Barnett v. Dunn Response To Defendants MTDs

1 Pamela Barnett, Pro se Plaintiff
2 2541 Warrego Way

3 Sacramento, CA, 95826
4 Telephone: (415)846-7170
5 Fax: (866)908-2252
6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 ------------------------------------------------x
11 PAMELA BARNETT,
12 Plaintiff, Civil CASE: 10−cv−02216−FCD−DAD
13 v.
14
15 DAMON JERRELL DUNN, etc., et al.,
16
17 Defendants.
18 ------------------------------------------------x
19
20 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
21 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
22 -----------------------------------------------------------x
23 Pamela Barnett ) Case No. 34-2010-00077415
24 Plaintiff, )
25 v. )
26 Damon Jerrell Dunn et al. )
27 Defendants )
28 -----------------------------------------------------------x
29
30 PLAINTIFF’s CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO THE EAC AND CALIFORNIA
31 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND FOR
32 CONSOLIDATE HEARING OF MOTIONS ON OCTOBER 22, 2010
33 ///
34 ///
35 ///
36 ///
37 ///
38 ///
Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page i

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 Plaintiff‘s Response as to Defendants’ Introduction ……………………………………………………… 1
4 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Factual Background………………………………………. 6
5 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Procedural History………………………………………… 6
6 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Standard of Review……………………………………… 7
7 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Arguments………………………………………………………… 8
8 As for Plaintiff’s response to State Defendants defense using the
9 Eleventh Amendment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
10 Amendment somehow bars Plaintiff’s relief against Defendants Kelley,
11 Brown and Bowen in federal court…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
12 As to Defendants’ contention that the Court should grant defendants' motion
13 to dismiss because Plaintiff’s requested relief would substantially interfere
14 with the conduct of the Election………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
15 As for Defendants' contention that Plaintiff somehow failed to state a claim
16 for relief allege Dunn satisfied the eligibility requirements to run for Secretary
17 of State, and is not disqualified by any omissions in his voter registration form… 11
18 As to Defendants’ contention that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's seventh
19 cause of action for unjust enrichment as to supporting facts ………………………………………. 17
20 As For Defendants Failure To Maintain The Integrity Of The Voter Registration
21 Database with the VRA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 18
22 Plaintiff Argument As To Federal Jurisdiction and Authority.……………………………………….. 21
23 Plaintiff’s Response Summary in Opposition to Dismissal……………………………………………… 36
Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page ii

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3 Page
4 CASES
5 Huston v. Anderson (1904) 145 Cal. 320,324, ……………………………………………………………………….. 6
6 Pohlmann v. Patty (1917) 33 Cal.App. 390………………………………………………………………………………… 6
7 Hans v Louisiana , 134 U.S. 1 (1890)………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8- 10
8 Ex Parte Young., 209 U.S. 123 (1908)…………………………………………………………………………………..… 8,10,
9 Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
10 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)…………………………………………………………………………………… 10
11 Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949………………………………………………………. 19
12 U.S. v NYS BOE NDNY 06-cv-263……………………………………………………………//………………………………. 20
13 United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 908 (4th Cir. 1982)
14 United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir.1982)
15 United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874-75 (5th Cir. 1982)
16 United States v. Bowman, 636 F.2d 1003, 1010 (5th Cir.1981)
17 United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917)
18 Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915)
19 Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918)
20 United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918)……………………………………………………………………….. 26
21 United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)…………………………………………………………………………. 26,28
22 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
23 United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973)
24 United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998)
25 United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir.1985)
Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page iii

1 United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985)
2 United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974)
3 United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005);
4 United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999);
5 United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985);
6 United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985);
7 United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983);
8 United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982);
9 United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982);
10 United States v. Bowman, 636 F2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1981);
11 United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir. 1975);
12 United States v. Cianciulli, 482 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1979)…………………………………………… 27
13 Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884)…………………………………………………………………………………. 28
14 Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967);
15 Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955).
16 United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975)
17 United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956)
18 . United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992)
19 United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988)
20 United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985);
21 United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985);
22 United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974);
23 United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973)…………………………………………………….. 29
24 United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966),
Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page iv

1 Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951);
2 United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)……………………………………………………………………………. 30
3 United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994)
4 United States v. Sloane, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005);
5 United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999) ………………………………………………….. 31
6 United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951);
7 Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943)………………………………………………………………. 32
8 United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995),…………………………………………………………. 33
9 FEDERAL STATUTES
10 28 U.S.C. §1746…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
11 42 USC §1973C ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
12 28 U.S.C. §2284…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
13 42 U.S.C. §1973 –I (c)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1,30,31
14 42 U.S.C. §§1973– I (d)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
15 42 U.S.C. §1973-J,……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
16 42 U.S.C. §1973-N……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
17 42 U.S.C. §1973GG-10…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1,3
18 42 U.S.C. §§15544……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1,3
19 42 U.S.C. §1746…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
20 42 U.S.C. §1746…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
21 42 U.S.C. §1983…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
22 42 U.S.C. §1985(3)….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
23 42 U.S.C. §1986…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
24 28 U.S.C. §1442(a) (1)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page v

1 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1346, 1951, and 1952…………………………………………………………………….. 24
2 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26,28-30
3 18 U.S.C. § 911…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
4 18 U.S.C. § 1346………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
5 18 U.S.C. § 1341…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
6 18 U.S.C. §595…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35
7 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
8
9 CALIFORNIA CODE
10 Cal. Admin. Code tit. 2, §19050.6………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2,6
11 CAEC §§2150 through 2154…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
12 CEC §18203, §18500 and §18501………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
13 The Constitution & Government Code §12511………………………………………………………………………. 14
14
15 US CONSTITUTION
16 First and Fifth Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
17 Ninth Amendment…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………..
18 Eleventh Amendment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
19 Fourteenth Amendment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10,29,36
20 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
21 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
22
23 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
24 Section 3 of article XX of the California Constitution………………………………………………………………… 13
Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page vi

1 I, Pamela Barnett, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746:
2 1. Declarant / Plaintiff in esse is pro se herein without being an attorney.
3 2. Plaintiff / Declarant in anticipation of leave of the Court for economy and brevity
4 hereby consolidates Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the U.S. Election Assistance
5 Commission by its director Thomas Wilkey (EAC) in its motion to dismiss as to it
6 represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Yoshinori H. T. Himel of the United States
7 Attorney's Office in Sacramento filed on August 27, 2010 for a post General Election
8 hearing November 12, 2010 and the California Attorney General Motion filed August 24,
9 2010 as to Defendants Brown and Bowen joined by Defendant Kelley for a hearing
10 November 10, 2010 after the General Election and now together move as of October 4,
11 2010 for a combined hearing date on October 22, 2010 as applies to Plaintiff’s Notice of
12 Cross Motion for creation of a three judge panel with 42 USC §1973C in compliance
13 with 28 USC §2284 for an expedited hearing as time is of the essence with imminent
14 irreparable harm deserving of equity relief with a declaratory judgment and restraint.
15 Plaintiff Response as to Defendants’ Introduction
16 3. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judge pursuant to the cross motion with a combined
17 hearing scheduled for October 22, 2010 for creation of a three judge panel with 42 USC
18 §1973C in compliance with 28 USC §2284 to hear the Voting Rights Act (VRA) 42 USC
19 1973-C matter for a directed verdict with FRCP Rule 65 provisional and final relief with
20 28 USC §2201 and §2202 for issues raised as to 42 USC §1973 –I (c), §1973– I (d),
21 §1973-J, §1973-N, §1973GG-10 and §15544 as relates to 42 USC §1983, §1985(3)
22 and §1986 accordingly involving the questionable defective voter registration of
23 Defendant Damon Dunn who acted with Democratic Party partisans Defendants Orange
Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page 1 of 40

1 County Registrar (OCR) Kelley and Secretary of State (SOS)Bowen defined with 42
2 USC 1985(3) as well as AG Brown defined with 42 USC 1986 to interfere with the
3 Republican Party Primary by conspiring to spoliate public records in anticipation of
4 Defendant Dunn’s Republican Party candidacy for Secretary of State with ballot access
5 at the November 2, 2010 General Election ballot for California Secretary of State.
6 4. That Plaintiff’s claim is based upon SOS Bowen and OCR Kelley collusion to
7 interfere as Democrats against SOS Bowen’s opponent SOS candidacy of Dr. Orly
8 Taitz, Esq. that by favoring a weaker candidate allowed for Dunn’s acts of spoliation with
9 the voter registration process so that Dunn’s affiliation with the Republican Party as a
10 Republican opponent would be versus that of Dr. Orly Taitz to give Dunn a sufficient
11 amount of time before the Republican Primary when registering to vote in California in
12 March 2009; and that neither OCR Kelley nor SOS Bowen acted to conform the faulty
13 Dunn registration with the ir-rebuttable presumptions of CA Election Code (CAEC)
14 §2154, instead used the pre NVRA / HAVA administrative protocol process admitted to
15 use of Cal. Admin. Code tit. 2, §19050.6 (shown at OCR Demurrer Memorandum page
16 3) that ignores any prior out of state registration in favor of California registration per se,
17 and that Plaintiff in the complaint process to correct the Dunn filling both Defendant
18 Bowen with AG Brown as Partisan Democrats show a pattern to marginalize and
19 disparage Plaintiff’s administrative complaints dating from before the 2008 General
20 Election.
21 5. That Plaintiff does seek to substantive due process based upon California Code
22 to bar Defendants; Damon Dunn, OCR Kelley, Secretary of State Debra Bowen and
23 Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. from the General Election ballot and further
24 public office, claiming that they breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff along with

1 those similarly situated as California Republican Party members without ministerial
2 conforming to the requirements of CAEC §§2150 through 2154 as applies to any state
3 that maintains a voter registration database with 42 USC §1973gg and §15544 that with
4 related law requires a properly completed timely voter registration form; and without
5 such, thereby disqualifies Dunn as a candidate for Secretary of State and voting
6 participation when the filing completed after 15 days before the June 8, 2010
7 Republican primary and until this very day when 15 days before the November 2, 2010
8 from participation at the General Election except by provisional ballot with the VRA.
9 6. That when co-defendant United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
10 removed this matter to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1442(a) (1) (as a suit against a
11 federal agency), and under the voting rights, the EAC’s presence in this suit is NOT the
12 only basis for federal jurisdiction in this matter as State Defendants are Federal Agents
13 acting under color of state law that had not been pre-cleared as to the operation of the
14 VRA for those states maintaining a Voter registration database. Therefore, if the Court
15 decides to dismiss EAC, it then has to dispose of the VRA matter as applies to its State
16 agents as Federal Agents with use of the Voter Registration database and thereafter
17 with the discretion to remand this case to state court for settling the damages. Prior to
18 removal, Defendants Brown and Bowen had filed a demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended
19 Complaint. Remanding this matter would allow the superior court to decide damages
20 after a declaratory judgment is had with the VRA issues presented by Plaintiff.
21 7. That were the Court to retain jurisdiction of this matter, it should NOT grant
22 Defendants Brown Bowen and Kelley's motions to dismiss without leave to amend, as
23 Sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment does not bar Plaintiff's claims
24 against Defendants Brown Bowen and Kelley as referenced in the Argument below.

1 Moreover, the issuance of Plaintiff's requested relief--orders to remove Dunn, Kelley,
2 Bowen, and Brown from the General Election ballot or from further public service -
3 would not substantially interfere with the November 2, 2010 election as public policy to
4 have both honest services of all public servants and an accurate fraud free ballot
5 presented to the voters to prevent making the voters accomplices in a fraud and crime;
6 and that otherwise as the primary election ended on June 8,2010, the parties have
7 nominated candidates for the Secretary of State and Governor races, and the state's
8 voters will elect a Secretary of State and Governor in the November 2, 2010 General
9 Election. Plaintiff's requested relief, therefore, would result in the nullification of votes
10 cast for Dunn, Kelley, Bowen, and Brown as would be required under the provisions of
11 CEC §18203, §18500 and §18501 accordingly.
12 8. The Court should order that Dunn did not properly qualify as an eligible candidate
13 for the Republican nomination for Secretary of State without a properly executed voter
14 registration form. Because before declaring his candidacy, Dunn needed to have been
15 affiliated with the California Republican party for at least three months, and not affiliated
16 with any other qualified California party for at least twelve months as Dunn without filing
17 a properly affirmed application to register to vote is not affiliated till this day, has not
18 cleared both of these requirements, and without a properly completed voter registration
19 he could not affiliate as a Republican nearly twelve months before declaring his
20 candidacy for Secretary of State in March 2010. And although Dunn's prior registration
21 in the Florida Democratic Party did not disqualify his candidacy, to the contrary because
22 Defendant Dunn’s actions to expunge the prior record and conceal it from the State
23 Defendants also involved an active Florida drivers license must nevertheless have been
24 referenced on the Voter Registration application filed by Dunn with perjury;

1 notwithstanding whether or not Dunn’s prior registration Florida had expired five years
2 before he declared his candidacy, and notwithstanding whether or not the Florida
3 Democratic Party is or is not a qualified political party in California is immaterial to the
4 Dunn perjury in filling with the VRA when “Florida” must appear on line 16 when first
5 filed to be a properly affirmed affidavit of registration that still is not done. State
6 Defendants are not entitled to dismissal because Plaintiff's complaint does state the
7 facts showing that Defendants breached their duties in the processing of Dunn's
8 declaration for candidacy under the VRA.
9 9. That neither OCR Kelley nor the Secretary of State fulfilled their duties by
10 presenting Dunn as one of the certified candidates for Secretary of State without a
11 properly executed voter registration affidavit. That Defendant Bowen also confirms
12 Dunn’s wrong doing by admitting the nonconforming registration with proof of intent was
13 to defraud was done by Dunn is ineligibility after Plaintiff had requested an investigation.
14 10. As for the Attorney General, Defendant Brown does have a statutory duty to
15 investigate Dunn's eligibility, especially when the Secretary of State found reason of
16 nonconformance with intent to defraud as Plaintiff referred the matter to the Attorney
17 General. And that Plaintiff's complaint does raise those facts showing that Defendants
18 intentionally concealed or misrepresented information regarding Dunn's eligibility to run
19 for Secretary of State, and for these reasons, the Court should grant the Plaintiff motion
20 for a three judge panel for declaratory and injunctive relief accordingly and deny any of
21 the defendants’ motion to dismiss; and in granting Plaintiff’s motion the Court should
22 also grant Plaintiff further leave to amend her complaint as to the Federal matters
23 involved if the court deemed such matter necessary nunc pro tunc. Barnett has
24 exercised her right to amend her complaint once before answering Defendants' initial

1 demurrer filed in state court. However, even in her First Amended Complaint, Barnett
2 has alleged facts stating a claim for relief as State Defendants’ actions beyond the
3 required ministerial requirement of Election Code under color of the pre-VRA uncleared
4 Cal. Admin. Code tit. 2, § 19050.6, in which State Defendants cite the 1904 decision in
5 Huston v. Anderson (1904) 145 Cal. 320,324, and the 1917 decision in Pohlmann v.
6 Patty (1917) 33 Cal. App. 390 show that the Defendants are liable, and that the Court
7 should remand the complaint with declaratory judgment back to State Court for settling
8 damages to close this matter.
9 Plaintiff Response as to Defendants’ Factual Background
10 11. That Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in the above
11 paragraphs with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length omits it
12 for brevity, as to the Background facts as in part alleged by States Defendants motion
13 are from Plaintiff’s First Amended complaint that properly alleges Damon Dunn is the
14 Republican candidate for California Secretary of State and that the facts speak for
15 themselves. However in reference to the May 12, 2010 letter from the SOS shown as
16 Exhibit M in the FAC the intent is shown in paragraphs at the First Amended Complaint
17 Sixth Cause of action paragraphs 111 through 120 show thereby the required affirmative
18 action by the State Defendant that was not done and is in conflict with the administrative
19 code 19050.6.
20 Plaintiff Response as to Defendants’ Procedural History
23 for brevity, as to the Procedural History as in part alleged by States Defendants motion
24 shown that the Plaintiff’s actions were timely given the requested expedited process that

1 was outrageously delayed or denied, Plaintiff is not subject to any claim of Laches
2 given the extent of concealment and misdirection done by Defendants Dunn, Kelley
3 Bowen and Brown with their agents; and that EAC is a named party due to the denial of
4 substantive due process and unequal treatment accordingly as State Defendants are
5 EAC’s agents with the VRA.
6 Plaintiff Response as to Defendants’ Standard of Review
9 for brevity, as to State Defendants stated Standard for Review, Plaintiff complies
10 accordingly. Plaintiff meets the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)
11 (6), that as a matter of law it is clear that relief can be granted under any set of facts that
12 could be proved consistent with the allegations. That Plaintiff has a cognizable legal
13 theory, or sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory. In considering the
14 motion, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
15 and accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. That the complaint does contain
16 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
17 face. That Plaintiff’s claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
18 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
19 misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,'
20 when but asks for more than a sheer possibility that defendant has acted unlawfully.
21 That Defendant Kelley in his Demurrer to which Plaintiff contends there in effect raised
22 the preclearance matter is a conflict of law under the VRA requiring a declaratory
23 judgment that may resolve the legal issue before a decision on the facts may be reviewed
24 and decided.

