Upload
christopher-earl-strunk
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
1/40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case: 04-cv-1193--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
In the 42 USC 1983 suffrage and autonomy discrimination (LEK / RFT)
Matter of: Ronald G. Loeber, Burr V. Deitz, William E. Bombard,William A. Gage, John Joseph Forjone, H. William Van Allen,Fairlene G. Rabenda, Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, Ronald E. Sacoff,Gabriel Razzano, Edward M. Person, Jr., Christopher Earl Strunk and
The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional VERIFIEDLegislative Redistricting
Petitioners / Plaintiffs, : AMENDED-against-
COMPLAINTTHOMAS J. SPARGO, individually and as Justice of the NYS SupremeCourt and all Justices of the State Supreme Court, JOSEPH L. BRUNO,61 JOHN and JANE DOE NYS SENATORS all individually and as state
Senators past and present; SHELDON SILVER, 149 JOHN and JANE DOENYS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS all individually and as past and present;
GEORGE E. PATAKI individually and as NYS Governor;RANDY A. DANIELS, NYS Secretary of State with authority per CRL andRepository for corporations and unincorporated associations service;per CPLR 1012 New York State Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER;THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, and everyMunicipal Board of Elections, along with every Corporation Counsel of everyMunicipality with a Board of Elections, THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC),Michael Bloomberg NYCs Mayor, UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCECORPORATION (EAC), THOMAS R. WILKEY EAC Executive Director,
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE(NASS) by LESLIE REYNOLDS Executive Director for theExecutive Committee and PETER KOSINSKI, individually andhis official capacity at the NASS; and per 28 USC 2403The United States Attorney General ALBERTO GONZALEZ.
Respondents / Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs are US Citizens,relators resident in a municipality within the state of New York, Eligible Voters (EV)
whether registered or not entitled toBottom-up(1)
suffrage and Home-rule autonomy therein,some are in Northern District of New York, and All Plaintiffs are pro se without any one beingan attorney.
1Bottom-up versus Top-downsuffrage and autonomy is subject to Homerule authority in each municipal entity
entitled to a municipal board of elections that maintains the original registration and enrollment records within the
municipality of domicile rather than at a remote centralized location outside of Homerule authority and control.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
2/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 2 of 29
JURISDICTION and VENUE
By authority of: the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 2, Article 1 Section
4, Article I Section 8 Clause 18, Article I Section 9 Clause 3 (No bill of attainder or expost
facto Law shall be passed) as applies to the Voting Rights Act(VRA),National Voter
Registration Act(NVRA) and theHelp America to Vote Act(HAVA), Article III court
case and controversy for the Federal Question of HAVA unconstitutionality with rotten
boroughs suffrage infringement requiring a 28 USC 2284 panel on statewide senate
reapportionment question, Article IV guarantee of a republican form of government, Article
V HAVA mandates that burdens U.S. Citizen individual fundamental rights as to state citizen
suffrage and autonomy of the PEOPLE(2) imposed by Federal and State concerted acts that
infringe the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth,
amendment protection in the US Constitution; and this Court has jurisdiction of this claim
under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1332(a), 1343(a), 1357, 1361, "Venue" Section 1391(e), and
under 14th Amendment authority in 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and 1983 and 31 USC 3729 thru
3733 as applies to application and administration of the New York Constitution and Laws.
Civil Rights - Civil action for deprivation of rights, Conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights 42 USC Section 1986, Section 1985, Section 1983 and Section 1982; as well as under
the due process rights of the 5th, and protection against an unreasonable statute by Congress
under the 9th 10th Amendments pertains to the federal government, and other due process
rights in the 14th Amendment empowers Congress to protect persons from State actions.
2New York State Constitution Article IX Local Government definition of the PEOPLE (d) Whenever
used in this Article the following terms shall mean or include (3) PEOPLE. Persons entitled to vote as
provided in section one of Article two of this constitution.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
3/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 3 of 29
42 U.S.C. Section 1985 (3):
Depriving persons of rights or privileges if two or more persons in any State or Territory
conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose
of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class or persons of the equal
protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for thepurpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory
from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection
of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or
threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitle to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a
legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an
elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States;
or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in
any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein
do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, hereby
another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any
right or privileges of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived mayhave an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,
against any one or more of the conspirators.
Moreover, that the guarantee clauses of the Federal Constitution require Federal intervention to
enforce applicable sections of the New York State Constitution (NYSC) Article I Sections
1,6,7,11,17 especially NYSC Bill of Rights Article I. Section 1. "No member of this state shall
bedeprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of
the land, or the judgment of his peers
" in that Article II, III, VI, IX, X thru XIX apply herein.
See US Supreme Court decisions: Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); WMCA v.
Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964) with malicious use oftotal population in equal districts alleged
as if in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US. 583 (1964) one man one vote, Arbor Hill v. Albany County
NDNY 03 cv 502, Rodriguez v Pataki SDNY 02 cv 618.
