance Fee COD Fee

TO: I:L:::;;:,~~PS.com orlocal PostOHice-forav~bil,itp ?o / JU ll J /-Jt. 7 /J{, I~0 300PM $ $

PHONE ( I 0 .---'-.=..!~~f--~--f-++--J~
L.._- Time Acce~ted 10:30 AM Delivery Fee Return Receipt Fee Live Animal
Transportation Fee

J 'Cf'F'f?-~ A L FA tv() /?SQ. ' Weig! J. ~ 5~E: !undayMoliday Premium Fee $

Total Postage & Fees
$

I 0 () 0 s 0
uTH .AV suI f e' ~ 0 tf !cceptance Emfloyee Initials

'STATEf'J fJ ( ,4W '1 ' lbs~o

N ozs. !'"~~ $

ZIP, 4 (U.S& RESS3 0NLY)_ /_ L/ ~ -- -- - - -- Delivery Attempt (MMIDDIYY) Time

DAM
Employee Signature

0PM
Delivery Attempt (MM/DDIYY) Time Employee Signature
For pickup or USPS Tracking'", visit USPS.com or caii S00-2221811.
$100.00 insurance included.

LABE L 11B, SEPTEMBER 2015 PSN 7690020009996 2CUSTOMER COPY

I
FROM: (PLEASE PRINT]

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
C (2 ...S-rR\A ~K EL 365286169 US
1Lf f HAr2(ZtS Av,
LA J<te W Zerz,.v # i.Af I iJii!!!!!!f UNITED STIJTES I p R I0 R IT V
l!.iiif POSTIJ.L SERVICE E*X~ ~ ~LS~TM

2CUSTOMER COPY
FR~ ; s: /RW-' ~,1) /Jl~!:'!\ 1)~~~
' l~J~ Ill~~~~ ~~~IJlll[l I~IJI I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I Lf J /-fA~ !?.J c; A v <?~.1Q )
PRIORITY
LA 1<~ Lv 2e!Z tJ t;F A-J UNITED STIJ.TES
POSTAL SERVICE
*MAIL*
: ' I EXPRESS
USPS~ Corporate Acct. No. Federal Agency Acct . No. or Postal Service''" Acct. No.

0
~ .. . .
SIGNATURE REQUIRED Note: The mailer must check the ~signature Required~ box if the mailer: 1) ay 0 2-Day 0 Military 0 DPO
~=~:~~~~e~;~:;;,~~~~~~~~~e~x~~~~~~~:::~~:~~:a~!~~~r~~:~~~~~:a~:~::~!~~~h~e~~;~~:e~I--P-O-=Z=IP'-C-od-'e----,--=-.:...._-------;--=P=os-ta-ge_:.__ _ _ ___:=:..._-1
mail receptacle or other secure location without attempting to obtain the addressee's signature on delivery.

$ '2~--
Delivery Options
D No Saturday Delivery (delivered next business day)
0 Sunday/Holiday Delivery Required (additional fee, where available*)
Insurance Fee COO Fee
D 10:30 AM Delivery Required (additional fee, where available")
*Refer to USPS.coma or local Post Office ... for availabilit . $ $
TO: (PLEASE PRINT)
PHON EJ / 3 1G"1r 8 b 0 0 Return Receipt Fee Uve Animal . ._
Transportation Fee

H o,..;. PH I Lf f?r;;, , f'l\/ IV At~Do JS c $ $

Total Postage & Fees
t' LfS _SVfflt"'t1 ~ CoufZ1 Fq2 f<fcNMoJJP $
De: M PAter ~ Covfl'Tt<rJo,vt Lf3o lbs. ozs.
~ "- C e'f.J'Tft. AL " V-!:
ZIP + 4 (U.S . ADDRESSES ONLY)
i-tl. TtJV I ( . /J1 I
$

Delivery Attempt (MMIDDIYY) nme ee Signature

_1 fL }__ !2 _I - _ - - Delivery Attempt (MMIDDIYY) Time

DAM
DPM
Employee Signature
For pickup or USPS Tracking'", visit USPS.com or call 8002221811.
DAM
$100.00 insurance included.
DPM
LABEL 11-B, SEPTEMBER 2015 PSN 7690-02-0009996 2CUSTOMER COPY
CLERK; U.S. DISTRICT o)URT .;
N ( .i__:;;-;_,:
P.O. BOX 7367
100 S. CLINTON STREET 1.9 or::.-:. t.6
SYRACUSE, NEW"fORK 13261-7367

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 6
 Department of
Motor Vehicles
6 EMPIRE STATE PLAZA ALBANY, NY 12228

November 4, 2016

Christopher Earl Strunk

141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846

Re: Freedom of Information Law Request #2016-4195

Dear Mr. Strunk:

Your records request of August 25, 2016 has been processed. The status of your completed FOIL
request is as follows:

Pursuant to New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) 201, the statutory retention period for
the data you have requested is four (4) years; therefore, the last twenty years of data is not
available.

We have compiled the data for the last four years that is responsive to the following items in your
FOIL request:
Item 1 (b) Traffic fatalities, DWI, plus amount paid of fine for punishment (please
note that the number of traffic-fatalities and DWI arrests for each county are
available by accessing the links provided below; a spreadsheet showing the amount
ofthe fines paid is enclosed);
Item 1 (e) Private persons license suspended then returned in each county;
Item 1 (g) Suspended due to speeding in non-commercial vehicle; and
Item 2 (b) Suspended due to failure to pay child support.

Data on alcohol and drug related crashes and fatalities, as well as licenses and registrations issued
can be found on DMV's website: https://dmv.ny.gov /about-dmv /statistical-summaries.
Data regarding DWI arrests is available on New York State's Open Date website:
https: 1/data.ny.gov /Transportation/Traffic-Tickets-Issued-Four-Year-Window /q4hy-kbtf.

The information you are seeking in your request, (1) (c) and (d) is not available; DMV does not
store occupation or employment information for motorists.

It is unclear what data you are seeking in your requested items (1) (f): "suspended in each county
due to safety violation pastten" and (2) (a), (2) (c), (2) (d) and (2) (e): "suspended due to
infraction of administrative process"; "Taken due to inability to pay child support"; "Taken
because unable to pay any type of de.bt to state"; and "Take in each county due to child support".
www.dmv. ny.gov
FOIL requests must reasonaqly describe the records being sought (Public Officers Law
(95)(b)(ii)).

We have enclosed a Payment Request. We will release the records described above once we have
received your payment. Please remit payment to the address printed at the top of this letter. You
may include a copy of the enclosed Payment Request if you choose to pay by credit card.

Very truly yours,

L~ Turn.bul.L
Records Access Officer
NYS DMV
6 ESP- Room 327
Albany, NY 12228
Ph: (518) 474-0621
Lisa. Turnbull@dmv.ny.gov

Enclosure

www.dmv.ny.gov
 NEW
YORK
Department of
STATE Motor Vehicles
F R E E D O M OF INFORMATION LAW O F F I C E
6 EMPIRE STATE PLAZA . ROOM 222 . ALBANY, NY 12228

October 19, 2016

Christopher Earl Strunk

141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, NY 12846

Re: Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request # 2016-4195

Dear Mr. Strunk:

On August 25, 2016, you requested:

1. The last twenty years of data free of any personal information, sorted by county for all license
in the state of New York for:
a. Commercial and non-commercial licenses issued, including Cab Train Bus
b. Traffic fatalities, DWI, plus amount paid for fine for punishment
c. State employees license suspended but returned
d. Elected officials license suspended but returned
e. Private persons license suspended then returned in each county
f. Suspended in each county due to safety violation past ten
g. Suspended due to speeding in non-commercial vehicle
2. The last twenty years of data free of any personal information sorted by county for al
Commercial Drivers Licenses:
a. Suspended due to infraction of administrative process
b. Suspended due to failure to pay child support
c. Taken due to inability to pay child support
d. Taken because unable to pay any type of debt to state
e. Take in each county due to child support
3. The last twenty years of data free of any personal information sorted by county for all foreign
licenses suspended due to tickets in commercial vehicle and or money owe in state New
York.

On August 25, 2016 we told you that it could take 40 business days to complete your Freedom of
Information request.

We will need an additional 20 business days to complete your request. The reasons for this delay
are that our office is waiting for records to arrive from another office, and the amount of data you
have requested is substantial.

Respectfully,
Representative
Freedom of Information Law Office
www.dmv. ny.gov
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 7
Hm============================================================~

iEx.ecutiu.e 1il.epartm.ent
~fate of Qlalifomta

CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT

For

ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT and

VICE PRESIDENT of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2016

To the President of the Senate of the United States of America:

I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, herby certify,

pursuant to the laws of the United States and the State of California, that a General
Election was held in accordance with law in the State of California on Tuesday, the gth
day of November, 2016, for Electors of the President and Vice President of the United
States.

I further certify that the votes cast for Electors at the General Election were
canvassed and certified by the Secretary of State of the State of California, and the
Secretary of State has certified to me the names and number of persons receiving votes as
Electors.

I further certify that the following persons received the highest number of votes
for Electors of the President and Vice President of the United States for the State of
California, and have been appointed as Electors after the final ascertainment as required
by law:

ffiB==========================================================r:s
~!=============================================================~
California Democratic Party Electors Pledged to
Hillary Clinton for President of the United States and
Tim Kaine for Vice President of the United States:

Sandra M. Aduna Mark W. Headley Dustin R. Reed

Saundra G. Andrews Ana A. Huerta Olivia A. Reyes-Becerra
Janine V. Bera Donna M. Ireland Priscilla G. Richardson
Jane C. Block Christine T. Kehoe John M. Ryan
Edward Buck Vinzenz J. Koller Kathleen R. Scott
Francine P. Busby Andrew R. Krakoff Steve J. Spinner
Laphonza R. Butler Katherine A. Lyon Shawn E. Terris
Benjamin Cardenas John P. MacMurray Gail R. Teton-Landis
Jacki M. Cisneros Sheldon Malchicoff Robert S. Torres
Raymond L. Cordova Nury Martinez Marie S. Torres
Steven D. Diebert Gwen Moore Dorothy N. Vann
James A. Donahue Cathy A. Morris David S. Warmuth
Patrick F. Drinan Stephen J. Natoli Karen D. Waters
Susan Eggman Mark A. Olbert Shirley N. Weber
Timothy J. Farley Anal ea J. Patterson Denise B. Wells
Eileen Feinstein Mariano Christine P. Pelosi Gregory H. Willenborg
Natalie P. Fortman Carmen 0. Perez Laurence S. Zakson
Faith A. Garamendi Celine G. Purcell
Javier Gonzalez Andres Ramos

NUMBER OF VOTES-8,753,788

***
I further certify that the following persons received votes for Electors of the
President and Vice President of the United States for the State of California other than
those cast for the California Democratic Party Electors:

California Republican Party Electors Pledged to

Donald J. Trump for President of the United States and
Michael R. Pence for Vice President of the United States:

Joel Anderson Diane Harkey Donna Porter

Marilyn Barke Matthew Harmon Dennis Revell
Jennifer Beall Noel Irwin Hentschel Scott Robertson
Robert Bernosky Mark Herrick Carla Sands
Arun Bhumitra Tom Hudson Truong Si
Jim Brulte Kenneth Korbin Robert Smittcamp
Nachhattar Chandi Kevin Krick Mike Spence
Claire Chiara Jeff Lalloway Shawn Steel
Tim Clark Linda Lopez-Alvarez Mark Vafiades
Greg Conlon Robin Lowe Marcelino Valdez
Matthew Del Carlo Papa Doug Manchester Errol Valladares
Harmeet Dhillon Shirley Mark Cyndi Vanderhorst
Elizabeth Emken Chuck McDougald Megan Vincent
Jean Fuller John Musella Elissa Wadleigh
Ted Gaines Ron Nehring Deborah Wilder
Ron Gold Mike Osborn Dave Willmon
Lisa Grace-Kellogg Douglas Ose John Young
Barbara Grimm Marshall John Peck
Howard Hakes Pete Petrovich

NUMBER OF VOTES - 4,483,810

***

~i========================================================~
~!==========================================================~~
American Independent Party Electors Pledged to
Donald J. Trump for President of the United States and
Michael R. Pence for Vice President of the United States:

Linda Lea Alsbury Charles Edward Harrison, Jr. Robert Ornelas

Merwyn Alsbury
The Honorable Steve Baldwin
Gary Brown
Ruth Brown
Mark Brownlee
William C. Cardoza
Joseph J. Cocchi
Julie Colglazier
Kayla Colglazier
Patrick Colglazier
Dr. J. Steven Davis
Sallie Hansen Doman
The Honorable Robert K. Doman
Wiley Drake
Sally S. Easter
Ron Gold
The Honorable Virgil Goode
Jeff Grage
Thomas Nowlen Hudson Marilyn Plumb
The Honorable John LeBoutillier Jamie Rangel
The Honorable Robert Marc Levy Jeffrey Rangel
Mary Parker Lewis John Daniel Robertson
Gaudencio Gene Lopez Markham Robinson
Judy Lopez Mary Robinson
Raul Lopez Stephanie Roundy
Sheila Schultz Lopez Terrance Arthur Rust
Leonard Luna Dustin Paul Salsi
Kim McDermott Richard Scott Andrew Schalo
Eric McDermott David James Scholl
Arthur Loyal Morgan Mark J. Seidenberg
Matthew Justin Morgan Chris Smentech
Richard Matthew Nettleton, Sr. Glenn Smentech
Julie Marie Nettleton Michael Warnken
Marc Nettleton Jack Warren
Jaycob Andrew Ornelas
Melissa Ornelas

NUMBER OF VOTES - 4,483,810

***

Libertarian Party Electors Pledged to

Gary Johnson for President of the United States and
Bill Weld for Vice President of the United States:

Alexander Appleby Jonathan Jaech Shashi Ramchandani

Baron Bruno Sandra Kallander Joe Reynoso
Arman Chahal John Kendall Honor Robson
Alicia Garcia Clark David Kettering Brian W. Ryman
Edward Clark Manuel S. Klausner Brian Schar
Tracy Cramer Janine Kloss David Schrader
Joseph W. Dehn, III Tyler Kuskie Kurt Schultz
Barbara Engelhardt Paul Lazaga John Stagliano
Keith Ericson Roberto Leibman Aaron Starr
Richard Fields Thomas Lippman Brian Thiemer
Aubrey Freedman Benjamin T. Maes Emily Tilford
Nicholas Gerber Michael Martin Jarrett Tilford
Joshua Glawson Alex Mattis Susan Marie Weber
Noel R. Gregorio Denise Mehulic Robert G. Weber
Harland Harrison Catherine Mellor Randall Weissbuch
Jane Heider Gale Morgan William C. White
Nathan Hoffman Samuel W. Oglesby Martha de Forest
John Hoop Kenneth Brent Olsen
Linden Hsu Gardner Osborne

NUMBER OF VOTES - 478,499

***

ffiB====:=::;;======================================================ms:l
~==========================================================~!
Green Party Electors Pledged to
Jill Stein for President of the United States and
Ajamu Baraka for Vice President of the United States:

Daniel Alvarado Richard Gomez Ajay Rai

Sayareh Amirebrahimi Lindsey Harms John Edward Reid
William Arkfeld Tian Harter Ron Stacy Rodarte
Janet Arnold Greg Jan Luis Rodriguez
Doug Barnett Scott Kam Michael Rubin
Meredith Bates Tarik Kanaana David Shantz
Marla Bernstein Janet Kobren Nancy Shaw
Megan Buckingham Margaret Koteen Dana Silvernale
Timothy Casebolt Susan C. Lamont Susan Sonne
Jose Trinidad Castaneda Hassina Leelarathna Angelika Sonne
Linda Chimenti Jessy M. Lemieux Pamela Spevack
Susan Chunco Wanda Jean Lord Lisa Taylor
Margot Cox Bernard C. Macdonald John Torok
Frisco Del Rosario Genevieve Marcus Jesse Townley
Rachael A. Denny Patricia Marsh Jack Wagner
Sanda Everette Robert Marsh Paul Weiss
Michael Feinstein Peggy Oki Laura Wells
John Foran Samuel Payes
Michael Goldbeck Linda Piera Avila

NUMBER OF VOTES - 278,657

***
Peace and Freedom Party Electors Pledged to
Gloria Estela La Riva for President of the United States and
Dennis J. Banks for Vice President of the United States:

Meghann Adams Howard Johnson Victor Quintero

Kevin Akin Douglas Kaufman John Reiger
Margie Akin Eman Khaleq Debra Reiger
Richard Becker Ruben La Riva Jamier Sale
Jon Lowell Britton Gloria La Riva Teresa Sale
Sarah Carlson Tina Landis Erik Saucedo
Tanya Chase Frank Lara Lehma Amena Sawez
John Comly Shelby Lippencott Michelle Schudel
Yohana De Leon Esmeralda Loreto Fred Short
Gerald Allen Frink Abel Macias Margaret M. Smith
Anne M. Gamboni Evelyn C. Martinez Neal Sweeney
Nyree Hall Isaac Munoz Tahnee Sweeney
Maile Hampton Susan M. Muysenberg Dennis Terrill
Norma Harrison Toni Novak Cristina Villatoro
Estevan Hernandez Keith A. Pavlik Mackenzie Elizabeth Wilson
John Hershey Samuel Petker Preston Wood
Gary Hicks Adan Plascensia Sheila Xiao
Ron Holladay Kent Power
Nathalie Patricia Hrizi Emily Power

NUMBER OF VOTES - 66,101

***

~;====:=::;====================================================~
~==========================================================~
Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Bernard "Bernie" Sanders for President of the United States and
Tulsi Gabbard for Vice President of the United States:

Lydia M. Arbizo Jensen Hastings Mary Jo Poole

Rohana Barden Donald Hughes Barbara Maxson Proud
Sheila T. Barnes Alan Davis Hysinger David Robbins
Mary Kay Benson Ramona Irwin Christina Robinson
Deirdre Brinlee Benjamin Jenshus Cheryl L. Rogness
Alfred P. Bulf Lynn Kessler Kira Rogness
Renee J. Bulf Margaret Kincaid Lynn Root
Mary Beth Cameron Karissa Knurowski Rebecca Ross
Brian Carolus Donald Arthur Kronos Lisa S. Scouten
Caroline Coward Thomas Krouse Jason Christopher Small
Clayton Lee Daves Brenda Lee Colleen F. Sparks
Jaime R. Davis Tori Phebe Lin Robyn Sumners
Jonathan Fields Jerry Malamud Carol Thiesing
Catherine Fish Julie Marie Marsh Patrick Thiesing
Linda Beth Fox Ronald Massey Sheri Treanor
Patricia Gracian Jeffrey Scott Mccampbell Denece R. Vincent
Trish A. Guajardo Jeneva Miller Kathy Yurista
Catharine Anne Gunderson Patricia L. Moorea
Patricia A. Hamilton Deanna Lynn Polk

NUMBER OF VOTES - 12,108

***
Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Evan McMullin for President of the United States and
Nathan Johnson for Vice President of the United States:

Kenneth Reed Allen Cynthia Lea Guinto Holly Gwendlyn Nutt

Paul Cortland Ament Ari Hahyar Connie Jean Page
Lauren Michelle Monahan Applegate Jana Hall Andrew Parris
George Harry Aster Sarah P. Hancock Jeremy Christopher Powell
Daniel Frazier Booth Ernest Robert Heinzer Tauna Sanderson
Benjamin Christensen Roy D. Hensley Nathan Leslie Sandland
Kathleen L. Coleman Cecile L. Hodge Alexandra Shadle
George Gunerious "Garry" Cope Erin Michelle Hussey Keller Cara Lee Shelton
Susan Elaine Cottam Cynthia Kersey Jerdonek Jonathan Michael Shulman
Aaron Darling Kevin Kimball Janis Smith
Laura Christine Dillender Colin MacDonald Jeffrey B. Smith
Mary Policastro Dinsdale Richard Kevin Mansfield II Christina Ruth Snyder Morgan
Kerri Ann Downs Betty Ann Marquardt Angela Vereau
Marty Boyd Dye Patrick McBrearty Robert Michael Veylupek
Diane Parker Eldredge Julieta Mendoza David Joseph Watkins
Leonard Farello Peter Joseph Morrison Christine Wick
Jan Elizabeth Fry Thomas Craig Moulton Ryan E. Zachreson
Jocelyn Nielsen Goldberg Laurel Staten Nguyen
James Groenke Jonathan Nguyen

NUMBER OF VOTES - 7,194

***

ffiB===========================================================~
~=========================================================P.
Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Mike Maturen for President of the United States and
Juan Munoz for Vice President of the United States:

Sara Ahmed Lisa L. Hammill Sasha Anne Oates

George Angelo
Craig Bernthal
Joseph Bidwell
James M. Boubonis
Victoria Silvestri Carroll
Brian Thomas Carroll
Liam Jon Cheney
Therese Collins
Nicholas Collins
Noelle Combs
Adam N. Crawford
Melissa M. Crawford
Kenneth E. Crawford
Jeff Culbreath
LeXuan Culbreath
Benjamin Michael Ebbink
Philip B.R. Gallanders
Ryan Hammill
Mary Hammond John Piasecki
Lee M. Hammond Sharon Piasecki
Tami Watanabe Heckmann Justin Redemer
Ross Steven Heckmann Theresa Marie Russ Covich
Brian David Heckmann Benjamin Seidl
Bradley Heidenberg Sara A. Silveira
Jonathan Holowaty Desmond A. Silveira
Lindsay Katherine Howie Gamino Dennis Paul Slavens
Gary A. Huber Jesse David Slavens
Edward L. Hull Fanny Surjana
Olukemi A. Ingram Cheri Walters
Leslie Shaw Klinger Kenneth Richard Walters, Jr.
John Henry Lamming Trish A. Warfield
Darin Richard Lovelace Christopher R. Weinkopf
Marc Gregory Mason Justin Welter
Laurel Muff Teri L. Wilkie
Stephen Geoffrey Muff
Kay Gorrnan Nicholas

NUMBER OF VOTES - 196

***

Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate

Laurence Kotlikofffor President of the United States and
Edward Leamer for Vice President of the United States:

Diana Bailey Dale Frank Lizabeth Story Maynard

Kathleen Mackin Baptist Deborah Ann Glassman Kenneth McAuley
Antonio Bernardo Larry Grobe! Moritz Meyer-Ter-Vehn
Sidford Lewis Brown Jonathan Louis Gu Arna Lynn Neel
Lynn Tevis Burleson Barbara Brandl in Hines Richard Randolph Phillips
Patricia Arnold Buss Patrick Kevin Hines Derek Ricke
Kevin Cati in Daniel J. Houk Elaine Robinson-Frank
Gregory Chazanas Nancy To Huynh Jerred Scheive
Gaby Chazanas Laurie Jurado Karen J. Schwartz
Dora Luisa Costa Matthew Edwin Kahn Abraham Michael Sipe
Howard Darvey Joseph Kahn Shruti Srinivasan
Robert Dekle Micheline Kaldawi Ma Fatima Victorino Valencia
Richard Alan Destin Bassam Kaldawi Romain Wacziarg
Jeff Dollinger Krishna B. Kumar Christopher Paul Wazzan
Adam Turner Dumper Karen Levine T. Jon Williams
Dawn Elise Eash Peter Eugene Liberti Linus Yamane
Alejandra Cox Edwards Beverly Lowe Julie G. Yamane
Paul Michael Feinberg Esther Margulies
Patricia Nomura Feinberg Armenak Markosyan

NUMBER OF VOTES - 53

***

ffiB========================================================ffiB
~~===========================================================~
Electors Pledged to Write-In Candidate
Jerry White for President of the United States and
Niles Niemuth for Vice President of the United States:

Sheen Adame Alan Gelfand Alexa Navarro

Michael L. Becker Evan Hudson Gerardo Nebbia
Jose Mateo Bernal Nancy Ingram Donald G. Norris
Glenn Brightwell Staness Jonekos Christina Pederson
John Brightwell Diana Jones Latrel Powell
John C. Burton Jeffry Alan Jones Toby Remmers
Nelly J. Carlisle Genevieve Jones Kale Roseen
Frederick S. Choate Kirandeep Kaur Juan Santana
Geraldine Ann Clifford Nora Kimie Kuzay Jonathan Seibel
Matthew J. Crooke Liana LeBaron Heinz Jakob Strunk
Celia Cruz-Elmassian Sandy Leonardis Luana R. Turner
Roseanna Carolyn D' Amico Robert Bruce Livingston William Van Auken
Anthony Delgado Marco Marinangeli Daniel Viruleg
Carole D. Denton Robert Marston Brendan Weinhold
John Albert Dragstedt Michael McClain Jeremy C.R. Wells
Patricia Evans Kevin Mitchell Morris White
Christopher Franklin David Moore Carolyn L. Zaremba
Robert Douglas Gafford Dwight V. Moore
Norissa Gastelum Maria Munoz-Nebbia

NUMBER OF VOTES - 7

***

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto

set my hand and caused the Great Seal of
the State of California to be affixed
this 12th day of December 2016.

ED&!w:JR11o ~?
Governor of California

Attest:

Secretary of State

~i=========================================================~
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In the matter of:

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VARYING

THE USUAL SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERING A MOTION WHEN A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT
PENDING A THREE JUDGE COURT

Exhibit 8
 ~

~~~~~~~~~~)))~
~!~~tl!-0
--- -- ~_...._ ~~--
~~ ~~

c@
r- ~-
C;-;2-Q, :-~-.:S ;-)~
~!!~$i~t ~IJ~~.lt~~~
~~~~~
~ - ~
- ___,, 03---
I, Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, do hereby certify, that the statement containing the
Canvass and Certificate of Determination by the State Board of Canvassers of the State of New York, as to ELECTORS
of PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT hereto annexed, and certified by the Co-Chairs of the State Board of Elections
of New York, under their seal of office, contains a true and correct list setting forth the names of Electors of President
and Vice-President, elected in New York, at the General Election held in New York on the Tuesday after the First
Monday in November (November Eighth) in the year two thousand sixteen, pursuant to the Constitution and the Laws
of the United States and of the State of New York, to wit:

William J. Clinton Mario F. Cilento

Andrew M. Cuomo Rhonda Weingarten
Kathy C. Hochul George K. Gresham
Thomas P. DiNapoli Daniel F. Donohue
Eric T. Schneiderman Stuart H. Appelbaum
Carl E. Heastie Gary S. LaBarbera
Andrea Stewart-Cousins Lovely A. Warren
Bill de Blasio Stephanie A. Miner
Letitia A. James Katherine M. Sheehan
Scott M. Stringer Anastasia M. Somoza
Melissa Mark-Viverito Sandra Ung
Byron W. Brown Ruben Diaz, Jr.
Christine C. Quinn Hazel L. Ingram
Basil A. Smikle, Jr. Rachel D. Gold
Melissa Sklarz

And further that the Statement of Canvass and Certificate of Determination certified by the Co-Chairs of the
State Board of Elections of New York, as aforesaid, correctly sets forth the Canvass of Determination under the Laws
of the State of New York, of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose elections any and all votes
have been given or cast at said election as aforesaid.

In Testimony Whereof, The Great Seal of the State is

hereunto affixed.

rk, the ninth

Attested by

Secretary of State
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:

We, the State Board of Elections, constituting the State Board of Canvassers, having
canvassed the whole number of votes given for the office of ELECTOR of PRESIDENT and
VICE-PRESIDENT at the General Election held in said State on the eighth day of November,
2016, according to the certified statements of the said votes received by the State Board of
Elections, in the manner directed by law, do hereby determine, declare and certify that

William J. Clinton Mario F. Cilento

Andrew M. Cuomo Rhonda Weingarten
Kathy C. Hochul George K. Gresham
Thomas P. DiNapoli Daniel F. Donohue
Eric T. Schneiderman Stuart H. Appelbaum
Carl E. Heastie Gary S. LaBarbera
Andrea Stewart-Cousins Lovely A. Warren
Bill de Blasio Stephanie A. Miner
Letitia A. James Katherine M. Sheehan
Scott M. Stringer Anastasia M. Somoza
Melissa Mark-Viverito Sandra Ung
Byron W. Brown Ruben Diaz, Jr.
Christine C. Quinn Hazel L. Ingram
Basil A. Smikle, Jr. Rachel D. Gold
Melissa Sklarz

was, by the greatest number of votes given at said election, duly elected ELECTORS of
PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT of the United States.

GIVEN under our hands in the city of Albany, New York, this sth day of December in the
year two thousand sixteen.

Douglas A. Kellner Commissioner

Peter S. Kosinski Commissioner
Andrew J. Spano Commissioner
Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner

STATE OF NEW YORK )

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ) ss:

We certify that we have compared the foregoing with the original certificate filed in this
office, and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original.

GIVEN under our hands and seal of office of the State Board of Elections, at the city of
Albany I this sth day of December, 2016.

@;;6.!~ ~~~--
~ Q Peter S. Kosinski
Co-Chair Co-Chair


STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

Statement of the whole number of votes cast for all the candidates for the office of
ELECTOR OR PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT at a General Election held in said State on
the Eighth day of November, 2016.

The whole number of votes given for the office of ELECTOR OF PRESIDENT and VICE-
PRESIDENT was 7,700,223 of which

WORKING WOMEN'S
DEMOCRATIC FAMILIES EQUALITY TOTAL
William J. Clinton received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Andrew M. Cuomo received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Kathy C. Hochul received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Thomas P. DiNapoli received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Eric T. Schneiderman received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Carl E. Heastie received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Andrea Stewart-Cousins received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Bill de Blasio received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Letitia A. James received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Scott M. Stringer received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Melissa Mark-Viverito received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Byron W. Brown received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Christine C. Quinn received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Basil A. Smikle, Jr. received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Melissa Sklarz received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Mario F. Cilento received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Rhonda Weingarten received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
George K. Gresham received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Daniel F. Donohue received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Stuart H. Appelbaum received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Gary S. LaBarbera received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Lovely A. Warren received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Stephanie A. Miner received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Katherine M. Sheehan received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Anastasia M. Somoza received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Sandra Ung received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Ruben Diaz, Jr. received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Hazel L. Ingram received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
Rachel D. Gold received 4,316,642 138,843 35,706 4,491,191
STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE TOTAL

Adrian H. Anderson received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
John Burnett received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Guy T. Parisi received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Edward F. Cox received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Thomas V. Dadey, Jr. received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
John J. Flanagan received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Brian M. Kolb received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Charles P. Joyce received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Peter Kalikow received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Sandra King received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Nicholas A. Langworthy received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
John Jay Lavalle received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Gary J. Lavine received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Stephen Louro received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Adele Malpass received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Susan . E. McNeil received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Joseph N. Mondello received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Edward F. Morgan received 2,501,200 288,873 2, 790,073
Carl P. Paladino received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
William Reilich received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Todd Rouse received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Jennifer Saul Rich received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Raymond Scollin received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Meilin Tan received 2,501,200 488,873 2,790,073
Donald J. Trump, Jr. received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Gerard Kassar received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Shaun Marie Levine received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Howard Lim, Jr. received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
Rodney J. Strange received 2,501,200 288,873 2,790,073
STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

GREEN TOTAL
Cassie Wilson received 106,995 106,995
Eric Jones received 106,995 106,995
Nancy Morelle received 106,995 106,995
Daniella Liebling received 106,995 106,995
Joshua Feintuch received 106,995 106,995
Michael D. Emperor received 106,995 106,995
Craig A. Seeman received 106,995 106,995
Jennifer R. White received 106,995 106,995
James C. Lane received 106,995 106,995
Marianne Schwab received 106,995 106,995
Rochelle Dorfman received 106,995 106,995
James R. Brown, III received 106,995 106,995
Christine S. Schmidt received 106,995 106,995
Gail B. Brown received 106,995 106,995
Julia Willebrand received 106,995 106,995
Joanne Landy received 106,995 106,995
Claudia Flanagan received 106,995 106,995
Martha Kessler received 106,995 106,995
Christopher Archer received 106,995 106,995
James McCabe received 106,995 106,995
Gil Obler received 106,995 106,995
John Baldwin received 106,995 106,995
Howie Hawkins received 106,995 106,995
Mary House received 106,995 106,995
Frank Cetera received 106,995 106,995
Darin Robbins received 106,995 106,995
Peter Lavenia received 106,995 106,995
Theresa Portelli received 106,995 106,995
Delbert Gregory received 106,995 106,995
STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

INDEPENDENCE TOTAL
Frank M. MacKay received 118,118 118,118
Kristin A. MacKay received 118,118 118,118
William Bogardt received 118,118 118,118
Robert G. Pilnick received 118,118 118,118
Thomas S. Connolly, Jr. received 118,118 118,118
Paul Caputo received 118,118 118,118
Valerie Caputo received 118,118 118,118
Stephen P. Corryn received 118,118 118,118
Joseph L. Baruth, Sr. received 118,118 118,118
Lee A. Kolesnikoff received 118,118 118,118
Thomas R. Hatfield received 118,118 118,118
Teresa Bogardt received 118,118 118,118
Thomas A. Connolly received 118,118 118,118
Dennis R. Zack received 118,118 118,118
Susan L. McGuire received 118,118 118,118
Richard Belando received 118,118 118,118
Maryellen Belando received 118,118 118,118
Debra Burns received 118,118 118,118
Michael Amo received 118,118 118,118
Niki Lee Rowe received 118,118 118,118
John B. MacKay received 118,118 118,118
Scott R. Major received 118,118 118,118
Robert J. Bogardt received 118,118 118,118
Anna C. Bogardt received 118,118 118,118
Barbara Pilnick received 118,118 118,118
Edward G. Miller received 118,118 118,118
Joanne Foresta received 118,118 118,118
Avarham Gvili received 118,118 118,118
Michael Zumbluskas received 118,118 118,118
STATE OF NEW YORK, ss:

LIBERTARIAN TOTAL
Mark N. Axinn received 56,833 56,833
Jeffrey T. Russell received 56,833 56,833
Richard A. Cooper received 56,833 56,833
Roger J. Cooper received 56,833 56,833
Pamela Connolly Tangredi received 56,833 56,833
John Clifton received 56,833 56,833
Steven G.T. Becker received 56,833 56,833
Shawna L. Cole received 56,833 56,833
Hesham El-Meligy received 56,833 56,833
,
Mark E. Glogowski received 56,833 56,833
Andrew Martin Kolstee received 56,833 56,833
William P. McMillen received 56,833 56,833
Gary S. Popkin received 56,833 56,833
Andrew Rogers received 56,833 56,833
Robert N. Power, III received 56,833 56,833
Alton Yee received 56,833 56,833
Robert E. Schuon, Jr. received 56,833 56,833
Brian Waddell received 56,833 56,833
Christian Padgett received 56,833 56,833
Kevin Wilson received 56,833 56,833
Erik Bell received 56,833 56,833
Harold W. Barnett, Jr. received 56,833 56,833
Arthur Rosen received 56,833 56,833
Edward Garrett received 56,833 56,833
Shawn Hannon received 56,833 56,833
Matthew Mahler received 56,833 56,833
Charles Miller received 56,833 56,833
Mark Potwora received 56,833 56,833
James Rosenbeck received 56,833 56,833
 GIVEN under our hands in the city of Albany, New York, this sth day of December in the
year two thousand sixteen.

Douglas A. Kellner Commissioner

Peter S. Kosinski Commissioner
Andrew J. Spano Commissioner
Gregory P. Peterson Commissioner

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS )

We certify that we have compared the foregoing with the original certificate filed in this
office, and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original.

GIVEN under our hands and seal of office of the State Board of Elections, at the city of
Albany, this 8th day of December, 2016.

~
=-=======
Peter S. Kosinski
Co-Chair
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil case No: I r: /tb ~ cV~JifCJ6 (BKSjDJ<;')
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the matter of:

Christopher Earl Strunk, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner

versus

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

Defendants/Respondents

QUALIFIED POLITICAL PARTIES: American Independent Party (AlP), Democratic Party,

Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Republican Party; Independence
Party; Senator Bernie Sanders; California AG; New York AG, NYC Corporation Counsel,
and U.S. Attorney.

Parties-in-interest.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Upon the annexed Verification of Petitioner CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK affirmed

to on the 12th day of December, 2016, and all of exhibits annexed thereto, and the

verified Memorandum of Law dated 12th day of December 2016, and upon all the

1
proceedings heretofore had herein, let the Respondents, or their attorneys show cause at

Courtroom _ _ _ held in the ______Courthouse for the United States District

Court for the Northern District of New York, located at _ _ __ _ _ _ ___,

Albany, New York on the day of _ day of December 2016 at _ _ o'clock in the

_ _ noon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard why an Order

should not be made and entered granting the Plaintiff the following relief:

Permanent Injunction regarding a finding and relief after trial before a 28 USC

2284 Three Judge Court in the matter of:

A. DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND FUNDAMENTAL EQUAL

PROTECTION INFRINGEMENT UNDER USC TITLE 3 AND 2 USC 6

1. That the 2016 POTUS Elector slates presented Twenty-nine (29) in New York and

Fifty-five (55) in California for the respective President of the United States (POTUS)

candidates' parties for Trump-Pence in California and Johnson-Weld in New York

were not jointly resolved on 8 November 2016 at the General Election, and that

Public Officers acted contrary to the respective State's code and or law that was not

equally applied under USC Title 3 and therefore representation must be

proportionately reduced under 2 USC 6;

2. California Public Officers infringe rights of Plaintiff in New York as an equal

protection issue because of its malicious failure to administer and enforce California

Code , due Plaintiff with equal protection of the code and or law under USC Title 3,

2
 is denied; and as such, are substantive due process and fundamental equal

protection issues of infringement of Plaintiff's citizen fundamental rights as citizens

similarly situated in both New York and California election of POTUS I VPOTUS;

and respectively

a. based upon the California Trump-Pence vote of say 4.45 million by say 14

million total is say 32% of the total 53 US House members of the electoral

college or a reduction under 2 USC 6 of 17 California Electoral Votes with a

remainder of say 28 then all to be elected at large under 2 USC 2a (c)(4) until

the 2020 decennial census enumeration; and

b. based upon the New York Johnson-Weld vote of say 280 thousand divided by

say 7.17 million vote total is say 0.039% times twenty-seven (27) US House

members or a reduction of one (1) US House member under 2 USC 6 to a

twenty-eight (28) New York Electoral Votes, and then all to be elected at large

under 2 USC 2a (c)(4) until the 2020 decennial census enumeration.

B. CONSPIRACY TO DENY SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND FUNDAMENTAL

EQUAL PROTECTION INFRINGEMENT UNDER 8 USC 1324

3. California Public Officers infringes rights of Plaintiff citizen right to vote at the

respective election in New York by California public officer malfeasance contrary to

8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens aids and abets non-

citizens and or illegal aliens to vote in California as a conspiracy that constitutes

3
 fundamental infringement under 2 USC 2a(c)(4) to be punished under 2 USC 6 as

New York Plaintiff citizen's upstate has nominal non-citizens in comparison to the

illegal sanctuary violations of law downstate New York granted additional electoral

power in the POTUS election using illegal aliens wherein no less than say two (2)

House Members are given to NYC downstate and with sanctuary for say 3 million

illegal aliens (3,000,000 by 750,000 per US House member), or four (4) US House

members for California not entitled, thereby dilutes and disproportionately

diminishes Plaintiff's vote property in the New York electoral college size by say net

two (2) members- infringement to be reduced under 2 USC 6; and added to the

above reductions renders California with a remainder of 24 elector votes and New

York with a remainder of 26 elector votes.

C. CONSPIRACY TO DENY SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND FUNDAMENTAL

EQUAL PROTECTION INFRINGEMENT UNDER 8 USC 1324 WITH 18 USC 611

4. New York Public Officers infringe rights of Plaintiff domicile of upstate New York,

such that the public officer conspiracy is against 18 USC 611 and the New York

Constitution to disproportionately dilute and diminish the Plaintiff's vote property

upstate to his detriment, in that the downstate city of New York and its suburbs that
f; ,..V
benefit from illegal alien sanctuary that u~Federal funds to concentrat~ vast super

majority of illegal aliens notwithstanding the penalty calculations above after trial

found guilty New York is rendered with only three (3) Electors Votes under 2 USC

4
 6 and USC Title 3 then all to be elected at large under 2 USC 2a (c)(4) until the

2020 decennial census enumeration; and

5. California Public Officers under their enactment infringe rights of Plaintiff domicile

of upstate New York, such that the public officer conspiracy is against 18 USC 611

and the California Constitution to disproportionately dilute and diminish the

Plaintiff's vote property among those California citizens similarly situated to his and

their detriment notwithstanding the penalty calculations above after trial found

guilty California is rendered with only three (3) Electors under 2 USC 6 then all to

be elected at large under 2 USC 2a (c)(4) until the 2020 decennial census

enumeration.

6. Together with such other and further relief as to this Court may deem just, proper,

and equitable.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: SUFFICIENT REASON APPEARING,

THEREFORE, it is ORDERED, that pending the return date o~ this motion, the

respondents are hereby enjoined and precluded from the destruction of any and all

materials associated with the 2016 General Election cycle including those not limited to

the respective Motor Vehicle Department, Boards of Election in each County and or

Municipality associated with provisions of Elections and respective identification

program(s), and it is further

5
 ORDERED:

A. of National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Archivist not to deliver

the Elector Tally of either California or New York to the US House as substantially

complete until there is a trial and finding on the above;

B. of the President of the United States Senate not to deliver the Elector Tally of either

California or New York to the US Senate as substantially complete until there is a

trial and finding on the above;

C. of the Governor of New York, New York Board of Elections and Commissioners not

to deliver the Elector Tally of New York to the NARA Archivist and or President of

the US Senate as substantially complete until there is a trial and finding on the

above;

D. of the Governor of California, and Secretary of States of California not to deliver the

Elector Tally of California to the NARA Archivist and or President of the US Senate as

substantially complete until there is a trial and finding; and it is further

ORDERED that:

E. All Defendants and their agents are restrained from destroying and or alternating any

record of the 2016 Election Cycle back until the 2012 Election Cycle and make the

records transparent and available at trial for a finding on the above;

F. The City of New York (NYC), NYC Mayor and Commissioners of the NYC Board of

Election and their agents are restrained from destroying and or alternating any record

6
 of the 2016 Election Cycle and or NYC Identification records and make the records

transparent and available at trial for a finding on the above; and it is further

ORDERED that:

G. The US Attorney along with the California and New York Attorneys General and their

agents shall assist the court in comparison of the Voter rolls and Motor Vehicle records

of the respective state of California and New York records for comparison with the

Federal Immigration records, National Voter Registration database, Motor Vehicle

database and County voter registrar records.

H. The US Bureau of the Census Director is to deliver an accurate certified record of all

non-citizens and or illegal aliens enumerated in every state of the several states since

the 2000 census enumeration by the trail; and

I. Such other and different relief as the court judges necessary for justice herein including

but not limited to reimbursement for delivery of records and assistance of an attorney at

trial. it is further

ORDERED, that service of a copy of this order, and the papers upon which it was granted

upon the Defendants I Respondents and or individuals by personal attorney via overnight

delivery, on of before the _ _ _ day of December, 2016 be deemed good, sufficient and

timely service.

ENTER

USDJ

7
ChristopherEarlStrunk,inpropriapersona
141HarrisAvenue
LakeLuzerne,NewYork12846
Ph:7184143760Email:cestrunck@yahoo.com

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK
CivilCaseNo:1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

xx
Inthematterof:

ChristopherEarlStrunk,IndividuallyofNewYork;
Plaintiff,Petitioner
versus

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA with Edmund GeraldJERRYBROWN Jr.,Individually and

as Governor; and Alejandro ALEX PADILLA, Individually and as Secretary of State (SOS);
THE STATE OF NEW YORK with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as Governor;
THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ELECTIONS with Republican Peter S. Kosinski /
CoChair, Democrat Douglas A. Kellner / CoChair, Republican Andrew J. Spano /
CommissionerandDemocratGregoryP.Peterson/Commissioner;THECITYOFNEWYORK
(NYC);WarrenBILLDEBLASIOWilhelmJr.,IndividuallyandastheMayorofNYC;THE
NYCBOARDOFELECTIONSwithCommissionersofElections:MariaR.GuastellaPresident,
Frederic M. UmaneSecretary, Jose Miguel Araujo,John Flateau, Ph.D., Lisa Grey, Michael
Michel, Michael A. Rendino, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, Rosanna Vargas,
Commissioners;; NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION;
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCEBUREAUOFTHECENSUS;
Defendants/Respondents

QUALIFIED POLITICAL PARTIES: American Independent Party (AIP), Democratic Party,

Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Republican Party; Independence
Party;SenatorBernieSanders;CaliforniaAG;NewYorkAG,NYCCorporationCounsel,and
U.S.Attorney.
Partiesininterest.
xx
PETITIONERSMEMORANDUMOFLAWINSUPPORTOFPROHIBITORYRELIEF

Petitioner, in propria persona, based upon probable cause submits this memorandum in

support of a 28 U.S. Code (USC) 2284 Threejudge court mandamus for restraint of

1
Respondents,astimeisoftheessencebeforethe19December2016ElectoralCollegevoteofthe

50statesoftheseveralstateswithimminentirreparableharmon6January2017,withnoother

adequate remedy at law, and with a likelihood of success based upon the allegations and

supportingaffirmationofthePetitionwithComplaintherewithastothefollowingissues:

DENIALOFSUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESSANDFUNDAMENTALEQUAL

PROTECTIONINFRINGEMENTUNDERUSCTITLE3AND2USC6

1. Thatthe2016POTUSElectorslatespresentedTwentynine(29)inNewYorkandFiftyfive

(55) in California for the respective President of the United States (POTUS) candidates

parties for TrumpPence in California and JohnsonWeld in New York were not jointly

resolved on 8 November 2016 at the General Election, and that Public Officers acted

contrarytotherespectiveStatescodeandorlawthatwasnotequallyappliedunderUSC

Title3andthereforerepresentationmustbeproportionatelyreducedunder2USC6;

2. Further California Public Officers infringe rights of Plaintiff in New York as an equal

protectionissuebecauseofitsmaliciousfailuretoadministerandenforceCaliforniaCode,

duePlaintiffwithequalprotectionofthecodeandorlawunderUSCTitle3,isdenied;and

as such, are substantive due process and fundamental equal protection issues of

infringement of Plaintiffs citizen fundamental rights as citizens similarly situated in both

NewYorkandCaliforniaelectionofPOTUS/VPOTUS;andrespectively

a. based upon the California TrumpPence vote of say 4.45 million by say 14 million

total is say 32% of the total 53 US House members of the electoral college or a

reductionunder2USC6of17CaliforniaElectoralVoteswitharemainderofsay28

2
 thenalltobeelectedatlargeunder2USC2a(c)(4)untilthe2020decennialcensus

enumeration;and

b. basedupontheNewYorkJohnsonWeldvoteofsay280thousanddividedbysay7.17

million vote total is say 0.039% times twentyseven (27) US House members or a

reductionofone(1)USHousememberunder2USC6toatwentyeight(28)New

YorkElectoralVotes,andthenalltobeelectedatlargeunder2USC2a(c)(4)until

the2020decennialcensusenumeration.

CONSPIRACYTODENYSUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESSANDFUNDAMENTALEQUAL

PROTECTIONINFRINGEMENTUNDER8USC1324

3. Further California Public Officers infringes rights of Plaintiff citizen right to vote at the

respectiveelectioninNewYorkbyCaliforniapublicofficermalfeasancecontraryto8U.S.

Code1324Bringinginandharboringcertainaliensaidsandabetsnoncitizensandorillegal

alienstovoteinCaliforniaasaconspiracythatconstitutesfundamentalinfringementunder

2USC2a(c)(4)tobepunishedunder2USC6asNewYorkPlaintiffcitizensupstatehas

nominal noncitizens in comparison to the illegal sanctuary violations of law downstate

New York granted additional electoral power in the POTUS election using illegal aliens

wherein no less than say two (2) House Members are given to NYC downstate and with

sanctuary for say 3 million illegal aliens (3,000,000 by 750,000 per US House member), or

four (4) US House members for California not entitled, thereby dilutes and

disproportionately diminishes Plaintiffs vote property in the New York electoral college

3
 sizebysaynettwo(2)membersinfringementtobereducedunder2USC6;andaddedto

theabovereductionsrendersCaliforniawitharemainderof24electorvotesandNewYork

witharemainderof26electorvotes.

CONSPIRACYTODENYSUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESSANDFUNDAMENTALEQUAL

PROTECTIONINFRINGEMENTUNDER8USC1324WITH18USC611

4. FurtherNewYorkPublicOfficersinfringerightsofPlaintiffdomicileofupstateNewYork,

such that the public officer conspiracy is against 18 USC 611 and the New York

ConstitutiontodisproportionatelydiluteanddiminishthePlaintiffsvotepropertyupstate

tohisdetriment,inthatthedownstatecityofNewYorkanditssuburbsthatbenefitfrom

illegal alien sanctuary that us Federal funds to concentrates vast super majority of illegal

aliensnotwithstandingthepenaltycalculationsaboveaftertrialfoundguiltyNewYorkis

renderedwithonlythree(3)ElectorsVotesunder2USC6andUSCTitle3thenalltobe

electedatlargeunder2USC2a(c)(4)untilthe2020decennialcensusenumeration;and

5. FurtherCaliforniaPublicOfficersundertheirenactmentinfringerightsofPlaintiffdomicile

ofupstateNewYork,suchthatthepublicofficerconspiracyisagainst18USC611andthe

California Constitution to disproportionately dilute and diminish the Plaintiffs vote

property among those California citizens similarly situated to his and their detriment

notwithstanding the penalty calculations above after trial found guilty California is

renderedwithonlythree(3)Electorsunder2USC6thenalltobeelectedatlargeunder2

USC2a(c)(4)untilthe2020decennialcensusenumeration.

4
 STANDARDFORREVIEW

Therequestfora28USC2284Threejudgecourtisproperherein,inthattheapportionmentof

U.S.HouseSeatsisaffecteduntilthenext2020decennialCensus;andthattheCourtsstandard

for review in this matter as to the status quo is that Petitioner (Movant) request for an

prohibitory injunction against government action taken in the public interest is pursuant to a

statutory or regulatory scheme such as the Federal Respondents tallying of the electoral

votesprovidedbythestatesoftheseveralstatesmustshowtwothings:1)thattheinjunction

is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the Movant; and 2) that the Movant is likely to

succeed on themerits.Rodriguez,175 14F.3d at 233, using theHoblock Opinion 045876cv2nd

Circuit.WheretheMovantdoesnotseekamandatoryinjunction(onethatwillalterthestatus

quo)butratherthanaprohibitoryinjunction(onethatmaintainsthestatusquo),thelikelihood

ofsuccess standard is elevated: the Movant has shown a clear or substantial likelihood of

success with the standard using probable cause evidence rather than mere preponderance of

evidence.Thattheinjunctioninthiscaseleavestheelectiondecidedbecauseofthe538Electoral

VotesavailableTrumpPencehavesuccessfullywonsay306electorvotescomparedtoClinton

Kainewithonly232electorvotes;andthatnotwithstandinganymiscellaneouschallengetodate

andortheaboverequiredreductionscitedabovearetotheClintonKainetotalonly,nottothat

ofTrumpPenceandtherefore,thatwasthestatusquobeforethisfederalsuitwasfiled.

SUMMARYOFPETITIONERREQUESTSFORPROHIBITORYRELIEF

ThatPetitioner/PlaintiffdemandsthatthesinglejudgeofaThreejudgeCourtordera:

5
A. Prohibitory restraining order of National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

ArchivistnottodelivertheElectorTallyofeitherCaliforniaorNewYorktotheUSHouse

assubstantiallycompleteuntilthereisatrialandfindingontheabove;

B. ProhibitoryrestrainingorderofthePresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenatenottodeliverthe

Elector Tally of either California or New York to the US Senate as substantially complete

untilthereisatrialandfindingontheabove;

C. Prohibitory restraining order of the Governor of New York, New York Board of Elections

andCommissionersnottodelivertheElectorTallyofNewYorktotheNARAArchivistand

orPresidentoftheUSSenateassubstantiallycompleteuntilthereisatrialandfindingon

theabove;

D. Prohibitory restraining order of the Governor of California, and Secretary of States of

California not to deliver the Elector Tally of California to the NARA Archivist and or

PresidentoftheUSSenateassubstantiallycompleteuntilthereisatrialandfindingonthe

above;

E. ThatallDefendantsarerestrainedfromdestroyingandoralternatinganyrecordofthe2016

Election Cycle back until the 2012 Election Cycle and make the records transparent and

availableattrialforafindingontheabove;

F. That the City of New York (NYC), NYC Mayor and Commissioners of the NYC Board of

Election are restrained from destroying and or alternating any record of the 2016 Election

CycleandorNYCIdentificationrecordsandmaketherecordstransparentandavailableat

trialforafindingontheabove.

6
G. That the US Attorney along with the California and New York Attorneys General shall

assist the court in comparison of the Voter rolls and Motor Vehicle records of the respective

state of California and New York records for comparison with the Federal Immigration

records, National Voter Registration database, Motor Vehicle database and County voter

registrar records.

H. A preliminary order to show cause hearing for a trial by a Three Judge Court.

I. That the US Bureau of the Census Director is to deliver an accurate certified record of all

non-citizens and or illegal aliens enumerated in every state of the several states since the

2000 census enumeration.

J. Such other and different relief as the court judges necessary for justice herein including but

not limited to reimbursement for delivery of records and assistance of an attorney at trial.