1 Plaintiff Response as to Defendants’ Arguments
4 for brevity, as to State Defendants including Kelley, Bowen and Brown along with those
5 agents similarly situated however as yet named, Defendant Dunn who merely filed an
6 answer of general denial in State Superior Court without an appearance herein, and the
7 EAC whose agent the DOJ is responsible for investigation of all complaints and
8 submission for compliance with VRA and related law.
9
10 As for Plaintiff’s response to State Defendants defense using the Eleventh Amendment
13 for brevity, and that Plaintiff opposes as inapplicable the California Defendants’ putative
14 defense of Sovereign immunity with the 11th Amendment that would apply to Kelley
15 Bowen Brown does not apply in that all are agents of the Federal government with
16 duties under HAVA, the NVRA and VRA with related law; and furthermore as state
17 agents are ultra vires by breach of fiduciary duties.
18 16. As for Plaintiff response to State Defendants defense using the Eleventh
19 Amendment, it places no limitations on the power of the judiciary to entertain suits
20 brought against a State by residents of that same State. That nonetheless, the
21 SCOTUS in a controversial 1890 decision, Hans v Louisiana, concluded that the
22 Eleventh Amendment was in fact a bar to federal suits against a state by that state's
23 own citizens. The Court reasoned that at the time of the amendment's ratification in
24 1798 that such a limitation was taken for granted.

1 17. The Court limited the effect of Hans somewhat in the 1908 case of Ex Parte
2 Young. The Court allowed a suit for injunctive relief against a state official reasoning
3 that if a state official violated the Constitution he cannot be acting on behalf of a state,
4 which can only act constitutionally. Thus, state officials--but not states--might be sued
5 when they violate the Constitution, even when they do so in the name of the state.
6 18. The question raised in this instant action is, does any State have sovereign
7 immunity from abiding with the NVRA / HAVA / VRA and related laws regarding states
8 that maintain a vote registration database and in this case sanction the harboring of
9 undocumented aliens or tourists at will that effect Citizen suffrage privileges. That in
10 Printz v United States (1997), the SCOTUS found that Congress had unconstitutionally
11 intruded upon state sovereignty in the law in question in Printz was a provision of the
12 Brady Act requiring chief law enforcement officers of states to run background checks
13 on prospective handgun purchasers. The Court rejected the federal government's
14 argument that it could enlist states in enforcing federal law, even though it might be
15 unconstitutional to require states to make law--the problem identified in New York v U.
16 S. However such may not be applied to both the VRA / INA and related law in that as a
17 result of the enactment of the U.S. Constitution every State of the several States in
18 perpetuity relinquished the right to determine the grant of US Citizenship to any alien as
19 it once had power to grant under the Articles of Confederation; and therefore no public
20 official of any State of the several states may ignore the provisions of VRA/INA and
21 related law including the racketeering provisions of harboring without acting ultra vires
22 and that any law passed to the contrary of Federal INA and related law except to adopt
23 said law as the law of the State per se with both civil and criminal provisions to match as

1 such any State action to the contrary may be enjoined by a Citizen of another state
2 without bar by the Eleventh Amendment.
3 19. In Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the
4 amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony
5 Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706
6 (1999):
7 “[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the
8 structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific
9 Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the
10 Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the
11 States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope
12 of the enumerated powers.”
13 20. Although the Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suit for money
14 damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
15 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from
16 violating federal law. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), the Supreme Court
17 ruled that Congress may abrogate state immunity from suit under the enforcement
18 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as is done with the INA and related Federal Law.
19 As to Defendants’ contention that the Court should grant defendants' motion to dismiss
20 because Plaintiff’s requested relief would substantially interfere with
21 the conduct of the Election
22
25 for brevity, and that Plaintiff opposes as to alleged interference with elections as moot
26 and that the California Defendants’ putative defense of compelling state interest to
27 present to the voters a defective ballot at the general election that would apply to Dunn,
28 Kelley Bowen Brown as to their actions; however in the alternative,

1 22. Plaintiff’s question to the Court is as to whether or not when the ballot as
2 presented is a fraud as to even a single candidate that it invites the voter into an act of
3 fraud also and whether not such statewide office also affects the votes cast for other
4 candidates too – which Plaintiff contends it does and is suffrage fraud.
5 As for Defendants' contention that Plaintiff somehow failed to state a claim for relief
6 allege Dunn satisfied the eligibility requirements to run for Secretary of State, and is not
7 disqualified by any omissions in his voter registration form.
8
11 for brevity, and that Plaintiff based upon the facts presented denies the Defendants’
12 putative defense that somehow Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief as to Dunn,
13 Kelley, Bowen, Brown and EAC.
14 24. As to Dunn, he did not satisfy the voter registration requirement with a properly
15 executed registration affidavit according to the law, and still has not by a plain reading of
16 the law and factual evidence shown by the actual registration form that is incomplete;
17 and that the facts at FAC Paragraphs 111 through 120 show:
18 “111. That the Background checks that was faxed to the California Board of Election
19 Chief confirms that Mr. Dunn had registered in both Texas and Florida
20 (see Exhibit J-1).
21 112. On or about February 24, 2010 Defendant Kelley and or his agents issued
22 a Declaration of Candidacy for Defendant Dunn located at 3131 Michelson Unit
23 708W Irvine CA 92612 pursuant to Elections Code Section 200, 8020 and 8040,
24 certified it on March 10, 2010 and filed on March 15, 2010 by Defendant Bowen
25 based upon the March 13, 2009 improperly executed Voter Affidavit of Registration
26 shown as Exhibit A for the Republican Party Direct Primary Election to be held June
27 8, 2010 (see Exhibit K).
28 113. Because the Registration shown as Exhibit A is Fraudulent until Mr. Dunn
29 amended a properly executed Affidavit of Registration to Vote in 2010, the
30 November 5, 2009 Intent for Candidacy shown as Exhibit B is null and void along
31 with the March 15, 2010 filed Declaration of Candidacy in that Mr. Dunn had not
32 been affiliated with the California Republican Party for 3 months required with
33 8001(a) by the amendment.
34 114. That on page two of the Declaration of Candidacy shown as Exhibit K

1 Respondent Dunn and or the Notary / agent of Neal Kelley Registrar of Voters
2 affirmed in the BOX provided for prior registration that as to Party Affiliation "No Prior
3 Registration exists; and
4 115. That on March 15, 2010, the time stamp shows that Defendant Bowen and or
5 her agent deputy filed the Certified Declaration of Candidacy shown on Exhibit K first
6 page.
7 116. That on March 30, 2010 Duval County Supervisor of Elections Jerry Holland
8 wrote a letter to Mark Loren Chief Investigator of the Election Fraud Investigation
9 Unit of Secretary of State that confirmed Mr. Dunn had a prior registration at 10135
10 Gate Parkway, North #1111, Jacksonville Florida (see Exhibit L).
11 117. That after May 12, 2010 Plaintiff received a letter from Mark Loren Chief
12 Investigator of the Election Fraud Investigation Unit of the Secretary of State Office
13 also confirmed Mr. Dunn had a prior registration in Florida and admitted that Mr.
14 Dunn was in non-compliance with CEC §2150 (a) (10); however alleged that without
15 evidence the omission was intentional no criminal sanctions for non-compliance
16 exist (see Exhibit M).
17 118. That according to Exhibit A, Mr. Dunn intentionally left the Section 16 blank to
18 conceal the prior registrations in both Texas and Florida in conjunction with his
19 intended candidacy for CA SOS and lied in the affirmation by using "March
20 15,1976".
21 119. That according to Exhibit C Defendant Dunn attempted to spoliate his
22 registration record in Florida and Texas in conjunction with his candidacy for CA
23 SOS; and based upon information and belief Mr. Dunn was successful in expunging
24 the registration record in Texas to no avail did turn up in the background check
25 shown as Exhibit J-1 that had been sent to Mark Loren Chief Investigator of the
26 Election Fraud Investigation Unit of the Secretary of State Office.
27 120. That according to Exhibit K page two, Defendant Dunn lied under oath taken by
28 Defendant Kelley or his agent had "no prior registration based upon the March 13,
29 2009 improperly executed Voter Affidavit of Registration shown as Exhibit A….”
30
31 25. Plaintiff based upon the facts presented opposes the California Defendants’
32 putative defense that somehow, Kelley, Bowen, Brown fulfilled all duties in ensuring
33 Dunn and other’s candidacy in the past complied with election laws.
34 26. Mr. Kelley admitted use of the administrative code that is in conflict with the
35 election code provision that is without rebuttable presumption with the duty to mandate
36 that Dunn re-file a registration with complete information wasn’t done and still isn’t; also
37 spoliated evidence of wrong doing in the course of ministerial duties.
38 27. Ms. Bowen admitted the Dunn registration is “nonconforming” and without a
39 rebuttable presumption failed with the duty to mandate that Dunn re-file a registration

1 with complete information wasn’t done and still isn’t; and when presented with proof of
2 Dunn’s malicious intent to circumvent the code by expunging election records in other
3 states and failed to change his Florida driver’s license to a California driver license as is
4 required with the law for a valid residency for over a year after attempting to file a voter
5 registration form, Bowen failed to fulfill all duties in ensuring Dunn’s and as with other
6 candidacies in the past to comply with election laws.
7 28. Mr. Brown admitted receipt of several complaints as to election law violations and
8 has done nothing and that Mr. Brown’s oath office requires in Section 3 of article XX of
9 the California Constitution provides:
10 “Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive,
11 legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law
12 exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
13 subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
14
15 “‘I,_________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
16 defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
17 California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
18 allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
19 California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
20 evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to
21 enter.
22
23 “‘And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any
24 party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the
25 Government of the United States or the State of California by force or violence or other
26 unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking or this oath
27 (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or
28 otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of
29 the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
30
31 ______________________________________________________________
32 (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold
33 the office of ______________ I will not (name of office) advocate nor become a member
34 of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the
35 Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or
36 other unlawful means.’
37

1 “And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as the qualification for any
2 public office or employment.
3
4 “‘Public officer and employee’ includes every officer and employee of the State,
5 including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and
6 authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or
7 instrumentality of any of the foregoing.”
8
9 29. The California Attorney General has a very broad general grant of authority from
10 both the California Constitution and the Government Code. In addition, certain sections
11 in the civil rights statutes delineate specific mandates for the Attorney General as to
12 General Authority: The Constitution & Government Code §12511, the California
13 Constitution establishes the general, broad grant of authority to the Attorney General. It
14 establishes that subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General
15 shall be the Chief Law Officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to
16 see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. Statutory law, in
17 establishing the general operating structure of the Attorney General and the Department
18 of Justice, reiterates the broad grant of authority:
19 “The Attorney General has charge, as attorney, of all legal matters in which the State
20 is interested, except the business of the Regents of the University of California and
21 of such other boards or offices as are by law authorized to employ attorneys. “
22 30. That the Case law in this area has generally interpreted both the Constitutional
23 and statutory grants of authority in unison. The courts have interpreted the provisions
24 expansively, in that the Attorney General's authority is limited only when the legislature
25 expressly deprives the Attorney General of the authority to pursue an action in a
26 specified area through a legislative enactment.
27 31. The Attorney General has the authority to file any civil action which he or she
28 deems necessary for the enforcement of the laws of California, the preservation of

1 order, and /or the protection of the rights and interest of the public. In addition, the
2 Attorney General may file any civil action which directly involves the rights and interests
3 of the State. Since the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the state, "he
4 possesses not only extensive statutory powers but also broad powers derived from the
5 common law relative to the protection of the public interest." The courts have held
6 unequivocally that it is the settled rule in California that the Attorney General is
7 authorized "to file any civil action for the enforcement of the laws of the state or the
8 United States Constitution, which in the absence of legislative restriction to the contrary,
9 he deems necessary for the protection of public rights and interests."
10 32. That according to the published July 2010 analysis conducted by Hans Bader (1)
11 of counsel to the Competitive Enterprise Institute of Washington District of Columbia
12 Edmund G. Brown is “The Nation’s Worst State Attorneys General” (2) with the Executive
13 summary, Introduction and particulars as to Mr. Brown see Exhibit A, as to Mr. Brown
14 who fails in all four areas analyzed in the criteria for AG ratings states:
15 “ 1. Ethical Breaches and Selective Applications of the Law. Using campaign
16 contributors to bring lawsuits. Using the attorney general’s office to promote
17 personal gain or enrich cronies or relatives. Favoritism towards campaign donors
18 and other uneven or unpredictable application of the law (including refusal to
19 defend state laws or state agencies being sued when plausible defenses exist).
20
21 “2. Fabricating Law. Advocating that courts, in effect, rewrite statutes or stretch
22 constitutional norms in order to make new law—for example, seeking judicial

1
Hans Bader is Counsel for Special Projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He
has litigated a variety of constitutional cases, focusing on federalism, civil rights, and
First Amendment issues. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a Bachelor’s
in economics and history, and later earned his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School.

2
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Hans%20Bader%20-
%20The%20Nation%27s%20Worst%20State%20Attorneys%20General_0.pdf

1 imposition of new taxes or regulations, or restrictions on private citizens’ freedom
2 to contract.
3
4 “3. Usurping Legislative Powers. Bringing lawsuits that usurp regulatory
5 powers granted to the federal government or other state entities, or that are
6 untethered to any specific statutory or constitutional grant of authority.
7
8 “4. Predatory Practices. Seeking to regulate conduct occurring wholly in other
9 states—for example, preying on out-of-state businesses that have not violated
10 state law and have no remedy at the polls.
11
12 “ 1. Jerry Brown, California
13 The worst attorney general in America is California’s Jerry Brown. One of the
14 most fundamental duties of a state attorney general is to defend all state laws
15 against constitutional challenges. California Attorney General Jerry Brown has
16 abdicated that duty by picking and choosing which laws to defend, and even
17 seeking to undermine those, he disagreed with (regardless of their
18 constitutionality). For example, he refused to defend Proposition 8, an
19 amendment to California’s constitution that prohibits gay marriage—but not civil
20 unions—even after it was upheld by the state Supreme Court. Absurdly, Brown
21 claimed that Proposition 8 somehow violated the state constitution—even though
22 it is actually part of California’s constitution. Brown also claimed that Proposition
23 8 violates the federal Constitution, even though the Supreme Court and other
24 courts have already rejected such challenges to state gay marriage bans. While
25 The author of this paper publicly opposed Proposition 8; it plainly does not violate
26 the state constitution…
27
28 “Brown’s fundraising practices raise ethical concerns. He collected $52,500 in
29 campaign contributions from relatives and from a company his office had been
30 investigating in a public pension fund corruption probe. Using his leverage as
31 state attorney general, Brown raised nearly $10 million in contributions to favored
32 charities from industries that he oversees as state attorney general, including
33 utilities, casino operators, and health care organizations. Brown also conducted
34 an investigation of the scandal-prone leftist activist group Association of
35 Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known by its acronym,
36 ACORN, that has been criticized as a whitewash. ACORN faced a public
37 relations disaster in September 2009, when the conservative commentary
38 website BigGovernment.com released a series of highly embarrassing hidden
39 camera videos. In the videos, ACORN employees at several of the group’s
40 offices around the country are seen providing advice to the filmmakers, a man
41 and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute, on how to conduct several illegal
42 activities, including running a prostitution ring. In his report, Brown said that while
43 ACORN did nothing “criminal,” his office found likely violations of state law.
44 Brown closed his investigation without taking any action against ACORN, despite
45 admitting that it had committed “highly inappropriate acts,” such as failure to file
46 tax returns, illegally dumping 20,000 pages of documents, and four instances of
47 possible voter registration fraud. Worse, Brown criticized the filmmakers who

