Discussion:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Sloan vs New York City Board of Elections
(too old to reply)
samsloan
2013-08-25 07:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No. _______

_________________ ♦ _______________

Sam Sloan,
Richard Bozulich,
Thomas R. Stevens,
Petitioners,
-against-

Daniel S. Szalkiewicz,
Salvatore G. Caruso,
Board of Elections in the City of New York,
Attorney General of the State of New York

__________________ ♦ _______________
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
_________________ ♦ _______________
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_________________ ♦ _______________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453

917-507-7226
917-659-3397
***@gmail.com


Questions Presented

Where the Board of Elections in the City of New York has a rule under which any candidate for election in a recognized political party who wishes to be placed on the ballot must collect a sufficient of number of signatures from members of that party and those signatures must also be witnessed by a “subscribing witness” who must also be an enrolled member of that political party, does this rule constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the First and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights “to petition the Government” as well as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote and the right to Freedom of Association?

Where, as here, a sufficient number of signatures were collected from Republican Party Members which resulted in these candidates being placed on the ballot as Republican Party Candidates, but the candidates were removed from the ballot solely because the vast majority of the signatures were not witnessed by enrolled members of the Republican Party but instead were witnessed by other enrolled voters including Blanks, Democrats and Libertarians, should this court order that these three petitioner-candidates be reinstated on the ballot?


Table of Contents

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 5

Parties to the Case 5

Constitutional Provisions Involved 6

Table of Cases 7

Opinions Below 7

Jurisdiction 7

Statement of the Case 8

Reasons for Granting a Writ 11

Appendix


Exhibit A

Transcript of Hearing Before Judge Paul Wooten

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Petitioner Respectfully Prays that a Writ of Certiorari issue to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department to review the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated August 9, 2013, Index No. 101087/2013, and the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated August 13, 2013 which denied the validation petition of the above candidates to be reinstated on the ballot after these candidates were removed from the ballot solely because their petition signatures had not been witnessed by enrolled Republicans.

On August 21, 2013, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York denied the motion by Petitioner for Leave to Appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Parties to the Case

Daniel S. Szalkiewicz
Attorney for Self and Salvatore Caruso
280 Riverside Drive
New York NY 10025

Stephen Kitzinger
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York NY 10007

Stephen H. Richman
Board of Elections in the City of New York
32 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York NY 10004

Richard P. Dearing
Deputy Solicitor General
Attorney General of New York
120 Broadway
New York NY 10005
212-416-6685


Constitutional Provisions Involved


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .

The statute which under the interpretation by the Board of Elections requires the mere witnesses to be Republicans is Section 132 (2) of New York Election law which states:

There shall be appended at the bottom of each sheet a signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter of the same political party as the voters qualified to sign the petition, and who is also a resident of the political subdivision in which the office or position is to be voted for.

Table of Cases

Credico v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 751 F.Supp.2d 417, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

Dekom vs. New York, 12-CV-1318 (JS)(ARL)
Kaloshi v. Hackshaw, 02 CV 4762, 2002 WL 31051530 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002)

Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of N.Y.C., 232 F.3d 135, 145 (2d Cir. 2000).

Maslow v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 658 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2011)

Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886)

N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 128 S.Ct. 791, 798, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008)

OPINIONS BELOW

There are no opinions below. Neither the New York Supreme Court, nor the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court First Department nor the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion on this case.

Jurisdiction

The Candidate-Petitioners and their supporters circulated petitions to be placed on the ballot. Petitions containing more than 4500 signatures were timely filed by “Cindarella Time” which was midnight on July 11, 2013. As this filing was facially valid, petitioner-candidates were placed on the ballot. However, a General Objection was by one Sal Caruso was filed on July 15, 2013 followed by a Specific Objection on July 22, 2013. A hearing was held before the New York Board of Elections on July 30, 2013 following which these candidates were kicked off the ballot on July 31, 2013 for one reason only which was 3905 of these signatures had not been witnessed by enrolled members of the Republican Party. Rather the signatures had been witnessed by other voters including Democrats, Libertarians and Blanks.

Petitioners filed a petition to validate their places on the ballot on August 1, 2013. A show cause order was issued requiring the objector and the Board of Elections to appear on August 5, 2013. On August 9, 2013 Judge Wooten denied the Validation Petition without opinion. Petitioner appealed and this appeal was heard by the New York supreme Court Appellate Division First Department which affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court without opinion. Petitioner then filed a motion for leavbe to appeal with the Court of appeals of New York. This was denied on August 21, 2013. This petition for Certiorari follows.

Statement of the Case

This proceeding is brought under Election Law Sections 16-100 and 16-102 and other provisions of New York Law. Sam Sloan is a candidate for Mayor of the City of New York. Richard Bozulich is a candidate for Comptroller of the City of New York. Thomas R. Stevens is a candidate for Public Advocate of the City of New York.

Supporters of the candidates circulated petitions and the requisite number of signatures were obtained to get on the ballot. The signed petitions were timely submitted to the Board of Elections in the City of New York. The Petitions complied in every respect with the election rules, including cover sheets and wording of the petitions. There were enough signatures, the cover sheet was done properly and the wording of the petition was correct.

However, on July 31, 2013, all three of these candidates were thrown off the ballot after a hearing by the New York City Board of Elections for one reason only, which was that these were designating petitions for the Republican Party Primary, and the subscribing witnesses (not the signers) were not registered as Republicans with the New York City Board of Elections.

Unfortunately, the candidates had not been previously aware that there was any rule requiring that the mere witnesses to a petition be members of any political party. Had they known about this rule they might have been able to take appropriate action on time (although this would have been difficult as there are few Republicans willing to perform this task of witnessing signatures which may expose them to civil liability).

The statute which under the interpretation by the Board of Elections requires the mere witnesses to be Republicans is Section 132 (2) of New York Election law which states:

There shall be appended at the bottom of each sheet a signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter of the same political party as the voters qualified to sign the petition, and who is also a resident of the political subdivision in which the office or position is to be voted for.

This provision was declared unconstitutional in the case Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of N.Y.C., 232 F.3d 135, 145 (2d Cir. 2000). This is explained in Dekom vs. New York, 12-CV-1318 (JS)(ARL).

However, at the hearing of this appeal before the Appellate Division on August 13, 2013, counsel for the Board of Elections and the Department of Law suggested that the Lerner decision has been overruled by the Maslow case, which is Maslow v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 658 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2011).

Petitioner-Appellant contends that the Maslow case has nothing to do with the instant case because the Maslow Case was a test case for declaratory relief, not an actual case, whereas in the instant the petitioners have been trying hard to get on the ballot and have spent considerable money to do so, yet have been thwarted by an unwritten rule they had no way to know about.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Here the law clearly infringes the Constitutional Right “to petition the government”. There have been several cases on this subject, but all of them have been federal cases. Petitioner maintains that the state courts are just as competent and capable to decide constitutional issues as the federal courts are.

The subscribing witness rule was found unconstitutional in Kaloshi v. New York City Board of Elections, 02 CV 4762, 2002 WL 31051530 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002). This is a lengthy and reasoned opinion that declared the specific statute in question to be unconstitutional. This is the only reported case that deals directly with this statute.

It appears from the oral argument held before the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals that counsel for the Board of Elections would also like to see this case reviewed by this court because he believes the Lerner Decision was effectively overruled by the Maslow decision. The Lerner decision has been a thorn in the side for the Board of Elections as the Board of Elections has difficulty checking voter registrations in upstate New York and this constantly causes problems in New York City Elections.

