View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
1/13
08-4323United States Court Of AppealsFor The Second Circuit
RonaldG.Loeber,etal.
Plaintiffs,
H.WilliamVanAllen,John-JosephForjone,ChristopherEarlStrunk,Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V.
ThomasJ.Spargo,etal.
DefendantsAppellees
OnAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofNewYorkDecisionandOrdersofLawrenceE.Kahn,DistrictCourtJudge
inCaseNo.04Civ.1193========================================================= APPELLANT REPLY=========================================================
THEADHOCNYSCITIZENSFORCONSTITUTIONALLEGISLATIVEREDISTRICTING351NorthRoadHurley,NY12443
Christopher-Earl:Strunkinesseself-representedw/obeinganattorney593VanderbiltAvenue-#281Brooklyn,NewYork11238(845)901-6767email:chris@strunk.ws
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
2/13
08-4323-CV APPELLANT STRUNKS COMBINED REPLY TO THEVARIOUS APPELLEES RESPONSES WITHOUT PERMISSION OFTHE OTHER PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTSI,Christopher-Earl:Strunkinesse,stateunderpenaltyof
perjurywith28USC1746:
IChristopher-Earl:Strunkinesse,amselfrepresentedwithout
beinganattorney,herebyprovidemycombinedreplytothevarious
Appelleesresponsebriefs/lettersfiledwiththeCourtonorabout
may6,2010andwithoutpermissionoftheotherPlaintiffsand
AppellantswhosereplyisdueonoraboutMay20,2010accordingto
localrules.
MyfellowplaintiffMr.DetiegeCormier,whosebrotherisa
priest,himselfcameclosetopriestlyservicewithhissolidRoman
CatholicChurchtraininganddevotion,andoftenreferredtoallthose
notwithintheRomanCatholicChurch(RCC)asintwocategories:as
eitherunhappyCatholicsorthoseintheendruledbythespiritualand
temporalpoweroftheRCChereandinternationallyIagreewithhim
andactaccordinglywithagreaterunderstandingnowthanIhadin
2004inthematterofthehistoricalroleoftheReformationDutch
ProtestantsbattleagainsttheoccultpowerofCharlesIIandJamesII
intheJesuitdominationhereeversince.
1
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
3/13
AppellantrepliesinoppositiontotheFederalAppelleesBriefby
ChristopherWangAssistantU.S.AttorneyGeneral,withallegations
ofwaiverandstandingissues:
AppellantdeniesanywaiverintheHAVA-basedclaimagainsta
FederalDefendantasHAVAreliefisincorporatedintotheNYS
ElectionsLawasitmaintainsthevoterlistaffectedbytheNational
VoterRegistrationActof1993motorvoteratrocity.
Mr.WangsrefusaltodiscusstheuseofVotingAgePopulation
(VAP)bytheFabiansocialistJudgeKahnversusCitizenVotingAge
Population(CVAP)isselfexplanatoryandgoestotheabsolute
refusaloftheU.S.GovernmentoranyFederalofficialthatIhave
seenoverthelast24yearsanyJusticeDepartmentenforcementof
thelawasexpresslywritten;andintheendwillleadtobloodand
turmoilinthestreets-thisCourtdoesnthavemanymorechancesto
correctoutrageousbehaviorandinjury.
AppellantrepliestothestateofNewYorkAppelleesBriefby
ANDREWB.AYERSAssistantSolicitorGeneralforthestateofNew
Yorkthereinwhochosetostate:
A. The Challenges to HAVA
Strunk appears to claim (Br. at 9, 19, 23-275
) that the Help America Vote Act
("HAVA"), Pub. L. No. 107-252,116. Stat. 1666,42 U.S.C. 15301-15545 (2002), is
unconstitutional insofar as some of the funds it authorizes for are distributed on the
2
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
4/13
basis of "Voting Age Population" ("VAP"), rather than "Citizen Voting Age
Population" ("CVAP"). See 42 U.S.C. 15301(d), 15402. Because Strunk's
challenge is to a federal funding scheme, it is not a claim against the State
Defendants.