1 exposed ACORN’s wrongdoing, claiming their videotape “violated” ACORN’s
2 privacy—even though the videos were all made at the ACORN offices’ public
3 reception areas.”
4
5 and that at the Report page 21 states in Conclusion:
6
7 “Many state attorneys general across the nation conscientiously fulfill their duties
8 every day. However, others, like those discussed above, have failed to heed the
9 limits on their own power. Instead of focusing on their historical function of
10 defending state agencies in court and providing legal advice, they have chosen
11 to use lawsuits as a weapon by which to undemocratically impose new
12 regulations on the public. In the process, they have usurped the lawmaking
13 authority of state legislatures and Congress. To satisfy their ambitions, and
14 enrich political allies, they have imposed great costs on our nation’s economy
15 and system of government, while fostering corruption, and undermining
16 constitutional checks and balances. The power of state AGs needs to be brought
17 back under control.
18
19
20 As to Defendants’ contention that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's seventh cause of
21 action for unjust enrichment as to supporting facts
24 for brevity, as to Defendants unjust enrichment plaintiff along with those similarly
25 situated have been denied honest service of elected and or appointed officials who have
26 collected a salary and benefits under the basis of ultra vires activities in the failure to
27 maintain the integrity of the State Database as is integrated into the national database
28 of all states who maintain a voter registration database; and as for direct damages other
29 than as a matter of liberty or intangibles as to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated
30 as members of the Republican Party and other entitled to recover as members of a
31 class with each having contributed to the respective candidate for California Secretary of
32 State based upon the Campaign Finance Form 460 submitted by Mr. Dunn for his
33 campaign has reported receiving $642,356.62 as of September 30, 2010 as shown on

1 Campaign Disclosure Statement Summary Page (see Exhibit B) and as for Dr. Orly
2 Taitz is about $52,000. That Plaintiff personally has expended and or donated less than
3 $5,000.
4 Defendants Failure To Maintain The Integrity of
5 The Voter Registration Database With VRA
8 for brevity, as to the State Defendants who are Federal agents of the EAC as a result of
9 California voluntarily deciding to use a voter registration base, and that because such
10 database is subject to fraudulent use requires Defendants Kelly, Bowen, Brown and
11 their agents to exercise a heightened standard of care to remove the deceased, those
12 relocated out of state, duplicate registrations, and ascertain that those who do register
13 are US Citizens of the proper age and civil status, including the requirement that the
14 person has a bona fide identity and that registration is not executed to circumvent the
15 election law and or the VRA. That in part the NVRA and HAVA were enacted because
16 those states that maintain a voter registration database have failed to exercise a
17 heightened standard of care to prevent fraud in California and the several states that
18 use a database.
19 35. That the pattern of failure of prior California State Officials to maintain a valid
20 voter registration list is shown by Superior Court evidence in the 1996 re-election defeat
21 of Robert K. Dornan (3), and the 2002 evidence of fraudulent use of the Voter registration

3
The Robert K. Dornan (RKD) story is incomplete without further explanation of the 1996 RKD
re-election defeat, after he had made a member speech on the floor of the US House attacking
both the Republican and Democrat support of the homosexual agenda and exploitation of illegal
aliens in June of 1996, in which his re-election was fraudulently interfered with by the state if

1 database at the General Election for Dean Gardner as a candidate for Assembly (4) (see
2 Exhibit C), and that when evidence is compared to the methods for fraudulent use of
3 the voter registration database prior to the 1993 enactment of the National Voter
4 Registration Act remains the same, with methods in use and comparable to the fraud
5 evidence proven before a 1983 grand jury in Brooklyn New York by Elizabeth Holtzman
6 as cited by Hans A. von Spakovsky, Esq. (5) in the March 10, 2008 Memorandum of law
7 entitled “Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes: A Case Study in Voter Impersonation” filed in
8 the case Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007 , w/
9 SCOTUS, cert. granted Sept. 25, 2007) (see Exhibit D); and based upon the pattern of
10 the lax partisan standard of care shown by Defendants remains unchanged and that as
11 a matter of fact the voter registration database is improperly maintained with the
12 deceased, non-citizens, multiple registration and false registration and stolen
13 impersonation for the purpose of obtaining reimbursement by EAC / DOJ under HAVA.

California in his then Congressional district race wherein the State registered 4,023 alien non-
citizens as proven on record with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) [meaning at
least they were on a visa or had permanent residence whereas illegal aliens are totally off the
radar of the INS except for records of deportation upon arrest when there is illegal entry], and in
which no less than 2,369 of those aliens voted for Loretta Sanchez with impunity; and despite
RKD heroic efforts in seeking due process in State Court, in which the fraudulent election as a
matter of public record was conducted by consent not competition of the Republican and
Democratic National Parties, when about to be resolved in state court was removed by then
Speaker of the House to be buried in the dark of night there in the US House by the traitor
Gingrich and other bi-partisan Progressive partisans of both parties to hide vote fraud of their
own, and promote exploitation of illegal alien harboring and sanctuary policies.
4
http://www.portervillepost.com/politics/Voter-Fraud-Simple.html
5
—Hans A. von Spakovsky served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two
years. Before that, he was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S.
Department of Justice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. He also served as a
county election official in Georgia for five years as a member of the Fulton County Registration
and Election Board.


1 36. That based upon the comparison of the voter registration database of Texas and
2 California both states databases are significantly in variance with that of New York (see
3 Exhibit E), wherein the necessary firewalls and safeguards are in place even with the
4 inaccuracies therein admitted to by the NYS Board of Elections in 2006 on the Court
5 record before Judge Sharpe in U.S. v NYS BOE NDNY 06-cv-263; and that New York
6 fully complies with the current Voter Registration Form (see Exhibit F) that requests that
7 the State of prior registration be designated by the Affirmant filling out the form for a
8 properly executed form filing unlike ignored by the State Defendants in California.
9 37. That in September 2006, RKD corresponded with the US Ambassador to the
10 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Office of Democratic
11 Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to determine the duties and responsibilities of
12 each state of the several states, the Federal government and OSCE / ODIHR as to the
13 national voter registration database that according to current reports is not accurately
14 maintained as a Federal Issue of concern (see Exhibit G).
15 38. That according to Ruth Gardner as shown in Exhibit C, the 2002 Dean Gardner
16 run for the 30th Assembly District tally showed 121,000 persons voted with the opponent
17 ahead by 200 votes with a survey by mail of 2650 voters showed that 700 surveys were
18 undeliverable with 1691 questionnaires that were answered and returned by electors, in
19 which 83 admitted in writing that they were not citizens, 273 stated they were not
20 registered to vote and did not live in the district while 69 more admitted they voted more
21 than once; and it was proven that of the 1318 voting irregularities 37% of the Democrats
22 were fraudulent and of the 2650 votes 905 were illegal meaning that Dean Gardner won
23 but the State officials did nothing, as with RKD years earlier.

1 Plaintiff Argument As To Federal Jurisdiction And Authority
4 for brevity, as to the State Defendants who are Federal agents of the EAC, as Federal
5 law also recognizes the broad authority of states' attorney generals. In any suit in federal
6 court where the constitutionality of a state law is at issue, the state attorney general has
7 an absolute right to intervene in that case and have all the rights of a party to the case.
8 In addition to these broad grants of authority, many California statutes specifically
9 delineate the Attorney General's authority.
10 40. Were there an alternative to Mr. Brown’s claim of inability to act in the state of
11 California, if nothing else Mr. Brown must argue the constitutionality of the conflict in the
12 SOS use of the Administrative Code versus the Election code, and in which Mr. Brown is
13 properly named to respond as well as to the failure to act on the complaints filed with his
14 office, then accordingly the U.S, Department of Justice Criminal Division's Public
15 Integrity Unit has the power and authority to investigate such breach of fiduciary duty
16 involving election fraud. Falsification of eligibility documentation by a candidate may fall
17 under one or more of the causes of action that the DOJ's manual describes. For
18 instance, "conspiracy to cause illegal voting".
19 41. It would seem possible that the DOJ is responsible to at least investigate
20 Plaintiff’s and others' accusations that Mr. Dunn committed acts of spoliation with the
21 intent to defraud voters, as with Senator Obama were he not born in Hawaii and that

1 especially applies to Senator John S. McCain (6) and Róger Calero (7 ) of the Socialist
2 Worker’s Party on the 2008 General Election Ballot in California, outrageously wasn’t
3 done; and as was properly complained of by Plaintiff to both Bowen and Brown to no
4 avail, and in that Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and
5 resolve matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an 'eligible'
6 candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy,
7 misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.
8 Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act, which has the

6
John Sidney McCain was born in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama according to the
Panama Canal Health Department not in the Panama Canal Zone, and that according to
the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty says Colon Panama the birth city cited on McCain’s 1936
long form birth certificate (where he was witnessed being born, and where his parents
resided, Colon, Republic de Panama), has 26 articles in which the two pertinent to the
status of the city of Colon under that Treaty refer to the Convention for the Construction
of a Ship Canal (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty), November 18, 1903: ARTICLE I The United
States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.
ARTICLE II The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use,
occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction
maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles
extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the
Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine
miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama
into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark
WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITIES OF PANAMA AND COLON and the harbors
adjacent to said cities, WHICH ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
ZONE ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS GRANT…”
McCain is not a Natural Born Citizen, who perjured his affidavit for ballot access.
(Emphasis by Plaintiff).
7
Calero was born in Nicaragua in 1969. He and his family fled via Los Angeles,
California in 1985. Calero is now a permanent resident alien (holding a green card)
since 1990. While in Los Angeles, Calero joined a socialist movement and helped
mobilize support against Proposition 187 in the early 90s and is not a Natural Born
Citizen. (Emphasis by Plaintiff).

1 potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the
2 principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
3 a. All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and
4 honestly as a vote for a usurper is not a vote, is in fact, voting for a usurper
5 that may be treason and/or a criminal offence.
6 b. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be
7 counted as ballots that do not have the name of an eligible candidate are
8 invalid.
9 Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
10 • The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated; and
11 • The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid
12 ballets/votes for a usurper cannot be certified as valid ballots or votes)
13 42. That Plaintiff did properly complain to Bowen and Brown of both Dunn and
14 Obama, which rhetorically if not to them whose job is it to check eligibility and especially
15 presidential eligibility when the states, the FEC, EAC, judiciary and even the
16 OSCE/ODIHR fail in their duty?
17 43. The ANSWER: The U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public
18 Integrity Section has the duty, for as the following information is taken from the DOJ
19 manual on prosecuting Election fraud requires that ultimately, it is the DOJ's Criminal
20 Division's Public Integrity that has the authority to step in and sort out this mess...The
21 federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic
22 rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative
23 democracy, remain uncorrupted...the federal interest is based on the presence of a
24 federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a

1 potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I,
2 Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the
3 Seventeenth Amendment.
4 44. That In 2002, the Department of Justice established a Ballot Access and Voting
5 Integrity Initiative to spearhead its increased efforts to address election crimes and
6 voting rights violations. Under the ongoing Initiative, election crimes are a high law
7 enforcement priority of the Department.
8 45. That the Constitution confers upon the states primary authority over the election
9 process. Accordingly, federal law does not directly address how elections should be
10 conducted. However, local law enforcement often is not equipped to prosecute election
11 offenses. Federal law enforcement might be the only enforcement option available.
12 46. Further that the federal prosecutor’s role in matters involving corruption of the
13 process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting
14 individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election. (This DOES NOT
15 mean that preventative measures have never been taken by the DOJ, they have!)
16 47. Further that in determining whether an election fraud allegation warrants federal
17 criminal investigation and possible prosecution requires that federal prosecutors and
18 investigators answer two basic questions:
19 a. Is criminal prosecution the appropriate remedy for the allegations and facts
20 presented? Criminal prosecution is most appropriate when the facts
21 demonstrate that the defendant’s objective was to corrupt the process by
22 which voters were registered, or by which ballots were obtained, cast, or
23 counted.

1 b. Is there potential federal jurisdiction over the conduct? Answering this
2 question requires determining whether the conduct is cognizable under the
3 federal criminal statutes that apply to election crimes. These generally allow
4 for the prosecution of corrupt acts that occur in elections when the name of a
5 federal candidate appears on the ballot, that are committed “under color of
6 law,” that involve voting by non-citizens, that focus on registering to vote, and
7 when the election fraud is part of a larger public corruption problem reachable
8 using general anti-corruption statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1346,
9 1951, and 1952?
10 48. Justice Department supervision over the enforcement of all criminal statutes and
11 prosecutive theories involving corruption of the election process, criminal patronage
12 violations, and campaign financing crimes is delegated to the Criminal Division’s Public
13 Integrity Section. This Headquarters’ consultation policy is set forth in the U.S. DEP’T
14 OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEYS’ MANUAL (USAM), Section 9-85.210.
15 49. The Public Integrity Section and its Election Crimes Branch are available to assist
16 United States Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in handling election crime matters.
17 This assistance includes evaluating election crime allegations, structuring
18 investigations, and drafting indictments and other pleadings. The Election Crimes
19 Branch also serves as the point of contact between the Department of Justice and the
20 FEC, which share enforcement jurisdiction over federal campaign financing violations.
21 50. A Historic background regarding the election process details many early
22 Enforcement Acts that were put in place to ensure that elections were free from
23 corruption for the general public. Many of the Enforcement Acts had broad jurisdictional
24 predicates that allowed them to be applied to a wide variety of corrupt election practices

1 when a federal candidate was on the ballot. In Coy, the Supreme Court held that
2 Congress had authority under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause to
3 regulate any activity during a mixed federal/state election that exposed the federal
4 election to potential harm, whether that harm materialized or not. Coy is still applicable
5 law. United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 908 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v.
6 Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874-
7 75 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F.2d 1003, 1010 (5th Cir.1981).
8 51. That after Reconstruction, federal activism in election matters subsided. The
9 repeal of most of the Enforcement Acts in 1894 eliminated the statutory tools that had
10 encouraged federal activism in election fraud matters. Two surviving provisions of these
11 Acts, now embodied in 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, covered only intentional deprivations
12 of rights guaranteed directly by the Constitution or federal law. The courts during this
13 period held that the Constitution directly conferred a right to vote only for federal officers,
14 and that conduct aimed at corrupting nonfederal contests was not prosecutable in
15 federal courts. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Guinn v. United
16 States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915). Federal attention to election fraud was further limited by
17 case law holding that primary elections were not part of the official election process,
18 Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918), and by cases like United States v.
19 Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918), which read the entire subject of vote buying out of
20 federal criminal law, even when it was directed at federal contests.
21 52. In 1941, the Supreme Court reversed direction, overturning Newberry. The Court
22 recognized that primary elections are an integral part of the process by which
23 candidates are elected to office. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Classic
24 changed the judicial attitude toward federal intervention in election matters and ushered

1 in a new period of federal activism. Federal courts now regard the right to vote in a fairly
2 conducted election as a constitutionally protected feature of United States citizenship.
3 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In 1973, the use of Section 241 to address
4 election fraud began to expand. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th
5 Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). Since then, this statute has
6 been successfully applied to prosecute certain types of local election fraud. United
7 States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838
8 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v.
9 Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974).
10 53. That over the past forty years Congress has enacted new criminal laws with
11 broad jurisdictional bases to combat false voter registrations, vote buying, multiple
12 voting, and fraudulent voting in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot. 42
13 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i (e), 1973gg-10. These statutes rest on Congress’s power to
14 regulate federal elections (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4) and on its power under the
15 Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18) to enact laws to protect
16 the federal election process from the potential of corruption. The federal jurisdictional
17 predicate underlying these statutes is satisfied as long as either the name of a federal
18 candidate is on the ballot or the fraud involves corruption of the voter registration
19 process in a state where one registers to vote simultaneously for federal as well as other
20 offices. United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. McCranie,
21 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985);
22 United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Garcia, 719
23 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982); United
24 States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F2d

1 1003 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir. 1975); United
2 States v. Cianciulli, 482 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1979).
3 54. That as we can see, although election laws may have changed and evolved over
4 the years, Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve
5 matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an "eligible" candidate of
6 their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other
7 irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.
8 55. The following is a basis for federal prosecution under the statutes referenced in
9 each category:
10 56. Conspiring to prevent voters from participating in elections in which a federal
11 candidate is on the ballot, or when done “under color of law” in any election, federal or
12 nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). (Tricking voters into thinking that an eligible
13 candidate is on the ballot is a conspiracy to defraud) In the Conspiracy Against Rights.
14 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to “conspire to
15 injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
16 Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
17 privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of
18 law. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is
19 among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is
20 protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte
21 Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). Wherein it is true that a vote for a usurper is NOT a
22 vote! A citizen can not exercise his/her voting right, if there is no equalized candidate to
23 vote for in the same way as a citizen can not sell you his/her neighbor's car if he/she
24 does not hold the title to the car. Therefore, the DOJ has an obligation to make certain

1 before a federal election that a presidential candidacies is eligible to hold office. Section
2 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held
3 to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. Section 241 embraces
4 conspiracies such as to injure, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right
5 to vote, Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States,
6 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be
7 successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be
8 proof of an overt act. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal
9 election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any
10 particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). That section 241
11 embraces conspiracies intended to injure. In this case, an injury does NOT even need to
12 occur, nor does anyone have to have conclusive proof of an overt act. In the case of
13 Misers Dunn, Obama, McCain and or Calero only the question has to be raised that he
14 "may not" meet the "eligibility" requirements to become rightfully elected to the office of
15 SOS and or POTUS.
16 57. In election fraud cases, this public official is usually an election officer using his
17 office to dilute valid ballots with invalid ballots or to otherwise corrupt an honest vote
18 tally in derogation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
19 Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (table)
20 (available at 1992 WL 296782); United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir.
21 1988); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger,
22 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974);
23 United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417
24 U.S. 211 (1974). In failing to fulfill his/her fiduciary duties, our Secretary of State and

1 Federal Election Commission officials who allow "invalid" candidates to be placed on
2 ballots corrupts an honest vote and violate the Equal Protection and Due Process
3 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4 58. Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242, also
5 enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of
6 law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right,
7 privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
8 States. Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy.
9 However, the defendants must have acted illegally “under color of law,” i.e., the case
10 must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that
11 the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she
12 jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S.
13 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed
14 with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United
15 States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). This law would make it a CRIME for ANYONE
16 who knowing acted in concert with Dunn, Obama, McCain and or Calero to cover up his
17 scheme to defraud the American people, by posing as an "eligible" candidate."
18 59. False Information in, and Payments for, Registering and Voting. 42 U.S.C. §
19 1973i(c) Section 1973i(c) makes it unlawful, in an election in which a federal candidate
20 is on the ballot, to knowingly and willfully conspire with another person to vote illegally.
21 Congress added Section 1973i(c) to the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure the integrity of
22 the balloting process in the context of an expanded franchise. In so doing, Congress
23 intended that Section 1973i(c) have a broad reach.