The main operative fact is it is undisputed that the petitioners collected 3905 valid signatures whereas only 3750 are required, except that these 3905 signatures were declared invalid because the signatures were not witnessed by Republicans. While there have been several federal cases related to this issue, there has never been a reported state case on this issue, and thus this motion for leave to appeal should be granted.






Reasons for Granting the Writ
It is difficult to imagine a more obvious constitutional right than the Right to Petition the Government. Requiring that petitions be witnessed by Republicans and by nobody else is such an obvious infringement that it is difficult to imagine that anybody could defend it.
This requirement has been struck down in two federal cases, namely Kaloshi v. New York City Board of Elections, 02 CV 4762, 2002 WL 31051530 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002) and Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of N.Y.C., 232 F.3d 135, 145 (2d Cir. 2000).
However, the Board of Elections claims that those two decisions are no longer good law and were overruled by Maslow v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 658 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2011) and N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 128 S.Ct. 791, 798, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008).
Petitioner disagrees. With an election coming up, certiorari should be granted to decide these important questions.
This document is prepared in Century Schoolbook New Bold 12 point with a word count of 2172 words.
Dated August 23, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,

Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave Apt 1B
Bronx NY 10453

917-507-7226
917-659-3397
***@gmail.com





Appendix A

Transcript of Hearing Before Judge Paul Wooten



1



1

2

3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM: PART 7
4 ----------------------------------------------X
SAMUEL H. SLOAN, RICHARD BOZULICH, THOMAS R.
5 STEVENS,

6 Petitioners
Index No:
7 -against- 101087/2013

8 DANIEL S. SZALKIEWICZ, SALVATORE G. CARUSO, BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
9
Respondents.
10 ----------------------------------------------X
60 Centre Street
11 New York, New York 10007
August 5, 2013
12 B E F O R E:
THE HONORABLE PAUL WOOTEN,
13 J U S T I C E
A P P E A R A N C E S:
14
SAMUEL H. SLOAN
15 Petitioner Pro Se
1664 Davidson Avenue, Apt. 1B
16 Bronx NY 10453

17 DANIEL S. SZALKIEWICZ, ESQ.
Attorney for Respondent Salvatore Caruso
18 280 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10025
19
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE
20 CORPORATION COUNSEL
100 Church Street
21 New York, NY 10007
BY: Stephen Kitzinger, Esq.
22
BOARD OF ELECTIONS CITY OF NEW YORK
23 32 Broadway - 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
24 BY: Steven H. Richman, Esq.

25 VANESSA MILLER
Senior Court Reporter
26


2



Proceedings

THE COURT: Calling the case of Sloan versus

Szalkiewicz, index number 101087 of 2013.

Who represents Mr. Sloan?

MR. SLOAN: That's me. I'm representing

myself.

THE COURT: And who represents Mr. Szalkiewicz?

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Your Honor, I am Mr.

Szalkiewicz and I represent Salvadore G. Caruso who's

actually the objector. I'm not sure why I'm personally named.

THE COURT: You are.

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I was his counsel at the time

and I guess my name was on the spec as a contact

individual.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: But I am Mr. Caruso's

attorney as well.

THE COURT: Okay. Very well.

Any objection to Mr. Szalkiewicz representing

Mr. Caruso from any of the parties?

MR. SLOAN: I have no objection to that, your

Honor. But one thing I do object to is it's obvious that

Mr. Caruso is a front man and I would like to know who's

paying Mr. Szalkiewicz's legal fees because he's

obviously got some others behind him who are doing this.


3



Proceedings

THE COURT: That's a request by you, sir?

MR. SLOAN: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Your application is denied. We've

never done that. In 30 years on the bench we've never,

never -- I'm sorry. In five years on the bench and 27

years as an election law attorney, we've never had a case

where that application's been granted. You have an

exception, sir.

Who represents the Board?

MR. KITZINGER: Stephen Kitzinger, New York

City Law Department.

MR. RICHMAN: Steven Richman, counsel for the

respondent, Board of Elections.

THE COURT: Okay. Let the record reflect that

I'm joined by Mr. Jack Suiter (ph), one of our principal

law clerks who assists in this special election part.

All right. So was there a Board report here,

sir?

MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, there was a Board

report. But, initially, I believe there are three named

plaintiffs and two of them are not present.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KITZINGER: So I think their claims should

be dismissed.

THE COURT: Is Mr. Stevens here?


4



Proceedings

MR. SLOAN: No, he's not here.

THE COURT: Okay. Is Mr. Richard -- how do

you --

MR. SLOAN: Bozulich. He's out of the country.

THE COURT: Okay. So two of the petitioners

are not represented here today?

MR. SLOAN: That's correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So do they plan to be

represented? Do they have an attorney?

MR. SLOAN: I just don't know.

THE COURT: Okay. So you don't know if they're

planning to be represented. I can't take your word that

one of them is out of the country. I do know that the

two are not here. It is now, approximately, 10:35. I

will give them to 11:00 a.m. where I'll second-call the

case to see if they appear.

But on your application, Mr. Sloan, which is an

application for an order to validate to put you on the

ballot for the Office Of Mayor of the City of New York on

the Republican party for the September primary; is that

correct?

MR. SLOAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. Have you served your

affidavit of service?

MR. SLOAN: Yes, I have.


5



Proceedings

THE COURT: Do you have them?

MR. SLOAN: Yes, I do.

MR. KITZINGER: I have it too --

THE COURT: Just a moment. Let's go through

procedure. Mr. Sloan.

(Handing.)

THE COURT: Okay. Officer Burgos, would you

show the affidavit of service to the respondents please?

(Handing.)

MR. KITZINGER: I don't see an affidavit of

service on the Board.

MR. SLOAN: Oh. They time-stamped it. It's in

the back. I have to search for it. They have a time

stamp from the Board of Elections.

THE COURT: One of them is time-stamped; isn't

it?

MR. KITZINGER: Actually, I see time-stamped

copies, I mean, if the Court is going to accept that.

THE COURT: Okay. At this particular time, I'm

showing you the affidavit of service.

(Handing.)

THE COURT: Are there any objections to in

personam jurisdiction?

MR. KITZINGER: None from the Board, your

Honor.


6



Proceedings

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I mean, if I may, the only

way I would object is depending on who actually served it

on the Board, I'm not sure what individual did it. If it

was Mr. Sloan, I would object to it in that he's actually

a candidate and under CPLR 2103, he's unable to serve the

Board personally. As we don't have an affidavit of

service on behalf of the Board, I'd object until we can

learn actually who is the actual individual that did it.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Your Honor, if I may also,

it's --

THE COURT: Anything additional?

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Yes, it's my understanding

and basis upon information and belief that correspondence

that was sent by Mr. Sloan himself, that he was

additionally present. He says he himself that he left

the court papers with the doorman at my office address.

If he was the individual that was either with him or left

them himself, then I would be contesting the affidavit of

service. And I also believe it violates the spirit of

the law that the party himself was present and apparently

questioned certain individuals at the time of service.

THE COURT: Well, what we have here is we have

an affidavit of service by Mr. George Rankoth who said


7



Proceedings

that he served this on August 21st at 7:45 --

MR. SLOAN: August 1st.

