Appellant's Request to Re-Argue 2CA 08-4323 090810

8/8/2019 Appellant's Request to Re-Argue 2CA 08-4323 090810

1/24

UNITEDSTATeS COURT OFAPPEALSFORTHESECOND CIRCUITThurgoodM m b d U.S. Courchousc 40 FoleySquarc, New Yo&, NY 0007Telephone: 2U4B7-8500MOTION INmRMATIONSTATEMENT

~ ~ u ( s ) :wstsat -011 r a ~ ebortWIor: APR%UMT REQUEST TOREASHWEv r ~ hRAPRW 40 Loeber et al. v. Spargo et al.

i b t h below pficisc,axnplcbstatemeatof relief smgbt:-

O V I [ N G P A R T Y : ~ ~ ~ h - @ OPPONNCPARTY: T h . S W . d w Y -Plaintiff Defendant[ilA p p e I l a a m w APPeneelRespondent-W=*--hm 0ppOSINGATM)- ~ R A ~ . ~ ~ O w r J d N .

[name f attamey,with fim,ddmn,phonenumber nd email]O R c s d t b A t l # n y M d W s w Y u khwAlbany, N wYarlc 12z?44341

016787 email:-wo pti: (518) 474-2013w(: 18)N S I W Z ~ E ~ ~ I ~ L D ~appealed from: N D N Y - ~ ~ O OamsncsE.Kahn camM-w-1 I13 arid 2ndchwf~ n dCbmi~udgedabkndn 2010

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONSFOR TAYSANDINJUNCI1ONS PENDING APPEAL:

notifi op p oa in garrms e l (~b yLocs lR t1 lc27 . 1 ) : Hasmpestforreliefbum madebeloW? ayes ONN o ( e x p l a i ~ l ) : ~ d p W ~ Has his reliefbeenpwiously sought in t b is Comt? 0 es t/NoRequested return date and explanation of arergmcy: 40 Rule 2

0 uwpposed clwP0-j Om'tmow ~ k r ~ R u l . # O f d r p m n t . T H ~ h sopposingcounsel int8ndto file a response:DyesONO t - m d n m y R q U r s ~ o f e N w y a k S * b ~ ~

0 yes No Ifyes, eater date:nteW & m O Has&a besn cfkdcd? Yes No (AtEachproofofservice]

- - -ORDER

ISHEREBY ORDEREDTEAT he motion is GRANTED DENIED.FOR TEECOURT:CATHERINEO'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk ofCourt

By:-_

T-10S8


2/24

08-4323United States Court Of AppealsFor The Second Circuit

RonaldG.Loeber,etal.

Plaintiffs,

H.WilliamVanAllen,John-JosephForjone,ChristopherEarlStrunk,Plaintiffs-Appellants,

V.

ThomasJ.Spargo,etal.

DefendantsAppellees

OnAppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofNewYorkDecisionandOrdersofLawrenceE.Kahn,DistrictCourtJudge

inCaseNo.04Civ.1193========================================================= APPELLANT REQUEST TO REARGUE=========================================================

THEADHOCNYSCITIZENSFORCONSTITUTIONALLEGISLATIVEREDISTRICTING351NorthRoadHurley,NY12443

Christopher-Earl:Strunkinesseself-representedw/obeinganattorney593VanderbiltAvenue-#281Brooklyn,NewYork11238(845)901-6767email:[email protected]


3/24

AppellantsRequesttoRe-argue-Page1of15

APPELLANTS REQUEST TO REARGUE with FRAP 40 IN SUPPORT OF A12 THREE-JUDGE PANEL WITH 42 USC 1973C AND 28 USC 2284345

I,Christopher-Earl:Strunkinesse,declareunderpenaltyofperjury,pursuantto286U.S.C.1746:71. Declarant/Appellantinesseisselfrepresentedwithoutbeinganattorney,8

declaresinsupportoftheT1080motionforrehearingunderFRAPRule40andlocal9rules,thattherulesbesuspendedasisavailableunderFRAPRule2andwithFRAP10Rule34fororalargumenttoopposethedecisiononoraboutAugust27,2010(see11annexed),byCircuitJudgesPooler,Sack,Raggi thatdeniedAppellantsappealfora12hotcourthearingorremandforasecondamendedcomplaintforadistrictthreejudge13panelasthecomplaintisasubstantialanddiscernableclaimwithVRArelief;andissues14presented: Page15

a. By1966,WMCA,Inc.v.Lomenzo,377U.S.633(June15,1962)casespre-16clearedNewYorkStateConstitution(NYSC)redistricting/suffragepractice.217

b. The2002arbitrarypracticeofredistrictingw/oNYSCredistricting/suffragerules18donewithoutsection5pre-clearancefortheVotingRightsActof1965(VRA).219

c. 1992redistrictingHamiltonCountyelectedwithFultonCountybutnotin2002..420d. The1993NationalVoterRegistrationAct(NVRA)nationalizingoftheStateVoter21

Databasewasneverpre-clearedtoreplaceNYSCredistrictingpracticewith22primaryuseoftheDecennialCensustractsperse,isadiscernableclaim.523

e. CourtneglectedtoreviewtheNYSCArticleIX2(e)astotheNYCterritory724f. 28USC2284three-judgepanelapplieswith42USC1973-Cviolation.825g. CircuitmaynotmodifyThree-JudgePaneldecisionw/oSCOTUSdirection...1026h. DeclaratoryJudgmentandequityreliefisrequiredregardingthearbitrarychange27