1 60. If Dunn, Obama, McCain and or Calero or his co-conspirators knowingly
2 registered voters because of a promise upon election, knowing full well that he was NOT
3 "eligible" to hold office, not only did he commit fraud, but he committed a crime against
4 42 U.S.C. Section 1973i(c) that has been held to protect two distinct aspects of a federal
5 election: the actual results of the election, and the integrity of the process of electing
6 federal officials. United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994). In Cole, the Seventh
7 Circuit held that federal jurisdiction is satisfied so long as a single federal candidate is
8 on the ballot – even if the federal candidate is unopposed – because fraud in a mixed
9 election automatically has an impact on the integrity of the federal election process. See
10 also United States v. Sloane, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); and United States v.
11 McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction under Section 1973i(c) satisfied by
12 name of unopposed federal candidate on ballot). Any conduct that violates the "integrity"
13 of an election is a CRIME. Obviously, the integrity of this election has been
14 compromised as more internet blogs pick up the story because of Obama's failure to
15 provide the mysterious "vault copy" of his birth certificate. Therefore, the DOJ has an
16 obligation to act, as a silent majority of Americans has already called the integrity of the
17 presidential election into question.
18 61. Section 1973i(c) is particularly useful for two reasons: (1) it eliminates the
19 unresolved issue of the scope of the constitutional right to vote in matters not involving
20 racial discrimination, and (2) it eliminates the need to prove that a given pattern of
21 corrupt conduct had an actual impact on a federal election.; and that this provisions
22 applies as central, because this states that the DOJ can get involved in any matter not
23 involving racial discrimination and it also eliminates the Plaintiff need to prove that a
24 corrupt conduct had an actual impact on the election.

1 62. Conspiracy to cause illegal voting. The second clause of Section 1973i(c)
2 criminalizes conspiracies to encourage “illegal voting.” The phrase “illegal voting” is not
3 defined in the statute. On its face, it encompasses unlawful conduct in connection with
4 voting. This is important, because the phrase "illegal" voting has not been defined by
5 statute. Surely, a vote for candidate you know or suspect does not meet the eligibility
6 requirements could be considered an "illegal" vote," because, if it is proven, that this in
7 deed IS the case, the person voting would be committing a CRIME.
8 63. Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of constitutional rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241
9 and § 242. Section 241 makes it a ten-year felony to “conspire to injure, oppress,
10 threaten, or intimidate” any person in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured
11 by the Constitution or laws of the United States” – including the right to vote. (Another
12 CRIME committed by Mr. Obama, in conspiring with the DNC and the rest of his cronies
13 by prohibiting Americans to exercise their rights under law.
14 64. False claims of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 911. Section 911 prohibits the knowing
15 and willful false assertion of United States citizenship by a noncitizen. See, e.g., United
16 States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951); Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831
17 (8th Cir. 1943). Violations of Section 911 are punishable by up to three years of
18 imprisonment as noted; all states require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for
19 voting. Section 911 requires proof that the offender was aware he was not a United
20 States citizen, and that he was falsely claiming to be a citizen. Violations of Section 911
21 are felonies, punishable by up to three years of imprisonment. If Mr. Obama, McCain
22 and or Calero presents himself as a natural-born U.S. Citizen and they are NOT, when
23 he votes in this election, he is committing yet, another CRIME.

1 65. “Honest services” fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 As summarized above, prior to
2 McNally nearly all the circuits had held that a scheme to defraud the public of a fair and
3 impartial election was one of the “intangible rights” schemes covered by the mail and
4 wire fraud statutes. McNally repudiated this theory in an opinion that not only rejected
5 the intangible rights theory of mail and wire fraud, but also did so by citing several
6 election fraud cases as examples of the kinds of fraud the Court found outside these
7 criminal laws. It is noted that the following year, Congress responded to McNally by
8 enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defined “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include “the
9 intangible right of honest services.” However, this language did not clearly restore the
10 use of these statutes to election frauds. This is because Section 1346 encompasses
11 only schemes to deprive a victim of the intangible right of “honest services,” and most
12 voter fraud schemes do not appear to involve such an objective. Moreover,
13 jurisprudence in the arena of public corruption has generally confined Section 1346 to
14 schemes involving traditional forms of corruption that involve a clear breach of the
15 fiduciary duty of “honest services” owed by a public official to the body politic, e.g.,
16 bribery, extortion, embezzlement, theft, conflicts of interest, and, in some instances,
17 gratuities. Obviously, whether knowingly or not, elected officials and other public
18 servants have breached their fiduciary duty to provide "honest services" to American
19 citizens.
20 66. “Cost-of-election” theory. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 One case, United States v. DeFries,
21 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995), has held that a scheme to cast fraudulent ballots in a labor
22 union election, which had the effect of tainting the entire election, was a scheme to
23 defraud the election authority charged with running the election of the costs involved.
24 DeFries was not a traditional election fraud prosecution. Rather, it involved corruption of

1 a union election when supporters of one candidate for union office cast fraudulent
2 ballots for that candidate. When the scheme was uncovered, the United States
3 Department of Labor ordered that a new election be held, thereby causing the union to
4 incur an actual pecuniary loss. The D.C. Circuit held that the relationship between that
5 pecuniary loss and the voter fraud scheme was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
6 McNally. The fraud that Mr. Dunn, Obama, McCain and or Calero would have
7 perpetrated on the American people if he were later found out to be ineligible for
8 president will have indeed caused another candidate the presidential election. Worse
9 yet, if it is found out AFTER the election that Dunn and or for that matter Obama /
10 McCain Calero and or whomever did not meet the eligibility requirements to hold office,
11 off votes for Obama/Biden would be "illegal" and "invalid" votes and would therefore
12 should not be counted. Therefore, Biden cannot be President either if an "illegal" and
13 "invalid" vote was cast for any Dunn / Obama / McCain / Calero tickets. That at this point
14 in time the election will, most likely, have to be re-held no matter who would be
15 declared the winner, because the Dunn / Obama / McCain / Calero tickets would have
16 received the most "valid" and "legal" votes.
17 67. Election-related allegations range from minor infractions, such as campaigning
18 too close to the polls, to sophisticated criminal enterprises aimed at ensuring the
19 election of corrupt public officials. Such matters present obvious and wide disparities in
20 their adverse social consequences. In theory the Department must strive to achieve a
21 nationally consistent response to electoral fraud, it is important that federal investigators
22 and prosecutors avail themselves of the expertise and institutional knowledge that the
23 Public Integrity Section possesses in this sensitive area of law enforcement.

1 68. Lastly, Interference in election by employees of federal, state, or territorial
2 governments: 18 U.S.C. §595, Section 595 was enacted as part of the original 1939
3 Hatch Act. The statute prohibits any public officer or employee, in connection with an
4 activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official
5 authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal
6 office. This statute is aimed at the misuse of official authority. Section 595 applies to all
7 public officials, whether elected or appointed, federal or nonfederal. For example, an
8 appointed policymaking government official who bases a specific governmental decision
9 on intent to influence the vote for or against an identified federal candidate violates
10 Section 595. This Code may certainly apply to those officials who used public computers
11 and or facilities to "disparage" Dr. Orly Taitz as shown in FAC Exhibit or Plaintiff for that
12 matter for supporting her and or pursue justice herein, if it can be proved, that the intent
13 was to discredit Dr. Taitz to interfere or "affect" the election process.
14 69. That there is a question to be addressed by every elected official charged with
15 the maintenance of the integrity of the respective State Voter registration database and
16 the EAC for the National integrity of election in that every elected official in regards to
17 the National Voter Registration Act and HAVA and related law must be in compliance
18 with the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and related law passed by a
19 Congress that had insight, under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) any US citizen
20 that knowingly assists an illegal alien, provides them with employment, food, water or
21 shelter has committed a felony. City, county or State officials that declare their
22 jurisdictions to be "Open Cities, Counties or States are subject to arrest; as are law
23 enforcement agencies who chose not to enforce this law. Police officers who ignore
24 officials who violate Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) are committing a Section 274

1 federal felony. Furthermore, according to Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of
2 1952, if you live in a city, county or State that refuses to enforce the law for whatever
3 reason, the officials making those rules are financially liable for any crime committed
4 within their jurisdiction by an illegal alien.
5 Plaintiff’s Response Summary in Opposition to Dismissal
6 70. The State of California and its’ agents have denied Plaintiff, a US Citizen equal
7 protection under the law and deprived Plaintiff life, liberty, or property, without due
8 process of law as is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment Section 1. As all persons born or
9 naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
10 the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
11 any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
12 nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
13 law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14 71. The State of California and its’ agents as a result of sanctuary policies have
15 denied Plaintiff as a US Citizen and Citizen of California the right to vote for and have
16 adequate proportional representation in the US House of representatives from the State
17 of California and the district in which Plaintiff resides by allowing Aliens to vote and
18 registered without taking affirmation precautions as if evidenced by the clear evidence
19 presented in the matter of the 1996 election fraud infringing the reelection of
20 Congressman Robert K. Dornan then, recently in 2002 election fraud infringing the
21 election of Dean Gardner in that both criminal matters involve the lack of enforcement of
22 law with the California Voter registration database as with the matter complained of
23 herein.

1 72. When a person signs anything under penalty of perjury as with the declaration of
2 registration (which is not an affidavit that requires such affirmation before a living
3 breathing witness) and that when a person is competent for their act signs such
4 statement without a witness such person has taken responsibility for what he/she signed
5 no matter what anybody else may say in the process. The signature on such an un-
6 witnessed statement is an admission against interest that may only be reversed by re-
7 registering to vote or affiliate after being notified for confirmation of the submitted
8 registration form is done by the local county registrar (must be done as per the code)
9 which when done should be the check against fraud ONLY when Mickey mouse or
10 Donald duck returns the confirmation with the signature as the only means of
11 identification.
12 73. To prevent registration fraud we first must go back to an affidavit affirmed before
13 a notary witness who must also sign after verifying the person's identification especially
14 in regards to voter registration as the only means to get a conviction on fraud in that a
15 piece of paper may not be cross examined in court only a person may be cross
16 examined. Of course, without the necessary check by the registrar of the other state
17 databases to verify that the actual signer is (separate from the guarantee of
18 impersonation) not also registered in another state must notify the state registrar there
19 to prevent multiple voting frauds. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was
20 enacted to wrest control of registration from the firewall protection of a local registrar
21 and giving such control to the devil himself to conduct registration and voting at a
22 distance, and now with the so-called Help America to Vote Act of 2002 has become
23 possible to register, vote and count that vote at a distance too. Therefore, without say a

1 thumb print given by the voter at every election there is no way to stop multiple voting
2 and impersonation fraud.
3 74. That Plaintiff suffers irreparable harm with time as the essence because the
4 ongoing challenge as before the Primary and now after the Primary is without a timely
5 fair hearing in State Court as to the ballot status of Mr. Dunn that as a matter of law
6 requires a hearing on the presentment of certain facts there denied, and with imminent
7 irreparable harm were the Ballots to be printed to proceed to the General Election
8 without Plaintiff’s requested relief granted before that printing is done for the November
9 2, 2010 General Election for State and Federal Officers to proceed; and
10 75. That notwithstanding the issues of damage, that Plaintiff has standing with 42
11 USC Section 1973GG-9: Civil enforcement and private right of action and as related
12 State law similarly adopted to be here as in State Court if the Petition were granted in
13 the matter of irreparable harm to Plaintiff along with those similarly situated with time as
14 the essence is due to State action(s), as all State Defendants are Democrats including
15 the Court Judge, who delay and deny substantive due process with intent to interfere
16 with the First and Fifth amendment rights and liberty of Republicans in violation of 42
17 USC §1981, §1983, §1985(3) and §1986; and
18 76. Despite the requirements of 42 USC §1973C: as to alteration of voting
19 qualifications and procedures by arbitrary and capricious action under color of state law
20 by State or political subdivision for declaratory judgment on denial or abridgement of
21 voting rights, Plaintiff is entitled to a three-judge district court with appeal to Supreme
22 Court; as to Section 1973I(c)(d): Prohibited acts , with breach of fiduciary duty as per 42
23 USC Section 1973FF-1 State responsibilities; and with 42 USC §1973gg that applies

1 herein with any State that maintains and uses a voter registration data base; and whose
2 State Officers are Federal agents; and
3 77. That the State is intent to print the ballot for the General Election with Damon
4 Dunn on it, as expressed by the State’s Demurrer of June 11, 2010 to the Complaint and
5 the State and Orange County Demurrers of August 13, 2010 and August 12, 2010
6 respectively to the First Amended Complaint, and therein requested and have been
7 granted a State Court hearing on October 25, 2010 after the ballots have been printed;
8 and
9 78. Thereby State Defendants deny Plaintiff and those similarly situated equal
10 protection of the law and substantive due process with a fair hearing in time to correct
11 the ballot, and for that reason alone Plaintiff desires the bifurcation of liability and
12 damages with an expedited declaratory judgment on equity issues as to liability with the
13 law and expedited jury trial on the facts as to liability under the law with the
14 compounding damages severed and remanded back to State Court jury trial there.
15 79. That Damon Dunn and the State Defendants act across state lines to deny
16 Plaintiff and those similarly situated as Republicans equal protection of the law and
17 substantive due process as if persons under the notorious Jim Crow laws.;
18 80. That the facts prove Damon Dunn acts with intent to commit a crime;
19 81. That the facts prove State Defendants act with intent to commit a crime.
20 82. That the Law provides the Court with a remedy for relief and
21 83. That all State Defendants must be barred from the ballot and holding office.
22 84. That the EAC appoint a special master to review the integrity of the California
23 Database and that of every state of the several states that maintain a voter registration
24 database.