THE COURT: August 1st, 2013 at 7:45 a.m. --

MR. SLOAN: It should say p.m.

THE COURT: All right. It's not circled, but

you're telling me it's meant to be 7:45 p.m.

And then there's a second affidavit of service

that says 10:45 p.m., which is the petition. The mere

fact that there's an allegation that one of the parties

was present with the process server doesn't invalidate

the service.

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I'll waive the objection

then.

THE COURT: Okay. That's number one.

So your objection to in personam jurisdiction on

the basis of him being present then is inappropriate.

The question is an affidavit of service creates a

presumption which you have to rebut at the particular

time, that's insufficient to rebut the presumption.

The question here is on the Board of Election

cases, there is a Board of Election time stamp. In the

past, we have created that the Board of Election time

stamp is the same as an affidavit which creates a

presumption that it's properly served. If you wish to

present evidence to rebut the Board of Election's


8



Proceedings

service, you may do so. Okay. The mere fact that you

claim you want to find out whether or not the candidate

served the papers is, in my view, insufficient to rebut

the presumption. If you have evidence that he served it

or you wish to go to a Traverse, but to go on a fishing

expedition is insufficient to rebut the presumption of

the time stamp of the Board, which we normally accept

because it is a City office.

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. The in personam jurisdiction

having been established, was there a Board report here?

MR. KITZINGER: Yes, your Honor. There was.

Since it's a citywide office, it would require

3,750 valid signatures. The Board found that the

candidate has 89 valid signatures. There are 4,297

submitted, 4,208 of which were determined to be invalid.

The vast majority were validated with the subscribing

witness, was not enrolled in the Republican party, and

this report was adopted unanimously by the Commissioner

of Elections.

THE COURT: Could I see the Board report

please?

MR. KITZINGER: Of course, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Handing.)


9



Proceedings

THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, do you have anything to

say about the Board report?

MR. SLOAN: Yes. I have a great deal to say

about this.

First place is this whole proceeding starts with

a general objection signed by a Mr. Salvatore Caruso.

Mr. Salvatore Caruso had three days to file this general

objection, he then had another six days to file a

specific objection. These specific objections contain

completely different allegations than are on the Board

report. The specific objections said that there were

4,269 signatures submitted, of which 4,200 were bad

signatures, 69 were good signatures. These numbers are

just pulled up out of the air. They just invented these

numbers. It has no relationship to the truth. It was

obvious that Mr. Caruso and Mr. Szalkiewicz never

actually looked at the actual signature cards, never

looked at the actual objections. They just made up this

objection.

I have a copy of the specific objections right

here. It's this big bundle of papers. I'd like to hand

it up, if possible.

THE COURT: I'll take a look at that. Would

you show it to your adversaries first to make sure that

they agree that that is a proper copy of the


10



Proceedings

specification objection?

MR. SLOAN: This is the document Mr. Szalkiewicz

served on me, so I assume that that's the document.

THE COURT: So what's your theory to get back

on the ballot?

MR. SLOAN: My theory is, number one, the

specific objections were utterly fraudulent. They just

made blanket statements. All of the signatures except

69 -- I don't know where they got 69, are good and 4,200

were bad. This puts the Board of Elections to the burden

of spending a whole weekend hiring temporary workers and

other people to come in and check all of these

signatures.

And the first thing is every single page --

THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, there is a Board report.

MR. SLOAN: Yeah. I know that, your Honor,

but --

THE COURT: They said there is a Board report.

The Board report says that you need 3,750 signatures to

be found valid, your petition only has 89. Tell me where

you're going to reverse the Board's decision to get those

signatures back on.

MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, my first point is the

Board doesn't get to that until they submit a valid

specific objection. If they don't submit a specific


11



Proceedings

objection, I'm on the ballot.

THE COURT: But did you have an opportunity to

oppose that you thought that the specification objections

were properly filed before the Board?

MR. SLOAN: Yes, I did. I said the same thing

I'm saying here.

THE COURT: And did the Board rule?

MR. SLOAN: Well, what it comes down to in the

end is the Board says that the only thing wrong with my

petitions --

THE COURT: That's not what I asked you,

Counsel -- that's not what I asked you, Mr. Sloan.

Did the Board of Elections rule that the

specification of objections filed by the respondents were

properly served?

MR. SLOAN: I don't think they actually ruled.

THE COURT: They had to, otherwise there

wouldn't be a Board report.

MR. SLOAN: I'm not complaining about the

service because, in fact --

THE COURT: Well, then they would've ruled that

it's sufficient in its merit, otherwise there wouldn't be

a Board report.

MR. SLOAN: But the Board report said something

different than what the specific objection said.


12



Proceedings

THE COURT: So what?

MR. SLOAN: Because they should not have been

allowed to -- if the specific objections contains false

statements, such as none of the subscribing witnesses are

registered to vote -- see, the specific objections says

that none of the subscribing witnesses are objecting to

it, all of the subscribing witnesses are; that's why I

want you to look at those specific objections and you'll

see --

THE COURT: I'm looking it, it says "SW" with

"NE", Subscribing Witness Not Enrolled, subscribing

witness is not registered.

MR. SLOAN: But, in fact, all of those

witnesses are registered to vote. You have 500 sheets of

paper saying that all of these subscribing witnesses are

not registered to vote. In fact, every one of them are

registered to vote. So you have 500, your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you pull the buff cards on each

one of these SWs?

MR. SLOAN: Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Do you have certified copies to

send to the Court?

MR. SLOAN: No, I don't.

THE COURT: So how are you going to prove your

case?


13



Proceedings

MR. SLOAN: Well, the Board of Elections has

the buff cards on all of these people.

THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, you have to go forward

to prove your case. I'm asking for an offer of proof on

how you intend to prove your case.

MR. SLOAN: Well, I can go to the Board of

Elections and print out all of these buff cards of all

these subscribing witnesses and show that they were all

registered to vote.

THE COURT: Why haven't you already done that?

MR. SLOAN: It never occurred that this

question would even come up because I assumed the Board

of Elections would tell you that they're all registered

to vote because the clerk's reports does not say that

they were not registered to vote.

THE COURT: Okay. I will give you a shot.

Counsel, anything in opposition here?

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Yeah. I'm sorry.

MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, the vast majority

is that they were not enrolled members of the Republican

party; that is a requirement of the election law under

6-132(2).

THE COURT: I understand.

Is it your position that these people are not

members of the Republican party?


14



Proceedings

MR. SLOAN: Not the fact that they're not

enrolled in the Republican party, but they were

registered to vote.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, then that defeats your

case.

MR. SLOAN: Wait, wait. I disagree, your

Honor, because first, frankly, we didn't even know about

this rule. It's not a specifically written rule. I

don't think it's there, but Mr. Richman starts --

THE COURT: No, no. Let's stop.

In order for you to be nominated to be the

Republican party nominee for the Office Of Mayor, you

have to be nominated by certain people.

MR. SLOAN: Right.

THE COURT: Either members of the Republican

party have to fill out the petition; that's in the law;

that's required.

MR. KITZINGER: 6-132 subdivision 2, your Honor.

MR. RICHMAN: Your Honor, if we may, so it

reads, "there shall be appended at the bottom of each

sheet a signed statement of the witness who is a

duly-qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter

of the same political party as the voter's qualified to

sign the petition."

THE COURT: Very well. Counsel?