4/24


ofNYSCredistrictingrulesdonew/osection5pre-clearanceforVRA.111i. SummaryforrequesttoreargueforDeclaratoryJudgmentandorremand142

2. ThatDeclarantalthoughmerelyspeakingforhimselfhasbeendesignatedtospeak3inthematterofthethree-judgepanelwith28USC2284asappliestotheStates4violationof42USC1973-CinredistrictingwithouttheNYSCpracticeastoeachofthe5Plaintiffsinessewithoutbeinganattorney,thatPlaintiffsareaclasssimilarlysituated6witheachinjuredinrespecttogerrymanderattherespectivedomicileofresidence7withinanelectiondistrict(ED)componentofarespectiveAssemblyDistrict(AD)that8mustdirectlyrelatecomposearespectiveSenateDistrict(SD)aswithaUSHouse9District(CD)drawnatthesametimeintheApril2002preclearanceofthosechanges.10

By 1966, the WMCA cases pre-cleared NYSC redistricting / suffrage practice113. Thematterbeforethiscourtiswhetherornotanychangeinpracticeeffecting12

votingwiththeVRAalsoincludestheneedforpreclearanceofchangesofprocedures13orpracticewithuseoftheNYSCastoredistrictingthatwasmodifiedbytheWMCA14three-judgepanelthrough1966,andgiventhefacttheCourtrefusestocertifythe15issuesrequestedtotheNewYorkStateCourtofAppealsleavesonlydirectionbythe16SCOTUSastheappellantcourtinamatterdecidedbyathree-judgepanelwithVRA.174. ThattheNYSCArticle3changeorderedbythethree-judgepanelintheWMCA,18Inc.v.Lomenzo,377U.S.633(June15,1962)cases(WMCA)havenotbeeneffected19orresubmittedforsection5pre-clearancewiththeVRAof1965asappliestothe199320NVRAandtheHelpAmericatoVoteActof2002(HAVA)inuseforredistricting.21

2002 arbitrary practice of redistricting w/o NYSC redistricting / suffrage rules done22without section 5 pre-clearance for the VRA23

5. ThattheApril2002gerrymanderingcomplainedofbyPlaintiffshereinviolatesthe24


5/24


NYSCpre-clearedwithSection5oftheVRAby1966andisnotwithstandinganylimited1clearancedoneintheRodriguezvPatakiSDNY02-cv-618andAllenvPatakiSDNY202-cv-xxx(Rodriguez)bythe28USC2284three-judgePanelreviewandpreclearance3effectedinJune2002astothecovereddistrictsinthecityofNewYork,astheJudges4directedDeclaranttocomplainseparately(inre:LoebervSpargoNDNY04-cv-1193),5doesnotaddressthestatewideimpactoftheredistrictingmandatesestablishedafter61965withuseofthepre-clearedrequirementsoftheNYSCArticle3Section4for7LegislativeredistrictingmandatestocomplywiththeVRAinteralia,that:8

a. ThereshallbenestingofEDswhollywithin(ww)ADswwSDswwCDsinNew9Yorkredistrictingtopreventgerrymanderanddiscriminationinjury;10

b. HamiltonCountyshallelectwithinFultonCounty,asaNYSCexpressprovision,11istheminimumADsizeofahome-rulestatesubdivisiontohave,appliesinAD12useforJudicialConventionselections,andthatsuchEDs/ADs/SDs/CDs13Hamilton/Fultontheredistrictingstartingpointforstatewideredistricting;14

c. ThereshallbenestedallotmentofEDs/ADs/SDs/CDswherepossibleto15conformwithstatesubdivisionsubsidiarityformaintainingvoterbottom-up16polycentrismhome-ruleversustop-downpartymono-centrismmandates;17

d. TheexpressmandatethatnoHomeruleterritoryorcountymayhavemorethan18one-thirdofalltheSDsappliestoNYCasdirectlyeffectsformationofastate19constitutionalconventioneverytwenty-years;20

e. TheRodriguezthree-judgepanelindismissingthevariouscomplaintsinuseof21theexpressmandateofNYSConstitutionArticle3Section5aastotheanalysis22ofVAPversusCVAPinjuriesallegedtherein,emphasizesthereisadifference23withrespecttovotersfromtotalinhabitantswhichatthestatelevelmayhavea24


6/24


deminimusvariationofasmuchas10%eithersideofthemeanoftotalperson1thatmustincludepermanentresidentaliensalongwithcitizensthatassuch2mustbedifferentiatedastotheprotectedclassofthosecitizenswiththe3privilegetovotefromthoseresidentsandortourists/transientsnotincluded;4

f. Moreover,alldistrictsmustbeinascompactandcontiguousconformingas5possibletomeettheaboveaspre-clearedwiththeVRAtoprotectsuffrage.6

6. Astatementastothedistrictcourtopinionthatthematterofareapportionment7planhadbeensettledinRodriquez,evenifitviolatedsection2VRAhasnocollateral8estoppeleffectonanissuewhetherplanwasentitledtopreclearance;theissuewasnot9fullylitigatedbythepriorRodriquezcourtinreviewingvalidityofpreviouslyenacted10plan,andthestatementwasnotessentialtoresolutionofissueswhethercourtshould11stayimplementationofitsownplanandallowstatetoproceedwithpreclearance12processforsubsequentplanofinsteadrequiresapriorplaninexistenceasastandard13ofcomparison.Pres..v.EtowahCountyCommissionU.S.Ala12S.Ct.820,502US91.14