This action filed in October 2004 is timely commenced within the applicable statute of
limitations and as per the State reapportionment of legislative districts dated April 22, 2002, and
pursuant to the Order of District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on September 22, 2005 for leave to
amend the complaint herein and for 28 USC 2284 relief to follow:
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
4/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 4 of 29
PARTIES
1. At all times relevant to the instant action all PETITIONERS / PLAINTIFFS are
associated with The AD HOC New York State Citizens for Constitutional Legislative
Redistricting (AD HOC Citizens) for this suit as of right seeking remedy as an unincorporated
association granted recognition by the NYS Civil Rights Consolidated Law Chapter 6 Article
5A, that operates according to the NYSC founded on April 20, 1777 with associated laws to
facilitate Elector member suffrage and autonomy within the municipal entity of residence where
only the PEOPLE who are those citizens entitled to vote are Electors, as relator stakeholders
with sovereignty and may be registered to vote at the respective Board of Elections and or
entitled by affidavit to vote; and hereinafter known as Petitioner, Plaintiff with specific use
of the last name and collectively as Petitioners, Plaintiffs; is located at 351 North Road
Hurley New York 12443 with Petitioner / Plaintiff members, are all natural persons, Electors of
the State of New York Citizens, as the independent part of the PEOPLE apart from the Bi-
partisan majoritarians with control over the State Legislature, State Judiciary and State
Executive, and whereas Petitioners / Plaintiffs do not have any control over patronage, policy
and purse, and that each Petitioner / Plaintiff is a member of a large class described below as
whistleblowers and by individual relator affidavit of verification attached, as part of a class
of state Citizens jus tertii of the PEOPLE to numerous to name, herein are pro se as follows:
2. Ronald G. Loeber, 2130 Burne Altamont Road Altamont New York 12009 Phone:
518- 872-2154, County of Albany with Neil D. Breslin in 46th SD and John J. McEneny in 104th
3. Burr V. Deitz, 444 Whitehall Street, Albany New York 12008 Phone: 518- 489-
0167, County of Albany with Neil D. Breslin in 46th SD and John J. McEneny in 104th AD.
4. William E. Bombard, 71 Saratoga Avenue South Glens Falls New York 12803 with
service mailing at PO Box 882 Glens Falls New York 12801, Phone: 518-743-0108, County of
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
5/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 5 of 29
Saratoga with Joseph L. Bruno in the 43rd SD and Theresa Sayward in the 113th AD
5. William A. Gage 10 Greenfield Lane Hampton New York 12837 Phone: 518-282-
9818 County of Washington, Elizabeth OC. Little in 45th SD and Roy McDonald in 112th AD
6. John Joseph Forjone, 5367 Upper Holley Road mailing address POB 28 Clarendon
NY 14429 Phone: 585-721-7673 County of Orleans with George D. Maziarz 62nd SD and
Charles Nesbitt 139th AD
7. H. William Van Allen, 351 North Road Hurley New York 12443 Phone: 845-389-
4366 FAX 845-338-5979 County of Ulster with John J. Bonacic in the 42nd SD and Kevin A.
Cahill in the 101st AD
8. Fairlene G. Rabenda, 8 Claudia Lane, Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Phone: 845-
462-5820, County of Dutchess, Stephen M. Saland in 41st SD and Joel M. Miller in 102nd AD
9. Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier, 25 Hattie Jones Circle Brooklyn, N.Y. 11213 Phone
718-288-1827, City of New York with Velmanette Montgomery in the 18th SD and Annette
Robinson in the 56th AD
10. Ronald E. Sacoff, 84 Boylan Street Staten Island New York 10312, Phone: 917-709-
0039, City of New York, with John J. Marchi in the 24th SD and Robert A. Straniere in 62nd AD
11. Gabriel Razzano, 135 Gordon Place Freeport, New York 11520, Phone 516-223-
6883, County of Nassau, with Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. in the 8th SD and David G. McDonough
in the 19th AD
12. Edward M. Person, Jr., 392 Saldane Avenue North Babylon N.Y. 11703 Phone
631-667-7316, County of Suffolk, Owen H. Johnson in 4th SD and Andrew P. Raia in 9th AD
13. Christopher Earl Strunk, 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238
Phone 845-389-0774, City of New York, Velmanette Montgomery in 18th SD and Roger L.
Green in the 57th AD.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
6/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 6 of 29
14. At all times hereinafter mentioned each and every of the 613 Defendants:
STATE RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS are named as natural persons, individually and as
public officers, who are collectively associated with membership in the Bi-partisan
majoritarian Republican or Democratic State Party structure are incumbents who hold public
office in the State Legislature, State Executive, and as those who also are Officers of the State
Judiciary by required oath of office and undertakings prescribed by law and that as for those
retired State Legislators that previously held office and are under the jurisdiction of the State
retirement system and represents a class to numerous to name dating back to the 1960 census and
1962 State reapportionment.
15. THE STATE JUDICIARY with 264 State Supreme Court justices plus 69
senior certified justices representative in the person of THOMAS J. SPARGO
(Respondent , Defendant, Justice Spargo, collectively as Respondents, Defendants,
State Judiciary), is the state of New York Supreme Court Justice duly elected for the Third
Judicial District within the Third Department Appellate Division with authority to hear all
election law, reapportionment and real property matters; as counsel to the NYS Senate under
Senator Marino and Senator Bruno in the matter of previous reapportionments as well as the
current reapportionment challenged herein, is the go to guy in all election matters, is closely
associated with Peter Kosinski, is the go to guy for putting together business deals with out of
state corporations investment involving special legislation, is the go-to guy for formation of
minor parties for the bi-partisan majoritarian State parties for use of the fusion candidate
process, is the go-to-guy for national Republican party interest involving Federal control over
State suffrage by private interest through the foot in the door legislation promulgated by the
HAVA; is involved in the April 2002 reapportionment of the Senate and Assembly using the
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
7/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 7 of 29
2000 Census; and in his capacity as a Republican State Party member as a Judge maker past
and present who as a class in the Judiciary are too numerous to name herein; with place of
business located at Albany County Courthouse 16 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207;
16. STATE SENATE in the person ofJOSEPH BRUNO individually and as a public
officer (Respondent , Defendant, Senate President, collectively as Respondents,
Defendants, State Senate State Legislature), is the State of New York Senate President Pro
Tempore duly elected Republican Party Senator from the 43rd Senate District (SD)with office
located at the State of New York Capital Albany New York 12247; who in April 2002 is jointly
responsible in conjunction with Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver for the reapportionment
of the Senate and Assembly using the 2000 Census; and that in his official capacity as a
Republican State Party member is associated with Sixty-one (61) other JOHN AND JANE DOE
SENATORS past and present who as a class in the Senate too numerous to name herein include
but are limited to the following Senate members: Neil D. Breslin in the 46th SD, Elizabeth OC.