AppellantcontendsthattheNationalVoterRegistrationActof
1993andHelpAmericatoVoteActof2002arebothincorporatedinto
StatelawandthatFederalmandatesinregardstoStateactioninuse
ofvoterregistrationslistsindistrictingmattersandmakesthisnot
onlyaFederalissue,butrenderstheStateaFederalagent;andas
longasthevoterrecordsareusedtodrawpoliticaldistrictsbased
uponvoterparticipationwithoutuseoftheexpresstermsoftheState
ConstitutionthiscomplaintisonlytobeheardinFederalCourt.To
expectFederalJudgestoactIagreeisatallorder,butnevertheless
isworththeoldteameffort.
Thisdecennialprocessistomakethegoaroundafter
December31,2010forthenextallotmentanddeservesahearingde
novoonthemeritssincetheFederalCourtusetheWMCAcaseasif
itweresentfromheaveninfacthasscrewedthingsupand
clarificationwillstraightenthingsout.
B. The Claim That the New York City Area Has Too Many Senators
Strunk appears to argue that the New York City metropolitan area has more
senators than are permitted by the New York State Constitution, under which "no two
counties ... which are adjoining counties, or which are separated only by public
waters, shall have more than one-half of all the senators." N.Y. Const. art. 3 4. (See
3
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
5/13
Br. at 13-18.6
) The district court correctly rejected this claim. (S.P.A. 20-21; Doc. #
109 at 4-5.)
Plaintiffs alleged that "the NYC municipal entity" has 26 senators, which
along with the five senators from Nassau County and three from Westchester totals
34, more than half of New York's 62 senators. (A. 101; Doc. # 25 ~ 63.) But theConstitution plainly refers to adjoining counties, not adjoining entities. N.Y. Const.
art. 3 4. Thus, this claim is frivolous.? Cf. Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F. Supp. 2d
346 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (three-judge panel decision upholding the 2002 New York
redistricting against, inter alia, a one-person one-vote challenge), aff'd, 543 U.S.
997 (2004). Moreover, Strunk -who lives in New York City, and is thus not among
the "rural portion voters" he claims are disadvantaged (Br. at 7) -lacks standing to
complain in any event. This claim was properly dismissed, and no three-judge panel
was required to consider it.
AppellantcontendsthattheNewYorkStateofAppealsCourt
asrequestedinourmotionforacertificationofthreecompellingState
IssuesmayinterprettheStateConstitutioninthebestlight;whereas
thisCourtmaynotstrayfromtheexpresstermsmustnevertheless
clarifyforPlaintiffsandthepeopleofthestateofNewYorkwhetheror
notweactuallyhaveaStateConstitutiontoenforce:
FIRST:whetherornottheStateofNewYorkConstitutiontakes
precedenceforthequestionstobeposedinthecensusenumeration
everytenyearsastotheactualnumbersofqualifiedStateresidents
withinstatejurisdiction;
SECOND:whetherornottheStateofNewYorkConstitution
takesprecedenceunderon-person-one-votewithArticle3thatresults
intheenlargementofbothhousesoftheStatelegislatureusingthe
requirementthatHamiltonCountyshallelectwithFultonCountyasa
4
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
6/13
baselineinassemblydistrictsize;andforthemandateof50Senators
and150Assemblymembersdoneimmediatelyforthis2010election
cycleorbythe2012cyclewiththenewcensusandallotment;and
THIRD:theStatecompellingissueoffirstimpressionasto
whetherornottheStateofNewYorkConstitutionexpressly
determinesthattheCityofNewYorkistoolargeaspresently
configuredinthatoncehome-ruleCountiesaredefunctCountiesnow
consideredonlyBoroughswithouthome-rulewithinNYCthatisa
territorylikeacountythereinaswithNYSCArticleIXLocal
GovernmentsSection2(e)mandatesquote:
(e)TherightsandpowersoflocalgovernmentsspecifiedinthissectioninsofarasapplicabletoanycountywithinthecityofNewYorkshallbevestedinsuchcity.
thattherefore,NYCmaynothavemorethanone-thirdofallthe
Senatorswithinorone-halfwhencombinedwithanadjoininghome-
rulesub-division.