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, state, declare and verify that the above is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge and belief, and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and

administration of laws and that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters

therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be

true, am available for testimony. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon

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

under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746. Respect:::ofu...-:~-..:..:::

Dated: December f'2 2016

Lake Luzerne New York
Christopher Earl Strunk, in propria persona
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

7
ChristopherEarlStrunk,inpropriapersona
141HarrisAvenue
LakeLuzerne,NewYork12846
Ph:7184143760Email:cestrunck@yahoo.com

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK
CivilCaseNo:1: 16-cv-1496 (BKS / DJS)

xx
Inthematterof:

ChristopherEarlStrunk,IndividuallyofNewYork;
Plaintiff,Petitioner
versus

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA with Edmund GeraldJERRYBROWN Jr.,Individually and

as Governor; and Alejandro ALEX PADILLA, Individually and as Secretary of State (SOS);
THE STATE OF NEW YORK with ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as Governor;
THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD OF ELECTIONS with Republican Peter S. Kosinski /
CoChair, Democrat Douglas A. Kellner / CoChair, Republican Andrew J. Spano /
CommissionerandDemocratGregoryP.Peterson/Commissioner;THECITYOFNEWYORK
(NYC);WarrenBILLDEBLASIOWilhelmJr.,IndividuallyandastheMayorofNYC;THE
NYCBOARDOFELECTIONSwithCommissionersofElections:MariaR.GuastellaPresident,
Frederic M. UmaneSecretary, Jose Miguel Araujo,John Flateau, Ph.D., Lisa Grey, Michael
Michel, Michael A. Rendino, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, Rosanna Vargas,
Commissioners;; NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION;
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCEBUREAUOFTHECENSUS;
Defendants/Respondents

QUALIFIED POLITICAL PARTIES: American Independent Party (AIP), Democratic Party,

Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Republican Party; Independence
Party;SenatorBernieSanders;CaliforniaAG;NewYorkAG,NYCCorporationCounsel,and
U.S.Attorney.
Partiesininterest.
x

PETITIONwithCOMPLAINTforathreejudgepanelmandamusby19December2016to

restrainDefendantsandproportionatelyreduceelectorsunderthe14thAmendment

1
NOWCOMESChristopherEarlStrunk,inpropriapersona,aprivatenationalcitizenofthe

United States and New York, hereby Petitions this Threejudge court for a mandamus with

restraint of Respondents, as time is of the essence before 19 December 2016 with imminent

irreparableharmon6January2017,withnootheradequateremedyatlawandalikelihoodof

success;andhereafter,StrunkComplainsofDefendantsinfringementofPlaintiffsfundamental

rights,protectedundertheConstitutionfortheUnitedStates,by:theStateofCaliforniasPublic

OfficersmaliciousadministrationandenforcementoftheCaliforniaElectionCode(CAEC)and

related law to resolve the TrumpPence electors; the State of New Yorks Public Officers

maliciousadministrationandenforcementoftheNewYorkElectionCode(NYEL)andrelated

lawtoresolvetheJohnsonWeldelectors;bytheconspiracyoftheStateofNewYorksandState

of Californias Public Officers with others similarly situated jointly with the Democratic Party

NationalCommitteetouseillegalalienvotersatthe8November2016GeneralElectionofthe

California 55 elector and New York 29 electors slate for the 19 December 2016 election of

PresidentoftheUnitedStates(POTUS)andVicePOTUS(VPOTUS)withUnitedStatesCode(USC)

Title3undercolorofCAEC,NYELandUnitedStatesCode(USC)Title3tothecontrary;and

thatPlaintiff(s)amongthosecitizenssimilarlysituatedwithnaturalandfundamentalrightsare

otherwise protectedagainstinfringement by Section 2 oftheFourteenthAmendment (1) to the

1 Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state ,
excludingIndiansnottaxed.ButwhentherighttovoteatanyelectionforthechoiceofelectorsforPresidentand
VicePresidentoftheUnitedStates,RepresentativesinCongress,theexecutiveandjudicialofficersofastate,
orthemembersofthelegislaturethereof,isdeniedtoanyofthemaleinhabitantsofsuchstate,beingtwenty
oneyearsofage,andcitizensoftheUnitedStates,orinanywayabridged,exceptforparticipationinrebellion,
or other crime, the basis of representationtherein shall be reduced inthe proportionwhich thenumber of such
malecitizensshallbeartothewholenumberofmalecitizenstwentyoneyearsofageinsuchstate.

2
ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,withrelatedlaw,availableremedyandlikelihood

of success. This is a case of first impression to reduce the basis of California and New York

POTUS/VPOTUSElectorsatthe19December2016electoralcollegeelectionandornewU.S.

HouseofRepresentativestermon6January2017thereafteruntilthe2020decennialcensus.

JURISDICTION:

28USC2284(a)Threejudgedistrictcourtofthreejudgesshallbeconvenedwhenanactionis

filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of California and New York

congressional districts associated with the 2016 States POTUS / VPOTUS Electoral College

under the 14th Amendment; and 28 USC 1343. Civil rights (in which 42 USC 1983, 1985,

1986, 1988 and related law apply) and elective franchise; and subsection (b) as to district

courts original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any

person:(1)TorecoverdamagesforinjurytoPlaintiff(s)personorvoteproperty,andbecauseof

the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by act done by

CaliforniaDefendantsinfurtheranceofanyconspiracymentionedinsection1985ofUSCTitle

42withDefendantsmaliciousadministrationandenforcementoftheElectionCode(Law)and

as applies with USC Title 3 and with Defendants facilitation of illegal alien voters on 8

November 2016 (2) To recover damages from Defendants who failed to prevent or to aid in

preventinganywrongsmentionedinsection1985ofTitle42whichhe/shehadknowledgewere

about to occur and power to prevent (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State

law,statute,ordinance,regulation,customorusage,ofanyright,privilegeorimmunitysecured

bytheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesorbyanyActofCongressprovidingforequalrightsof

3
citizensorofallpersonswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates(4)Torecoverdamagesor

to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of

civilrights,includingtherighttovote;andremedywith28USC1651,28USC2201/2202.

VENUE:

28USC1391.Venueapplieswithsubsection(a)ApplicabilityofSection.Exceptasotherwise

providedbylaw(1)thissectionshallgovernthevenueofallcivilactionsbroughtindistrict

courts of the United States and (2) the proper venue for a civil action shall be determined

withoutregardtowhethertheactionislocalortransitoryinnature;andsubsection(b)Venuein

General.Acivilactionisbroughtin...(2)ajudicialdistrictinwhichasubstantialpartofthe

eventsoromissionsgivingrisetotheclaimoccurred,...issituated(c)Residency.Forallvenue

purposes(1) a naturalperson,including analienlawfully admitted for permanentresidence

in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is

domiciledand(e)ActionsWhereDefendantIsOfficerorEmployeeoftheUnitedStates.(1)In

general.AcivilactioninwhichadefendantisanofficeroremployeeoftheUnitedStatesor

anyagencythereofactinginhisofficialcapacityorundercoloroflegalauthority,oranagency

oftheUnitedStates,ortheUnitedStates,may,exceptasotherwiseprovidedbylaw,bebrought

inanyjudicialdistrictinwhich(C)theplaintiffresidesifnorealpropertyisinvolved.

PARTIES:

1. Petitioner/Plaintiff,ChristopherEarlStrunk,inpropriapersona,anaturalpersonofNew

York in esse Sui juris is the sole beneficiary agent (Strunk, Plaintiff, Petitioner) of the

publicU.S.CitizenCHRISTOPHEREARLSTRUNKentitypersondomiciledandregistered

4
to vote in the State of New York county of Warren located at 141 Harris Avenue Lake

LuzerneNewYork12846Ph:7184143760Email:cestrunck@yahoo.com,andStrunkis:

a. thedulyregisteredExecutorforthePosterityofEXPRESSDEEDINTRUSTTOTHE

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA(seeExhibitAPages1thru15andExhibitA2);

b. a AmendmentXIVSection1. privatepre1933 national citizen born in theUnited

States whose Status is duly registered with the United States Secretary of the

Treasury,and

c. subjecttothejurisdictionthereofNewYorkwhereinheresides,andwhere:

d. Strunkcontendsthatnostateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgethe

privilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates;

e. Strunkcontendswithallrightsreservedwithoutprejudice,norshallanystate:

i. depriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw;

ii. denytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws.

f. Strunk petitions this court in good faith with clean hands here in New York in

conformance with specifics of his resume, public commendation and participation

(seeExhibitA3);

g. StrunkfacilitatedMarkSeidenbergandAIPtoappointtheHonorableRobertK.Dornan

andhiswifeSallietotheAIPTrumpPenceElectorSlateattheCalifornia2016General

Election.

h. Robert K. Dornan personally apologized to Citizen Strunk for having enacted the

SimpsonMazolaAct(1986)amnestyforillegalaliensasapoliticalfavortoPresident

Reagan,andthathisperversepunishmentwasdefeatbyillegalalienvotesin1996.

5
i. StrunkwasthePlaintiffintheStrunkv.USHouseofRepresentativeset.al.0261592nd

Cir, 99cv2168 EDNY challenge to 2 USC 2a capping of U.S. House by the 2000

decennialcensususingillegalalienswithoutthequestionareyouaUSCitizen(?).

j. StrunkwasthePlaintiffintheStrunkv.USHousingUrbanDevelopmentet.al.99cv

6480 EDNY Civil action for deprivation of rights, Conspiracy to interfere with civil

rights 42 USC Section 1986, Section 1985, Section 1983 and Section 1982; as well as

under his due process rights of the 4th and 5th Amendments, and protection against

unreasonable statute under the 9th 10th 13th Amendments pertaining to the federal

government and other due process rights in the 14th Amendment, which empowers

Congress to protect persons from State actions. There being two aspects: procedural,

in which protects a person's property from unfair government interference or taking

with similar clauses found in the New York State Constitution.

k. StrunkwasthePlaintiffintheStrunkv.Millsetal.0437582ndCir,04cv4881SDNY

in the matter of unreported Non-citizens under the Compact for Education, involving

misuse of State funds intermingled with Federal Block Grant Funds that harms U.S.

Citizens by trespass upon fundamental rights, are deprived equal education by Denial

of due process and equal protection under color of State and Federal Laws, and

perpetuated with an underlying conspiracy by Public Officers with special interest to

control the defacto State Legislature without use of the State Constitution that exceed

their authority to deny a republican form of government, by malfeasance that does not

preempt Congressional plenary authority that must occupy the field in the matter of

aliens per se - inter alia violates the Federal Constitution Article 1 Section 9.

6
l. StrunkwasthePlaintiffin theStrunk v. US House of Representatives et.al. 016021 2nd

Cir,00cv7177EDNYchallengetothe2000NewYorkElectoralCollegeformation.

m. StrunkwastheessentialfacilitatorfortheLibertarianPartyofNewYorkandthird

parties in the Green Party etal v. NYS BOE EDNY 04cv4888 (JG) challenge to the

NYSBOEbipartisanexclusionaryuseofthevoterregistrationform,undercolorof

theNationalVoterRegistrationAct(NVRA),anditsmaintenanceoftheStateparty

enrollment database, with which, a party maintains association when no longer a

Statepartybyfailuretogarner50KvotesattheNewYorkgubernatorialelection.

n. StrunkwasaProSeAmicusintheTorresvNYSBOEetal.appeal070103cvat2nd

Cir. taken from the 29 December 2006 order of Eastern District Trial Judge John

GleesoninEDNY04cv1129deniedinterventionintoJudicialConventionmatters.

o. StrunkwasplaintiffinNewYorkStateCourtStrunkvNYSBOEetal.65002011inthe

matterof2008ElectioncycleNYSBOEbipartisanballotaccessforineligiblePOTUS

candidates under color of state election law, USC Title 3 under U.S. Constitution

Article2Section1Clause5ineligibilityofPOTUScandidatesplacedonthenballot:

John S. McCain was born in Colon Republic of Panama to out of wedlock mother,

Barry Soetoro Soebarkah was born of a Subject to the Sultan of Zanzibar as a

protectedpersonoftheBritishKenyaProtectoratewhereisyetproven,andRoger

CalerooftheSocialistWorkersPartyborntocitizensofNicaraguainNicaragua.

p. Atthe2012electioncycle,Strunkwasanessentialfacilitatorforplaintiffscomplaint

in California State Court regarding George Soros Secretary of States Projects

Democratic Party agent Deborah Bowen California Secretary of State, whose re

7
 election by arbitrary bias sabotaged the challenge of Orly Taitz in favor of Damon

DunnwithquestionableballotaccessalongwithBarackHusseinObama.

q. Strunks book entitled, Jesuit Social Justice versus Le Droit Des Gens (The Law of

Nations): The Global Estate versus Nation States, was published in October 2016 in

supportofTrumpPence.

CALIFORNIADEFENDANTS

2. Respondent/Defendant,THESTATEOFCALIFORNIAwithserviceupontheGovernor;

3. Respondent/Defendant,EdmundGeraldJERRYBROWNJr.,IndividuallyandGovernor

with place for service located at Governor Jerry Brown c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento,CA95814Phone:(916)4452841Fax:(916)5583160;

a. EdmundG.BrownJr.wasborninSanFranciscoonApril7,1938.Hegraduatedfrom

St. Ignatius High School in 1955 and entered Sacred Heart Novitiate, a Jesuit

seminary. He later attended the University of California, Berkeley, graduating in

1961beforeearningaJ.D.atYaleLawSchoolin1964

b. BrownwaselectedTrusteefortheLosAngelesCommunityCollegeDistrictin1969,

Secretary of State in 1970 and Governor in 1974 and 1978. After his governorship,

Brownlecturedandtraveledwidely,practicedlaw,servedaschairmanofthestate

DemocraticPartyandranforpresident.

c. In 1998, Brown was elected Mayor of Oakland. Brown was elected California

AttorneyGeneral,and

d. was elected to a third gubernatorial term in 2010 and to a historic fourth term in

2014.

8
 e. Mr. Brown is the example of how you can take the man out of the Jesuit seminary

butyoucannottaketheJesuitoutoftheman.

4. Respondent /Defendant, Alejandro ALEX PADILLA, Individually and as Secretary of

State (SOS) with place for service located at California Secretary of State 1500 11th Street

Sacramento,CA95814.

NEWYORKDEFENDANTS

5. Respondent/Defendant,THESTATEOFNEWYORKwithserviceupontheGovernor

6. Respondent /Defendant, ANDREW M. CUOMO,Individually and as Governor; Governor

ofNewYorkStateNYSStateCapitolBuildingAlbany,NY12224Ph.:15184748390Office

hours:9:00amto5:00pm.

a. PriortohiselectionasGovernor,AndrewCuomoservedfouryearsasNewYorks

AttorneyGeneral.

b. In1997,CuomowasappointedbyPresidentClintontoserveasSecretaryofHousing

andUrbanDevelopment(HUD)wassolelyresponsibletocreateanadditional8%of

non performing United States backed mortgages to aid and abet the theft of the

CommercialbankingSpecialTrustFundAccountssecuringUnitedStatesdebtbonds

andsecuritiesthatweresafeguardedwhenseparatedin1933bytheGlassSteagallAct

firewall from Investment banking Exchange Stabilization Fund risky speculation that

with enactment of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 were comingled to have the

enumeratedUSpopulaceassuretyforderivativesinteraliamortgagedefaultswaps;

c. CuomograduatedfromFordhamUniversityin1979andAlbanyLawSchoolin1982.

9
 d. Has duties enumerated in the US Constitution, 3 USC 1 thru 21, 13 USC

Sec.141/Sec.195,P.L94171,8USC1324and2USC2awithrelatedlaw.

7. Respondent /Defendant, NEW YORK STATE OF BOARD OF ELECTION located for

serviceatNYSBoardofElection40NorthPearlStreet,Suite5Albany,NY122072729,Ph.:

(518) 4746220 Executive (518) 4748100 FAX (518) 4864068 Email:INFO@elections.ny.gov

Enforcement Counsel (518) 4867858 Email:enforcement@elections.ny.gov, with service

uponCoChairmenandCommissionersRepublicanPeterS.Kosinski/CoChair,Democrat

DouglasA.Kellner/CoChair,RepublicanAndrewJ.Spano/CommissionerandDemocrat

GregoryP.Peterson/Commissioner

a. TheStateBoardofElectionswasestablishedintheExecutiveDepartmentJune1,1974

as a bipartisan agency vested with the responsibility for administration and

enforcementofalllawsrelatingtoelectionsinNewYorkState.

b. The Board is also responsible for regulating disclosure and limitations of a Fair

CampaignCodeintendedtogoverncampaignpractices.

c. In conducting these wideranging responsibilities, the Board offers assistance to local

electionboardsandinvestigatescomplaintsofpossiblestatutoryviolations.Inaddition

to the regulatory and enforcement responsibilities the board is charged with the

preservationofcitizenconfidenceinthedemocraticprocessandenhancementinvoter

participationinelections.

d. ThenAttorneyfortheNYSBOE,ToddValentinestatedtoStrunkthat[TheBOE]isnot

interestedinthosewhodonotregisterandvoteonlythosewhoregisterandvote.

10
 e. AllwithdutiesenumeratedintheUSConstitution,3USC1thru21,13USC

Sec.141/Sec.195,P.L94171,8USC1324and2USC2awithrelatedlaw.

8. Respondent /Defendant, Warren BILL De BLASIO Wilhelm Jr., Individually and as the

Mayor of the City of New York located for service at MayorBilldeBlasio City Hall New

York,NY10007 PHONE 212NEWYORKoutside NYC, with duties enumerated in the

US Constitution, 3 USC 1 thru 21, 13 USC Sec. 141 /Sec. 195, P.L 94171, 8 USC

1324and2USC2awithrelatedlaw.

9. Respondent /Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC), a municipal cooperation

representedbytheCorporationCounselat100ChurchStreetNewYorkNewYork10007;

10. Respondent /Defendant THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS (NYC BOE),

withplaceforserviceatExecutiveOffice3242Broadway,7FlNewYork,NY10004Tel:

1.212.487.5400 For General information email:ElectionInfo@boe.nyc.ny.usHours of

Operation 9A.M. 5P.M.with Commissioners of Elections: Maria R. GuastellaPresident,

FredericM. UmaneSecretary,Jose Miguel Araujo,JohnFlateau, Ph.D., LisaGrey, Michael

Michel, Michael A. Rendino, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, Rosanna Vargas,

Commissioners;

a. The Board of Elections in the City of New York is an administrative body of ten

Commissioners, two from each borough upon recommendation by both political

parties and then appointed by the City Council for a term of four years. The

Commissioners appoint a bipartisan staff to oversee the daily activities of its main

andfiveboroughoffices.

11
 b. The Board is responsible under New York State Election Law for the following:

Voter registration, outreach and processing, Maintain and update voter records

Processing and verification of candidate petitions/documents, Campaign finance

disclosures of candidates and campaign committees, Recruiting, training and

assigning the various Election Day officers to conduct elections, Operate poll site

locations,Maintain,repair,setupanddeploytheElectionDayoperationequipment,

Ensure each voter their right to vote at the polls or by absentee ballot, Canvassing

and certification of the vote, Voter education, notification and dissemination of

electioninformation,Preparationofmapsofvariouspoliticalsubdivisions.

c. AllwithdutiesenumeratedintheUSConstitution,3USC1thru21,13USC

Sec.141/Sec.195,P.L94171,8USC1324and2USC2awithrelatedlaw.

FEDERALDEFENDANTS

11. Respondent /Defendant UNITED STATES NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION by Archivist David S Ferriero located at The National Archives and

Records Administration Office ofThe Archivist oftheUnited States at8601Adelphi Road

The College Park, MD 207406001, Ph.: 2023575900 and 8662726272) with duties

enumeratedintheUSConstitution,3USC1thru21,13USCSec.141/Sec.195,P.L

94171,8USC1324and2USC2awithrelatedlaw.

12. Respondent/DefendantPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATESSENATE,VicePresident

Joe Biden located at The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington D.C.

12
 20500withdutiesenumeratedintheUSConstitution,3USC1thru21,13USCSec.

141/Sec.195,P.L94171,8USC1324and2USC2awithrelatedlaw.;

13. Respondent /Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU

OFTHECENSUSbyJohnH.Thompson,DirectoroftheU.S.CensusBureau withduties

enumeratedintheUSConstitution,3USC1thru21,13USCSec.141/Sec.195,P.L

94171, 8 USC 1324 and 2 USC 2a with related law, serves at the pleasure of

SecretaryofCommerceat4600SilverHillRoadWashington,DC20233.

PARTIESININTEREST

14. QUALIFIEDPOLITICALPARTIES:

a. Partyininterest American Independent Party Robert Ornelas,State Chairperson

476 Deodara Street Vacaville, CA 956882637 (707) 3594884

mark@masterplanner.comwww.aipca.org

i. Dr.RobertOrnelas,Individually,ElectorforTrumpPence,andChairmanof

theAmericanIndependentPartyofCalifornia;

ii. Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg, Individually, Elector for TrumpPence, and

AmericanIndependentPartyofCaliforniaChairperson;

iii. Markham G. Robinson, Individually, Elector for TrumpExecutive,

CommitteeChairman(StateParty),andChairman(NationalParty);

b. Partyininterest Democratic Party John Burton,State Chairperson 1830 9th Street

Sacramento,CA95811(916)4425707info@cadem.orgwww.cadem.org

13
 c. THE NEW YORK STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE by Chairwoman Judith

Hope , an arm of the National Party with authority pursuant to NYS Election Law, with

offices located at 60 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10010.

d. PartyininterestGreenPartyJaredLaiti,Liaison51518thStreet#3SacramentoCA

958111026(916)5496788liaison@cagreens.orgwww.cagreens.org

e. Partyininterest LibertarianPartyTedBrown,StateChairperson770LStreet,Suite

950Sacramento,CA958143361(916)4461776office@ca.lp.orgwww.ca.lp.org

f. LIBERTARIANPARTYOFNEWYORK

g. IndependencePartyofNewYork

h. Partyininterest Peace and Freedom Party Kevin Akin,State Chairperson 20212

Harvard Way Riverside, CA 92507 (951) 7870318 kevinakin1950@hotmail.com

www.peaceandfreedom.org

i. Partyininterest RepublicanPartyJimBrulte,StateChairperson1001KStreet,4th

FloorSacramento,CA95814(916)4489496info@cagop.orgwww.cagop.org

j. THE NEW YORK REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE by Chairman Cox, an arm of

the National Party with authority pursuant to NYS Election Law, with offices located at

315 State Street Albany New York 12210

15. PartyininterestCaliforniaAG;

16. PartyininterestGeorgiaSOS;

14
17. Partyininterest New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman AG Office of the

AttorneyGeneralTheCapitolAlbany,NY122240341and

18. PartyininterestU.S.Attorney

FACTUALALLEGATIONS

19. That beside the relative State POTUS Election Codes and or Law as apply under the

Constitution to the United States with its amendments, 3 USC 1 thru 21, 8 USC 1324,

then13USCSec.141/Sec.195,P.L.94171,18USC611andas2USC2a,2USC2a(c)(4),2

USC6withrelatedlawapplyhereintoall.

20. ThathistoricallythefirstproposedamendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionfortheuse

of the decennial census enumeration for Congressional Apportionment

Amendment(pending since September 25, 1789; ratified by 11 states) that would strictly

regulatethesizeofcongressionaldistrictsforrepresentationintheHouseofRepresentatives

quote:

AfterthefirstenumerationrequiredbythefirstarticleoftheConstitution,thereshallbe
oneRepresentativeforeverythirtythousand,untilthenumbershallamounttoone
hundred,afterwhichtheproportionshallbesoregulatedbyCongress,thatthereshall
benotlessthanonehundredRepresentatives,norlessthanoneRepresentativeforevery
fortythousandpersons,untilthenumberofRepresentativesshallamounttotwo
hundred;afterwhichtheproportionshallbesoregulatedbyCongress,thatthereshall
notbelessthantwohundredRepresentatives,normorethanoneRepresentativefor
everyfiftythousandpersons.

21. The ideal number of seats in the House of Representatives has been a contentious issue

since the countrys founding. Initially, delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Conventionset

therepresentationratioatonerepresentativeforevery40,000people.Uponthesuggestion

15
 ofGeorge Washington, the ratio was changed to

1:30,000.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment -

cite_note-3ThiswastheonlytimeWashingtonvoicedanopiniononanyoftheactualissues

debatedduringtheconvention.

22. InFederalist No. 55,James Madisonargued that the size of the House of Representatives

has to balance the ability of the body to legislate with the need for legislators to have a

relationship close enough to the people to understand their local circumstances, that such

representatives social class be low enough to sympathize with the feelings of the mass of

thepeople, and that their power bedilutedenough to limit theirabuse ofthepublic trust

andinterests,quote:

...first,thatsosmallanumberofrepresentativeswillbeanunsafedepositaryofthe
publicinterests;secondly,thattheywillnotpossessaproperknowledgeofthelocal
circumstancesoftheirnumerousconstituents;thirdly,thattheywillbetakenfromthat
classofcitizenswhichwillsympathizeleastwiththefeelingsofthemassofthepeople,
andbemostlikelytoaimatapermanentelevationofthefewonthedepressionofthe
many;...
23. Enlargement of the US House of Representatives crucial for formation of the Electoral

CollegethatwasneverenactedisnowquestionablycappedsinceJuneof1930.Strunkcon

tendsinviolationoftheletterandintentoftheConstitution.

24. Baseduponinformationandbelief,since1930ourUSHouseseatsentitlementforNewYork

of45whenwehad12.5millionresidentshasbeenhijackedstartingin1950thenwith14.8

millionsresidents,bymajoritarianforcescontrollingCongress,whonowusetheExecutive

tosubjectNewYorkEligibleVotersandcitizenstotheproposedallotmentof27CDsnow

thatNewYorkhasnolessthan19millioninhabitants.

16
25. USA Citizens individually together are supposed to be protected against economic injury

brought by overwhelming invasion of aliens into the USA under the 1965 Immigration and

Nationality Laws, arent protected because defacto public officers dont or cant enforce

related laws; Citizens have a duty and right to save the USA from acts of unconstitutional

behaviorandgrossnegligencehereusetheJudiciary.

26. In October 2016 the California Secretary of State Published the Qualified Party POTUS /

VPOTUSElectorSlates(seeExhibitB).

27. TheAIPElectorSlateisforTrumpPenceatthe8November2016GeneralElection.

28. ThattheRepublicanPartyElectorSlateforTrumpPenceisnotthesameasthatoftheAIP.

29. ThattheRepublicanPartyElectorSlateforTrumpPencedoesnotmeettherequirementsof

theCaliforniaElectionCode(CAEC)andPartyRulesaccordingtoanalysisbytheAIP(see

ExhibitC).

30. The AIP notified the SOS, CALIFORNIA COUNTY ELECTIONS REGISTRARS and

Governor of the erroneous Republican Party Elector Slate need to resolve the TRUMP

PENCE Elector slate by Legislative Joint Resolution ratherthan a concurrentresolution by

thegeneralelectionon8November2016(seeExhibitD);and

31. There is no Joint resolution for TRUMPPENCE elector slate at the California 8 November

2016GeneralElection.

32. SampleballotforSacramento(seeExhibitE)wastheonlycountytoreferencetheCAECfor

electorslates,andtheother57CaliforniacountiesdidnotmentiontheslatesasperCAEC.

33. In October 2016 the New York State Board of Elections Published the Qualified Party

POTUS/VPOTUSElectorSlates(seeExhibitF).

17
34. TheLibertarianPartyofNewYorkStates(LPNY)ElectorSlateisforJohnsonWeldatthe8

November2016GeneralElectionwasfiledbeforethatoftheIndependenceParty.

35. That the New York State Independence Partys Elector Slate for JohnsonWeld at the 8

November2016GeneralElectionisnotthesameasthatoftheLPNY.

36. ThereisnoJointresolutionforJohnsonWeldelectorslateattheNewYork8November2016

GeneralElection.

37. WhentheChairmanfortheNewYorkLibertarianPartycontactedChairmanMcKayofthe

In dependence Party to produce a joint resolution of the elector slates. Chairman McKay

statedparaphraseYourcandidateisnotgoingtowinanyway,andifJohnsonWelddothen

wecandoajointresolutionoftheelectorslatesaftertheelection.

38. ThatinthesamewayastheinterchangeoccurredbetweentheChairmenoftheLibertarian

and Independence parties in New York, the same interchange occurred between the

California Chairmen of the Republican Party (having filed late with defects) stated to the

AIPChairmanineffectstatedparaphraseYourcandidateisnotgoingtowinanyway,and

ifJohnsonWelddothenwecandoajointresolutionoftheelectorslatesaftertheelection.

39. The2000decennialCensusdidnotaskifapersonisaUSCitizenunlikedoneinthe1990

Census.

40. The2010decennialCensusdidnotaskifapersonisaUSCitizenunlikedoneinthe1990

Census.

41. Asanequalprotectionissue,California,NewYorkamongaminorityofotheroutlawStates

are sanctuary States for illegal aliens that have their domicile in a foreign state; and that

togethertheoutlawStateshaveasubstantialmajorityvotefortheDemocratPartyaccording

18
 to the PEW Foundation Study (see Exhibit G) because Congress has illegally granted

additionalU.S.HouserepresentationasifillegalalienshadadomicilewithintheUSA.

42. Althoughstatetrendsvariedfrom2009to2012,therewasnochangeinwhichsixstateshad

the largest unauthorized immigrant populations. The sixCalifornia, Texas, Florida, New

York, New Jersey and Illinoisaccounted for 60% of unauthorized immigrants in 2012.

Californiaalonehadanestimated2.4millionunauthorizedimmigrantsin2012,aboutone

infive (22%). Texas ranked second, with 1.7 million unauthorized immigrants, 15% of the

total.Nootherstatehadmorethanamillion.

43. InNovember1996,theINSsupportedtheallegationbyRobertK.Dornanthathewasquote:

...illegally defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by a minimum 2,369 alien votes, and
according to I.C.E. (I.N.S.) records of 4,023 alien votes cast in the 1996 California General
Election; and that by consensus of both the Republican and Democrat parties behind the
scenesinviolationofthemajorityofvotersrightsconspiredthenandnowforcontrolover
illegalalienvotingpowerinCaliforniaandseeminglynationwide.Aliensillegalvotingwith
impunity and whereas not a single individual was charged with thousands of felonies
havingbeencommitted,todirectlybringaboutmylossbynine(9)votesnotwithstanding
theI.C.E.recordstothecontrary...
seethelettershowninExhibitA3Page7of7havingbeenfiledwithcaseForjoneetal.vEAC

etalWDNY06cv080.

44. In2013CaliforniastartedissuingStateIdentificationtoillegalaliens(seeExhibitH).

45. On October 10, 2015 Governor Brown and the Democratic Party controlled state of

CaliforniaenactedlegislationenabledIllegalalienstoVoteduringthe2016POTUSElection

cycle,andwhereastookillegalandunconstitutionalactionindirectviolationwithFederal

Election Laws, especially related to 8 USC 1324, by enactingAssembly Bill 1461 with the

clearstatedintenttoabridgelegalAmericanvoteswithillegalalienvoters(seeExhibitI).

19
46. By enactingAssembly Bill 1461, the State of California created a circumstance in which it

allows illegal aliens to vote in the 2016 elections, therebyabridges the legal right of every

legalAmericancitizenlivinginCaliforniatoenjoythefullweightandpoweroftheirvote,

counteredbyillegalvotesmakingitimpossibletoidentifylegalversusillegalvotesin

theStateofCalifornia;asshowninExhibitIinpartreads,quote:

2268.Ifapersonwhoisineligibletovotebecomesregisteredtovotepursuanttothischapterin
the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that persons registration shall be
presumedtohavebeeneffectedwithofficialauthorizationandnotthefaultofthatperson.
2269.Ifapersonwhoisineligibletovotebecomesregisteredtovotepursuanttothischapterand
votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the persons registration,
thatpersonshallbepresumedtohaveactedwithofficialauthorizationandshallnotbeguiltyof
fraudulentlyvotingorattemptingtovotepursuanttoSection18560,unlessthatpersonwillfully
votesorattemptstovoteknowingthatheorsheisnotentitledtovote.
47. Because ofCalifornias illegal action, the Plaintiff and Defendants cannot rely upon the

validityofCaliforniavotes,and

48. By this above action Plaintiff contends that California has disqualified California election

results from the 2016 elections and California votes and electors cannot be legally or

ethicallycountedinthe2016election,oruntilsuchtimethatCaliforniaelectionlawsareno

longerinviolationofFederalElectionlawsandtheU.S.Constitution.

49. UnderCAECthelastdaytoregisteredtovotefortheGeneralElectionsay11October2016;

50. California ballot access and elections are subject to Democrat Party California Secretary of

Statebiasundercolorofthelawandcode.

51. In 2014 NYC and Mayor De Blasio started issuing NYC Identification to illegal aliens

(IDNYC)(seeExhibitJ).

20
52. At any election under NYS Election Law (NYEL), it is illegal to challenge a person

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

provisionalballotundertheHelpAmericatoVoteAct(HAVA).

53. ThatunderNYELthelastdaytoregisteredtovotefortheGeneralElectionwasxxOctober

2016.

54. ThatProjectVERITASJournalistsrecordedtheadmissionofNYCBOECommissionerAlan

Schulkinthatthereisprobablecausetobelievethatnoncitizenswillvoteon8November

2016(seeExhibitK).

55. Basedupon informationand belief,Monthsbeforethe8 November2016 GeneralElection,

notwithstanding the requirement of NYEL under HAVA for any personal registration to

vote be based only upon his / her honor at a domicile without any other Public Officer

verification may thereafter vote without challenge at the polling place, the NYC Mayor

publicly advertised that any person with a NYC Identification intending to vote at the

GeneralElectionmayobtainaStateofNewYorkIdentification.

56. NeithertheAIPnortheLPNYisaStatePartyinNewYorkinthattheStateofNewYork

onlygrantsqualifiedStatePartystatusforthosepartiesgarnering50thousandvotesatthe

priorgubernatorialelectionforstateballotaccessbyaNationalPOTUScandidate.

57. Neither the AIP nor the LPNY is a qualified party in the State of Georgia for automatic

ballotaccess;however,theStateofGeorgiaElectionLaw,unlikeNewYork,grantsqualified

partystatustoanypartyatthenextGeneralElectionforPOTUSwheninthepriorgeneral

electionofanotherStatethepartygarners5%ofthePOTUSvote.

21
58. New York ballot access is harmed by NYS BOE RepublicanDemocrat Party bipartisan

powersharingconspiracythatsincethe1980sagreement,neitherPartywouldinterferewith

theotherundercolorofthelawandcode.

59. Ballotpedia.org statistics show that there is a Presidential Voting Pattern with percentages

that New York voter preference in general election presidential races from 2000 to 2012

there arePresidential voting trends in New York vote percentages are: 2012:63.4%

Democratic / 35.2% Republican, 2008:62.8% Democratic / 36.1% Republican, 2004:58.4%

Democratic/40.1% Republican,2000:60.2% Democratic / 35.2% Republican; are compared

toU.S.votepercentagesasfollows:2012:51.1%Democratic/47.2%Republican,2008:52.9%

Democratic / 45.7% Republican, 2004:48.3% Democratic / 50.7% Republican, 2000:48.4%

Democratic/47.9%Republican.

60. Abellwetheris any indicator or predictor of something, and that in presidential electoral

politics,statesmaybeconsideredbellwethersoffutureelectoraloutcomesbecauseofhow

many times they have voted for the winning candidate or party. Below is an analysis

ofNew Yorks voting record in presidential elections from 1900 to 2016 and also a brief

analysisoftheelectionsbetween2000and2016.Thestatesaccuracyisbasedonthenumber

of times a state has voted for a winning presidential candidate. The majority of statistical

dataisfromtheU.S.NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministrationandcompiled,here,by

Ballotpedia,unlessotherwisenoted

a. Since1900,NewYorkhasparticipatedin30presidentialelections.

b. Between 2000 and 2016,New Yorkvoted for the winning presidential candidate40

percentofthetime,comparedto50between2000and2012.

22
 c. Withtheadditionof2016,thepercentageofthetimeNewYorkvotedforawinning

presidentsince1900is76.67percent.

d. Including 2016,New Yorkvoted Democratic56.67 percentof the time and

Republican43.33percentofthetimesince1900.

e. From 2000 to 2016,New Yorkvoted Democratic100 percentof the time and

Republican0percent.

61. The2016electionbroughtsomechangestothevotingtrendsacrossthecountry.According

to the NYS BOE New Yorkvoters voted forHillary Clinton(D) in 2016, and the election

preliminaryresultsareasofDecember5showninthefollowingtable:

%(by Votes(by %(by Votes(by

Candidate Party
Party) Party) Candidate) Candidate)
DEM 55.63% 3,986,948 57.89% 4,149,500
HillaryClinton/
WOR 1.82% 130,245
TimKaine
WEP 0.45% 32,307

DonaldJ.Trump/ REP 33.04% 2,368,033 36.83% 2,639,994

MichaelR.Pence CON 3.79% 271,961

JillStein/Ajamu
GRE 1.40% 100,110 1.40% 100,110
Baraka

GaryJohnson/Bill
IND 1.53% 109,965 1.53% 109,965
Weld

GaryJohnson/Bill
LBT 0.73% 52,308 0.73% 52,308
Weld

Blank 0.67% 48,098 0.67% 48,098

Void
0.09% 6,324 0.09% 6,324

Writein 0.85% 61,241 0.85% 61,241

TotalVotes 7,167,540

23
62. NationwidetheRepublicansclaimedmajorvictoriesatthefederallevelonNovember8,

2016,winningthepresidencyandmaintainingcontrolofboththeU.S.HouseandU.S.

Senate.

63. RealestateinvestorDonaldTrump(R)outperformedmostconventionalpollsandelection

modelstodefeatformerSecretaryofStateHillaryClinton(D).KeytoTrumpssuccess

werehisRustBeltwinsinOhio,Pennsylvania,andWisconsin,whichcutthroughtheblue

wallcreatedinthepastsixpresidentialelections.

64. AlthoughDemocratspickeduptwoseatsintheU.S.Senate,Republicanswillretaincontrol

of the chamber with a 5248 majority. Republicans also performed well in theU.S. House,

losingonlyanetsixseatstosecurea241194majority.

65. ThevotersofCaliforniavotedforHillaryClinton(D)in2016withresultsprovidedbythe

CaliforniaSOSasofDecember5,2016,10:15a.m.,shownasfollows:

CandidateName PartyPreference Votes Percent

HillaryClinton Democratic 8696374 62.3
Republican,American
DonaldJ.Trump Independent 4452094 31.9
JillStein Green 275823 2
GaryJohnson Libertarian 474615 3.4
GloriaEstelaLa
Riva PeaceandFreedom 65507 0.5

66. Related herein, that on 5 December 2016, New York Petitioners in New York Supreme

Court for the County of Richmond matter of Castorina etal. v Bill De Blasio etal. with Index

No.:80528/2016obtainedanOrdertoCausewithTemporaryRestraining Order oftheCity

of New York, NYC Mayor and those associated with the NYC Identification Program

(IDNYC)interaliafornoncitizensinNYCasaSanctuaryCity(seeExhibitL).

24
67. Relatedherein,thaton9December2016,aCaliforniapresidentialelector,VinzKeller,fileda

federal lawsuit to overturn the California law that tells presidential electors to vote in the

electoral college for the nominee of their party see Keller v Brown, NDCA, 5:16cv7069

(whereinKellerisaDemocratandhedoesnotassertthatheiscertaintovoteforsomeone

otherthanHillaryClinton(seeExhibitM).Hesaysheisundecidedandwantsthefreedom

to work with other presidential electors.); thanks to Politico for this news was Posted

onDecember11,2016byRichardWingeraqualifiedelectionsandballotaccessexpertthat

editsBallotaccessnews.org.

68. That based upon the foregoing facts and parties among those similarly situated, Plaintiff

complains of infringement harm to his natural and fundamental rights with time as the

essencewithimminentirreparabledamagewithoutanotherforumtoseekrelieforremedy

fromeachindividualRespondent/Defendantact(s)ofnon/mis/malfeasanceinomission

and or commission of public administration and enforcement duty under color of law or

codewherebytheDefendant(s)kneworshouldhaveknownofinfringementasforseven

causesofactioninconspiracywithotherRespondents/Defendantsasfollows:

ASANDFORTHEFIRSTCAUSEOFACTION

DEFENDANTSDENIALOFSUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESS

69. Plaintiff reasserts each preceding allegations and paragraphs 1 thru 68 as if set forth fully

hereinasapplybyspecificreferencetotheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendants.

70. theCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendantsact(s)ofnon/mis/malfeasanceinomissionand

or commission of public administration and enforcement duty under color of law or code

25
 wherebytheDefendant(s)kneworshouldhaveknownofinfringementofPlaintiffsright(s)

bydenialofsubstantivedueprocessamongcitizenssimilarlysituated.

71. CaliforniaPublicOfficersactofnon/mis/malfeasanceinomissionandorcommissionof

publicadministrationandenforcementofCAECforPOTUS.

72. NewYorkPublicOfficersactofnon/mis/malfeasanceinomissionandorcommissionof

publicadministrationandenforcementofNYELforPOTUS.

73. Damage to Plaintiff upstate New York by California and New York Defendants acts to

dilute and disproportionately diminish individual vote property and expectation of a fair

ballotatthe8November2016GeneralElection.

74. Defendantsactsmustbaranypersonfromholdinganypublicofficeofprofitortrust.

ASANDFORTHESECONDCAUSEOFACTION

FORDEFENDANTSDENIALOFEQUALPROTECTIONOFTHELAW

75. Plaintiff reasserts each preceding allegations and paragraphs 1 thru 74 as if set forth fully

hereinasapplybyspecificreferencetotheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendants.

76. TheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendantsact(s)ofnon/mis/malfeasanceinomissionand

or commission of public administration and enforcement duty under color of law or code

whereby the Defendant(s) knew or should have known of infringement to deny citizen

Plaintiffequalprotectionamongthosecitizenssimilarlysituated.

77. Defendantseachfailedtohaveauniformjointresolutionforeachelectorslatedonebefore

the8November2016GeneralElectionwithpropernoticetothevoters.

78. Sanctionfordamagesandbaranypersonfromholdinganypublicofficeofprofitortrust.

26
 ASANDFORTHETHIRDCAUSEOFACTIONFOR

DEFENDANTSCONSPIRACYTODENYEQUALPROTECTION

79. Plaintiff reasserts each preceding allegations and paragraphs 1 thru 78 as if set forth fully

hereinasapplybyspecificreferencetotheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendants.

80. TheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendantsact(s)ofnon/mis/malfeasanceinomissionand

or commission of public administration and enforcement duty under color of law or code

wherebytheDefendant(s)kneworshouldhaveknownofinfringementconspiracy(defined

by 42 USC 1985 and 42 USC 1986) to deny citizen Plaintiff equal protection among those

citizenssimilarlysituated.

a. That42U.S.C.Section1985(3)appliesherein:inthatCaliforniaandNewYorkand

MunicipalDefendantsactwithnoncitizensbeforeandduringthe2016electioncycle

to aid and abet noncitizens to vote at the 8 November 2016 general election to

deprivecitizenpersonsrightsorprivilegesinviolationof8USC1324(Harboringof

aliens) and facilitated 18 USC 611 (aliens illegally voting) at the citizens polling

precincts for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any citizen

personorcitizenclassandorcitizenpersonsoftheequalprotectionofthelaws,orof

equalprivilegesandimmunitiesunderthelaws;and

b. in which State and Municipal Defendants purpose of preventing or hindering the

constitutedauthoritiesofanyStateorTerritoryfromgivingorsecuringtoallcitizen

personswithinsuchStateorTerritorytheequalprotectionofthelaws;and

c. whentwoormoreStateandorMunicipalDefendantpersonsconspiredtoprevent

byintimidationofPlaintiffcitizenlawfullyentitledtovote,fromgivinghissupport

27
 or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully

qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, to injure Plaintiff

persononaccountofsuchsupportoradvocacy;

d. inthiscaseofconspiracyset forth in this section,one or more Stateand Municipal

Defendantsengagedthereindo,orcausetobedone,furtheranceoftheobjectofsuch

conspiracybyaidingandabettingnoncitizenstovote,herebyanotherisinjuredin

hispersonorproperty,ordeprivedofhavingandexercisinganyrightorprivileges

ofacitizenoftheUnitedStates,and

e. Plaintiff/Petitioneristhepartysoinjuredordeprivedwhomayhaveanactionfor

therecoveryofdamagesoccasionedbysuchinjuryordeprivation,againstanyone

ormoreoftheconspirators.

81. Remedy is to proportionately reduce House members to be elected at large until the 2020

decennialcensusallotmentfortherespectivestatesreapportionmentofhousedistricts.

82. Sanctionfordamagesandbaranypersonfromholdinganypublicofficeofprofitortrust.

ASANDFORTHEFOURTHCAUSEOFACTIONFORDEFENDANTSINFRINGEMENT

OFPLAINTIFFSSPEECHANDASSOCIATIONAMONGTHOSECITIZENSSIMILARLY

SITUATED

83. Plaintiff reasserts each preceding allegations and paragraphs 1 thru 82 as if set forth fully

hereinasapplybyspecificreferencetotheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendants.

84. TheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendantsact(s)ofnon/mis/malfeasanceinomissionand

or commission of public administration and enforcement duty under color of law or code

28
 whereby the Defendant(s) knew or should have known of infringement to deny citizen

Plaintiff/Petitionerspeechandassociationamongthosecitizenssimilarlysituated

85. The California and New York Defendants aid and abet the invasion of illegal aliens by

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

suppresscitizenPlaintiffsspeechandassociationamongthosesimilarlysituated;

86. Sanctionfordamagesandbaranypersonfromholdinganypublicofficeofprofitortrust.

ASANDFORTHEFIFTHCAUSEOFACTIONFORDEFENDANTS

DISPROPORTIONATEDILUTIONOFHOUSEREPRESENTATIONUSINGILLEGAL

ALIENSFORPARTISANUNJUSTENRICHMENT

87. Plaintiff reasserts each preceding allegations and paragraphs 1 thru 86 as if set forth fully

hereinasapplybyspecificreferencetotheCaliforniaandNewYorkDefendants.

88. The California and New York Defendants aid and abet the invasion of illegal aliens by

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

disproportionately dilute House representation for partisan unjust enrichment and to take

citizenPlaintiffsnaturalandfundamentalrightsandasamongthosesimilarlysituated;

89. California Public Officers infringes rights of Plaintiff citizen right to vote at the respective

electioninNewYorkbyCaliforniapublicofficermalfeasancecontraryto8U.S.Code1324

Bringing in and harboring certain aliens aids and abets noncitizens and or illegal aliens to

vote in California as a conspiracy that constitutes fundamental infringement under 2 USC

2a(c)(4)tobepunishedunder2USC6asNewYorkPlaintiffcitizensupstatehasnominal

noncitizens in comparison to the illegal sanctuary violations of law downstate New York

29
 granted additional electoral power in the POTUS election using illegal aliens wherein no

lessthansaytwo(2)HouseMembersaregiventoNYCdownstateandwithsanctuaryfor

say 3 million illegal aliens (3,000,000 by 750,000 per US House member), or four (4) US

House members for California not entitled, thereby dilutes and disproportionately

diminishesPlaintiffsvotepropertyintheNewYorkelectoralcollegesizebysaynettwo(2)

membersinfringementtobereducedunder2USC6;andaddedtotheabovereductions

rendersCaliforniawitharemainderof24electorvotesandNewYorkwitharemainderof

26electorvotes.

90. New York Public Officers infringe rights of Plaintiff domicile of upstate New York, such

thatthepublicofficerconspiracyisagainst18USC611andtheNewYorkConstitutionto

disproportionatelydiluteanddiminishthePlaintiffsvotepropertyupstatetohisdetriment,

in that the downstate city of New York and its suburbs that benefit from illegal alien

sanctuary that us Federal funds to concentrates vast super majority of illegal aliens

notwithstanding the penalty calculations above after trial found guilty New York is

renderedwithonlythree(3)ElectorsVotesunder2USC6andUSCTitle3thenalltobe

electedatlargeunder2USC2a(c)(4)untilthe2020decennialcensusenumeration;and

91. FurtherCaliforniaPublicOfficersundertheirenactmentinfringerightsofPlaintiffdomicile

ofupstateNewYork,suchthatthepublicofficerconspiracyisagainst18USC611andthe

California Constitution to disproportionately dilute and diminish the Plaintiffs vote

property among those California citizens similarly situated to his and their detriment

notwithstanding the penalty calculations above after trial found guilty California is

30
 renderedwithonlythree(3)Electorsunder2USC6thenalltobeelectedatlargeunder2

USC2a(c)(4)untilthe2020decennialcensusenumeration.

92. That Federal Funds are allotted based upon a States number of Congressional Districts

(CDs),andillegalalienswereusedtoobtainmoreFederalfundsthantheDefendantStates

wouldbedueincomparisontotheTotalU.S.HouseElectors.

93. Remedyistoreturnfundswithtreblepunitivedamagesaward

94. Sanctionfordamagesandbaranypersonfromholdinganypublicofficeofprofitortrust.

ASANDFORTHESIXTHCAUSEOFACTIONFORDEFENDANTSDILUTEAND

DISPROPORTIONATELYDIMINISHVOTEPROPERTYUSINGILLEGALALIENS

95. Plaintiff reasserts each preceding allegations and paragraphs 1 thru 94 as if set forth fully

hereinasapplybyspecificreferencetotheCalifornia,NewYorkandFederalDefendants.

96. AllDefendantsact(s)ofnon/mis/malfeasanceaidandabettheinvasionofillegalaliensby

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

dilute and disproportionate take vote property using illegal aliens to disproportionately

diluteintraandinterstaterepresentation;

97. Federal Defendants (the Census Bureau etal) along with the National Democratic Party

Committee and the California and New York Democrat state parties conspired with surrogate

State Defendants to reapportion CDs by Gerrymandering that among other things treats

physical labor and personal / real property as commodity that denies State residents equal

protection of law when majority-Minority CDs include more aliens and upstate CDs include

less aliens despite inter alia NYS Constitution Article I Section 17 and Homerule provisions.

31
98. Remedy is to order a special master to compare all Defendants records to ascertain the

scope of illegal aliens both illegally resident in any or every state of the several states and

whohaveparticipatedinelections.

99. SanctionfordamagesandcutoffFederalfundstoeachandeverystateoftheseveralstates

maliciousact.

100. Sanction for damages and bar any person from holding any public office of profit or

trust.

ASANDFORTHESEVENTHCAUSEOFACTIONFORALLDEFENDANTSENGAGED

ININSURRECTIONUSINGILLEGALALIENSAGAINSTTHEUNITEDSTATES

101. Plaintiff reasserts each preceding allegations and paragraphs 1 thru 100 as if set forth

fully herein as apply by specific reference to the California, New York and Federal

Defendants.

102. AllDefendantsact(s)ofnon/mis/malfeasanceaidandabettheinvasionofillegalaliens

byprovisionandtheftofpublicfundsintheenticementfortheinvasionofillegalaliensto

areengagedininsurrectionagainstthePosterityoftheUnitedStates.

103. RemedyforinsurrectionistoreduceUSHouserepresentationtoone(1)Housemember

eachforCaliforniaandNewYorkrespectivelyandthereafter,tobeelectedatlargeuntilthe

2020decennialcensusallotmentfortherespectivestatesreapportionmentofhousedistricts

withoutillegalaliens.

104. Sanction for damages and bar any person from holding any public office of profit or

trust.

32


WHEREFOREPetitioner/PlaintiffdemandsthesinglejudgeofaThreeJudgeCourtordera:

A. Prohibitory restraining order of National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

ArchivistnottodelivertheElectorTallyofeitherCaliforniaorNewYorktotheUSHouse

assubstantiallycompleteuntilthereisatrialandfindingontheabove;

B. ProhibitoryrestrainingorderofthePresidentoftheUnitedStatesSenatenottodeliverthe

Elector Tally of either California or New York to the US Senate as substantially complete

untilthereisatrialandfindingontheabove;

C. Prohibitory restraining order of the Governor of New York, New York Board of Elections

andCommissionersnottodelivertheElectorTallyofNewYorktotheNARAArchivistand

orPresidentoftheUSSenateassubstantiallycompleteuntilthereisatrialandfindingon

theabove;

D. Prohibitory restraining order of the Governor of California, and Secretary of States of

California not to deliver the Elector Tally of California to the NARA Archivist and or

PresidentoftheUSSenateassubstantiallycompleteuntilthereisatrialandfinding;

E. ThatallDefendantsarerestrainedfromdestroyingandoralternatinganyrecordofthe2016

Election Cycle back until the 2012 Election Cycle and make the records transparent and

availableattrialforafindingontheabove;

F. That the City of New York (NYC), NYC Mayor and Commissioners of the NYC Board of

Election are restrained from destroying and or alternating any record of the 2016 Election

CycleandorNYCIdentificationrecordsandmaketherecordstransparentandavailableat

trialforafindingontheabove.

33
 G. That the US Attorney along with the California and New York Attorneys General shall

assist the court in comparison of the Voter rolls and Motor Vehicle records of the respective

state of California and New York records for comparison with the Federal Immigration

records, National Voter Registration database, Motor Vehicle database and County voter

registrar records.

H. A preliminary order to show cause hearing for a trial by a Three Judge Court.

I. That the US Bureau of the Census Director is to deliver an accurate certified record of all

non-citizens and or illegal aliens enumerated in every state of the several states since the

2000 census enumeration.

J. Such other and different relief as the court judges necessary for justice herein including but

not limited to reimbursement for delivery of records and assistance of an attorney at trial.

I, Christopher Earl Strunk, state, declare and verify that the above Petition with Complaint is

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and know the contents thereof apply to

me by misapplication and administration of laws and that the same is true to my own

knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and

as to those matters I believe it to be true, am available for testimony. The grounds of my beliefs

. as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and

records, and personal knowledge under penalty o

Dated: December 1'2.