1 85. That although the Ballot is printed for the General Election that the State
2 Defendants are to be order to announce before the election the outcome of the
3 Declaratory Judgment for the Voter to make an informed decision on November 2, 2010
4 86. That the matter of Liability for damages must be remanded back to State Court
5 for further jury hearing on extent and scope of damages to include punitive award, costs
6 of the proceeding and Attorney fees as necessary; and
7 87. That Plaintiff is entitled to further and different relief the Court herein deems
8 necessary for justice to be done herein to prevent further vote fraud in the State of
9 California and of the several States
10 88. I do solemnly declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC §1746 that the facts
11 and circumstances described above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
12
13 Dated: October ____, 2010

14 Colorado Springs, Colorado
15 __________________________
16 Pamela Barnett
17 2541 Warrego Way
18 Sacramento, CA, 95826
19 Telephone: (415)846-7170

Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs
CAED Civil CASE: 10−cv−02216−FCD−DAD
EXHIBIT A
Competitive
Enterprise
Institute
Issue Analysis
The Nation's Worst

State Attorneys
General
By Hans Bader
July 2010
Advancing Liberty From the Economy to Ecology 2010 No. 2

The Nation’s Worst State Attorneys General
By Hans Bader
Executive Summary
State attorneys general (AGs) are among the most powerful office holders in the country, with few institutional
checks on their powers. A state attorney general, such as Oklahoma’s Drew Edmondson, can bring a politically
motivated prosecution in violation of the First Amendment, yet his victims may well have no legal redress. With
the possible exception of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the enormous power wielded by state
attorneys general has received little scrutiny. This discussion of the nation’s half-dozen worst attorneys general,
like its 2007 precursor, seeks to focus much needed attention on their most egregious abuses of power.
The historic function of a state attorney general is to act as the state’s chief legal advisor, charged with
defending the state in court and giving legal opinions to officials on pending bills and policies. In some instances,
attorneys general have been entrusted by state legislatures with enforcing specified laws, assisting district attorneys
in prosecuting serious crimes, and disseminating legal information.
Like other government offices, state attorney general offices were designed to have limited powers, set
forth by their respective state constitutions and statutes. Under all state constitutions, the legislature, not the
attorney general, is given the power to make laws. If the legislature has not specifically given the attorney general
the right to enforce a particular law, then he may be exceeding his authority by bringing a lawsuit under it.
Federal law also limits an attorney general’s power. When a state attorney general attempts to regulate
conduct in another state, that may violate not only state law, but also the Constitution’s Due Process and Commerce
clauses, which forbid any state from imposing its laws on another state or regulating interstate commerce.
Unfortunately, many state attorneys general now ignore these constraints. In recent years, many state AGs
have increasingly usurped the roles of state legislatures and Congress by using lawsuits to impose interstate and
national regulations and extract money from out-of-state defendants who have little voice in a state’s political
processes.
Although abuses are widespread, some attorneys general are worse than others. The greatest harms inflicted
by overreaching state AGs include encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the
affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism
towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to defend state laws or state agencies being sued.
Bader: The Nation’s Worst State Attorneys General 1

Introduction
State attorneys general (AGs) are among the most powerful office holders
in the country, with few institutional checks on their powers. A state
attorney general, such as Oklahoma’s Drew Edmondson, can bring a
politically motivated prosecution in violation of the First Amendment, yet Under all state
his victims may well have no legal redress. With the possible exception
of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the enormous power constitutions, the
wielded by state attorneys general has received little scrutiny. This legislature, not the
discussion of the nation’s half-dozen worst attorneys general, like its 2007
precursor,1 seeks to focus much needed attention on their most egregious attorney general, is
abuses of power. given the power to
The historic function of a state attorney general is to act as the
state’s chief legal advisor, charged with defending the state in court and make laws.
giving legal opinions to officials on pending bills and policies.2 In some
instances, attorneys general have been entrusted by state legislatures with
enforcing specified laws,3 assisting district attorneys in prosecuting serious
crimes, and disseminating legal information.4
Like other government offices, state attorney general offices
were designed to have limited powers, set forth by their respective state
constitutions and statutes. Under all state constitutions, the legislature, not
the attorney general, is given the power to make laws. If the legislature
has not specifically given the attorney general the right to enforce a
particular law, then he may be exceeding his authority by bringing a
lawsuit under it.5
Federal law also limits an attorney general’s power.6 When a state
attorney general attempts to regulate conduct in another state, that may
violate not only state law, but also the Constitution’s Due Process and
Commerce clauses, which forbid any state from imposing its laws on
another state or regulating interstate commerce.7
Unfortunately, many state attorneys general now ignore these
constraints. Over the past 15 years, many state AGs have increasingly
usurped the roles of state legislatures and Congress by using lawsuits to
impose interstate and national regulations and extract money from out-of-
state defendants who have little voice in a state’s political processes.8
A classic example is the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
(MSA). It settled lawsuits against the big tobacco companies by creating
what is effectively a national tax on cigarettes, giving at least $15 billion
of the resulting revenue to politically connected trial lawyers hired

by some of the state attorneys general. The MSA’s costs are borne by
smokers—the very people the state AGs claim were victimized and
defrauded by the tobacco companies.9
The worst offenders flaunt their abuses of power. Eliot Spitzer
The recent wave of once boasted that he had “redefined the role of Attorney General.”10
Similarly, California’s Jerry Brown boasts: “I’ve got 1,100 lawyers
lawsuits brought by standing by and they’re looking for someone to sue.”11
state attorneys general This sort of activism may serve a state attorney general’s political
ambitions, but it imposes real costs on consumers, businesses, the
has fostered corruption, economy, and our democratic system.12 The recent wave of lawsuits
circumvented brought by state attorneys general has fostered corruption, circumvented
legislative checks on regulation, taxes, and government spending, made
legislative checks on government less transparent, and diverted attention away from their core
regulation, taxes, and responsibilities of defending state agencies in lawsuits and providing legal
advice to public officials.
government spending, Although these abuses are widespread, some attorneys general are
made government worse than others. The greatest harms inflicted by overreaching state AGs
include encroachment on the powers of other branches of government,
less transparent, and meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement
diverted attention of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign
contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to defend state laws or state
away from their agencies being sued. Taking these criteria into account, the following state
core responsibilities attorneys general have earned their spot on this year’s list of the nation’s
worst attorneys general:
of defending state 1. Jerry Brown, California
agencies in lawsuits 2. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
3. Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma
and providing legal 4. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island
advice to public 5. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia
6. William Sorrell, Vermont
officials.
Criteria for AG Ratings
1. Ethical Breaches and Selective Applications of the Law.
Using campaign contributors to bring lawsuits. Using the
attorney general’s office to promote personal gain or enrich
cronies or relatives. Favoritism towards campaign donors
and other uneven or unpredictable application of the law
(including refusal to defend state laws or state agencies
being sued when plausible defenses exist).
4 Bader: The Nation’s Worst State Attorneys General

2. Fabricating Law. Advocating that courts, in effect, rewrite
statutes or stretch constitutional norms in order to make new
law—for example, seeking judicial imposition of new taxes
or regulations, or restrictions on private citizens’ freedom to
contract.
3. Usurping Legislative Powers. Bringing lawsuits that usurp
regulatory powers granted to the federal government or other
state entities, or that are untethered to any specific statutory or
constitutional grant of authority.
4. Predatory Practices. Seeking to regulate conduct occurring
wholly in other states—for example, preying on out-of-state
businesses that have not violated state law and have no
remedy at the polls.
Report Card
Subject: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Attorney General:
Jerry Brown, California F F F F
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut: F F F F
Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma: F F F F
Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island: D- F F F
Darrell McGraw, West Virginia: D- F F F
William Sorrell, Vermont: C- D- F F
1. Jerry Brown, California

The worst attorney general in America is California’s Jerry Brown. One
of the most fundamental duties of a state attorney general is to defend
all state laws against constitutional challenges. California Attorney
General Jerry Brown has abdicated that duty by picking and choosing
which laws to defend, and even seeking to undermine those he disagreed
with (regardless of their constitutionality). For example, he refused to
defend Proposition 8, an amendment to California’s constitution that
prohibits gay marriage—but not civil unions—even after it was upheld
by the state Supreme Court. Absurdly, Brown claimed that Proposition 8
somehow violated the state constitution—even though it is actually part of
California’s constitution.13 Brown also claimed that Proposition 8 violates

the federal Constitution,14 even though the Supreme Court and other courts
have already rejected such challenges to state gay marriage bans.15 While
the author of this paper publicly opposed Proposition 8,16 it plainly does
not violate the state constitution.
As The Los Angeles In December 2008, Brown, after previously claiming he would
defend the amendment against a state constitutional challenge, suddenly
Times noted, Brown’s changed position shortly before the deadline for opposing the lawsuit,
decision to switch filing a brief supporting the lawsuit instead. As The Los Angeles Times
noted, Brown’s decision to switch course “at the last possible moment
course “at the last before the court’s deadline, surprised many legal experts. The attorney
possible moment before general has a legal duty to uphold the state’s laws as long as there are
reasonable grounds to do so.”17 And even critics of Proposition 8 admitted
the court’s deadline, that it had plausible legal defenses.18 Indeed, courts have generally upheld
surprised many legal bans on gay marriage against state constitutional challenges, even when
such bans are merely statutory, and not written into the state constitution
experts. The attorney itself, the way California’s is.19 As one civil libertarian put it, Brown
general has a legal “ripped up his job description” when he unilaterally decided not to defend
Proposition 8 in court.20
duty to uphold the Even some liberal law professors criticized Brown’s position.
state’s laws as long as Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said that Brown’s
argument “turns constitutional law on its head,” and that he was unaware
there are reasonable of any case law that supported it.21 Goodwin Liu, associate dean and
grounds to do so.” professor of law at University of California, Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School
of Law, said it was “extraordinary for the chief law enforcement officer
of the state to decline to enforce a law—even on the grounds that it is
unconstitutional.” He said, “The chief law enforcement officer of the state
is charged with enforcing laws, even laws with which he disagrees.”22
(After the state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, it was challenged
yet again in federal court. Brown once again refused to defend it, 23 this
time claiming it violated the federal Constitution—an argument the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected in an earlier case,24 and that has recently been
rejected again by a federal appeals court.25)
Brown also attacked another provision of the California
Constitution, which had been upheld by the federal courts more than a
decade earlier. Article 1, Section 31 of the California Constitution bars
California’s government from imposing racial or gender preferences,
including race-based affirmative action. It was adopted by California
voters in 1996 as Proposition 209, and upheld in 1997 by a federal appeals

court.26 In 2009, Brown told the California Supreme Court to ignore this
provision, because, he claimed, it was unconstitutional.27
Brown has also been very aggressive in using lawsuits based on
vague claims of environmental harm to block energy projects in California,
and to regulate beyond the state’s borders. The effect of any individual Brown brought so
project or development on overall global warming, or greenhouse gas
emissions, is microscopic, yet Brown brought so many lawsuits over many lawsuits over
global warming against businesses and local governments that the state global warming
28
legislature curbed his ability to sue local governments.
Brown has engaged in this kind of green activism without regard to against businesses
the effects on the state’s economy. In 2008, he threatened to sue to block a and local governments
proposed water bottling plant in Northern California unless its effects on
global warming were evaluated. Nestlé wanted to bottle water from three that the state
natural springs that supply McCloud, a depressed former lumber town legislature curbed
about 280 miles north of San Francisco that badly needs jobs. The plant
would produce enough water to fill 3.1 billion water bottles.29 Shortly his ability to sue
after Brown’s threat, Nestlé cancelled the project and the 100 jobs the local governments.
plant would have created evaporated along with it.30
Modernization of America’s refineries is critically needed to
maintain a secure supply of fuel.31 The nation has a significant shortfall
in refining capacity, which unnecessarily forces overreliance on uncertain
foreign supplies.32 Despite this need, in 2008, Brown used the threat
of litigation to delay modernization of a refinery by Chevron.33 This
represented a conflict of interest. Brown’s personal fortune came from the
“family oil business,” which received a “fee for each barrel” of oil exported
from Indonesia, in a concession granted by that country’s former military
dictatorship. Chevron’s oil refineries in California are designed to process
Alaskan crude, to compete against oil from Indonesia in California’s
power plant market. 34 Brown has also meddled beyond his own
jurisdiction by pressuring other states to block new power plants within
their own borders.35
Brown’s fundraising practices raise ethical concerns. He collected
$52,500 in campaign contributions from relatives and from a company
his office had been investigating in a public pension fund corruption
probe.36 Using his leverage as state attorney general, Brown raised nearly
$10 million in contributions to favored charities from industries that he
oversees as state attorney general, including utilities, casino operators,
and health care organizations.37 Brown also conducted an investigation

of the scandal-prone leftist activist group Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now, better known by its acronym, ACORN,
that has been criticized as a whitewash. ACORN faced a public relations
disaster in September 2009, when the conservative commentary website
BigGovernment.com released a series of highly embarrassing hidden-
camera videos. In the videos, ACORN employees at several of the group’s
offices around the country are seen providing advice to the filmmakers,
a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute, on how to conduct
several illegal activities, including running a prostitution ring.38 In his
report, Brown said that while ACORN did nothing “criminal,” his office
found likely violations of state law.39 Brown closed his investigation
without taking any action against ACORN, despite admitting that it had
committed “highly inappropriate acts,” such as failure to file tax returns,
illegally dumping 20,000 pages of documents, and four instances of
possible voter registration fraud. Worse, Brown criticized the filmmakers
who exposed ACORN’s wrongdoing, claiming their videotape “violated”
ACORN’s privacy—even though the videos were all made at the ACORN
offices’ public reception areas.40
2. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

The second worst state attorney general in the nation is Richard Blumenthal.
A left-wing ideologue who has used the power of his office to spread largesse
to cronies, Blumenthal was rated the nation’s worst attorney general in our
January 2007 ratings. Blumenthal has not gotten any better since then, but
the competition for worst AG seems to have gotten fiercer.
The Tobacco Racket

Blumenthal, more than anybody else, is responsible for the multi-state act
of corruption and cartelism known as the Master Settlement Agreement,
which he negotiated along with Oklahoma state AG Drew Edmondson.41
Wealthy trial lawyers across the nation received $14 billion nationally in
attorneys’ fees42 under a $246 billion-plus settlement paid for primarily
by smokers—the alleged victims of the supposed fraud that begat the
settlement.43
The settlement was structured to allow the major tobacco
companies to maintain their market share and raise prices in unison
in order to pass settlement costs on to smokers. Working together,
state attorneys general and major tobacco companies were also able to
force smaller tobacco companies that had never been accused of any

EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY PAGE
Campaign Disclosure Statement Type or print in ink.
Amounts may be rounded Statement covers period
Summary Page to whole dollars.
from 07/01/2010
CALIFORNIA
FORM 460
through 09/30/2010 Page 3 of 105
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
NAME OF FILER I.D. NUMBER
Damon Dunn for Secretary of State 2010 1322750
Column A Column B Calendar Year Summary for Candidates

Contributions Received TOTAL THIS PERIOD
(FROM ATTACHED SCHEDULES)
CALENDAR YEAR
TOTAL TO DATE
Running in Both the State Primary and
General Elections
1. Monetary Contributions ............................................. Schedule A, Line 3 $254,564.12 $580,821.41
1/1 through 6/30 7/1 to Date
2. Loans Received ......................................................... Schedule B, Line 7 ($30,096.71) $30,000.00
20. Contribution
3. SUBTOTAL CASH CONTRIBUTIONS ............................ Add Lines 1 + 2 $224,467.41 $610,821.41 $348,841.03 $243,418.88
Received
4. Nonmonetary Contributions ................................... Schedule C, Line 3 $18,951.47 $31,535.21

21. Expenditures
$243,418.88 $642,356.62 $298,544.16 $146,092.23
5. TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED ........................... Add Lines 3 + 4 Made
Expenditures Made Expenditure Limit Summary for State

6. Payments Made ........................................................ Schedule E, Line 4 $197,082.43 $396,282.27 Candidates
7. Loans Made .............................................................. Schedule H, Line 7 $0.00 $0.00 22. Cumulative Expenditures Made*
$197,082.43 $396,282.27 (If Subject to Voluntary Expenditure Limit)
8. SUBTOTAL CASH PAYMENTS ................................... Add Lines 6 + 7
9. Accrued Expenses (Unpaid Bills) ............................. Schedule F, Line 3 ($69,941.67) $29,919.12 Date of Election Total to Date
(mm/dd/yy)
10. Nonmonetary Adjustment ......................................... Schedule C, Line 3 $18,951.47 $31,535.21
$146,092.23 $457,736.60 6/8/2010 $374,921.94