C.Recusal
Strunk argues that the district court erred when it "failed to answer theinterrogatories posed in Appellant's letter motion for reconsideration." (Br. at 10.) Those
"interrogatories" consisted of a list of questions asking whether Judge Kahn had "takenany oath other than that of your oath of office," "taken a Masonic oath," or "taken aKolnidre oath in which you must forgive all in your private capacity." 8
AsfortheRecusalmatter,Appellanthasarightanddutyto
questiontheauthorityofanysittingFederalJudge,andtoinvestigate
5
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
7/13
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
8/13
AppellantrepliestothecityofNewYork(NYC)Appellees
LetterResponsebyFayNgAssistantCorporationCounselforNYC
andMayorBloombergthatthereinallegesinresponsethatJudge
KahndidjustfineastoNYCDefendantswithoutfurtherado.
AppellantcontendsthatasaresultofthelossofHomerule
undertheWagnerAdministrationasdocumentedinthecaseLindsey
vWyman,372F.Supp1360,1366(SDNY1974)affdsubnom.
BeamevLavine,419US806(1974)thematterofareasonableequal
treatmentbasiscomparedwithupstatecountiesforexamplewhen
NYCwithaconstitutionallyoversizedadvantagehasanentirely
differentrealpropertytaxlevysysteminthematterofdisbursementof
matchingfundswithoutmunicipalHomerulecontroloveraninternal
budgetdoesnotnowexistforanyvestigialcountywithinHomerule
cityofNewYorkandgoestothelackofadequaterepresentation
withinandthefailuretoeffectuseoftheStateConstitutionasto
Article3governanceandHomeruleeffectivecontroloverthose
senatorswhoserelatedassemblymemberdistrictsarenotwholly
withintherespectivesenatedistrict,allareoutrageouslymis-drawn
andtherottenboroughgerrymanderingimposedbythefriendsofthe
SovereignMilitaryKnightsofMalta(Pataki/GiulianiandhisRCC
7
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
9/13
buddieswhorunthingshereintheStateforaslongasIcan
rememberimposeanentirelytopdownmonocentristsystemof
governanceespeciallysincethedestructionoftheBoardofEstimate)
needsfixingbythisCourtasweareleftwithanoppressive
dictatorshipofaProgressiveFabianSocialistfeudalelitelootingthe
systemwithimpunitythereisnorepublicanformofgovernment.
Inthosecasesarguedthattheyshouldbereimbursedfor
variousmatchingfundsbaseduponacountybycountypopulation
basisratherthanasforNYCHomeruleasawholewhichitisone
territory;andasamatterheardbeforethisCourtonappealgoesto
themeritsofPlaintiffsclaimofunequaltreatmentinthematterof
gerrymanderingandfailuretoprovideHomeruleinthematter
requiredundertheStateConstitution.NYCisthetailwagingthe
legislativeStatedogwhosetyrannymustbevisitedbythisCourt,
especiallysincetheFabianProgressivesinecureJudgeKahnhas
justasmuchbehindsubvertingtheStateConstitutionnowashedid
whiledistortingtheStateConstitutionwhileontheStatebench.He
hasdonethesameshenaniganswhileontheFederalbench
presencedespitetheprotestoftheNewYorkbar,neverthelesssits
thereliketheproverbialdoguponthehay.
8
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
10/13
AppellantrepliestotheNYSBoardofElectionsandPeter
KosinskiletterResponsebymyfriendToddD.ValentineEsq.that
thereininpartstates:
Although the appellate brief submitted by plaintiff-appellant Christopher
Strunk is difficult to interpret, no claim appears to be made against the State
Board of Elections or Kosinski. To the extent that the papers can be read to
raise a claim against them, we join the arguments made by the New York
State Attorney General on behalf of the State Defendants.