15



Proceedings

MR. SLOAN: No, your Honor. My contention

is -- first of all, I didn't know about that. But,

secondly, that infringes the constitutional right to vote

because it says "only." We're not talking about the

people who signed the petition, we're just talking about

the witnesses. It says the witnesses have to be

Republicans. What is the reason why only Republicans are

allowed to witness petitions? Why not Democrats,

independents, socialists, greens, yellow people, black

people, all kind of different people? It's an

unreasonable rule.

There's no valid justification for the rule.

All this rule does is stop the -- enable the Republican

party to some interloper, like me for example, who I'm a

registered Republican, I want to run for office and give

the Republican hierarchy -- the insiders to the power to

stop people like me, legitimate Republicans for a very

long time, from running for office because they can

control the subscribing witnesses because they have

access to lots of people who do this kind of work for the

Republican party and it's very hard for anybody else to

come in and get witnesses. Remember, we're only talking

about the witnesses --

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Sloan, I think I get

your point.


16



Proceedings

Is this the only offer of proof you have, sir?

MR. SLOAN: Well, again, I can get the buff

cards --

THE COURT: No. I get your point.

So it's your position that your offer of proof

to get you on the ballot is that while you concede that

these subscribing witnesses are registered voters, and

you also concede they are members of the Republican

party --

MR. SLOAN: They're not members.

THE COURT: They're not members of the

Republican party, but you believe there is a

constitutional violation and I should rule on the

constitutional violation to get you on the ballot.

MR. SLOAN: In other words, it infringes upon

the constitutional right to petition the government.

One, that's not constitutional --

THE COURT: I understand your point. Mr.

Sloan, I understand your point. That argument's been

made in at least three federal courts in the past ten

years and it hasn't prevailed in any federal jurisdiction

in the Second Circuit that I'm aware of.

However, I'll hear you in opposition.

MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, as to the

constitutional statement, the United States Court of


17


Proceedings

Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in the case of

Maslow versus the Board of Elections, at 658 F2d

291 -- I'm sorry, I think it's F3d, 291, 2011. That the

specific provision, 6-132 subdivision 2 was valid and

constitutionally affirmed. It relied in large measure in

the United States Supreme Court case of Lopez V Torres

which was handed down a couple of years prior. Also, the

plaintiff, as in the Maslow case, sought certiori from

the US Supreme Court and that was denied.

In addition, your Honor, there is a procedural

problem to the extent that there is a facial challenge to

the constitutionality of the provision. Upon information

and belief, there's been no notice given to the Attorney

General of the State of New York to defend or to provide

him notice and an opportunity to defend the

constitutionality of this provision.

THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, have you served the

Attorney General of the State of New York?

MR. SLOAN: No, I have not, but I have served

the Board of Elections which is an agency of the state.

THE COURT: Okay. Very well.

What we're going to do is we are going to wait

until eleven o'clock. That will give us a chance to

second call to see if Mr. Stevens and Mr. Bozulich appear.

18


Proceedings

So, gentlemen, take a second.

MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, there's one last

thing I'd like to mention:

In Paragraph 19 of the petition, there's a claim

by the candidate, it's verified, "petitioners are new

candidates who have never appeared in the ballot before

in any election. We have never designated circulating

petitions for any party or election previously." In

2004, Mr. Sloan himself sought to be a candidate in what

was then the 10th Congressional District. That candidacy

was unsuccessfully denied, but there were petitions

submitted and there was litigation at minimum for the

Eastern District Of New York seeking to validate that

petition.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Also, your Honor, if I may,

there's also, in 2010, I believe he ran on the

libertarian line for the governor and submitted petitions

as well.

Taking it a step further, should you reach the

constitutional argument and for what is on Mr. Sloan's

favor, what the Court did not rule on are the 1,473

objections to the validity of the signatures that were on

those that would determine that the subscribing witnesses

are not enrolled. So the bulk of these parties didn't


19

Proceedings

even sign the petition to begin with and were not

registered as a Republican party.

If we need to go this far, we'd like permission

of the Court to either file a verified cross petition,

which we have a copy of right here, or would have an

answer likewise with an affirmative defense that the

invalidating time period should be commenced in order to

make sure that these remaining signatures are removed

from the petition as well which would bring Mr. Sloan

well below the 3,750 signatures he needs in order to be

placed on the ballot.

THE COURT: The application that you're asking

for, did you submit that as a counterclaim?

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I did not submit it as a

counterclaim, but I can, I have actually followed up in

an answer, but I can change it in-between this call and

the second call.

THE COURT: But the affirmative defense -- you

have filed an affirmative defense to Mr. Sloan's

petition?

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I have it in front of me

right now. I was planning on giving it up to the Court.

THE COURT: So you have not served it yet?

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I have not. It's in front of

me.

20


Proceedings

THE COURT: Because I didn't see it in my file.

MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I address the --

THE COURT: No. I hear it. That's all. This

is all procedural.

We'll second-call this at, approximately, 11:10.

So thank you.

(Case recalled.)

THE COURT: Okay. First of all, it is now

11:10 on August 5th. This matter having been called once

for the 9:30 calendar now being second-called at the

11:00 a.m. calendar.

Mr. Stevens, Thomas Stevens, the petitioner, not

having appeared and not having appeared pursuant to an

attorney or proper representative. A Mr. Richard

Bozulich, I'll spell it, B-O-Z-U-L-I-C-H, also a second

petitioner not having appeared at the 9:30 call of the

calendar, not having appeared at the second call of the

calendar at 11:00 a.m., and having no legal or proper

representative of same, the application on the order to

show cause to validate is hereby dismissed for failure to

appear.

In addition, the Court, having herein wishing to

correct an error that it earlier made which would apply

not only to Mr. Sloan who is here today, but to the other

two petitioners, Mr. Bozulich and Mr. Stevens. According


21



Proceedings

to the affidavit of service, there is an affidavit of

service in which a Mr. George Rankoth, spelled

R-A-N-K-O-T-H, properly served an order to show cause

petition, an affidavit in support on the respondent,

Daniel Szalkiewicz, and having also that same person

having served an order to show cause affidavit in support

on petition on Mr. Salvatore Caruso timely. However, the

Board of Elections, according to the information put

forward by Mr. Sloan that they were served with a copy of

the validating petition, is timed-stamped properly.

Also, they were served with a copy of the affidavit in

support, but there is no time stamp that shows that Mr.

Sloan properly served them with a copy of the order to

show cause --

MR. SLOAN: I have the time stamp, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, let me see it, sir.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, the Board of Elections

keeps these records and they're not objecting and they

don't claim that they weren't served. I don't see why

I'm going through all these papers.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. SLOAN: I can't find it, but it's definitely

at home. I definitely did serve. I definitely do have a

time-stamped copy of it.

22

Proceedings

THE COURT: You have a time stamp of the order

to show cause?

MR. SLOAN: The order to show cause, yes, but

it's at home.

THE COURT: When did you serve them?

MR. SLOAN: At exactly 4:35. In other words --

MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, we don't -- the

Board doesn't dispute that he received it, but Mr.

Sloan's statement that "I served" is somewhat disturbing

in light of Mr. Szalkiewicz's prior argument, and --

THE COURT: No. I'll take that as the generic

"we." If you believe that he served it, if you believe

that "he" meaning means the "we" as the candidates

somehow served the order to show cause, I'll take that he

has jurisdiction. I just don't have proof that he had

served the order to show cause -- the order of the order

to show cause.