Little in the 45th SD, George D. Maziarz in the 62nd SD, John J. Bonacic in the 42nd SD,
Stephen M. Saland in the 41st SD, Suzy Oppenheimer in the 37th SD, Thomas K. Duane in the
29th SD, Velmanette Montgomery in the 18th SD, John J. Marchi in the 24th SD, Charles J.
Fuschillo, Jr. in the 8th SD, Owen H. Johnson in the 4th , forty-nine (49) JOHN AND JANE
DOE STATE SENATORS past and present
17. STATE ASSEMBLY in the person ofSHELDON SILVER individually and as a
public officer (Respondent , Defendant, Assembly Speaker, collectively as
Respondents, Defendants, State Assembly State Legislature), is the State of New York
Assembly Speaker duly elected Democratic Party Senator from the 64th Assembly District
(AD) within the City of New York in lower New York County and extending over to water to
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
8/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 8 of 29
the Kings County docks, with an office located at the State of New York Capital Albany New
York 12247; who in April 2002 is jointly responsible in conjunction with the Senate President
Bruno for the reapportionment of the Senate and Assembly using the 2000 Census; and that in
his official capacity as a Democratic State Party member is associated with One hundred forty-
nine (149) other JOHN AND JANE DOE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS past and present who as a
class in the Assembly too numerous to name herein include but are limited to the following
Assembly members: John J. McEneny in the 104th, Theresa Sayward in the 113th AD, Roy
McDonald in the 112th AD, Charles Nesbitt in the 139th AD, Kevin A. Cahill in the 101st AD,
Joel M. Miller in the 102nd AD, Sandy Galef in the 90th AD, Richard N. Gottfried in the 75th
AD, Annette Robinson in the 56th AD, Robert A. Straniere in the 62nd AD, David G.
McDonough in the 19th AD, Andrew P. Raia in the 9th AD, Roger L. Green in the 57th AD, and
One Hundred Thirty-six (136) JOHN AND JANE DOE STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS past
and present
18. STATE EXECUTIVE in the person of GEORGE F. PATAKI individually and as
a public officer, is the State of New York Governor duly elected Republican Party chief
executive officer (Respondent, Defendant, Governor, collectively as Respondents,
Defendants, State Executive), with offices located at the State of New York Capitol Albany
New York 12247, is the State of New York Governor duly elected as a Republican State Party
Governor who appointed the Secretary of State; and who in April 2002 approved the Senate and
Assembly Reapportionment plan, is jointly responsible in conjunction with the Senate President
Bruno and Speaker Silver for reapportionment of Senate and Assembly using the 2000 Census;
19. The New York Secretary of State in the person ofRANDY A. DANIELS
individually and as a public officer, is the Secretary of the State of New York is a Republican
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
9/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 9 of 29
Party member duly appointed and serves at the pleasure of Governor (Defendant, Secretary of
State, SOS, collectively as Defendants), with offices located at The New York State
Department of State 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231, is a member of NASS and by law is the
Public Officer charged with responsibility to safeguard civil rights under CRL to review for
compliance and repository for all, incorporated and unincorporated association due process
including 57 municipalities with Boards of Elections within, safeguards all records for New
York;
20. The New York Attorney General in the person of ELIOT SPITZER, individually
and as public officer is the State of New York Attorney General duly elected Democratic Party
chief law enforcement officer (Respondent, Defendant, Attorney General, collectively as
Court Officers, Respondents, Defendants), with offices located at the State of New York
Capitol Albany New York 12224 and per CPLR 1012 is vested with the authority to defend the
State Constitution, Civil Rights Law and Public Officers with duties during good behavior;
21. THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, created under EL 3-100
two bi-partisan co-chairman and two bipartisan commissioners with jurisdiction and
authority over every one of the 57 Municipal Boards of Elections, along with every Corporation
Counsel of every Municipality including the Board of Elections, of the city of New York, by
their special counsel Todd Valentine Esq. with place of business located at 40 Steuben Street
Albany, New York 12207-2109
22. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity created by the State Legislature
under State Constitution Article IX, which as a corporate entity subsumes pre existing Counties,
without Homerule since 1964 are now boroughs of the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn,
Staten Island, that NYC exist at State Legislature pleasure; (Defendant, NYC, Person,
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
10/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 10 of 29
collectively as Defendants, City Defendants, State Defendants, State Entity, Person)
with place of service at the NYC Corporation Counsel. Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel
of the City of New York 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0995
23. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG City of New York Major, duly election chief executive
officer of the Municipal Corporation entity the City of New York with authority over the City of
New York Board of Elections and policy regarding bottom-up suffrage and autonomy for US
Citizens resident within; (Defendant, Mayor of NYC, Mayor, collectively as
Defendants, City Defendants, State Defendants, State Public Officer, Public Officer)
with place for service at One Centre Street, New York New York 10007;
24. The United States ELECTION ASSISTANCE CORPORATION (EAC),
Address United States Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite -
1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202)
566-3127 E-mail Address [email protected]
25. THOMAS R. WILKEY as the EAC Executive Director Address United States
Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite - 1100 Washington, DC
20005 Telephone (202) 566-3100 Toll Free (866) 747-1471 Fax (202) 566-3127 E-mail
Address [email protected].
26. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE by its
Director Leslie Reynolds individually and as a Congressionally sanctioned alliance
(Respondent , Defendant, NASS, collectively as Respondents, Defendants),
accordingly to the NASS Constitution and Bylaws NASS aims and purposes of the association,
the oldest national organization of major public officials, are to disseminate and exchange
information among its members their duties, responsibilities, methods of operation, suggestions
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
11/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 11 of 29
and proposals for improvement in their respective offices thought mutually beneficial to
themselves, their states, and the nation with executive offices located at Hall of States 444 N.
Capitol St., NW Suite 401 Washington , DC 20001 PHONE: (202) 624-3525 FAX: (202) 624-
3527 and
27. PETER KOSINSKI, individually and his official capacity at the NASS individually
and as a Public Officer duly appointed as the Executive Director of THE NEW YORK STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS, is an officer of the Judiciary, is named herein individually and as a
member of the Republican State party appointed by the Bi-partisan Majoritarians to be
representative of the State of New York along with the Secretary of State in the National
Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) pursuant to New York State Constitution Article II
Section 8, facilitates questionable operation of the OSCE / ODIHR, notwithstanding NYS
Election Law and State Officer duties (Defendant, Respondent, Bipartisan BOE,
collectively as Defendants or Respondents) with place of business located at 40 Steuben
Street Albany, New York 12207-2109
28. ALBERTO GONZALEZ is the Honorable United States of America Attorney
General, is a statutory party herein under 28 USC 2403 takes orders from the chief law
enforcement officer of the United States President George W. Bush (Respondent, U.S.
Attorney General, collectively as Respondents),serves at the pleasure of the President with
advice and consent of Congress has offices other than Washington D.C. in every State and here
in this venue such ancillary office is located at the Federal Office Building Albany New York
12201; The US Attorney General has the duty and authority to defend the Federal Constitution,
Congressional Law, Civil Rights Law, the Voting Rights Act Immigration and Nationality Act,
HAVA, and Public Officers with duties during good behavior;
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
12/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 12 of 29
29. That Petitioners / Complainants by reason of prima facie evidence and foregoing
facts, actions and malicious intent of the Respondents / Defendants their agents and those yet
named both of the state of New York and Federally as individuals and public officers act under
color of Federal Law effecting the current state of New York Election Law EL, the April 22,
2002 reapportionment of the state of New York Legislatures fifty (50) Senate Districts (SD),
one-hundred fifty (150)Assembly Districts (AD), twelve (12)Judicial Districts (JD), and
twenty-nine (29) CongressionalHouse Districts (CD), all pre-cleared by the United State
Department of Justice (DOJ) Voting Rights Section under the Voting Rights Act(VRA),
with conformance to the 1993National Voter Registration Act(
NVRA
) and the October 29,
2002Help America to Vote Act(HAVA), P.L. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666; and
30. That Plaintiffs as US Citizens are denied equal protection and substantive due process
suffer injury to individual Bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy of the PEOPLE within a
municipal entity as a firewall against corruption entitled to a respective board of elections
therein, suffer infringement of speech in the state legislature the US House, unequal due process
in the judiciary and unreasonable unequally reimbursed unfunded financial burden upon New
York citizen property differently than that for citizens of the several states, as a taking imposed
by unconstitutional provisions of HAVA in the Congressional definition ofVoting Age
Person (VAP) rather than Citizen Voting Age Persons (CVAP), is prima facie
discrimination evidence proven in related case Arbor Hill v. Albany County NDNY 03 cv 502,
notwithstanding the limited finding by the Courts analysis inRodriguez v Pataki SDNY 02 cv
618, in the March 15, 2004 Decision per VRA applied only to selected SDs within NYC rather
than statewide.
31. Plaintiffs complain that injury is inflicted statewide in political districts drawn by
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
13/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 13 of 29
Defendants to protect incumbents and partisan control over patronage policy and purse in the
state legislature by consent not competition, so that bipartisan control over each and every
municipal entity entitled to a board of elections under color of NVRA and HAVA is done
without a constitutional amendment for Congressional authority beyond Federal Article 1
Section 4 to impose top down control over suffrage with mis administration and application of
the State Constitution and related Laws.
32. That Plaintiffs, as a jus tertii class of CVAP, suffer rotten boroughs injury, in New
York that involves 37 existing mal-formed municipalities whose People / CVAP are without any
anti-corruption firewall despite the political district supposedly being pre-cleared under color of
the VRA with impunity since after 1964, and suffer since April 22, 2002 by disproportionate
diminished dilution (DDD) injuries to Plaintiffs individually, as the representative class jus
tertii, differently on an entity by entity basis statewide.
33. That Plaintiffs injury to the Peoples Homerule autonomy and bottom-up suffrage
varies differently, and as special injury Plaintiffs as People jus tertii are denied equal treatment
without compelling state interest, that requires strict scrutiny on the totality effect of the causes
of actions with injuries as follows:
34. As and for a First Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State and
Federal their agents ad those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 33
intentionally act by consent not competition use VAP statewide including non-citizens of
voting age to unequally distribute CVAP to cause Disproportionate Diminished Dilution
(DDD) of non-majoritarian Electors voting strength for Senate Districts by misapplication
of the State Constitution and Laws anti-gerrymander provisions for control over the Bi-
partisanpatronage policy and purse, and all Boards of Elections.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
14/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 14 of 29
35. That on or about May 2001 Defendants Spargo Bruno Silver Pataki and Daniels et.al.
created a Joint Task Force on Demographics for conducting a reapportionment of senate,
assembly and CDs with mis application and administration of the State Constitution and Laws.