AppellantcontendsthattheNYSBoardofElectionshasthe
responsibilitytoimplementredrawndistrictsasdirectedunderState
authoritywithcontrolovertheelections,andmustbenamedherein:
andasforMr.Kosinski,heactedwiththeNationalAssociationof
SecretariesofState(NASS)whoseoutrageousimpositionofthe
foreigninterferencewithelectionshascaughtupwiththemwhenthen
ChairwomanfromNewMexicowasputinprisonforfixingelections,
andaswithotherSecretariesofStateelsewheredeserveinthe
ongoingrefusaltoactaffirmativelytosafeguardelections.However,
theNASSnowseemsasmerelyanextensionoftheProgressive
FabianSocialistGeorgeSorosbriberyoftheprocessandwhoseuse
ofhismisbegottenfortunesubvertselectionsusingthelackof
transparencyasaffordedbytheSecretaryofStateProjectintimately
associatedwiththeRomanCatholicChurchsVaticanBankdomestic
9
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
11/13
landing bank financing schemes to undermine our nationalsovereignty in the use of the Jesuit's atrocious social justice doctrinewith organizations devised to subvert individual rights in favor of afeudal collective that promote race division to impose the collectivemntrol over elections for exclusive RCC dominated representationhere in New York and elsewhere to the detriment of the individual.
COMBINED REPLYCONCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF RELIEFThis Court has an opportunity to correct a terrible injustice
imposed by the WMCA matter that has destroyed provision of arepublican form of government here in New York. There is a directcorrelation with the lack of use of the State Constitution Article 3 thatonly serves tyranny and that every ten years only gets worse andleads to chaos and municipal bankruptcy. Appellant wishes an oralargument, so that this matter may be remanded to a three judgepanel or be heard herein de novo, and for such different and otherrelief deemed essential for the provision of justice.
Dated: May ,2010Brooklyn, New York Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281Brooklyn., New York 11238(845) 01-6767 / Email: chris@strunk.ws
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
12/13
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in re Appeal Case 08-4323-cvCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On May 20,2010,1, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of pe ury with 28USC 51746caused the service of eight (8) copies of the Appellant Reply of084323-CV APPELLANT STRUNK'S COMBINED REPLY TO THEVARIOUS APPELLEES RESPONSES WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THEOTHER PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS signed May 20,2010 by placingeach set in in a properly addressed envelope with proper postage for deliveryby the US Postal Service upon counsels:ANDREW B. AYERS . Ellen Leary CoccomaAssistant Solicitor Otsego County AttorneyAttorney General of New York Otsego County Office BuildingThe Capitol 197Main StreetAlbany, New York 12224-0341 Cooperstown, NY 13326Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq.Todd D. Valentine Esq.New York State Board of Elections40Steuben St.Albany ,New York 12207.FAY NG ESQ.THECITYOFNEW YORKCorporation Counsel Michael CardozoNYC Law Department100 Church StreetNew York, NY 10007JAMES E. LONG, ESQ.668 Central AvenueAlbany, New York 12206
JAM ES E. KONSTANTY, ESQ.Konstanty Law Office252 Main StreetOneonta, NY 13820Christopher C. Wang Esq.United States Attorney AssistantAttorney GeneralCivil Rights DivisionU.S. DepartmentofJusticeP.O. Box 14403, Ben FranklinWashington, DC ,20044 4403Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier25 Hattie Jones CircleBrooklyn, New York 11213
I do declare and certifL under penalty of perjury:Dated: Maygo 010Brooklyn, New York Christopher -Earl: Strunk in esse
593Vanderbilt Avenue - #281Brooklyn., New York 11238
8/9/2019 Strunk Appellant Reply 2nd Circuit appeal 08-4323 Loeber et al. v Spargo et al
13/13
ANTI-VIRUS CERTIFICATION FORM
See Second Circuit Interim Local Rule 25(a)6.
CASE NAME:________________________________________________________________
DOCKET NUMBER:__________________________
I, (please print your name)____________________________________________, certify that
I have scanned for viruses the PDF version of the attached document that was submitted in this case as
an email attachment to ______ .
______ .
______ .
______ .
______ .
and that no viruses were detected.
Please print the name and the version of the anti-virus detector that you used______________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
If you know, please print the version of revision and/or the anti-virus signature files ________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Your Signature)______________________________________________
Date: _________________
Loeber, et al. v. Spargo, et al.
08-4323
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
NORTON ANTI-VIRU
Christopher-Earl: Strunk inesse
Digitally signed by Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esseDN: cn=Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, c=USDate: 2010.05.20 10:20:06 -04'00'
05/20/2010
Recommended