MR. KITZINGER: But I think he said "I", not

"we."

THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to take that as

testimony. He's pro se so I'm not going to hold it

against him. But you believe that he did serve the order

of the order to show cause.

MR. KITZINGER: The Board of Elections received

a copy of each of the three documents.


23



Proceedings

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, because I only

have proof of two.

Very well. Thank you, Mr. Sloan.

Okay. I've heard the application under the

offer of proof, and I have the Board report. And under

the Board report which says that the number of signatures

submitted by Mr. Sloan was 4,297, the total number of

invalid signatures was 4,208 - I'm sorry, yeah, 4,208,

the total valid was 89 and the number of signatures

required was 3,750. Under that application, I've asked

for an offer of proof and Mr. Sloan has come forward that

he wishes to rely solely on the argument that certain SWs

should be reversed by this Court because of the

requirement that those SWs be enrolled members of the

party.

Under this situation, Mr. Sloan also admits that

he was unaware of the requirement that members of the

party -- Republican party had to be SWs. In addition to

that, he now raises as his sole application a

constitutional claim that the requirement under the

election law that requires that the SWs on the

designating petition be enrolled members of the

representative party, however, that application for a

constitutional claim is jurisdictionally defective

because, under the rules of the court, if you make a


24

Proceedings

constitutional claim in state court, you must serve the

Attorney General. And in this particular case, you

would've had to serve the Attorney General before the

last day to bring the order to show cause to designate a

ballot, which was on July 25, 2013.

Having admitted that you haven't served the

Attorney General renders the constitutional claim

jurisdictionally defective and, therefore, it is denied

based on the offer of proof that this is the only claim

that you have to reverse the position of the Board that

is prima facie defective. It is insufficient proof here

to even proceed on an order to show cause -- on the

line-by-line order to show cause based on your

representations here in court. Therefore, the order to

show cause, an application to validate, is hereby denied.

You can order the transcript in which I will

so-order the transcript in this period if you wish to

proceed and appeal this matter to the First Department.

Understand that the First Department will be hearing all

appeals on August 12 and August 13, which is next week,

so, therefore, ordering the transcript should be

expeditious to you.

MR. SLOAN: Yes. I do wish to order the

transcript and I will appeal.

THE COURT: Okay. Very well, sir.


25



Proceedings

Anything else, Counsel?

MR. SLOAN: Yes, your Honor, I would like to

address one more issue that we didn't do yet, and that is

I'm certain that the signature of Mr. Caruso on the

specific objection is a forgery because the signatures

are so totally different from the voter registration

card. He signed it one way --

THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. I'm not even

hearing this application now. I asked for your offer of

proof earlier, you didn't even mention this. Now that

I've ruled, you want to come up with something new.

MR. SLOAN: No --

THE COURT: No, no. I'm not going to permit

you to put that on the record when I asked you what was

your offer of proof, sir.

So please, Mr. Sloan, I've ruled. You're

obviously an intelligent gentleman. You're reserving

your rights for an appeal.

Anything else?

MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Just that a verified answer

has been served on the Board and Mr. Sloan -- two others

were put in the mail, two other named respondents.

THE COURT: We do have the answer which you

handed up today. I point out the answer does not have

any counterclaims in it, which would have to be served


26


before July 25th. So it's a general denial.

I do understand that you reserve the right to

somehow bring forward other objections, whether that's

appropriate or inappropriate at another time, I don't

believe so, but the matter has been ruled on. This

matter is adjourned.

MR. KITZINGER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. RICHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.

**********************************
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ORIGINAL STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING.


__________________________
VANESSA MILLER
Senior Court Reporter
y***@gmail.com
2013-08-25 12:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by samsloan
The subscribing witness rule was found unconstitutional in Kaloshi v. New York City Board of Elections, 02 CV 4762, 2002 WL 31051530 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002). This is a lengthy and reasoned opinion that declared the specific statute in question to be unconstitutional. This is the only reported case that deals directly with this statute.
========

Poor Spam Splop. You're not even trying anymore. Evicted in CA, tossed off the ballot in NY, and not even allowed to wet your beak a little bit in the Goodall estate.

In Kaloshi the court did not declare the provision unconstitutional. It did the opposite: it VACATED a lower court ruling declaring the provision unconstitutional.

"In this suit the candidates and the voters claim, inter alia, that their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments were
violated by the requirement that petition signatures be witnessed by a registered party member. We do not reach the merits of their claims, because they lack standing [...]

Because Kaloshi failed to qualify for reasons unrelated to the challenged witnessing requirement, the voters cannot satisfy the standing requirements of Lujan. The voters suffered no injury traceable to the challenged statutory provision. Even with the signatures that the district court restored, Kaloshi did not qualify for the ballot. Because the appellees lack standing, the federal courts have no power to rule on their claims.

The order of the district court is VACATED and the action DISMISSED"


http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/not_public/VR-NY-0121-0002.pdf