36. Those agents of the Task force at the direction of Defendants Spargo, Bruno, Silver,
Pataki and Daniels et.al. as of April 22, 2002 using the total 2000 Census enumeration of all
persons resident in New York State net citizens resident overseas totals 18,976,459 includes the
total of alien non-citizens 2,084,389, reapportioned 62 State Senate District (SD) Seats, 150
Assembly District (AD) Seats and 29 Congressional House District (CD) Seats, by
intentional mis administration and application of the State Constitution and related laws..
37. On or about April 22, 2002 Defendants Spargo, Silver, Bruno, Pataki and Daniels
et.al. proposed SD and AD reapportionment for the 2002 General Election with total inhabitants
includes aliens, uses a ratio 306,072 per Senate District and ratio 126,509 persons per Assembly
District by dividing 18,976,459 by 62 for the Senate Districts and 18,976,459 by 150 for the
Assembly Districts and along with Twenty-nine (29) Congressional Districts, for pre-clearance
under the VRA to the US DOJ Voting Rights Division- who thereafter approved same.
38. Those Defendants intentionally did not draw the one SD and one AD to include
Hamilton and Fulton municipal entities to elect together within one State Senate District,
containing at least one AD conterminous within and coterminous in one Congressional District.
39. That Congress under HAVA and Defendants define Voting Age Population (VAP)
as any person enumerated in the Federal Census 2000 resident in a state or territory at the time
of the enumeration being 17 years or older, includes: (i) citizens eligible to vote whether
registered or not; (ii) those incarcerated in prison being adjudged civilly dead not having been re-
enfranchised; (iii) all aliens whether documented or not; and (iv.) those adjudged civilly dead by
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
15/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 15 of 29
due process of law;
40. VAP however does NOT include any minor under the age of 18 not of voting age
does not differentiate between children who are citizens by birth or those aliens whether
documented or not.
41. That Congress has unreasonably set a deadline for January 1, 2006 under HAVA for
New York and the several states to implement regulations and a plan for acquisition of new
voting machines for the US House Election in November of 2006, and as critically effects the all
important gubernatorial cycle here in New York,
42. In the state of New York, HAVA compliance involves DOJ certification for EAC
reimbursement of say $221 million to New York that Plaintiffs contend MUST be greater using
CVAP rather than VAP calculations compared to the other states, especially California, Texas,
New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and others to numerous to name.
43. Those Defendants have created The Citizen's Election Modernization Advisory
Committee comprises Stanley Zalen, co-executive director of the Board of Elections with
Defendant Peter Kosinski, along with two Democratic county elections commissioners, two
Republican county elections commissioners, four representatives of the disability community,
and one appointment each by the Senate and Assembly.
44. Under the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, states have to improve access to
voting and modernize elections.
45. The new machines have to be in place for the 2006 elections.
46. Some of New York's requirements for the new voting machines are that they produce
a permanent paper record that a voter can verify before casting a ballot, and that they have an
audio voting feature for people with vision problems.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
16/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 16 of 29
47. In New York of the slated $221 million under HAVA, most of which will go toward
new machines and that Counties must decide which machines they want, provide for training,
maintenance and storage as part of the real property tax levy under EL 4-138.
48. Those Defendants both State and Federal their agents ad those yet to be named in
concert under color of the Voting Rights Act including the National Voter Registration Act
and Help America to Vote Act maliciously act under color of HAVA and by mis application
and administration of the NYSC anti-gerrymandering provisions to impose tremendous burden
upon CVAP, whose only remedy is to petition for ballot access under color of EL 6-136, 140,
142 and 154, thereby injures CVAP by imposing unequal protection of US Citizen fundamental
rights in the State of New York in participation for Federal and State electoral process; and
49. Those Defendants both state and Federal are obligated to define Citizen Voting Age
Population / CVAP as any U.S. Citizen enumerated in the Federal Census 2000 resident in a state
or territory at the time of the enumeration being 17 years or older, that CVAP ONLY includes
U.S. Citizens eligible to vote whether registered or not, without the civilly dead;
50. CVAP however, does NOT include: (i.) those incarcerated in prison being adjudged
civilly dead not having been re-enfranchised; (ii.) no aliens whether documented or not; (iii.) no
citizen adjudged civilly dead by due process of law; and (iv.) does NOT include any minor under
the age of 18 not of voting age does not differentiate between children who are citizens by birth
or those aliens whether documented or not.
51. Those Defendants intentionally use total population including persons of the VAP
class including Citizens and non-citizens whether documented or not along with those who are
civilly dead by operation of law, as enumerated by the 2000 Census within a 5% deminimus of
the total population per district.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
17/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 17 of 29
52. That during the 2000 Florida National Presidential Election controversy arouse in
which Defendant Thomas Spargo was a material participant there, thereafter conspired with the
NASS and State Defendants when intentionally missing a Democratic Party Co-Chairman Carol
Berman EL 3-100 assignment to the State Board of Elections, in order to broadly impose HAVA
top-down over all Federal and State elections as if under color of Federal Article I Section 4,
despite the limited power of Congress, and without an express Federal Constitutional amendment
that substitutes VAP for CVAP in every state accordingly.
53. That Congress has somehow granted authority to provide non-citizen VAP virtual
representation at the state level without deference to U.S. Citizens exclusively sovereign as State
Citizens entitled to bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy within one state of several
states.
54. That US Citizens have no venue to vote at the Federal level unless elected to
government as representation or otherwise being resident in a territory, must be state citizens
resident within a state to vote in any Federal and or State elections.
