Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1683

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; im