Is it your old age that's fueling this desperation Spam Splooge? Bit of advice: when your time comes to play chess with death, don't play the fucking Grob.
samsloan
2013-08-28 01:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by samsloan
No. _______
_________________ ♦ _______________
Sam Sloan,
Richard Bozulich,
Thomas R. Stevens,
Petitioners,
-against-
Daniel S. Szalkiewicz,
Salvatore G. Caruso,
Board of Elections in the City of New York,
Attorney General of the State of New York
__________________ ♦ _______________
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
_________________ ♦ _______________
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_________________ ♦ _______________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
917-507-7226
917-659-3397
Questions Presented
Where the Board of Elections in the City of New York has a rule under which any candidate for election in a recognized political party who wishes to be placed on the ballot must collect a sufficient of number of signatures from members of that party and those signatures must also be witnessed by a “subscribing witness” who must also be an enrolled member of that political party, does this rule constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the First and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights “to petition the Government” as well as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote and the right to Freedom of Association?
Where, as here, a sufficient number of signatures were collected from Republican Party Members which resulted in these candidates being placed on the ballot as Republican Party Candidates, but the candidates were removed from the ballot solely because the vast majority of the signatures were not witnessed by enrolled members of the Republican Party but instead were witnessed by other enrolled voters including Blanks, Democrats and Libertarians, should this court order that these three petitioner-candidates be reinstated on the ballot?
Table of Contents
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari 5
Parties to the Case 5
Constitutional Provisions Involved 6
Table of Cases 7
Opinions Below 7
Jurisdiction 7
Statement of the Case 8
Reasons for Granting a Writ 11
Appendix
Exhibit A
Transcript of Hearing Before Judge Paul Wooten
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Petitioner Respectfully Prays that a Writ of Certiorari issue to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department to review the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated August 9, 2013, Index No. 101087/2013, and the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dated August 13, 2013 which denied the validation petition of the above candidates to be reinstated on the ballot after these candidates were removed from the ballot solely because their petition signatures had not been witnessed by enrolled Republicans.
On August 21, 2013, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York denied the motion by Petitioner for Leave to Appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Parties to the Case
Daniel S. Szalkiewicz
Attorney for Self and Salvatore Caruso
280 Riverside Drive
New York NY 10025
Stephen Kitzinger
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York NY 10007
Stephen H. Richman
Board of Elections in the City of New York
32 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York NY 10004
Richard P. Dearing
Deputy Solicitor General
Attorney General of New York
120 Broadway
New York NY 10005
212-416-6685
Constitutional Provisions Involved
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .
There shall be appended at the bottom of each sheet a signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter of the same political party as the voters qualified to sign the petition, and who is also a resident of the political subdivision in which the office or position is to be voted for.
Table of Cases
Credico v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 751 F.Supp.2d 417, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)
Dekom vs. New York, 12-CV-1318 (JS)(ARL)
Kaloshi v. Hackshaw, 02 CV 4762, 2002 WL 31051530 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002)
Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of N.Y.C., 232 F.3d 135, 145 (2d Cir. 2000).
Maslow v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 658 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2011)
Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886)
N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 128 S.Ct. 791, 798, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008)
OPINIONS BELOW
There are no opinions below. Neither the New York Supreme Court, nor the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court First Department nor the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion on this case.
Jurisdiction
The Candidate-Petitioners and their supporters circulated petitions to be placed on the ballot. Petitions containing more than 4500 signatures were timely filed by “Cindarella Time” which was midnight on July 11, 2013. As this filing was facially valid, petitioner-candidates were placed on the ballot. However, a General Objection was by one Sal Caruso was filed on July 15, 2013 followed by a Specific Objection on July 22, 2013. A hearing was held before the New York Board of Elections on July 30, 2013 following which these candidates were kicked off the ballot on July 31, 2013 for one reason only which was 3905 of these signatures had not been witnessed by enrolled members of the Republican Party. Rather the signatures had been witnessed by other voters including Democrats, Libertarians and Blanks.
Petitioners filed a petition to validate their places on the ballot on August 1, 2013. A show cause order was issued requiring the objector and the Board of Elections to appear on August 5, 2013. On August 9, 2013 Judge Wooten denied the Validation Petition without opinion. Petitioner appealed and this appeal was heard by the New York supreme Court Appellate Division First Department which affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court without opinion. Petitioner then filed a motion for leavbe to appeal with the Court of appeals of New York. This was denied on August 21, 2013. This petition for Certiorari follows.
Statement of the Case
This proceeding is brought under Election Law Sections 16-100 and 16-102 and other provisions of New York Law. Sam Sloan is a candidate for Mayor of the City of New York. Richard Bozulich is a candidate for Comptroller of the City of New York. Thomas R. Stevens is a candidate for Public Advocate of the City of New York.
Supporters of the candidates circulated petitions and the requisite number of signatures were obtained to get on the ballot. The signed petitions were timely submitted to the Board of Elections in the City of New York. The Petitions complied in every respect with the election rules, including cover sheets and wording of the petitions. There were enough signatures, the cover sheet was done properly and the wording of the petition was correct.
However, on July 31, 2013, all three of these candidates were thrown off the ballot after a hearing by the New York City Board of Elections for one reason only, which was that these were designating petitions for the Republican Party Primary, and the subscribing witnesses (not the signers) were not registered as Republicans with the New York City Board of Elections.
Unfortunately, the candidates had not been previously aware that there was any rule requiring that the mere witnesses to a petition be members of any political party. Had they known about this rule they might have been able to take appropriate action on time (although this would have been difficult as there are few Republicans willing to perform this task of witnessing signatures which may expose them to civil liability).
There shall be appended at the bottom of each sheet a signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter of the same political party as the voters qualified to sign the petition, and who is also a resident of the political subdivision in which the office or position is to be voted for.
This provision was declared unconstitutional in the case Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of N.Y.C., 232 F.3d 135, 145 (2d Cir. 2000). This is explained in Dekom vs. New York, 12-CV-1318 (JS)(ARL).
However, at the hearing of this appeal before the Appellate Division on August 13, 2013, counsel for the Board of Elections and the Department of Law suggested that the Lerner decision has been overruled by the Maslow case, which is Maslow v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 658 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2011).
Petitioner-Appellant contends that the Maslow case has nothing to do with the instant case because the Maslow Case was a test case for declaratory relief, not an actual case, whereas in the instant the petitioners have been trying hard to get on the ballot and have spent considerable money to do so, yet have been thwarted by an unwritten rule they had no way to know about.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Here the law clearly infringes the Constitutional Right “to petition the government”. There have been several cases on this subject, but all of them have been federal cases. Petitioner maintains that the state courts are just as competent and capable to decide constitutional issues as the federal courts are.
The subscribing witness rule was found unconstitutional in Kaloshi v. New York City Board of Elections, 02 CV 4762, 2002 WL 31051530 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002). This is a lengthy and reasoned opinion that declared the specific statute in question to be unconstitutional. This is the only reported case that deals directly with this statute.
It appears from the oral argument held before the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals that counsel for the Board of Elections would also like to see this case reviewed by this court because he believes the Lerner Decision was effectively overruled by the Maslow decision. The Lerner decision has been a thorn in the side for the Board of Elections as the Board of Elections has difficulty checking voter registrations in upstate New York and this constantly causes problems in New York City Elections.