2016
Lake Luzerne New York
opher Earl Strunk, in propria persona
141 Harris Avenue
Lake Luzerne, New York 12846
Ph: 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunckyahoo.com
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

34
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit A
 DEPUTY CLERK

EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WITH BENEFICIARY DISCRETION FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO
ARE TRUE NATUR~BORN CITIZENS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 AND NOT SURETY-INDENTURES FOR THEIR
RESPECTIVE DEBTOR TRUST ENTITY UNDER 12 USC 95 AND 50 USC APP. 5(b) MARTIAL
GOVERNMENT WITH A CONTINUING NATIONAL EMERGENCY

This Express Deed in Trust is a claim of beneficial interest in and over all the public and private
real, personal, tangible and intangible Property within THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA geographic
border to safeguard and secure for the posterity of WE the People of the United States of America in the
nation given by GOD for securing each private Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest in
pursuit of life liberty and happiness in perpetuity, and with the Executor and Beneficiaries duty to this
Trust shall guarantee that all incumbents and future candidate(s) for the Office of President or Vice
President of the United States (POTUS) shall be a bonafide Natural-Born Citizen (NBC) private citizen of
the United States agent who is surety no more to the Debtor Trust Entity in compliance with the United
States Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, either under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) with the
Military Government authority of renewed annual National Emergency or otherwise (DEED in TRUST).

That this NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a gift from GOD, not men, according
to the Declaration of Independence in CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 as the unanimous Declaration of the
Freemen ofthe thirteen united States of America state, quote:

''When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands
which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws ofNature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

''We hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life. Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces
a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism. it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government. and to provide new Guards for their future security ... "

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States provides Authority and purpose declares:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.

Exhibit A Page 1 of 15
,....-----------------------------------------~~~------~ -~

That WE the People are only those private Citizens under GOD, not public citizens under men, and that
guarantee within this Nation that each Private Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest is
secure in perpetuity as long as the Sovereign People of this Nation act under GOD as expressed in the
Book of Isaiah Chapter 55 Verse 1 thru 5, hereafter quoting from the King James Version of the Bible:

1. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and
eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which
satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight
itself in fatness.
3. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting
covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
4. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee
shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he
hath glorified thee.

That the geographic border and size of this NATION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
including its population according to the Census of 2010 is depicted in the map and chart below with a
map showing public and private land that includes the coastal waters out to the limit of 200 miles as
follows:
Federal Go\rernment Lands in the U.S.

FEDERAL LANDS
Foro& I Service,
OlhDr l ands
- Bureau ol lndian
Alla..ra U .S. Fish &
SuroliU of Land Ma agoment 1/Vth:li c Scrv CD

(l='u rc DomaJl) National Park

BU.I \Ntldarnnr~. Study, Nat. Monumcnl& Service. Parks
&Oihcr NPS IIVI dernD&&.
Oopartmant of Dolen&o Study, Pri!Servos,
Rocroa on. ate.
Dt:partmontoiEno~
NPS National
U. S. Forest Sorvico alional Foro!& Monumcn1s ,
H~toric Sites,
- Forolll Servroa I/VIlderncss, & Wildomcs.s BaWo~clds, ole.
Study Areas Olher Agencras
ra..t..._ ..
o....,..
Th~"IJ mnrrtty p [tJi u nt:w~a. ~QOJ
ll<uonol Ec:vno"*'"-..,.."' (ltll.\D)
1f- w
.,_..__.
Exhibit A Page 2 of15
 LAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT
AP~Ei A~~rfRDE~r'N Cl 1 ;~~~
BPA BOOK (3'2,. PAGESjg~
DEPUTY CLERK ~
That the "natural-born Citizen"
r State Population Land Area GOV Owned Land PRIVATE
Clause expressed in the ratified U.S.
'
All United States 308,745,538
(square
percent (square j ownedland
(Sq Mi) Constitution Article 2 Section 1
miles) miles)
' Clause 5 was imposed by the People
3,537,438
of New York with emphasis that was
~CAiabama 4 779 738
I 50744 7 .10% 3,603 47,1 41
expressed as displeasure in the July
Alaska 710,231 571 951 95.80% 547929 24,022
Arizona 6.392.017 113,635 56.80% 64,544 1 49.090 26, 1788 ratification document of
Arkansas 2.915 ,918 52,068 17.30% 9 ,008 43,060 what should have been, quote:
Califomii 37,253 956 155,959 52.10% 74,705
Colorado 5,029,196 103,7 16 43.30% ~;~~~ ; - 58,808 "That no Persons except natural born
Connecticut 3,574,097 4845 6.20% 300 I 4.544 Citizens, or such as were Citizens on
Delaware 897 934 1,954 7.40% 145 1,809 or before the fourth day of July one
Florida 18,801,310 53,927 29.20% 15,747 38,180 thousand seven hundred and seventy
t---
, Georgia 9,687 ,653 57,906 9.70% 5 ,617 52,289
six, or such as held Commissions
Hawaii 1,360,301 6,423 19.00% 1,220 5,202
1 under the United States during the
Idaho - - 1l567 582 82,747 70.40% 58,254 24.493
12,830,632 55,584 4.10% 2279 53,305 War. and have at any time since the
!l..!!!!.2i!
Indiana 6,483,802 35,867 4.50% 1,614 1 34,253 fourth day of July one thousand seven
3 046,355 . 1,564 54,305
Iowa
-- 2,853,118
55)369
81 ,815
2.80%
1.90% 1,554 80,260
hundred and seventy six become

t
Kansas Citizens of one or other of the United
Kentucky 4!_339,_3 67 39,728 11.80% 4,688 1 35,040
Louisiana 4,533,372 43,562 10.70%
- 4,661 38,901
States, and who shall be Freeholders,
1,328 361 30,862 5.70% -
shall be eligible to the Places of
.tUim. i 1,759 29,102 l
Marxland - 5,773,552 9 ,774 7.60% 743 9,031 President. Vice President, or Members
Massachusetts 6,547,629 7,840 6.30% 494 7,346 of either House of the Congress of the
Michlaan 9 ,883,640 56,804 28.10% 15 962 . 40,842 United States. "
Minnesota 5,303,925 79,610 2350% 18,708 60,902
Mississiel!i 2,967,297 46,907 10.90% 5,113 I 41 ,794 And the People of New York
5,988 ,927 68,886 11.20% 7.715 _. 61,171 warned:
Mi;~!i!H[i
989_,415 145,-552 37.50%
- 54,582 90,970
Montana
Nebraska t
1,826,341 76,872 2.80% 2,152 1 74,720That the Powers of Government may
I Nevada I 2,700,551 109,826 87.80% 96,427 1 13,399be reassumed by the People.
N- Hamgshlre 1,316,470 8,968 18 .00% 1,614 7,354
New Jerse)! 8,791 ,894 7,417 18.30% 1,357 6,060
whensoever it shall become
New Mexico 2,059,179 121 ,356 47.40% 57,523 63,833necessary to their Happiness; that
New York 19 378 ,102 47 2 14 3710% 17 516 1 29,697every Power, Jurisdiction and right,
North Carolm~ -l 9535 483 48 711 14.60% 7 112 I 41 ,599 which is not by the said
North Dakota 672,591 68,976 9.10% 6,277 62,699 Constitution clearly delegated to the
I Ohio 11 536,504 I 40,948 4.20% I 1 720 I 39,229
3,751 ,351 68._6 67 ~0% 1 3 ,159
Congress of the United States, or the
l
Oklahoma
oregon 3,831 .074 I
Pennsvlvanla 1 12,702 379 I
95,997 60.40%
44,817 161 0%
r
57,982
"
7 ,215
f--
65508
38,015
37,601
departments of the Government
thereof, remains to the People of the
Bbm111SIIwl 1,052,567 1,045 1.50% 16 l 1.029 1 several States, or to their respective
South Carolina 4.625 ,364 30,109 11 .80% 3, 5~ 26,557
State Governments to whom they
I
Texas
....
South Dakota
., ,.
814,180
6,346,105
25 ,145,561
.
75,885 8.90%
41,217 14.10%
261,797 4.20%
6 ,754
5 812 i
10,995
69,131
35,406
250.802 1
may have granted the same; And
that those Clauses in the said
Utah 2,763,885 82,144 75.20% 61 ,772 I 20.372 ( Constitution. which declare, that
VerP'lOiit 625,741 9,250 15.80% 1,461 7,768
1 Virainia
--1 8 001 024 39,594 17.10~ 6771 32.823
Congress shall not have or exercise
certain Powers, do not imply that
I Washjngtonz i 6724 540 66544 41 .90% 21,a~ T 38,662
f Washlnoton 0 C 601,723 61 75.00% 15 Congress is entitled to any Powers
West v~r~: .. ; .. 1.852.994 24.076 16.50% 3,973 20,105 not given by the said Constitution;
Wisconsin 5,686,986 54,310 17.80% 9 ,667 44,643 but such Clauses are to be construed
WyomiM
I
I
563,626
I
97J100 55.90%

Net Total
54,279 J
...
~::~:! specifiedas Powers,
Private sq miles :.___1 2,1 30.434 L
f
either exceptions to certain
or as inserted
merely for greater Caution.

Exhibit A Page 3 of15

 DEPUTY CLERK

That the Natural-born Citizen clause does NOT derive from the term of art "natural-
born Subject", but instead was derived from ancient consideration of GOD's Natural Law as expressed
in Greece by the works of Aristotle and carried forward for use in Roman law by the works of Cicero.
Aristotle did not define citizenship like the English did in the English common law in which they
did not give any relevancy to the citizenship of the child's parents, provided the parents were not
diplomats or military invaders. Aristotle included in the definition of a "citizen" a person "of whom both
the parents are citizens." <1> It is this definition which was handed down through the millennia through
the law of nations and which the Founders and Framers adopted for the new republic. We also see that
the then Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Minor u. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162
(1875) (Minor) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868) held that "all children
born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These
were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" informed that a person
who became a citizen by being born in the country to "citizen" parents was known in common law with
which the Framers were familiar as a "natural-born citizen." How do we know that the Founders and
Framers looked to Aristotle's view of citizenship? We learn from the historical record that Supreme Court
Justice James Wilson wrote in 1791: "'Generally speaking,' says the great political authority, Aristotle, 'a
citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.' ... In Wilson's view, "a citizen of
Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or
county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen." James
Wilson, 1st commentaries on the Constitution. Here we clearly see Wilson referring to what could only be
a "natural born Citizen" as "the son of a citizen."
We also know that the Founders and Framers studied Roman law. The Framers were well read in
the Roman and Greek classics as is expounded upon in their writings in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson

1
Aristotle also gave us a definition of a "natural born Citizen." In "Politics, Book Three, Part II, Aristotle, writing in
350 B.C.E ., as translated by Benjamin Jowett, gave us his definition of citizenship:
"Part II
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on
going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there
are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of
Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- 'Mortars are what is made by the
mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to
make Larissaeans.' Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared
in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, 'born of a
father or mother who is a citizen,' cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.

There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, as by
Cleisthenes at Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in tribes many me tics, both
strangers and slaves. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he who is ought to be a citizen;
and there will still be a furthering the state, whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for what
ought not to be is what is false. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom
we describe as ruling, but ruling unjustly. And the citizen was defined by the fact of his holding some kind of
rule or office- he who holds a judicial or legislative office fulfills our definition of a citizen. It is evident,
therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens."
... http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html .

Exhibit A Page 4 of 15
 DEPUTY CLERK

and other Founders had a love for Roman history and education. The Founders and Framers were great
admirers of Cicero and read many of his works. It is not inconceivable that they would have read this
English translation of The Proposal <2> and seen the clause "natural born Citizen." This shows that they
did not need to borrow the clause from English common law's "natural born subject." Rather, they had
sources that they read which contained the exact clause, "natural born Citizen," which clause also had its
own meaning which was different from that of an English "natural born subject" which allowed children
born in the King's dominion and under his allegiance to aliens to be English "natural born subjects."
A definition of a "natural born Citizen" was also provided by the world-renowned, Emer de Vattel in
his The Law o[Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel1758). Vattel had a great
influence on the Founders and Framers in their constituting the new republic and writing the
Constitution. See, for example, J.S. Reeves, The Influence ofthe Law of Nature Upon International Law
in the United States, 3 Am.J. Int'l L. 54 7 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a profound political
influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence)
Lee A Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and Its Implications
Under International Law, http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/PubiD.l04/pub detail.asp (concerning U.S.
constitutional analysis, "Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most
widely read among the Framers"). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well
over 100 years after the birth of the republic; F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance of Vattel, Grotian Society
Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of the Constitution. The
Law of Nations was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and
1820). The Founders and Framers studied and were greatly influenced by Vattel. R.G. Natelson, The
Original Constitution 49 and 69 (2010) ("Vattel was probably the Founders' favorite authority on
international law ...." and his, treatise, The Law ofNations, was their favorite).
What Minor said about a "natural born Citizen" was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor's American common law definition of a "natural-born
citizen" but adding based on the English common law that since "'[t]he child of an alien, if born in the
country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle
[birth in the country]"' (bracketed information supplied), a child born in the United States to domiciled
alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States"). This American common law
definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment
(only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizen") or by
Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural
born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country.

2
Roman law provided: "Lex MENSIA, That a child should be held as a foreigner, if either of the parents
was so. But if both parents were Romans and married, children always obtained the rank of the father,
(patrem sequuntur liberi, Liv. iv. 4.) and if unmarried, of the mother, Uipian." Alexander Adam, Roman antiquities:
or, An account of the manners and customs of the Romans 210 (6th ed. corrected 1807). Cicero wrote in A Proposal:
"The Colophonians claim Homer as their own free Denizen, the Chians challenge him as theirs, the Salaminians
demand him again for their own, but the Smyrneans assert him to be their natural born Citizen; and therefore have
also dedicated a Temple to him in their Town of Smyrna. There are a great many besides at Daggers-drawing among
themselves, and contend for him."

A Proposal For Printing in English, The Select Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, According to the last Oxford
Edition 17 (Henry Eelbeck trans. London 1720).
Exhibit A Page 5 of 15
....------------------------------------------ ~-----~-

LAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT

FILED & RECORDED IN CLE ~'S_Q;FICE
APR 2 9 2014 AT I: '~o-r M
BPA BOOK 32 PAGES~
DEPUTY CLERK /:1ft{'
In the matter of Rome's Coup d'etat over the "Accursed" United States of America

by Eric Jon Phelps with edits by Christopher Earl Strunk (2014)

On March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) assumes the Office of President of the
United States, and with his Inaugural Address seizes and gives ALL Property and persons as
collateral for the debt of the United States in national "consecration" to its prime Creditors, the
Vatican State and Crown's City of London, and as Commander in chief FDR issues
Proclamation 2039 on March 6, 1933, as the Military Conqueror as if he were "Augustus
Caesar" of the American Republic, declaring a state of National Emergency based upon
The "Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917 (40 Statute Law 411);

Congress at the demand of every Governor on March 9, 1933 passes the "Emergency Banking
Relief Act" (12 USC 95a), thereby Amending the notorious World War I Statute "Trading With
the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, (50 USC App. 5(b)) (TWEA), and then FDR issues
Proclamation 2040 on March 9, 1933, also confirmed by "Emergency Banking Relief Act"
(12 USC 95b) and bringing the TWEA inland, imposing Military Government

This Amended WWI Statute in fact regards all "PERSONS" ''Within the United States" as
seized property of the federal government to be treated as an "enemy" and "enemy ally" or
"belligerents and rebels" by the Conqueror's Military Government.

These "belligerents and rebels" are publicly residing in the Several States Now considered
to be "conquered territories."

By 1939 all American Common Law Civil Process will be gone. In its place will be Roman
Civil Law Martial Process imposed on all "PERSONS" (natural and artificial) subject to
the Conqueror's De facto Equity Jurisdiction of the "United States."

This Martial Process will apply to all Public "United States Citizens."

This Martial Process cannot apply to Private "Citizens of the United States," Privately
residing on the land at Common Law, while holding Private State Citizenship pursuant to
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

"The Emergency Banking Relief Act" (EBRA) (48 Statute Law 1)

This Act accomplished the Design of the Society of Jesus in "the Company's" Great Conspiracy
against the Liberties of the United States set forth in Samuel Morse's Nineteenth century
masterpiece, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States (1835). Just as the Order
had brought the British Admiralty (possessing both a criminal and civil jurisdiction unlike American
Admiralty with only a civil jurisdiction) inland in the days of Jesuit-ruled King Charles Stuart I of
England thereby attempting to do away with the English Common Law on the land, the Jesuits
accomplished essentially the same thing here in America with this wicked Act aided by the
"Roosevelt Court."

Exhibit A Page 6 of 15
 DEPUTY CLERK

In the passing of this Act which the emotionally distressed Congress never read, the following must
be understood:

1. The "Trading With the Enemy Act," as passed originally in 1917 and amended in 1918, was
made to apply to any "enemy" of the United States.

2. The "enemy" was defined to be "any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals of
any nationality, resident within the territory of any nation with which the United States is at
war."

3. Other enemy "individuals" were defined as "natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with
which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States." These
"citizens of the United States" in 1917 held Private citizenship of the United States without
having been reduced to the inferior citizenship status of being property of and surety for the
State-created Public "citizen of the United States," which public citizenship status was
imposed on March 9, 1933.

4. The "Trading With the Enemy Act" also defined the term "person." A "person" was "deemed
to mean an individual, partnership, association, company, or other unincorporated body of
individuals, or corporation or body politic." Therefore in 1917 a "person" could mean both a
natural person/Private Citizen of the United States and an artificial person/Public citizen of
the United States in privilege.

5. Therefore, a "person" as defined by the "Trading with the Enemy Act" DID INCLUDE a
"citizen of the United States," which at the time was a Private "citizen of the United States."

6. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act" of March 9, 1933, amended the "Trading With the
Enemy Act" of 1917 (previously amended fourteen times from March 26, 1918, to March 10,
1930), bringing the "Trading With the Enemy Act" inside the United States applying it to "any
place subject to the jurisdiction thereof' [all the States within the United States] when
previously, under the "Trading With the Enemy Act," all transactions "executed wholly
within the United States" were excluded;

7. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act" defined any "person" to mean "an individual,
partnership, association or corporation." The term "person" was defined to mean a Public
"citizen of the United States." The term "person" excludes a Private "citizen of the United
States."

8. Therefore, the "Trading with the Enemy Act" defined a "person" to include a Private Citizen of
the United States. The "Emergency Banking Relief Act" defined a "person" to be an artificial

Exhibit A Page 7 of15

 LAMAR COUNTY, GA. SUPERIOR COURT
~p1f j g~~DE~iN CLJ~~&1fJC~
BPABOOK \32 PAGES jf!Cg
DEPUTY CLERK tzli"tt:
entity (obviously being a partnership, association, or corporation) to include an "individual"
"person" to be treated as an artificial entity which cannot include the Private Citizen of the
United States.

9. For that "individual" American to be treated as an artificial entity, his Private "citizenship of
the United States" had to be reduced by an implied, constructive contract by operation of law
to the inferior grade of quasi-corporate citizenship.

10. The corporation that is a citizen is a "Public" citizen of the United States. It is created for the
benefit of the public. The corporation is not a "Private" Citizen of the United States. Only
individual Men and Women can be "Private" Citizens of the United States as intended by
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

11. Therefore, the Private "citizen of the United States" is protected in his citizenship status by
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Federal
statute 12 USC 95a amending and resting upon 50 USC 5(b) does not apply to the Private
Citizen of the United States.

12. Because the individual Private "Citizen of the United States" is protected by Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, he was specifically EXCLUDED by definition from the "Emergency
. Banking Relief Act," which act ofFDR's Emergency War Powers Congress (by way of the
amended "Trading With the Enemy Act," Section 17), imposed a martial process upon the
courts, federal and state, after April 25, 1938.

13. Therefore the good news is, all Private "Citizens of the United States" are protected in their
private right to a civilian due process of law on a federal level by the Fifth Amendment, and
to a civilian due process on a state level by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

14. Therefore every Private "Citizen of the United States" is neither a ''person'' nor "property"
"subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" referred to in the Emergency Banking
Relief Act (12 USC 95a) passed by the Emergency War Powers Congress on March 9, 1933.

15. And therefore, all Private "citizens of the United States" are not subject to the provisions of
the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (12 USC 95a) having amended the "Trading With the
Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, as previously amended on March 28, 1918, now codified as 50
USC App. 5(b)), including a martial due process of law imposed by the amended "Trading
With the Enemy Act" upon any artificial "person" within the United States and "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof," i.e, "subject to the de facto Emergency War Powers jurisdiction
thereof."

Exhibit A Page 8 of 15
 DEPUTY CLERK

A Word for Word Comparison

Between 50 USC App. Section 5(b) of the

"The Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6,1917,40 Stat. Law 411

as Amended on March 28, 1918, and Section 5(b) of the "Trading With the Enemy Act"

"The Emergency Banking Relief Act" of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. Law 1

This Word for Word Comparison is critical in understanding how "The Emergency Banking Relief
Act" (1933) Amended "The Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917) as Amended in substance making
"The Trading With the Enemy Act" the Law of the Land of the United States of America.

"The Trading With the Enemy Act" as Amended on March 9, 1933, imposed a de facto Emergency
War Powers Military Government, while ousting de jure Civilian Constitutional Government.

All Courts, Federal and State, now impose a Martial Due Process instead of a Civilian Due Process
on every "Person Within the United States," Natural and Artificial.

"Trading With the Enemy Act," Section 5(b), 40 Statute Law 411

1917-"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit,

1933-"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by
the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or
otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit,

Change 1. TWEA is now imposed inside the geographic United States during a declared
state of national emergency.

Change 2. The President may now create agencies to "investigate, regulate or prohibit."
These agencies will be created during the 1930s. The Securities and Exchange
Commission is created in 1933; its first director is Knight of Malta Joe Kennedy. A host of
other agencies will be created as a result of the Jesuit Order's Fabian Socialist New Deal.

1917-"under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or

1933-"under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or

1917-"otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or ear-markings of gold

1933-"otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between

Exhibit A Page 9 of 15
 oo'f'ffj
LAMAR COUNTY. GA. SUPERIOR COURT
FILED & RECORDED IN CLERKS 050ACE
QPR 2 9 2014 AT l:
~PA BOOK 32 PAGES-=..~oo~--.
DEPUTY CLERK .. r
or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export,

hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold

Change 3. Banking institutions within the United States are totally regulated by
Congress without limitation. No "Individual" may "hoard" his gold. All gold will be taken
from "any person within the United States,, on June 5, 1933, via HJR-192 <3 >.

1917-"or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than

credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United

States), and transfers of evidences of indebtedness or of the ownership of

property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy,

ally of enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign

countries, by any person within the United States;

1933-"or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States

3
When the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the use of gold, such contracts
became sources of controversy. In the gold clause case Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that gold clauses were invalid. However, Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations
(new contracts) issued after October 1977 in accordance with 31 U.S.C . .2ill(d)(2).
The United States Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal
Reserve be surrendered and vested in the sole title of the United States Department of the Treasury.
The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it
was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from
$20.67 per troy ounce to $35 .
A year earlier, in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere
in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins. These prohibitions were relaxed starting in 1964 - gold
certificates were again allowed for private investors on April24, 1964, although the obligation to pay the certificate holder on demand
in gold specie would not be honored. By 1975 Americans could again freely own and trade gold.
The Gold Reserve Act authorized the Exchange Stabilization Fund to use such assets as were not needed for exchange market
stabilization to deal in government securities.
The Gold Reserve Act had economic ramifications far beyond national fmance. At that time many contracts stipulated that
their monetary terms could be demanded in gold. Such gold clauses were intended to protect against the United States devaluing the
dollar. When the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 outlawed the use of gold, such contracts became
sources of controversy. In the gold clause case Norman vs. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935), the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that gold clauses were invalid. However, Congress later reinstated the option to use gold clauses for obligations (new
contracts) issued after October 1977 in accordance with 31 U.S.C . .2ill(d)(2).
The 2008 decision 216 Jamaica Avenue, LLC vs S&R Playhouse Realty Co. established that a gold clause in contracts signed
before 1933 was only suspended not erased, and under certain limited circumstances might be reactivated.

Exhibit A Page 10 of15

 LAMAR COUNTY, GA. SUPERIOR COURT
FILED & RECORDED IN ClfR.!S'S O~ICE
~ ~ 2014 AT :~<D ~ ~
B K a'2 PAGES jg
DEPUTY CLERK ~
Change 4. The provision excluding the TWEA of October 6, 1917, as amended from
regulating transactions executed wholly within the United States is eliminated. All
foreign and domestic transactions of uany person within the United States" is to be
investigated, regulated or prohibited.

1917-"and he may require any such person engaged in any such transaction to furnish

1933-"or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require
any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish

Change 5. The "new jurisdiction of the United States" established by the emergency war
powers military government of the United States under Proclamation 2040 approved and
confirmed by the EBRA amending the TWEA, now extends to all states and territories.

1917-"under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production

1933-"under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production

1917-"of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection

1933-"of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection

1917-"therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after

1933-"therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after

1917-"such transaction is completed.

1933-"such transaction is completed.

1917-[End of Statute]

1933-''Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of this subdivision or of any

license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be
fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not
more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any
corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be punished by a
like fine, imprisonment, or both. As used in this subdivision the term 'person'
means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation." [End of Statute]

Exhibit A Page 11 of 15
 DEPUTY CLERK

Change 6. New penalties are imposed for violating the amended TWEA extended into the
United States affecting ~~any person within the United States" (natural or artificial)
usubject to thejurisdiction thereof," namely, to the newly imposed, non-civilian,
emergency war powers, martial jurisdiction of the United States.

Note: "Person" as defined under the TWEA is identical to a "Person" defined in the EBRA.
However, an individual natural "Person" under the TWEA was a Private Citizen of the
United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The natural "Person" under the
EBRA amending the TWEA and thereby extending the TWEA into the United States is a
Public "U.S. citizen" treated like a corporation in commercial privilege.

CONCLUSION

Citizenship Status and Jurisdiction of the United States

I. Private Citizenship of the United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment

~'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.,,

A. An individual is a natural "person."

;

B. That individual natural "person" is "born or naturalized in the United States" (the
geographic "United States" composed of the states in union under the Constitution of the
United States).

C. That individual natural "person" is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the jurisdiction
of the United States.

D. The ''jurisdiction thereof' (jurisdiction of the United States) is the constitutionally-

established, constitutionally -limited, de jure, civilian jurisdiction of the United States that
began on March 4, 1789, and that ended on March 6, 1933, confirmed and approved on
March 9, 1933, by the Emergency Banking Relief Act.

E. The citizenship of the "citizen ofthe United States" is private, not public.

F. Therefore, the Private "citizen of the United States" under Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment is a "person ... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." That
jurisdiction is a civilian jurisdiction.

Exhibit A Page 12 of15

 DEPUTY CLERK

II. Public Citizenship of the United States, Section 1, 14th Amendment

A. A corporation is a "person" under Section 1, 14th Amendment.

B. A corporation is a "citizen" under Section 1, 14th Amendment.

C. A corporation is created by a state for the benefit of the public.

D. A corporation is a public "citizen of the United States."

E . By operation oflaw, the Certificate of Live Birth, on the day it was filed with a public office
of the state of natural birth, created an individual corporate/trust entity, a Public "citizen
of the United States," its property being the Private "citizen of the United States."

F. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), all
registered property (land, labor and businesses) were seized as "booty of war" by
Proclamation 2039 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt acting under the World War I
statutory authority of the "Trading With the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, as amended
14 times up to and including March 10, 1930.

G. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), the
constitutional, limited, de jure, civilian government of the United States was ousted and
replaced with a statutory, unlimited, de facto, military government of the United States.

H. On March 6, 1933 (approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933, via the EBRA), the civilian
"jurisdiction of the United States" under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was removed
and replaced with the military ''jurisdiction of the United States" under the
"Emergency Banking Relief Act" now codified as 12 USC 95a based upon the military
"Trading With the Enemy Act" now codified a 50 USC App. 5(b).

I. Therefore, the Public "citizen of the United States" under Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment is a "person ... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" under
the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (12 USC 95a) based upon the "Trading With the
Enemy Act" (50 USC App. 5(b)). That jurisdiction is a military jurisdiction imposing
martial process in every action, state and federal, civil and criminal.

FINAL CONCLUSION

The Private "citizen ofthe United States" is a "person" subject to the constitutional, de jure,
peacetime, jurisdiction of the United States under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