In 1992 redistricting Hamilton County elected with Fulton County, but not in 2002157. ThatwheretheStatehasconcededthatpostenactmentofthe1993NVRA16

changesinthevotingstandards,practicesandprocedures,thenon-useoftheNYSC17Article3provisionsclearedforusebytheWMCAthreeJudgepanelarecoveredbythe18VRAsubchapter,assuchnon-useissubstantiallydifferentthantheredistrictingin199219wherethemandateHamiltonCountyelectwithFultonCountypreclearanceisrequired20butnotdonebefore2002redistrictingchangescouldbecomeeffectiveandthatithad21notobtainedpreclearance,thattheStateshouldbeenjoinedfromholdingprimaryor22generalelectionsuntilsuchtimeasAttorneyGeneralhadactedordeclinedtoacton23citys[States]submission.Herronv.Koch,E&SDNY1981,523F.Supp.167.24


7/24


The 1993 NVRA nationalizing of the State Voter Database was never pre-cleared to1replace NYSC redistricting practice with primary use of Census tracts per se2

8. ItbeingallegedthatCensustractspersenotthevoterregistrationdatabasemust3beusedtoredistrictbytheapprovedNYSCpractices,wasnotdonein2002despitethe4requirementsof42USC1973C:astoalterationofvotingqualificationsandprocedures5byarbitraryandcapriciousactionundercolorofstatelaw,thatwithuselessensthe6plenaryeffectoftheVRA/NVRA/HAVAtopreventfraudandvoterinjury,whendone7bytheStateorpoliticalsubdivisionaction(s)requiresadeclaratoryjudgmentondenial8orabridgementofvotingrights;Appellant(s)isentitledtoathree-judgedistrictcourtwith9appealtoSupremeCourtasto1973-I(c)(d):Prohibitedacts,withbreachoffiduciary10dutyasper42USC1973-FF-1Stateresponsibilities;andwith42USC1973-ggthat11applieshereinwithanyStatethatmaintainsandusesavoterregistrationdatabase12questionablyusedforgerrymander,andwhoseStateOfficersareFederalagents;and139. ThatdespitethefactthatNewYorkStateElectionLawispresumedtohavebeen14

pre-clearedforSection5bytheUSDOJVotingRightsSection,neverthelessthereisno15lessrestrictivechangefordiscretionanduseindistrictingrequirementsoftheNVRAas16tovoterregistrationdatabaseasagerrymandercheatsheetusedinlieuofexclusive17useofthecensustractsprovidedbyCongresswiththeNYSCredistrictingpractice;and18thatinjunctions,remediesandreliefareavailablewhenthereisanyvotingchange19subjecttoSection5oftheVRAisnotpre-clearedmustdeemAppellant(s)is entitledto20injunctionprohibitingimplementationofthechange.Lopezv.MontereyCounty,Cal.,21U.S.Ct.1996,117S.Ct340,519U.S.9,136L.Ed.2d273.2210.ThattheStateDefendantsquestionableadministrativedecision(s)tousethevoter23

registrationdatabaseinredistrictingwithoutpre-clearanceofthechange(s)isrequired24


8/24


astoanychangefromtheNYSCredistrictingpracticeundercolorofstateandfederal1voterregistrationlaw,withMr.KosinskioftheNYSBoardofElectionsasafederalagent2alongwiththerespectiveSecretariesofStateattheEAC,actbeyondthediscretion3affordedbylawwhendistrictingisdonewiththevoterdatabasewithoutsection5pre-4clearancewiththeUSDOJ,andthatwithoutpreclearanceanyactionshouldonlybea5strictministerialdutyusingtheNYSCwithoutrebuttablepresumptiondiscretionthat6since2002hasbecomeanarbitraryandcapriciousselectivechangeindistrictingasan7affirmativeactionwithoutcompellingStateinterest;thatchangesinvotingcausedby8redistrictingpracticemustbepre-clearedundersection5withtheVotingRightsAct9doesnotmeanthatvotingpracticeissubjecttochallengeinadilutionsuitunder2as10withRodriguez;appliedperJusticeKennedywithoneJusticeconcurringandthree11JusticesconcurringinjudgmentinHolderv.Hall,U.S.Ga.1994,114S.Ct.2581,51212U.S.874,129L.Ed.2d687,onremand37F.3d1456.1311.TheState'sunilateraldecisionnottocomplywithrequirementsofpreclearanceas14

toarbitraryuseoftheNYSCaspre-clearedin1966withtheWMCAsetofcasesdidnot15stayoperationofSection5oftheVotingRightsAct,evenifastatewerewaitingto16completea2VRAcase,aswithRodriguez,beforeitcompliedwithAttorneyGeneral's17requestforfurtherinformationregardingcertainchangeswhichhadnotbeengranted18preclearance.Brooksv.StateBd.ofElections.S.D.Ga.1989,775F.Supp.1470,19affirmed111S.Ct.288,498U.S.916.112L.Ed.2d243,reconsiderationgrantedinpart20775F.Supp.1490;andassuchrequiresasabrightlinetestregardingtheNYSC21redistrictingpracticehurdleforfurtherhearingthatathree-judgecourthaslimitedrolein22resolvingadisputeastowhethertheStateimplementedanystandardofpractice23differentfromthatinplaceasoftheeffectivedateofVotingRightsActNVRAandHAVA24