The main operative fact is it is undisputed that the petitioners collected 3905 valid signatures whereas only 3750 are required, except that these 3905 signatures were declared invalid because the signatures were not witnessed by Republicans. While there have been several federal cases related to this issue, there has never been a reported state case on this issue, and thus this motion for leave to appeal should be granted.
Reasons for Granting the Writ
It is difficult to imagine a more obvious constitutional right than the Right to Petition the Government. Requiring that petitions be witnessed by Republicans and by nobody else is such an obvious infringement that it is difficult to imagine that anybody could defend it.
This requirement has been struck down in two federal cases, namely Kaloshi v. New York City Board of Elections, 02 CV 4762, 2002 WL 31051530 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002) and Lerman v. Bd. of Elections of N.Y.C., 232 F.3d 135, 145 (2d Cir. 2000).
However, the Board of Elections claims that those two decisions are no longer good law and were overruled by Maslow v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 658 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2011) and N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 128 S.Ct. 791, 798, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008).
Petitioner disagrees. With an election coming up, certiorari should be granted to decide these important questions.
This document is prepared in Century Schoolbook New Bold 12 point with a word count of 2172 words.
Dated August 23, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave Apt 1B
Bronx NY 10453
917-507-7226
917-659-3397
Appendix A
Transcript of Hearing Before Judge Paul Wooten
1
1
2
3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM: PART 7
4 ----------------------------------------------X
SAMUEL H. SLOAN, RICHARD BOZULICH, THOMAS R.
5 STEVENS,
6 Petitioners
7 -against- 101087/2013
8 DANIEL S. SZALKIEWICZ, SALVATORE G. CARUSO, BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
9
Respondents.
10 ----------------------------------------------X
60 Centre Street
11 New York, New York 10007
August 5, 2013
THE HONORABLE PAUL WOOTEN,
13 J U S T I C E
14
SAMUEL H. SLOAN
15 Petitioner Pro Se
1664 Davidson Avenue, Apt. 1B
16 Bronx NY 10453
17 DANIEL S. SZALKIEWICZ, ESQ.
Attorney for Respondent Salvatore Caruso
18 280 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10025
19
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE
20 CORPORATION COUNSEL
100 Church Street
21 New York, NY 10007
BY: Stephen Kitzinger, Esq.
22
BOARD OF ELECTIONS CITY OF NEW YORK
23 32 Broadway - 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
24 BY: Steven H. Richman, Esq.
25 VANESSA MILLER
Senior Court Reporter
26
2
Proceedings
THE COURT: Calling the case of Sloan versus
Szalkiewicz, index number 101087 of 2013.
Who represents Mr. Sloan?
MR. SLOAN: That's me. I'm representing
myself.
THE COURT: And who represents Mr. Szalkiewicz?
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Your Honor, I am Mr.
Szalkiewicz and I represent Salvadore G. Caruso who's
actually the objector. I'm not sure why I'm personally named.
THE COURT: You are.
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I was his counsel at the time
and I guess my name was on the spec as a contact
individual.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: But I am Mr. Caruso's
attorney as well.
THE COURT: Okay. Very well.
Any objection to Mr. Szalkiewicz representing
Mr. Caruso from any of the parties?
MR. SLOAN: I have no objection to that, your
Honor. But one thing I do object to is it's obvious that
Mr. Caruso is a front man and I would like to know who's
paying Mr. Szalkiewicz's legal fees because he's
obviously got some others behind him who are doing this.
3
Proceedings
THE COURT: That's a request by you, sir?
MR. SLOAN: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Your application is denied. We've
never done that. In 30 years on the bench we've never,
never -- I'm sorry. In five years on the bench and 27
years as an election law attorney, we've never had a case
where that application's been granted. You have an
exception, sir.
Who represents the Board?
MR. KITZINGER: Stephen Kitzinger, New York
City Law Department.
MR. RICHMAN: Steven Richman, counsel for the
respondent, Board of Elections.
THE COURT: Okay. Let the record reflect that
I'm joined by Mr. Jack Suiter (ph), one of our principal
law clerks who assists in this special election part.
All right. So was there a Board report here,
sir?
MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, there was a Board
report. But, initially, I believe there are three named
plaintiffs and two of them are not present.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KITZINGER: So I think their claims should
be dismissed.
THE COURT: Is Mr. Stevens here?
4
Proceedings
MR. SLOAN: No, he's not here.
THE COURT: Okay. Is Mr. Richard -- how do
you --
MR. SLOAN: Bozulich. He's out of the country.
THE COURT: Okay. So two of the petitioners
are not represented here today?
MR. SLOAN: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So do they plan to be
represented? Do they have an attorney?
MR. SLOAN: I just don't know.
THE COURT: Okay. So you don't know if they're
planning to be represented. I can't take your word that
one of them is out of the country. I do know that the
two are not here. It is now, approximately, 10:35. I
will give them to 11:00 a.m. where I'll second-call the
case to see if they appear.
But on your application, Mr. Sloan, which is an
application for an order to validate to put you on the
ballot for the Office Of Mayor of the City of New York on
the Republican party for the September primary; is that
correct?
MR. SLOAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. Have you served your
affidavit of service?
MR. SLOAN: Yes, I have.
5
Proceedings
THE COURT: Do you have them?
MR. SLOAN: Yes, I do.
MR. KITZINGER: I have it too --
THE COURT: Just a moment. Let's go through
procedure. Mr. Sloan.
(Handing.)
THE COURT: Okay. Officer Burgos, would you
show the affidavit of service to the respondents please?
(Handing.)
MR. KITZINGER: I don't see an affidavit of
service on the Board.
MR. SLOAN: Oh. They time-stamped it. It's in
the back. I have to search for it. They have a time
stamp from the Board of Elections.
THE COURT: One of them is time-stamped; isn't
it?
MR. KITZINGER: Actually, I see time-stamped
copies, I mean, if the Court is going to accept that.
THE COURT: Okay. At this particular time, I'm
showing you the affidavit of service.
(Handing.)
THE COURT: Are there any objections to in
personam jurisdiction?
MR. KITZINGER: None from the Board, your
Honor.
6
Proceedings
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I mean, if I may, the only
way I would object is depending on who actually served it
on the Board, I'm not sure what individual did it. If it
was Mr. Sloan, I would object to it in that he's actually
a candidate and under CPLR 2103, he's unable to serve the
Board personally. As we don't have an affidavit of
service on behalf of the Board, I'd object until we can
learn actually who is the actual individual that did it.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Your Honor, if I may also,
it's --
THE COURT: Anything additional?
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Yes, it's my understanding
and basis upon information and belief that correspondence
that was sent by Mr. Sloan himself, that he was
additionally present. He says he himself that he left
the court papers with the doorman at my office address.
If he was the individual that was either with him or left
them himself, then I would be contesting the affidavit of
service. And I also believe it violates the spirit of
the law that the party himself was present and apparently
questioned certain individuals at the time of service.
THE COURT: Well, what we have here is we have
an affidavit of service by Mr. George Rankoth who said
7
Proceedings
that he served this on August 21st at 7:45 --
MR. SLOAN: August 1st.
THE COURT: August 1st, 2013 at 7:45 a.m. --
MR. SLOAN: It should say p.m.
THE COURT: All right. It's not circled, but
you're telling me it's meant to be 7:45 p.m.
And then there's a second affidavit of service
that says 10:45 p.m., which is the petition. The mere
fact that there's an allegation that one of the parties
was present with the process server doesn't invalidate
the service.
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I'll waive the objection
then.
THE COURT: Okay. That's number one.
So your objection to in personam jurisdiction on
the basis of him being present then is inappropriate.
The question is an affidavit of service creates a
presumption which you have to rebut at the particular
time, that's insufficient to rebut the presumption.
The question here is on the Board of Election
cases, there is a Board of Election time stamp. In the
past, we have created that the Board of Election time
stamp is the same as an affidavit which creates a
presumption that it's properly served. If you wish to
present evidence to rebut the Board of Election's
8
Proceedings
service, you may do so. Okay. The mere fact that you
claim you want to find out whether or not the candidate
served the papers is, in my view, insufficient to rebut
the presumption. If you have evidence that he served it
or you wish to go to a Traverse, but to go on a fishing
expedition is insufficient to rebut the presumption of
the time stamp of the Board, which we normally accept
because it is a City office.
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. The in personam jurisdiction
having been established, was there a Board report here?
MR. KITZINGER: Yes, your Honor. There was.
Since it's a citywide office, it would require
3,750 valid signatures. The Board found that the
candidate has 89 valid signatures. There are 4,297
submitted, 4,208 of which were determined to be invalid.
The vast majority were validated with the subscribing
witness, was not enrolled in the Republican party, and
this report was adopted unanimously by the Commissioner
of Elections.
THE COURT: Could I see the Board report
please?