That peacetime jurisdiction of the United States is a civilian jurisdiction using civilian process
to gain in personam jurisdiction.
Exhibit A Page 13 of15
 LAMAR COUNTY, GA. SUPERIOR COURT
FILEO & RECORDED IN CLER~ OFfiCI
~~:PR 2 9 2014 M. ):G<O;~ I
~~~BOOK 3z PAGES~:~=-
..... .
PUTYCLERK

On the other hand:

The Public "citizen of the United States" is a "person" subject to the statutory, de facto, wartime
jurisdiction of the United States under the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (codified as 12 USC 95a)
based upon the military "Trading With the Enemy Act" (codified as 50 USC App. 5(b)). All actions,
federal and state, criminal and civil, using martial process to confer in personam jurisdiction of the
emergency war powers courts are founded upon these two statutes.

That wartime jurisdiction of the United States is a military jurisdiction using martial process to
gain in personam jurisdiction.

You are either a Constitutional Private "citizen of the United States"

Or

You are a Statutory Public "citizen of the United States"

You are either a "person" under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

Or

You are a "person" under the commercial "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933)
(12 USC 95a)
Based upon the martial "Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917)
(50 USC App. 5(b))

You are either subject to a civilian ''jurisdiction of the United States"

Under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

Or

You are subject to a martial ''jurisdiction of the United States"

Under the "Emergency Banking Relief Act" (1933) and
The "Trading With the Enemy Act" (1917)
(12 USC 95a and 50 USC App. 5(b))

You are one of the Sovereign People of the United States of America

Or

You are one of the conquered people of the United States of America

The End
Exhibit A Page 14 of15
 DEPUTY CLERK

BENEFICIARY AMENDMENT TO THE EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST TO

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WITH BENEFICIARY DISCRETION FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES

WHO ARE TRUE NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5 AND NOT SURETY-INDENTURES FOR
THEIR RESPECTIVE DEBTOR TRUST ENTITY UNDER 12 USC 95 AND 50 USC APP. 5(b)
MARTIAL GOVERNMENT WITH A CONTINUING NATIONAL EMERGENCY

This is a Beneficiary Amendment to the Express Deed in Trust claim of beneficial interest
in and over all the public and private real, personal, tangible and intangible Property within THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA geographic border to safeguard and secure for the posterity of WE
the People ofthe United States of America in the nation given by GOD for securing each private
Citizen's unalienable rights and beneficial interest in pursuit of life liberty and happiness in
perpetuity, and with the Executor and Beneficiaries duty to this Trust shall guarantee that all
incumbents and future candidate(s) for the Office of President or Vice President of the United States
(POTUS) shall be a bonafide Natural-Born Citizen (NBC) private citizen ofthe United States agent
who is surety no more to the Debtor Trust Entity in compliance with the United States Constitution
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, either under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) with the Military
Government authority of renewed annual National Emergency or otherwise (DEED in TRUST).
That for the reasons expressed above, notwithstanding whether a natural person is born within a
State of the United States of married citizen parents, the_Executor and Beneficiaries of this EXPRESS
DEED IN TRUST TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are of a singular class separate and apart
from those who are either naturalized or born a citizen, and are unable to certify as eligible for POTUS
one of the conquered people of the United States of America as long as the de jure citizen of the United
States remains the surety-indenture for the Debtor trust with beneficial interest in the surety, for that
natural person is the property of the United States and is a slave unable to fulfill the duties ofPOTUS .
Therefore, the undersigned Beverly Waldorf Tokarz is bound to the rules and intent ofthis
DEED in TRUST by the unanimous decision of the Executor SETTLOR Christopher Earl Strunk and
Beneficiary Eric Jon Phelps have authorized me to become a DEED in TRUST Beneficiary based upon
my registered status as private citizen ofthe United States with a bonafide natural-born Citizen status
within the duties and obligations of this DEED in TRUST to only certify a candidate is eligible based
upon the foregoing and shall seek equity relief of a chancellery court for any incumbent and or attempt
to USURP the POTUS to the contrary.
I, Beverly Waldorf Tokarz, the undersigned hereby accept the terms, conditions and duties as a
Beneficiary to this EXPRESS DEED IN TRUST,

Dated: Z~ ~-// 71Jtf-

aldorf o ar in esse Sui juris
private citizen of the United States,
the secured beneficiary agent of the Debtor Trust
transmitting utility BEVERLY WALDORF TOKARZ
 CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
c/o 315 Flatbush Avenue PMB102 Brooklyn, New York 11217
Ph. 718-414-3760 Email: cestrunck@yahoo.com

RESUME
WORK EXPERIENCE SUMMARY: My skills include as a construction manager a wide range of in depth work
history encompassing 30 years of New York State government experience, real property development, life safety
and building codes, construction management, construction methods, low income housing development and
management, 40 yr. computer experience, carpentry: layout, house framing, finished carpentry, kitchen / bathroom
rehab, weather proofing, roofing hot and cold, ceiling and flooring systems, structural steel, tile, stucco, masonry,
concrete forming and finishing, plumbing roughing, sprinkler, electrical roughing and finished, alarm systems,
artistic training, strong paralegal background in State and Federal laws related to litigation, banking and FOIL.

1986 to Present Self Employed Consultant - producing real property feasibility studies, community
development / program services reports and studies, real property surveys and contracting
work with bids in FHA related rehab. work; Tax Credit financial planning and business plans, mortgage closing /
due diligence, request for Proposals to NYC / HUD / SBA / DHCR others, able to rapidly produce creative solutions
for projects of all kinds with detailed reports using markets / scientific research and financial feasibility studies,
Sources & Uses plans, startup cash flow projections, and accounting methods based upon spreadsheet models of
operation, CPM; and have organized a statewide network to address endemic New York state systemic problems.
Starting in 1986, on my own time separate from then State employment, I developed a turnkey
specialized 30 unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Multiple Dwelling Housing in Bedford Stuyvesant Brooklyn in
connection with the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan guarantee / low income housing subsidy to
be obtained thru a NYC Housing Preservation Development (HPD) 75% of construction bridge loan; and in which I
designed all the trade work and developed the program presented to the local Community Board, HPD / HUD,
prepared all code analysis and DOB submissions to obtain a permit for the loan closing and thereafter performed the
rehabilitation removals, structural steel framing, new hydraulic Elevator, and construction trades and oversaw
mechanical, sprinkler, mechanical plumbing, Electrical trades applications, and wherein to assist the Architect I
provided all document preparation and submission, complicated controlled inspection submissions, plan
amendments and sign-off work for issuance of permits and application for TCO, which involved meeting at the
Brooklyn DOB with assistants commissioner and commissioner in regards to code compliance and SRO waivers.

2001 to 2002 Hardwick & Company, Inc. Director for Construction Management that utilized the services
of an architect for DOB expediting on a small Brooklyn Hotel that had been disrupted by a fire in
one unit that damages four - I prepared DOB paper and filed for sign-off for permit as the rehab contractor.

1983 to 1992 New York State Facilities Development Corporation, NY, NY (public benefit corp.)
Construction Engineer / Manager / Development Administrator / supervisor of 5 staff for NYS:
OMH, OMR, DAAA, DSS projects; grade MC level 2 approved by Gov. Cuomo as special project manager for $12
mil. in new construction projects from 1986 thru 1988 responsible for the Staten Island Development Center closing
under the "Willowbrook Federal Court Decree"; as a Public Officer reported to the NYS Attorney General as a
professional responsible for project development, management (see NYS Legislative Resolution Commendation).
While Project Executive for the Willowbrook Closing I was responsible for the work direction and
job performance of the five (5) inspectors, who I supervised in accordance with the FDC s policies and applicable
laws. My responsibilities included interviewing, hiring, and training employees; planning, assigning, and directing
work; appraising performance within the 6 month evaluation system required annually for promotion purposes;
rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and resolving problems, evaluated and supervised as
many as ten architects/engineers, five inspectors on my staff, 30 thirty contractors under "Wicks / Davis Bacon
legal requirements", community diplomacy and government agency client coordination simultaneously at multiple
remote locations.

1989 to 1992: I was promoted to a Development Administrator and Building Codes Manager for projects
at Central Islip, Pilgrim, Sagamore, Kingsboro, Manhattan, Bronx, Kirby, South Beach Psychiatric
Centers for NYS OMH, wherein I also served on a committee to select architects engineers and worked with the
client to develop program and projects then to be put to public bid and then bonded.

1
Exhibit A-3 Page 001 of 7
1982 to 1983 Slomanson Smith Barresi Architects, NY, NY (architect for R.H. Macy's nationwide)
Architects field representative - New York State work with Facilities Development Corp.

1981 to 1982 Marathon Orbit Co., Inc. Bronx NY (25 person Gen. Contractor NY government bids)
Project Manager / Open Market Bid emergency work for DGS.

1979 to 1981 Computron Technologies Corporation - NY NY (software dev. / OEM computer sales)
Facilities Planner for 17K s.f. Manhattan & NJ offices / labs. In 1980 as a private
consultant doing interior design commercial office space for my client at 810 7th Avenue I personally prepared and
expedited DOB Building Notice application with an Architect hired for plan review and DOB submission, in which
I obtained a sign-off for issuance of a Permit for a contractor under my control.

1978 to 1979 American International Group Realty Corporation - NY, NY (real property
development and management for AIG reinsurance internationally) 1 of 2 Construction
Coordinators for Manhattan Office Headquarters at Pine St., Wall St. and Maiden Lane. While with American
International Group on Pine / Wall and Maiden Lane I coordinated in house construction in which an outside
expeditor obtained all necessary DOB papers.

1977 to 1978 Kallman McKinnel / Russo Sonder Architects, Brooklyn, NY (Architects 1.2 mil SF
NYC HHC hospital complex) 1 of 5 Construction Coordinators at Woodhull Hospital.

1974 to 1977 Vogel & Strunk Architects, NY, NY (family architectural firm doing Health and
Hospital Corporation HHCand private health facility projects) Architects
representative in greater New York Area. While employed by Vogel and Strunk Architects partnership, that did all
of its own DOB expediting for all of their rehab and new Medical facility work in NYC.

MILITARY SERVICE:

1966 to 1972 United States Air Force - Rank E-5 Sergeant with Honorable Discharge Training: Weather
Observer, Rawinsonde Technician, Weather Satellite Mapping, Aerial Photo Mapping,, R&D -Inflated Structures /
Support Systems, Theodelite, wiresonde, dropsonde, pilot balloon tracking, weather radar, misc. equip., tractor
trailer certified, photography B&W film and printing, small arms expert, Duty: 1.5 yr. domestic TDY; 2.5 yr.
Europe, Mideast, North Africa, Central America.

EDUCATION BACKGROUND for Turnkey Design Built Construction Manager

1995 Pratt School for Continuing Education: Low Income Housing Management
1990 to 1991 New York Department of State: 100 hr Building Codes course - Certified Code Manager
1986 New York University : Asbestos Abatement course series
1975 to 1976 City College of New York, School of Architecture - Design, Materials courses
1971 to 1974 University of South Florida - Tampa, Florida - Geography Major, Anthropology & Engineering Minor
1965 to 1966 Westchester Community College - Valhalla, NY - Liberal arts Science
1964 to 1965 Certified Scuba Diver - YMCA - White Plains , NY
1960 to 1965 Valhalla High School - Valhalla, NY - Science Cirriculum
1959 to 1965 Eagle Boy Scout- w/ Silver Palm / Brotherhood Order of the Arrow / 4 yrs. J.A.S.M.

2
Exhibit A-3 Page 002 of 7
Exhibit A-3 Page 003 of 7
Exhibit A-3 Page 004 of 7
Exhibit A-3 Page 005 of 7
Exhibit A-3 Page 006 of 7
Exhibit A-3 Page 007 of 7
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit B
November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Democratic Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Hillary Clinton

Tim Kaine
Dustin R. Reed Javier Gonzalez Shawn E. Terris
Concord, CA San Jose, CA Ventura, CA

John M. Ryan Mark W. Headley Gail R. Teton-Landis

San Rafael, CA Berkeley, CA Santa Barbara, CA

Faith A. Garamendi Ana A. Huerta Marie S. Torres

Davis, CA Bakersfield, CA Hacienda Heights, CA

Kathleen R. Scott Donna M. Ireland Robert S. Torres

Lincoln, CA Pleasanton, CA Pomona, CA

Timothy J. Farley Christine T. Kehoe Dorothy N. Vann

Martinez, CA San Diego, CA Long Beach, CA

Analea J. Patterson Vinzenz J. Koller David S. Warmuth

Sacramento, CA Carmel, CA Pasadena, CA

Janine V. Bera Andrew R. Krakoff Karen D. Waters

Elk Grove, CA Orinda, CA Inglewood, CA

Sandra M. Aduna Katherine A. Lyon Shirley N. Weber

Laguna Woods, CA Coronado, CA San Diego, CA

Saundra G. Andrews John P. MacMurray Denise B. Wells

Oakland, CA La Habra, CA Victorville, CA

Jane C. Block Sheldon Malchicoff Gregory H. Willenborg

Riverside, CA Westlake Village, CA Los Angeles, CA

Edward Buck Nury Martinez Laurence S. Zakson

West Hollywood, CA San Fernando, CA Los Angeles, CA

Francine P. Busby Gwen Moore

Cardiff, CA Los Angeles, CA

Laphonza R. Butler Cathy A. Morris

Los Angeles, CA Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Benjamin Cardenas Stephen J. Natoli

Montebello, CA Visalia, CA

Jacki M. Cisneros Mark A. Olbert

Los Angeles, CA San Carlos, CA

Raymond L. Cordova Christine P. Pelosi

Garden Grove, CA San Francisco, CA

Steven D. Diebert Carmen O. Perez

Fresno, CA Long Beach, CA

James A. Donahue Celine G. Purcell

El Cerrito, CA Redwood City, CA

Patrick F. Drinan Andres Ramos

Escondido, CA Elk Grove, CA

Susan Eggman Olivia A. Reyes-Becerra

Stockton, CA Stanford, CA

Eileen Feinstein Mariano Priscilla G. Richardson

San Francisco, CA Cathedral City, CA

Natalie P. Fortman Steve J. Spinner

Valencia, CA Atherton, CA

10/4/2016
November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Republican Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Donald J. Trump

Michael R. Pence
Joel Anderson Mark Herrick Mike Spence
Alpine, CA San Martin, CA West Covina, CA

Marilyn Barke Tom Hudson Shawn Steel

Los Alamitos, CA Elverta, CA Surfside, CA

Jennifer Beall Kenneth Korbin Mark Vafiades

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Sacramento, CA La Crescenta, CA

Robert Bernosky Kevin Krick Marcelino Valdez

Hollister, CA Fairfax, CA Fresno, CA

Arun Bhumitra Jeff Lalloway Errol Valladares

Rolling Hills, CA Irvine, CA Valencia, CA

Jim Brulte Linda Lopez-Alvarez Cyndi Vanderhorst

Fontana, CA Vista, CA Santa Clarita, CA

Nachhattar Chandi Robin Lowe Megan Vincent

La Quinta, CA Hemet, CA Wilton, CA

Claire Chiara Papa Doug Manchester Elissa Wadleigh

Berkeley, CA La Jolla, CA Sonoma, CA

Tim Clark Shirley Mark Deborah Wilder

Auburn, CA Paso Robles, CA Grass Valley, CA

Greg Conlon Chuck McDougald Dave Willmon

Atherton, CA South San Francisco, CA Riverside, CA

Matthew Del Carlo John Musella John Young

San Francisco, CA Valencia, CA Auburn, CA

Harmeet Dhillon Ron Nehring

San Francisco, CA El Cajon, CA

Elizabeth Emken Mike Osborn

Fair Oaks, CA Ventura, CA

Jean Fuller Douglas Ose

Bakersfield, CA Sacramento, CA

Ted Gaines John Peck

El Dorado Hills, CA Rancho Santa Fe, CA

Ron Gold Pete Petrovich

Woodland Hills, CA Thousand Oaks, CA

Lisa Grace-Kellogg Donna Porter

Agoura Hills, CA Corona, CA

Barbara Grimm Marshall Dennis Revell

Bakersfield, CA Granite Bay, CA

Howard Hakes Scott Robertson

Pasadena, CA San Francisco, CA

Diane Harkey Carla Sands

Dana Point, CA Los Angeles, CA

Matthew Harmon Truong Si

Rocklin, CA Inglewood, CA

Noel Irwin Hentschel Robert Smittcamp

Los Angeles, CA Fresno, CA

10/4/2016
November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
American Independent Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Donald J. Trump

Michael R. Pence
Linda Lea Alsbury Charles Edward Harrison, Jr. Robert Ornelas
Winters, CA Redding, CA Anaheim, CA

Merwyn Alsbury Thomas Nowlen Hudson Marilyn Plumb

Winters, CA Elverta, CA Vacaville, CA

The Honorable Steve Baldwin The Honorable John LeBoutillier Jamie Rangel
Santee, CA Old Westbury, NY San Diego, CA

Gary Brown The Honorable Robert Marc Levy Jeffrey Rangel

Fairfield, CA Pinehurst, NC San Diego, CA

Ruth Brown Mary Parker Lewis John Daniel Robertson

Vacaville, CA Alexandria, VA Pleasanton, CA

Mark Brownlee Gaudencio Gene Lopez Markham Robinson

Vacaville, CA East Palo Alto, CA Vacaville, CA

William C. Cardoza Judy Lopez Mary Robinson

Sacramento, CA Vacaville, CA Vacaville, CA

Joseph J. Cocchi Raul Lopez Stephanie Roundy

Vacaville, CA Danville, CA Simi Valley, CA

Julie Colglazier Sheila Schultz Lopez Terrance Arthur Rust

Hays, NC Danville, CA Truckee, CA

Kayla Colglazier Leonard Luna Dustin Paul Salsi

Hays, NC Huntington Beach, CA Shasta, CA

Patrick Colglazier Kim McDermott Richard Scott Andrew Schalo

Hays, NC Vacaville, CA Redding, CA

Dr. J. Steven Davis Eric McDermott David James Scholl

Buena Park, CA Vacaville, CA Dixon, CA

Sallie Hansen Dornan Arthur Loyal Morgan Mark J. Seidenberg

Fairfax Station, VA Redding, CA Aliso Viejo, CA

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan Matthew Justin Morgan Chris Smentech

Fairfax Station, VA Redding, CA Dixon, CA

Wiley Drake Richard Mathew Nettleton, Sr. Glenn Smentech

Buena Park, CA Shasta Lake, CA Dixon, CA

Sally S. Easter Julie Marie Nettleton Michael Warnken

Citrus Heights, CA Redding, CA Dixon, CA

Ron Gold Marc Nettleton Jack Warren

Woodland Hills, CA Redding, CA Rocklin, CA

The Honorable Virgil Goode Jaycob Andrew Ornelas

Rocky Mount, VA Anaheim, CA

Jeff Grage Melissa Ornelas

Simi Valley, CA Anaheim, CA

10/4/2016
November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Green Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Jill Stein

Ajamu Baraka
Daniel Alvarado Greg Jan Nancy Shaw
Downey, CA Oakland, CA Templeton, CA

Sayareh Amirebrahimi Scott Kam Dana Silvernale

Los Angeles, CA San Luis Obispo, CA Blue Lake, CA

William Arkfeld Tarik Kanaana Susan Sonne

Atascadero, CA Santa Rosa, CA Buena Park, CA

Janet Arnold Janet Kobren Angelika Sonne

Oakland, CA Oakland, CA Buena Park, CA

Doug Barnett Margaret Koteen Pamela Spevack

Los Angeles, CA San Luis Obispo, CA Oakland, CA

Meredith Bates Susan C. Lamont Lisa Taylor

Morro Bay, CA Santa Rosa, CA Los Angeles, CA

Marla Bernstein Hassina Leelarathna John Torok

Los Angeles, CA Arleta, CA Oakland, CA

Megan Buckingham Jessy M. Lemieux Jesse Townley

Clovis, CA Riverside, CA Berkeley, CA

Timothy Casebolt Wanda Jean Lord Jack Wagner

San Diego, CA Bakersfield, CA Sonoma, CA

Jose Trinidad Castaneda Bernard C. Macdonald Paul Weiss

Fullerton, CA Albion, CA Mariposa, CA

Linda Chimenti Genevieve Marcus Laura Wells

Paso Robles, CA Los Angeles, CA Oakland, CA

Susan Chunco Patricia Marsh

Santa Rosa, CA Berkeley, CA

Margot Cox Robert Marsh

Santa Rosa, CA Berkeley, CA

Frisco Del Rosario Peggy Oki

San Mateo, CA Carpenteria, CA

Rachael A. Denny Samuel Payes

Bradley, CA San Jose, CA

Sanda Everette Linda Piera Avila

San Mateo, CA Santa Monica, CA

Michael Feinstein Ajay Rai

Santa Monica, CA Los Angeles, CA

John Foran John Edward Reid

Santa Barbara, CA Paso Robles, CA

Michael Goldbeck Ron Stacy Rodarte

Carlsbad, CA San Clemente, CA

Richard Gomez Luis Rodriguez

Fresno, CA San Fernando, CA

Lindsey Harms Michael Rubin

Bonita, CA Oakland, CA

Tian Harter David Shantz

Mountain View, CA Saint Helena, CA

10/4/2016
November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Libertarian Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Gary Johnson

Bill Weld
Alexander Appleby David Kettering Kurt Schultz
Stockton, CA Beaumont, CA Lafayette, CA

Baron Bruno Manuel S. Klausner John Stagliano

Marina Del Rey, CA Los Angeles, CA Malibu, CA

Arman Chahal Janine Kloss Aaron Starr

Modesto, CA Sacramento, CA Oxnard, CA

Alicia Garcia Clark Tyler Kuskie Brian Thiemer

Pasadena, CA Cameron Park, CA Fairfield, CA

Edward Clark Paul Lazaga Emily Tilford

Pasadena, CA Ben Lomond, CA Folsom, CA

Tracy Cramer Roberto Leibman Jarrett Tilford

Irvine, CA Roseville, CA Folsom, CA

Joseph W. Dehn, III Thomas Lippman Susan Marie Weber

Sunnyvale, CA Brisbane, CA Palm Desert, CA

Barbara Engelhardt Benjamin T. Maes Robert G. Weber

Sacramento, CA Suisun City, CA Culver City, CA

Keith Ericson Michael Martin Randall Weissbuch

San Diego, CA Santa Ana, CA Arcadia, CA

Richard Fields Alex Mattis William C. White

Davis, CA Sacramento, CA Los Altos, CA

Aubrey Freedman Denis Mehulic Martha de Forest

San Francisco, CA Pleasant Hill, CA San Diego, CA

Nicholas Gerber Catherine Mellor

Moraga, CA Lodi, CA

Joshua Glawson Gale Morgan

Pasadena, CA Sacramento, CA

Noel R. Gregorio Samuel W. Oglesby

Castaic, CA Garden Grove, CA

Harland Harrison Kenneth Brent Olsen

Belmont, CA Hanford, CA

Jane Heider Gardner Osborne

Carmel, CA La Jolla, CA

Nathan Hoffman Shashi Ramchandani

Los Angeles, CA Sunnyvale, CA

John Hoop Joe Reynoso

Signal Hill, CA Cloverdale, CA

Linden Hsu Honor Robson

San Jose, CA Long Beach, CA

Jonathan Jaech Brian W. Ryman

Los Angeles, CA Adelanto, CA

Sandra Kallander Brian Schar

Pacheco, CA Menlo Park, CA

John Kendall David Schrader

Newport Beach, CA Hermosa Beach, CA

10/4/2016
November 8, 2016, General Election
Presidential Elector List for the State of California
Peace and Freedom Party Presidential Electors

Pledged To: Gloria Estela La Riva

Dennis J. Banks
Meghann Adams Ruben La Riva Lehma Amena Sawez
Daly City, CA San Francisco, CA Davis, CA

Kevin Akin Gloria La Riva Michelle Schudel

Riverside, CA San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA

Margie Akin Tina Landis Fred Short

Riverside, CA San Francisco, CA Ukiah, CA

Richard Becker Frank Lara Margaret M. Smith

San Francisco, CA Daly City, CA Aptos, CA

Jon Lowell Britton Shelby Lippencott Neal Sweeney

Campbell, CA Sacramento, CA Davis, CA

Sarah Carlson Esmeralda Loreto Tahnee Sweeney

San Francisco, CA Los Angeles, CA Davis, CA

Tanya Chase Abel Macias Dennis Terrill

San Francisco, CA San Diego, CA Sacramento, CA

John Comly Evelyn C. Martinez Cristina Villatoro

Berkeley, CA San Francisco, CA Sacramento, CA

Yohana De Leon Isaac Munoz Mackenzie Elizabeth Wilson

North Hollywood, CA Modesto, CA Sacramento, CA

Gerald Allen Frink Susan M. Muysenberg Preston Wood

Sacramento, CA Campbell, CA Los Angeles, CA

Anne M. Gamboni Toni Novak Sheila Xiao

San Francisco, CA Healdsburg, CA Los Angeles, CA

Nyree Hall Keith A. Pavlik

Sacramento, CA San Francisco, CA

Maile Hampton Samuel Petker

Sacramento, CA Manteca, CA

Norma Harrison Adan Plascensia

Berkeley, CA Irvine, CA

Estevan Hernandez Kent Power

Sacramento, CA Sacramento, CA

John Hershey Emily Power

Citrus Heights, CA Sacramento, CA

Gary Hicks Victor Quintero

Berkeley, CA Los Angeles, CA

Ron Holladay John Reiger

San Francisco, CA Sacramento, CA

Nathalie Patricia Hrizi Debra Reiger

San Francisco, CA Sacramento, CA

Howard Johnson Jamier Sale

Los Angeles, CA Sacramento, CA

Douglas Kaufman Teresa Sale

Long Beach, CA Sacramento, CA

Eman Khaleq Erik Saucedo

Long Beach, CA Sacramento, CA

10/4/2016
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit C
American Independent Party of California
Affiliated with the American Independent Party
Of
These United States

State Central Committee Chairperson: Mark Seidenberg

Executive Committee Chairperson: Markham Robinson

State Headquarters
476 Deodara St. Vacaville CA 95688-2637
AIP HQ Phone: 707-359-4884
markyavelli@gmail.com

State Filer ID: 742371 August 5, 2016

To: James Brulte, Chairman of the California Republican Party

and
Cynthia Bryant, Executive Director of the California Republican Party
From: Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party of California Chairperson
And
Markham G. Robinson, Executive Committee Chairman (State Party), Chairman (National Party)
Re: American Independent Party 2016 Presidential Ticket Intentions

Dear James and Cynthia:

The American Independent Party of California is very pleased to offer cooperation to the California Republican
Party in the election of Donald J. Trump and Michael Richard Pence as the next President and Vice President of
the United States, respectively. Elections Code 13105 (c) provides statutory support for such an offer by allowing
us to nominate your Presidential ticket.

The demographic to which the American Independent Party appeals is precisely that of the new voters which
Donald Trump brought out to vote for him in the recent Primary elections. A number of Republican officeholders
attribute their electoral success to the edge provided by our endorsement. Our nomination is, we believe, a
much stronger evidence of our support and approval than just an endorsement and reaches beyond our own
registration base to many more voters who are acquainted with our brand.

Here is our proposal.

Our State and National Conventions (August 13, 2016, in Sacramento, California) will nominate Donald J. Trump
and Michael Richard Pence for President and Vice President, respectively.

We will immediately notify the Secretary of State of our decision following our two day event. Then, well before
the deadline for the submission of an Electoral College slate, we will, jointly with your Party, write a notification
to the Secretary of State specifying Presidential Electors primarily selected by your Party and a small number by
ours. Using the latest registration figures for our parties our fair portion of 55 Electoral College electors is:

((457173/(4888771+457173))*55 = 4.7034751954

Rounding to the nearest whole number, that is 5 for us and 50 for you. We will provide you promptly with a list of
5 potential electors and their relevant information which you should find easy to vet.

Precedents for the Republican Party cooperating with another party in Presidential elections are found in 1928
and 1940 elections where your Party nominated the same Presidential candidate as the Prohibition Party of
California and the Townsend Party, respectively. In 1928 the California Prohibition Party broke with its national
party and nominated Herbert Hoover, but did nominate for Vice President someone different from the
Republican nominee for that position. Our proposal does better than that, synchronizing our national and state
party nominations for President and Vice President entirely with your Partys.

For your convenience you will find below the enabling Elections Code Section and a link to material on the
historic election of 1928.

13105.
(c) If for a general election any candidate for President of the United States or Vice President
of the United States has received the nomination of any additional party or parties, the name(s)
shall be printed to the right of the name of the candidate's own party. Party names of a
candidate shall be separated by commas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_1928

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_Party

It is our hope that our Party constituencies joining together in this way will have several salutary effects,
namely:

Induce the national Trump Campaign to devote more resources to California seeing a
potential win here;
Garner more exposure to your and our Parties principles, positions and agendas by the
publicity that our cooperation will engender;
Provide an opportunity to conduct registration campaigns to attract new voters to both our
parties;
Point out political values shared by two patriotic American political parties.
Divert Democratic Party and Hillary Campaign resources from other uses;

We hope to have an affirmative response from you very shortly. For our part, we will proceed on the assumption
of success, intending to nominate the same ticket and trusting that details will be worked out in good faith with
ample time to spare.

Sincerely,

Mark Seidenberg, Chairman of the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party of California

Faithfully Yours,

Markham Robinson, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Independent Party of California
(AIPCA) and Chairman of the American Independent Party of These United States (AIPOTUS)
 ALEX PADILLA | SECRETARY OF STATE | STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTIONS DIVISION
1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 | Tel 916.657.2166 | Fax 916.653.3214 | www.sos.ca.gov

August 26, 2016

County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV) Memorandum #16270

TO: All County Clerks/Registrars of Voters

FROM: /s/ Steven J. Reyes

Chief Counsel

RE: General Election: Ballot Layout Issues

We have received several inquiries regarding the ballot layout for the upcoming
November 8, 2016, General Election due to the unusually large number of state
propositions and as a result of the nomination of Trump/Pence by both the Republican
and American Independent parties as their candidates for President and Vice President.
As you are aware, the Elections Code contains very specific instructions for ballot layout
(Division 13 of the Elections Code, commencing with Section 13000).

While we understand that many counties will need to utilize Elections Code section
13265 and have more than one ballot card, we want to remind you of some essential
Elections Code sections that must be followed. The information below is a summary of
questions received and our offices responses.

Can we modify the ballot order for the state and local measures in any way to
save space?

No. Elections Code section 13109 provides the specific order of offices and measures
on the ballot.

Since the November 8, 2016, General Election ballot will be so lengthy, can the
ballot label provided by the Attorney General for the state ballot measures and/or
the ballot wording describing party labels be shortened or removed all together?

No. Elections Code section 13247 requires that the statement of all measures
submitted to the voters be abbreviated on the ballot in a ballot label as provided in
Elections Code section 9051.

Elections Code section 13206.5 provides the exact language (in quotations) that must
be included on the ballot for the description of party labels.
CCROV #16270
August 26, 2016
Page 2

Since both the Republican Party and the American Independent Party have
nominated Donald Trump and Michael Pence for President and Vice President,
how should the parties be listed on the ballot?

Elections Code section 13105(c) provides that if any candidate for President of the
United States or Vice President of the United States has received the nomination of any
additional party, the name of the party shall be printed to the right of the name of the
candidates own party. The party identification after Donald Trumps name shall read as
follows: Republican, American Independent.

In the event your voting system does not have the capability to print Republican,
American Independent due to lack of space, the parties may be abbreviated. On
February 10, 2012, this office issued CCROV #12059, which provided guidance for the
implementation of the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act of 2010. In 2012, some
counties had expressed concerns about placing all of the required language regarding a
candidates party preference as required by Elections Code section 13105(a)(1).
CCROV #12059 provided that, if ballot layout capacity necessitates abbreviating
qualified political party names, the following approved abbreviations could be used:

DEM Democratic
REP Republican
AI American Independent
GRN Green
LIB Libertarian
PF Peace and Freedom
REP, AI Republican, American Independent (for Trump/Pence nomination
only)

Please Note: If your county will be abbreviating the nominating party of presidential
candidates, or the party preference of any other candidate on the ballot, the
abbreviations must be used for ALL candidates in every contest on your ballot.
Further, if abbreviations are used, you must include a list which defines the
abbreviations in your sample ballot.

Elections Code section 13210(b) requires the ballot to state Vote for One Party
for candidates for President and Vice President. Since two parties have
nominated Donald Trump for President, is this instruction still required?

Yes. The Vote for One Party language is provided in quotations in Elections Code
section 13210(b) and must be printed on the ballot.

Are the names of the presidential electors printed on the ballot?

No, the Elections Code does not require the names of the presidential electors to be
placed on the ballot. The ballot must include the names of the candidates for President
and Vice President.
CCROV #16270
August 26, 2016
Page 3

How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected when more than
one political party nominates the same candidate?

The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and
Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one
party nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.

How should we list the voter instruction and voting question for Proposition 59?

Elections Code sections 13207(d) and 13247 require Yes and No boxes to be placed
to the right of the title and summary and ballot label. The sample provided below, for
illustrative purposes, demonstrates how Proposition 59 might be set in a ballot layout.
Actual ballot layouts may differ.

59 CORPORATIONS. POLITICAL SPENDING. FEDERAL

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY
QUESTION. Asks whether Californias elected officials should use their
authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution YES
overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing
certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are
unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local
governments.
Shall Californias elected officials use all of their constitutional authority,
including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more
amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United NO
v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable
judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign
contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth,
may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations
should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?

To help ensure voters and candidates are aware of this updated information, we
recommend that:

Your sample ballot, vote-by-mail ballots, and polling place materials include
information regarding the large number of ballot measures and, if applicable, that
your voters will receive two (or more) ballot cards;
Your countys website include information about the large number of ballot
measures, and, if applicable, that your voters will receive two (or more) ballot cards;
and
Poll workers be appropriately trained on the large number of ballot measures and, if
applicable, that voters will receive two (or more) ballot cards.

Additionally, our office will include similar information on our website.

Should you have additional questions regarding ballot layout issues, please contact
Jana Lean, Chief of Elections, at 916-653-5144 or jana.lean@sos.ca.gov.
 American Independent Party of
California
Affiliated with the American Independent Party
Of
These United States

State Central Committee Chairperson: Mark Seidenberg

Executive Committee Chairperson: Markham Robinson

State Headquarters:
476 Deodara St. Vacaville CA 95688
AIP HQ: 707-359-4884
FAX: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com

State Filer ID: 742371 August 26, 2016

To: County Registrar of Voters

From: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg, American Independent Party of California Chairperson
Re: Urgent Questions about the form, content and handling of the November 8, 2016,
General Election Ballot and the September 9, 2016, Military Ballot Mailing

Dear County Registrar of Voters:

As the Secretary of State told you, the American Independent Party of California nominated the
Trump/Pence ticket for President and Vice President subsequent to the California Republican Party
nomination of the same. Moreover, we were informed that all the County Registrars of Voters were
advised to follow Elections Code 13105 (c) which requires that our party name follow the California
Republican Party name (defined in Elections Code Section 7250) on the Trump/Pence ballot line,
separated by a comma, for the California General Election ballot of November 8, 2016.
The American Independent Party of California has eight questions, found below, about how the
aforesaid election will be handled, whose most recent precedents were in 1928 and 1940. In those
years the two qualified political parties who nominated the same Presidential ticket, settled on the
same slate of electors for President and Vice President as the other party. These elector slates
submitted by the aforesaid two parties had a total overlap, because they were identical.
In 2016 our two parties projected elector slates have a small overlap of two electors, but might end
up with none, because the California Republican Party might object to such an overlap. The
American Independent Party of California has no objection to any such overlap and in fact is seeking
a total overlap.
We understand that qualified political party names appear on California election ballots in several
contexts. Below we reproduce for your convenience a Code section that contains the State
Legislatures dictum on the designation by which we are known.
CODE TEXT
ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 7. POLITICAL PARTY ORGANIZATION AND CENTRAL COMMITTEE ELECTIONS [7000
- 7928]
( Division 7 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )

1 of 2 8/26/2016
 PART 4. AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY [7500 - 7695]
( Part 4 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions [7500- 7500.]
( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
7500.
This part shall apply to the organization, operation, and functions of that
political party known as the American Independent Party of California.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
Moreover, we note that the style by which we are referred to throughout the body of California law
is American Independent Party. That is the name that our party wishes to appear in all official
references to us for the sake of consistency. However, when the context demands the addition of
the phrase of California, so that our name appears as American Independent Party of California,
our party finds that an agreeable variation.
When considering the following questions, please keep in mind the three cases of no elector slate
overlap, partial slate overlap, and total slate overlap.
1. We have been told that Counties have asked the Secretary of State whether they can
abbreviate political party names and were told that if they did, then they would have to
abbreviate all of them. What is the statutory basis for abbreviation of party names?
2. What will the abbreviations be?
3. Will these abbreviations be uniform across all counties?
4. Given the fact that Elections Code Section 13210 states that the words Vote for One Party
shall appear just below the heading President and Vice President, how will the voters
who vote for Trump/Pence select w hich qualified political party they prefer, the
California Republican Party or the American Independent Party of California?
5. If there are more than 55 Presidential and Vice Presidential electors for the
Trump/Pence ticket, how will the maximum 55 such be chosen? Who will do it?
6. Since two slates of Presidential electors will have been submitted by the two parties in the
ordinary course of events, if voters ask who the electors are for the Trump/Pence
ticket, what will they be told?
7. If voters ask how many electors there are for the Trump/Pence ticket, what will they be told?
8. When must the ballot print master for the military vote mailing September 9,
2016, be completed?
Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Mark Seidenberg, Chairperson of the American Independent Party of California

2 of 2 8/26/2016
 ChristopherStrunk<suretynomore@gmail.com>

FW:DEFECTIVECALIFORNIAPRESIDENTIALCONTEST
2messages

Mark<mark@masterplanner.com> Thu,Oct20,2016at10:59PM
To:suretynomore@gmail.com
Cc:hakohen3@yahoo.com,rbrtornelas@aol.com,markyavelli@gmail.com,mark@masterplanner.com

DearAidetoRobertK.Dornan(KnownasB1Bob,

First,myprofuseapologiesaboutnotknowingyourname.Dr.Seidenbergisinthethroesofmovingandcouldnotrecall
it.Wehaveacluethough.StartswithanS.

Second,myapologiesfornotgettingthistoyousooner.IlearnedofCongressmanDornansreceptivitytothis
informationandplanstouseitwhenIwasonthewaytoadoctorsappointment,fellasleeponthewayback,andtooka
shortnapthatturnedouttobe2hours.Fortifiednowwithmy3rdmugofEspresso,Iamnowpackagingthecurrent
stateofinformationforyourperusal.

ThecommunicationstoSenatorMoorlachbelowcontainsthelinkstothearticlesmentionedtoyoubyDr.Seidenberg.
TheInternationalComplaintcoverlettercontainsafairsummaryofthesituationwefaceandthedireconsequencesif
therulesarefollowedandifnoremedyisimmediatelyforthcoming.

First California State legislator addressed email:

Dear State Senator Moorlach:

I include below the 5 articles/postings addressing the situation that occurred after the American
Independent Party added its nomination of the Trump ticket to the Republican Partys.

The solution to this problem is, we believe, a Concurrent Resolution by the California Legislature
instructing Elections Officials to provide a supplemental ballot for the use of Trump ticket voters to
choose which Trump slate they wish to be their electors for President and Vice President of the
United States (Electoral College).

Below find the titles of the Articles in quotes immediately followed by the link to them.

California Secretary of State Approves Letting Election Proceed Before Parties Have Chosen
Presidential Elector Candidates by Richard Winger

 http://ballotaccess.org/2016/08/27/californiasecretaryofstateapproveslettingelection
proceedbeforepartieshavechosenpresidentialelectorcandidates/

What Happens When Two Political Parties Nominate the Same Candidate for President? by
Markham Robinson
http://ivn.us/2016/09/07/happenstwopoliticalpartiesnominatecandidatepresident/

Will Californians Get to Vote for Trumps Electoral College Slate(s)? by Markham Robinson

http://ivn.us/2016/09/07/willcaliforniansgettovotefortrumpselectoralcollegeslates/

If Donald Trump Carries California, He Wont Get Californias Electoral Votesby Richard Winger

http://ballotaccess.org/2016/10/04/ifdonaldtrumpcarriescaliforniahewontget
californiaselectoralvotes/

California Secretary of State Accepts 108 Different Presidential Elector Candidates Pledged
toDonald Trumpby Richard Winger

http://ballotaccess.org/2016/10/04/californiasecretaryofstateaccepts108presidentialelector
candidatespledgedtodonaldtrump/

The potential consequences of a failure to address this problem iswhether the Trump ticket wins or notloss
of the entire California Electoral College and their votes, whether Hillary or Trump wins and, moreover, loss of
the entire California Congressional delegation according to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Markham Robinson, AIP Secretary

Second legislator addressed email:

DearStateSenatorMoorlach,

Wesincelearnedthatthelegislatureisadjournedcurrently.WeareintheprocessofalertingallCongressmen
fromallpartiesofthedangertheyfaceoflosingtheirofficessotheymightjoinusinanappealtoGovernorBrown
tocallaspecialsession.

Failingthiswemustshortlyseeklegalremedieswhilevigorouslypursuingpoliticalones.Wedonotdisputethe
contentionoftheSecretaryofStateinCC/ROV#16270thattheylackstatutoryinstructionsabouthowtospecify
whichElectorsforPresidentandVicePresidentoftheUnitedStatesorslatesthereofthevotersmeanwhenthey
marktheirchoiceontheTrump/Penceline.Votingforbothslateswouldbeanovervote,causingthevoter'schoice
tobediscardedascorrectlyobservedbyRichardWingerofBallotAccessNews.


MarkhamRobinson,AmericanIndependentPartySecretary

International Complaint
Dear Ivan Gobarsky and Radivoje Grujic:

I apologize for not using your proper titles, but I am currently only in receipt of your names and emails and
function of international vote monitoring especially of the United States.

I was asked to send you the necessary information forthwith that defines our problem brought on by a dual
nomination of Trump/Pence by the California Republican Party and the American Independent Party of
California, no agreement between them on a common slate of Electoral College electors, and no provision by
the California State Legislature for deciding on which such electors get a vote when the Trump/Pence ballot
line is voted.

Below find copies of emails sent to a California legislator which contain a brief outline of the problem and
potential consequences of failure to deal with the problem caused by the Republican Party's failure to
cooperate in following the precedents of 1928 and 1940 in submitting a single slate of Electors for President
and Vice President of the United States to the California Secretary of State.

Attached herewith are the following files

1.Questions the AIP posed to 58 Counties about the Dual Nomination for Trump/Pence.

2.SOS answers to the questions posed by the Counties to the SOS based we believe on the questions we
posed to them.

3. The letter we sent to the CA GOP before the AIP Convention on Aug. 13, 2016, proposing a single slate of
such Electors fairly divided 10 to 1 according to our respective registrations, (50 to 5) for a single slate of 55
such Electors to which California is entitled in the "Electoral College."

4.Another set of questions for Counties formulated as a Public Records Request

Here is the link to the qualified parties lists of nominees of 55 Electors for President and Vice President of
the United States each submitted to the CA SOS (2 of which are pledged to Trump/Pence) found on the SOS
website http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//statewideelections/2016general/preselectorlist.pdf .

Title 3 US CODE Chapter 1 provides for appointment by the California State Legislature of Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States should the November 8, 2016, Presidential contest fail to
properly select said Electors on the next day, November 9, 2016. This requires the Governor to call the
Legislature back into session since it is currently on recess. If there is a failure to have a legitimate decision
on these Electors for President and Vice President of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution in its Section 2 penalizes the State by reducing its Congressional representation in the United
States House of Representatives proportionate to the denial in any of several types of elections including in
the first instance such Electors.

 Since the denial of a fair vote in the Presidential contest would be of all voters, California would lose
according to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment all of its House representation. The intention of this
provision of this postCivil War Amendment was not only to make sure freed male slaves of the age of
majority would not be denied the vote, but that the practice of the South Carolina legislature of appointing
such Electors for President and Vice President by its legislature rather than its citizen voters, would not
continue.

If there is no supplemental ballot to allow a true choice in the November 8, 2016 of all the Presidential
tickets and the Elector slates pledged to them, then the legislature may insure that there is an Electoral
College vote for California, but if there is no true choice on November 8, 2016, nothing the California State
legislature can do can do to retain House Congressional representation, if the dictates of the Fourteenth
Amendment are followed. If the Legislature fails either to provide by Concurrent Resolution for a
supplemental ballot to let Trump/Pence ballot line voters choose between the two party Elector slates (55
in each slate) or by appointing them the day after the November 8, 2016, election, California loses its voice
in the Electoral College in the selection of President and Vice President of the United States.

MarkhamRobinson

AmericanIndependentParty(AIP)ofCaliforniaSecretary

ChairmanoftheAmericanIndependentParty(AIP)ofCaliforniaExecutiveCommittee

ChairmanoftheAmericanIndependentPartyOfTheseUnitedStates(AIPOTUS)

OnbehalfofDr.RobertOrnelas,ChairmanoftheAmericanIndependentPartyofCaliforniaandDr.MarkJerome
Seidenberg,ViceChairmanoftheAmericanIndependentpartyofCalifornia

4attachments
2016GENERALELECTIONQUESTIONSFORCOUNTYROVs.pdf
64K
16270sr.pdf
130K
ProposalofAmericanIndependentPartyofCaliforniatoCAGOP.docx
169K
2016NEWQUESTIONSFORCOUNTYROVsOct.pdf
52K

ChristopherStrunk<suretynomore@gmail.com> Fri,Oct21,2016at4:39PM
To:"Dr.JonathanLevy"<jonlevy@hargray.com>
Cc:donegalhill@earthlink.net,michael<michael@mshrimpton.co.uk>

Dr.Seidenburghadhisofficesendthistome.

NotethatIhaveMichaelShrimptonhelpingustoestablishcontactwiththeSultanofZanzibarasaflankingactionthat
Iwilldiscussseparately
[Quotedtexthidden]

http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/index.html

CHRISTOPHEREARLSTRUNK
315FlatbushAvenue#102BrooklynNY11217
suretynomore@gmail.com7184143760
 Affiliated with American Independent Party Of These United States
State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas
State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson
State Headquarters
476 Deodara Street Vacaville CA 95688-2637
Phone: 707-359-4884 Fax: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com www.aipca.org Party/Committee I.D. # 74237

October 30, 2016

A Petition to the County Registrar of Voters

The American Independent Party hereby petitions the County Registrar of Voters to do the
following:

1. Implore the Governor of the State of California to call a special session of the State
Legislature to resolve the urgent problem of dual party nomination as set out in the August
26, 2016, Advisory Memorandum CC/ROV #16270 by Joint Resolution.
2. Implore all members of the State Legislature whose districts are in part or whole within
your County to join you in urging upon the Governor such a special session of the
Legislature.
3. Urge the Secretary of State to ask the Governor for such a special Legislative session.
4. After reviewing the material submitted below on the Republican Elector Nominee slate, ask
the Secretary of State to reject their slate submission. (This solves the problem of multiple
distinct slates, avoiding the necessity of a special session of the legislature.)
5. Provide a voter information sheet at the polls to all voters containing the information
contained in Elections Code, Section 13205 (b) which you were required to put in the
masthead of the Presidential contest on the November 8, 2016, General Election Ballot and
making it abundantly clear that Vote for one party in the masthead means Vote for one
party slate of electors.
We note that the Secretary of State has failed to provide County Registrars of Voters with any
advisory counseling them that they are required to post the language of Elections Code, Section
13205 (b) in the masthead of the Presidential contest portion of the General Election ballot for
2016. This omission in no way absolves you of the necessity of obeying the requirements of this
section. Your excuse for not following Elections Code, Section 13205 (b) is that the selection
method is obsolete. If you can print the false command Vote for one party when that is not
what the voter is doing, why cant you tolerate an easily explained imperfection in the
explanatory language of Elections Code, Section 13205 (b)? We find no conceivable excuse for
this dereliction of the duty to inform the voter of the true nature of their choices in the
Presidential contest. The attitude of the Secretary of State is that the office of elector for
President and Vice President of the United States is not an office, but is merely ceremonial.
The American Independent Party finds this position exceedingly offensive and contrary to the
Secretary of States oath to support and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

A proper handling of all these measures and problems arethe American Independent Party
assertsnecessary to the conduct of a fair Presidential election. The Secretary of State has also
refused to comply with our Public Records Request for an unredacted copy of the Republican

Page 1 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 Partys submission of Electoral College nominees, suppressing their residential addresses,
necessitating the arduous process of researching them.

The problems we encountered in filling in information which the Secretary of State refused to
provide us exposed numerous defects in the Republican submission which we list below:

1. It has one Constitutionally unqualified member reducing the qualified submissions to 54,
one short of the required number.
2. The submitted list attempts to deny ten persons their rights as ex officio nominees by not
submitting their names.
3. The qualified names submitted plus the ten ex officio members not submitted makes the
total 64 members, nine more than are permitted.
4. Many addresses appear to be old, suggesting inadequate vetting of the nominees for a
willingness to fulfill their duties.
5. The presence of unwitting nominees increases the chance of faithless electors who
dont vote for the Presidential nominees of the party which nominated them should they
be called upon to do so as is required in Elections Code, Section 6906.
6. The Republicans missed the October 1, 2016, deadline (effectively 5:00 P.M. September
30, 2016, since the deadline fell on a Saturday). The Secretary of State extended this
statutory (Elections Code, Section 7300) and Republican Bylaws deadline without
statutory authority. Ironically the reason advanced for providing no solution to two
distinct slates pledged to the same Presidential Ticket, was that they lacked statutory
authority.

As a result of all of these problems, we contend that the entire Republican slate of elector
nominees should be disqualified, which would solve all of the problems of a dual nomination
with two distinct slates. (A common slate was submitted by two nominating parties in 1940 and
1928. The Republicans and the Townsend Party both nominated Wendell Willkie in 1940. The
Republican Party and the Prohibition Party of California nominated Herbert Hoover in 1928.)

You, the County Registrar of Voterswe concludeare essentially on your own, abandoned by
the Secretary of State whom we understand truly has only an advisory capacity. The Secretary
of State has proven himself unable and it appears unwilling to either command or advise an
effective and proper course of action. Your independent power to conduct elections are
commensurate with your duty to do so fairly and effectively. As fellow citizens of this State, we
fully expect you to diligently perform your duties to conduct a fair election or to appeal to
those whose assistance is necessary to do so, such as the Governor to call a special session of
the Legislature, your legislators to urge the Governor to do so, and the Secretary of State to
urge a similar course of action upon the Governor.

Page 2 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
TABLE OF REPUBLICAN ELECTOR NOMINEES
Legend:
O = Occupied.
V = Vacant.

C = Chairman appointed.
P = Party Rules Ex Officio.
X = Statutory Ex Officio.

N = Not reported.
R = Reported.

Q = Qualified Constitutionally.
U = Unqualified Constitutionally.

Categories:
We have no indication that the potential Electoral College members reported by the Republican
Chairman to the California Secretary of State were placed in any distinct categories based on
either California Statute or Republican Bylaws. Thus, we found it necessary to the proper
understanding of this submission to understand the categories into which they fit according to
the California Elections Code, Section 7300, and applicable provisions of the Republican Bylaws
(Sections: 1.04(A); 1.04(B); 4.01).

The main reason that the matter is so complex is that both Statute and Bylaws concerning
Republican elector nominees specify ex officio positions. By the Elections Code, the Republican
Chairman is only required to report the nominees which he appoints, but is instructed by his
Bylaws to report all of them, including ex officio ones, but he has neglected to indicate which is
which or by what office the ex officio nominee enjoys the status of nominee. Thus he has left
this task to others to be performed without his assistance.

The American Independent Party asserts that this duty belongs properly to the California
Secretary of State. This duty the Secretary of State does not recognize. You know that in his
CC/ROV #16270 he explicitly provided no resolution to the crucial requirement to provide a
means of choosing between two slates of electors when two parties nominate the same
candidate. The Secretary of State also contends that the notice to nominee electors required in
Elections Code, Section 6901, is accomplished by simple posting of an adumbrated version of
the Republican submission on their website, rather than by the obviously effective means of
sending by US mail some adequate form of notice of nomination to the residential and business
addresses of the nominee electors.

General

The first table immediately below contains all the members who are Ex Officio in any sense
who have their position by reason of an office they hold. The next table found below contains
those members who were appointed pursuant to the authority of the Republican Chairman
granted by California Elections Code, Section 7300, as constrained by the Republican Bylaws.
After that is a table of those who are Ex Officio and unreported by the Republican Chairman.

Page 3 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 The last two tables show vacant positions in the membership of Republican nominees for
electors for President and Vice President of the United States.

Category Tables

Members by Reason of Their Office by Statute or Republican Party Rules (23)

OXRQ Occupied. statutory eX Officio. Reported. Qualified. 18
OPRQ Occupied. Party ex Officio. Reported. Qualified. 5
23
The OXRQ category above with 18 members is comprised of those who owe their membership
to their office according to California Elections Code, Section 7300.

Since members of the above category were not distinguished from appointees by the Republican
Chairman, we must regard them as redundantly appointed, if they should lose their Ex Officio
status, such as Robert Musella did when he resigned from the Log Cabin Republicans as their
Chairman. He thereby also vacated his ex officio position as head of a Chartered Republican
group, leaving it permanently unoccupied with no remedy by statute or party rule, since the
timeSeptember 30, 2016is past for the Republican Chairman to have appointed, within his
statutorily granted and bylaws constrained authority, an alternate for him as a statutory ex
officio nominee.

The OPRQ category above with 5 members is comprised of those appointed as constrained by
additional Party Ex Officio rules contained in Republican Bylaws, such as Insurance
Commissioner and senior Republican member of the State Board of Equalization. This category
also includes those who possess a party nominated ex officio elector nominee position
according to a definition in the Republican Bylaws of party nominated, whose scope is
entirely limited to those Bylaws and cannot affect the usage of the same phrase in California
Elections Code, Section 7300. Any constraints in the Republican Bylaws on their Chairmans
appointment authority are only capable of directing the Republican Chairman to exercise his
elector nominee appointment authority to the extent to which he has such statutorily granted
authority.

The Republican Bylaws assert (falsely) that their rules supersede any provision of the California
Constitution or Law concerning the definition of party nominated or for specifying additional
ex officio positions. While the American Independent Party is a strong supporter of the rights of
free political associations (such as political parties) to engage in free speech and determine
their own organizational rules and structure, in this case the direction of the manner of
appointment of electors for President and Vice President andas is necessary and proper to that
processthe manner of nomination of candidates for such offices, is the Constitutionally
mandated duty and sole prerogative of the State Legislature as provided in Article II, Section 1,
Clause 2, of the United States Constitution as exhibited below:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a
number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or
person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an
elector.

Therefore, in all matters touching the manner of appointment of such electors and nominees for
such, the State Legislaturewithout any participation of the State Executiveexercises
complete power over such procedures, notwithstanding any provisions of the rules of any
Page 4 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 private or any other public body. If the Republican Party wishes to participate in this process, it
must do so within the bounds of the manner prescribed by the California State Legislature,
which includes a direction to the Republican Party in California Elections Code, Section 7300, to
implement in its Republican Party Bylaws the provisions of that section, which include a list of
ex officio Electoral College nominee positions, some of which are characterized as derived from
party nominated candidacies. An actual lawful implementation of California Elections Code,
Section 7300, by said Bylaws may not add to or delete from the list of ex officio elector
nominees, nor by changing the definition of a phrase in its own Bylaws, change the meaning and
effect of State law.

The breakdown of this category is 4 members due to getting the highest number of votes in the
Top 2 Primary for a State-wide office in the Republican Party Bylaws and one due to an addition
to the list of Ex Officio generating candidacies to include the Insurance Commissioner. As will
be explained later, the Republican Chairman failed to appoint all the Party Ex Officio
members which his own Bylaws instruct him to do.

Chairman Appointees (32)

OCRQ Occupied. Chairman appointed. Reported. Qualified. 31
VCRU Vacant. Chairman appointed. Reported. Unqualified. 1
32
The OCRQ category above with 31 members is comprised of those persons who were
appointed purely on the authority of the Republican Chairman to appoint additional nominee
electorsonly constrained by Constitutionally-specified limitationsto bring the number up to
the 55 target number to replace vacant statutory ex officio positions with alternates.

The sole member of the VCRU category, Arun Bhumitra, is Constitutionally unqualified to be a
member, since he enjoys an office of Trust (but not indeed Profit) under the Government of the
United States, as confirmed to the American Independent Party by the United States
Department of Commerce. Although both the Secretary of State and the Republican Party
refuse to acknowledge this fact, no Constitutionally oath-bound official should include him on
any list of potential or actual Electoral College members. See the following Ballot Access News
article on this: http://ballot-access.org/2016/10/09/california-republican-party-appears-to-have-appointed-
an-ineligible-candidate-for-presidential-elector/.

The proper remedy for the aforesaid problem is Mr. Bhumitras replacement at the meeting on
December 19, 2016, according to the provisions of Elections Code Section 6905. This of course
can take place only if the Trump ticket prevails and only one ticket (in this case the
Republicans) is ruled by a court to have received the votes placed next to the Trump ticket line
on the ballot. If Mr. Bhumitra is allowed to vote, his vote may well be successfully challenged at
the joint session of the United States Congress which counts the Electoral College votes.
Moreover, there is a legal precedent indicating that the election of an unqualified person to an
office is no election at all and that with no election to an office, there is no office to be vacant.
Hence the California Elections Code, Section 6905, may well be without authority to prescribe a
replacement for Mr. Bhumitra, because his office is non-existent.

Unreported Electors Entitled to an Ex Officio Position Nomination (10)

OXNQ Occupied. statutory eX Officio. Not reported. Qualified. 10

Two of these unreported nominees in category OXNQ are the heads of Chartered Republican
Associations. Another is an officer of the California Republican Party. Another is a Republican
Caucus leader in one of the houses of the Legislature. The rest are party nominated
Page 5 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 candidates for state-wide office in 2010, the last year in which such offices were party
nominated in the sense of the provisions of California Elections Code, Section 7300.

Unreported Vacant Positions (9)

Party Ex Officio (6)