9/24


provisions,andbyfailingtoseekreviewandpreclearanceofproposedchangefrom1UnitedStatesAttorneyGeneral;acourtcouldconsideronlywhetherthechallenged2actionwasaneventsubjecttopreclearanceandifso,whetheractionhasbeen3subjectedtorequiredfederalscrutinybeyondRodriguez.Hendersonv.Hanis,M.D.Ma.41992,804F.Supp.288.5

Court neglected to review the NYSC Article IX 2(e) as to the NYC territory.612.ThatinregardstoAppellantsReplyatpage6astoNYCbeingtoobigaccordingto7

aplainreadingoftheNYSC,theCourtDecisionatpage4failedtoaddressthe8requirementsofhome-rulemissingintheremnantBoroughswithinthemunicipal9territoryofNYC;whenconsolidatedtherewasneveraVRAsection5pre-clearance.1013.Appellantcontendsgiventhelackofpre-clearanceandchangesthatwere11

facilitatedaftertheconsolidationandthereafter,theeliminationoftheBoardofEstimate12allwereneverclearedasrequiredwithVRASection1973c,andthattheState13compellingissueoffirstimpressionastowhetherornottheStateofNewYork14ConstitutionexpresslydeterminesthattheCityofNewYorkterritorycreatedwith15adjoiningcountieswhollywithindefinedintheNYSC,togetheraretoolargeaspresently16configuredinthattheoncehome-ruleCountiesaredefunctCountiesnowconsidered17onlyBoroughswithouthome-rulewithinNYCthatisaterritorylikeacountythereinas18withNYSCArticleIXLocalGovernmentsSection2(e)mandatesquote:19

(e)Therightsandpowersoflocalgovernmentsspecifiedinthissectioninsofaras20applicabletoanycountywithinthecityofNewYorkshallbevestedinsuchcity.21

14.Thattherefore,NYCmaynothavemorethanone-thirdofalltheSenatorswithinor22one-halfwhencombinedwithanadjoininghome-rulesub-division;e.g.,alltheformer23countiesarenowasBoroughsaterritoryasdefinedwithNYSCArticle3Section5:24


10/24


Nocountyshallhavemorethanone-thirdofallthesenators;andnotwo1countiesortheterritorythereofasnoworganized,whichareadjoiningcounties,2orwhichareseparatedonlybypublicwaters,shallhavemorethanone-halfofall3thesenators.4

15.WithoutNYSCourtofAppealsissuecertification,thisCourthasanobligationto

5reviewtheentireNYSCuseofthetermterritoryasaBoroughistobeconsideredas6territorynotacountypersethatrequireshome-ruleforthevoterswithin-nowisabsent.7

28 USC 2284 three-judge panel applies with 42 USC 1973-C violation herein816.ThatthegerrymanderinjurysustainedbyPlaintiffsalongwiththosesimilarly9

situatedisaresultoftheApril2002redistrictingwithoutuseoftheNYSCArticle310mandatespre-clearedwithsection5fortheVRAasafter1965asaresultoftheWMCA11casesPlaintiffsinjuriesaresubstantial,andabsolutelywarrantathreejudgepanelwith1228USC2284asapplieswiththeStatesviolationof42USC1973-C;notwithstanding13thebiasandlackofspeedyattentionbyJudgeKahninthesinglejudgedecisionto14dismisstookthreeyears,andfollowsJudgeKahnsbiasexpressedintheOctober200415hearingwhenPlaintiffswerecharacterizedasiflunaticssubjecttoapendingfullmoon.16JudgeKahnhasanobligationtoexplainwhetherinhisKolnidreoathheforgiveshis17prioryeartrespassorhasadoptedanalternativeapplicationinthefutureyear.1817.Appellanthasstandinghereinwith42USC1973GG-9:Civilenforcementand19

privaterightofactionandasrelatedStatelawsimilarlyadopted,inwhichPlaintiffs20complaintisagainstStatesDefendantsuseofthestatewidevoterregistrationdatabase21obtainedwithmotorvoterregistrationprovisionsinthematterofirreparableharmto22Plaintiffs,withtheStatesuseoftheVotingdatabasethatlikeagerrymandercheat23sheetratherthantheNYSCpracticeswithexclusiveuseofthe2000Censustracks24alone,asinconstructionwithotherlawsNVRAimposeddetailedmandatesonStates,25


11/24


asimplementationofNVRAisnotpurelyministerial,andstillleavesroomforpolicy1choiceanddiscretionarychanges,whichcallforfederalpreclearancepursuanttoVRA.2Youngv.Fordyce,.S.Miss.1997,117S.Ct.1228.520U.S.273,146xxxFed.791,1373L.Ed.2d448.Thatanylawandoradministrativeprocedureincludingredistricting4dealingwithvoterregistrationwiththeVRAforstatewideredistrictingin2002hasnot5beenpresentedforusebypre-clearanceundersection5totheU.S.DOJisnulland6voidandnottobeused.ThataccordingtothehistoryofNewYorkElectionLawand7relatedredistrictingastovariationfromtheredistrictingmandatesoftheNYSC8generallyandespeciallyArticle3werenotsubmittedforclearanceafterenactmentof429USC1973-gg(NVRA)andnowwiththeHelpAmericatoVoteActof2002(HAVA)as10touseinredistricting.1118.Furthermore,aSingle-judgedistrictcourthadnojurisdictiontodeterminewhether12