11. TOTAL EXPENDITURES MADE ............................. Add Lines 8 + 9 + 10
11/2/2010 $156,456.93
Current Cash Statement
12. Beginning Cash Balance ..................... Previous Summary Page, Line 16 $176,557.45 To calculate Column B, add
amounts in Column A to the
13. Cash Receipts ................................................. Column A, Line 3 above $224,467.41 corresponding amounts
$0.00 from Column B of your last
14. Miscellaneous Increases to Cash .................................... Schedule I, Line 4
report. Some amounts in
15. Cash Payments ................................................. Column A, Line 8 above $197,082.43 Column A may be negative
$203,942.43 figures that should be
16. ENDING CASH BALANCE...... Add Lines 12 + 13 + 14, then subtract Line 15 subtracted from previous
If this is a termination statement, Line 16 must be zero. period amounts. If this is
the first report being filed
for this calendar year, only
17. LOAN GUARANTEES RECEIVED........................... Schedule B, Part 2 $0.00 carry over the amounts
from Lines 2, 7, and 9 (if
Cash Equivalents and Outstanding Debts any). *Since January 1, 2001. Amounts in this section may be
$0.00 different from amounts reported in Column B.
18. Cash Equivalents ........................................ See instructions on reverse
19. Outstanding Debts ....................... Add Line 2 + Line 9 in Column B above $59,919.12
FPPC Form 460 (June/01)
FPPC Toll-Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC
1522620-0
EXHIBIT C
The Porterville Post ï¿½ | Today's Wednesday, October 6, 2010 Page 1 of 3
Porterville Post
Political News & Reports
www.PortervillePost.com 6
about | ads | blogs | contact | emergencies | faith | health | jobs | home | news | opinion | politics | sports | weather
• About Estab. Jan 2008

| Voter Fraud : Simple, Easy and Undeniable • Ads Welcome to the newest on-line news
Post Political News & Reports - Aug 20 2010 service in the Porterville area. Our
by Post Editor : editor@portervillepost.com • Articles goal is to report the right news at the
• Bail Jumpers right time. In doing this, we believe
that the community will get a greater
Last night, somewhere around 140-150 Tea Party Patriots and • GANG INFO sence of being connected.
participants from Fresno, Kern, Kings and Tulare County assembled in • Most Wanted
the City of Tulare to hear former 30th Assembly Candidate Dean The Right News @ The Right Time
• Blogs
Gardner (R) of Kern County talk about the horrors of voter fraud and Our second goal is to report above
how simple, easy and undeniably rampant it is. • Books and beyond the main stream media.
• Columns
Politically Inform and Educate
In 2002 Dean Gardner - a local Kern County businessman - entered into • Contact
the 30th Assembly District race, believing that he could make a Our third goal is to politically inform
difference in Sacramento. With many in Kern and Tulare County • Emergency
and educate the public at large.
supporting his bid for the district ... the race was on. Little did the • Faith
Gardner's know, that politics is dirty and to win - at any cost - means just that. A Conservative Publication
• Food
• Health The Porterville Post is a conservative
Honesty, a basic hallmark of both Dean and his wife Ruth meant nothing to the opposition. They'd been down publication and news service and
this road before and knew how to win at any cost - even if it meant lying, cheating and stealing votes from • Jobs when the Post makes a mistake in our
reporting, we'll address it "Right Here"
honest hard working electors. • Issues and if needed, with an appology.
Please feel free to contact us with your
• Letters comments or suggestions.
A week or so before the election, Dean Gardner was ahead in the polls by 18% over Nicole Parra (D) and by
• Links
nights end, Parra was ahead on the count with less than 200 vote. The Gardner's were in disbelief and Writers | Columnists | Reporters
wondered ... what happened ? We followed the rules and regulations, understood that many of aims and • Magazines
objectives with the people in that district were basically the same and overnight ... the numbers flipped. • Miracles The Post, in the next few months, we'll
be looking for new writers, columnists
121,000 people had voted in this election and when it was all said and done, the numbers simply didn't add
• Movies and reporters. We understand the
up. need for new writers to have the
• News chance of starting a new career and
we'd like to offer a free internship at
THE MATH OF THE AFTERMATH : • Opinions the Post.
• Politics
Tag teaming this evening was Mrs Ruth Gardner. Quantified by her husband as having a background in math
• Stories
and science, he briefly introduced her findings and then she took center stage. Knowing that the numbers
were more than fuzzy, Mrs Gardner wanted to do a little post election polling due to the aftermath of the • Sports
math and sampling close to 3,000 suspicious votes. • U.S. Troops
Others helped the Gardners in this investigation and a questionnaire was sent out to 14,000 new registered Dean & Ruth Gardner : Voter Fraud
democrat voters in a selected area within the 30th Assembly district.
A red flag came up for this area because of so many new democrats in that area of the district who were
registered to vote between March of that primary and November 2002. "Anyone who's done voter registration
knows that you don't get those kind of numbers." Their hunch paid off.
In that simple questionnaire a $500 dollar award was to be given if it was accurately returned. 2650, believe-
it-or-not were returned. It must have had something to do with the money. Here are the three questions
that they had to honestly answer and return.
1.) Do you live at such-a-such address, and fill in the blank.

2.) Are you a citizen of the U.S.? History of Voter Fraud
3.) Are you working on getting your citizenship ?
Ruth, "A few more than 700 of these questionnaires, according to the U.S. Postal Service - were
undeliverable, no such person, no such address, no such house - and 54 of those people voted."
Continuing with the results, Mrs Gardner stated, "1691 questionnaires were returned by electors. 93
admitted 'in writing' they were not citizens. 273 stated that they were not registered to vote and did not live
in the 30th Assembly district. One woman who lives in Porterville, CA. voted twice, while 69 more admitted
they voted more than once."
Summarizing, Mrs Gardner said, "The bottom line of all these 2650 returned questionnaires, 1318 had voting
irregularities. 37% of the democrat votes were fraudulent and of the 2650 votes we can prove that 905 were
illegal." Electronic Voting Machine Fraud
In Delano a woman who was caught illegally filling out the absentee ballots was finally prosecuted. Her
father, according to Mrs Gardner, was running for city council in Delano and he was elected by 3 - 4 vote
margin. Odds are a deal was struck to lesson the punishment of this crime but the facts remain, voter fraud
was done in Delano and continuing to commit fraud could very well show up in November.
IDENTIFYING A FEW VOTER FRAUDS, SCHEMES AND SCAMS :
http://www.portervillepost.com/politics/Voter-Fraud-Simple.html 10/6/2010
The Porterville Post ï¿½ | Today's Wednesday, October 6, 2010 Page 2 of 3
"In order to combat voter fraud, you have to know how it's done." Ruth Gardner ...
The basic tried and true "High Propensity Voter" - HPV, is the target of another voter scam. This person
never misses an election. As well, these HPV have a tendency to vote using the absentee ballot.
Your absentee ballot can be easily negated by these perpetrators simply by returning another absentee
ballot in your name. Once the signatures are viewed at the elections department and are found to be
different or changed, they cannot be counted and are then placed in another file or box that's identified as
"Signature Don't Match" and that's the objective of this scam. They know they can't cast a ballot in your
name, however, they can cancel, nullify or negate your vote with a false signature.
The key California law here is this, the last submitted absentee ballot received at the elections department
becomes the official voting ballot signature - but because the signature was a bit different or changed it will
not count. University Exposes Diebold Flaws
Another voter scam is the "Low Propensity Voter" - LPV, Mrs Gardner told the audience. "This is the guy who
most likely isn't even registered to vote. What happens next is the opposition hires shills - people
impersonators. They will travel from poll to poll with a list of names that are typically hanging on the walls
at the voting polls looking to see which one's are eligible to vote at that particular polling place."
Fore the most part, all of the parties have campaign, party and poll workers who go in and check these
names to see who's voted and who hasn't. Many of these lists are updated every hour, so that campaign
worker will call in the names of folks who have yet to vote.
Once they have this poor smuck's name they send in the shill to use the name of that LPV person who has yet
to vote. After they do thses shills go to the next poll, use another LPV name and vote according to how they
were instructed or paid.
HBO : HACKING DEMOCRACY
CAN WE FIX VOTER FRAUD :
According to the Gardner's, it won't be don't by the legislators, the governor or California's Secretary of State
fraud unit. "It's gotta to be done by Californian's changing California's Constitution. It's probably going to take
a revolt, said Dean Gardner - like the prop 13 revolt against high home taxes."
California's voting system can no longer be trusted. The peoples right to cast an honest vote is laughed at by
many from the left. Voting scams have criss-crossed this state for so many years it's not even funny. Once
elected and in power, they find ways to silence officials and special agents who are commissioned to
investigate voter fraud complaints.
Lamenting this problem, Dean Gardner reminded the audience, "that you are required to have a voter ID in
Mexico but not in California, and by-the-way, it's illegal to ask someone for their identification at the polls
and it's a felony for the election worker at that polling place to ask for your ID and you can get up to three
years in prison for asking the question."
Who came up with that law ? Willy Brown (D), Sacramento's past Assembly speaker of the Assembly.
WHAT TO DO RIGHT NOW :
First - Go and check your signature at the election department. For many of us in Tulare County the
elections department in located in Visalia. Ask them to show you your signature they have on file. If it is
different, then ask for a copy of what they show you. Odds are that someone came down to the elections
department requesting voter registration cards and re-registered your name with a changed signature. That
someone had to sign with the elections department for those registration cards which are numbered and if
the last registration card they have on file that was changed it could be construed as fraud by who signed for
those registration cards.
Next - and I know this may fluster a few, but re-register with the elections department as a regular voter.
Make sure they understand that you no longer want to be an absentee voter. This will surely send a message
to those at the elections department and hopefully those who are hell-bent on voter fraud.
Third - Make a copy of your new voter registration card before you give it back to the elections department.
Fourth and final - Become a poll watcher. These voter fraud crimes are committed when no one cares and
where there are very few poll observers. Take down the license plate number of large cars and vans which
transport people to the polls. If something looks a little fishy, or something doesn't feel right, take note. Tea
Party people will ... why don't you ?
about | ads | blogs | contact | emergencies | faith | health | jobs | home | news | opinion | politics | sports | weather
The Porterville Post : Post Office Box 925 Porterville CA. 93258
For more Information - editor@portervillepost.com
The Porterville Post - Copyright © 2008
All Right Reserved
http://www.portervillepost.com/politics/Voter-Fraud-Simple.html 10/6/2010
EXHIBIT D
No. 22
March 10, 2008
Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes:

A Case Study in Voter Impersonation
Hans A. von Spakovsky
On January 9, 2008, the Supreme Court of the

United States heard oral arguments in Crawford v.
Marion County Election Board, a case challenging the Talking Points
constitutionality of an Indiana law that requires most • Contrary to claims made by prominent
individuals who vote in person to present a govern- newspapers and attorneys, in-person voting
ment-issued photo identification.1 Indiana’s law was fraud is a real problem, though it is
upheld by a federal district court2 and by the Seventh extremely hard to detect without a voter-ID
Circuit Court of Appeals.3 requirement. In-person voting fraud is also
documented in reports and court cases
Critics contend that such laws are unnecessary from around the country.
because “impersonation fraud” at the polling place
simply does not exist. It is true that direct evidence • For 14 years, Brooklyn politicians operated a
successful voting-fraud ring responsible for
of such fraud is hard to come by, but this is for a sim-
thousands of fraudulent votes. Common
ple reason: Election officials cannot discover an flaws in the voter-registration process, voter
impersonation if they are denied the very tool confirmation, and polling-place protocols
needed to detect it—an identification requirement. allowed paid voters organized into “crews” to
The Seventh Circuit noted “the extreme difficulty of cast votes at multiple polling places in each
apprehending a voter impersonator” unless the election. Despite the conspiracy’s magnitude,
impersonator and the voter being impersonated (if it was uncovered only by chance.
living) arrive at the polls at the same time, which is a • Voter-ID requirements directly target in-per-
very unlikely occurrence. son voting fraud. An ID requirement would
Ignoring this point, the editorial page of The New have defeated all the fraudulent practices
York Times, among others, asserts that “[i]n-person employed by the New York vote-fraud con-
spiracy. In addition, they would prevent ille-
voter fraud is extremely rare.”4 To support this claim,
gal aliens from casting votes. Research and
The Times cites the attorney for the petitioners in the experience show that, contrary to the
Indiana case, Paul M. Smith, who told the Justices claims of opponents, voter-ID requirements
that “[n]o one has been punished for this kind of do not impact turnout.
fraud in living memory in this country.”5 The New
York Times’s position is ironic, since the best-docu- This paper, in its entirety, can be found at:
www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm22.cfm
mented case of widespread and continuing voter
Produced by the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
identity or impersonation fraud comes out of the
Published by The Heritage Foundation
newspaper’s own City of New York. 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002–4999
(202) 546-4400 • heritage.org
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflect-
ing the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt
to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
No. 22 March 10, 2008
A 14-Year Vote-Fraud Conspiracy12345 This 14-year conspiracy was detailed by wit-

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

20. Id. at 14.
21. Id. at 14–15.
22. Id. at 15.
23. Id. at 15.
page 4
No. 22 March 10, 2008
signature requirement on credit cards does not pre- because someone had already cast a ballot in his
vent the significant volume of credit card fraud that name at his polling place. He had no recourse at the
occurs in the United States. poll to find out “why this had occurred, whether
Database technology is another tool of the trade there was some error or whatever else, and the poll-
that was not available then but is widespread now. ing station itself didn’t keep any record of it.”25
Voter registration lists are public information in In a 2007 city council election in Hoboken, New
most states, and databases containing detailed Jersey, the former zoning board president noticed a
information on voters are available from a wide group of men near his polling place being given
variety of commercial vendors. index cards by two people shortly before the June
The databases of such commercial vendors are election. One of those men later entered the polling
usually much more up-to-date than the informa- place and tried to vote in the name of another reg-
tion contained in the voter registration databases istered voter who, it turned out, no longer lived in
maintained by election officials. This makes it very the ward. The imposter was caught only because he
easy for anyone with access to such information to happened to be challenged by the zoning board
determine the names of voters who are still regis- president. He admitted to the police that the group
tered but who have died or moved out of a jurisdic- of men from a homeless shelter had been paid $10
tion. As Justice Roberts pointed out in the Indiana each to vote using others’ names.26
voter ID case, the record in the litigation showed Last year, in a case reminiscent of Boss Tweed
that 41.4 percent of the names on Indiana’s voter and the Brooklyn grand jury report, the U.S.
registration rolls were bad entries, representing Department of Justice won a voting rights lawsuit
tens of thousands of ineligible voters—a trove of in Noxubee, Mississippi, against a defendant
potential fraudulent votes.24 named Ike Brown, as well as the county election
board.27 Brown, a convicted felon, was the head of
A Widespread Problem the local Democratic Party. He had set up a political
The widespread impersonation fraud that machine that worked to guarantee the election of
occurred in Brooklyn raises the question of his approved candidates to local office—essentially
whether such fraud is a problem elsewhere in the his version of Tammany Hall. One of the conten-
country today. More recent cases provide evidence tions in the litigation was that the local election
of what may be a wider problem that is very diffi- board’s “failure to purge the voter registration roll
cult to detect in jurisdictions that do not require to eliminate persons who have moved or died and
voter identification. who are thus no longer eligible voters” increased
For example, Dr. Robert Pastor, Executive Direc- the opportunity for voter fraud by creating “the
tor of the Baker–Carter Commission on Federal potential for persons to vote under others’ names.”
Election Reform and Director of the Center for The court cited the testimony of one of the govern-
Democracy and Election Management at American ment’s witnesses, a former deputy sheriff, who said
University, testified before the U.S. Commission on that “he saw Ike Brown outside the door of the pre-
Civil Rights in 2006 that he was once unable to vote cinct talking to a young black lady…and heard him
24. Transcript in Crawford, supra n. 5, at 18.