VPNQ Vacant. Party ex Officio. Not reported. 5
Qualified.
VPNU Vacant. Party ex officio. Not reported. 1
Unqualified.
6

The two categories above, VPNQ and VPNU refer to Republican Bylaws mandated ex
officios, who were appointable by the Republican Chairman. He failed to appoint these
members, improperly for five of them who are Constitutionally eligible, and properly for the
one who is Constitutionally unqualified. These potential nominee positions are only vacant in
the estimation of the Republican Bylaws, which entitled those potential nominees to
appointment by the rules of the Republican Party and not by State law. While having no legal
grounds to assert a right to such a position as a nominee, they have clear grounds internal to
the Republican Party to complain of their mistreatment.
Statutory Ex Officio
VXNQ Vacant. statutory eX officio. Not reported. 2
Qualified.
VXNU Vacant. statutory eX officio. Not reported. 1
Unqualified.
3
The two categories above, VXNQ and VXNU refer to party nominated candidates for
state-wide office in 2010, the last year in which such offices were party nominated in the
sense of the provisions of California Elections Code, Section 7300. Two of these positions are
vacant due to resignation from office, one from a Republican Party office and one as the head
of a Republican Party chartered association. The one VXNU office is vacant by reason of the
otherwise eligible potential nominee holding Congressional office, an office of Trust and Profit
under the United States.

Page 6 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
The Republican Nominees to the Electoral College
First Last CAT Ex Off Residence: Street Residence: City, Business Address Business City, State
Office Address State Zip Zip
Joel (Christopher) OCRQ None 8881 Hunter Pass Alpine, CA 91901 500 Fesler, Suite 201 El Cajon, CA 92020
Anderson
Marilyn Barke OCRQ None 3142 Tucker Ln Los Alamitos, CA No business addr. No business address.
90720
Jennifer Beall OCRQ None 24 Arado 92688- Rancho Santa 29122 Rancho Viejo San Juan Capistrano,
2749 Margarita, CA Rd., Suite 111, CA 92675
Nachhattar (Singh) OCRQ None 46177 Roadrunner La Quinta, CA 42270 Spectrum St. Indio, CA 92203
Chandi Ln 92253
Claire (Anne) OCRQ None 839 Chasefield Ln Crystal Lake, IL 2 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN RAFAEL, CA
Chiara Apt 2 or 1640 60014 or Berkeley, #4338 94913-5703
Scenic Ave Apt 3 CA 94709 (Old
(Old Address) address)
Tim (Timothy OCRQ None 2495 Vineyard Dr, Auburn, CA 95603 126 East Street Auburn, CA 95603
Shawn) Clark
Lisa Grace-Kellogg OCRQ None 31220 Lobo Canyon Agoura Hills, CA 5737 Kanan Rd, Suite Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Rd, Agoura Hills, 91301 (Old 296 or Twin Oaks or Agoura Hills, CA
CA 91301(Old address?) or Shopping Center, 91301
address?) or 5537 Walsenburg, CO 5737 Kanan Rd,
County Road 520 81089 Postal Annex+
Appears to be a mail
drop. Figures since
they live in CO not
CA.
Barbara Grimm OCRQ None 7158 Buena Vista Bakersfield, CA 1001 River Run Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93311
Marshall Rd 93311
Howard Hakes OCRQ None Pasadena, CA 1303 John Reed Ct. City of Industry, CA
91748
Diane (Lynn) OCRQ None 76 Ritz Cove Dr or Dana Point, CA 400 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814
Harkey 31878 DEL OBISPO 92629 or SAN Suite 2580
PMB 106 or 118; PO JUAN
BOX 106 CAPISTRANO, CA
92675
Matthew Harmon OCRQ None 2415 Casa Del Oro Rocklin, CA 95677 2415 Casa Del Oro Rocklin, CA 95677.
Way Way
Noel Irwin OCRQ None 301 Copa De Oro Los Angeles, CA 6953 West Century Los Angeles, CA 90045
Hentschel Rd # D 90077 Blvd., Suite 700
Kenneth (K) Kobrin OCRQ None 6930 Steamboat Sacramento, CA 5960 South Land Sacramento, CA 95822
Way 95831 Park Dr. #384 (or 383)
Linda (C.) Lopez- OCRQ None 650 Sunrise Dr E Vista, CA 640 Civic Center Dr Vista, CA 9208
Alvarez (Old Address?) or 92084 (Old Suite 110,
27999 Jefferson Address?) or
Ave Temecula, CA
92590
Robin (Reeser) OCRQ None 8172 Omeara Ave Hemet, CA 92545 Same as residence.
Lowe
Papa Doug OCRQ None 6104 Avenida La Jolla, CA 101 Ash St., Suite San Diego, CA 92101
(Douglas F.) Cresta (Old 92037 (Old 1900 or 1 Market Pl #
Manchester address) address) 33
Chuck McDougald OCRQ None 222 Crown Cir South San 875 Mahler Rd., Ste. Burlingame, CA 94010
Francisco, CA 120
94080
John (Richard) OCRQ None 24522 Windsor Dr Valencia, CA 91355 27451 Toume Rd., Valencia, CA 91355
Musella Unit C (old (old address?) or Suite 170
address?) or 6383 Los Angeles, CA
W 80th St 90045
Douglas (Arlo) Ose OCRQ None 4013 Park Rd or Sacramento, CA 8556 Gibson Ranch Elverta, CA 95626
5046 SUNRISE 95841 or FAIR Rd. (Doesnt appear

Page 7 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 BLVD OAKS, CA 95628 to be a business
address. Rural
residence.)
John Peck OCRQ None Po Box 829 (92067) Rancho Santa Fe, Po Box 829 (92067)?) Rancho Santa Fe, CA
CA (92067?) (92067
Pete (Dushan) OCRQ None 2209 Rutland Pl Thousand Oaks, Hyundai Motor Fountain Valley, CA
Petrovich CA 91362 America 10550 92708
Talbert Ave.
Donna L Porter OCRQ None 1565 Border Ave. Corona, CA 92881 1565 Border Ave. Corona, CA 92881
(92881) or 215 or 92882
Lewis Ct ( 92882)
Scott Robertson OCRQ None 3045 23rd Ave or San Francisco, CA Same as residence. Same as residence.
3990 Washington 94118 or San
St or 1245 Sobre Francisco, CA
Vista Dr or 203 94132 or Sonoma,
REDWOOD CA 95476 or
SHORES PKWY REDWOOD CITY,
STE 503 CA 94065
kevin@maywoodc
apital.com
Carla Sands OCRQ None 1244 Moraga Dr Los Angeles, CA 11611 San Vicente Los Angeles, CA 90049
90049 Blvd., Suite 1000
Truong (Kuang) Si OCRQ None 712 Washington Rochester, NY 12672 Audry Circle Garden Grove, CA
Ave or 328 14617 or 92840
Hargrave St Inglewood, CA
Robert (Bob) E. OCRQ None 2227 W Bullard Ave Fresno, CA 93711 3158 E Hamilton Ave. Fresno, CA 93702
Smittcamp
Mike Spence OCRQ None 391 E Michelle St or West Covina, CA 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA
1343 HIDDEN 91790 or COVINA, Ave. 92415
VALLEY DR WEST CA 91791
Errol Valladares OCRQ None 28721 Coal Valencia, CA 91354 25101 The Old Road Santa Clarita CA 91381
Mountain Ct
Cyndi R. OCRQ None 28070 Charles Dr. Santa Clarita, CA 26893 Bouquet Santa Clarita, CA 91350
Vanderhorst OR 28446 91350 Canyon Rd., C447
Silverking Trl
Santa Clarita, CA
91390
Megan Vincent OCRQ None 9300 Dillard Rd. Wilton, CA 95693 10600 White Rock Rancho Cordova, CA
Rd., Ste 100 95670
John Young OCRQ None AUBURN, CA Placer County AUBURN, CA 95602
95602 Republican Party
P.O. Box 605 Loomis
CA 95650-0605 916-
238-8467
info@placergop.org
(P) Greg Conlon OPRQ Treasurer 43 Virginia Ln or PO Atherton, CA c/o Mark Watson Law Burlingame, CA 94010
2014 BOX 2600 94027 or MENLO Firm, 1633 Bayshore
PARK, CA 94026 Hwy, Suite 341 or 875
MAHLER RD STE 250
OR 120
Elizabeth (Diane) OPRQ US Senate 4905 Ridgeline Ln Fair Oaks, CA PO Box 2863 Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Emken 2012 or PO BOX 81 95628 or
DANVILLE, CA
94526
Ted Gaines OPRQ Insurance 1422 Souza Dr or El Dorado Hills, CA Gaines Insurance. Roseville, CA 95661
Commissio PO BOX 984 95762 or 2260 Lava Ridge Ct,
ner 2014 WILLOWS, CA Ste. 101 OR 1911
95988 DOUGLAS BLVD STE
85-249
Ron I Gold OPRQ Attorney 5264 Del Moreno Dr Woodland Hills, 5264 Del Moreno Dr Woodland Hills, CA
General CA 91364 91364
2014
Page 8 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
Ron Nehring OPRQ Lt 1015 Old Mountain El Cajon, CA 92021 1015 Old Mountain El Cajon, CA 92021
Governor View Rd View Rd
2014
Ivy Nicole Allen OXNQ California 1653 Livorna Rd W Alamo, CA 94507 Unknown. Unknown.
College
Republican
s (CCR)
Chairwoma
n
Steve Cooley OXNQ Attorney 10153 1/2 TOLUCA LAKE, CA Unknown. Unknown.
General RIVERSIDE DR STE 91602 or Rolling
Nominee 155 or 9 Hills, CA 90274
2010 Chuckwagon Rd
OXNQ Secretary 3131 MICHELSON IRVINE, CA 92612 Unknown. Unknown.
Damon (Jerell) of State UNIT 708 W or 400 or Long Beach, CA
Nominee W Ocean Blvd Unit 90802
Dunn
2010 2303
Carly Fiorina OXNQ US Senate 915 L ST STE C-378 SACRAMENTO, CA Unknown. Unknown.
Nominee or 11201 Gunston 95814 or Lorton,
2010 Rd or 28545 VA 22079 or Los
Matadero Creek Ln Altos Hills, CA
94022
Mario A. Guerra OXNQ Treasurer 8132 FIRESTONE DOWNEY, CA Unknown. Unknown.
CAGOP BLVD STE 882 or 90241 or Downey,
7702 Yankey St CA 90242
Patricia (Patty) Ann OXNQ California 25707 Pacy St Newhall, CA 91321 Unknown. Unknown.
Kelly Congress
of
Republican
s (CCR)
President
Abel Maldonado OXNQ Lieutenant 150 POST ST STE SAN FRANCISCO, Unknown. Unknown.
Governor 405 or PO BOX CA 94108 or
Nominee 5325 or 2707 SANTA MARIA, CA
2010 Lorencita Dr 93454 or Santa
Maria, CA 93455
Chad J. Mayes OXNQ Assembly PO BOX 11636 or PALM DESERT, CA CAPITOL OFFICE Sacramento, CA 94249
Republican Po Box 188, or 7363 92255 or Yucca State Capitol or or Sacramento, CA
Leader Palomar Ave or Valley, CA 92286 Chad Mayes for 95814
53817 Ridge Rd or Yucca Valley, Assembly 2016 |
CA 92284 or Yucca 1022 G Street |
Valley, CA 92284
Anthony (Tony) A. OXNQ Controller PO BOX 1371 or THOUSAND OAKS, Unknown. Unknown.
Strickland Nominee 22924 LYONS AVE CA 91358 or
2010 STE 104 NEWHALL, CA
91321
Margaret (Meg) C. OXNQ Governor 20813 STEVENS CUPERTINO, CA Unknown. Unknown.
Whitman Nominee CREEK BLVD STE 95014 or Atherton,
2010 or 24 Edge Rd # CA 94027
150
Robert (Rob) (E) OXRQ Vice Chair, 445 Marks Dr or 521 Hollister, CA 95023 445 Marks Dr or 521 Hollister, CA 95023 or
Bernosky Central TEVIS TRAIL or PO or HOLLISTER, CA TEVIS TRAIL or PO HOLLISTER, CA 95023
Coast BOX 2200 95023 or BOX 2200 or HOLLISTER, CA
CAGOP HOLLISTER, CA 95024
95024
Jim (Leon) Brulte OXRQ Chairman 4568 Creekside Ln Fontana, CA 92336 4254 Foxborough Dr. Fontana, CA 92336
CAGOP
Matthew Del Carlo OXRQ California 1 Daniel Burnham San Francisco, CA 1 Daniel Burnham Ct San Francisco, CA
Young Ct Apt 315 or 183 94109 or SAN Apt 315 94109
Republican MT VERNON AVE FRANCISCO, CA
Federation 94112
(CYFR)
Page 9 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 Chairman
Harmeet (Kaur) OXRQ RNC 1009 Lombard St San Francisco, CA 177 Post St. #700 San Francisco, CA
Dhillon National 94109 94108
Committee
woman
CAGOP
Jean (Jeannie OXRQ Senate 6218 De La Guerra Bakersfield, CA State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Lynn) Fuller Republican Ter or PO BOX 93306 or
Minority 12889 BAKERSFIELD, CA
Leader 93389
Mark Herrick OXRQ California 1610 Maple Ave San Martin, CA 1610 Maple Ave San Martin, CA 95046-
Republican 95046-9704 9704
League
(CRL)
Chairman
Tom (Nowlen) OXRQ California 9971 Base Line Rd Elverta, CA 95626- 9971 Base Line Rd Elverta, CA 95626-9411
Hudson Republican 9411
Assembly
(CRA)
President
Kevin (William) OXRQ Vice Chair, 236 Marinda Dr Fairfax, CA 94930- 555 12th St. Oakland, CA 94607
Krick Bay Area 1106
CAGOP
Jeff (Jeffrey E.) OXRQ Vice Chair, 73 Bellevue Irvine, CA 92602 19200 Von Kerman Irvine CA, 92602
Lalloway South Ave., Suite 400
CAGOP
Shirley Mark OXRQ California 1885 Nacimiento Paso Robles, CA Retired. Retired.
Federation Lake Dr 93446
of
Republican
Women
(CFRW)
President
Mike (William) OXRQ County 4924 Thille St # 10 Ventura, CA 93003 4924 Thille St # 10 Ventura, CA 93003
Osborn Chairmans
Association
Chairman
Dennis (Cormac) OXRQ Vice Chair, 6007 Princeton Granite Bay, CA One Capitol Mall, Ste Sacramento, CA 95814
Revell North Reach Way # WA 95746 210
CAGOP (old address)
Shawn Steel OXRQ RNC 27520 Hawthorne Surfside, CA or 9010 Old Ranch Seal Beach, CA 90740
National Blvd Ste 270 Rolling Hills Parkway, Suite 260
Committee Estates, CA 90274
man
CAGOP
Mark (Basil) OXRQ Vice Chair, 2453 Tealey St. La Crescenta, CA 16133 Ventura Blvd., Encino, CA 91436
Vafiades Los 91214 Suite 560
Angeles
CAGOP
Marcelino Carrillo OXRQ Vice Chair, 5351 W Millbrae Fresno, CA 675 W. Nees Ave. Fresno, CA 93711
Valdez Central Ave Fresno, CA Kerman, CA 93630
Valley 93722 Po Box 477
CAGOP
Elissa Wadleigh OXRQ Vice Chair, 579 Flower Ave Sonoma, CA Sonoma Valley Sonoma, CA 95476
Northwest Santa Rosa, CA insurance Agency,
CAGOP 95404 PO Box 1669
Deborah Wilder OXRQ Secretary 850 Chrysopolis Dr Grass Valley, CA 635 Mariners Island San Mateo, CA 94404
CAGOP # 3100 Foster City, Blvd., #200
CA 94404
Dave Willmon OXRQ Vice Chair, 6099 San Gabriel Riverside, CA or Retired or Retired or Government
Inland Apt F or PO Box Kalamazoo, MI Government Relations Officer at
Empire 208 or 5469 Via Del 49009 or Riverside, Relations Officer at Riverside County
Page 10 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 CAGOP Tecolote CA 92502 or Riverside County District Attorney's
Riverside, CA District Attorney's Office.
92507 Office.
Arun Bhumitra VCRU None 13 Buggy Whip Dr Rolling Hills, CA 23211 Hawthorne Torrance, CA 90505
90274 Blvd, Suite 300

George (Cyril) VPNQ Senior 3101 Franklin Blvd Sacramento CA 43759 15TH ST W LANCASTER, CA 93534
Runner, Jr Republican Apt A or 2839 95818-3954 or PMB 25
BOE Dartmouth Dr. Lancaster, CA
Member 93536

Pete (Nolan) VPNQ Secretary 522 San Vicente Santa Monica, CA 19528 VENTURA LOS ANGELES, CA
Peterson of State Blvd. Apt F 90402 BLVD STE 507 91356
2014
George Melchoir VPNQ US Senate 1920 Barbara Dr. or Palo Alto, CA GPS Mediation, APC SACRAMENTO, CA
(Duf) Sundheim III 2016 Small 27319 Julietta Ln. 94303 or Los Altos, 1022 G STREET 95814
Businessm CA 94022
an/Mediator
Ashley (Emile) VPNQ Controller 6414 N Harrison Fresno, CA 93711 FRESNO, CA 93710 1625 E SHAW AVE STE
Swearengin 2014 Ave. 130
Mike Neil Villines VPNQ Insurance 2706 Countryside Placerville, CA FRESNO, CA 93709 PO BOX 606
Commissio Dr. 95667
ner
Nominee
2010
Neel Kashkari VPNU Governor Unknown. Unknown. SACRAMENTO, CA 455 CAPITOL MALL,
2014 95814 STE 205
Harmeet Dhillon VXNQ Vice See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere.
Chairman
CAGOP
John (Richard) VXNQ Log Cabin See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere. See elsewhere.
Musella Republican
(LCR)
Chairman
Mimi Walters VXNU Treasurer RANCHO SANTA 30151 TOMAS IRVINE, CA 92618 9070 IRVINE CENTER
Nominee MARGARITA, CA 23615 EL TORO DR #150
2010 92688 or LAKE RD STE U or 20532
FOREST, CA 92630 EL TORO RD STE
or MISSION VIEJO, 210A or 23615 EL
CA 92692 TORO RD STE U

Page 11 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
2016 TABLE OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENT ELECTOR NOMNEES
This list is generated by the American Independent Partys Convention according to Elections
Code, Section 7578. It does not include the business address of the elector nominees as they
are not required by the Elections Code for our party. There are no ex officio nominees, so it is
possible to get a promise of being a faithful elector before nominating them. All of nominees on
this list have promised to vote for the Trump/Pence Ticket either verbally or in writing.

Name of Elector Street Address City State Zip

Linda Lea Alsbury 1206 Valley Oak Drive Winters, CA 95694
Merwyn Alsbury 1206 Valley Oak Drive Winters, CA 95694
The Honorable Steve Baldwin 9622 St. Andrews Dr. Santee, CA 92071
Gary Brown 1920 Garden Meadow Ave. Fairfield, CA 94534
Ruth Brown 470 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Mark Brownlee 208 Columbia Drive Vacaville, CA 95687
William C. Cardoza 9114 Trujillo Way Sacramento, CA 95826
Joseph J.Cocchi 401 Cottonwood St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Julie Colglazier 2746 Wilesridge Rd. Hays, NC 28635
Kayla Colglazier 2746 Wilesridge Rd. Hays, NC 28635
Patrick Colglazier 2746 Wilesridge Rd. Hays, NC 28635
Dr. J. Steven Davis 6801 Western Ave. Buena Park, CA 90621
Sallie Hansen Dornan 8623 Beaver Pond Lane Fairfax Station, VA 22039
The Honorable Robert K. Dornan 8623 Beaver Pond Lane Fairfax Station, VA 22039
Wiley Drake 6671 Longfellow Drive Buena Park, CA 90620
Sally S. Easter 5609 Monte Cortia Cir. Citrus Heights, CA 95621
Ron Gold 5264 Del Moreno Drive Woodland Hills, CA 91364
The Honorable Goode, Virgil 235 South Main St. Rocky Mount VA 24151
Jeff Grage 5307 Katherine St. Simi Valley, CA 93063
Charles Edward Harrison, Jr. 2797 Vermeer Place Redding, CA. 96002
Thomas Nowlen Hudson 9971 Base Line Road Elverta, CA 95626-9411
The Honorable John LeBoutillier 280 Wheatley Rd. Old Westbury, NY 11568
The Honorable Robert Marc Levy #4 Wicker Place Pinehurst, NC 28374
Mary Parker Lewis 4700 Surry Place Alexandria, VA 22304
Gaudencio Gene Lopez 1120 Weeks St. East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Judy Lopez 2007 Infidel Ct. Vacaville, CA 95688
Raul Lopez 61 Oakridge Ct Danville, CA 94506
Sheila Schultz Lopez 61 Oakridge Ct. Danville, CA 94506
Leonard Luna 19852 Claremont Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Kim Mcdermott 890 Fall River Trail Vacaville, CA 95687
Rick McDermott 890 Fall River Trail Vacaville, CA 95687
Arthur Loyal Morgan 8743 Placer Rd. Redding, CA 96001
Matthew Justin Morgan 3381 Auburn Dr. Redding, CA 96001
Richard Mathew Nettleton Sr. 3304 Shasta Dam Blvd. space 59 Shasta Lake, CA 96019
Julie Marie Nettleton 9329 Irish Creek Ln. Redding, CA 96001
Marc Nettleton 2028 Marlene Ct. Redding, CA 96002
Jaycob Andrew Ornelas 1691 South Heritage Circle Anaheim, CA 92804
Melissa Ornelas 1691 S. Heritage Cir Anaheim, CA 92804
Robert Ornelas 1691 S. Heritage Cir Anaheim, CA 92804
Marilyn Plumb 6680 Willow Road Vacaville, CA 95687-9469

Page 12 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
 Jamie Rangel 10946 Scripps Ranch Blvd., APT 2D San Diego, CA 92131
Jeffrey Rangel 10946 Scripps Ranch Blvd., APT 2D San Diego, CA 92131
John Daniel Robertson 2323 Santa Rita Rd, Apt 17 Pleasanton, CA 94566
Markham Robinson 476 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Mary Robinson 476 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688
Stephanie Roundy 2753 Highgate Place Simi Valley, CA 93065
Terrance Arthur Rust 348 James McArthur Truckee, CA 96161
Dustin Paul Salsi 11383 Benson Dr. Shasta, CA 96087
Richard Scott Andrew Schalo 7600 Camino Del Encina Redding, CA 96001
David James Scholl 1275 West H St. Dixon, CA 95620
Mark J. Seidenberg 23405 Via San Miguel Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Chris Smentech 1300 Parkgreen Dr. Dixon, CA 95620
Glenn Smentech 1300 Parkgreen Dr. Dixon, CA 95620
Michael Warnken 6715 Binghampton Rd. Dixon, CA 95620
Jack Warren 5513 Freeman Circle Rocklin, CA 95677
Alternates
Elector Name Street Address City State Zip P/VP Elector
Robert Drobot 190 Sylvia Avenue, Milpitas, CA 95035 Drobot, Robert
Reuben LaBarga 471 Deodara St. Vacaville, CA 95688 LaBarga, Reuben
Byril Price 20702 El Toro Rd., Apt 222 Lake Forest, CA Price, Byril
92630
Alane Quien 134 South Parsons Ave., Apt Merced CA 95341 Quien, Alane
A.
Catherine Stachowiak 3410 Regatta Place Oxnard, CA 93035 Stachowiak, Catherine
Thomas A. Stachowiak 3410 Regatta Place Oxnard, CA 93035 Stachowiak, Thomas
A.
Trees Wowor 23495 Via San Miguel Aliso Viejo, CA Wowor, Trees
92656

Dr. Robert Ornelas

Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Dr. Mark Seidenberg

Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 13 of 13 American Independent Party Trump/Pence Elector Nominee Slates October 30, 2016
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit D
 American Independent Party of
California
Affiliated with the American Independent Party
Of
These United States

State Central Committee Chairman: Robert Ornelas

Vice Chairman: Mark Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson

State Headquarters:
476 Deodara St. Vacaville CA 95688
AIP HQ: 707-359-4884 State Filer ID: 742371
FAX: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com

To: County Registrar of Voters October 7, 2016

From: Dr. Robert Ornelas, American Independent Party of California Chairman

Re: A Public Records Request about the November 8, 2016, General Election Electors for
President and Vice President of the United States, especially as regards voter rights to see
the list(s) of said Electors and about the ballot masthead contents for the Presidential
contest

Dear County Registrar of Voters:

It has been the experience of the American Independent Party that very few Counties ever even
acknowledge the receipt of questions by our party concerning elections matters, or respond to them
in any manner. Therefore , our party has determined in this important instance that we will put
these questions in the form of a public records request.
First, some observations.
All the qualified parties nominees of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States
have been accepted by the California Secretary of State as of October 3, 2016, before 5:00 P.M. and
they have been posted on the Secretary of States Elections Division website.
In CC/ROV #16270 General Election: Ballot Layout Issues, the following question was raised and
answered:
How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected when more than one
political party nominates the same candidate?
The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice
President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party nominates
the same candidate. W e w ill address this issue if/ w hen appropriate . [Emphasis Added]
NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION. This public records request
is part of our many-pronged effort to get this disaster in the making appropriately resolved.
It seems rather obvious that you cant select electors for President and Vice President of the United
States, if you cant figure out how (the manner in which) to let the voters do it. And why is this

Page 1 of 3 County Registrars of Voters 7 October 2016

 important? Well, serious consequences will ensue if the matter is not properly resolved by elections
officials, the State executive and the State Legislature.
If voters are denied an effective choice in any ballot line for the Presidential contest, such as the
Trump/Pence ballot line, this will cause the invocation of Section 2 of Article 14, Amendments to the
United States Constitution, which diminishes State Congressional representation in proportion to
such a denial. If the State Legislature is forced to make such a selection, which the American
Independent Party contends will be the case whichever ticket gets the most votes, then the entire
California Congressional delegation will lose their offices.
Moreover, an invalid Presidential contest, absent appointment of the aforesaid Electors by the State
Legislature in accord with Title 3, US CODE, Chapter 1, will lose California its vote in the Electoral
College for the 2016 election.
Questions About the Handling of the Presidential Contest by the
County Registrar of Voters, the Contents of the Ballot, and Voter
Rights
1. If voters ask how many electors there are for the Trump/Pence ticket, what will
they be told?
2. If voters ask to see the list of electors for the Trump/Pence ticket, will they be
shown anything and if so what?
3. If voters ask to see the list of electors for any other ticket than Trump/Pence, will
they be shown anything and if so what?
4. If voters will be shown an Electoral College list (or lists) for a ticket, what will they
be showna list of names only or perhaps a list of names with residence
addresses as submitted by the party (or parties) to the Secretary of State?
5. For the Trump/Pence Ticket, will the Electoral College list be a single list or two
lists, one for each party which nominated it?
6. For the Trump/Pence Ticket, will any overlaps between party slates be indicated
on the list or lists of Electoral College nominees shown the voters upon request?
7. For the Trump/Pence Ticket, how will the existence of overlaps be indicated?
8. By what authority does your County disregard the provisions of the Elections Code
section below concerning what is to be placed in the masthead of the Presidential
contest in the General election of November 8, 2016?
Elections Code Section 13205. Additional instructions to voters shall appear on the ballot prior to
those provided for in Section 13204 under the following conditions:

(b) In elections when electors of President and Vice President of the United States are to be
chosen, there shall be placed upon the ballot, in addition to the instructions to voters as provided in
this chapter, an instruction as follows:

"To vote for all of the electors of a party, stamp a cross (+) in the square opposite the names of the
presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A cross (+) stamped in the square
opposite the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of
the electors of that party, but for no other candidates."

9. What is the justification used by your County to follow the provisions of the
Elections code section displayed below to place the false instruction Vote for
one party when that is clearly false and misleading, since in fact it is a slate of
electors of a party that the voter is voting for?
Page 2 of 3 County Registrars of Voters 7 October 2016
 Elections Code Section 13210.

(b) In the case of candidates for President and Vice President, the words "Vote for One Party"
shall appear just below the heading "President and Vice President" and shall be printed so as to
appear above the voting squares for that office. The heading "President and Vice President" shall
be printed in boldface 12-point gothic type, and shall be centered above the names of the
candidates.
10. One hundred and eight (108) Elector nominees pledged to the Trump ticket have
been accepted by the Secretary of State, 55 from the Republicans and 55 from
the American Independent Party with an overlap of 2, giving a total of 108
unique individuals. How will your County count votes for each such Elector?
11. If there are more than 55 Presidential and Vice Presidential electors for the
Trump/Pence ticket, how will the maximum 55 such be chosen? Who will do it:
the voter, the Secretary of State, the County Registrar of Voters, the California
Legislature, the California Courts, the Federal Courts, or the Joint Session of
Congress which counts Electoral College votes or someone else?
This Public Records request should include all policy statements applicable to or generated by or
communicated to your County or from it regarding the matters raised in the above questions, all
exchanges between your County concerning them with other Counties or State officials or any other
materials relevant to these questions.
Please notify our Headquarters when the response to this public records request is available or
contact our Headquarters if you have any questions regarding this request. When your response is
available, we will make arrangements with you to receive them and to pay applicable fees.

Sincerely,

Robert Ornelas, Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 3 of 3 County Registrars of Voters 7 October 2016

Affiliated with American Independent Party Of These United States

State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas

State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson
State Headquarters

476 Deodara Street Vacaville CA 95688-2637 Party/Committee I.D. # 74237

Phone: 707-359-4884 Fax: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com www.aipca.org

October 27, 2016

To: Governor Jerry Brown

Attn: Constituent Affairs
Subject: Request for Special Session of California State Legislature

Sent to Fax #: 916-558-3160

Dear Governor Brown:

We called your office recently to request that the Governor of California call a special session of the
State Legislature to address the question raised in the Secretary of States August 26, 2016, County
Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV) Memorandum #16270 How will Presidential and Vice Presidential
electors be selected when more than one political party nominates the same candidate?

The Secretary of States answer and advice to all 58 California Counties Registrars of Voters to the
foregoing question is as quoted below:

The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice
President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party
nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.
Please consider the Constitutional mandate in Article II Section 1, Clause 2 in the United States
Constitution,

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct [Emphasis
added], a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to
which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person
holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector,

Given this clear mandate, the American Independent Party of California believes that the California State
Legislature is the body mandated to address the issue and that the appropriate time is now, by a Joint
Resolution of the California State Legislature in a special session called by the Governor of California.

Page 1 of 2 Governor Jerry Brown October 27, 2016

We were informed by your office this last Monday (October 24, 2016) that the Governor will not call
such a Special Joint Session of the Legislature to pass a Joint Resolution directing a manner of dealing
with the issue raised by CC/ROV #16270.

We respectfully request that your office confirm our understanding of this information by return fax to
707-222-6040, or by email to the American Independent Party Headquarters email,
markyavelli@gmail.com.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Ornelas, Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 2 of 2 Governor Jerry Brown October 27, 2016

 Affiliated with American Independent Party Of These United States
State Chairman: Dr. Robert Ornelas
State Vice Chairman: Dr. Mark J. Seidenberg
Executive Committee Chairman: Markham Robinson
State Headquarters
476 Deodara Street Vacaville CA 95688-2637
Phone: 707-359-4884 Fax: 707-222-6040
markyavelli@gmail.com www.aipca.org Party/Committee I.D. # 74237

November 7, 2016

DEMAND LETTER TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE

Demand 1
The American Independent Party hereby demands that you, the California Secretary of State,
tell us and the voters at large, how you will apply votes for the Trump/Pence ticket selection to
the American Independent and Republican Party slates of electors for President and Vice
President of the United States for the General Election of November 8, 2016.

In particular, when a voter selects the Trump/Pence ticket line, to which slatethe Republican
or American Independentwill that selection be talliedto neither slate, to both, just to the
Republican Partys slate, or just to the American Independent Partys slate? If to neither, will
you count that as a zero vote or just leave the Trump/Pence tally blank as not counted? Or take
some other action?

Let us remind you of your own words in your August 26, 2016, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters
(CC/ROV) Memorandum #16270 How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected
when more than one political party nominates the same candidate?

Your answer and advice to all 58 California Counties Registrars of Voters to the foregoing question is
as quoted below:

The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice
President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party
nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.
The American Independent Party is vitally interested in how this selection of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States will occur or can even possibly occur. By
focusing on the nature, method, and reporting of the count, we hope to understand this.

As to the appropriate time to address this issue, it was when the question was raised to the
Secretary of State by the Counties, prompted, we believe, by our interrogatory to them just
prior to the August 26, 2016, issuance of CC/ROV #16270, when you defined and admitted the
problem, but did not resolve it. All we can do now, just before November 8, 2016, is to ask how
your selection method works, what it will count, and how you will apply said counts to your
reports of the vote including the ascertainment of the votes of all slates, not just the winning
one you owe to the Governor of the State for certification to the United States Archivist
according to Title 3 US CODE Chapter 1 Section 6. But if there is no effective selection method
for electors for President and Vice President of the United States, we ask you and the Attorney
General, isnt this an illusory choice for the voters?
Page 1 of 6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016
 Demand 2
The unresolved problem posed by two distinct slates could have been resolved in advance by
the submission of a common slate by the two qualified political parties nominating the same
Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket. Another way to have avoided the problems posed by a
dual party nomination for President is for only one party to have submitted submit such a slate,
but, in fact, two parties submitted such a slate. The American Independent Party, under color
of statutory authority, has appointed nominees for electors for President and Vice President of
the United States.

We submitted the proper number, fifty-five (55), nominees qualified to be electors for
President and Vice President of the United States. The California Republican Party submitted a
list of electors for President and Vice President of the United States which should have been
done in accordance with Elections Code, Section 7300. (The corresponding section for the
California Democratic Party is Elections Code, Section 7100.) About half of the Republican
electors are ex officio and the other half are appointed by their Chairman, plus any appointed
by him to fill vacancies in the ex officio positions.

The American Independent Party of California demands that the California Republican Partys
submission of electors for President and Vice President of the United States be rejected for
the following four reasons and that our slate of nominees for electors for President and Vice
President of the United States be the only slate of such nominees accepted for the November
8, 2016, General Election Presidential Contest:

1. Elections Code, Section 7300, governing their submission has the California Republican
Party entitled to electors for President and Vice President of the United States by
ex officio provisions and by their Chairmans appointment. Since they are not
nominees, they cannot participate as candidates in an election. A similar assertion
applies to the California Democratic Party submission of its designees for electors
for President and Vice President of the United States. They too already have office
as electors for President and Vice President of the United Statesby the language of
Section 7100, so they too are not nominees. Since the minor qualified parties, ours
included, have mere nominees, they are qualified to compete for the office of
electors for President and Vice President of the United States in the General
Election of 2016 in California.

2. Whatever office, electors or nominee electors, the submission of the California

Republican Party is held to be, it was submitted after the statutory deadline (October
1, 2016, falling on a Saturday) and hence must be rejected by your office. Since
Saturday is neither a Sunday nor a holiday, the rule for submission deadlines is the
first working day before the deadline, September 30, 2016, at 5:00 P.M. Moreover,
the California Republican Partys Bylaws also specify October 1 of the Presidential
Election Year as the deadline for submission of electors for President and Vice
President of the United States, which in fact they must do, because California
Elections Code, Section 7300, mandates the California Republican Party implement its
provisions in their party Bylaws and in this regard at least so they have done.

You, Secretary Padilla, for your part exceeded your statutory authority by the act of
arbitrarily (or as a favor), extending the deadline beyond October 1, 2016, for the
California Republican Partys submission of their electors for President and Vice
President of the United States.

Page 2 of 6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

 Despite the California Republican Partys defiant assertions in their Bylaws of said
Bylaws superiority to the California Constitution and all State statutes, in this case
the California Legislature has a United States Constitution mandated duty (and power)
to appoint electors for President and Vice President of the United States and to
direct the manner of doing so. Therefore at least in this instance, the Republican
Party has no choice despite their undisputed status as a free political association,
but to comply with the State Legislatures dictat in this regard, that is, if they wish to
participate in the electoral process that results in the appointment of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States.

3. The submission of fifty-five (55) putative electors for President and Vice President of
the United States included one Arun Bhumitra, who, in addition to his many other
accomplishments, is a member of a Commerce department organization to which he
was appointed by the United States Senate and which the Commerce Department
assures us is an office of trust but not profit under the United States and hence falls
under the Constitutional exclusion of all who enjoy an office of trust or profit under
the United States at the time of their appointment, election, or exercise of the office
of elector for President and Vice President of the United States. He is a member of
the Industry Trade Advisory Committee, which is part of the International Trade
Administration within the U.S. Department of Commerce.

4. The California Republican Partys submission of fifty-four (54) Constitutionally

qualified electors for President and Vice President of the United States is missing
ten (10) ex officio electors for President and Vice President of the United States.
These ten (10) individuals have all been deprived of their right to be a California
Republican Party elector for President and Vice President of the United States. The
Republican Chairman has appointed ten (10) more electors for President and Vice
President of the United States than he was entitled to because of an illegitimate
provision in the California Republican Partys Bylaws that attempts to modify the
meaning and effect of a provision for ex officio electors for President and Vice
President of the United States in California Elections Code, Section 7300, which the
Californian Republican Party was mandated by this very section to implement, not
subvert, contradict, modify or add to its provisions! The attempted modification is by
means of a new definition of party nominated (State) offices in the first section of
the California Republican Party Bylaws. The sensible definition highest vote getter in
the Top Two Primary was properly incorporated in a statutory modification of
California Elections Code, Section 7100, for the Democratic Party. Thats how its
done legally.

Since there are really ten additional ex officio electors for President and Vice
President of the United States in the California Republican Partys stable of electors
for President and Vice President of the United States, that brings their total to sixty-
four (64), ten (10) more than the fifty-four (54) Constitutionally qualified electors
for President and Vice President of the United States that they submitted.

If you, Secretary Padilla, or your subordinates had carefully read California Elections
Code, Section 7300, you would have noticed that the Chairman of the California
Republican Party was only obliged to submit to you those electors for President and
Vice President of the United States which he had appointed. The rest, the ex officio
electors for President and Vice President of the United States, are your
responsibility to ascertain. The help of the California Republican Party to identify

Page 3 of 6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

 their ex officio electors for President and Vice President of the United States is and
would be in the future a great help to your office, but is by no means obligatory.

As a consequence of this overage of electors for President and Vice President of the
United States for the California Republican Party for the 2016 General Election, any
vote for the California Republican Partys slate of electors for President and Vice
President of the United States (assuming contrary to fact, that they are entitled to
participation in the Presidential contest in the 2016 General Election) would be an
overvote and would of necessity be discarded since there are only 55 electors for
President and Vice President of the United States to which California is entitled in its
Electoral College representation and their electors for President and Vice President
of the United States number sixty-four (64).

The Republicans failed to report six (6) statutory ex officio Electoral College party
nominees, two (2) heads of Republican-Chartered groups, one (1) California
Republican Party official, and one (1) party legislative leader, all entitled to an
Electoral College nominee position according to California Elections Code, Section
7300.

There are seven (7) State wide positions for which nominations or elections in a party-
nominated position correspond to ex officio positions for said electors. One of these,
the 2010 State Treasurer position, was won by Mimi Walters, but was appropriately
omitted because she is a Congressman and not entitled to be on the Electoral College
for that reason.

The six (6) other party nominated, omitted Electoral College nominees are all from
the 2010 election which was the last election at which there were party nominated
State wide candidates, since after that the Top Two Primary State Constitutional
amendment took effect, making all such State wide offices, voter nominated.

The Republicans in their Bylaws defiantly assert that they are not subject to
California statutory law or Constitution in their rules for these ex officio positions for
Electoral College nominees. They also add two ex officio positions not included in
the Elections Code, Section 7300, which actually governs these matters.

The six (6) persons deprived of their rights to be California Republican Party ex officio
electors for President and Vice President of the United States are the following:

Steve Cooley, Attorney General, 2010 Republican Nominee

Damon Dunn, Secretary of State, 2010 Republican Nominee
Carly Fiorina, US Senate, 2010 Republican Nominee
Abel Maldonado, Lieutenant Governor, 2010 Republican Nominee
Tony Strickland, Controller, 2010 Republican Nominee
Meg Whitman, Governor, 2010 Republican Nominee

Moreover, there are 4 more omissions, namely the following:

Two heads of Republican-Chartered groups: Ivy Allen, California College Republicans

Chairwoman, and Patty Kelly, California Congress of Republicans President.

The Assembly Republican Leader, Chad Mayes and

Page 4 of 6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

 The California Republican Party Treasurer, Mario A. Guerra.

Demand 3
The American Independent Party of California demands that you, Alex Padilla, California
Secretary of State, in detail tell us how you will fulfill your duty in the California Elections Code
expressed in California Elections Code, Section 15505 (found below for your convenience), to
certify the names of the proper number of persons having the highest number of votes, those
persons of course being presidential electors?

Note that you must notify with a certificate of election those elected as presidential
electors. If you had performed your duty to notify nominees for the office of presidential
elector which you unaccountably contend are not offices at all or disgracefully to your
Constitutional oath, contend are merely ceremonial, then you would know whether the
submitted addresses were accurate. Yet here they are, elected as presidential electors! They
have duties to do and will be paid the princely sum of $10 for it.

15505. No later than the 32nd day following the election, the
Secretary of State shall analyze the votes given for presidential
electors, and certify to the Governor the names of the proper number
of persons having the highest number of votes. The Secretary of State
shall thereupon issue and transmit to each presidential elector a
certificate of election. The certificate shall be accompanied by a
notice of the time and place of the meeting of the presidential
electors and a statement that each presidential elector will be
entitled to a per diem allowance and mileage in the amounts
specified.

Moreover, we demand to know how you will analyze the votes given for presidential electors in light
of the advice you gave in your August 26, 2016, County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV)
Memorandum #16270 that The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for
President and Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one
party nominates the same candidate.

You also said you would address this matter if/when appropriate. The time is upon you for this
determination, and not primarily because of our Partys demand to know. It is upon you, because no
matter what the outcome of the vote for President and Vice President of the United States, you must
certify to the Governor the names of the proper number of persons having the highest number of
votes, which you must do as a result of your analysis of the results of the vote which you receive
from the fifty-eight (58) County Registrars of Voters. We know you will convey results of the vote for
all of the persons nominated for presidential electors since the Governor is obliged in Title 3 United
States Code, Chapter 1, Section 6 to convey the number of votes given or cast for each person for
whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast to the United States Archivist. Note
that that is all persons, not just the winning candidates. So you must determine the number of votes
for the American Independent Party slate of presidential elector nominees and (if you have not
acceded to our Demand 2 above) the number of votes cast for presidential electors of the
California Republican Party, so they can be reported to the United States Archivist. If you have never
seen an example of the Certificate of Ascertainment for Electors for Electors of President and Vice
President of the United State of America which the Governor provided in 2012 to the US Archivist, he
will no doubt be willing to provide it.

Page 5 of 6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

 It contains the votes by slate and a list of all of the members of said slates. So finally you may no
longer evade the question of how many votes our American Independent Party and the California
Republican Party slates received if you are to properly serve the Governor of California in this matter,
as you indeed you must. This Certificate also contains for each slate the names of candidates for
President and Vice President of the United States to which the electors were pledged.

You may wonder why we might have to some extent gone over the ground already covered in
Demand 1 in this demand. As well as the greater detail we went into in this demand for detailed
information from you, it will probably have sunk in by now how much easier this analysis will be if you
accede to our Demand 2 as indeed we believe you should and must.

The American Independent Partys Right to Make These Demands

The American Independent Party, under the color of statutory authority, has appointed fifty-
five (55) nominees for electors for President and Vice President of the United States.

Both the American Independent Party and its nominees for electors for President and Vice
President of the United States have a palpable interest in the proper working of the electoral
process for the 2016 California General Election Presidential contest and a particular interest in
avoiding voter suppression due to an increasingly wide-spread realization by would be voters for
the Trump/Pence ticket that their vote may well be ineffective because of fatal and unresolved
structural difficulties in that election contest.

Dr. Robert Ornelas

Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Dr. Mark Seidenberg

Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

Page 6 of 6 American Independent Party Demand Letter November 7, 2016

PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit E
,

November 8, 2016 I de Noviernbre de 2016 20L6/-f-]-l--tr I Fl

ro vote, F.LL .rN rhe ovar-(rD) ro^rhe, reft,.JJ$^gIftYt9,LF1P^J"?.I3 -Y9{RF.' word.*No,,. do not vote ror more than
-the
lg%?:??r3'gti#',31;?:g'i*.J*#.?,"ool,?ih,ii"1"f it5lB;hrsH,ifiihfFJ!fl:l1Hr,t",:tlit*
Fir'*"ffis{{.fd{EJH,ff;,l.i+
those qlectors who have pledged thernselvCi io vote
d;6,: ;iiTrii[d'ii;"i;i'if6'S"Jd;mdq oi rJ'G-d
tor'j canOiE ;;{'$liuug*1;1"*;$3fiflfe**
i]asirieitiSi'ih-o..vrcq presidenri?r canoia-atelt tlelliStd.TrffS"Sr3ln3AvffiS'f;g9i
ffi"-1'g,"'i'ls'T:sX;3 f%x;'s'rsl"3""iijlf."jfi,lsill3?8"1,:!ii:T'X[if.ff;1,"$;;fii^J'h*!Ag:.;eHiS.,t et*fgniEil'-BJli."1a;,
pqra votar, RELLENE e, 6va,o ,-l!!r-?#*YtEF.t18T.:":,JfSS*F.\YgImIE,"
m6.s- de.la canlidad autorizada de cbndidatos. Utiiiie tinta nesii oizul p-aiiinmot6iirld-o-iiiLlbl'bll o"'"0* ,,"i'o ,,No.. No vore
iiTinii'od 63ii6EaT;;niffi-d;ia'iiiia;6;n-e'i'Ei#Ha'a-i5pi&io para. rar.nn rt;"r.iEi$iUlSef/f.jt;:""t"':':#
v ,"rr"n"';i
utilizando tinta neora o azul. si mmete un enor. oldile aun funcicina?o oiiiiiiiio'6iici6riiduE'ie'oe
a la Oficina del RSoistro de Votentes at (916) 875..6i5$.edrd voGi.poitorigJ.im.etdci6i6i-idjr-n'iartiqo,JnibiiE[atdji;,iiriio"o-rr"j."
candidatos orosideinciales v viepresidbhci5tes oei-pirti<io. '- net]eiiai ii -tivir6 liii'tii-aiio-m6E 'a;J 'fiiili-o
rolene et 6vato bt tado de tos
-i ];'-roi'
d"-ioio"rtos

ffi n*iffil*tff,frif$ffi *:l[r;ffi,:ffi

effi
*:sE+, F6r+i*i*-\ w +, z.**'affi**t**+Fffi

gffi
Fff Effi Effi HH##Hffi ffi eEffi #Hffi #ffi
The party label accompanyinglne name of a
candidate for party-nominaterj office on the
general election ballot means that the candidate
is the official nominee of the party shown.
Carggs nom i nados-gollgg
partidos
La etiqueta oet paffiEiSbmpaffa at CarcgF_ry4q?dog por los vg!?nte
nombre de un candidato para un puesto Todoslosv6ilTiTils-,SlnimpoitartaprffioquehayanreveiadoalinscribirSe,osu
nominado por el partido en la boldta de las negativa de revelar^Y!s"Plelerencia'.porpartido, nyeden vot'ar por'cuatquiercandidato a un dargo
elecciones generales significa que el candidato nominado por los votantes o no partidario" La.pieferencia por partiOo,-di li nunieiJ, ilJg-;"E" po,
es el nominado oficialdel partido mostrado. un candidato a un cargo nominado por los votbntes, es seieCiionAa;'poib candidato y se muest?.a

tskffiffi&{&4t solo para.la. informaci6n de los votahtes. No implica queet canoiolto 6ite norin"-oo*'ni
por e.j partido ni qu9 oo
al eandibato. La pieiereniia poipbrtiaJ, si ra htbG;;, de un
rlint
-+:;r;ig no partidario, no aparece en la b'oleta elecioiai. --
candidato por un cargo 9l-partido.apruebe
{Fi*
)\h*---*t l{Fff Ft:&ffi.#ffi , &..Fffi
i#-^-Ffi jrkffi fres'" )t &s.k"te& _\ 4*- iry "Rffi.rE ffi {tr f,n gts K trtrIlffi {tn
ltriz&--jgR " ;r{ffi r-nlf3i;g*Ai=
E*+ft & {s*{rz trru +f @ v/F r&'{iL ryr'{*ge _,,t ; * n x i# R,E 4; w,t#. *g &i* X *
_1= */v +Fl/RryHk{f4 4<FrJ SJ{Ri*xn_tAmiF itri (-'*# ) o

l-{|LLARY CLTNTON
,
-_\ U S SENATOH
Senador De stados Unidos
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 7
*r&f.fdi4i.*;\ Distrito 7 de la Asamblea
Democrati c/Ds 61 6pp6161.Er* Ci- l& #tffi#-##E ffit r't"tffftF#8.
TIM KAINE Vote for One/llote por Uno/i#** -A
for Vice President/para Vicepresidentel
LORETTA L SANEf{EZ --_ _Y.'"go"?yot3boig1l$--l-
ffiIJiF,Bffi{B&JSE "^* --__----. Party Preference: Democratic
RYAN K. BROWN
Party Preference: Republican
---GLOR|A 'LA Preferencia de partido: Dem6crata
---
-"- --l
\'--'-
E RtvA--
for PresidenVpara Presidentel
ffil/Rtrf9rg : 'R'$.ffi
Preferencia de partidb: Republicano
ffirrlE#rg+ . *kf,Hffi
#K.iefi{41#l'r United States Conoresswoman Small Business Owner
Congresista de Es[ados Unidos Propietario de Pequefra Empresa
Peace And nreeoo$flgzv,,ti oSf ETFFKfiE,Ti zJ.-ft#J::
DENNIS J. BANKS
for Vice PresidenUr;ara Vicepresidentel
-;- -__ KAI\4ALA D. HARRTS ---- KEVIN MCCARTY
ffitJftWftii'';#i# /\' Party Preference: Democratic \ ---'/ Party Preference: Dennocratic
Preferencia de padido: Dem6crata
:-:
,{:*) ffi7/itEffi.l$ ,'"E*"=t ffi
Preferencia de partido: Dem6crata
. R*=ffi
trP;*i;
* o* gtjta
u,*
ra Presiden te/ Atteirney General of California
ffiittrEi*,E
State Assemblymember
RepublicaniReputrlicano/#-' f tt g Procuradora General de Califomia Miembro de la Asamblea delEstado
American lndependent/American< "
)rr1)tl F,ilitrg$ )Jn)ilft;i#EF.
MICHAEL R. PENCE
for Vice Presidgnt/Rara Vicepresidente/
__ {EiU,f;Rflttttr#u\
GARY JOI"{NSON
<*) t6i ptLbii.nvpara Fresidentet
#H.f#{Fr+i#-\
LibertarianlLibertario/ FJ i* G(}NGRFSS|OT{Ar DtsTRrcT 6
BILL WELD Distrito
for Viee PresidenUpara Vieepresidente/ td---
ffiil#ffiftft"(*iH-\ ,++ ^,,E"$.%.9,H,?*.."
* Vote for OneA/ote por Uno/i$_-- -A
- JIIL STEIN
-:- -)
(-- -.''..-
for Presidentlpara Presidente/ -:
---
_:--RCBER]'(BoB)
-/
EVANTS
Pafty Preferdnce: Republican
#Hffi{FiS -r'- Preferencia de partidb: Republicano
GreenA/erde1##<ffi ffi //iFiF,EE' J,hTr:.:ffi'
AJAMU BARAKA Retired Government Auditor
fo-r- lipq P re_sid e nUpara Vice presid e nte/ Auditor Gubernarnental Jubilado
tfrll#,W-ii,{ftil8-d isi,f;4.' qirtt+f e# tr+ Fdl

- -',
\-
oonrs MAfsui
Party PrefereRce: Dernocratic
Preferencia de partido: Dem6crata
ffiy/tR$ffiEg$ . F:t:*:_
United $tates Representative
Representante d; Estados Unidos
Eff+K;1E.F*H

CONTINUE VOTING ON
THE BACK OF TI.IIS BALLOT
CONTINUE VOTANDO EN EL
REVERSO DE ESTA FOLETA
3 tj:h itH "FY iff *&f,q {* F

:01 Seq:0012 Spl:01

County of Sacramento www. electio ns. saccou nty. net

Ballot Type 009 Page 6
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit F
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit G
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

NUM B ER S ,F AC TS ANDTR ENDS S HAP I NGYOUR WOR LD AB OUT| F OLLOWUS Search

HispanicTrends

M ENU RE SE A RCH A RE A S

NOVEM B ER 18,2014

U N A U T H O R I Z D I MMIGRANTTOTALRIIN7 T A T , F A L L I N 1 4

Chapter 1:StateUnauthor izedImmigr antPopulations

BYJEFFR EYS.PASSEL (HTTP://WWW.PEWRESEARCH.ORG/STAFF/J EFFREY-S-PASSEL/)ANDDVER AC OHN
(HTTP://WWW.PEWRESEARCH.ORG/STAFF/DVERA-COHN/)

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 1/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorizedimmigranttotalsrisein7statesfallin14/ph_201411
18_unauthorizedimmigration06/)Twentyonestateshadstatisticallysignificantchangesintheirpopulationsof
unauthorizedimmigrantsfrom2009to2012.Theycomprisesevenstateswherethenumberofunauthorized
immigrantsincreasedand14wherethenumberdecreased.

Thesestatelevelchangesaremaskedbythestabilityatthenationallevel,accordingtothePewResearch
estimates.TheoverallnumberofunauthorizedimmigrantslivingintheU.S.in2012standingat11.2million
wasunchangedfrom2009,thefinalyearoftheGreatRecession.Thepopulationhadfallensinceitspeakof12.2
millionin2007,whentherecessionbegan.

StatesthatGreworDeclined

Thesevenstateswhereunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationsgrewfrom2009to2012wereFlorida,Idaho,
Maryland,Nebraska,NewJersey,PennsylvaniaandVirginia.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 2/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

Intwoofthesestates,MarylandandVirginia,thestateleveltrendsalsobrokewiththenationalleveltrendfor
2007to2012.Duringthoseyears,thenumberofunauthorizedimmigrantsfellintheU.S.overall,butcontinued
togrowinbothMarylandandVirginia.InMaryland,theestimatednumberofunauthorizedimmigrantsgrewto
250,000in2012,comparedwith220,000in2007.InVirginia,theestimatednumbergrewto275,000in2012
from250,000in2007.(IntheadjacentDistrictofColumbia,the2012populationof20,000wasnot
statisticallydifferentfromthetotalsin2009or2007.)

The14stateswherepopulationsofunauthorizedimmigrantsdecreasedfrom2009to2012wereAlabama,
Arizona,California,Colorado,Georgia,Illinois,Indiana,Kansas,Kentucky,Massachusetts,Nevada,New
Mexico,NewYorkandOregon.

AsdetailedinChapter2,adeclineinunauthorizedimmigrantsfromMexicowasresponsibleforthedecreases
in13ofthe14statesinMassachusetts,thedeclinewasduetodecreasesinunauthorizedimmigrantsfromother
countries.Insixofthesevenstateswithincreasesinunauthorizedimmigrants,thechangesweredrivenby
increasesinunauthorizedimmigrantsfromcountriesotherthanMexico.InNebraska,theincreasewasdriven
byasmallbutstatisticallysignificantgaininunauthorizedimmigrantsfromMexico.

Althoughstatetrendsvariedfrom2009to2012,therewasnochangeinwhichsixstateshadthelargest
unauthorizedimmigrantpopulations.ThesixCalifornia,Texas,Florida,NewYork,NewJerseyandIllinois
accountedfor60%ofunauthorizedimmigrantsin2012.Californiaalonehadanestimated2.4million
unauthorizedimmigrantsin2012,aboutoneinfive(22%).Texasrankedsecond,with1.7millionunauthorized
immigrants,15%ofthetotal.Nootherstatehadmorethanamillion.

LongTermTrendComestoaHalt

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 3/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorizedimmigranttotalsrisein7statesfallin14/ph_201411
18_unauthorizedimmigration07/)Untiltherecentslowdowningrowth,theunauthorizedimmigrantpopulation
hadrisenrapidlyovernearlytwodecadesandthesharpestgrowthratehadbeeninstateswithoutmajor
concentrationsofunauthorizedimmigrants.Asaresult,therehadbeenamarkedshiftinthedistributionof
unauthorizedimmigrantsacrossthenation.

From1990to2007,theunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationincreasedfrom3.5millionto12.2million,growth
ofabout250%oranaverageofmorethan500,000peopleayear.

Thepopulationofunauthorizedimmigrantsincreasedineverystate,butgrowthwasslowerinthesixstateswith
thelargestnumbersofsuchimmigrantsthanintherestofthenationasawhole.2

California,thestatewiththelargestnumberofunauthorizedimmigrantsinboth1990and2007,experiencedthe
largestnumericalgrowth,butits88%increasefrom1990to2007laggedfarbehindotherlargestatesand
nearlyallsmallerstates.Asagroup,theotherfivelargeststates(Florida,Illinois,NewJersey,NewYorkand
Texas)experiencedgrowthintheirunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationatthenationalaverageof250%.
Meanwhile,though,theunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationintherestofthecountryincreasedalmost
sevenfold,from700,000in1990to4.7millionin2007.

Thesegrowthdifferentialsledtoamarkedshiftinthedistributionofunauthorizedimmigrantsacrossthe
country.TheshareinCaliforniadroppedto23%in2007from42%in1990.Theshareintheotherlargestates
wasunchangedat38%,buttheshareintherestofthecountryessentiallydoubled,to39%in2007from20%in

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 4/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

1990.Withtheoveralldecreasesintheunauthorizedpopulationsince2007,theseshiftscametoahalt.

Unauthorizedimmigrantpopulationscangrowatthestatelevelforthesamereasonstheydonationally,when
immigrantscrosstheU.S.borderwithoutauthorization,orwhentheyoverstayalegalvisaafteritexpired.Some
statesalsomayhaveexperiencedgrowthintheirpopulationsbecauseunauthorizedimmigrantsmovedthere
fromotherstates.AmajorfactorcontributingtolossesinCalifornia,IllinoisandNewYorkfrom2009to2012,
accordingtoPewResearchCenteranalysis,wasmovementofunauthorizedimmigrantstootherstates.

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorizedimmigranttotalsrisein7statesfallin14/ph_201411
18_unauthorizedimmigration08/)Unauthorizedimmigrantpopulationscandeclinewhenfewernewimmigrants
arrive,whenagreaternumberdecidetoleavethecountryorthroughdeaths(althoughtherearerelativelyfew
deathsbecauseunauthorizedimmigrantstendtobeyoungerthanthepopulationoverall).Governmentaction
alsoplaysarole:Numberscandeclinethroughdeportationsorwhenunauthorizedimmigrantsobtainlegal
status.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 5/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

Thenationsforeignbornpopulationtotaled42.5millionin2012,or13.5%ofU.S.residents.Inadditiontothe
nations11.2millionunauthorizedimmigrants,itwasmadeupof11.7millionlegalpermanentresidents(27.4%
ofimmigrantsin2012),17.8millionnaturalizedcitizens(41.8%ofimmigrants)and1.9millionlegalresidents
withtemporarystatus(4.5%ofimmigrants).

Amongallimmigrants,thesharewhowereunauthorizedin2012rangedwidelybystate,from6%(Maine)to
45%(Arkansas).ThestateswiththelargestshareswereintheSouthandMountainWest,someofwhichare
relativelynewdestinationsforunauthorizedimmigrants.

UnauthorizedImmigrantPopulationShare

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorizedimmigranttotalsrisein7statesfallin14/ph_201411
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 6/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

18_unauthorizedimmigration09/)Unauthorizedimmigrantsaccountedfor3.5%oftheU.S.populationofnearly
316millionin2012,downfromapeakof4.0%in2007.Thesharevariedfromlessthan1%in10statesto7.6%
inNevada.California(6.3%)andTexas(6.3%)alsoareamongthetoprankedstatesinthisregard.

Mostofthestateswiththelargestnumbersofunauthorizedimmigrantsalsohaverelativelyhighsharesof
unauthorizedimmigrants.ThesixstateswiththelargestunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationsCalifornia,
Florida,Illinois,NewJersey,NewYorkandTexasalsoareamongthestateswiththe10highestsharesof
unauthorizedimmigrantsintheoverallpopulation.Similarly,stateswithrelativelylowernumbersof
unauthorizedimmigrantstendtohavelowersharesintheoverallpopulation.

Nationally,unauthorizedimmigrantsmadeupaboutaquarteroftheforeignbornpopulation(26%)in2012.
Thatsharepeakedin2007,at30%,whenthesizeoftheunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationalsopeaked.

OneinTwentyPeopleintheLaborForce

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 7/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorizedimmigranttotalsrisein7statesfallin14/ph_201411
18_unauthorizedimmigration10/)IntheU.S.overall,unauthorizedimmigrantsaccountforoneintwentypeople
inthelaborforce,or8.1millionpeoplein2012,buttheshareismarkedlyhigherinsomestates,especiallythose
withhighsharesofunauthorizedimmigrantsinthepopulation.

Theshareofunauthorizedimmigrantsamongadultsages16andolderwhoareworkingorlookingforworkis
highestinNevada(10.2%in2012)Nevadaalsohasthehighestshareofunauthorizedimmigrantsintheoverall
population(7.6%).TheshareinthelaborforcealsoisrelativelyhighinCalifornia(9.4%)andTexas(8.9%),
whichranksecondandthirdintheunauthorizedimmigrantshareofthetotalpopulation.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 8/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

UnauthorizedimmigrantsaremorelikelythantheoverallU.S.populationtobeofworkingageandlesslikelyto
beyoungorolder(PasselandCohn,2009(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/aportraitofunauthorized
immigrantsintheunitedstates/)).Thatisonereasonthattheunauthorizedimmigrantshareofthelaborforceis
higherthanitsshareofthepopulationoverall.

StudentswithUnauthorizedImmigrantParents

Childrenwithatleastoneunauthorizedimmigrantparentmadeup6.9%ofstudentsenrolledinkindergarten
through12thgradein2012.Most(5.5%ofallstudents)areU.S.bornchildrenwhoareU.S.citizensatbirth.The
rest(1.4%)areunauthorizedimmigrantsthemselves.

Amongelementaryandsecondaryschoolstudentswithunauthorizedimmigrantparents,theU.S.bornshare
hasgrownsince2007whilethesharewhoarethemselvesunauthorizedimmigrantshasdeclined.In2007,for
example,whentheunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationwasatitspeak,7.2%ofelementaryandsecondaryschool
studentshadunauthorizedimmigrantparents:4.5%werebornintheU.S.and2.6%werethemselves
unauthorized.

ThistrendisparalleltoageneralriseinthenumberofU.S.bornchildrenofunauthorizedimmigrantsanda
declineinjuvenileunauthorizedimmigrants(Passel,Cohn,KrogstadandGonzalezBarrera,2014
(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/09/03/asgrowthstallsunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationbecomesmoresettled/)
).Aslongtermresidentsmakeupagrowingshareofunauthorizedimmigrants,theyaremorelikelytohave
U.S.bornchildren.Amongunauthorizedimmigrantadultsin2012,4million(or38%)livedwithU.S.born
children,eitherminorsoradults.In2000,2.1million,or30%,did.

(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorizedimmigranttotalsrisein7statesfallin14/ph_201411
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 9/10
11/18/2016 StateUnauthorizedImmigrantPopulations|PewResearchCenter

18_unauthorizedimmigration11/)ThenumberofunauthorizedimmigrantadultswithU.S.bornchildrenmaybe
higherthanwhatisshownherebecausethesenumbersdonotincludethosewholiveseparatelyfromtheir
children.

Youngunauthorizedimmigrantshavedeclinedinnumberinpartbecausesomehaveturned18andbecome
adultswithunauthorizedstatus.

Theshareofstudentswithunauthorizedimmigrantparentsvarieswidelybystate.The2012sharewasindouble
digitsinfourstatesNevada(17.7%),California(13.2%),Texas(13.1%)andArizona(11.0%).Insevenstates,the
sharein2012waslessthan1%.

2. TheonlexceptioniMontana,wheretheunauthorizedimmigrantpopulationwanottatiticalllargerin2007thanithadeenin1990.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/chapter1stateunauthorizedimmigrantpopulations/ 10/10
11/18/2016 ImmigrantsinCalifornia(PPICPublication)

Just the FACTS

Immigrants in California
California has more immigrants than any other state.
California is home to more than 10 million immigrantsone in four of the foreign-born population
nationwide. In 2011, 27% of Californias population was foreign-born, about twice the U.S.
percentage. Foreign-born residents represented more than 30% of the population of seven
California counties: Santa Clara, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Mateo, Imperial, Alameda, and
Orange. And half of the children in California had at least one immigrant parent.

Most immigrants in California are documented residents.

Almost half (47%) of Californias immigrants are naturalized U.S. citizens, and another 26% have
some other legal status (including green cards and visas). According to the Department of
Homeland Security, about 27% of immigrants in California are undocumented.

Immigration to California has slowed.

The states immigrant population increased by only 15% (1.3 million) in the 2000s, compared to
37% (2.4 million) in the 1990s. This decline in international immigration has been a contributing
factor in the slowdown of Californias overall population growth.

Most immigrants in California come from Latin America, but recent arrivals
are primarily from Asia.
The vast majority of Californias immigrants were born in Latin America (53%) and Asia (37%).
California has sizeable populations of immigrants from dozens of countries; Mexico (4.3 million),
the Philippines (812,000), and China (760,700) are the leading countries of origin. However,
more than half (53%) of those arriving in the state between 2007 and 2011were born in Asia; only
31% came from Latin America.

Most immigrants in California are working-age adults