changeinredistrictingconstitutedastandard,practiceorprocedurewithoutuseof13NYSCredistrictingpracticeinrespecttovotingwithinprovisionsofthissectionthat,to14beeffective,newpolicyhadtoreceiveclearancefromAttorneyGeneralofUnitedStates15ordeclaratoryjudgmentfromsuchasintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforDistrictof16ColumbiaupholdingitsracialneutralityinJordanv.Cagle,N.D.Miss.1979,474F.Supp.171198,620F.2d298,rehearingdenied622F.2d1043.1819.TheSection1973cVRAscopeofthree-judgecourtinquiryintochangeinvoting19

procedureislimitedtowhetherornotitiscoveredbytheActbuthasnotbeensubjected20tofederalscrutiny.U.S.v.AlabamaStateBd.OfEducation1996,920F.Supp.1233.2120.NYSCArticle3mustbecontinuedinuseforredistrictingaswithchanges,changed22

oralterationwithinsection1973cVRArequirementsbefore2002,becausebothformal23andinformalchangesinelectionpracticesarerequiredbySection1973coftheVRA24


12/24


requiresstateorpoliticalsubdivisionsastovotingpre-clearancepriortoenactingnew1practicesdifferentfromthoseoftheprioruseoftheNYSCaswiththe1992redistricting,2evenasadministrativeefforttocomplywithotherstatutesthatalreadyreceived3preclearanceandrequireseparatepreclearance.Forst..vDallasCounty,Tex.4U.S.Tex.1989S.Ct.2357.521U.S.979.138xx972,onremand990F.Supp.505.521.Thefactoftheexistenceofthe1993implementationsof42USC1973-ggNVRA6

andHAVA2002changesaretheentirebasisforhandlingvoterregistrationdatabases7asisrelatedtoeachstatemaintainingthelistforvotingnotredistricting,nowhere8mandatesitsuseforredistrictinginthemandatesoftheinterstatetreatmentofvoter9registrationtopreventnotonlygerrymanderingbutvotefraudaswellasmere10duplicationsfromstatetostatethatabetvotefraudasabreachofStatedefendant11fiduciarydutywillfullyneglectedherein,thatthe42USC1973-CSectioncovers12attemptstochangevotingpracticesaswellasattemptstoenactthem.ZimmervMcK,,,13C.A.5(La)1973,485F.2d1297,certiorarigranted95S.Ct.2677.14

Circuit may not modify a Three-Judge Panel Decision except as directed by SCOTUS1522.ThatCircuitJudgesPooler,Sack,Raggierredintheirdecisionwithnoauthorityto16

modifythedecisionineitherWMCAorRodriguezastotheinterpretationoftheNYSC17Article3section5arelatedtocitizenvotingrights;andabsentsuspensionofrulesas18withFRAPRule2forsayahotcourtweretoruleexclusivelyonwhetherornotPlaintiffs19haveasubstantialbasisforathreejudgecourtanddidDistrictexceedauthoritywith20biasindenialofaspeedydecisionsince2005.2123.TheamendedNYSCArticle3Section5a[Definitionofinhabitants]5-a.Forthe22purposeofapportioningsenateandassemblydistrictspursuanttotheforegoing23provisionsofthisarticle,theterminhabitants,excludingaliensshallmeanthewhole24


13/24


numberofpersons.(NewlyaddedbyvoteofthepeopleNovember4,1969.)wasnot1pre-clearedwiththeVRAandmeansexactlywhattheNYSCrequiresinitsentiretythat2permanentresidentaliensandcitizensofanyagebeconsideredasthetotalinhabitants3forredistrictingdonotincludethosepersonswhoaretransientsuchastouristsatwill,4diplomatsandorthosewithadomicileoutsideofthestatewithallegianceelsewhere.5TheStateofNewYorkperseoranystateoftheseveralstatesaccordingtoUSCTitle86Section1401hasnoauthoritytograntatouristpermanentresidentaliendomiciliary7status;andtherefore,theNYSCmaynotbeinterpretedbytheCourttoreadotherwise.824.TheCourthasexceededauthoritybyinferringgrantofvotingstatustopermanent9

residentaliensanditseemseventouriststhatinthematterofconsiderationfor10redistrictingarenotexpresslyintendedbytheNYSCnorcouldthatbewithouta11constitutionalamendmentaccordingly.TheThree-judgeCourtinRodriguezaswellas12ChiefJudgeMordueinArborHillv.TheCountyofAlbany,inwhichDeclarantwasa13party,usetheproperanalysisofaVRAsection2injurythatmustmaintaindifferences14betweenCitizenVotingAgePopulation(CVAP)andVotingAgePopulation(VAP)15becauseastosuffrageonlythoseentitledtovotemaybeinjuredbyredistrictingandor16proceduralmalpracticeandthattheproperuseofthe10%deminimusanalysismust17differentiatebetweenVAPandCVAPtheSCOTUShasneverexpresslygranted18suffragetotourists,underageindividualsandorthoseotherwisewithouttheexpress19privilegetosuffrage,norcouldthey.20

Declaratory Judgment and equity relief is required regarding the arbitrary change of21NYSC redistricting rules done w/o section 5 pre-clearance for VRA22

25.TheStatementinthedistrictcourtopinionthatwhetherornotareapportionment23planviolatedSection2ofVRAhadnocollateralestoppelactionuponwhethertheplan24