55. Those Defendants use total population premise to reapportion political districts,
however intentionally used VAP in conjunction with VRA and HAVA passed on October 29,
2002 to draw all political districts to protect partisan voter distribution for control over patronage
policy and purse by mis application and administration of the State Constitution and related laws
56. Those Defendants drew the Senate Districts in order to protect partisan control of
patronage policy ad purse by mis application and administration of the State Constitution and
related laws thereby.
57. Those Defendants did not give equal protection deference to Eligible Voters whether
registered or not who are properly defined as Citizen Voting Age Persons.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
18/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 18 of 29
58. Those Defendants intentionally deny equal protection deference to Eligible Voters,
who are citizens defined by the VRA whether registered or not, properly defined as CVAP.
59. Those Defendants intentionally cause DDD for Eligible Voters, Plaintiffs and or
CVAP statewide in reapportionment of Senate Districts with total EV and or CVAP within each
62 SDs varying from negative 58% EVs to plus 28% EVs on either side of the 179k mean EVs
within a total population mean of 306k with a 5% variation at the top,
60. Those Defendants intentionally cause DDD for Eligible Voters and Plaintiffs or
CVAP in the city of New York (NYC) to be treated differently than statewide CVAP in
reapportionment of Senate Districts, so that within NYC varies specifically in the range of minus
37% to plus 47% DDD for NYC-EV with a mean 156,300 NYC-EV per NYC SD within a total
population mean of 306k with a 5% variation at the top.
61. As and for a Second Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal by their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 60
maliciously violate the NYSC Article III Section 4 1/3 Rule in the matter of the NYC
municipal entity, that is equivalent to a county entity, with five boroughs within without
Homerule autonomy.
62. Those Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 61 as individuals and officials
with control over the Bi-partisan patronage policy and purse in a power sharing conspiracy
with Federal Defendants intentionally allotted the NYC municipal entity twenty-six (26)
senators SDs twenty four (24) SDs of which are coterminous within NYC and
63. Those Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 62 despite the mandates of
NYSC Art. III Section 4 - 1/3 Rule and Rule flout the rule of law by intentionally
allotting 26 Senate Districts to exceed the maximum allowable total number of senators of
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
19/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 19 of 29
Twenty (20) that when combined with Nassau County with five (5) for a total of 31 State
Senators and with Westchester with a net three (3) all total thirty-four (34), despite no entity may
combine SDs with adjoining entities to have more than of all SDs.
64. Those Defendants pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 63 intentionally act to disrupt
state constitutional process including amendments and conventions thereto.
65. As and for a Third Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 64
maliciously maintain illegal municipal boards of elections without equal protection of
provision of Bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy for the People within existing
municipal entities as required in application and administration of State Constitution and Laws.
66. Those Defendants do not provide at least two ADs dedicated to represent the People
resident coterminous within an existing municipal entity.
67. Those Defendants gerrymander the ADs to afford the State Board of Elections
control over ballot access and associated election due process.
68. Those Defendants intend that ballot access and election process is more difficult in
ill-formed entities not entitled to a Board of Elections within, than for municipal entities with the
proper number of representatives coterminous within.
69. As and for a Fourth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 68
intentionally act to prevent a ratio of one (1) senator to three (3) assembly members
coterminous within the reapportionment required in the application and administration of the
State Constitution and laws.
70. Those Defendants act under color of the WMCA decision that declares the NYSC
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
20/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 20 of 29
Article III Section 4 in the so-called SD enlargement formula from the minimum required fifty
(50) SDs unconstitutional - without a replacement formula, NYSC mandates express use of 50.
71. As and for a Fifth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State and
Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 70
intentionally act by consent not competition use VAP statewide including non-citizens of
voting age to unequally distribute CVAP to cause Disproportionate Diminished Dilution
(DDD) of non-majoritarian Electors voting strength for Assembly Districts for partisan
incumbent control differently from AD to AD.
72. That Defendants both State and Federal their agents and those yet named
intentionally cause DDD for Eligible Voters, Plaintiffs and or CVAP statewide in
reapportionment of Assembly Districts with total EV and or CVAP within each of 150 ADs that
varies from a negative 53% EVs to plus 29% EVs from the statewide 74k mean EVs within the
total of say 126k persons varying by say 5% of total persons.
73. That Defendants both State and Federal their agents and those yet named
intentionally cause DDD for Eligible Voters, Plaintiffs and or CVAP in a NYC AD created
differently than a statewide AD, so that reapportionment of ADs within NYC vary in the range
of negative 49% to plus 64% DDD for NYC- EV / NYC- CVAP with mean 64,827 NYC-EV per
NYC-AD.
74. As and for a Sixth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State and
Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 73
intentionally cause the NYC municipal entity unequal virtual representation to those not
entitled to register and vote
75. As and for a Seventh Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
21/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 21 of 29
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 74
intentionally cause DDD partisan advantage in the seating of Assembly Delegates to the
Judicial Convention Nominating process under EL 6-124 for 14 year and 10 year Judicial
elective office integrally linked to reapportionment of Assembly Districts by creation of ADs
improperly overlapping municipal entity borders to cause DDD for delegates at the EL 6-124
Convention process.
76. Those Defendants are intent on limiting the number of judicial representatives in ill-
formed undersized municipalities to facilitate the taking of personal and real property, and to
limit the equal provision of plain, speedy and efficient remedy.
77. Those Defendants use gerrymandering to create judicial delegate voting advantage in
portions of ADs with DDD of delegate voting power different from entire ADs.
78. As and for a Eighth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 77
intentionally reapportion SDs and ADs without being in as compact form as practicable,
and without at all times consisting of contiguous territory within a Homerule municipal
entity to thereby abridge the PEOPLEs speech in the legislature deny representatives
dedicated to autonomous PEOPLE of a Homerule municipalitys own Board of Elections.