About eight of every ten immigrants (81%) in California are working-age adults (age 18 to 64),
compared to four of every seven (57%) U.S.-born California residents. This means that more than
a third (34%) of working-age adults in the state are immigrants.

and are likely to be on either end of the education spectrum.

In 2011, 37% of Californias immigrants age 25 and older had not completed high school,
compared to 9% of U.S.-born California residents. A quarter of Californias foreign-born residents
had attained at least a bachelors degree, compared to a third of U.S.-born residents. Foreign-
born residents accounted for 72% of all high school dropouts in the state and 31% of college-
educated residents. But recent immigrants and immigrants from Asia tend to have very high
levels of educational attainment. Almost half (47%) of foreign-born residents who came to the
state between 2007 and 2011and 60% of those who came from Asiahad bachelors degrees
or more.

Immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born residents to be employed but

make less money.
Californias foreign-born residents are more likely to be in the civilian labor force than U.S.-born
residents: in 2011, 66% of immigrants were in the labor force, compared to 62% of the U.S-born.
They are also more likely to be employed (59% compared to 54%). However, the median income
for households with foreign-born householders in 2011 was 20.9% lower than that for
households with U.S-born householders ($48,851 compared to $61,752). And foreign-born
residents are more likely than the U.S.-born to live in poverty (18.9% compared to 15.7%).

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258 1/2
11/18/2016 California'sLikelyVoters(PPICPublication)

Just the FACTS

California's Likely Voters

Seven in ten are registered to vote; independent registration continues to
increase.
As of May 2016, 17.9 million of Californias 24.8 million eligible adults were registered to vote,
which equates to a registration rate of 72.3%. This rate is identical to May 2012 and slightly
higher than the rate before the presidential primary in February 2008 (68.5%). However, the
share of eligible adults who are registered to vote is likely to increase as we have seen in the
lead-up to elections in 2012 (76.7% in October) and 2008 (74.6% in October), the last
presidential contest without an incumbent. The share of registered voters who are Democrats
(44.8%) is up from 2012 (43.7%), while the share of Republicans (27.3%) is down (from 29.4%). At
the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as "decline to
state or "no party preference) has been increasing: it is now 23.3%, up from 20.9% in 2012.

Likely voters and unregistered adults lean Democratic and are ideologically
mixed.
Among likely voters in our surveys over the past year, 45% are Democrats, 31% are Republicans,
20% are independents, and 4% are registered with other parties. Of those we consider
infrequent voters, 41% are Democrats, 34% are independents, 21% are Republicans, and 5% are
registered with other parties. Among independent likely voters, 42% lean toward the Democratic
Party, compared to 32% who lean toward the Republican Party and 26% who volunteer that they
lean toward neither major party or are unsure. Among unregistered adults, 51% lean toward the
Democratic Party and 22% toward the Republican Party; 27% lean toward neither party or are
unsure. Ideologically, 35% of likely voters are politically liberal, 29% are moderate, and 36% are
conservative. Among infrequent voters 35% consider themselves liberal, 32% consider
themselves moderate, and 32% consider themselves conservative. Unregistered adults are also
ideologically mixed: 36% are conservative, 33% are liberal, and 31% are moderate.

Likely voters are disproportionately white.

Whites make up only 43% of Californias adult population but 60% of the states likely voters. In
contrast, Latinos comprise 34% of the adult population but just 18% of likely voters. Asian
Americans make up 15% of the population and 12% of likely voters, while 6% of both the
population and likely voters are African American. "Other race and multiracial adults make up
3% of the population and 4% of likely voters. Four in ten (40%) infrequent voters are white, and
30% are Latino. Nearly six in ten unregistered adults are Latino (57%); fewer are white (22%),
Asian American (17%), or African American (2%).

Likely voters are older, more educated, more affluent; they are homeowners
and were born in the US.
Californians age 55 and older make up 31% of the states adult population but constitute 47% of
likely voters. Young adults (18 to 34) make up 33% of the population but only 18% of likely voters,
while adults ages 35 to 54 are proportionally represented. Eight in ten likely voters either have
some college education (41%) or are college graduates (41%); 17% have no college education.
Forty-four percent of likely voters have annual household incomes of $80,000 or more, while
27% earn between $40,000 to under $80,000 and 29% earn $40,000 or less. The vast majority
of likely voters (69%) are homeowners, while three in 10 (31%) are renters. In contrast, 68% of
unregistered adults and 63% of infrequent voters are renters. Eighty-four percent of likely voters
were born in the US (16% are immigrants). Women (52%) and men (48%) make up similar shares
of the likely voters in California.

The regional distribution of likely voters matches the states adult

population.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=255 1/3
11/18/2016 California'sLikelyVoters(PPICPublication)

The share of likely voters in each region mirrors the regions share of the states overall adult
population: Los Angeles County (27% of adults, 27% of likely voters), the San Francisco Bay Area
(20% of adults, 21% of likely voters), Orange/San Diego Counties (17% of adults, 18% of likely
voters), the Central Valley (17% of adults, 17% of likely voters), and the Inland Empire (11% of
adults, 9% of likely voters). The largest shares of infrequent voters (29%) and unregistered adults
(25%) live in Los Angeles County.

Californias likely voters

SOURCES : Seven PPIC Statewide Surveys from September 2015 to July 2016, including 7,306 likely voters, 2,368 infrequent voters,
and 2,128 unregistered adults. California Secretary of State, Report of Registration, May 2016. US Census, 201014 American
Community Survey.
NOTE : "Likely voters are registered voters meeting criteria on interest in politics, attention to issues, voting behavior, and intention
to vote; "infrequent voters are registered voters who do not meet these criteria. For full description of this criteria and regional
definitions, visit www.ppic.org/content/other/SurveyMethodology.pdf. For race and ethnicity, results are presented for non-Hispanic
whites, non-Hispanic Asians, non-Hispanic blacks, and for non-Hispanic other race and multiracial adults.

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=255 2/3
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit H
11/17/2016 JerryBrownSignsBillAllowingIllegalImmigrantstoVote

reportthisad

SEARCH LOGIN REGISTER

BIG GOVERNMENT BIG JOURNALISM BIG HOLLYWOOD NATIONAL SECURITY TECH VIDEO SPORTS THE WIRES 2016 : THE RACE
BREITBART LONDON BREITBART JERUSALEM BREITBART TEXAS BREITBART CALIFORNIA STORE

Jerry Brown Signs Bill That Could Let

Illegal Aliens Vote
379572 331

BREITBART CONNECT

Sign Up For Our Newsletter

AP emailaddress SUBMIT
by WILLIAMBIGELOW 12Oct2015 2,336

OnSaturday,California
GovernorJerryBrownsigned SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
AssemblyBill1461,theNew cestrunck@yahoo.com SUBMIT
MotorVoterAct,which
willautomaticallyregister
peopletovotethroughtheDMV,andcouldresultinillegalaliens
voting.
AnypersonwhorenewedorsecuredadriverslicensethroughtheDMVmaynowregister
reportthisad
tovote,orchoosetooptoutofdoingso.Becauseillegalimmigrantsarenoweligiblefor
advertisement
obtainingdriverslicenses,theycouldbeallowedtovoteinelectionsiftheSecretaryof
Statesofficefailstoverifytheireligibilityproperly.
BREITBART VIDEO PICKS
reportthisad
BrownandtheCaliforniaDemocraticpartyknowexactlywhattheyaredoingasaPublic
PolicyInstitutesurveyshowed,amongunregisteredadults,49%leantowardthe
DemocraticPartyand22%towardtheRepublicanParty.Anybillpermittingillegal YOUMIGHTLIKE
SponsoredLinks
immigrantstovotewouldcementtheDemocraticPartysholdonCalifornia.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/ 1/10
11/17/2016 JerryBrownSignsBillAllowingIllegalImmigrantstoVote
TruetheVotefounderCatherineEngelbrechtstated,Thisbillisterrible.Itmakesan
alreadybadsituationmuch,muchworse,addingthatCaliforniasregistrationdatabases
lackthenecessarysafeguardstokeepnoncitizensoffthevoterrolls.

ElectionIntegrityProjectofCaliforniaPresidentLindaPaineechoedthatAB1461will
effectivelychangetheformofgovernanceinCaliforniafromaRepublicwhoseelected
officialsaredeterminedbyUnitedStatescitizensandwillguaranteethatnoncitizenswill A reyo uastrategicth in k er?Testyo ur
participateinallCaliforniaelectionsgoingforward.TheElectionIntegrityProjectof sk illsw ith m illio n so f addictedplayers!
Stor m fa ll:Fr eeOn lin eGa m e
CaliforniahadjoinedTruetheVotetodemandthatbrownvetothebill,callingitapathto
statesanctionedvoterfraud.

AlthoughnoncitizensdriverslicensesinCaliforniafeaturethephrasesFederalLimits
Applyandnotvalidforofficialfederalpurposes,TruetheVotespokesmanLogan
Churchwellpointedoutthatstateofficialsspecificallychosenottomakenoncitizen
licenseholderssearchableintheirDMVdatabase.

CaliforniaSecretaryofStateAlexPadillacounteredthattheincreaseinvoterswillbenefit MealKitSk eptic?IW asU n tilI

TriedP lated
thestate,arguing,TheNewMotorVoterActwillmakeourdemocracystrongerby
Food& W in efor P la ted
removingakeybarriertovotingformillionsofCaliforniacitizens.Citizensshouldnotbe
requiredtooptintotheirfundamentalrighttovote.Wedonothavetooptintoother
rights,suchasfreespeechordueprocess.

CaliforniafollowsOregon,whereDemocraticGov.KateBrownsignedabillinMarch
allowingtheautomaticregistrationofalleligibleOregonianstovotewhentheyobtainor
renewadriverslicenseorstateidentificationcard.

35Super-StarsW h o Suppo rtD o n aldJ.

ButStephenFrankofCaliforniaPoliticalReviewbluntlyassertedthatthebillwillreduce
Trum p.(In cludin gaSurprisef ro m New
voterturnoutbecausevoterswillsnifffraudinthepolls:AB1461assurescorruptionof Yo rk )
ourelectionsourelectionswilllooklikethoseofMexicoandothercorruptnationsand NowBuz z .m e
honestpeoplewillstopvotingsinceillegalalienswilloutvotethem.

Read More Stories About:

BreitbartCalifornia,Immigration,AssemblyBill1461,California,IllegalImmigrants,Jerry
Brown,TheNewMotorVoterAct,Vote

To p10 Mo st-A n ticipatedSuperyach ts

Co m in gto th e2016Mo n aco Yach tSh o w
R obbR epor t
reportthisad

WeRecommend SponsoredLinksbyTaboola byTaboola

reportthisad

AmericanGiantJustCreatedTheFirstRealLeggingsDesignedToReplaceYourJeans advertisement

AmericanGiant|Hellogiggles

VictoriaPrincipalWasStunningInThe70s...ButWhatSheLooksLikeNowIsJaw
Dropping
DailyDisclosure

HybridCloudraisesalotofquestions.Doyouknowthem?
Microsoft

SQLServer2016:CalculateYourCostToday
reportthisad
Microsoft
advertisement

SusanDeyWasStunninginthe70s..ButWhatSheLooksLikeTodayisIncredible

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/ 2/10
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit I
11/30/2016 BillText-AB-1461Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

A B-1461V o terregistratio n:Califo rniaN ew Mo to rV o terP ro gram. (2015-2016)

AssemblyBillNo.1461

CHAPTER729

AnacttoamendSections2100and2102of,andtoaddChapter4.5(commencingwithSection2260)
toDivision2oftheElectionsCode,relatingtoelections.

[ApprovedbyGovernorOctober10,2015.FiledwithSecretaryofState
October10,2015.]

LEGISLATIVECOUNSELSDIGEST

AB1461,Gonzalez.Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

Existing law, the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993, requires a state to, among other things,
establishprocedurestoregisterapersontovotebyapplicationmadesimultaneouslywithanapplicationfora
neworrenewalofamotorvehicledriverslicense.Thefederalactrequiresthemotorvehicledriverslicense
applicationtoserveasanapplicationforvoterregistrationwithrespecttoanelectionforfederaloffice,unless
the applicant fails to sign the application, and requires the application to be considered as updating the
applicantspreviousvoterregistration,ifany.Thefederalactdefinesmotorvehicledriverslicensetoinclude
anypersonalidentificationdocumentissuedbyastatemotorvehicleauthority.

Underexistingstatelaw,apersonmaynotberegisteredtovoteexceptbyaffidavitofregistration.Existing
lawrequiresaproperlyexecutedaffidavitofregistrationtobedeemedeffectiveuponreceiptoftheaffidavitby
thecountyelectionsofficialiftheaffidavitissubmittedtotheDepartmentofMotorVehiclesonorbeforethe
15thdaybeforetheelection.ExistingstatelawrequirestheDepartmentofMotorVehiclesandtheSecretaryof
Statetodevelopaprocessandtheinfrastructuretoallowapersonwhoisqualifiedtoregistertovoteinthe
statetoregistertovoteonline.

ExistinglawrequirestheDepartmentofMotorVehiclestoissuedriverslicensesandstateidentificationcards
to applicants who meet specified criteria and provide the department with the required information. Existing
law generally requires an applicant for an original drivers license or state identification card to submit
satisfactory proof to the department that the applicants presence in the United States is authorized under
federallaw.

ThisbillwouldrequiretheSecretaryofStateandtheDepartmentofMotorVehiclestoestablishtheCalifornia
NewMotorVoterProgramforthepurposeofincreasingopportunitiesforvoterregistrationbyanypersonwho
is qualified to be a voter. Under the program, after the Secretary of State certifies that certain enumerated
conditions are satisfied, the Department of Motor Vehicles would be required to electronically provide to the
SecretaryofStatetherecordsofeachpersonwhoisissuedanoriginalorrenewalofadriverslicenseorstate
identificationcardorwhoprovidesthedepartmentwithachangeofaddress,asspecified.Thepersonsmotor
vehiclerecordswouldthenconstituteacompletedaffidavitofregistrationandthepersonwouldberegistered
to vote, unless the person affirmatively declined to be registered to vote during a transaction with the
department,thedepartmentdidnotrepresenttotheSecretaryofStatethatthepersonattestedthatheorshe
meetsallvotereligibilityrequirements,asspecified,ortheSecretaryofStatedeterminesthatthepersonis
ineligibletovote.ThebillwouldrequiretheSecretaryofStatetoadoptregulationstoimplementthisprogram,

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 1/7
11/30/2016 BillText-AB-1461Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

asspecified.

Under existing law, the willful, unauthorized disclosure of information from a Department of Motor Vehicles
recordtoanyperson,ortheuseofanyfalserepresentationtoobtaininformationfromadepartmentrecordor
any use of information obtained from any department record for a purpose other than the one stated in the
request or the sale or other distribution of the information to a person or organization for purposes not
disclosedintherequestisamisdemeanor,punishablebyafinenotexceeding$5,000orbyimprisonmentin
thecountyjailnotexceedingoneyear,orbothfineandimprisonment.

ThisbillwouldprovidethatdisclosureofinformationcontainedintherecordsobtainedfromtheDepartmentof
MotorVehiclespursuanttotheCaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgramisamisdemeanor,punishablebyafinenot
exceeding$5,000orbyimprisonmentinthecountyjailnotexceedingoneyear,orbothfineandimprisonment.
Bycreatinganewcrime,thisbillwouldimposeastate-mandatedlocalprogram.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, authorizes every state agency to maintain in its records
onlypersonalinformationthatisrelevantandnecessarytoaccomplishapurposeoftheagency,orisrequired
or authorized by state or federal law. That act specifies the situations in which disclosure is permissible and
also specifies the manner in which agencies must account for disclosures of personal information, including
thoseduetosecuritybreaches,amongotherprovisions.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to establish procedures to safeguard the confidentiality of
information acquired from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to the California New Motor Voter
Program and would state that the provisions of the Information Practices Act of 1977 govern disclosures
pursuanttotheprogram.

Existinglawmakesitacrimeforapersontowillfullycause,procure,orallowhimselforherselforanyother
persontoberegisteredasavoter,knowingthatheorsheorthatotherpersonisnotentitledtoregistration.
Existinglawalsomakesitacrimetofraudulentlyvoteorattempttovote.

Thisbillwouldprovidethatifapersonwhoisineligibletovotebecomesregisteredtovotebyoperationofthe
CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgramintheabsenceofaviolationbythatpersonofthecrimedescribedabove,
thatpersonsregistrationshallbepresumedtohavebeeneffectedwithofficialauthorizationandnotthefault
ofthatperson.Thebillwouldalsoprovidethatifapersonwhoisineligibletovotebecomesregisteredtovote
byoperationofthisprogram,andthatpersonvotesorattemptstovoteinanelectionheldaftertheeffective
dateofthepersonsregistration,thatpersonshallbepresumedtohaveactedwithofficialauthorizationandis
not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote
knowingthatheorsheisnotentitledtovote.

Thisbillwouldalsomakeconformingchanges.

ThisbillwouldincorporateadditionalchangestoSection2102oftheElectionsCode,proposedbySB589,that
would become operative only if SB 589 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before
January1,2016,andthisbillischapteredlast.

TheCaliforniaConstitutionrequiresthestatetoreimburselocalagenciesandschooldistrictsforcertaincosts
mandatedbythestate.Statutoryprovisionsestablishproceduresformakingthatreimbursement.

Thisbillwouldprovidethatnoreimbursementisrequiredbythisactforaspecifiedreason.

Vote:majorityAppropriation:noFiscalCommittee:yesLocalProgram:yes

THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIADOENACTASFOLLOWS:

SECTION1.Section2100oftheElectionsCodeisamendedtoread:

2100. A person shall not be registered except as provided in this chapter or Chapter 4.5, except upon the
productionandfilingofacertifiedcopyofajudgmentofthesuperiorcourtdirectingregistrationtobemade.

SEC.2.Section2102oftheElectionsCode,asamendedbySection6.5ofChapter909oftheStatutesof2014,
isamendedtoread:

2102.(a)ExceptasprovidedinChapter4.5,apersonshallnotberegisteredasavoterexceptbyaffidavitof

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 2/7
11/30/2016 BillText-AB-1461Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

registration.Theaffidavitshallbemailedordeliveredtothecountyelectionsofficialandshallsetforthallof
thefactsrequiredtobeshownbythischapter.Aproperlyexecutedregistrationshallbedeemedeffectiveupon
receiptoftheaffidavitbythecountyelectionsofficialifreceivedonorbeforethe15thdaypriortoanelection
to be held in the registrants precinct. A properly executed registration shall also be deemed effective upon
receiptoftheaffidavitbythecountyelectionsofficialifanyofthefollowingapply:

(1) The affidavit is postmarked on or before the 15th day prior to the election and received by mail by the
countyelectionsofficial.

(2) The affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles or accepted by any other public agency
designatedasavoterregistrationagencypursuanttothefederalNationalVoterRegistrationActof1993(52
U.S.C.20501etseq.)onorbeforethe15thdaypriortotheelection.

(3)Theaffidavitisdeliveredtothecountyelectionsofficialbymeansotherthanthosedescribedinparagraph
(1)and(2)onorbeforethe15thdaypriortotheelection.

(4) The affidavit is submitted electronically on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to
Section2196onorbeforethe15thdaypriortotheelection.

(b) For purposes of verifying a signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition or a signature on a
nominationpaperoranyotherelectionpetitionorelectionpaper,aproperlyexecutedaffidavitofregistration
shallbedeemedeffectiveforverificationpurposesifbothofthefollowingconditionsaresatisfied:

(1)Theaffidavitissignedonthesamedateoradatepriortothesigningofthepetitionorpaper.

(2)Theaffidavitisreceivedbythecountyelectionsofficialonorbeforethedateonwhichthepetitionorpaper
isfiled.

(c)Notwithstandinganyotherlawtothecontrary,theaffidavitofregistrationrequiredunderthischaptershall
not be taken under sworn oath, but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as to its truthfulness and
correctness,underpenaltyofperjury,bythesignatureoftheaffiant.

(d) A person who is at least 16 years of age and otherwise meets all eligibility requirements to vote may
submithisorheraffidavitofregistrationasprescribedbythissection.Aproperlyexecutedregistrationmade
pursuanttothissubdivisionshallbedeemedeffectiveasofthedatetheaffiantwillbe18yearsofage,ifthe
informationintheaffidavitofregistrationisstillcurrentatthattime.Iftheinformationprovidedbytheaffiant
intheaffidavitofregistrationisnotcurrentatthetimethattheregistrationwouldotherwisebecomeeffective,
for his or her registration to become effective, the affiant shall provide the current information to the proper
countyelectionsofficialasprescribedbythischapter.

SEC.2.5. Section 2102 of the Elections Code, as amended by Section 6.5 of Chapter 909 of the Statutes of
2014,isamendedtoread:

2102.(a)ExceptasprovidedinChapter4.5,apersonshallnotberegisteredasavoterexceptbyaffidavitof
registration.Theaffidavitofregistrationshallbemailedordeliveredtothecountyelectionsofficialandshall
setforthallofthefactsrequiredtobeshownbythischapter.Aproperlyexecutedaffidavitofregistrationshall
be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if received on or before the
15thdaybeforeanelectiontobeheldintheregistrantsprecinct.Aproperlyexecutedaffidavitofregistration
shall also be deemed effective upon receipt of the affidavit by the county elections official if any of the
followingapply:

(1) The affidavit is postmarked on or before the 15th day before the election and received by mail by the
countyelectionsofficial.

(2) The affidavit is submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles or accepted by any other public agency
designatedasavoterregistrationagencypursuanttothefederalNationalVoterRegistrationActof1993(52
U.S.C.Sec.20501etseq.)onorbeforethe15thdaybeforetheelection.

(3)Theaffidavitisdeliveredtothecountyelectionsofficialbymeansotherthanthosedescribedinparagraphs
(1)and(2)onorbeforethe15thdaybeforetheelection.

(4) The affidavit is submitted electronically on the Internet Web site of the Secretary of State pursuant to
Section2196onorbeforethe15thdaybeforetheelection.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 3/7
11/30/2016 BillText-AB-1461Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

(b) For purposes of verifying a signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition or a signature on a
nominationpaperoranyotherelectionpetitionorelectionpaper,aproperlyexecutedaffidavitofregistration
shallbedeemedeffectiveforverificationpurposesifbothofthefollowingconditionsaresatisfied:

(1)Theaffidavitissignedonthesamedateoradatebeforethesigningofthepetitionorpaper.

(2)Theaffidavitisreceivedbythecountyelectionsofficialonorbeforethedateonwhichthepetitionorpaper
isfiled.

(c)Notwithstandinganyotherlawtothecontrary,theaffidavitofregistrationrequiredunderthischaptershall
not be taken under sworn oath, but the content of the affidavit shall be certified as to its truthfulness and
correctness,underpenaltyofperjury,bythesignatureoftheaffiant.

(d) A person who is at least 16 years of age and otherwise meets all eligibility requirements to vote may
submit his or her affidavit of registration as prescribed by this section. A properly executed affidavit of
registrationmadepursuanttothissubdivisionshallbedeemedeffectiveasofthedatetheaffiantwillbe18
years of age, if the information in the affidavit of registration is still current at that time. If the information
providedbytheaffiantintheaffidavitofregistrationisnotcurrentatthetimethattheaffidavitofregistration
wouldotherwisebecomeeffective,forhisorherregistrationtobecomeeffective,theaffiantshallprovidethe
currentinformationtothepropercountyelectionsofficialasprescribedbythischapter.

(e)Anindividualwithadisabilitywhoisotherwisequalifiedtovotemaycompleteanaffidavitofregistration
withreasonableaccommodationsasneeded.

(f)Anindividualwithadisabilitywhoisunderaconservatorshipmayberegisteredtovoteifheorshehasnot
beendisqualifiedfromvoting.

SEC.3.Chapter4.5(commencingwithSection2260)isaddedtoDivision2oftheElectionsCode,toread:
CHAPTER4.5.CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram

2260.ThischaptershallbeknownandmaybecitedastheCaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

2261.TheLegislaturefindsanddeclaresallofthefollowing:

(a)Voterregistrationisoneofthebiggestbarrierstoparticipationinourdemocracy.

(b) In 1993, Congress enacted the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 20501 et
seq.),commonlyknownastheMotorVoterLaw,withfindingsrecognizingthattherightofcitizenstovoteis
afundamentalrightitisthedutyoffederal,state,andlocalgovernmentstopromotetheexerciseoftheright
tovoteandtheprimarypurposeoftheactistoincreasethenumberofeligiblecitizenswhoregistertovote.

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact the California New Motor Voter Program to provide California
citizens additional opportunities to participate in democracy through exercise of their fundamental right to
vote.

2262.(a)TheSecretaryofStateandtheDepartmentofMotorVehiclesshallestablishtheCaliforniaNewMotor
VoterProgramforthepurposeofincreasingopportunitiesforvoterregistrationbyanypersonwhoisqualified
tobeavoterunderSection2ofArticleIIoftheCaliforniaConstitution.

(b)ThischaptershallnotbeconstruedasrequiringtheDepartmentofMotorVehiclestodetermineeligibility
forvoterregistrationandvoting.TheSecretaryofStateissolelyresponsiblefordeterminingeligibilityforvoter
registrationandvoting.

2263. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall establish a
schedule and method for the department to electronically provide to the Secretary of State the records
specifiedinthissection.

(b)(1)ThedepartmentshallprovidetotheSecretaryofState,inamannerandmethodtobedeterminedby
the department in consultation with the Secretary of State, the following information associated with each
personwhosubmitsanapplicationforadriverslicenseoridentificationcardpursuanttoSection12800,12815,
or13000oftheVehicleCode,orwhonotifiesthedepartmentofachangeofaddresspursuanttoSection14600
oftheVehicleCode:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 4/7
11/30/2016 BillText-AB-1461Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

(A)Name.

(B)Dateofbirth.

(C)Eitherorbothofthefollowing,ascontainedinthedepartmentsrecords:

(i)Residenceaddress.

(ii)Mailingaddress.

(D)Digitizedsignature,asdescribedinSection12950.5oftheVehicleCode.

(E)Telephonenumber,ifavailable.

(F)Emailaddress,ifavailable.

(G)Languagepreference.

(H)Politicalpartypreference.

(I)Whetherthepersonchoosestobecomeapermanentvotebymailvoter.

(J) Whether the person affirmatively declined to become registered to vote during a transaction with the
department.

(K)Anotationthattheapplicanthasattestedthatheorshemeetsallvotereligibilityrequirements,including
UnitedStatescitizenship,specifiedinSection2101.

(L)Otherinformationspecifiedinregulationsimplementingthischapter.

(2)(A)Thedepartmentmayprovidetherecordsdescribedinparagraph(1)totheSecretaryofStatebefore
theSecretaryofStatecertifiesthatalloftheconditionssetforthinsubdivision(e)ofthissectionhavebeen
satisfied. Records provided pursuant to this paragraph shall only be used for the purposes of outreach and
educationtoeligiblevotersconductedbytheSecretaryofState.

(B)TheSecretaryshallprovidematerialscreatedforpurposesofoutreachandeducationasdescribedinthis
paragraphinlanguagesotherthanEnglish,asrequiredbythefederalVotingRightsActof1965(52U.S.C.Sec.
10503).

(c)TheSecretaryofStateshallnotsell,transferorallowanythirdpartyaccesstotheinformationacquired
fromtheDepartmentofMotorVehiclespursuanttothischapterwithoutapprovalofthedepartment,exceptas
permittedbythischapterandSection2194.

(d)Thedepartmentshallnotelectronicallyproviderecordsofapersonwhoappliesfororisissuedadrivers
license pursuant to Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code because he or she is unable to submit satisfactory
proofthathisorherpresenceintheUnitedStatesisauthorizedunderfederallaw.

(e)TheDepartmentofMotorVehiclesshallcommenceimplementationofthissectionnolaterthanoneyear
aftertheSecretaryofStatecertifiesallofthefollowing:

(1)TheStatehasastatewidevoterregistrationdatabasethatcomplieswiththerequirementsofthefederal
HelpAmericaVoteActof2002(52U.S.C.Section20901etseq.).

(2) The Legislature has appropriated the funds necessary for the Secretary of State and the Department of
MotorVehiclestoimplementandmaintaintheCaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

(3)TheregulationsrequiredbySection2270havebeenadopted.

(f) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall not electronically provide records pursuant to this section that
containahomeaddressdesignatedasconfidentialpursuanttoSection1808.2,1808.4,or1808.6oftheVehicle
Code.

2264. (a) The willful, unauthorized disclosure of information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles
pursuanttoSection2263toanyperson,ortheuseofanyfalserepresentationtoobtainanyofthatinformation
or the use of any of that information for a purpose other than as stated in Section 2263, is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) or imprisonment in the county jail not

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 5/7
11/30/2016 BillText-AB-1461Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

exceedingoneyear,orbothfineandimprisonment.

(b)TheSecretaryofStateshallestablishprocedurestoprotecttheconfidentialityoftheinformationacquired
from the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Section 2263. The disclosure of this information shall be
governedbytheInformationPracticesActof1977(Chapter1(commencingwithSection1798)ofTitle1.8of
Part4ofDivision3oftheCivilCode),andtheSecretaryofStateshallaccountforanydisclosures,including
thoseduetosecuritybreaches,inaccordancewiththatact.

2265. (a) The records of a person designated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2263 shall
constitute a completed affidavit of registration and the Secretary of State shall register the person to vote,
unlessanyofthefollowingconditionsissatisfied:

(1)Thepersonsrecords,asdescribedinSection2263,reflectthatheorsheaffirmativelydeclinedtobecome
registeredtovoteduringatransactionwiththeDepartmentofMotorVehicles.

(2)Thepersonsrecords,asdescribedinSection2263,donotreflectthatheorshehasattestedtomeetingall
votereligibilityrequirementsspecifiedinSection2101.

(3)TheSecretaryofStatedeterminesthatthepersonisineligibletovote.

(b)(1)Ifapersonwhoisregisteredtovotepursuanttothischapterdoesnotprovideapartypreference,his
or her party preference shall be designated as Unknown and he or she shall be treated as a No Party
Preferencevoter.

(2) A person whose party preference is designated as Unknown pursuant to this subdivision shall not be
countedforpurposesofdeterminingthetotalnumberofvotersregisteredonthespecifieddayprecedingan
election,asrequiredbysubdivision(b)ofSection5100andsubdivision(c)ofSection5151.

2266.Apersonregisteredtovoteunderthischaptermaycancelhisorhervoterregistrationatanytimebyany
methodavailabletoanyotherregisteredvoter.

2267.Thischapterdoesnotaffecttheconfidentialityofapersonsvoterregistrationinformation,whichremains
confidentialpursuanttoSection2194ofthiscodeandSection6254.4oftheGovernmentCodeandforallofthe
followingpersons:

(a)Avictimofdomesticviolence,sexualassault,orstalkingpursuanttoSection2166.5.

(b)Areproductivehealthcareserviceprovider,employee,volunteer,orpatientpursuanttoSection2166.5.

(c)ApublicsafetyofficerpursuanttoSection2166.7.

(d)Apersonwithalife-threateningcircumstanceuponcourtorderpursuanttoSection2166.

2268.Ifapersonwhoisineligibletovotebecomesregisteredtovotepursuanttothischapterintheabsenceof
aviolationbythatpersonofSection18100,thatpersonsregistrationshallbepresumedtohavebeeneffected
withofficialauthorizationandnotthefaultofthatperson.

2269. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or
attemptstovoteinanelectionheldaftertheeffectivedateofthepersonsregistration,thatpersonshallbe
presumedtohaveactedwithofficialauthorizationandshallnotbeguiltyoffraudulentlyvotingorattempting
tovotepursuanttoSection18560,unlessthatpersonwillfullyvotesorattemptstovoteknowingthatheor
sheisnotentitledtovote.

2270.TheSecretaryofStateshalladoptregulationstoimplementthischapter,includingregulationsaddressing
bothofthefollowing:

(a)Aprocessforcancelingtheregistrationofapersonwhoisineligibletovote,butbecameregisteredunder
theCaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgramintheabsenceofanyviolationbythatpersonofSection18100.

(b)AneducationandoutreachcampaigninformingvotersabouttheCaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgramthat
theSecretaryofStatewillconducttoimplementthischapter.TheSecretarymayuseanypublicandprivate
funds available for this and shall provide materials created for this outreach and education campaign in

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 6/7
11/30/2016 BillText-AB-1461Voterregistration:CaliforniaNewMotorVoterProgram.

languagesotherthanEnglish,asrequiredbythefederalVotingRightsActof1965(52U.S.C.Sec.10503).

SEC.4.Section2.5ofthisbillincorporatesamendmentstoSection2102oftheElectionsCode,asamendedby
Section6.5ofChapter909oftheStatutesof2014,proposedbyboththisbillandSenateBill589.Itshallonly
becomeoperativeif(1)bothbillsareenactedandbecomeeffectiveonorbeforeJanuary1,2016,(2)eachbill
amendsSection2102oftheElectionsCode,asamendedbySection6.5ofChapter909oftheStatutesof2014,
and(3)thisbillisenactedafterSenateBill589,inwhichcaseSection2ofthisbillshallnotbecomeoperative.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
Constitutionbecausetheonlycoststhatmaybeincurredbyalocalagencyorschooldistrictwillbeincurred
becausethisactcreatesanewcrimeorinfraction,eliminatesacrimeorinfraction,orchangesthepenaltyfor
acrimeorinfraction,withinthemeaningofSection17556oftheGovernmentCode,orchangesthedefinitionof
acrimewithinthemeaningofSection6ofArticleXIIIBoftheCaliforniaConstitution.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 7/7
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit J


Non-citizens in New York City could soon be

given the right to vote
New York City council is currently drafting legislation that would allow all legal residents, regardless of US
citizenship, the right to vote in city elections

Kanishk Tharoor
Thursday 2 April 2015 14.45EDT

New York City is routinely described as a global hub, a place so thoroughly penetrated by
international capital and migration that it seems at once within and without the United States. It
is the centre of American commerce and media, but its politics, demographics and worldly
outlook make the Big Apple an outlier.

New York may be about to become even more distinct. The left-leaning New York City council is
currently drafting legislation that would allow all legal residents, regardless of citizenship, the
right to vote in city elections. If the measure passes into law, it would mark a major victory for a
voting rights campaign that seeks to enfranchise non-citizen voters in local elections across the
country. A few towns already permit non-citizen residents to vote locally, but New York City
would be by far the largest jurisdiction to do so.

Under the likely terms of the legislation, legally documented residents who have lived in New
York City for at least six months will be able to vote in municipal elections. Reports suggest that
the city council is discussing the legislation with Mayor Bill de Blasios oce, and that a bill might
be introduced as soon as this spring.

While the legislation stands a good chance of sailing through the council and even winning the
approval of the mayor, the prospect of New York City enfranchising its residents has stoked
controversy. Many Americans nd the idea of non-citizen voting entirely unpalatable and fear
that it undermines the sanctity and privilege of citizenship.

Advocates for non-citizen voting in New York City argue that it would right a glaring wrong.
Invoking the ancient American battle cry of no taxation without representation, they point to
the enormous numbers of non-citizen residents who pay taxes, send their children to public
schools, are active members of their communities, but have no say in local elections.

People are New Yorkers in profound ways without being citizens of the US, said Ronald Hayduk,
a professor of political science at Queens College and a member of the Coalition to Expand Voting
Rights. Non-citizen residents contribute $18.2bn to New York state in income taxes every year.
According to a 2013 Fiscal Policy Institute study, 1.3 million people in New York City over the age
of 18 are non-citizens (a full 21% of the voting age population). Adjusting the gure to account for
undocumented migrants, the study claims that about one million more New Yorkers would be
eligible to vote were the bill passed.
In the immigrant-heavy borough of Queens, non-citizens make up as much as half of the
population in areas like Jackson Heights, Elmhurst and Corona. In parts of Brooklyn and the
Bronx, they make up well over a third of certain districts. Its very dierent in New York than in
middle America, said Jerry Vattamala, a sta attorney at the Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund.

Supporters of the legislation claim that politicians can overlook the needs of entire communities
if non-citizens dont have voting rights. According to Vattamala, council redistricting has
deliberately carved up many immigrant neighborhoods, portioning their non-citizen residents to
several districts.

Elected ocials salivate at the prospect of districts with people they dont have to respond to,
he says. Many of these communities have lots of non-naturalized residents or newly naturalized
residents who are not yet practiced in voting. They get treated like human llers. Advocates
believe that legal residents should have a say in the daily matters that aect them, like
transportation, public safety, aordable housing, language access and translation services,
sanitation, schools and parks.

Democratic city councilman Daniel Dromm, the bills architect, represents District 25, which
includes parts of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. Enfranchising non-citizens would make
communities like mine more important to city-wide and state ocials, he said. We cant ignore
them if they can vote.

Like local elections elsewhere in the US, local elections in New York City suer from shrinking
turnout: 24% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2013 election that brought De Blasio to oce, a
new low. Its ironic that people think national or state elections are more important than local
elections, when they better determine lived day-to-day realities, Hayduk says. If there were 1
million new voters in New York City, voter turnout would increase.

More importantly, Hayduk says, non-citizen voting would refresh local politics to better reect
the needs of city residents. It would produce new issues, new candidates, and new outcomes.

He oered an example from the 1980s. From 1969 to 2002, non-citizen New Yorkers could vote
in community school board elections (the school board was abolished in 2003). Civic groups
encouraged thousands of Dominican non-citizen residents of Washington Heights to vote in
school board polls. Their participation eventually forced the administration of Mayor Ed Koch to
direct greater resources to neglected schools.

Dromm tried two years ago to advance legislation on non-citizen voting. He had won the support
of 35 of the city councils 51 members, forming a veto-proof majority. But he faced the
obstruction of then council speaker Christine Quinn and the unbreakable opposition of the
Bloomberg administration. The speaker and the mayor didnt want [the legislation] to go
forward, Dromm said. The speaker exerted power over the councils committees. The
legislation stalled on the council oor.

Two years later, political circumstances make its passage much more tenable. The current city
council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, supports the proposal. While he hasnt given his explicit
backing, De Blasio claims that he remains open to debate on non-citizen voting. The mayor has
launched other pro-immigrant reforms, like the municipal ID card scheme.
As New York City goes, so goes the rest of the world
The city councils three lonely Republicans have repeatedly voiced their opposition to non-citizen
voting. Two of them come from the Republican redoubt of Staten Island and represent districts
with very few non-citizens, 4% and 10% respectively. The third, Eric Ulrich, represents a Queens
district where one-fth of residents are non-citizens. The right to vote is a privilege and a sacred
obligation that citizens have enjoyed. It should only be for United States citizens, he told
Newsday. Its also a reason for people who are on a path to citizenship to aspire to citizenship.
Its something for them to look forward to.

Peter Schuck, an emeritus professor of law at Yale University, also worries about the dilution of
citizenship. My guess is that it would cause many Americans to wonder what the point of
citizenship is if anyone can vote without even bothering to learn or be committed enough to
apply for naturalization, he said via email.

According to Vattamala, this emphasis on the meaning of citizenship misrepresents the very
limited, local scope of non-citizen voting. Did school board elections where non-naturalized
parents with children in local schools voted dele the sanctity of citizenship? he says. Its
about eective representation. If people live here and pay taxes, they have a stake in the city.

Permitting non-citizen voting would also address the fact that pathways to citizenship are not as
straightforward as they were for immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Its more
complicated and expensive now compared to a century ago, when it was much easier, faster, and
cheaper to become a citizen, Hayduk said. He argues that far from being a disincentive to
citizenship, non-citizen voting would empower New Yorkers and serve as a vehicle for
integration, fostering the experience of the practice of citizenship. Vattamala agrees. Most
people engaged enough to vote in municipal elections will become citizens, he said.

Citizenship has not always been the prerequisite for surage in the US. During the rst 150 years
of American history, non-citizens were allowed to vote in 40 states and territories. Alien
surage was whittled away in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, coinciding with
large waves of migration from eastern and southern Europe. A xenophobic 1902 Washington Post
editorial captured the political mood, bemoaning the marked and increasing deterioration in the
quality of immigration and fretting that the newcomers were men who are no more t to be
trusted with the ballot than babies are to be furnished with friction matches for playthings.

Voting in America has constantly changed, Dromm said. We have an evolving understanding of
surage. Women and African Americans were given voting rights. Now its time to restore those
rights to non-citizens.

Currently in the US, six small towns in Maryland allow non-citizen voting in local elections.
Chicago lets non-citizens vote in its school elections. Non-citizen voting exists elsewhere in the
world, chiey within the context of supranational arrangements like the European Union, the
Nordic Passport Union and the British Commonwealth. But many countries extend surage more
broadly, like New Zealand and Chile, where permanent residents are allowed to vote regardless of
their nationality, and Colombia and Ireland, where foreigners can vote in local elections.
Advocates of non-citizen voting believe that a victory in New York City would have tremendous
symbolic importance in their eorts to expand voting rights across the country.

As New York City goes, Dromm said, so goes the rest of the world.
More features

Topics
US voting rights New York US immigration

Save for later Article saved

Reuse this content
OverviewNewsMayor'sBioOfficials

MayordeBlasioLaunchesVoterRegistration
FormsinFiveNewLanguages,Expanding
AccesstoVoting
July14,2016

VoterregistrationformsnowavailableinRussian,Urdu,HaitianCreole,FrenchandArabic

NEWYORKAspartoftheadministrationseffortstoexpandvotingparticipationandaccess,Mayor
BilldeBlasiotodayannouncedthelaunchofvoterregistrationformsinfivenewlanguages:Russian,
Urdu,HaitianCreole,FrenchandArabic.

Nooneshouldbedisenfranchisedbecauseoftheirlanguage,saidMayorBilldeBlasio.Thesevoter
registrationformsinfivenewlanguageswillhelpusinvolveevenmoreNewYorkersinthevoting
process.NewYorkisacityofimmigrants,andtheseformswillhelpNewYorkersofeverybackground
casttheirballotsonElectionDay.

Withthesenewvoterregistrationforms,wearesendingaclearmessage:civicparticipationmattersfor
allNewYorkers,andallcitizensshouldbeabletoexercisetheirrighttovote,saidCommissioner
NishaAgarwaloftheMayorsOfficeofImmigrantAffairs.NewYorkCityisthemostdiversecityin
America,withover200languagesspoken.Withthisannouncement,thedeBlasioadministrationhas
nowensuredthatthereareaccessiblevoterregistrationformsfor80percentofLimitedEnglish
ProficienteligiblevotersinNewYorkCity,andwewillcontinuetoexpandtheseeffortsin2016.

Theadministrationhasalreadytakenmultiplestepstoincreaseparticipationintheelectoralprocessand
reducebarrierstovoting.TheMayorissuedDirective#1expandingtherequirementsforagencybased
voterregistration,includingarequirementthat19agenciesprovideassistancewithcompletingvoter
registrationformsifrequested,andhasworkedwiththeCityCounciltoexpandtheagenciescoveredby
thelaw.Additionally,theadministrationiscurrentlyimplementingapilotprojecttoprovideelectronic,
agencybasedvoterregistration.

ThenewformswillbeavailableontheCampaignFinanceBoardwebsite(www.nyccfb.info/),whichis
alsofoundonthehomepageofNYC.govunderRegistertoVote.

TheCitywillalsoaddadditionalvoterregistrationformlanguagesinthecomingmonthsbeyondthefive
newlanguagesannouncedtoday,withtheaimtoprovidetranslatedversionsinthetoplanguages
spokenbylimitedEnglishproficienteligiblevoters.Previously,thevoterregistrationformswere
availableinEnglish,Spanish,Chinese,KoreanandBangla.

CommissionerNishaAgarwaloftheMayorsOfficeofImmigrantAffairsannouncedthelaunchoffive
newformlanguagesatHomecrestLibraryinBrooklyn,whereshewasjoinedbytheCampaignFinance
Board,electedofficials,communitybasedgroupsandleadershipfromtheBrooklynPublicLibrary.A
numberofimmigrantcommunityorganizationspartneredwiththeMayorsOfficeonthisinitiative,
includingAALDEF(AsianAmericanLegalDefenseandEducationFund),AfricanCommunities
Together,ArabAmericanFamilySupportCenter,CAMBA,MaketheRoadNewYork,MUNANYand
ShorefrontYMYWHAofBrightonManhattanBeach.

ManyNewYorkersmaybeeligibleforcitizenshipandthebenefitsitprovides,includingvoting.TheCity
isalsoprovidingsupporttoimmigrantswhowanttobecomeU.S.citizensthroughitsNYCitizenship
program,whichMayordeBlasiolaunchedthisyear.AspartofNYCitizenship,NewYorkCityresidents
receiveappointmentswithatrustedattorneyforhelpwithcitizenshipapplications,informationsessions
aboutthecitizenshipprocessanditsbenefits,andfreeandconfidentialfinancialcounseling.U.S.
citizenshipgivesresidentstherighttotravelwithaU.S.passport,voteinelections,andaccessmorejob
opportunities.Tolearnmore,visitwww.nyc.gov/citizenship.

AmyLoprest,ExecutiveDirectoroftheNewYorkCityCampaignFinanceBoardsaid,Today,New
YorkCityissendingasimplemessagetoallitscitizens:thatwewantyoutovote,thatyourvoice
matters,andthatourcityworksbetterwhenyourvoiceisheard.Providingtheseregistrationformsin
fivenewlanguagesshowsthatthecityiscommittedtobroadeningaccesstothedemocraticprocessfor
allvoters.

Withthesenewvoterregistrationforms,weareempoweringmoreofNewYorkCitysdiverse
communitiestovote,whichinturnstrengthensthevibrancyofourdemocracy.FormswritteninArabic,
French,HaitianCreole,Russian,andUrduwillallowthevoicesofimmigrantsinthiscitytobeheard,
especiallythethousandsofBrooklyniteswholiveintheselanguageseveryday.Everycitizenhasaright
tobeengagedinciviclife,nomatterwhattheirmothertonguemaybe,saidBrooklynBorough
PresidentEricAdams.

"AsNewYorkCitycontinuestogrowasamulticulturalsociety,thedifferentlanguagesspokenbyour
citizensgrowsaswell.IcommendMayorBilldeBlasioforhiscommitmenttoeradicatethelanguage
barrierthathaskeptmanygreatcitizensofNewYorkfromtheirconstitutionalrighttohaveavoiceinthe
Democraticprocess.Thelaunchofthevoterregistrationformsinfivenewlanguages:Russian,Urdu,
HaitianCreole,French,andArabicnowreflectstherichdiversityofourcommunity,"saidStateSenator
RoxanneJ.Persaud.

StateSenatorJamesSandersJr.said,ItisourdutyandourresponsibilityasAmericanstomakeour
voicesheard.Wehavethepowertoeffectchange,butwelosethatpowerwhenwedontexerciseour
righttovote.Ourdiversecityrepresentsameltingpotofcultures.Byexpandingthelanguagesinwhich
voterregistrationformsareavailable,itismyhopethatmoreNewYorkerswillsignuptotakepartinthe
Democraticprocess.

"Ihavelongsupportedandadvocatedforlegislationthatwouldmakevoterregistrationmaterials
availableinmorelanguages,Iampleasedthatthisstepisbeingtaken.Now,moreAmericancitizens,
regardlessofthelanguagetheyspeak,willbeabletoparticipateintheprocess.Thistrulyreflectsthe
greatnessofourdemocracy,"saidStateSenatorMartyGolden.

"Untiltoday,thebattletomakethevotingprocessaccessibletomorenonEnglishspeakingNew
Yorkershasbeenafrustratingonethat'sspannedmanyyearsandseveraladministrations,"said
AssemblyMemberStevenCymbrowitz,whoselegislativeeffortstomandateRussianlanguagevoting
materialsdatesbackto2007."I'mgratefultoMayordeBlasiofortakingthisboldsteptoensurethat
manymorethousandsofNewYorkershavetheabilitytoparticipateinthedemocraticprocess.I'm
equallypleasedthattheMayorchosetomakethisannouncementinmydistrict,wheresomany
RussianAmericanswillbepositivelyimpacted."
"IapplaudMayorBilldeBlasioforansweringthecallofacrosssectionofimmigrantspeaking
populationsbymakingvotingmaterialsavailableinHaitianCreole,Arabic,French,Russian,andUrdu,
saidAssemblyMemberRodneyseBichotte,whoisHaitianAmerican,andspeaksCreole.Our
communitiesandadvocateshavebeenaskingforthischangeforyears,andforpeopleinmy
district,whichisahighlypopulatedimmigrantdistrictwithHaitianCreolebeingthefirstspokenlanguage
formanyoftheresidents,thissmallchangemakesabigdifference.Iampersonallyproudasthis
addressesoneofthevotingrightsbillsthatIintroducedonthestatelevel,whichsoughttomeetthe
needofdistrictswithhighHaitianCreolespeakingpopulationsthroughoutNewYorkState.Itisanother
waythattheMayorismakinggoodonhispromisetomakeNewYorkamoreinclusivecity,especially
andmostimportantlytonewAmericanswhosevotingrightsarebeingprotectedandpreserved."

Forfartoolong,potentialvotersforwhomEnglishisasecondlanguagehavebeendisenfranchised
becausevoterregistrationformshavebeenunavailabletothemintheirnativetongue.Iapplaudthe
NewYorkCityBoardofElectionsformakingthesenewformsavailable,andlookforwardtoworking
withthemtoremoveremainingbarriersthatpreventvotersfromfullyexercisingtheirrighttovote,said
AssemblyMemberHeleneWeinstein.

IapplaudtheMayor,theOfficeofImmigrantAffairsandCouncilMemberTreygerforbreakingdown
languagebarriersandmakingvoterregistrationformsaccessibleinmorelanguagesinNewYorkCity,
saidAssemblyMemberPamelaHarris.Wemustdomoretocreateaninclusivevotingprocess,and
thatstartswithbeingabletoreadandunderstandelectionmaterials.Today,weareonestepcloserto
fairercivicengagementandgivingmoreNewYorkerstheopportunitytogetinvolvedinour
communities.

TheMayor'sOfficeofImmigrantAffairsdecisiontoincludeagreatervarietyoflanguagesforvoter
registrationformsisagreatfirststepforimprovingthequalityofservicestoourneighborhoodvoters.It's
vitalthatmorestepsaretakentomakevoters'experiencesattheballoteasierandmoreefficient.This
decisionwillhopefullyencouragemorepeopletocomeoutandvote,"saidAssemblyMemberWilliam
Colton.

OneofthemanystrengthsofbeingaNewYorkerisourdiversitywhetherthatisourdifferent
backgrounds,manylanguagesandcultures.Addingadditionalvoterregistrationformlanguageswill
builduponthisstrengthandmakesurethatallmembersofourcommunitycanbeinvolvedinthevoting
process,saidAssemblyMemberLatoyaJoyner.Ourcommunitiesincludefamiliesfromallwalksof
lifeanddifferentcountriesensuringthatallBronxitesandNewYorkersknowhowtobecomemore
civicmindedwillguaranteethateveryonehasavoice.

Intheworldscapital,oneslanguageshouldnotbeabarriertocivicparticipationsaidAssembly
MemberDavidWeprin.AstheAssemblymemberwhorepresentsoneofthemostdiversedistrictsin
thecity,IapplaudMayorBilldeBlasioandCommissionerNishaAgarwaloftheMayorsOfficeof
ImmigrantAffairsfortakingthissteptowardsensuringallNewYorkershaveavoiceintheir
government.

"AsdiverseasNewYorkCityisI'msurprisedthatthishasn'thappenedearlier"saidAssemblyMember
AliciaHyndman."WearesothankfulthattheMayorhasprovidedleadershiponthispertinentissue."

Ourelectionssystemneedsmajorimprovements.Peoplearenotvotingandmanywhotrytovoteare
frustratedwhentheygotothepolls.Iapplaudthisefforttoboostvoterinformationbyprintingbrochures
andformsinmanymorelanguages.ItsanecessaryandcosteffectivefirststeptoreformingNewYorks
antiquatedvotingprocess,"saidAssistantAssemblySpeakerFelixW.Ortiz.
MakingourelectionsmoreaccessibleandvoterfriendlyforallNewYorkersremainsoneofourgreat
unmetchallenges,saidAssemblyMemberBrianKavanagh.Whilewecontinuetopushfor
comprehensivereformthroughlegislationandbetterelectionadministration,itisgreattoseetheMayor
stepupbyhelpingtoensurethatlanguageisnotabarriertoparticipation.

"LanguagemustnotbeabarrierforeligiblevotersinNewYorkCity.IapplaudMayorBilldeBlasiofor
recognizingthistruthandforprovidingvoterregistrationformsinmorelanguages.Doingsoaccelerates
civicengagementintheimmigrantcommunitiesthatcontributesomuchtoNewYork'scultureand
economy,saidCouncilMemberCarlosMenchaca,ChairoftheCommitteeonImmigration.

NewYorkCityisoneofthemostdiversecitiesintheworld,withhundredsofdifferentlanguages
spoken,saidCouncilMemberChaimDeutsch.Itiscriticalthatnobodyisexcludedfromexercising
theirdemocraticrighttovotesimplybecauseofalanguagebarrier.Astherepresentativeofamulti
lingualdistrict,IprovidefundingforESLclasses,aswellasdoingeducationaloutreachandoffering
socialservicesandentitlementservicesforthosewhodonotspeakEnglishasafirstlanguage.
ProvidingvoterregistrationformsinseveralnewlanguagesisanimportantstepforwardasNewYork
Citybecomesevenmoreinclusiveandsupportiveoftheculturaldiversitythatisallaroundus.Thank
youMayordeBlasioandCommissionerAgarwalforyourcontinuedadvocacyonbehalfofallNew
Yorkers!

AstheproudsonofimmigrantsfromtheformerSovietUnion,thefirstRussianspeakingCityCouncil
Member,andtheelectedrepresentativeofmanyimmigrantsfromallaroundtheworld,Iapplaudthe
administrationforprovidingvoterregistrationformsin5additionallanguages,expandingonprevious
effortsbytheNewYorkStateLegislatureandgrassrootscommunitymovementstoensurethatall
eligibleNewYorkerscanregistertovote,regardlessofwhatlanguagetheyspeak.Withthelowlevelsof
voterenrollmentandturnoutthatweseetoday,itisimperativethatwecontinuetobreakdownbarriers
tovoterparticipationthroughouttheelectoralprocess.Thetranslationofregistrationformsisan
importantfirststep,andIlookforwardtoworkingwithCommissionerAgarwalandMayordeBlasioon
waystoextendthisincreasedlanguageaccesstopollingplacesduringelections,saidCouncil
MemberMarkTreyger.

Byprovidingvoterregistrationformstoindividualsintheirnativelanguage,wearemakingvotingmore
accessibletothemanydifferentpeoplethatmakeupourcity,saidCouncilMemberMathieuEugene.
NewYorkhasstruggledwithalowvoterturnoutbutitsuptousingovernmenttoremovethebarriers
thatpreventtoomanypeoplefromvoting.ThenewvoterregistrationformsavailableinHaitianCreole
andFrench,aswellasthreeotherlanguages,willempowervotersthroughoutourcityandhelpensure
thateveryonehasanequalopportunitytomaketheirvoiceheard.

NewYorkCityisameltingpot.ThedistrictIrepresent,Flushing,isoneofthemostdiverseinthecity.
Withsuchlanguageandculturaldiversity,Iamcommittedtoenhancingaccesstopublicresourcesand
information.ThankstoMayordeBlasioandtheMayorsOfficeofImmigrantAffairsforexpanding
languageservicestotheRussian,Haitian,Creole,French,andArabcommunities.IurgeallNew
Yorkerstotakeadvantageofourcity'smultilingualvoterservices,toregistertovoteandraiseyourvoice
ontheelectionday,saidCouncilMemberPeterKoo.

TheCityslibrariesarecentersofcivicengagementinourneighborhoodsandweareproudtopartner
withtheMayorsofficetoimprovevoteroutreachandregistration,saidLindaE.Johnson,President
andCEOofBrooklynPublicLibrary.Asagrowingnumberofourpatronsspeaklanguagesother
thanEnglish,providingvoterinformationinadditionallanguagesissocriticaltoensuringparticipationin
ourdemocraticprocess.
TheShorefrontYMYWHAispleasedthattheRussianspeakingcommunity,aswellasotherimmigrant
communitiesinNYC,nowwillhavegreateraccessandunderstandingofthevoterregistration
process.Weanticipatethatevenmoreimmigrantresidentswhonowhaveinformationandformsinthe
languagetheybestunderstandwillbecomecivicallyactivebecauseoftheirincreasedvoterregistration
access,saidSueFox,ExecutiveDirectorofShorefrontYMYWHA.

AtAAFSC,ourmissionistoempowernewimmigrantswiththetoolstheyneedtosuccessfully
acclimatetotheworldaroundthem,andtobecomeactiveparticipantsintheircommunities.Ourstaff
andvolunteersworkeverydaywithArab,MiddleEastern,MuslimandSouthAsianimmigrantsfromall
fiveboroughswhoneedthevitalsupportofourAdultLiteracyandEnglishclasses,andourlinguistically
competentsocialservices.Arabiciscurrentlythe4thmostwidelyspokenlanguageamongEnglish
languagelearnersinNewYorkCity,andwearethrilledthatMayorBilldeBlasiohastakenthisimportant
steptomakecivicengagementmoreaccessibletoallNewYorkers.InNewYork,everypersonhasa
voicethatmattersanddeservestobeheard,regardlessofwhatlanguagetheyspeak,saidLena
Alhusseini,ExecutiveDirectoroftheArabAmericanFamilySupportCenter.

CAMBAisproudtostandwiththeMayorsOfficeofImmigrantAffairstodaytomakeregisteringtovote
easierforcitizenswhospeakRussian,Urdu,FrenchCreole,FrenchandArabic,saidJoanneM.
Oplustil,PresidentandCEOofCAMBA.Forthepastfourdecades,CAMBAhasbeenhelping
immigrantsresettlehereandbecomehardworking,contributingandvotingAmericans.Our
immigrantsdeeplyvaluetherighttovote,andwearecommittedtoensuringthattheyhaveequal
accesstothepolls.

"ThisannouncementiswelcomenewsforNewYork'sgrowingAfricanimmigrantcommunities,"said
AmahaKassa,ExecutiveDirectorofAfricanCommunitiesTogetherintheBronx."AfterEnglish,
FrenchisthemostwidelysharedlanguageamongNewYork'sAfricans.Weareespeciallygladthat
NewYorkCitypartneredwithACTandotherimmigrantcommunityorganizationstomakesurethatthe
translatedvoterregistrationformsareclearandculturallycompetent."

JavierH.Valds,CoExecutiveDirectorofMaketheRoadNewYorksaid,"Weapplaudthede
Blasioadministrationforitsongoingefforttomakevotingeasierandmoreaccessible,withlanguage
accessasacomponent.GiventhechallengesthatimmigrantNewYorkersfacewhentryingtoregister
andcasttheirballots,it'scriticalthatNewYorkCitycontinuetotakestepsinthisdirection.

"Registeringtovoteisoneofthecloseststepsofexercisingtherightsandresponsibilitiesofan
Americancitizen.Itgivesthefeelingofbeingincludedinthebeautifullydiversecommunityandasense
ofsharedresponsibilitytocontributeforthecommongood.Thiswonderfulcivicengagementinitiative
willreassureustorememberAmericaisnotonlyourhome,itisalsohomeforourculturalhome
languagetoo,saidMirMasumAli,NationalCivicEngagementDirectorofMuslimUmmahofNorth
America(MUNANY).

"NewYorkCityisthemostdiversecityinworld,hometoimmigrantswhospeakhundredsoflanguages.
ItiscriticalthatourNewAmericanNewYorkersareabletoparticipateinthecivicprocessandthat's
whyweapplaudMayorBilldeBlasio,theMayorsOfficeofImmigrantAffairs,andtheCampaign
FinanceBoardseffortstoexpandlanguagetranslationofvoterregistrationformstothecity'stop10
languages,"saidSteveChoi,ExecutiveDirectoroftheNewYorkImmigrationCoalition."Ensuring
thatvoterregistrationformsareavailableinArabic,Chinese,Bangla,Korean,Urdu,Spanish,Russian,
Creole,French,andEnglishwillexpandourimmigrantcommunitiesabilitytobepartofthepolitical
processwithmoreeaseandwillempowerthemtovoteinthisPresidentialelection.TheNYIC
CivicEngagementCollaborativeidentifiedtheexpansionoftranslatedvoterinformationasahighpriority
andweareexcitedtobepartofthisfirststep."

NewYorkCityistheultimatecityofimmigrants.CouncilofPeoplesOrganization(COPO)welcomes
thevoterregistrationformsinmultiplelanguages,whichwillensurethatmorecitizensarewellinformed
aboutthisprocess.AtCOPO,wehavetranslatedthecurrentformintomanylanguagesandregularly
assistnewAmericancitizensinregisteringtovote.Wehavefoundthatmanynewcitizensarenotaware
ofthevoterregistrationprocessandasaresult,theycannotparticipateinelections.Thesetranslated
formsareessentialtoreachingpeopleintheirnativelanguagesandensuringtheirparticipationinthe
civiclifeourcity,state,andnation.Havingtheseformsavailableinfivenewlanguageswillempower
manycitizenstofinallyhaveavoicefortheirconcernsinpoliticsandcityservicestowhichtheyare
entitled,saidMohammadRazvi,ExecutiveDirectoroftheCouncilOfPeoplesOrganization
(COPO).

"TheMayor'sdecisiontoprovidenonEnglishspeakingNewYorkerswithvoterregistrationformsintheir
languagesisanotherprocedureofinclusivenessandrespect.Itaddstothemanystepsthis
administrationhastakentomakeNewYorkCitytheCityofallitscitizens.Thismovewilleliminatethe
languagebarrierforthefivegroupsandenablethemtoparticipateinthecivicandpoliticalactivitiesand
enjoytheirrighttovote,saidDr.AbdelhafidDjemil,PresidentoftheIslamicLeadershipCouncil
(MajlisShura)ofNewYork.

ItsaproudmomentinNYChistorythatmoreimmigrantcommunitieswillhavetheopportunityto
registertovotewheretheywillnolongerexperienceanylanguagebarrierstobeapartofthe
Democraticprocess.Iamextremelygratefulforthevisionaryleadershipofthisadministrationfortheir
inclusionofallcommunities.ManyNewYorkerswillnowfeelthattheyarejustasimportantandas
valuableaseveryoneelse.ThisistrulyagreatdayforNewYorkthatitcontinuestoleadtheWorldin
buildingBridgesandtearingdownWalls,saidNajiAlmontaser,PresidentoftheNewYorkMuslim
VoterInformationClub.

"Votingisacriticalcomponentintheparticipationofcommunitiesandindividualsinthedemocratic
process.Expandingvoterregistrationformsintoadditionallanguagesmakesthatprocessrealand
substantive,"saidFahdAhmed,ExecutiveDirectorofDRUMDesisRisingUp&Moving.

"Languagebarriersshouldneverbeanimpedimenttoexercisingone'srighttovoteandparticipatein
choosingone'spoliticalrepresentative,afundamentalpillarofournation'sdemocracy.Weapplaudthe
Mayor'seffortstoensurethatcitizensofallimmigrantbackgroundscanfullyparticipateinthisprocess
andfulfilltheircivicduties,aneffortwehighlyencourageatChhaya,"saidAnnettaSeecharran,
InterimExecutiveDirectorofChhayaCDC.

"Astrongdemocracydemandsallvotershaveaccesstothevotingprocessincludingthosewhospeak
Englishasasecondlanguage.InacityasdiverseasNewYork,voterregistrationmaterialsmustbe
availableinamyriadoflanguagestogiveeveryvoterachancetovote.WeapplaudMayordeBlasios
OfficeofImmigrantAffairsforrecognizingtheimportanceoflanguageaccessandexpandingthe
translationofvoterregistrationmaterialstoincludeArabic,Urdu,HaitianCreoleandRussian,"saidco
ExecutiveDirectorAnaMariaArchila,theCenterforPopularDemocracy.

"WeapplaudtheMayorforthisinitiativethatrecognizesthevitalimportancenewcitizenshaveplayedin
theciviclifeofthecityformorethan200years.WithAlbany'sfailuretopassmeaningfulreforms,the
city'songoingimprovementstoitsvoterregistrationsystemofferssomeraregoodnewsforvoters,"said
NealRosenstein,GovernmentReformCoordinatoroftheNewYorkPublicInterestResearch
Group/NYPIRG.

"Wewelcometranslationofvoterregistrationformsasonesteptowardsmoreinclusivityofnew
Americansintothedemocraticprocess.Throughourwork,wehavefoundthatlanguageaccessisone
ofthemainreasonsArabAmericansdonotparticipate,followingissueslikediscriminationand
confusionatthepolls,"saidMirnaHaidar,LeadOrganizerattheArabAmericanAssociationofNew
York.

pressoffice@cityhall.nyc.gov

(212)7882958
 reportthisad

SEARCH LOGIN REGISTER

BIG GOVERNMENT BIG JOURNALISM BIG HOLLYWOOD NATIONAL SECURITY TECH VIDEO SPORTS THE WIRES 2016 : THE RACE
BREITBART LONDON BREITBART JERUSALEM BREITBART TEXAS BREITBART CALIFORNIA STORE

Effort to Open Voting to Illegal

Immigrants Underway in NYC
16764 24

BREITBART CONNECT

Sign Up For Our Newsletter

AP/MarkAvery emailaddress SUBMIT
byCAROLINEMAY 22Feb2016 1,030

Immigrationactivistsare
pushingforillegalimmigrants SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
tobegrantedtherighttovote emailaddress SUBMIT
inNewYorkCityandsay
legislationtothateffectcould
beintroducedlaterthisyear.
TheNewYorkPostreportsthataproposaltoextendvotingrightstoillegalimmigrants,
allowingthemtovoteinelectionsforcitywideoffices,washighlightedataBlackand
LatinoLegislativeCaucusevent.
reportthisad

Wewanttoexpandtherighttovoteforeverybody,notsuppressthevote.Whataradical advertisement

idea,BerthaLewis,headoftheBlackInstitute,saidaccordingtothePost.ThePostnotes
shesaidtheyexpectsuchlegislationtobeintroducedinthespring. BREITBART VIDEO PICKS
reportthisad
NewYorkCityMayorBilldeBlasiohasmadeextensiveeffortsonbehalfofillegal
immigrants,includingofferingacityidentificationcard.AccordingtothePost,Lewissaid reportthisad
sheseestheextensionofvotingrightsaspartofthateffort. advertisement
Peoplewanttocomeoutoftheshadows,Lewissaid,accordingtothepaper.

AsthePostnotes,anumberofyearsagotherewasanefforttoextendvotingrightstolegal
noncitizenresidents.Thebill,whichasintroducedbyQueensCouncilmanDanDromm
andcosponsoredbyCouncilSpeakerMelissaMarkViverito,neverreceivedavote.

LewishashadconversationswithlegislatorsincludingViverito,Drommand
BrooklynCouncilmanJumaaneWilliams,amongothers,aboutexpandingrightsto
illegalaliens. MidlandConsumerRadioER310Emergency
(81)
AViveritospokesmannotedthatthecouncilsupportsextendingvotingrightsto
greencardholders,buthestoppedshortSundayofsayingshewouldbackvoting reportthisad
rightsforillegalimmigrants. advertisement

Williams,however,endorsedtheproposal.

TherewillbealotofsupportforitintheCityCouncil.Wewantpeopletoparticipate
inciviclifeandbeinvestedinwhathappens.Itwillleadtoahealthiercommunity,
saidWilliams.

Whileactivistsappearenthusiasticabouttheidea,ConservativePartyChairmanMike
LongtoldthePostthatextendingrightstoillegalimmigrantsisoutrageous,tellingthe
paper,AmericanCitizenshavetherighttodeterminethedestinyoftowns,villages,cities,
HPOfficeJetPro6830WirelessAllinOnePhoto
statesandthecountry.
$86.74
Read More Stories About: reportthisad
2016PresidentialRace,BigGovernment,Immigration,IllegalImmigrants,illegal advertisement

immigration,NewYorkCity,voting

Episode 36 - I Yell at Javonni

reportthisad
TrendingArticles
RichmondTimesDispatch:SteveBannonDiscussesHis