25. Transcript of Briefing on Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation, United States Commission on Civil Rights, Oct. 13, 2006, at 185.
26. See Madeline Friedman, Anatomy of Voter Fraud: Will Officials Follow Up on Alleged $10 Vote Payoff? HUDSON REPORTER, July 1,
2007; Unclear Which Agency Will Investigate Voter Fraud: Prosecutor’s Office Waiting for Referral, HUDSON REPORTER, July 8, 2007.
27. U.S. v. Brown, 494 F. SUPP. 2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007). The lawsuit was filed under Sections 2 and 11 of the Voting Rights
Act and led to the first judgment in the U.S. finding racial discrimination in voting by black officials against white voters.
The court said that it had “not had to look far to find ample direct and circumstantial evidence of an intent to discriminate
against white voters which has manifested itself through practices designed to deny and/or dilute the voting rights of white
voters in Noxubee.” Id. at 449.
page 5
No. 22 March 10, 2008
tell her to go in there and vote, to use any name, intended to prevent a fraudulent vote by an indi-
and that no one was going to say anything.”28 vidual who not only had claimed to be a resident of
Mississippi does not require a photo ID for in- a state other than Indiana, but also had actually
person voting, but it is now under court order to registered to vote there as well.30
implement such a requirement due to a federal case Unfortunately, attempts by neighboring states
filed by the Mississippi Democratic Party over its such as Kentucky and Tennessee to compare their
concern that the state’s open primary system and voter registration lists for individuals registered in
lack of party registration makes it unable to identify both states have been met with lawsuits contesting
non-Democrats and prevent them from voting in their right to do so.31 A federal court even issued
its primaries.29 This effort by the Mississippi Dem- an injunction barring the State of Washington from
ocratic Party is instructive because it discloses that refusing to register individuals whose application
threats to free, fair, and open elections concern not information (such as their residence address) does
only elective offices and those who eventually hold not match information on that individual that is
them, but also the political parties as they recruit contained in other state databases, such as the
and organize voters and nominate their candidates. Department of Licensing’s (driver’s licenses),
Political parties merit protection as much as indi- thereby making it extremely difficult for a state to
vidual voters whose franchise is diluted and denied verify the accuracy and validity of information
by the commission of fraud. being provided by an individual in an attempt to
The Indiana voter ID case itself also demon- register to vote.32
strates the problem of double voting by individuals One of the changes recommended by the New
who are illegally registered to vote in more than York grand jury to prevent problems caused by
one state. Because different states do not generally outside organizations filing fraudulent voter regis-
run database matching comparisons between their tration forms was “serializing and recording the
voter registration lists, there is no national process serial numbers of all voter registration cards dis-
by which to detect multiple registrations. One of tributed in bulk and insisting on greater account-
the Indiana voters highlighted by the League of ability by organizations engaged in voter
Women Voters who supposedly could not vote due registration.”33 A number of states have recently
to the voter ID law turned out to be registered to attempted to implement such requirements after
vote not just in Indiana, but also in Florida, where they received large numbers of fraudulent voter
she owns a home and claimed a homestead exemp- registration forms, or received legitimate forms too
tion (which requires an individual to assert resi- late to be effective for an upcoming election, from
dency). She was not allowed to vote in Indiana third parties such as the Association of Commu-
because she tried to use a Florida driver’s license as nity Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
her ID—clear evidence that the law worked as These fraud-prevention efforts, however, were
28. Brown, 494 F. SUPP. 2d at 486, n. 73. According to news accounts and sources in the Justice Department, in an apparent
attempt to intimidate this witness, a Noxubee deputy sheriff and political ally of Brown arrested the witness for disorderly
conduct and reckless driving only days after the government named him as a witness in a filing with the federal court. In
an unprecedented move, the federal judge stayed the county prosecution. See John Mott Coffey, Noxubee Voting Rights Trial
to Begin Tuesday, COMMERCIAL DISPATCH, Jan. 13, 2007; Bill Nichols, Voting Rights Act Pointed in a New Direction, USA TODAY,
April 3, 2006.
29. See Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F. SUPP. 2d 641 (N.D. Miss. 2007).
30. Cindy Bevington, Voter Cited by Opponents of Indiana’s ID Law Registered in Two States, EVENING STAR, January 9, 2008.
31. See Stumbo v. Kentucky State Board of Elections, No. 06-CI-610 (Franklin Cir., Ky. Oct. 2, 2006).
32. See Washington Association of Churches v. Reed, 492 F. SUPP. 2d 1264 (W.D. Wash. 2006); see also Florida State Conf. of
NAACP v. Browning, No. 4:07CV-402 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007), appeal filed Dec. 19, 2007.
page 6
No. 22 March 10, 2008
halted by lawsuits filed by organizations such as Even though it led to no indictments, the New
Project Vote and the League of Women Voters that York investigation still serves a valuable purpose.
claimed that such requirements would impede Most clearly, it demonstrates that voter imperson-
their voter registration drives.34 ation is a real problem and one that is nearly
Similarly, Ohio’s attempt to improve third-party impossible for election officials to detect given the
voter registration was also struck down. The law weak tools usually at their disposal. Further, the
mandated training for individuals who assist appli- investigation provides good reason to believe that
cants in voter registration; required them to pro- this 14-year-long conspiracy to submit thousands
vide their name, signature, address, and employer (if not tens of thousands) of fraudulent votes in
on the voter registration form of each individual New York City could not have occurred if voters
they assist; and required them to return the forms had been required to present photo identification
directly to election officials rather than entrust when they voted.
them to a third party for delivery. These provisions New York’s experience also demonstrates the fal-
were all enjoined as violations of the National Voter lacy of several arguments and assertions made by
Registration Act and the First and Fourteenth the petitioners’ attorney, Paul Smith, in the Indiana
Amendments to the Constitution.35 Even if the case and by critics of voter ID in general. For exam-
court rulings were legally correct (a questionable ple, Smith told Chief Justice Roberts that imper-
conclusion), that is all the more reason for a state to sonation fraud is unlikely because it is not hard to
correct for potential fraud by requiring some form detect: “When you’re going into the polls and say-
of reasonable voter ID at the polls. ing, I’m Joe Smith, you’re dealing with a neighbor-
hood person who knows a lot of people who are
Lessons Learned there, you have to match that person’s signature.”38
There were no indictments issued by the New The idea that, in our mobile society today, all of
York grand jury as a result of its investigation the poll workers in a precinct will be “neighbor-
“because the statute of limitations had run out in hood” workers who know everyone in their pre-
some cases and because several of those involved cinct (even a small precinct) does not match reality.
were given immunity in return for testimony.”36 The poll worker manual for the Board of Elections
Remarkably, the fraud was apparently discovered for the City of New York states that polling places
only because of the actions of a former state senator, have only 750 registered voters,39 yet the imper-
Vander L. Beatty, who was convicted of voter fraud sonation fraud that occurred in Brooklyn involving
and conspiracy. After Beatty lost the 1982 Demo- thousands of fraudulent votes went undetected for
cratic congressional primary election, some of his 14 years even in such relatively small precincts.
“supporters hid in the Brooklyn Board of Elections Many jurisdictions in other states and counties
office until after business hours and then made have much larger precincts, some of them contain-
some obvious forgeries of registration cards to cre- ing thousands of registered voters.
ate the appearance of irregularities” in order to give
Beatty the ability to challenge (unsuccessfully) the Contrary to Mr. Smith’s claims, New York’s sig-
winner of the primary election.37 nature requirement also did nothing to stop this
successful voter fraud conspiracy from casting
34. See Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F. SUPP. 2d 694 (N.D. Ohio 2006); League of Women Voters of Florida v. Cobb, 447 F.
SUPP. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
35. Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06CV-1628 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2008).
36. Lynn, supra n. 7.
37. Id.
38. Transcript in Crawford, supra n. 5, at 19.
39. N.Y. Bd. Of Elections, POLL WORKER’S MANUAL 2007 15, at http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents/boe/pollworkers/
pollworkersmanual.pdf, page 15.
page 7
No. 22 March 10, 2008
bogus votes in person at polling places. The partic- In 1984, the New York grand jury recommended
ipants in the Brooklyn case impersonated newly that the governor and state legislature examine as a
registered, deceased, and moved voters by voting possible remedy “requiring identification from vot-
in their place for years without detection. ers at the time of voting or registration.”41 In 2005,
the bipartisan Baker–Carter Commission on Fed-
Voter ID: A Sensible Solution eral Election Reform also recommended requiring
In recent elections, thousands of fraudulent voter photo ID for in-person voting because “[i]n close or
registration forms have been detected by election offi- disputed elections, and there are many, a small
cials all over the country. Given the minimal to non- amount of fraud could make the margin of differ-
existent screening efforts engaged in by most election ence. And second, the perception of possible fraud
jurisdictions, there is no way to know how many contributes to low confidence in the system.”42
others slipped through. In states without identifica- Voters in nearly 100 democracies are required to
tion requirements, election officials have no way to present photo identification to ensure the integrity
prevent bogus votes from being cast by unscrupulous of elections.43 Our southern neighbor, Mexico,
individuals based on fictitious voter registrations, by requires both a photo ID and a thumbprint, and
impersonators, or by non-citizens who are registered turnout has increased in its elections since this
to vote—another growing problem.40 This is a secu- requirement was implemented.44 If Mexico can
rity problem that requires a solution. implement a successful photo ID program for its
As the New York voter fraud investigation and voters, there is no valid reason the United States
other cases illustrate, impersonation fraud does cannot do the same.
occur and can be difficult or impossible to detect.
As the grand jury in New York properly con-
States such as Indiana and Georgia have a legiti-
cluded at the end of its investigation of a vote-fraud
mate and entirely reasonable interest in requiring
conspiracy that had been successfully carried out
voters to identify themselves when they vote in
without detection for 14 years, “The core of the
order to prevent impersonation fraud and voting
democratic process is the right of the people to
through the use of fraudulent voter registration
choose their representatives in fair elections. Fraud
forms. The Indiana case also demonstrates that
in the election process is intolerable.”45
voter identification can detect unlawful multiple
voter registrations by individuals in different states. —Hans A. von Spakovsky served as a member of the
Finally, requiring a government-issued photo ID Federal Election Commission for two years. Before that,
can prevent illegal aliens from voting (except in he was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for
states that issue driver’s licenses to noncitizens). A Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he
simple requirement that a voter demonstrate his specialized in voting and election issues. He also served
authentic identity assures that free elections remain as a county election official in Georgia for five years as
untainted by fraud that undermines their fairness a member of the Fulton County Registration and Elec-
and, in turn, disappoints the expectations of the tion Board.
voting public.
40. In just one Texas county, jury summonses led to the discovery that at least 330 illegal aliens were registered to vote and
that 41 had voted repeatedly “in more than a dozen local, state and federal elections between 2001 and [2007].” Guillermo
X. Garcia, Vote Fraud Probed in Bexar, EXPRESS NEWS, June 8, 2007.
41. Grand Jury Report, supra n. 6, at 21–22.
42. Commission on Federal Election Reform, BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS 18, Sept. 2005.
43. Id. at 5.
44. John R. Lott, Jr., Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates,
August 18, 2006, pp. 2–3, at http://www.vote.caltech.edu/VoterID/ssrn-id925611.pdf.
page 8
EXHIBIT E
Forjone et.al. v. EAC et.al. WDNY 06-cv-0080
disburse HAVA funds.
198. The set of Census numbers when compared to the total VAP used by the EAC will
validate whether VAP of CVAP is used.
199. That the basis for determining the accuracy of the projection of the national total
of say 185,208,072 mil. Citizens 18 years or older, whether registered or not excluding the
civilly dead, approximates “

Citizen Voting Age Persons”New York has say 12,931,489 with the
actual 10,540,535 AV recorded as of 31 December 2004 in the flawed central database, and
200. That based upon the December 31, 2004 New York voting rolls, 10,540,535
Amended Complaint Page 48 of 62

Active Voters is compared for accuracy with the actual number of those persons alleged
“
Eligible”to register to vote as claimed by the Secretary of State of both California, Texas, in
each State Compliance Plan filed with the Department of Justice and the Election Assistance
Commission for HAVA funds reimbursement, and that the SOS of California alleges it has
26.08% unregistered and Texas alleges it has 12.47% unregistered; and compares such figures to
an estimated 9.79% for New York state as of December 31, 2004, as follows:
Total
2000 Percent of Actual Total
ALLEGED Alleged Percent
State Census ALLEGED Total Active
Eligible Eligible unregistered
Total Eligible Registered Voters
unregistered
======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= =======
California 33,930,798 22,495,914 66.30% 16,628,673 15,587,358 5,867,241 26.08%
Texas 20,903,994 14,965,061 71.59% 13,098,329 9,971,374 1,866,732 12.47%
New
19,004,973 12,931,489 68.04% 11,666,103 10,540,535 1,265,386 9.79%
York
201. That as of February 10, 2005 a California compliance submission to the DOJ and
EAC in the matter of use of the term “
Eligible”notes that “the figures under the heading
‘
Eligible’in these sections represent our estimate of the number of people in California who are
eligible to register to vote as of February 10, 2005”
; and quote that
the “ Population estimate data from the Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance
were used to estimate each county’ s total population. Subtracted from this total was the
estimated number of persons ineligible for registration because of age, felony convictions, and
citizenship status. The figures given are unofficial but represent a reasonable estimate of the
eligible population.”
202. Like the California Constitution portion shown below only US Citizens may vote
and as in Texas Election Law §11.001 and §11.002 that defines Eligibility to Vote and
“
Qualified Voter”using only US Citizen eliminates non-citizens and the civilly dead in keeping
with Article 6 –SUFFRAGE Section 2 - QUALIFIED ELECTOR; REGISTRATION; ABSENTEE VOTING –
Texas Constitution Article 6 Section 2 Subsection (a) Every person subject to none of the disqualifications provided
by Section 1 of this article or by a law enacted under that section who is a citizen of the United States and who is a

resident of this State shall be deemed a qualified voter; provided, however, that before offering to vote at an election
a voter shall have registered, but such requirement for registration shall not be considered a qualification of a voter
within the meaning of the term "qualified voter" as used in any other Article of this Constitution in respect to any
matter except qualification and eligibility to vote at an election.
The CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 2. A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.
203. That the Texas compliance submission to the DOJ and EAC in the matter of use of
the term “
Eligible”notes that its VAP according to the 2000 Census is 14,965,061; as follows:

204. That in the matter of national HAVA Funds distribution there is an inconsistency in
the use of VAP versus CVAP, that a thorough review of the public records of each state of the
several states and territories will reveal in comparison the 2000 Census enumeration for nativity
and State Plans submissions to the Election Assistance Commission evidenced by the Federal
Register record on the EAC website.
205. Federal Election Commission (FEC) basis for which VAP (shown in footnote #11)
is used differently from state to state and would properly create an offset and resolution for
equity; especially since as many as 18 states have not implemented the “

centralized”voter
registration database- i.e. the underlying reason for HAVA and the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA) in the first place.
206. The imperative to catch the rampant vote fraud and abuse nationally and statewide
here in New York is essential and warrants fraud investigation statewide.
207. The Chart below compares the actual numbers used by New York with a
$221,000,000 funds figure that is subject to HAVA funding variations caused by arbitrary use of
VAP by California and Texas in the state compliance submissions to the DOJ and EAC:
the Chart shows that New York even with a large number of non-citizens like both Texas and
California, however New York has relatively less aliens, and therefore is more significantly

EXHIBIT F
New York State Voter Registration Form
Instructions Send or deliver this form Verifying your identity
Fill out the form on page 2 of this PDF We’ll try to check your identity before
With this form, you register to vote in document and mail it to your county’s Election Day, through the DMV number
elections in New York State. You can also address from the list of addresses below, (driver’s license number or non-driver
use this form to: or take the form to the office of your ID number), or the last four digits of
• change the name or address County Board of Elections. your social security number, which
on your voter registration you’ll fill in below.
Mail or deliver this form at least 25 days
• become a member of before the election you want to vote If you do not have a DMV or social
a political party
in. Your county will notify you that you are security number, you may use a valid
• change your party membership
registered to vote. photo ID, a current utility bill, bank
statement, paycheck, government check
To register you must: Questions? or some other government document that
• be a US citizen; Call your County Board of Elections shows your name and address. You may
• be 18 years old by the end of this year; listed on the back of this form or include a copy of one of those types of ID
• not be in prison or on parole 1-800-FOR-VOTE(TDD/TTY Dial 711) when you mail this form.
for a felony conviction; If we are unable to verify your identity
Find answers or tools on our website
• not claim the right to vote elsewhere. www.elections.state.ny.us before Election Day, you will be asked
for ID when you vote for the first time.
Información en español: si le interesa

obtener este formulario en español,
llame al 1-800-367-8683
(Optional) Register to donate your organs and tissues

If you would like to be an organ and tissue donor, you may enroll in the NYS Department of Health (DOH)
Donate Life™ Registry online at www.nyhealth.gov or complete the form below and mail it in with your Voter
Registration Form.
You will receive a confirmation letter from DOH, which will also provide you an opportunity to limit your donation.
Last name By signing below,

you certify that you are:
First name
• 18 years of age or older;
Middle Initial Suffix • consenting to donate all of your organs and
tissues for transplantation, research, or both;
• authorizing the Board of Elections to provide
Address
your name and identifying information to
DOH for enrollment in the Registry;
Apt. Number Zip code • and authorizing DOH to allow access to this
information to federally regulated organ procure-
City ment organizations and NYS-licensed tissue
and eye banks and hospitals upon your death.
Birth date
M M / D D / Y Y Y Y Sex M F
Eye color Height Ft. In.