14/24


wasentitledtopreclearance;astheissuewasnotfullylitigatedbythepriorcourtin1reviewingvalidityofpreviouslyenactedplan,andstatementwasnotessentialto2resolutionofissuesastowhetheracourtshouldstayimplementationofitsownplan3andallowstatetoproceedwithpreclearanceprocessforasubsequentplanorinstead4requireelectionsbeheldunderaplan.StateofTexasvxxDDC1992802F.Supp.481.526.Todeterminewhethertherehavebeenchangeswithrespectto"voting"within6

meaningofSection5ofVotingRightsAct,areviewingcourt:mustcomparechallenged7practiceswiththoseinexistencebeforetheywereadopted;absentrelevantintervening8changes,theActrequiresacourttouseapriorstandardofcomparison.Pres-Etowah9CountyCom'n,U.S.Ala.12S.Ct820,502U.S.491.1027.Legislativechangesoralterationswithinsection1972coftheVRAindeterminingif11

anenactmenttriggersscrutinyunderthissubchapterthequestionisnotwhether12provisionisinfactinnocuousandlikelytobeApproved,butwhetherithaspotentialfor13discriminationandhenceissubjecttothissectionwhichrequiresfederalpreclearance14wheneverpoliticalsubdivisionadoptschangeinstandard,practiceorprocedurewith15respecttovoting.DoughertyCounty,Georgia,Bd.ofEd.v.White,U.S.Ga.1978,99US16368,439U.S.32,58L.Ed.2d269.1728.Indeterminingwhetherstatestatutesarewithinpurviewofprovisionsofthis18

section,whichrequirestatesandpoliticalsubdivisionswithinitscoverageformulato19litigatevalidityofnewvotingrulesinUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforDistrictofColumbia.20SupremeCourtdoesnotconsiderwhetheramendmenttostatelawhasdiscriminatory21purposeoreffect.Allenv.StateBd.ofElections,U.S.Va.1969,89S.Ct.817,393U.S.22544,22L.Ed.2d1.InenactingVRAchangeswithNVRAandHAVA,Congressintended23thatanystateenactment,whichalteredelectionlawofacoveredstateinevenminor24


15/24


way,wouldbesubjecttopreclearancerequirementsofthissection.HorryCountyv.U.1S.,D.C.D.C.1978,449F.Supp.990.229.ProvisionofthisVRAsection1973crequiresthatifstateenactsanyprerequisiteto3

voting,orstandard,practiceorprocedurewithrespecttovotingdifferentfromthatin4forceuntil1968[1992],suchlawisinoperative,aspotentiallydiscriminatory,untilithas5appropriatelyrequiredbysuchprovisionmustbegivenbroadestpossiblescrutinytoany6stateenactmentthateffectselectionlawofacoveredstateinevenaminorway.United7OssiningPartyv.Ma,S.D.N.Y.1971,357F.Supp.830.Dutyunderthissectiontoobtainfederalapprovalofnewvotingstandards,9

practice,orproceduresaswithredistrictingisacontinuingonewhicharisesaneweach10timegovernmentenactsorseekstoadministeranunclearedvotingregulation,andthus11eventhoughcity[state]effectedchallengedannexationsduring1965,1966and196712[1992],itbreacheditsstatutorydutytosecurepreclearanceoftheannexationseach13timeitconductedmunicipal/stateelectionsbasedonthepostannexationofcorporate14limits[orfixedsubdivisionsappliestoNYChome-ruleschanges].Dotsonv.Cityof15Indianola,N.D.Miss.1981,514F.Supp.397.1631.ThattheEACisapartytoadeclaratoryjudgmentinsofarasitsagentsineach17

stateresponsibleforconductingelectionsareresponsibleforenactmentsorpractice18changeseffectingvotingaswithredistricting;whereastheUnitedStatesperseisnot19partytodeclaratoryjudgmentactionsbroughtunderthissectionbyprivateindividualsto20determineifnewstateenactmentspertainingtovotingmustbesubmittedinaccordance21withthissection.Allenv.StateBd.ofElections,U.S.Va.1969,89S.Ct.817,393U.S.22544,22L.Ed.2d1;andthissectionprovidesprocedurespreliminarytoalterationof23votingqualificationsandproceduresdoesnotabrogatejurisdictionalbarriertojudicial24


16/24


restraintofelectionsconductedbythosewhowereneitherbeforethecourtnor1representlitigants.CharltonCountyBd.ofEd.v.U.S.,D.C.D.C.1978,459F.Supp.530.2

Summary for request to reargue for Declaratory Judgment and or remand.332.ThatAppellantwishedtheCourtonAugust6,2010tofavorcourthearingonthe4

gerrymandercomplaintdismissedbyJudgeLawrenceE.Kahnasnotbeingsubstantial5foranexpeditedhearingastimeisoftheessencewithimminentirreparableharm6beforetheballotsareprintedfortheNovember2,2010GeneralElection;Thaton7August6,2010Declarantexpressedtothepanel,thatNewYorkisatthehistoricalend8oftheProtestantReformationwithAppellantonthesideofWilliamtheSilentwho9providedNewAmsterdamsubsidiaritythatprotectsthebottom-uprightsoftheindividual10disruptedbyinvasionofCharlesIIandbyCatholicsocialencyclicalCaritasinVeritate11(2009)bysubsidiarityimposedtop-downcollectivepracticedonewithoutpreclearance.1233.ThatDeclarantwasunabletogainanymoretimetoargueotherthanJudgePooler13

askingtheStateSolicitorwhatisthestatusofJusticeThomasSpargopresently,towit14therewasanemptyavoidanceofthequestion.However,Declarantassertsthatany15StateSupremeCourtJusticeisthebulwarktosafeguardsuffrage,andthatMr.Spargo16wasdisbarredasaJusticeoftheStateSupremeCourtwenttoprison,thatDeclarant17andPlaintiffscontendshouldhaveoccurredadecadesearlierinthe1990swhenMr.18Spargowasnotindictedasaco-conspiratorwhenfixingzoningboardelectionsin19PoughkeepsieforthePyramidMallsyndicatethatentitylaterfined,andfurthermore20whenMr.SpargoremainedontorepresentNassauCountyExecutiveMargiottawho21wenttoprison.IftherewerealevelplayingfieldinNewYorkwithexpressNYSC22enforcementtoprotectsuffrageequaltreatment,Mr.Spargowouldnothavebeen23allowedtosetuptheIndependencePartyasasatrapandthendirectthe2000General24