GrahamMoomawoftheRichmondTimesDispatchinterviewsSteveBannon,Donald
Trumpsnewchiefstrategistanda

Episode Thirty Three - The

Milo...

Charles Crawford, Former

British...

Cam Edwards, NRA Radio Host +

David...

PoweredBy

AroundTheWeb PoweredByZergNet

MOST POPULAR
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit K
NYClectionOfficialcoffat
MaorCallforHimtoReign
OverVoterFraudClaim
B M 10/18/16 4:25pm

M B f mm
p B f
m . P: M f
bv

FourdaafterMaorilldelaio
calledonManhattanoardoflection
CommiionerAlanchulkintoreign
overhiclaimofvoterfraudheaid
partialltemfromhimunicipal
identificationprogram,chulkinaid
hetaingputandthatthemaor
doentcontroltheoard.
 ConervativenonprofitProjectVerita
ecretlrecordedchulkin,aDemocrat,
aingthatdelaioIDNYC
initiativeinitiativedoenotproperlvet
applicantandenalethemtocommit
electionfraud.Healoaidpeopleare
unawarethatinminorit
neighorhood,organizationu
peoplearoundtovotetodifferent
pollingiteandaccuedMulimwomen
ofuingtheirurqatohidetheir
identitie.HealocalledforavoterI.D.
law.

Get the New York Politics newsletter in your inbox:

A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New York

Enter your email address SUBMIT

Latweek,delaiocalledchulkin
aertionaoutvoterfraudwhichhe
dimiedaanuranlegendandthe
municipalidentificationprogramcraz
andproofthatheinotfitforhi
poition.
 Ihavenointenttoreign,chulkin
toldtheOervertoda,followingaO
meetinginManhattan.Themaor
doentcontroltheoardoflection.

Duringthemeeting,uanLerner,
executivedirectorofgoodgovernment
groupCommonCaue,aidher
organizationandotherwereurpried
tohearofchulkincommentthathe
madegivenhipoition.heaidthere
needtoeclarificationanderiou
conequenceforeingontherecord,
evenifhedecriedtheindividuala
omeonewhowahecklinghimaa
repreentativeofaparticular
organization.Hehadtohaveknownthat
hicommentwerenotgoingtoeheld
privatel,heaid.

Yourcommentaouttheeven
potentialfraudeemreall

unwarrantedandparticularlinthi
Get the New York Politics newsletter in your inbox:
uperchargedelectioneaonweare
ufferingthrough,Lerneraid,toread
A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New York
thatamemeroftheNewYorkCit
oardfeelthatpeoplewhoareChinee,
Enter your email address SUBMIT

peoplewhowearparticularreligiou
garmightemoreinclinedtocommit
voterfraudireallhockingandthe
explanationthatwehavereadreall
doenottall.

chulkinaidhewanotplanningto
peakontherecordaouttheincident
 utthathewouldaddreitecaue
Lernerroughtitup.Henotedthe
incidenthappenedataChritmapart
latearwelleforeDonaldTrump
egantoingaroundcavalierclaimthe
Novemerelectionwilleriggedand
thathedidnotknowwhothe
womanwa.

Heaidhetartedtalkingtohimut
admittedthathehouldnothavepoken
withherandinitedthatthecomment
hemadeinthevideodonotrepreent
hiview,incontrattotatementlat
weekinwhichhetoodhicaught
oncameracallforrequiringvoterto
howaphotoI.D.

Healoaiddelaiowawrongto
characterizehitatementaapulic
tatement,aingthatitwaaprivate
tatementthatheregretecauehewa

tringtogetawafromthewomanand
Get the New York Politics newsletter in your inbox:
IwaagreeingwithherwhenIhouldnt
haveeen.
A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New York

AnodwhoknowmeknowIhave
Enter your email address SUBMIT

noprejudiceinmheart,chulkinaid.
Ineverintendedtohurtanod.Ive
pokentoanumeroflegilatorand
theallagreetheknowmeverwell
andthedidnttakeitaaninult.

chulkinaloacknowledgedhewa
initiallkepticaloftheIDNYCprogram
 utaidthewomandidnotidentif
herelf.WhenLernercharacterizedhi
reponetoherconcernainufficient
giventhatthereareignificant
concern,FredericUmane,ecretar,
appearedtodefendhicolleague.

Intpartofwhatourfunctionwith
electionprotectionitomakeurethat
therenofraudgoingattheallot?
Umaneaid.Intthatpartofwhatour
oerverarelookingforwhilethere
there,tomakeurethatthereino
fraud?

Lernerinitedintanceofinperon
voterfraudintheUnitedtatearerare,
andarguedthatitwaimportantto
eliminatenotcreateotacleatthe
poll.

Weretheretoeanaitanttothe

oardandtovoter,heaid.ut
Get the New York Politics newsletter in your inbox:
again,theconcernifortheeortof
reportedcommentthatIthinkthe
A daily email featuring the most important political coverage from around New York
pulichaalegitimateconcern.That
allthatImaing.
Enter your email address SUBMIT

chulkin,forhipart,continuedto
defendhimelf.

IknowIhouldntaanthing,utthe
peopleIvetalkedtotellmethedont
andIvetalkedtoanumerofpeople
fromvariouethnicgroup,elected
WATCH: Elections Commissioner Admits to Widespread Voter Fraud on
Hidden Camera
Jack Burns October 12, 2016

DesignYourLife

$1TurnsInto$357.24Daily?
DiscoverThisSecretMethodLearnMore

A Democratic Party election board representative from Manhattan was caught on camera confirming what a

lot of people already suspect. Its easy to commit voter fraud, and its made easier by New Yorks lax voter
identification measures, which really dont exist.

Alan Schulkin, the Democrat Party representative serving on Manhattans election board, admitted groups
of interested voters get on buses and travel from polling station to polling station casting multiple ballots

for their candidates or their issues. Schulkin said, You know, I dont think its too much to ask somebody to

show some kind of an IDLike I say, people dont realize, certain neighborhoods, in particular, they bus

people around to vote.

Breaking from his political partys traditional stance against voter Identification of any kind, Schulkin said,
Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud. Going further, Shulkin explained the

conundrum New York faces. You cant ask for ID, he said. He said mayor Bill Di Blasios attempt to issue

voter IDs is fraught with even more controversy.He gave out ID cards. De Blasio. Thats in lieu of a drivers

license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didnt vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can
go in there and say I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. Its absurd. Theres a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud,

all kinds of fraud, Schulkin explained.

The election board representatives comments were secretly recorded on a hidden camera by Project

Veritas, the same group responsible for catching Planned Parenthood executives on video engaging in

business transactions peddling aborted baby body parts for money. Activist, founder, and proponent of the

Free Press movement, James OKeefe was immediately targeted by the mainstream media and branded by

liberals as a phony journalist. But without his pioneering work, the world maynever have known about

Planned Parenthoods profiting from the sale of aborted body parts.



Those conversations, many of which were recorded while the participants were dining, touched off a

firestorm of controversy in the U.S. with many Congressional leaders calling for an end to federal funding

for Planned Parenthoods slaughter of the unborn.

Despite the expose videos, and even with Republicans (traditionally anti-abortion) in charge of the federal
budget, the 1.1 trillion dollar Omnibus spending package was passed with federal funding for the

abortionists intact. Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan (R-WI), was instrumental in the Omnibus passage,

which many believe should have excluded federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

OKeefes and Project Veritas recording of Schulkins comments, although they were recorded in December
of 2015, serve to illustrate just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in New York. Its a safe bet that if the
Democrat representative on Manhattans election board knows theres a systemic problem of voter fraud at

work, then the results of this years presidential election will probably be wrought with fraud as well.

Republicans, going back many years, have pushed for state legislatures to pass voter ID laws, to ensure

elections are fair and representative of the voter base. Attempts to prevent voter fraud by passing voter
identification laws (which by all accounts should be something on which both Republicans and Democrats

agree) has been vehemently challenged in court by Democrats all across the country.

This summer, voter ID laws in North Carolina and Wisconsin were struck down in the court system amid

concerns the laws made it more difficult for minorities to vote. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ohio, Texas,

Virginia, and Arizona as well, all in an attempt by Democrats to open up the polls to everyone (even illegal

aliens as some allege). Some have accused the Democratic party of creating a climate whereby voter fraud

is easier to commit, such as in New York as Schulkin plainly stated already exists.

Also, if you wish to report suspected cases of voter fraud you may do so by contacting the federal
government, your district or your states voter fraud divisions. A list of voter fraud contacts by state can be

found by clicking here.

 HIDDEN CAM: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"

TRENDING Sponsored by Revcontent

BuildandPricethe2017Corvette. 80FunniestWeddingDressesEver These21PhotosWereTimedto

ReadExpertReviews PerfectionAndThey'reHilarious
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit L
 At Part of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, held in
and for the County of Richmond, at the
Court house thereof located at 26
Central Avenue, Staten Island, New
York on the 5'h day of December, 2016.

PRESENT: Hon. Philip_G,,Minlltd'! .. ._._ .. ~

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of : INDEX NO. ~/

RONALD CASTORlNA, JR. and : fsU2brs;-;>U/~

NICOLE MALiOT AKIS,
: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITH
PetitionersfPlaintiffs, : TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
-against- : ORDER

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF TIlE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VNERITO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
IfUMAN RESO URCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his ofliciaJ capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOIJRCES
ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF 'S OCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMIN1STRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents/Defendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

Upon the annexed Affidavit of Petitioner RONALD CASTORINA, JR., ESQ.,

sworn to on the 5th'h day of December, 2016, Pemioner NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, sworn

to on the 5 th day of December, 2016, Affirmation of Jeffrey Alfano, Esq., affinned to on

 the 51h day of December 2016 and ail of exhibits annexed therto, and the Memorandum

of Law dated the 5th day of December 2016, and upon all the proceedings heretofore

had herein, let the Respondents, or their attorneys show cause at Part ~ffl (;.

held in and for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County of

Richmond, located at 26 Central Avenue, Staten Island, New York on the day of
fo~Ju-t~ :2 & 7 , -
~cemb.e., 2e1ti at ]' 3t) o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon

thereafter as counsel can be heard why an Order should not be made and entered

granting the Plaintiff the following relief:

1. An Order pursuant to C.P.L.R. Section 7803(2) Prohibiting

Respondents proceeding beyond the jurisdiction afforded to them

as public officers and destroying governmental documentation

collected in connection with the IDNYC program;

An Order declaring New York City Administrative Code Section 3-

115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11 violated FOIL and denying the

enforcement of any part of those sections violating FOIL;

3. Together with such other and further relief as to this Court may

deem just, proper, and equitable.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER:

SUFFICIENT REASON APPEARING, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED, that pending the return date of this motion, the respondents

are hereby enjoined and precluded from the destruction of any and all materials

associated with the IDNYC program , and it is further

2
the ____ day of December, 2015 be deemed good, $Ufficient and timely service.

ENTER,

Justice of the Supreme Court

3
SUPREME
COUNTY

In : INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALIOTAKIS,
OF
PetitionerslPlaintiffs. : JEFFREY ALFANO IN SUPPOR~
-against- TRO

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MA YOR

CITY OF NEW YORK,
OFFICE OF THE MA YOR OF CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

RespondentslDefendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

JEFFREY ALFANO, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State

of New York, affirms the following under penalties of perjury:

1. I am the sole proprietor of the Law Office of Jeffrey Alfano, attorney for

Petitioners, Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis. I am fuBy fammar with all facts and

circumstances pertaining to the within litigation following the review and analysis of the legal

file maintained by this office.

1
 attltnniiUlo'n is submitted to satisfy requirements 202.7(f).

The information COlltallne<1 associated the IDNYC program is digital nature

and is very easily deleted by the custodians of the material.

4. The Mayor, the City Council Speaker, and numerous City representatives
indicated intentions to destroy the materials associated with the IDNYC program on Of

before December 31, 2016,

5. To the extent the Mayor, City Council Speaker and other city representatives have

not destroyed the documents it will present a significant hardship to notify the Respondents in

advance of this application seeking a temporary order preventing the destruction of the materials

associated with the IDNYC program.

Dated: December 5,2016

Staten Island, NY

2
SUPREME COURT OF THE NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS,
;VERIFIED PETITION
Petitioners,
-against-

BILL DE BLASIO, his official capacity as MA YOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity.

Respondents,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

Petitioners Ronald Castorina, and Nicole MalIiotaksi (together "Petitioners") for their

Verified Petition and Complaint, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully allege as

follows:
 INTRODUCTION

1. This proceeding is brought under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law

and Rules ("C.P.L.R."), New York Public Officers Law 84 et seq. (the "Freedom of Information

Law" or "FOIL"), and C.P.L.R. 3001 against Respondents Mayor de Blasio, in his official

capacity ("the Mayor"), the Office of the Mayor of the City of New York, Melissa Mark-Viverito,

in her official capacity as the Speaker of the New York City Council, Steven Banks, Commissioner

of the New York City Human Resources AdministrationiDepartment of Social Services

(hereinafter "New York City HRA"), in his official capacity, Matthew Brune, Chief Operating

Officer of the New York City HRA, in his official capacity, and Ricardo Browne, Executive

Deputy Commissioner, Management Information Systems New York City HRA, in his official

capacity.

2. On June 26, 2014, the New York City Council passed an enabling statute allowing

the Mayor, through the New York City HRA, to create and administer New York City's Municipal

Identification Program (hereinafter, "IDNYC").

3. Respondents threaten to destroy public records connected with the IDNYC program

in contravention of New York State's Freedom of Information Law before any administrative

agency or court of competent jurisdiction evaluates legitimate FOIL requests.

4. Petitioners seek (1) an order pursuant to C.P.LR. 7803(2) prohibiting

Respondents from proceeding with actions in excess of their jurisdiction as public officers; and (2)

a declaration pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 that 68 RCNY 6-11 (Confidentiality ofIDNYC Card

Eligibility Information) violates New York State's Freedom ofInformation Law.

2
 PARTIES

5. Petitioner, Ronald Castorina, Jr., is a Member of the New York State Assembly

representing the 62 nd Assembly District covering the South Shore of Staten Island with his district

office located at 7001 Amboy Road, Suite 202 E, Staten Island, New York 10307. The Assembly

Member sits on the Committee on Banks.

6. Petitioner, Nicole Malliotakis, is a Member of the New York State Assembly

representing the 64 th Assembly District covering the East Shore of Staten Island and Bay Ridge,

Brooklyn. The Assembly Member has a district office located at 11 Maplewood Place, Staten

Island, New York 10306. The Assembly Member sits on the Committee on Banks.

7. Respondent Bill de Blasio is the Mayor of the City of New York. Upon information

and belief, his principal place of business is located at City Han, New York, NY 10007.

8. Respondent Office of the Mayor of the City of New York (the "Mayor's Office")

is an "agency within the meaning of Public Officers Law 86(3).

9. Respondent Melissa Mark-Viverito is the Speaker of the New York City CounciL

Upon information and belief, her principal place of business is located at City Hall, New York,

New York 10007.

10. Respondent Steven Banks is the Commissioner of New York City HRA. Upon

information and belief, his principal place of business is located at 4 World Trade Center, 150

Greenwich Street, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10007.

11. Respondent Matthew Brune is the Chief Operating Office of New York City HRA.

Upon information and belief, his principal place of business is located at 4 World Trade Center,

150 Greenwich Street, 38th Floor, New York, New York 10007.

3
 12. Kel;OOllue:nt Ricard Browne is the Executive Deputy Commissioner of New York

City HRA for Management Systems. Upon information and his principal place

of business is located at4 World Trade 150 Greenwich Street, 38th Floor, New New

York 10007.

VENUE
13. Venue is proper in Richmond County pursuant to C.P.L.R. 506(b) and 7804(b)

in that Petitioners submitted their FOIL requests from their district oUkes located on Staten Island.

Staten Island residents provided the records sought by the Petitioners to the New York City

government, and received IDNYC identification in New York City BRA offices located on Staten

Island.

JURISDICTION

14. Respondents' threatened actions, destruction of governmental records currently on

file with ilie City of New York, which form the basis of this Verified Petition and Complaint,

exceed ilie jurisdiction and authority of executive officers named as Respondents to the action.

The Respondents' collective threatened actions 1) supplant the judicial function of evaluating

FOIL requests from the administrative agencies and reconsideration by the New York State

Supreme Court; and 2) seek to hide governmental actions in contravention of the New York State

Freedom of Information Law .by fiat through the. wholesale destruction of government documents,

railier than utilizing stringent guidelines developed to protect disclosure of personal information.

This Court, ilierefore. has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to C.P .L.R. 7801 et seq, and

Public Officers Law 84 et seq.

15. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 to render declaratory

relief.

4
 FACTS

16. September 1, 2016, Superintendent of the New York State

Financial Services (hereinafter Superintendent") issued a letter to New York's banking

industry encouraging acceptance ofIDNYC for banking and credit products. See Exhibit A.

17. On October 20, 2016, Petitioner, Assembly Member Castorina, wrote the

Superintendent requesting the reconsideration of the sentiments contained that Exhibit

B.
18. The Superintendent issued no response to Assembly Member Castorina's letter, nor

was it acknowledged in any other way.

19. In recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his intention to destroy aU records

associated with the issuance of the IDNYC program through his purported authority under

68 RCNY 6-11. See Exhibit C.

20. On November 28, 2016, Petitioners requested Respondents refrain from the

destruction of any government documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC progmm. See

Exhibit D.

21. On November 29, 2016, Respondents rejected Petitioners requests to preserve

documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program through Speaker Mark-Viverito

statement to the press for Petitioners to "go ahead [and] sue us." See Exhibit E.

22. On November 29,2016, at 12:23:11 p.m., Assembly Member Castorina submitted

a FOIL request seeking:

delivery, to my office address listed above, aU scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital format.

Exhibit F.

5
 23. On December 2,2016) at 6:51 :06 p.m., Assembly Member Malliotakis submitted a

FOIL request seeking:

delivery, to my office address listed above, an scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital format.

Exhibit G.

24. Identification issued through the NYCID program expire five years after it is issued

to an individual.

25. Regulations contained in the New York City Code permit the destruction of records

associated with the NYCID program after two years solely at the discretion of the Respondents.

26. The New York City HRA regulation purportedly grants Respondents unilateral

authority to destroy aU records, in the name of preserving participant confidentiality, collected in

connection with administering New York City's IDNYC program on or before December 31,

2016. See NYC Administrative Code 3-11S(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11.

27. Public statements made by City Council Member, Carlos Menchaca, to the New

York Post on February 15, 2015, indicate Respondents chose December 31, 2016 to destroy

documents, but not to end the program, simply for political purposes. See Exhibit H.

28. City Council Member Menchaca indicated clearly, "In case a Tea Party Republican

comes into office and says, 'We want all of the data from all ofthe municipal ID programs in the

country,' we're going to take the data." ld

29. CitY Council Member Menchaca indicated further the December3!, -:;W16
document destruction date "allows us [the City Council] to prepare for any new leadership [in

Washington, D.C.]". Id

6
 30. City Council Member Menchaca's comments led New York to entitle the

article concerning the NYCID program, "Municipal ID law has 'delete case of Tea

clause." ld

31. No legitimate government interest can be served by destroying records reasonably

collected to ensure integrity of a governmental identification system for strictly political

reasons.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING A PROHIBITION

OF RESPONDENTS FROM DESTROYING GOVERNMENT
RECORDS KEPT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A
GOVERNMENTAL IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM

32. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein.

33. Article 78 provides an appropriate method to restrain public officers from

proceeding in a manner which is not within, or exceeds, their jurisdiction.

34. Under FOIL executive government records are accessible to members of the public,

governmental agencies, and other bl'anches of both the federal and state governments.

35. FOIL permits the executive to redact governmental records submitted in

accordance with administering programs run by executive agencies to protect the disclosure of

participants' personal information.

36. FOIL permits, further, the denial of access to certain governmental records if

expressly authorized by one of FOIL's specific exemptions. The limited statutory FOIL

exemptions are to be construed narrowly, and the government bears the burden of demonstrating

that documents faU within an asserted exemption.

7
 37. FOIL does permit government to destroy aU documents associated

government program to nrt....tpi'1' any individuals' privacy rights for any t'Pt\'~nn and clearly not for

politically motivated reasons.

38. Respondents' public statements indicating their intention destroy aU aO(:un:lenlts.

whatever format, associated with the IDNYC program will cause. immediate and irreparab1e

harm to the rights guaranteed to Petitioners and to the public at large under FOIL.

39. Respondents' publicly stated course of conduct will render FOIL useless and

exceeds their jurisdiction under law.

40. This Court should issue an Order of Prohibition restraining respondents from

exceeding their jurisdiction and destroying government documents in response to a federal

election.

41. Petitioners have not made any previous request for relief requested herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING A

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT 68 RCNY 6-H AND
NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 3-U5(E)
VIOLATE THE PURPOSE OF FOIL GRANTING
TRANSPARENCY TO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

42. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein.

43. The regulations promulgated by Respondents in 68 RCN Y 6-11 and New York City

Administrative Code 3-115(e) contain no method for the public to access the records submitted

in connection with the IDNYC program.

44. New York State policy requires fun and open access to government.

45. The New York State legislature clearly maintains:

The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-

making and to review the documents and statistics leading to
determination is basic to our society. Access to such information

8
 should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or
confidentiality.

Public un:tcers 84.

46. idea that democratically elected government officials may destroy records

preventing their inspection by the public due to the results of a federal election is against the ideals

of the United States and has no basis in law.

47. This Court should issue an Order declaring New York City'S regulations run afoul

of FOIL and deny the enforcement of only those provisions of the IDNYC program.

48. Petitioners have not made any previous request for relief requested herein.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfuily request this Court grant judgment:

a. Prohibiting Respondents from exceeding their jurisdiction and destroying

governmental documentation collected in connection with the IDNYC program in contravention

of FOIL;

b. Declaring New York City Administrative Code 3-115(e) and 68 RCNY 6~1l

violate FOIL and denying the enforcement of any part of those sections in contravention to FOIL;

c. Awarding attorney's fees and reasonable litigation costs as allowed under Public

Officers Law 89; and

9
 d. Granting such and further the Court deems proper.

Dated: December 5, 2016

Staten Island, New York

Ifi n
aw ffice of Jeffrey Alfano
1000 South Avenue, Suite 104
Staten Island, NY 10314
TeL: 718-701-1441
Attorney101' Petitioners Ronald Castorina,
Jr. and Nicole Malliotakis

10
 VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) sS.:
COUNTYOFRICHMOND )

Ronald Castorioa. Jr. being duly sworn, deposes and says: ThaI I am 8 petitioner in Ibis
proceeding, !hat I have rearl the foregoiog petition and know the conlents thereof; that the same
is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and
belief; and that as to those ,m atters I believe them to be true.

.wom to before me on this

~dayofD=ber, 2016

J!IfItT M. AlIAI/O
Nol6,y Putll,c . SI.h! of Nt. v.,11
No. 02AU124696
.. Cl utliflld I.n Rn.hmoncl CO\l~ty__
_My Camm. fUme5 M,r, 28 ~

11
STATE OF NEW )
) 55.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

Nicole Malliotaks, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a petitioner in this
proceeding, that I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; that the same
is true to my own knowledge, except as to therein stated to be alleged on information and
and that as to those matters I believe to be true.

~om to before me on this

.)... day of December," 16

12
EXHIBIT
A
 NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENTof
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Andrew M. Cuomo Maria T. Vullo
Governor Superintendent

September 1, 2016

Michael P. Smith
President and CEO
New York Bankers Association
99 Park Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016

William Mellin
President
New York Credit Union Association
P.O. Box 15118
Albany, NY 12212

Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Mellin:

This letter provides guidance by the Department of Financial Services (the "Department") on
whether the New York City Municipal Identification Card ("Municipal ID") can be used by
banks and credit unions to verify the identity of prospective customers under New York's
customer identification program ("CIP") requirements for customers who seek to open bank
accounts.

The Department is committed to ensuring broad access to financial products and services for all
consumers and recognizes the Municipal ID as one method to expand access to financial services
in New York. For individuals, access to bank and credit union accounts helps preserve income,
leads to savings and asset-building opportunities, and improves access to affordable credit
opportunities. Indeed, access to banking services can improve the overall economic well-being
of all New Yorkers and the New York economy.

The Department is aware that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the "Federal Agencies") have previously provided

(800) 342-3736 I ONE STATE STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10004-1511 I WWW.DFS.NY.OOV

guidance on this issue in a letter dated April 30, 2015. 1 The federal CIP rule requires banks to
have CIPs for account opening that use risk-based procedures for verifying the identity of each
customer so that the bank can form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the
customer. The minimum information a bank must obtain is the prospective customer's name,
date of birth, address and an identification number.2

The CIP rule does not prescribe a specific type of government-issued identification card for use
by institutions. Institutions that rely on documentary forms of evidence to verify a customer's
identity should have procedures in place to identify the types of documents the institution will
accept for such verification. Accordingly, it is the Department's position that institutions may
accept the Municipal ID as a means of documentary verification as provided in the institutions'
CIP procedures.

The Department encourages New York state-chartered and licensed financial institutions to
accept the Municipal ID as a form of acceptable identification card, utilizing procedures applied
to all potential customers to assess the risk presented by the customer and any need for additional
documentation or information.

r;;;jL
Maria T. Vullo
Superintendent

1 See Federal Agencies' response letter (April 30, 2015). The Federal Agencies also concluded that the
identification number included on all Municipal IDs satisfies the non-U.s. person identification number
reqUirement contained in the federal CIP rules.

231 C.F.R. 1020.220j see 3 NYCRR Part 116.2

E HIBIT
EXHI IT
C
121312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants I Fox News

U.S. HOME CRIME TERRORISM ECONOMY IMMIGRATION DISASTERS MILITARY EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT PERSONAL FREEDOMS REGIONS

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal

immigrants
Published November 15. 2016
Associated Press

This undated image provided by New York City Hall shows a sample 10 card issued by the city. Advocates of last year's municipal 10 card program said it would help people
living in the country illegally venture out of the shadows. Now some fear it couid instead expose them to deportation. Since Donald Trump's presidential election victory, the city is
considering destroying the cardholders' personal records. (New York City Hall vIa AP)

NEW YORK - When New York City launched the nation's biggest municipallD card program last year, advocates said it would
help people living in the U.S. illegally to venture out of the shadows.

ADVERTISEMENT

But since Donald Trump was elected president, city officials are instead fielding questions about whether the cards could put
those same people at greater risk of being deported.

The city has vowed to protect cardholders' personal records and might even delete them using a kind of self-destruct provision
that allows for the information to be destroyed at the end of the year.

At least one state lawmaker has criticized that idea, saying it could make it impossible to trace people if they have obtained cards
fraudulently.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016111/151new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 1/4
121312016 New York City may erase ID card data to protect illegal immigrants I Fox News
Some immigrants take comfort in the city's stance, while acknowledging they are still wary.

Alberto Saldivia got his "IDNYC" card this year after spending 15 years in the country without legal authorization.

"It did cause me considerable concern, because they have my information, also the information of my son," the 53-year-old
Mexico native said through an interpreter.

But he felt reassured when Mayor Bill de Blasio said last week that the city would "absolutely" safeguard cardholders' identities.
De Blasio, a Democrat, said officials would assess whether to delete the personal records, a provision that was built into the
program partly over concerns about the possible election of a Republican president such as Trump, whose campaign promises
included a vow to deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

MunicipallD programs began in 2007 in New Haven, Conn., and have expanded to about 10 cities, including Los Angeles and
San Francisco. New York's program is the most ambitious, with more than 800,000 cardholders, many of them U.S. citizens or
legal residents.

Officials encouraged everyone in the city to sign up, but the program was aimed at those without other forms of ID, including
homeless people and, especially, the estimated 500,000 immigrants living illegally in the city. The ID would help them do such
everyday things as cash a check or attend a parent-teacher conference at a public school, advocates said.

The program quickly proved popular, with New Yorkers waiting hours in line and months for appointments to register early on.
Pope Francis received a ceremonial one during his visit to the city last year, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
said the card would make him "a real New Yorker."

But civil liberties advocates sounded alarms about the city collecting identity documents that immigration authorities or law
enforcement could request, with a judge's approval.

The program's backers included language that allows for destroying the applicants' identity and residency information at the end
of 2016 if administrators do not move to keep them.

"Protecting it from a possible Republican president was just one of the reasons" for the provision, said City Councilman Carlos
Menchaca, who wrote the law that created the program.

A critic of the program said deleting the records would only compound concerns about it.

"It's completely irresponsible to destroy the documentation of people who applied for a government-issued ID card," said state
Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican.

She said the proof-of-identity requirements may not be stringent enough to prevent fraud, and deleting the records would leave
authorities "no way of knowing who these people are, how they obtained this documentation."

Some immigrants and their advocates remain hopeful that the IDs won't backfire. The extent of the program should thwart using
it to target immigrants here illegally, since they represent only some of the cardholders, said Javier Valdes of Make the Road
New York, an advocacy group that pushed for the program.

Juan Rosas Carrera plans to keep his appointment this weekend to get an IDNYC card, despite a friend's warning that it could be
risky to give authorities his name and address. Rosas Carrera, a Mexican national and construction worker, has been living in the
U.S. illegally for 17 years.

Still, he wants an ID card to open a bank account and feels it's worth the worry.

"I feel safe in New York. I also think that if you don't have a criminal record, nothing bad will really happen," said Rosas Carrera,
48. "But I am a bit worried about Trump."

Trending in U.S.
Why Trump was right to talk with
Taiwan's president

j'm a Democrat and I'm ashamed at

how tone deaf we've become

htlp:/lwww.foxnews.com/us/2016111/151new-york-city-may-erase-icl-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html 214
E IBIT
D
 121412016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs I SIUve.com

alliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy

ION docs

Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina Jr. speak against the IDNYC program in St. George on
Monday, Nov. 28, 2016. (Rachel Shapiro/Staten Island Advance)

By Rachel Shapiro I rshapiro@siadvance.com

Email the author I Follow on Twitter
on November 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, updated December 02, 2016 at 7:05 AM

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. - If city officials destroy documents collected from illegal immigrants who apply for municipal 10 cards, they
are creating a "slippery slope" and putting national security at risk, say Assembly members Nicole Malliotakis and Ron Castorina
Jr., who are calling on officials to hold off.

The Republican Malliotakis has opposed the IDNYC program since its creation, as it exists primarily to provide undocumented
immigrants with photo IDs, something that will help them come out of the shadows, proponents argue.

Her newly-elected colleague, Castorina, also objects to giving government-issued IDs to those in the country illegally,
specifically citing his opposition to allowing banks to accept the ID~

ADVERTISING

lnRead invented by Teads

htlp:llwww.silive.com/newslindex.ssf12016111/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 1/3
 121412016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs I SIUve.com

On Monday, the two Assembly Republicans spoke outside the Staten Island Business Center on St. Mark's Place in St. George,
where city residents can obtain the 10 cards.

They argue that the documents required to obtain an 10 card are not solid proof of identification and residency in the city. The
city doesn't consider legal status when determining whether to issue an 10 card.

With Donald Trump's election, the liberal-leaning mayor and City Council are in favor of destroying the 10 documents for fear they
could be used to locate undocumented immigrants in the city and deport them.

Initially saying on the campaign trail that he hoped to deport the 11 million people in the country illegally, Trump has walked that
back to deporting only those who commit crimes.

The city included a provision when it created the municipal 10 program to destroy all personal records it collected if a "Tea Party
Republican" wins the White House.

It was done for "political reasons" Malliotakis said. "That in itself is concerning."

She noted the 9/11 Commission Report, which states that many of the hijackers used fraudulent documents to obtain IDs.

"That's the concern we have today," she said.

If a person with a city municipal 10 card uses it for nefarious reasons, investigators would need access to the documents given to
the city. If they're destroyed, that could hinder justice, Malliotakis argued.

"It was a mistake to create this program and more of a mistake to destroy documents," she said.

While people applying for the 10 must have three points to confirm their identities -- like U.S. or foreign passports, U.S. or
foreign driver's licenses and U.S. or foreign birth certificates -- but they only need one to confirm their city residency.

That could be a utility bill, a bank statement or a letter from the city Housing Authority if the applicant lives in public housing.

Malliotakis often notes that one needs only to reside in a homeless shelter for 15 days before being considered a city resident,
and a letter from the shelter management fulfills the requirement for one proof of residency.

IDNYC can't be used to obtain a driver's license, board an airplane, cross international borders or rent a car.

Castorina called the 10 program an "unmitigated disaster" and "an issue of national security."

Castorina, a lawyer and former commissioner for the city Board of Elections, is researching whether destroying the documents is
illegal -- if it is, he'll bring legal action against the city.

"We should not be issuing identification cards to people who are not here legally," he said.

htlp:/lwww.silive.com/newslindex.ssf/2016111/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.hlml 213
 121412016 Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC docs I SIUve.com

He suspects that in many cases, fraudulent documents are used to obtain the IDs.

Those IDs may be used to get other IDs.

The term "slippery slope" was used several times by both Assembly members.

As for handing over documents to the federal government should it ask for it, "the City of New York has an obligation to follow the
law," Castorina said. "The city is not above the federal government."

A City Hall spokesperson challenged the Assembly members' assertions that the ID program is lax and unsafe.

"The safety of New Yorkers is City Hall's top priority, and that includes the nearly 40 percent of city residents who are foreign
born. We rely on law enforcement professionals from the NYPD to set the bar for security, and IDNYC consistently meets this high
standard. Claims that IDNYC is being used by those intending serious harm is reckless fear-mongering - the IDNYC application
process is similar to DMVs across the country, highly trained staff use state of the art technology to identify instances of fraud,
and IDNYC cannot be used to obtain a driver's license, board a plane, or cross a border. Over 900,000 New Yorkers have IDNYC,
and we are committed to protecting the privacy and security of our data. The City will make a decision regarding record retention
in the near future."

The story was updated to include a comment from the mayor's office.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

2016 SILive.com. All rights reserved (About Us).

The material on this site may not be reproduced. distributed. transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission
of SILive.com.

Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.

Ad Choices

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/malliotakis_castorina_ask_city.html 3/3
E HIBI
E
121312016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

o City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go

o
Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed
Immigrant Record Purge
By Madina Toure 11/29/16 6:25pm

Surrounded by Council colleagues, Speaker

Melissa Mark-Viverito lauds the IDNYC program
at a 2015 event. IDNYC

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito

offered a curt retort today to two Staten
Island Republicans preparing legal
action against the city over its plan
to flush municipal identification
records and to shield undocumented
immigrants from President-elect Donald
Trump: "go ahead and sue us."

http://observer.com/2016/11/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 1/5
121312016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

A legislative trap door in the bill that

created the IDNYC program almost two
years ago enables the city to trash the
data files on its applicants, many of
whom are foreign nationals lacking
other forms of government paperwork,
should a nativist president assume
office. Assemblyman Ronald Castorina
and Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis
contended yesterday that this option, if
Mayor Bill de Blasio utilizes it as
proposed, could make it harder for
federal law enforcement to track
potential terrorists and criminals.

ADVERTISING

The two GOP lawmakers said they

gearing up to take the city to court to
force it to retain the documents.

http://observer.com/2016111/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purge/ 215
1213/2016 City Council Speak.er to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

"Go ahead and sue us," Mark-Viverito, a

fierce advocate for both IDNYC and the
undocumented, spat out when the
Observer asked about the potential suit
at an unrelated press conference at City
Hall today.

The speaker, a prominent surrogate for

Hillary Clinton, has attacked Trump
repeatedly on Twitter and vowed that
New York City will remain a sanctuary
city in spite of Republican threats of
economic sanctions. She echoed the
mayor today in pledging that the city will
do whatever is necessary to protect the
program and its applicants from federal
incursions.

"There's a law in place and the law is very

explicit about how information is to be
handled," Mark-Viverito said during the
City Council's monthly pre-stated
meeting. "We are looking at exploring
those options and so we are gonna
exercise whatever rights we have as the
city. They want to raise the funds and
they want to sue the city, they have every
right to do so if that's what they choose
to do."

And Malliotakis, for her part, caught

wind of Mark-Viverito's comments. She
delivered an equally terse response.

http://observer.com/2016111/city-council-speak.er-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposecl-immigrant-record-purge/ 3/5
12/312016 City Council Speaker 10 GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

"Arrogant," she tweeted. "I guess as long

as taxpayers will be footing the bill to
defend her shady policies in court, it's
k"
o.

The de Blasio administration, along with

Mark-Viverito and advocates, has argued
that 1DNYC enables undocumented
immigrants to partake in simple, run-of-
the-mill activities that require proof of
identification, such as opening a bank
account. And while the mayor is still
encouraging people to sign up for
1DNYC, Mark-Viverito isn't ready to do
the same.

She said the city is reviewing its legal

options.

"I have not taken that position," she

added. "Obviously we are very concerned
about the [issue] now-between now
and the end of the year and now and
January 20-S0 we're very
clearly engaged in a conversation as I've
indicated before about one, the data is
secure right now and we're going to
retain a confidentiality."

A City Hall spokesperson told the

Observer yesterday that its staff carefully
verify personal information used to
obtain the municipal identifications, and
that an IDNYC an cannot be used to get
a driver's license, board a plane or cross a
htlp:llobserver.com/2016111/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-ahead-and-sue-us-over-proposed-immigrant-record-purgel 415
121312016 City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge

border. The spokesperson also said the

city relies on the NYPD to "set the bar
for security."

This story has been updated to include a

comment from Assemblywoman Nicole
Malliotakis.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-

law ofJared Kushner, the publisher of
Observer Media.

ALSO FROM THE WEB

Homeowners You 11 Surprising

Must Claim Join A Meal Causes of Male
their $4271 Kit Delivery Dysfunction
Sponsored I Sponsored I Sponsored I Sponsored I
FetchRate Verizon Wireless HelloFresh Health Central

http://observer.com/2016111/city-council-speaker-to-gop-go-aheacJ...ancJ..sue-us-over-proposecJ...immigrant-recorcJ...purgel 515
E HI IT
F
11/29/2016 Thank You from NYC .gov -The Official New York City Web Site

Thank You For Filling Out This Form

Shown below is your submission to NYC.gov on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:23:11

This form res ides at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/aboutlfoil-request.page

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Ronald

Last Name: Castorina Jr
Address: 7001 Amboy Road Suite 202 E
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10307
Email: roncastorina@gmail.com
Phone: 718-967-5194
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application
materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys Municipal
Request:
ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency including
the Mayors Office in digital format.

COIt)lIriiaht 2016 The of New York

http://www.rrjc.gov/doittcaptchafvalidatecap 111
E HIBIT
G
Thank You fror.' NYC.gov -The Official New York City Web Site http://www.nyc.gov/doittcaptchalvalidatecap

NYC Resources I 311 I Office of the Mayor

You This

Shown below is your submission to on Friday, December 2,2016 at 16:51 :06

This form resides at http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hra/aboutifoil-requesLpage

NAME of FIELDS DATA

First Name: Nicole

last Name: Malliotakis
Address: 11 Maplewood Place
City: Staten Island
State: NY
ZIP Code: 10306
Email: nysassembly60@gmail.com
Phone: 718-987-0197
I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned
applicationmaterials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York Citys
Request:
MunicipaliD program) program maintained by HRA and any other City Agency
includingthe Mayors Office in digital format.

Copyright 2016 The City of New York Contact Us I Privacy Policy I Terms of Use

lofl 12/2120164:51 Pty

EXHIBI
H
121412016 MunicipallD law has 'delete in case of Tea Party' clause I New York Post

unicipall law has 'delete in __ _ of Tea

Pa 'clause
By Tara Palmeri February 16, 2015 I 11:27pm

The city's new ID program allows for personal data to be destroyed at the end of 2016 In case a conservative Republican Is elected president. the law's co-
sponsor told The Post.
Photo: Dennis A. Clark

Get the shredders ready - the Tea Party could be coming.

The city's new municipal ID program allows for personal info provided by applicants to be destroyed at the end of 2016, in case a
conservative Republican wins the White House and demands the data, the law's co-sponsor told The Post on Monday.

City Councilman Carlos Menchaca (D-Brooklyn) said the measure was crafted so data submitted by those seeking the cards can be
destroyed on Dec. 31, 2016.

The cards are aimed at undocumented immigrants.

"In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office and says, 'We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country:
we're going to take the data," he explained.

The next president assumes office Jan. 20, 2017.

"That date is an important signal to the future of immigration reform. That allows us to prepare for any new leadership," Menchaca said.

In order to get an ID, residents must provide their names, addresses, aliases, dates of birth and other information, making it easy for the feds
to identify undocumented immigrants.

Menchaca said the Obama administration has shown no interest in going after the data, but he didn't want to take any chances on the next
administration.

"Though we have not seen documents like this get requested at the level of the federal government, that could be a possibility, so that
really allows us to protect the data," he said.

Immigrant advocates praised the provision.

"It's no secret that one of the biggest sticking points in the ID programs is ensuring that there's confidentiality, that immigrants are
comfortably giving their information to the city," said Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

"The sunset is part and parcel of the effort to ensure confidentiality."

The bill lets the city destroy the info if it determines it's no longer needed.

The cards were first available early last month. Demand has been overwhelming, with more than 200,000 apPointments made for the cards
In less than a month.

Additional reporting by Bob Fredericks

Filed under barack obama, bill de blasio, carlos menchaca, municipal-id program, tea party

http://nypost.com/20151021161municipal-id-law-has-delete-in-case-of-tea-party-clause! 1/2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

In the Matter of : INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS,
:AFFIDAVIT OF
Petitioners, : NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS
-against-

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

STATEOFNEWYORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the elected representative of the 64th Assembly District representing parts of

Brooklyn and Staten Island, New York. I am a member of the Assembly's Committee on

Banks.

1
 2. The address to my district office is 11 Maplewood Place, Staten Island, NY

10306.

3. I submit this affidavit in support of the instant special proceeding seeking an

Order pursuant to CPLR 7803(2) prohibiting the respondents from deleting, scrubbing or

otherwise destroying any and all information submitted in connection with New York City's

Municipal Identification Card program (hereinafter "IDNYC"); and a declaratory judgment

determining 68 RCNY 6-11 (Confidentiality of IDNYC Card Eligibility Information) violates

New York State's Freedom of Information Law (hereinafter "FOIL").

4. On December 2,2016, at 6:51 :06 p.m., I submitted a FOIL request seeking:

I request delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned

application materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New
York City's Municipal ID program) program maintained by lIRA
and any other City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital
format.

See Exhibit A.

5. On February 18, 2015, I wrote to Mayor Bill de Blasio, City Council Speaker

Melissa Mark-Viverito, Councilmember Daniel Dromm, and Councilmember Carlos Menchaca,

expressing grave concern about the city's plans to destroy the records of individuals who obtain

IDNYC identification cards. See Exhibit B.

6. I suggested amending the law by removing the clause that permits the destruction

of records, and replacing it with language that would require the retention of records acquired

through the IDNYC application process or, at the very least, ensure that the determination made

by the administering agency before the 2016 deadline is made in full consideration of our city's

interest in law enforcement and counterterrorism. ld.

2
 7. On May 5, 2015, New York City Immigrant Affairs Commissioner Nisha

Agarwal, City Council Speaker Mark-Viverito, Councilmember Dromm, and Councilmember

Menchaca responded to my letter, stating "the provision for review of the document retention

provision .. .is meant to ensure that as IDNYC grows its anti-fraud protections remain strong,

and that the balance between security and privacy remains accurate. Safety and security win
remain paramount during the review process." See Exhibit C.

8. I am currently researching potential legislation that would ameliorate the risk of

an individual acquiring an IDNYC card under false pretenses.

9. In furtherance of the public's interest with regard to the values of public safety

and transparency in government, I require access to the documents acquired through the IDNYC

application process to determine the level of scrutiny applied by the New York City Human

Resources Administration in issuing identification cards.

10. In recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his desire to exercise his purported

authority under 68 RCNY 6-11 and delete aU records associated with the issuance of

governmental identification through the IDNYC program. See Exhibit D.

1L When my colleague and co-petitioner, Ronald Castorina, Jr., and I requested

Mayor de Blasio reconsider his position relating to IDNYC, respondent, City Council Speaker

Mark-Viverito, challenged us to sue to enforce the people's right to preserve and access

infonnation supporting the issuance of government issued identification. See Exhibit E.

12. If Mayor de Blasio, and members of his administration named here as co-

respondents, destroy the IDNYC records I will be unable to conduct a legitimate investigation

before preparing legislation affecting the rights of all New York citizens.

3
 13. Any document destruction policy must, at the very least, maintain the records

until the governmental identification expires. Here, IDNYC identification remains effective for

five years, but the government purports to destroy the documents after only retaining them for

two years. This course of conduct proves to be simply illogical and cannot provide the basis for

transparent government espoused by the Mayor and Speaker.

14. The content of my FOIL request proves necessary to perform my duties as a

member of New York State's Assembly. The documents used to support the issuance of a

government identification card ought to remain intact to carry out legitimate governmental and

public interests.

15. The content, manner, and timing of the disclosure of these governmental

documents must remain subject to New York State's FOIL law.

16. Beyond my need to access these records for a legitimate state interest, the

government must retain governmental identification records and their supporting documentation

leading to its issuance as a matter of national security. It is conceivable, and likely, a person

with nefarious intent could use fraudulent documents or reside in a New York City homeless

shelter for 15 days to meet the city's requirements to obtain identification through the IDNYC

program with the sole intention of exploiting it.

Dated: December 2016

Staten Island, NY

4
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND )

On ~ ~ ,2016, before me personally came Nicole Malliotakis,

Affidavit, 1
to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing
duly acknowledge to me that he executed the same.

"""":"-.. . . OAi' ~
t;;Jl\I\~~::
NOTAR' P $ L I C '
STATE OF NEW YORK

PAUL MARRONE
Notary Public State of New York
NO.02MA6251589
Qualified in Richmond
My Commission Expires 'Z

5
 OF YORK

: INDEX NO. _ _ _ _ __

RONALD CASTORINA, and

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
-against-

BILL DE BLASIO, in official capacity as MAYOR OF

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, in her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF NEW YORK CITY COUNClI.,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his officia1 capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, in his official capacity,

Respondents/Defendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and

Rules.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW' IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERSfPLAINTIFFS'

OROER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Law Office of Jeffrey Alfano

1000 South Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10314
Attorney for PetitionerslPlaintiffs
Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole MalHotakis.

On The Brief
Jeffrey Alfano
 TABLE
Page(s)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..... , .................................................................... .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................ 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................... '" ..... .......... ... ................ ...................... 6

POINT I

New York's Freedom ofInformation Law Requires Respondents Preserve Government

Records Submitted In Connection With The IDNYC Program This Court Must Issue
an Order Prohibiting Respondent From Proceeding Without Jurisdiction to Destroy
These Government Documents... . . . . . . . . ... . ... .. ... .. .. . .. ... .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . ..... ....... ...... 11

POINTU

The IDNYC Enabling Statute and Subsequently Issued Regulations Restricting AC(;css
To Records Associated with the IDNYC Program And Calling For Their Arbitrary
Destruction Violate New York State's Freedom of Information Law........................ 13

CONCLUSION ........................... , . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .. .... . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .... .... . . .. . 15

2
 ""'lU'lLoa:.t OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Bradford v. Helman, 24 937 (PI 1965) ..................................... . 12

Newstiay, V. Sise, 71 NY2d (1987) ............................................... . 11

Roche v. Lamb, Misc.2d 633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969),

app. dismissed, 33 AD2d 1102 (4tb Dep't 1970), aff'd, 26 NY2d 54 (1970) .... ...... 12

Tartan Oil Corp. v. Stat Dep '( o/Taxation & Fin., 239 AD2d 36 (3d Dep't. 1998).. 11

STATE STATIJTES

C.P.L.R. 7803(2) .... ................. ........................................ ................. 12

Public Officers Law 84 ...................................................................... 11

Public Officers Law 89 ...................................................................... 13

Vehicle and Traffic Law 502 ............................................................... 14

Vehicle and Traffic Law 508 . ......... ..... ....................... ......................... 14

STATE REGULATIONS

15 NYCRR 160 et seq. ................................................................... .... 14

15 NYCRR 161 et seq. ....................................................................... 14

NEW YORK CITY LOCAI~ LAWS

New York City Local Law 35/2014 .......................................................... 8

NEW YORK REGULAnONS

NYC Administrative Code 3-l1S(e) .................. ..................... .................. 9,12,14

68 RCNY 6-11 ............................ ..... ............................ ....... .............. 9,12, 14

3
 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Mayor de Blasio claimed: "I believe deeply in transparency" and want to make public "a

whole swath of infonnation" about "day-to-day government business."J Mayor de Blasio

investigated City agencies' responses to Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") requests his

fonner role as Public Advocate. During that time he believed mayoral administrations must follow

FOIL and concluded, "the bottom line here is: This is not an optional matter, and we have to stop

letting people get away with it [ignoring/denying FOIL requests].,,2 Indeed, Speaker Mark-

Viverito sang the praises of open government data this past April in response to the opening of the

New York City School of Data conference celebrating the fourth anniversary of the city passing

its flrst open data law. Speaker Mark-Viverito proclaimed this past Spring her vision of open

government technology working "to tell a story, one that has rarely been told rightly before. I

want our data to move people, organizations, and of course, governments to act differently." 3

Inexplicably Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito, two champions of open

government and transparency, seek the destruction of nearly 1,000,000 applications kept in

connection with New York City's Municipal Identification Program ("IDNYC") before the close

of the year. While both Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito only recently voiced their

intention to unilaterally destroy documents associated with the largest municipal government

identiflcation program in the country, they seek the benefit of a poison pill which destroys evidence

of the IDNYC program but keeps the program alive.

Sally Goldenberg, De Blasio to Disclose 'Substantive' Lobbyist Meetings, POLITICO, May

27,2014 attached to the Affinnation of Jeffrey Alfano ("Alfano Aff.") as Exhibit A.
2 Kate Taylor, De Blasio Pushes on Information Requests, The New York Times, Oct. 19,
2011. Alfano Aff. Exh. B.
3 Kaela Sanborn-Hum, New York City'S Evolving Approach to Open Data, GOTHAM
GAZETIE, Aprilll, 2016. Alfano Aff. Exh. C.

4
 ,",V'...u"'A' Member Menchaca ..." .........."'.........u)' told the New York In

and says, 'We want aU the data from aU

mumClipal ID nl"n01'l::om going to take the data.,,4 The New York City Council

ami Mayor's Office selected the December 31, 2016, data destruction date simply to "anow us

[the City Council] to nrIF'1"1nl"t" any new leadership [in Washington, D.C.]" according to Council

Member Menchaca. 5

New York's Freedom ofInformation Law ("FOIL") contemplates restricting public access

to public documents in limited circumstances. It does not consider the wholesale destruction of

public records based on the political leanings of democratically elected officials. The presumption

remains documents created the public realm belong to the people and not individual

administrations. This Court cannot and must not allow the Mayor, the Speaker, and their

administrations from taking action far exceeding their collective jurisdictions. Simply stated, the

Respondents announced a course of conduct concerning IDNYC records rejects every American

ideal associated with the free and open operation of government.

4 Tara Palmeir, MunicipallD lmv has 'delete in case afTea Party' clause, NEW YORK POST,
Feb. 16,2015. Alfano Aff. Exh. D.
S Seeld.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Creation of the IDNYC Program

The New York City Council ("Council") sought to remedy a number of problems it saw

when it adopted the IDNYC program. A major problem identified by the Council was finding a

solution to provide valid identification for citizens who simply have no reason to drive cars.

During hearings contemplating the introduction of a bill enabling the Mayor to create the IDNYC

took testimony from many stakeholders before submitting the measure to the full CounciL One

such witness was Mindy Tarlow, the Director of Mayor's Office of Operations. During her

testimony before the New York City Council's Committee on Immigration envisioned a municipal

identification program relying on an administrative model similar to the State Department of Motor

Vehicles. See Alfano Aff. Ex. E (Transcript of the Minutes of the Committee on Immigration,

April 30, 2014) p. 34 lines 17-25 (considering application process); p. 35 lines 15-25 (considering

fraud protection for the document). During the same committee meeting, Sue Dom, a leader of

Manhattan Together and Metro-IAF echoed Director Tarlow's sentiment that a New York City

Municipal Identification Card would provide a similar form of identification for her as an 80-year-

old woman without the "hassle of dealing with New York Stat's DMV." Jd. at p. 20 lines 22-25.

When the proposed legislation made it to the floor of the entire Council, Council Member

Levine articulately explained his vote in favor of the measure. The Council Member stated:

New York City is among the localities in America with the lowest