Sign Date
New York State Voter Registration Form (See instructions on page 1)
It is a crime to procure a false registration or to furnish false information to the Board of Elections. Please print in blue or black ink.
Are you a citizen of the U.S.? Yes No For board use only
1
If you answer No, you cannot register to vote.
Qualifications
Will you be 18 years of age or
2 older on or before election day? Yes No
If you answer No, you cannot register to vote unless you will be 18 by the end of the year.
Last name Suffix

Your name 3
First name Middle Initial
4 Birth date
M M / D D / Y Y Y Y 5 Sex M F
More information
6 Telephone (optional)
– –
Address (not P.O. Box)
Apt. Number Zip code

The address 7
where you live City/Town/Village
New York State County
Address or P.O. Box

The address where
you receive mail 8 P.O. Box Zip code
Skip if same as above
City/Town/Village
Voting history 9 Have you voted before? Yes No 10 What year?
Voting information Your name was

that has changed 11 Your address was
Skip if this has not changed or
you have not voted before Your previous state or New York State County was
Identification New York State DMV number

You must make 1 selection
12 x x x – x x –
Last four digits of your Social Security number
For questions, please refer to
Verifying your identity above. I do not have a New York State driver’s license or a Social Security number.
Political party Democratic party Affidavit: I swear or affirm that

You must make 1 selection Republican party • I am a citizen of the United States.
• I will have lived in the county, city or village
Independence party for at least 30 days before the election.
To vote in a primary election,
you must be enrolled in one 13 Conservative party • I meet all requirements to register
of these listed parties — to vote in New York State.
except the Independence Party, Working Families party • This is my signature or mark in the box below.
which permits non-enrolled voters • The above information is true, I understand that
to participate in certain primary
Other 15 if it is not true, I can be convicted and fined up
elections. I do not wish to enroll in a party to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to four years.
I need to apply for Sign

an Absentee ballot (optional).
Optional questions 14
I would like to be an
Election Day worker (optional). Date
Your address
Place
First-class
stamp
here
Your County Board of Elections address
New York City Chenango Franklin Lewis Oneida Putnam Schuyler Ulster
Executive Offices 5 Court St. 355 West Main St. 7660 N. State St. Union Station 25 Old Route 6 County Office Bldg. 284 Wall St.
32 Broadway, 7th Fl. Norwich, NY 13815 Ste. 161 Lowville, NY 13367 321 Main St. Carmel, NY 10512 105 9th St., Unit 13 Kingston, NY 12401
New York, NY (607) 337-1760 Malone, NY 12953 (315) 376-5329 3rd Fl. (845) 278-6970 Watkins Glen, NY (845) 334-5470
10004 (518) 481-1663 Utica, NY 13501 14891
Clinton Livingston (315) 798-5765 Rensselaer (607) 535-8195 Warren
(212) 487-5300
Cnty Government Ctr. Fulton County Govt. Ctr. Ned Pattison Cnty. Municipal Ctr.
137 Margaret St. 2714 St. Hwy 29 6 Court St. Onondaga Government Ctr. Seneca 1340 St. Rte. 9
Albany Ste. 104 Ste. 1 Room 104 Civic Ctr. 1600 Seventh Ave. One DiPronio Dr. Lake George, NY
32 North Russell Road Plattsburgh, NY 12901 Johnstown, NY 12095 Geneseo, NY 14454 421 Montgomery St., Troy, NY 12180 Waterloo, NY 13165 12845
Albany, NY 12206 (518) 565-4740 (518) 736-5526 (585) 243-7090 15th Fl. (518) 270-2990 (315) 539-1760 (518) 761-6456
(518) 487-5060 Syracuse, NY 13202
Columbia Genesee Madison (315) 435-3312 Rockland Steuben Washington
Allegany 401 State St. County Building #1 County Office Bldg. 11 New Hempstead Rd. 3 E. Pulteney Sq. 383 Broadway
6 Schuyler St. Hudson, NY 12534 15 Main St. N. Court St. Ontario New City, NY 10956 Bath, NY 14810 Fort Edward, NY
Belmont, NY 14813 (518) 828-3115 PO Box 284 PO Box 666 74 Ontario St. (845) 638-5172 (607) 664-2260 12828
(585) 268-9294 Batavia, NY 14021 Wampsville, NY 13163 Canandaigua, NY (518) 746-2180
Cortland (585) 344-2550 (315) 366-2231 14424 St. Lawrence Suffolk
Broome 112 River St. (585) 396-4005 48 Court St. PO Box 700 Wayne
Government Plaza Room 103 Greene Monroe Canton, NY 13617 Yaphank Ave. 157 Montezuma St. Ext.
44 Hawley St. Cortland, NY 13045 411 Main St. 39 Main St. W. Orange (315) 379-2202 Yaphank, NY 11980 PO Box 636
PO Box 1766 (607) 753-5032 Ste. 437 Rochester, NY 14614 25 Court Lane (631) 852-4500 Lyons, NY 14489
Binghamton, NY Catskill, NY 12414 (585) 753-1550 PO Box 30 Saratoga (315) 946-7400
13902 Delaware (518) 719-3550 Goshen, NY 10924 50 W. High St. Sullivan
(607) 778-2172 3 Gallant Ave. Montgomery (845) 291-2444 Ballston Spa, NY Gov’t. Ctr. Westchester
Delhi, NY 13753 Hamilton Old Courthouse 12020 100 North St. 25 Quarropas St.
Cattaraugus (607) 746-2315 Rte. 8 9 Park St. Orleans (518) 885-2249 PO Box 5012 White Plains, NY
302 Court St. PO Box 175 PO Box 1500 14012 State Rte. 31 Monticello, NY 12701 10601
Little Valley, NY 14755 Dutchess Lake Pleasant, NY Fonda, NY 12068 Albion, NY 14411 Schenectady (845) 807-0400 (914) 995-5700
(716) 938-2400 47 Cannon St. 12108 (518) 853-8180 (585) 589-3274 388 Broadway, Ste. E
Poughkeepsie, NY (518) 548-4684 Schenectady, NY Tioga Wyoming
Cayuga 12601 Nassau Oswego 12305 County Office Bldg. 4 Perry Ave.
10 Court St. (845) 486-2473 Herkimer 240 Old Country Rd. 185 E. Seneca St. (518) 377-2469 56 Main St. Warsaw, NY 14569
Auburn, NY 13021 109 Mary St. 5th Fl. Box 9 Owego, NY 13827 (585) 786-8931
(315) 253-1285 Erie Ste. 1306 Mineola, NY 11501 Oswego, NY 13126 Schoharie (607) 687-8261
134 W. Eagle St. Herkimer, NY 13350 (516) 571-2411 (315) 349-8350 County Office Bldg. Yates
Chautauqua Buffalo, NY 14202 (315) 867-1102 284 Main St. Tompkins Ste. 1124
7 North Erie St. (716) 858-8891 Niagara Otsego PO Box 99 Court House Annex 417 Liberty St.
Mayville, NY 14757 Jefferson 111 Main St. Ste. 2 Schoharie, NY 12157 128 E. Buffalo St. Penn Yan, NY 14527
(716) 753-4580 Essex 175 Arsenal St. Ste. 100 140 County Hwy. 33W (518) 295-8388 Ithaca, NY 14850 (315) 536-5135
7551 Court St. Watertown, NY 13601 Lock port, NY 14094 Cooperstown, NY (607) 274-5522
Chemung PO Box 217 (315) 785-3027 (716) 438-4040 13326
378 South Main St. Elizabethtown, NY (607) 547-4247
PO Box 588 12932
Elmira, NY 14902 (518) 873-3474
(607) 737-5475
EXHIBIT G
-
- --. -49. : i 76:lhrjBB416 - May. 27 a@@Z%:3F.m P1
= t Z 22 00 ;0:06a Car] P ~ - c ~ ~ ~ 212-303-9247
P *2
.,
123qwdls2(Wi6
'I'ric)-k~n-bk Jdk Fidcy,
U u i d stales h b l i s s a b to thc . .
on for W b r y and Coupcn#rioa h Wopu
bs.~
2311 C S e r N W
c o f SURM
. .
Wahln@& DC 20520 .. * .
Re: ? N o u ! a Y a 2 0 0 6 - u . s : ~ E I ~ ~
S w MFiOnIHR N q b d M b i m Fkporr
lrclp AabiWuhr7
i h . r c t . l u a e ~ . ~ i ~ ~ r w i r * r k * ~ ~ b j o ~ ~ ~ ~
. a * r t p o n ; ~ 4 111 ~
9 ~~ 2 ( 1 0 4 b ~ ' b ~ b ~ ' P . C L d i L I L I ~ ~ i d ~ ~ d d ~ t j ~ ) . ~ . & ~ ~ m a ~
ka-my~iPIY96WGiuWerrUy~witbbyb~of
Cdiiknh in iay rbst Disuict,wha-& it -crud 4.023 aiicn am-
~oa~witAttiI~mraQN~tipn-o~.~inwhichmksr;
: rhisn2,369of~rJicnsmedformy ~ w i t b ~ r y . . ~ ~ t e m y ~ ~
s5king due pvcaas the W u k n t &on as is matar mrrttcroi'plblic ceard w s c a n d d by
consent nat coldpetiriuu of t h RCpabband IkrnOCMdc National ParciEa
1m.writibgmiSkttatpeltptffmy cuaccmwirfr~ol~.o\bHDaotibr
~ ~ a f :
1. iTm*-tSoftbc?NAM- . ,
2. l h s t ~ ~ v P C e o r g ~ ~ 0 f t k e N ; r r i c of&cYcuuk
wral~
of S a c (NASS) bas invited f h g a obwvmt to Vuious lide&us
ayrinwiUlOutrwthorirytoQoso:
3. v & y d w O S C % ~ ~ ~ p n w i d e d a c w menot :m i &c~aml
mer
drubeud whsJirthcpupxmtkits
4. WM
I ifu*thba is ur OSCMDRIR- g 6 cd u
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J n ~ H c l p ~ t o V o t L I A c t ( N A v A ) u ,
prmrcnt ill& i d b (mJ xsidmc alias,in @6rom voting at Ihc
e & t i o n i a Q c ~ ~ ; U d
5. 'Wba pmpoahdh'prcsamtivc mIbw'Ity doa tbe USA knc in
'conj~mrrionuritb tRr ottir -9w m l w a m in thr. WCF,idwhat if
m y OSCB,J~ d o r r ; ~ b h b g ~ p ~ ~ ~ r t u c ' u s ~ t rSSE
r*lurck
ofrhc ssMnl mus?
- , 17133566416 May. 27 2008 06: 35PM P2
-e:
--
L- 2E :Z106a Carl Pcrsom 212-307-02+7 P*3
W lrn mrcrewe u, cllc NAM report Swudn 1111 Buckgruud I'm A lSprum UJ'U*V
,.
uO Y ~ ~ J V ~ Z ~ I 1x11wqh 3 trfcrrnr~-r n "the USCE 19%)Clomb;ll;crr ~locurucnt",m I
LLII! C S ~ T C C LIII ussUmirlg dial t k zverd Sutw oi the UniM States wirh plcrrruy bottom-
uo c~litroli11 p r o v i ~ ~ oofn deerions wrrt: not prrr~yta tho srcaeuis, and r k c f o m rhoso
punlaaw mrcainlay to thc s c v c d stales ;tre only adviwiy ;md were nor ~eli'wuuting?
r tltc w e Sarion Pm U ixibru~wsprevious OSCUODIHR obx.rvati.tion

F ~ r u l r in
fmm
~iivitau ~ 1996 ~IIIIJ the prwnt, wzrc: obs~wcrscn d~ ground in Cdilorniil uad if so
w1h;lr juisdiclioa;i during tla 19% &tiam u ~ il' d YO whai p&on wthorL~cdmuy?
I:urlhw in Swdon V L'li?ctur&l K q f w m in Psd G Acres$ oj Ubyrrmr~in ''wclccwrrc.

~ k ~ ~ l ~ u~yrotuuo,ol~ u e from
n r ~24 July 20M rk NASS b W l c ~ mOdCX# intcnwtiomd
obbwws ..",with whilt aufhriTy ova that of the pardcdar SUE law w t h ~unsdiction
does [ILL.NASS operate tv g w c such ~uthOZi\ywiVl the + . ~ ~ i x : o J ?d 40 the OSCE
.:UDLI-IK I o l v r ra abiuc by thu purcicub sbw I%\uor (WI; il hvt: stqmrc ~Uthonay'2
..
F h r in M u o n VX Other Finilrngs Pcwt E in r q p d 8 to nillegurlorr, i{frtegukuifres
what Xuny allegruionz,-re suhstsiltivc. and W n g f u l ?As you ax awue sly
a1lr;gaioumust be groudcd in s u b s t ~ t i v duo
c proccu und when any o1Rciu.h t'ail ro
fblluw thF0ugh wr'hout beins reprtcxi by OYCE is mow 6i.8 cowun the d k g u ~ u n
itxlf, md is avcn more serious concern tllilt OSCE serves only to J'urlhrr disrupt
con(;denc.c hdzi: zlatiun pruc~ss&w by OSCt pcmnncl; and notably my amem is
gcnilm bcccucyc ele~tiofiIWVG ken conducted k c succasfdly since 1789, we a c not
d inlerfexncz is seditious at lcast under Fded law.
an cntcrghg dcint~crwy.w ~ any
'lhz w ot'lhc central duubase by thc OSCG or any OWrron-citkren orgmi7ation
.u*fwthu.tbr cllnlnlcrcilrl ,uctivity.wlicidrq rutd or pojilictil iateri'erencc regdirtcd by state
law is a very serious privacy ~~~r
fiiie~-ld wanrmb me lo wh w h is Lhc
USCE EUIJ~;tv A 'with I,i&'!
1 hove b r ? n seriously i o j w d by tlu iltegd operation ol'elcctions WJ rrs such have

a dl U.S. Citims have in t l election
QcaL e o n c m over the C O D ~ ~ & ~ CtlC ~ ~LTXG'SS; ilnd
as such I quest an w w e r from Your Horkor LO rhc muurm; express4 shove..

Barnett v. Dunn Response To Defendants MTDs

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Barnett v. Dunn Response To Defendants MTDs

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

1 Pamela Barnett, Pro se Plaintiff

2 2541 Warrego Way

Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page i

3 Plaintiff‘s Response as to Defendants’ Introduction ……………………………………………………… 1

4 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Factual Background………………………………………. 6

5 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Procedural History………………………………………… 6

6 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Standard of Review……………………………………… 7

7 Plaintiff’s Response as to Defendants’ Arguments………………………………………………………… 8

8 As for Plaintiff’s response to State Defendants defense using the

9 Eleventh Amendment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

10 Amendment somehow bars Plaintiff’s relief against Defendants Kelley,

11 Brown and Bowen in federal court…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

13 to dismiss because Plaintiff’s requested relief would substantially interfere

14 with the conduct of the Election………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

19 cause of action for unjust enrichment as to supporting facts ………………………………………. 17

21 Database with the VRA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 18

22 Plaintiff Argument As To Federal Jurisdiction and Authority.……………………………………….. 21

23 Plaintiff’s Response Summary in Opposition to Dismissal……………………………………………… 36

Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page ii

5 Huston v. Anderson (1904) 145 Cal. 320,324, ……………………………………………………………………….. 6

6 Pohlmann v. Patty (1917) 33 Cal.App. 390………………………………………………………………………………… 6

7 Hans v Louisiana , 134 U.S. 1 (1890)………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8- 10

8 Ex Parte Young., 209 U.S. 123 (1908)…………………………………………………………………………………..… 8,10,

9 Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10

10 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)…………………………………………………………………………………… 10

11 Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949………………………………………………………. 19

12 U.S. v NYS BOE NDNY 06-cv-263……………………………………………………………//………………………………. 20

17 United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917)

18 Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915)

19 Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918)

20 United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918)……………………………………………………………………….. 26

21 United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)…………………………………………………………………………. 26,28

22 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)

25 United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir.1985)

Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page iii

2 United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974)

3 United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005);

4 United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999);

5 United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985);

6 United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985);

7 United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983);

8 United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982);

9 United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982);

13 Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884)…………………………………………………………………………………. 28

24 United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966),

Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to MTDs- Page iv

2 United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)……………………………………………………………………………. 30

3 United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994)

4 United States v. Sloane, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005);

6 United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951);

7 Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943)………………………………………………………………. 32

8 United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995),…………………………………………………………. 33

10 28 U.S.C. §1746…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

11 42 USC §1973C ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

12 28 U.S.C. §2284…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

13 42 U.S.C. §1973 –I (c)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1,30,31

14 42 U.S.C. §§1973– I (d)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

15 42 U.S.C. §1973-J,……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

16 42 U.S.C. §1973-N……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

17 42 U.S.C. §1973GG-10…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1,3

18 42 U.S.C. §§15544……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1,3

19 42 U.S.C. §1746…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

20 42 U.S.C. §1746…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1