79. That the Defendant Secretary of State has a duty under NYS Civil Rights Law
Chapter 6 Article 5a to equally protect the fundamental and civil rights of all CVAP against
injury caused by agents of ill-formed municipal corporations whose agents act ultra vires.
80. That the Defendant Secretary of State has ignored the petition of Plaintiffs and other
CVAP for civil rights relief against agents of ill-formed municipalities in the matter of bottom-up
suffrage and Homerule autonomy.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
22/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 22 of 29
81. As and for a Ninth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 80
intentionally reapportion under color of the HAVA to create centralized national control of
voting away from State control to facilitate disenfranchisement of those Eligible Voters as
part of the CVAP.
82. As and for a Tenth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 81
intentionally reapportion and act under color of VRA and HAVA to maliciously prevent
equal protection for non-majoritarian Eligible Voter participation who challenge incumbent
control of patronage policy and purse.
83. As and for a Eleventh Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 82
intentionally act under color of HAVA use VAP as if those ineligible to vote were entitled
bottom-up suffrage and Homerule autonomy in New York in the purchase of voting
machines reimbursed by EAC and the several states that have adopted the HAVA provisions.
84. Those Defendants by each state of the several states must meet all the requirements
of HAVA implementation if entitled to Federal funding reimbursement using a formula in each
state proportionate to the total VAP of the entire USA with Territories, or say, NY-VAP divided
by the USA-VAP equals the NY-VAPPA (VAP Proportional Amount).
85. Those Defendants do not act so that the People of New York would be federally
reimbursed with a share based upon CVAP in each state not VAP and that the EAC formula
must be NY-CVAP divided by USA-CVAP to determine the reimbursement amount by EAC
and DOJ.
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
23/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 23 of 29
86. Those Defendants would require a preliminary injunction on time deadlines
nationally until a hearing of the issues involving equal protection of the CVAP in each State and
Territory may be effected, and so that no special treatment for one state may be afforded over
that of another in the matter of the ratio of CVAP per VAP in one state that burdens the CVAP in
one state or territory differently than the CVAP in any other state in matters of Suffrage and
autonomy.
87. Those Defendants arbitrarily act as if the People of the state of New York are not
entitled to a greater HAVA reimbursement- an example of which subject to the actual Census
2000 facts asserts that California CA-CVAP is say 46% of total persons whereas CA-VAP is say
72%, because a very large number of non-citizens, compares to West Virginia with a small non-
citizen population, a large elderly citizens total so that WV-CVAP of say 72% equals WV-VAP
of say 72%, and to be compared with New York NY-CVAP of say 65% and NY-VAP of 72%.
88. As and for the Twelfth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both State
and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 87
intentionally use those adjudge civilly dead as if part of the CVAP,
89. As and for the Thirteenth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both
State and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 88
intentionally act under color of VRA and HAVA prevent equal enforcement of law upon all
Municipalities of the State of New York with Boards of Election in compliance with the
State Constitution and Election Laws as to the existing EDs, ADs, SDs, JDs as effects CDs
accordingly,
90. That Municipalities entitled to a Homerule Board of Elections are not entitled to get
any HAVA money until they prove compliance with application and administration of the State
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
24/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 24 of 29
Constitution and Laws.
91. As and for the Fourteenth Cause of Action, Petitioners Allege Defendants both
State and Federal their agents and those yet to be named pursuant to above paragraphs 1 thru 90
intentionally act under color of HAVA for all Municipalities of the State of New York with
Boards of Election not in compliance with the State Constitution and Election Laws as to the
conduct of elections as a result of noncompliance with existing EDs, ADs, SDs, JDs as effects
CDs accordingly, and
92. Those Defendants and the State Board of Elections, despite warning by Plaintiffs on
October 25, 2004, allow some municipalities with Boards of Election therein do not provide
Bi-
partisan inspectors for elections in each and every Election District or polling place under
Election Law to receive a new machine under HAVA, and
93. That on November 2, 2004 Defendant State Board of Elections does not supervise
Election Law compliance ofBipartisan inspection by each board.
94. Those Defendants intentionally infringe the speech and disenfranchise Plaintiffs by
DDD as People resident within existing Municipalities with a Board of Elections totaling 37
entities that do not have at least two ADs coterminous within.
95. Those state Defendants and existing municipalities entitled to a Board of Elections
per requirements of above paragraphs 1 thru 94 as such are not entitled to any HAVA money
until they prove compliance with application and administration of State Constitution and Laws.
96. That Injury to Plaintiffs is significant and palpable by the very nature of the
underlying causes of action stated above in paragraphs 34 thru 95, Petitioners / Plaintiffs
individually and collectively as a class as those similarly situated are irreparably injured by
Respondents / Defendant as a result as follows:
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
25/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 25 of 29
97. As and for a First Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 96
Respondents injure Petitioners by Denial of Substantive Due Process required of Defendants
under proper administration and application of NYSC and Laws.
98. As and for a Second Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 97
Respondents injure Petitioners by denial of equal treatment under Election Law Substantive
Due Process for redistricting as a violation of the NYSC Art III, deny expectation of effective
ballot access and voting.
99. As and for a Third Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 98
Respondents infringe Petitioners
speech and association fundamental rights otherwise
available for U.S. Citizens in the Federal 1st amendment as related to the 14th Amendment by
denial of due process and equal treatment under Election Law and redistricting violation of the
NYSC Art III, infringe speech in the Legislature.
100. As and for a Fourth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 99
Respondents disenfranchise Petitioner suffrage rights by disproportionate diminished dilution in
gerrymandering and under the use of EL.