17/24

ha1ZrueoaOJuaesezpu1OZaJgewBapaJpa6eauaiuww=s9Cp'm3 03uAwwms

pquww'w'jaWAaq0uuwaJauejeaamduap

ppwuuuuhJZP03WMQePe~Sand4

luesmeapu0psai'WUW

aed~BAuedequwgMaaSOeWuuW02

apdwso~eeBpuw3WA=u3waWegua--uaouoqJinMpee

W!pqW9Gu6aWW&ewJappua


18/24

08-4323-Loeberv. Spargo

UNITED STATES COUR T OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDERRULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDE R DO NOT EAVE PRECEDENTI AL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDERFILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AUD TEIS COURT'S LOC AL RUL E 32.1.1. WEEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDERIN A DOCUMENT FILED WITE TEIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITEER TEE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR ANELECTRONIC, ATABASE (WITE TEE NOTATION mSUMHARY ORDER") . A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARYORDER MUST SE RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated tenn ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at theDaniel Patrick MoynihanUnited States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,on the 27&day of August, two thousand ten.PRESENT:

ROSEMARY S. POOLERROBERT D. SACK,REENARAGGI,

Circuit Judges.

Ronald G. Loeber, et al.,Plaintifs,

H.WilliamVanAllen,ChristopherEarl Strunk, John-Joseph Fojone,Plaintifs-Appellants,

Thomas J. Spargo, individuallyand as Justice of theNYS Supreme Court, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees . .Christopher Earl Strunk, pro se, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintif-Appellant S t m k .H. William Van Allen,pro se, Hurley,NY,or Plaintif-Appellant Van Allen.


19/24


20/24

As an initialmatter, because Appellants' openingbrief fails to challenge the districtcourt's January 2008 dismissal of their claims based on the False Claims Act and the HelpAmerica Vote Act, they have waived any such challenge. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998)("Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not beaddressed on appeal."); JP Morgan Chase Bank v . Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,412F.3d 418,428 (2d Cir. 2005) ("[Alrguments not made in an appellant's opening brief are waivedeven if the appellant pursued those arguments in the district court or raised them in a replybrief."). Additionally, because Appellants' opening brief does not challenge the January 2008dismissal of their claims against any defendants other than the State Defendants, they havesimilarly waived any such challenge. See Losacco, 71F.3d at 92-93.

-Appellantsargue that the district court erred by adjudicating their amended complaint asa single judge, instead of having it adjudicated by a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.$2284. Section 2284provides that "[a] district court of three judges shall be convened. . whenan action is fled challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districtsor the apportionment of any statewide legislative body." 28 U.S.C. $2284(a) (emphasis added).Although section 8 2284 isjurisdictional, "it has ong been held that a single judge may dismissa claim that must normally be heard by a three-judge court if it is 'insubstantial."' Kalson v.Paterson, 542 F.3d 281,287 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U.S. 21,28(1975)). "An insubstantial federal claim is not a claim validly brought under federal law." Id.(emphasis in origbial). The Supreme Court has described an insubstantial claim as one'"obviously without merit or clearly concluded by [the Supreme Court's] previous decisions."'Id. at288 (quoting McLucas, 421 U.S. at 28). We conclude that the claims were insubstantial,and, thus, the district court properly dismissed the amended complaint without transferring it to athree-judge panel. The claims in the amended complaint were barely comprehensible, and theonly portions of the claims that could be intelligibly discerned &om it were alleged violations ofthe New York State Constitution, not federal law. See McLucas, 421 U.S. at 28; Krrlson, 542F.3d at 287.

We further conclude that the district court properly dismissed the amended complaint.An independent review of the amended complaint conhrms that it did not present anydiscernable federal constitutional claim related to reapportionment. While Appellants clearlyinvoked their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process, it isdifficult to discern the theory connecting that invocation to their claim that the 2002 redistrictingshould have been limited to the "citizen voting age population," rather than the "voting agepopulation." Additionally, the amended complaint did notmake clear how Appellants wereinjured by the State Defendants' actions, but appeared to imply that their votes were diluted bythe inclusion of aliens for the purposes of apportionment. In any event, the claim rests on thefalse assumption that the New York State Constitution requires that apportionment of the stateassembly and senate be based upon "inhabitants, excluding aliens." That phrase still exists in-thete a of Art. 3, $ 4 (for apportionment of senate seats) and 5 (for apportionment of assembly 'seats), but Art. 3,s 5-a was subsequently amended to provide that "[fJor the purpose ofapportioning senate and assembly districts pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this article,


21/24

the term 'inhabitants, excluding aliens' shall mean the whole number ofpersons." N.Y. Const.Art. 3, 5 5-a. Thus, the claim failed to plausibly state a claim upon which relief may be granted,and the district court properly dismissed it.