rates of driver's license among its residents. Well under 60% among
adults, and it's plummeting among young people. That number is
trending downward. This at a time when the circumstances in which
we need IDs is rapidly proliferating ... So this provides a solution
for over 40% of adults in New York, a number which is growing,
that do not have municipal IDs.

6
Alfano Afr. Exh. F (Transcript of the Minutes of the State Meeting, June 26, 2014) p. 61 lines 13-

20).

In the end, IDNYC passed, in part, based on its modeling of the practices and procedures

found in the administration of New York State's Department of Motor Vehicles ensuring the

integrity of the identification.

However, the IDNYC program contains a provision permitting the destruction of

documents submitted to the government to obtain the identification card. Identification issued

through the NYCID program expires five years after it is issued to an individual. The New York

City Code, however, permits the destruction of records associated with the NYCID program after

two years solely at the discretion of the Respondents.

B. Contemplation of The Destruction of Public Records in Violation of FOIL

Council members identified the IDNYC enabling statute contained significant drafting

flaws. Id at p. 42 lines 23-25 and p. 43 lines 2-4 6 and p. 64 lines 7-19. 7 Glaringly, and identified

by then-Minority Leader Vincent Ignizio, the enabling statute permitted the destruction of public

records leading to serious concerns relating to proper policing within New York City and wherever

IDNYC travel beyond the City's borders. See NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e), 68 RCNY 6-

6 Council Member Garodnick: "'1 'here are open issues here that we are delegating to the
Mayor to sort out, including how to conclusively prevent fraud. I recognize the premium that is
being placed on speed, but my preference for this institution would have been for the Council to
work these questions out in advance."

7 Council Member Greenfield: "[I]t certainly is a complicated issue in terms of Municipal

ID, and I share the concerns that some of the members have raised. I think that we could have had
some tweaks to the bill. We could have had more robust discussion on the bill, and we certainly
could have improvements on the bill. But we in our position as elected offidal[s] don't get to vote
on perfect legislation normal (sic), We generally get to vote on imperfect legislation and try to
figure out the merits of said legislation."

7
11, New York City Local Law 35/2014, see also Alfano Exh. F (Transcript of the Minutes of the

State Meeting, June 26,2014) p. 52lincs 20-25, p. 53 lines 2-25. 8

In the weeks following the effective date of the enabling statute and accompanying rules,

the public learned the so-caned drafting Haws were not included due to the speed of passage but

were part of a methodically thought out plan to circumvent open government requirements

contained in New York Freedom of Information Law.

In a New York Post article entitled "Municipal ID law has 'delete in case of Tea Party'

clause" Council Member Menchaca bragged about the provision allowing the Respondents to

destroy public records at the end of 2016 was "In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office

and says, 'We want all of the data from all of the municipal ID programs in the country,' we're

going to take the data," See Alfano Aft'. Exh. D. While the article speaks about the document

destruction provision of the law as a "sunset" provision, nothing can be farther from reality. The

IDNYC program would not come to an end should Respondents exercise the document destruction

provision before December 31, 2016. The program, instead, continues but the government records

supporting the distribution of the government identification card would be destroyed.

C. Petitioners' Requests To Preserve Publicly Filed IDNYC Documents

On September 1, 2016, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial

Services (hereinafter "the Superintendent") issued a letter to New York's banking industry

encouraging acceptance ofIDN'C~ ~or bankin~and creditprodl~cts. See Alfano Aff. Exh. G. Of!

October 20, 2016, Petitioner, Assembly Member Castorina, wrote the Superintendent requesting

8 Council Member Ignizio: "It then goes on to say that we will destroy that documents that
we retain, that we are tak[ing] from those that are seeking [a municipal id] .... I will vote no on this
bill because I believe there are legitimate security concerns that have no[t] been adequately
addressed in it, and notwithstanding the desire of my colleagues to act in a compassionate manner
to ensure that people aren't treated .. unfairly."

8
the reconsideration of the sentiments contained that Jetter. See Alfano Aff. Exh. H. The

Superintendent issued no response to Assembly Member Castorina's letter, nor was it

acknowledged in any other way. In recent weeks Mayor de Blasio announced his intention to

destroy all records associated with the issuance of the IDNYC program through his purported

authority under NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11. See Alfano Aff. Exh. 1.

On November 28, 2016, Petitioners requested Respondents refrain from destroying any

government documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program. See Alfano AfT. Exh.

J. On November 29, 2016, Respondents publicly rejected Petitioners requests to preserve

documents submitted in connection with the IDNYC program through Speaker Mark-Viverito's

statement to the press telling Petitioners 10 "go ahead [and] sue us." See Alfano Aff. Exh. K.

Petitioners require access to the governmental documents kept in connection with the

IDNYC program in their roles as members of the New York State Assembly'S Committee on

Banks to introduce legislation concerning the ID's acceptance in banks governed by New York

law. To preserve these documents Petitioners filed FOIL requests with New York City's

Department of Human Resources AdministrationIDepartment of Social Services (hereinafter

"New York City HRA").

On November 29,2016, at 12:23: 11 p.m., Assembly Member Castonna submitted a FOIL

request seeking:

delivery, to my office address listed above, all scanned application

materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City'S
Municipal ID program) program maintained by HRA and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office in digital format.

See Alfano AfT. Exh. L.

Similarly, on December 2, 2016, at 6:51 :06 p.m., Assembly Member Malliotakis submitted

a FOIL request seeking:

9
 delivery, to address listed above, all scanned application
materials associated with IDNYC (also known as New York City's
Municipal program) maintained by and any other
City Agency including the Mayor's Office digital format.

See Alfano Mf. Exh. M.

The Respondents offered no response to either request submitted by Petitioners.

 ARGUMENT

POINT I

NEW YORK'S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW

REQUIRES RESPONDENTS PRESERVE GOVERNMENT
RECORDS SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
IDNYC PROGRAM TB IS COURT MUST ISSUE AN ORDER
PROHIBITING RESI>ONDENTS .FROM PROCEEDING
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DESTROY THESE
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

New York State Freedom ofInformation Law contemplates the preservation of the public

record and liberal access to the workings of government by members of the public. The law states:

As state and local government services increase and public problems

become more sophisticated and complex and therefore harder to
solve, and with the resultant increase in revenues and expenditures,
it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public
accountability wherever and whenever feasible. The people's right
to know the process of governmental decision making and to review
the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our
society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by
shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality. The
legislature therefore declares that government is the public's
business and that the public, individually and collectively and
represented by a free press, should have access to the records of
government in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Public Officers Law 84, See also Nel1'sday, Inc. v. .'lise, 71 NY2d 146 (1987) (Freedom of

Information Law was enacted to provide the public with means to access to government records

in order to encourage public awareness, understanding, and participationm government, and to

discourage official secrecy; it is to be liberally construed, and its exemptions narrowly interpreted

so that public is granted maximum access); Tartan Oil Corp. v. Stat Dep't of Taxation & Fin., 239

AD2d 36 (3d Dep't. 1998) (An record of public agencies are presumptively open to public

inspection, and Freedom of Information Law is to be liberally construed with its exceptions

narrowly interpreted).

11
 Respondents, as public officers, remain bound by New York's Freedom of Infonnation

Law. Respondents, consequently, must preserve rather than destroy public records as they indicate

they will do, or have already done concerning the IDNYC program. Assuming Respondents

continue to respect the Freedom ofInformation Law, this Court must issue an order of prohibition

pursuant to C.P.L.R. 7803(2) preventing Respondents from venturing beyond their jurisdiction

as public officers by destroying documents associatcd with the IDNYC program. See Bradford v.

Helman, 24 AD2d 937 (l st Dep't 1965) (holding a writ of prohibition acts only to forestall action

and not to review action). Professor Siegel notes in his treatise, New York Practice, that

"prohibition does not lie against strictly administrative action, but only against judicial and quasi-

judicial action." Siegel, NY Prac. 559 at 992 [5 th Ed. 2011], see also Roche v. Lamb, 61 Misc.2d

633 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969), app. dismissed. 33 AD2d 1102 (4th Dep't 1970), aff'd, 26 NY2d 54

(1970) (where city council was proceeding without or in excess of its jurisdiction, petitioner was

entitled to judgment prohibiting such action). Here, Respondents' act in a quasHudicial capacity

rendering a unilateral detennination of which records should be preserved and which should be

destroyed when New York State law indicates public records must be preserved with the public

granted liberal access to them.

The clear language of the enabling statute and the subsequent regulations enacted pursuant

to that statute seek only to obfuscate public access to government records by failing to provide any

avenue for members of the general public to review materials submitted in connection with the

IDNYC program. See NYC Administrative Code 3-115(e) and 68 RCNY 6-11. Respondents,

instead, focused their energy devising a methodology wherein public records could be destroyed

if the nation chose a member political party opposing their way of thinking as president. See

Alfano Aff Exh. D. Such an action, if successful, represents a clear violation FOIL. See Public

12
Officers Law 89(8) ("Any person who, with intent to prevent the public inspection of a record

pursuant to this article, willfully conceals or destroys any such record shall be guilty of a

violation.")

Respondents actions cannot serve a legitimate governmental interest and represent actions

taken wen beyond their jurisdiction of elected public officers.

POINTU

THE IDNYC ENABLING STATUTE AND SUBSEQUENTLY

ISSUED REGULATIONS RESTRICTING ACCESS TO
RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IllNYC PROGRAM
AND CALLING FOR THEIR ARBITRARY DESTRUCTION
VIOLATE NEW YORK STATE'S FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION LAW.

New York's Freedom ofInformation Law punishes "any person who, with intent to prevent

the public inspection of a record pursuant to this article, willfully conceals or destroys any such

record." Public Officers Law 89. One of the stated purposes of enacting the IDNYC program

was to provide citizens of New York City with access to identification which would ultimately be

treated similarly to a New York State Driver License issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

During floor debate, several members of the Council indicated the disparity between citizens living

in New York City that do not drive cars against those with cars. In fact, Director Tarlow from the

Mayor's Office indicated the IDNYC program should function similar to the state Department of

Motor Vehicles. In fact, Council Members noted the similarity between the IDNYC program and

the licenses issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles to allay their concerns regarding the

possibility of fraud inherent in any governmental identification program.

The Vehicle and Traffic Law governing New York State Driver Licenses contemplate both

the transmission of personal information between governmental bodies and agencies, Le. the

Selective Service, and public access to n.:cords kept in connection with the business conducted by

13
 Department of Motor 502 508. In fact, the reg,U!a,nOltlS

Commissioner Motor Vehicles offer rules concerning the public's access to motor

V""".L.G records. See 15 NYCRR 160 ef seq. 15 NYCRR 161 et seq. Noticeably absent

these extensive is any r~gulalion permitting the Commissioner of the Department

of Motor Vehic1es, or from destroying any information submitted by applicants to

obtain an identification through department.

New York City's IDNYC program vests authority to destroy governmental documents

submitted in connection with that program in the unelected bureaucracy of New York City's

See NYC Administrative Code 3-115(c) and 68 RCNY 6-11.

The precedent created by the IDNYC program's confidentiality provisions begin a slippery

slope to government not by the people but rather by executive nat. While such a solution created

by the Council and the Mayor may haw been crafted with the best intentions not meant to abridge

the rights of New Yorkers, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

14
 CONCLUSION

Petitioners respectfully '''',",'~'''''''' this Court grant its Order to Show Cause seeking an

Order of Prohibition preventing Respondents from exceeding the jurisdiction ofilieir office; 2) an

Order finding the confidentiality provisions of the IDNYC program in violation of New York

State's Freedom of Information and declaring those portions of the IDNYC program

permitting the destruction of public documents by New York City HRA and limiting public access

to the same nuB and void, and 3) for such other and further as this Court deems just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,

OfHcc of ffrey Alfano

1000 South Avenue, Suite 104
Staten Island, NY 10314
Attorney for PetitionerslPlaintiffs
Ronald Casiorina, and Nicole Malliotakis

Dated: Staten Island, New York

December 2016

15
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

: INDEX NO.

RONALD CASTORINA, JR. and

NICOLE MALIOTAKIS,
: AFFIRMATION OF
PetitionerslPlaintiffs, :JEFFREY ALFANO
-against-

BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,
THE OFFICE OF THE MA YOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
MELISSA MARK-VNERITO, her official capacity as the
SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL,
STEVEN BANKS, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, in his official capacity,
MATTHEW BRUNE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in
his official capacity, and
RICARDO BROWNE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, HUMAN
RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIONIDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES. in his official capacity,

RespondentslDefendants,

For a Judgement Pursuant to Article 78 of the CiviJ Practice Law and

Rules.

JEFFREY ALFANO, an attorney dwy licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State

of New York, affirms the foHowing under penalties of perjury:

1. I am the sole proprietor of the Law Office of Jeffrey Alfano, attorney for

Petitioners, Ronald Castorina, Jr. and Nicole MalHotakis. I am fuHy familiar with all facts and

circumstances pertaining to the within litigation following the review and analysis of the legal

file maintained by this office.

 2. I annex true and correct copies of the following documents:

a. Sally Goldenberg, De Blasia to Disclose 'Substantive' Lobbyist Meetings,

May 27, 2014, annexed as Exhibit A.

b. Kate Taylor~ De Blasia Pushes on Information Requests, The New York

Times, Oct. 19,2011, annexed as Exhibit B.

c. Kaela Sanbom~Hum, New York City'S Evolving Approach to Open Data,

Gotham Gazette, April 11, 2016, annexed as Exhibit C.

d. Tara Palmeir, MunicipallD law has 'de/ete in case a/Tea Party' clause,

New York Post, Feb. 16,2015, annexed as Exhibit D.

e. Transcript of the Minutes of the New York City Council Committee on

Immigration, held on April 30, 2014, annexed as Exhibit

f. Transcript of the Minutes of the New York City Council State Meeting.

held on June 26,2014, annexed as Exhibit F.

g. Letter dated September 1,2016 from Maria Vullo, Superintendent of the

New York Stare Department of Financial Services to members of the banking community,

annexed as Exhibit G.

Letter from Assembly Member Castorina to Superintendent Vullo dated

October 20, 2016 annexed as Exhibit

1. Foxnews.com Associated Press Article, "New York City may erase ID

card data to protect illegal immigrants" published November 15, 2016 annexed as Exhibit 1.

J. Silive.com article, "Malliotakis, Castorina ask city not to destroy IDNYC

docs" published November 28, 2016 annexed as Exhibit J.

2
 Observer. com "City Council Speaker to GOP: 'Go Ahead and Sue

Us' Over Proposed Immigrant Record Purge published November 29, 2016, annexed as . . ."'..,"""'.

K.

l. FOIL request submitted by Assembly Member Ronald Castorina, Jr. on

November 29,2016, annexed as Exhibit L.

m. FOIL request submitted by Assembly Member Nicole MaUiotakis on

December 2, 2016, annexed as Exhibit M.

Dated: December 5, 2016

Staten Island, NY

3
HIBIT
A
8117f2016 De Blasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

POLITICO
POUTICONEW YORK

Bill de Blasio I Diana Robinson for the Office of Mayor Bill de Blasio

De Blasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

By SALLY GOLDENBERG 105/27/1403:39 PM EDT

Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to disclose "substantive" meetings his administration conducts
with lobbyists, continuing a practice he implemented when he was the city's public
advocate.

"I've tried to, in my time as public advocate and continue as mayor, do something I believe
in," he told reporters on Tuesday, in response to a question about the lack of media access to
events on his public schedule. "For example, when I have any kind of substantive
conversation on a lobbying matter with a lobbyist, I think that should be disclosed. We've
done that voluntarily. That's a standard we'd like to see applied more broadly."

http://www.poIitico.comfstatesfnew-york/city-hallfstoryf2014f05lde-biasio-to-disclose-substantive-lobbyisl-meetings-013228 1f3
8117/2016 De Slasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

A spokesman later confirmed de Blasio "intends to implement" a similar practice as mayor.

The Associated Press posed the question following an unrelated press conference in
Brooklyn, and subsequently posted a story that reported 20 percent of events de Blasio
attends in his capacity as mayor are closed or restricted to reporters, according to his public
schedules.

De Blasio acknowledged he could "do better" in making more information available to

reporters and, by extension, the public.

"I believe deeply in transparency," he began. "We believe there is a whole swath of
information that needs to be available to the public that we need to do a better job on, a lot
of the day-to-day government business that is appropriately dis closable that we need to do
a better job at."

But he defended the closed-door events, saying he is merely following the rules of the hosts
and "it's not appropriate" to instruct them on their protocols.

"Oftentimes the choice would be, if you want to be a part of the event and that's their plan,
you have to either come and accept that ground rule or not come at all. I think in many
cases it would be unfair or unwise not to show up," he said.

The administration generally releases a transcript of his prepared remarks at private events
via email.

That policy took shape after Capital reported in January that he delivered a pro-Israel
speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee without listing the gala on his daily
schedule.

At the time de Blasio described the omission as a courtesy to AIPAC, which requested the
event be closed to press. Since then, the mayor's schedule has listed appearances that bar
reporters.

"I think this is something we work on all the time, but I try to think about it from the
perspective of what would be helpful for the public to know," he added on Tuesday.

In that vein, he said the public should be informed of the lobbyist meetings "because it has
real impact on how people make decisions."

http://www.poIitiCo.com/states/new-yorklcity-halllstory/2014105lde-biasio-to-disclose-substantive-lobbyist-meetings-013228 213
8117/2016 De Blasio to disclose 'substantive' lobbyist meetings

During the mayoral election last year, the Daily News published a story saying de Blasio
did not actually publicize all his lobbyist meetings as public advocate. His spokesman said
the office disclosed any that were requested of him, but not those he requested.

htlp:/Iwww.poIitico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2014105/de-blasio-to-disciose-substantive-lobbyist-meetings-013228 3/3
E HIBIT
8117/2016 Public Advocate to Investigate Freedom of Information Law Compliance - The New York Times

If.ork lima http://nytLms/rbonjM

N.Y. I REGION

De Blasio Pushes on nformation

Requests
By KATE TAYLOR OCT. 19, 2011

The New York City public advocate, Bill de Blasio, said Wednesday that he was
starting an investigation into city agencies' responses to the state's Freedom of
Information Law requests because he was concerned that the agencies were taking
too long to release public information.

Mr. de Blasio said he also planned a new push for a City Council bill, introduced
by his office last year, that would require agencies to report monthly how many
requests they had received and how the requests were handled.

"It's just gotten ridiculous lately," Mr. de Blasio said. He cited a request his own
office made to the Education Department last November, asking for documentation
on delays in school bus service.

"We get a lovely letter every month telling us they're working on it," Mr. de
Blasio said, but the department has still not provided the documentation.

Mr. de Blasio, who is considering a run for mayor, said his office was planning
to send letters to each of the city's commissioners, asking for a breakdown of all the
FOIL requests received in the first quarter of 2011, including how quickly the agency
responded and whether the request was granted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/nyregionipublic-advocate-to-investigate-freedom-of-information-law-compiiance.html?J=0 113
8117/2016 Public Advocate to Investigate Freedom of Information Law Compliance - The New York Times

He said that over the last two decades, some mayoral administrations "have
thought it was clearly their responsibility to follow this law" while others withheld
information.

But, he said, "the bottom line here is: This is not an optional matter, and we
have to stop letting people get away with it."

Some of the most public clashes over FOIL requests have involved the New York
Police Department. In 2007, the New York Civil Liberties Union sued the
department after it declined to turn over computerized data on people who had been
stopped and frisked. This week, the group filed a lawsuit challenging the
department's refusal to disclose the daily schedules of Commissioner Raymond W.
Kelly.

John Kaehny, the executive director of Reinvent Albany, an organization that

promotes greater transparency and accountability in state government, said there
was a general consensus that city and state agencies' compliance with the Freedom
of Information Law "has been sliding over the last decade." But, he added, "no one
knows, because we don't have any rigorous analysis or data."

Mr. Kaehny said there were numerous factors contributing to a slip in

compliance, among them that many agencies had made it possible to file requests
online, leading to an enormous increase in requests, without making any
comparable advances in efficiency in their method of responding. Agencies have
also, he said, gotten better at gaming the system - rarely directly denying requests,
but instead providing only partial information and "evolving their practices to kind
of ooze through every crack" in the law.

But, Mr. Kaehny said, he was not sure that a City Council-passed measure
would solve the problem. "Anytime the legislature imposes a reporting mandate on
the executive," he said, "and it does not align with what the agency or the mayor are
trying to do, it's ignored."

A spokeswoman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg declined to comment on Mr.

de Blasio's investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/nyregionlpublic-advocate-to-investigale-freedom-of-information-law-compliance.html?_r=0 213
8117/2016 Public Advocate to Investigate Freedom of Information Law Compliance - The New York Times

A version of this article appears in print on October 20, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition with the
headline: De Blasio Pushes on Information Requests.

2016 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/101201nyregionipublic-advocate-to-investigate-freedom-of-information-lwv-compliance.html?_r=0 3/3
E HI IT
C
 Home en Newest Stories (Jnewest-stories) Subscribe (Ieye-opener) Opinion (/opinion)

~j.iSa.(tllttp:llwww.gothamgazette.com/#populartopics) Election Coverage Reporters

Contact Us (lcontact-us) Jobs (ljobs)

C~!lte {https:llwww.citizensunionfoundation.org/secure/donatef}
New York City's Evolving proach to Open Data (/city/6212 ... new ...york ...
city ... s-evolving ... approach ... to-open ... data)
April 11, 2016 I by Kaela Sanborn-Hum (/componenticontacticontacti102)
(photo: Rob Bennett/Mayoral Photography Office)

During the first weekend of March, the New York City School of Data - a network of advocates, activists, and
professionals for an open data ecosystem - hosted a day of panels and workshop sessions in recognition of the
international day celebrating open data and the fourth anniversary of the city passing its first open data law.
City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who have each
promoted open data initiatives, delivered keynote remarks at the event.

"As someone who represents some of the most vulnerable, yet resilient New Yorkers in this city, I want to make
data a priority," Mark-Viverito said at the gathering of tech advocates, civic hackers, and public officials. "I want
our work to tell a story, one that has rarely been toLd rightly before. I want our data to move people,
organizations, and of course, governments to act differently."

What Mark-Viverito was getting at - something discussed in several forms over the course of the event and on
an ongoing basis - is the idea of using data about civic life, people's needs, and government services to make
things work better while ensuring equity.

Late Last year, the City Council approved the final bills (http://council.nyc.gov/htmlipr/121615stated.shtml) of a
package amending and adding to the 2012 Open Data law, which created the Open Data Portal, but the
legislative action has been met with mixed reviews and questions about the portal's effectiveness remain.

The portal is intended to increase information available to the public about city services and government
operations. According to the de Blasio administration, "New Yorkers can use this data to make informed
decisions, become more engaged in their communities, solve tough problems, or tum their dreams into a
reality."

Data available includes (https:/Idata.cityofnewyork.us/dashboard) the extent to which city school buildings are
being used, taxi trip pickups and dropoffs, tree censuses, requests made to the city's 311 help Line, general city
budget spending, and much more.

The two newest laws seek to ensure city agency compliance with the Open Data Law, particularly regarding
timely release of data, and updates to the Open Data Portal with information released through Freedom of
Information Law requests (often known as FOILs). Both are part of ongoing efforts to make the portal more
usefuL. The more quickly data is released, the more useful it is.

On Nov. 30 of last year, Mayor BiU de Blasio signed into law (http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-
mayorInews/893-15/mayor-de- blasio-signs-legislation-creating -office-Labor-standard) the five prior bills
from the open data package.

"In 2012 we set a new bar for transparency and civic engagement with passage of the most comprehensive
open data law in the country," said (http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/893-15/mayor-de-
blasio-signs-tegislation-creating-office-Labor-standard) Anne Roest, Department of Information Technology
and Telecommunications (DoITT) Commissioner. "To be as effective as it can for aU New Yorkers, open data
needs to be usable data - and these bills will help us achieve that goaL"

While "open" is important, "usable" is really the key word, according to data experts.

The open data taw and portal are part of efforts to make government transparent and accountable. In theory,
data is to be made easily available - and in a useful format - for interested parties, who can use it to help solve
city problems. The portal currently offers 1400 data sets through dozens of city agencies and other entities.

As stated by the Mayor's Office of Data Analytics, "The Open Data Law mandates full coverage of aU City public
data by 2018. The value is clear - every time a new data set is published on the NYC Open Data Portal, there
are new opportunities for users to find insight."

While there is a wealth of information available, and hundreds of data sets still to come online, it is not always
clear who uses the open data portal and to what end. How many New Yorkers even know about the availability
of so much data?

And, getting back to usability, there are also significant questions about the format in which data sets are often
published.

Still, open government advocates continue to say that it is an essential feature and push to see it improved.
Public, usable data, they say, is key to holding government accountable and opening up policy-making to a
broader audience, including people outside of government able to help solve a wide variety of problems.

BetaNYC, a nonpartisan group comprised of civic hackers and technologists that has worked with government
actors to improve the city's embrace of civic tech and open data, features a digital proiect list
(http://proiects.betanyc.us/#!f)currently being developed by the NYC tech community. HeatSeekNYC
(http://heatseeknyc.com), "a web-enabled hardware platform to detect heating violations in NYC", and NYC
Bus Adherence (http://nathanjohnson.nyc/nycbusperformanceD, "tools for analyzing and visualizing MTA Bus
performance data," are two examples of data-based projects moving civic discourse.

Since the passage of the 2012 open data law

(http://www.nyc.gov/htmLldoitt/htmLlopen/locallawl12012.shtml).therehavebeenothermodifications.ln
2014, de Blasio signed into law two transparency bills (http://benkaUos.com/press-release/mayor-biLL-de-
blasio-signs-two-transparency-biUs-law-announces-public-private-partner) which require the City Record, a
daily publication of city business, to be published on the open data porta! in a machine-readable format; the
City Charter, the Administrative Code, and the Rules of the City of New York to be published online; and the
compilation of laws updated within 30 days of any change.

In July 2015 the de Blasio administration released a new plan for the portal, Open Data for All
(http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/487-15/de-blasio-administration-releases-open-data-aU-
city-s-new-open-data-plan), which emphasizes community partnership and focuses on making data sets
accessible and user-friendly for aU New Yorkers.
"[Open Data for AU] means it will be easier for people, even those with no programming experience - like
myself - to find the information they want, and better ways to utilize that information," said
(http://wwwl.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/487-15/de-blasio-administration-releases-open-data-aU-
city-s-new-open-data-plan) de Btasio.

De Btasio's rhetoric shows a typical shift from remarks by his predecessor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg
{http://www.nyc.gov/portaL/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2flc701c789aO/index.jsp?
pagelD=mayor press release&catlD=1194&doc name=http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/htm1l2012a/pr081-
12.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1}, who remarked that sharing data with the public "[catalyzes] the
creativity, intellect, and enterprising spirit of computer programmers to build tools that help us aU improve our
lives." The evolution of the portal is aimed at ensuring that every New Yorker, not only computer programmers,
will be able to utilize and benefit from the information being made available.

The Mayor's Office of Data Analytics (MODA) and DolTT led a citywide engagement tour
(http://www.nyc.gov/htmllanaLytics/htmllinitiatives/open data.shtml), assessing the needs and priorities of
New Yorkers, across user types and domain areas. Throughout the faU, Dr. Amen Ra Mashariki, Chief
Operations Officer at MODA, met with CUNY students, community groups, civic leaders, and others. MODA
intends for the engagement tour to culminate in a Open Data Summit.

"[The summit] will bring people together who we've engaged over the citywide tour and let them know what
we've heard from them and then we will identify strategies," Dr. Mashariki told Gotham Gazette in an interview
late Last year.

In October, Dr. Mashariki testified before the City Council Committee on Technology, reporting on the
progress of the tour at that point and the portal in general. He announced that the Open Data Porta!
(https:lldata.cityofnewyork.us/data) contained 1,386 data sets -- up from 1,268 in 2014. StilL, City Limits
reported (http://citylimits.org/2015/12115/nycs-open-data-law-lacks-teeth-tags-deadlines/?
utm source=twitterfeed&utm medium=twitter) late last year that datasets due to be published are missing
deadlines and that there has been Little enforcement of the Law. Mashariki said
(http://www.nyc.gov/htmLldoittidown!oads/pdflMODA Open Data Testimony 2015.pdf) it will not be the
number of published data sets that will determine the success of the portal: "The uLtimate success [will bel in
the number of New Yorkers who use open data in their daily lives. And that's not just the tech-savvy New
Yorkers - it's aU New Yorkers, in all five boroughs."

At the "summit," MODA and DolTT will identify strategies seeking to build an open data ecosystem prioritizing
expanded access to data sets, high data quality, and enhanced portal usability. "Increased access to data is
critical for open government and transparency in the digitaL age," said Minerva Tantoco, the city's Chief
Technology Officer.

Technical and community engagement challenges remain as the open data portal continues to be refined and
expanded. It is one often Lower-profile way in which the de BLasio administration'S reputation for government
transparency and effectiveness will be formed.
Technical challenges for the open data portal
"There are currently many chaHenges/' said Ben Wellington, visiting assistant professor in the City & Regional
Planning program at The Pratt Institute and creator of the increasingLy popular data science and policy blog 1
Quant NY (http://iguantny.tumblr.com/)' "One of them is the wide use of PDF documents. PDF is inherently
difficult to analyze, so when an agency is forced to release data but doesn't necessarily want to have it widely
used, PDF is an opportune way to do that. "

PDF documents, unlike an Excel spreadsheet, are not in machine-readable format, which Wellington and
others argue creates a long-term problem for civic technoLogists who end up spending a large amount of their
time extracting data rather than analyzing it.

"It's just not a good use of advocates' time," Wellington toLd Gotham Gazette. Wellington has become known
for using government data to show trends, point out problems, and identify potential solutions. He delivered a
popuLar TED talk (https:llwww.ted.com/speakers/ben wellington) in 2014 using big data to give insight for the
"worst" places to park in New York City. Wellington's blog features many articles crunching numbers to
illuminate topics from "Trump's Unpaid Bills" to pay raises for City Council members.

City Council Member and Chair of the Committee on Technology James Vacca has concerns regarding
another aspect of city data - Like with quality, the timely release of data from city agencies leaves much to be
desired. Vacca sponsored a bill passed by the City Council (http://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/121615stated.shtmD
and signed into law by Mayor de Blasio, which mandates a city office or agency examine the compliance of
mayoral agencies posting public data sets under the open data law.

"Some agencies are not as diligent as they should be when it comes to posting information, there has to be
good coordination among the city agencies," Vacca explained. "Right now, there really is no enforcement
mechanism if agencies don't comply. We are dependent upon cooperation, which is great, but we need an
enforcement mechanism."

Wellington suggests that a position should be created in every city agency - an "open data Liaison" - to act as a
point of contact for the public and be responsible for any inquiries about information released by the agency.
"Today, there's no way for the public to understand who's responsible for any dataset," Wellington noted,
which can only further obfuscate any process of data clarification, sourcing or transparency.

The New York City Transparency Working Group (NYCTWG), a coLLection of civic technologists, data
advocates, and good government groups, has argued (http://nyctwg.org/openfoilD that FOIL (Freedom of
Information Law) requests should be published online through a centralized tracking system akin to the open
data portal. Earlier this month, the de Blasio administration launched "the OpenRECORDS portal (https:lla860-
openrecords.nyc.govD." It is "designed to streamline the process of submitting, tracking, and responding to
Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) records requests as we work toward becoming a more transparent and
effective government" the mayor's press office said in an announcement.
Along with Vacca's bill, another also approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor requires agencies
to individually review aU data released through FOIL requests and determine if the information should be
posted on the open data portal. The thinking goes that if one person or group is interested in a certain data set.
others probably are, and that if the information is being released publicly in one sense, why not make it
generally available.

In 2013, then-Public Advocate Bm de Btasio released a transparency report card

(http://archive.advocate.nyc.gov/foH/report) in which he called for a mandate to publish online the most
commonly-sought information through FOIL requests, asserting "proactive disclosure will save time and
resources by posting minutes, public schedules and license data online for easy access."

As mayor, it took de Btasio some time, testing the patience of open data advocates, but he has now launched a
systemized and centralized portal for FOIL requests.

Community engagement and outreach

Noel Hidalgo, co-founder and executive director of BetaNYC, believes that Open Data for AU is helping to
facilitate more public involvement in the open data portal and wants open data to be used regularly to solve
civic problems.

"We're at the point [with open data] where it's not just about making an app but about making a cuLture, an
understanding of how to use data for improving New York," Hidalgo told Gotham Gazette.

Last year, Mayor de Btasio announced a public-private partnership to launch Computer Science for All
(http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/education-vision-2015-computer-science.page), a computer
science education program for every city public school student. As a new generation of students learn web
design and coding technologies, Hidalgo hopes it will translate to increased interest and participation in civic
hacking.

"We fundamentally believe that there is an opportunity to enhance digital literacy through civic education and
we would love to see that embedded within the computer science program," Hidalgo said on behalf of
BetaNYC.

One essential question for open data is whether it is being used beyond the Ben WeHingtons and Noel
Hidalgos of the world. In other words, are community activists and those without advanced data science
training using the city data?

Juan Camilo Osorio, Director of Research at the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance (NYC-EJA), says, like
Hidalgo, that a cultural shift is necessary to understand the capacity for individuals to be involved in an open
data ecosystem. Osorio wants to challenge the modeL that community organizations function only for public
outreach. "These organizations are part of community-based planning and can do research provided with the
right technical and financial resources," he said.
Osorio thinks the open data portal has great potential to be used by community organizers - not just computer
programmers or data analysts.

Moreover, he believes the city has a bigger responsibility beyond publishing information on the portal: "It's not
just about opening access, [in order to use it] you still have to know what is the right agency that would have
the data you need and then you will also need to have the basic capacity to process that data. The city should
going a few steps further providing the tooLs and training to learn how to work with that information."

City Council Member Ben KaUos, a software developer and long-time advocate for government transparency
who now chairs the Council's governmental operations committee, agrees that free trainings should be
offered for New Yorkers interested in Learning how to use the open data portal. He suggests partnering with
the city's three public library systems (New York Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library and Queens Public
Library) to train librarians who can teach patrons to use the open data portal as a research resource. Featuring
the open data portal on library websites and other logicaL online research centers would be helpful in
expanding usership and public awareness.

KaUos acknowledged that New Yorkers must have basic access in order to use the open data portal.

"I want to make sure that every low-income New Yorker has access to free and affordable broadband and Low-
cost computers. That wouLd mean everyone in NYCHA should have free broadband and that anyone who is
low-income should have an affordable internet pLan," KaUos told Gotham Gazette. "In order to have a modern
government, we need to make sure that everyone can connect."

Dr. Mashariki, of the Mayor's Office of Data AnaLytics, certainly sees the portal as a long-term work in progress.
"There's no day I foresee where we stop and say you know, the portal is perfect and it's at its most usable and
we've expanded to it the point where we can't expand it anymore," he said. "This is always going to be a
strategy that we're going to have to adapt and adopt as needed to ensure new uses and new capabilities."

***
by Kaela Sanborn-Hum for Gotham Gazette
@GothamGazette (https:/ltwitter.com/GothamGazette)

TAGS: NEW YORK CITY (fTAGS-MISCONDUCT/3-NEW-YORK-CITY?

TYPES[O]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8) BILL DE BLASiO (fTAGS-MISCONDUCT/63-BILL-DE-
BLASIO?TYPES[O]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8) DEPARTMENT OF I NFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
& TELECOMMUNICATIONS (fTAGS-MISCONDUCT/206-DEPARTMENT-OF-iNFORMATION-
TECHNOLOGY-TELECOMMUNiCATIONS?TYPES[O]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8) TECHNOLOGY
(fTAGS-MISCONDUCT 1536-TECHNOLOGY?TYPES[O]=1 & TYPES[1 ]=8)

Subscribe To Our Mailing

List. Receive The Eye-
E HI IT
D
121412016 MunicipallD law has 'delete in case of Tea Party' clause I New York Post

unicipallD law 'delete in case of Tea

Pa 'clause
By Tara Palmeri February 16, 2015 I 11:27pm

The city's new ID program allows for personal data to be destroyed at the end of 2016 in case a conseNatlve Republican is elected president, the law's co-
sponsor told The Post.
Photo: Dennis A. Clark

Get the shredders ready - the Tea Party could be coming.

The city's new municipal 10 program allows for personal info provided by applicants to be destroyed at the end of 2016, in case a
conservative Republican wins the White House and demands the data, the law's co-sponsor told The Post on Monday.

City Councilman Carlos Menchaca (D-Brooklyn) said the measure was crafted so data submitted by those seeking the cards can be
destroyed on Dec. 31, 2016.

The cards are aimed at undocumented immigrants.

"In case a Tea Party Republican comes into office and says, 'We want all of the data from all of the municipal 10 programs in the country:
we're going to take the data," he explained.

The next president assumes office Jan. 20, 2017.

"That date is an important signal to the future of immigration reform. That allows us to prepare for any new leadership," Menchaca said.

In order to get an 10, residents must provide their names, addresses, aliases, dates of birth and other information, making it easy for the feds
to identify undocumented immigrants.

Menchaca said the Obama administration has shown no interest in going after the data, but he didn't want to take any chances on the next
administration.

"Though we have not seen documents like this get requested at the level of the federal government, that could be a possibility, so that
really allows us to protect the data," he said.

Immigrant advocates praised the provision.

"It's no secret that one of the biggest sticking pOints in the 10 programs is ensuring that there's confidentiality, that immigrants are
comfortably giving their information to the city," said Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

"The sunset is part and parcel of the effort to ensure confidentiality."

The bill lets the city destroy the info if It determines it's no longer needed.

The cards were first available early last month. Demand has been overwhelming, with more than 200,000 appointments made for the cards
in less than a month.

Additional reporting by Bob Fredericks

Filed under barack obama, bill de blasio, carlos menchaca, municipal-id program, tea party

htlp:llnypost.com/2015102l161municipal-id-law-has-delele-in-case-of-tea-party-clause/ 1/2
PETITION with COMPLAINT for a three-judge panel mandamus by 19 December 2016 to
restrain Defendants and proportionately reduce electors under the 14th Amendment

Exhibit M
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 10

1 MELODY A. KRAMER, SBN 169984

KRAMER LAW OFFICE, INC.
2
4010 Sorrento Valley Blvd., Ste. 400
3 San Diego, California 92121
Telephone (855) 835-5520
4 kramerlawinc@gmail.com
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
VINZENZ J. KOLLER, an individual and Presidential ) Case No. __________
10 Elector, )
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
11
Plaintiffs, ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
12 ) RELIEF
v. )
13 )
14 JERRY BROWN, in his official capacity as )
Governor for the State of California; KAMALA )
15 HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney )
General for the State of California; ALEX )
16
PADILLA, in his official capacity as Secretary of)
17 State for the State of California; and DOES 1-10; )
)
18 Defendants. )
19 )

20
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
21
Plaintiff Vinzenz J. Koller, a Presidential Elector for the State of California, hereby
22
challenges the constitutionality of California Election Code 6906 and 18002, statutes
23
which restrict, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment, the obligations of presidential
24
electors under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment,
25
and the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.
26
Plaintiff seeks the protection to act as a Presidential Elector not merely by placing a
27
ceremonial vote, but as part of a deliberative body, placing a vote that is most likely to
28
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 10

1 ensure that only a person with the adequate qualifications for office be voted in as President
2 of the United States.
3 Currently 29 states, including California, have state laws that bind presidential
4 electors to do no more than place a ceremonial vote in accord with their party affiliation or
5 pre-election pledge. Plaintiff here, is joining the path of other electors in the States of
6 Colorado and Washington seeking relief from state statutes that interfere with their right to
7 act as a deliberative body and, if appropriate under the circumstances, place their votes in
8 the best interest of the country, even if they might not be their partys candidate.
9 The relief sought here is narrow declaratory relief that Election Code 6906 and
10 18002 are unconstitutional restraints on presidential electors, and furthermore, that those
11 sections have the same effect as threats against electors made criminal by Election Code
12 18540(a).
13 Plaintiff, through undersigned counsel, for his complaint against the above-named
14 Defendants avers as follows.
15 PARTIES
16 1. Vinzenz J. Koller is a resident of Monterey County, California, and a duly
17 chosen Presidential Elector for the 2016 presidential election.
18 2. Defendant Jerry Brown is the Governor of California and, as its chief
19 executive, has the power to enforce the laws of the State of California, including Election
20 Code 6906 and 18002.
21 3. Defendant Kamala Harris the Attorney General of California and, in such
22 capacity, enforces the laws of the State of California, including Election Code 6906 and
23 18002.
24 4. Defendant Alex Padilla is the Secretary of State of California and, as such,
25 gives notice of the time and place for the Presidential Electors to vote, and certifies the
26 results of the Presidential Electors balloting and votes.
27 5. Defendants DOES 1-10 are other individuals or entities, presently
28 unidentified, that upon information and belief are also engaged, directly or indirectly, in the

Case No. _____________________

2.
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 10

1 conduct giving rise to this Complaint. On information and belief, Defendants act as agents
2 of one or more of each other relative to the subject matter of this Complaint.
3
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute as it relates
6 to a federal question, to wit, a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, under 28
7 U.S.C. 1331 as well as 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
8 7. The federal question presented by this case is the constitutionality of
9 California Election Code 6906 and 18002, which requires electors to vote for that
10 person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are,
11 respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent . . . and calls for
12 punishment for willfully neglect[ing] or refus[ing] to perform it or knowingly and
13 fraudulently act[ing] in contravention to be punished by fine or imprisonment.
14 8. These statutes, Election Code 6906 and 18002, violate Article II of the
15 U.S. Constitution as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and freedom of speech under the
16 First Amendment.
17 9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
18
19 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20 10. Plaintiff is a duly authorized Presidential Elector of the Democratic Party and
21 has met all qualifications to be an elector.
22 11. California Election Code 6906 and 18002 require electors to vote for that
23 person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are,
24 respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent . . . and calls for
25 punishment for willfully neglect[ing] or refus[ing] to perform it or knowingly and
26 fraudulently act[ing] in contravention to be punished by fine or imprisonment.
27 12. The Democratic Presidential candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton and the
28 Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate is Timothy Kaine.

Case No. _____________________

3.
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 10

1 13. Though the Democratic nominees for President and Vice-President won the
2 nationwide popular vote by at least 2.7 million votes, and won the California popular vote
3 by a large margin, the various state-by-state popular votes portend that Donald Trump and
4 Michael Pence (the Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees) will win the
5 majority of electoral college votes on December 19, 2016 if the electors in each state vote
6 consistent with the popular vote in their respective states.
7 14. Presidential Electors in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho,
8 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New
9 Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
10 Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia are not, however, bound to simply place a ceremonial
11 vote consistent with their states popular vote, though they usually do so.
12 15. The remaining states, including California, have laws in place requiring their
13 Presidential Electors to vote consistent with the persons and/or party corresponding to the
14 popular vote in the state.
15 16. California Election Code 6906 requires electors to vote for that person for
16 President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the
17 candidates of the political party which they represent . . .
18 17. California Election Code 18002 sets for a punishment for willfully
19 neglect[ing] or refus[ing] to perform duties under state elections laws or knowingly and
20 fraudulently act[ing] in contravention to be punished by fine or imprisonment.
21 18. This state requirement pre-determining the vote to be cast by Presidential
22 Electors violates the plain language of Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, as
23 amended by the Twelfth Amendment, which indicates that there is no way to know in
24 advance what the vote will be
25
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
26 America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together
with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
27
28

Case No. _____________________

4.
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 10

1 Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
2
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
3 Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
4
5 The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
6 themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the
number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit
7
sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
8 President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of
the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the
9 votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes
10 shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of
electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority,
11 and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person
12
have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in
13 like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes
shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A
14 quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two
15 thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a
choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the
16 greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if
there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall
17
choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
18 The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day
on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout
19 the United States. ...
20 19. Furthermore, this state requirement pre-determining the vote to be cast by
21 Presidential Electors violates the Founders intent that the Presidential Electors be a
22 deliberative and independent body free to cast votes for whomever they deem to be the
23 most fit and qualified candidates.
24
See The Federalist, No. 68 (Earle ed., 1937), pp. 441-442:
25 "It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of
the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be
26 answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished
27 body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the
particular conjuncture.
28

Case No. _____________________

5.
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 6 of 10

1 "It was equally desirable, that the immediate [presidential election] should be
made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
2
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious
3 combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern
their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens
4 from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and
5 discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

6 Quoted in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214.

7 20. Ironically, the Constitution and the Founders intent should be protected

8 under California Election Code 18540(a) which makes it a felony offense for every

9 person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any tactic of coercion or

10 intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote or to vote or refrain from

11 voting for any particular person at any election, or because any person voted or refrained

12 from voting at any election or refrained from voting for any particular person

13 21. Coercion via statute is not different in result than independent coercion as it

14 interferes with the freedom of speech (to voice questions and concerns about the fitness and

15 qualification for office of any potential candidate for President and Vice President) and the

16 obligation and right to act as part of the Presidential Electors to analyz[e] the qualities

17 adapted to the station, act[] under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a

18 judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern

19 their choice and to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated

20 investigations.

21 22. Though Hillary Clinton and Timothy Kaine won the majority vote in

22 California and are qualified for office, Plaintiff cannot be constitutionally compelled to vote

23 for them. Plaintiff must be allowed to exercise his judgment and free will to vote for

24 whomever he believes to be the most qualified and fit for the offices of President and Vice

25 President within the circumstances and with the knowledge known on December 19, 2016,

26 whether those candidates are Democrats, Republicans, or from a third party.

27
28

Case No. _____________________

6.
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 7 of 10

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Declaratory Relief)
3 23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-24, above.
4 24. Election Code 6906 and 18002 call for criminal penalties against Plaintiff
5 if Plaintiff does not place his presidential electoral vote for Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine.
6 25. Plaintiffs stated intention to not necessarily place his vote for Hillary Clinton
7 and Tim Kaine, but instead to act with the deliberative intent and care for choosing of
8 qualified persons for the office of President and Vice President called for in the U.S.
9 Constitution, creates a risk of criminal prosecution by the State of California and thus
10 creates an actual controversy within the meaning 28 U.S.C. 2201(a).
11 26. The threat of criminal prosecution against Plaintiff if he acts in any manner in
12 his capacity as Presidential Elector other than as a rubber stamp or ceremonial vote
13 consistent with the popular vote in California, constitutes a violation of his obligations
14 under the U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and his
15 rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
16 27. Plaintiff therefore requests a declaratory judgment by this Court that
17 California Elections Code 6906 and the corresponding penalty for violation thereof in
18 California Elections Code 18002 are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable against
19 Plaintiff and his fellow electors.
20 28. The purpose of the Electoral College, which is made up of electors such as
21 Plaintiff, is to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. There is nothing
22 in the Constitution that permits or requires electors to be bound to vote the same as the
23 popular vote in their states. For the first 100 years of our history, the majority of states did
24 not hold popular votes for the election of president and vice president and, instead, the
25 states themselves appointed the electors who voted for president and vice president.
26 29. Alexander Hamilton explicitly stated that that the immediate election should
27 be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station. Federalist
28 No. 68. The electors (the men) would be most likely to possess the information and

Case No. _____________________

7.
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 10

1 discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. Id. The electors were created so
2 that they, as a deliberative body, would be detached and less prone to be influenced by
3 the heats and ferments of a raucous election. Id. The electors would help ensure the
4 office of President [would] never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree
5 endowed with the requisite qualifications. Id. The electors create an obstacle to cabal,
6 intrigue, and corruption and prevent foreign powers [from] gain[ing] an improper
7 ascendant in our councils. Id.
8 30. The United States Supreme Court has already partially addressed the question
9 of a state statute that required an elector for a primary election to sign a pledge as to whom
10 they would vote and found the pledge itself constitutional (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214
11 (1952)), the Supreme Court left open the question of whether enforcement of such pledges,
12 or penalties for violating the pledges, or state statutes dictating what votes would be placed,
13 was constitutional. This question is now ripe for review.
14 31. Similarly, while Article II, Section 1 provides that states shall appoint
15 electors, but the Constitution does not provide that the states shall have the ability to
16 determine for whom those electors will vote.
17 32. The Electoral College would be rendered superfluous and antithetical to the
18 purpose of the Electoral College as articulated by Alexander Hamilton, for if the electors
19 are merely to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state, then there is no
20 need for the Electoral College at all. While many scholars have advocated for the
21 elimination of the Electoral College, this case does not seek to invalidate the Electoral
22 College; that would be a matter to be changed by constitutional amendment.
23 33. Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent the Defendants from violating
24 Plaintiffs constitutional rights or chilling his exercise of those rights due to the risk of
25 punitive consequence for voting in the broader interest of the country, even if that might not
26 end up aligning with his loyal party affiliation. Without such relief, Plaintiffs right and
27 obligation a Presidential Elector and his right of freedom of speech will be irreparably
28 harmed.

Case No. _____________________

8.
 Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 9 of 10

1 34. This Court can provide declaratory relief because an actual and substantial
2 controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs
3 rights and Defendants rights and duties under Elections Code 6906 and 18002.
4 35. Plaintiffs constitutional rights will be directly, substantially, and irreparably
5 violated, affected, and injured unless and until this Court declares the state law requiring
6 electors to vote consistent with the popular vote in their state, and penalizing an elector for
7 not doing so, is unconstitutional.
8
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to:
11 A. Enter a temporary restraining order (as per the concurrently filed motion for
12 the same);
13 B. Enter an order declaring California Elections Code 6906 and 18002 to the
14 extent it allows for punitive action against a Presidential Elector who exercises independent
15 analysis and judgment and places his vote for President and Vice-President accordingly,
16 even if it is not his partys candidate, to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution,
17 Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and First Amendment.
18 C. Enter an order permanently enjoining the Defendants from prosecuting any
19 presidential elector on the basis of their vote placed for a presidential or vice presidential
20 candidate; and
21 D. For all such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
22
23 Dated this 9th day of December 2016.
24
25 By: /s/ Melody A. Kramer
Melody A. Kramer, Esq.
26 KRAMER LAW OFFICE, INC.
27 Attorney for Plaintiff

28

Case No. _____________________

9.
Case 5:16-cv-07069 Document 1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 10 of 10