101. As and for a Fifth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 100
Respondents injures Petitioners suffrage rights as reverse discrimination prohibited by VRA.
102. As and for a Sixth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 101
Respondents infringement of Petitioners speech, association, bottom-up suffrage and Homerule
autonomy rights thereby deny a republican form of government.
103. As and for a Seventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 102
Respondents injures Petitioners 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th Amendment Right as U.S. Citizens who as
New York State Citizens with sovereignty granted in each state of the several states are to be
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
26/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 26 of 29
protected against foreign interference with suffrage arent by use of VAP instead of CVAP.
104. As and for a Eighth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 103
Respondents injure Petitioners as jus tertii classes where they reside since April 22, 2002 having
expended state available remedy are without a means to provide for reasonable amendment to the
State Constitution.
105. As and for a Ninth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 104 in the
matter of CVAP unequal treatment of the unfunded HAVA mandate on a municipal entity-by-
entity basis Defendants deny substantive due process for the EL 4-138 unfunded mandate
without notice and segregation of the election costs on real property tax levy, is a taking of
property.
106. As and for a Tenth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 105
notwithstanding 28 USC 1341 does not apply herein, the EAC under HAVA absent equity relief
would deprive Plaintiffs and the PEOPLE of NYS and of the several States by either Top-down
or Bottom-up suffrage, with Homerule autonomy, must afford equal protection of the law against
HAVA false claims, would otherwise qualify under the False Claims Act 31 USC 3729-3733.
107. As and for a Eleventh Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 106
that damages to individual plaintiffs jus tertii within each respective municipality entitled to a
board of elections not in compliance with application and administration of the state constitution
and laws who by ultra vires offense, not least of which impose unequal EDs non-conforming
with EL 4-100 and without elections conducted without bipartisan election inspection, and by
denying competitive bi-partisan inspector employment, and under color of Election Law
denying non-partisan inspector employment, and maliciously using an excessive number of
voting machines to cause unequal protection of CVAP at any election, and maliciously requiring
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
27/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 27 of 29
of real property tax per EL 4-138 by excessive expense to provide and maintain machines non-
complying with EL 4-100, and thereby require Plaintiffs jus tertii reimbursement as the class of
those suffering arbitrary and capricious taking of personal and real property as a result.
108. As and for a Twelfth Injury to Petitioners per above paragraphs 1 thru 107
that were any claim against the HAVA reimbursement transacted with DOJ and EAC for the
state of New York without bottom-up suffrage and Homerule compliance with the application
and administration of the state constitution and related laws such would be a false claim as
defined under 31 USC 3729 thru 3733 subject to treble damages and penalties against
Defendants with payment due to Plaintiffs as whistleblower / relator jus tertii as U.S. Citizens in
the name of the United State Government entitled to 15% to 30% of that recovered and a fee for
each false claim filed by any municipality not conforming as well as any state effecting as a false
claim, and that the fee due relators per transaction is in the amount not to exceed $11,000 for
each occurrence, and notwithstanding the False Claims Act (FCA) damages that financial
injury to individual plaintiffs being denied expectation of effective suffrage participation date
exceeds $75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners as whistleblower / relators and those similarly situated as
a Federal class of CVAP within the state of New York and in the several states and territories
urge remedy from irreparable harm that warrants a 28 USC 2284 three judge panel for
preliminary injunction suspending HAVA filing deadlines, permanent injunction for equal
treatment of suffrage and autonomy for all New York State Citizens and CVAP nationwide
entitled to suffrage separate from non-citizens, minors and those adjudged civilly dead, urge the
Court order:
1. That there must be a 28 USC 2284 trial to hear the statewide senate district
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
28/40
Loeber v Spargo Amended Complaint NDNY 04-cv-1193
Page 28 of 29
reapportionment including those of NYC and for HAVA constitutional infringement issues.
2. That the HAVA January 1, 2006 compliance deadline for each state of the several
states be stayed nationwide until such time that the court determines the constitutionality of the
use of VAP funding rather than CVAP without those adjudged civilly dead, and determines
equity for reimbursement using CVAP nationwide accordingly.
3. That each municipality entitled to a Board of Elections within must produce a
compliance plan proving conformance with the administration and application of the State
Constitution and laws in order to receive HAVA reimbursement for equity statewide in voting
machine acquisition.
4. That U.S. DOJ voting rights section must pre-clear municipal compliance plans
before certification is sent to the Election Assistance Commission for reimbursement.
5. That the municipalities of Hamilton and Fulton must elect together conterminous
within one single SD, AD and CD.
6. That the US Supreme Court held in the WMCA case that the State Constitution
Article III Section 4 formula for enlarging the number of SDs beyond the expressed provision of
fifty (50) is unconstitutional, and as such until such time that the NYSC is amended accordingly
with a new formula, there shall be fifty (50) SDs that shall each contain three ADs coterminous
within a CD and JD by proper application and administration of the NYSC and laws to meet the
requirements of the VRA, the U.S. Constitution and HAVA reimbursement for ED voting
machines.
7. That in the matter of EL 4-100 creation of Election Districts shall not to exceed 950
active voters (AV) each statewide, and further, every ED statewide shall be of equal size with
the exception that for the convenience of the active voters any ED may be subdivided and
additional voting machines provided and paid for by the EL 4-138 real property tax levy, and
furthermore, at the direction of any municipal legislature to the board of elections within may
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
29/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
30/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
31/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
32/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
33/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
34/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
35/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
36/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
37/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
38/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
39/40
8/14/2019 Amended Complaint Loeber et al. v Spargo et al. NDNY 04-Cv-1193
40/40