Appellants' other principal claim stemmed*om their contention that the 2002redistricting plan's provision of 26 senators to New York City violated the New York StateConstitution requirements that "[nlo county shall have more than one-third of all the senators"and "no two counties . .which are adjoining counties . shall have more than one-half of allthe senators."' N.Y. Const. Art. 3, 5 4. As the district court correctly noted, Appellants'argument erroneously assumed that New York City was a single county. In their brief,Appellants acknowledge that New York City is more than a single county, but they argue thatNew York City's five counties are counties in name only and that, in essence, they operate as asingle entity. Even if these claims were true, he argument still fails because the relevantrequirements of Art. 3, 5 4 speak only of counties, not "entities," de facto counties, or anythingelse. Thus, he claim wasproperly dismissed.

Finally, we review for abuse of discretiona district court's order denying a Rule 60(b)motion for reconsideration. See Trmrsaero, Inc. v. La Fuena Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724,729 (2d Cir. 1998). "A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion-if t based itsrulingon an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." Id.(internal quotation-marks omitted). Relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) is available only in"exceptional circ&tances." Ruotolo v. City of New York, 5 14 F.3d 184, 191(2d Cir. 2008)(internal quotation marks omitted).

After an ndependent review of the record, we conclude that the district court did notabuse its discretion in denying Strunk's reconsideration motion, and we agree with the districtcourt that the motion sought solely to relitigate issues that had already been decided. We alsoreject Strunk's arguments that the district court judge erred by failing to recuse himself andanswer certain questions about purported bias that Strunk posed in the reconsideration motion.Section 455 of Title 28, United States Code, provides in relevant part that any judge "shalldisqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."28 U.S.C. 5 455(a). The relevant question is whether "a reasonable person, knowing all thefacts, [would] conclude that the trial judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned"United Statesv. Amico, 486 F.3d 764,775 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).However, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partialitymotion," and ''opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurringin the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for abias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that wouldmake fairjudgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,555 (1994).

Here, we conclude that Strunk failed to show that the district court's "impartiality could,reasonably be questioned." Amico, 486 F.3d at 775. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicatesthat the district court acted partially or "display[ed] a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism thatwould make fair judgment impossible." Liteky, 5 10 U.S. at 555.


22/24

We have considered Appellants' remainingarguments and find them to be withoutmerit.Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and order of the district court.

FOR THECOURT:Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk


23/24

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitinreAppealCase08-4323-cvCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

OnSeptember8,2010,I,ChristopherEarlStrunk,underpenaltyofperjury

with28USC1746causedtheserviceofeight(8)copiesoftheAPPELLANTREQUEST TO REARGUEsignedSeptember8,2010byplacingeachsetininaproperlyaddressedenvelopewithproperpostagefordeliverybytheUSPostalServiceuponcounsels:ANDREW B. AYERSAssistant Solicitor

Attorney General of New York

The Capitol

Albany, New York 12224-0341

Kimberly A. Galvin, Esq.

Todd D. Valentine Esq.

New York State Board of Elections

40 Steuben St.

Albany , New York 12207

FAY NG ESQ.

THE CITY OF NEW YORKCorporation Counsel Michael Cardozo

NYC Law Department

100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

JAMES E. LONG, ESQ.

668 Central Avenue

Albany, New York 12206

Ellen Leary Coccoma

Otsego County Attorney

Otsego County Office Building

197 Main Street

Cooperstown, NY 13326

JAMES E. KONSTANTY, ESQ.Konstanty Law Office

252 Main Street

Oneonta, NY 13820

Christopher C. Wang Esq.

United States Attorney Assistant

Attorney General

Civil Rights DivisionU.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 14403, Ben Franklin

Washington , DC , 20044 4403

Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier

25 Hattie Jones Circle

Brooklyn, New York 11213

I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

Dated: September ___, 2010

Brooklyn, New York _________________________

Christopher Earl: Strunk in esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281Brooklyn., New York 11238


24/24

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in reAppeal Case 08-43234~CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE

On September 8,2010,1, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjurywith 28USCI746 aused the service of eight (8) copies of theAPPELLANTREQUESTTO REARGUEsigned September 8,2010 by placing each set inin a properly addressed envelope with proper postage for delivery by the USPostalService upon counsels:ANDREW B. AYERS Ellen L e a .CoccomaAssistant Solicitor Otsego CountyAttorneyAttorney General ofNew York Otsego County Office BuildingThe Capitol 197 Main StreetAlbany,NewYo* 12224-0341 Cooperstown, NY 13326KimberlyA. Galvin, Esq.Todd D. Valentine Esq. JAMES Ew KONSTANTY, ESQ.Konstanty Law OfficeNew York State Board of Elections 252 Main Street40 Steuben St -Albany , ew York 12207 Oneonta, NY 13820FAY NG ESQ.THECITYOF NEW YORKCorporationCounsel Michael CardozoNYC Law Department100Church StreetNew York,NY 10007JAMES E. LONG, SQ.668 CentralAvenueAlbany, New York 12206

ChristopherCwWang Esq.United StatesAttorney AssistantAttorney GeneralCivilRightsDivisionU.S. Department of JusticeP.O. Box 14403, Ben FranklinWashington,DC 20044 4403Roy-Pierre Detiege-Cormier25 Hattie Jones CircleBrooklyn, New York 11213

I do declare and certifLunder penalty ofPejury:4 4Dated: September 2010Brooklyn,New York

593 ~Lderbilt venue - #281Brooklyn., New York 11238

Documents

Appellant's Request to Re-Argue 2CA 08-4323 090810