strunk appellant reply 2nd circuit appeal 08-4323 loeber et al. v spargo et al

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:[email protected]


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


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


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


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


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


7/13


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


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


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


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: [email protected]


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


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

strunk appellant reply 2nd circuit appeal 08-4323 loeber et al. v spargo et al

Documents