MR. KITZINGER: Of course, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Handing.)
9
Proceedings
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, do you have anything to
say about the Board report?
MR. SLOAN: Yes. I have a great deal to say
about this.
First place is this whole proceeding starts with
a general objection signed by a Mr. Salvatore Caruso.
Mr. Salvatore Caruso had three days to file this general
objection, he then had another six days to file a
specific objection. These specific objections contain
completely different allegations than are on the Board
report. The specific objections said that there were
4,269 signatures submitted, of which 4,200 were bad
signatures, 69 were good signatures. These numbers are
just pulled up out of the air. They just invented these
numbers. It has no relationship to the truth. It was
obvious that Mr. Caruso and Mr. Szalkiewicz never
actually looked at the actual signature cards, never
looked at the actual objections. They just made up this
objection.
I have a copy of the specific objections right
here. It's this big bundle of papers. I'd like to hand
it up, if possible.
THE COURT: I'll take a look at that. Would
you show it to your adversaries first to make sure that
they agree that that is a proper copy of the
10
Proceedings
specification objection?
MR. SLOAN: This is the document Mr. Szalkiewicz
served on me, so I assume that that's the document.
THE COURT: So what's your theory to get back
on the ballot?
MR. SLOAN: My theory is, number one, the
specific objections were utterly fraudulent. They just
made blanket statements. All of the signatures except
69 -- I don't know where they got 69, are good and 4,200
were bad. This puts the Board of Elections to the burden
of spending a whole weekend hiring temporary workers and
other people to come in and check all of these
signatures.
And the first thing is every single page --
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, there is a Board report.
MR. SLOAN: Yeah. I know that, your Honor,
but --
THE COURT: They said there is a Board report.
The Board report says that you need 3,750 signatures to
be found valid, your petition only has 89. Tell me where
you're going to reverse the Board's decision to get those
signatures back on.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, my first point is the
Board doesn't get to that until they submit a valid
specific objection. If they don't submit a specific
11
Proceedings
objection, I'm on the ballot.
THE COURT: But did you have an opportunity to
oppose that you thought that the specification objections
were properly filed before the Board?
MR. SLOAN: Yes, I did. I said the same thing
I'm saying here.
THE COURT: And did the Board rule?
MR. SLOAN: Well, what it comes down to in the
end is the Board says that the only thing wrong with my
petitions --
THE COURT: That's not what I asked you,
Counsel -- that's not what I asked you, Mr. Sloan.
Did the Board of Elections rule that the
specification of objections filed by the respondents were
properly served?
MR. SLOAN: I don't think they actually ruled.
THE COURT: They had to, otherwise there
wouldn't be a Board report.
MR. SLOAN: I'm not complaining about the
service because, in fact --
THE COURT: Well, then they would've ruled that
it's sufficient in its merit, otherwise there wouldn't be
a Board report.
MR. SLOAN: But the Board report said something
different than what the specific objection said.
12
Proceedings
THE COURT: So what?
MR. SLOAN: Because they should not have been
allowed to -- if the specific objections contains false
statements, such as none of the subscribing witnesses are
registered to vote -- see, the specific objections says
that none of the subscribing witnesses are objecting to
it, all of the subscribing witnesses are; that's why I
want you to look at those specific objections and you'll
see --
THE COURT: I'm looking it, it says "SW" with
"NE", Subscribing Witness Not Enrolled, subscribing
witness is not registered.
MR. SLOAN: But, in fact, all of those
witnesses are registered to vote. You have 500 sheets of
paper saying that all of these subscribing witnesses are
not registered to vote. In fact, every one of them are
registered to vote. So you have 500, your Honor.
THE COURT: Did you pull the buff cards on each
one of these SWs?
MR. SLOAN: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: Do you have certified copies to
send to the Court?
MR. SLOAN: No, I don't.
THE COURT: So how are you going to prove your
case?
13
Proceedings
MR. SLOAN: Well, the Board of Elections has
the buff cards on all of these people.
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, you have to go forward
to prove your case. I'm asking for an offer of proof on
how you intend to prove your case.
MR. SLOAN: Well, I can go to the Board of
Elections and print out all of these buff cards of all
these subscribing witnesses and show that they were all
registered to vote.
THE COURT: Why haven't you already done that?
MR. SLOAN: It never occurred that this
question would even come up because I assumed the Board
of Elections would tell you that they're all registered
to vote because the clerk's reports does not say that
they were not registered to vote.
THE COURT: Okay. I will give you a shot.
Counsel, anything in opposition here?
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Yeah. I'm sorry.
MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, the vast majority
is that they were not enrolled members of the Republican
party; that is a requirement of the election law under
6-132(2).
THE COURT: I understand.
Is it your position that these people are not
members of the Republican party?
14
Proceedings
MR. SLOAN: Not the fact that they're not
enrolled in the Republican party, but they were
registered to vote.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, then that defeats your
case.
MR. SLOAN: Wait, wait. I disagree, your
Honor, because first, frankly, we didn't even know about
this rule. It's not a specifically written rule. I
don't think it's there, but Mr. Richman starts --
THE COURT: No, no. Let's stop.
In order for you to be nominated to be the
Republican party nominee for the Office Of Mayor, you
have to be nominated by certain people.
MR. SLOAN: Right.
THE COURT: Either members of the Republican
party have to fill out the petition; that's in the law;
that's required.
MR. KITZINGER: 6-132 subdivision 2, your Honor.
MR. RICHMAN: Your Honor, if we may, so it
reads, "there shall be appended at the bottom of each
sheet a signed statement of the witness who is a
duly-qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter
of the same political party as the voter's qualified to
sign the petition."
THE COURT: Very well. Counsel?
15
Proceedings
MR. SLOAN: No, your Honor. My contention
is -- first of all, I didn't know about that. But,
secondly, that infringes the constitutional right to vote
because it says "only." We're not talking about the
people who signed the petition, we're just talking about
the witnesses. It says the witnesses have to be
Republicans. What is the reason why only Republicans are
allowed to witness petitions? Why not Democrats,
independents, socialists, greens, yellow people, black
people, all kind of different people? It's an
unreasonable rule.
There's no valid justification for the rule.
All this rule does is stop the -- enable the Republican
party to some interloper, like me for example, who I'm a
registered Republican, I want to run for office and give
the Republican hierarchy -- the insiders to the power to
stop people like me, legitimate Republicans for a very
long time, from running for office because they can
control the subscribing witnesses because they have
access to lots of people who do this kind of work for the
Republican party and it's very hard for anybody else to
come in and get witnesses. Remember, we're only talking
about the witnesses --
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Sloan, I think I get
your point.
16
Proceedings
Is this the only offer of proof you have, sir?
MR. SLOAN: Well, again, I can get the buff
cards --
THE COURT: No. I get your point.
So it's your position that your offer of proof
to get you on the ballot is that while you concede that
these subscribing witnesses are registered voters, and
you also concede they are members of the Republican
party --
MR. SLOAN: They're not members.
THE COURT: They're not members of the
Republican party, but you believe there is a
constitutional violation and I should rule on the
constitutional violation to get you on the ballot.
MR. SLOAN: In other words, it infringes upon
the constitutional right to petition the government.
One, that's not constitutional --
THE COURT: I understand your point. Mr.
Sloan, I understand your point. That argument's been
made in at least three federal courts in the past ten
years and it hasn't prevailed in any federal jurisdiction
in the Second Circuit that I'm aware of.
However, I'll hear you in opposition.
MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, as to the
constitutional statement, the United States Court of
17
Proceedings
Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in the case of
Maslow versus the Board of Elections, at 658 F2d
291 -- I'm sorry, I think it's F3d, 291, 2011. That the
specific provision, 6-132 subdivision 2 was valid and
constitutionally affirmed. It relied in large measure in
the United States Supreme Court case of Lopez V Torres
which was handed down a couple of years prior. Also, the
plaintiff, as in the Maslow case, sought certiori from
the US Supreme Court and that was denied.
In addition, your Honor, there is a procedural
problem to the extent that there is a facial challenge to
the constitutionality of the provision. Upon information
and belief, there's been no notice given to the Attorney
General of the State of New York to defend or to provide
him notice and an opportunity to defend the
constitutionality of this provision.
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, have you served the
Attorney General of the State of New York?
MR. SLOAN: No, I have not, but I have served
the Board of Elections which is an agency of the state.
THE COURT: Okay. Very well.
What we're going to do is we are going to wait
until eleven o'clock. That will give us a chance to
second call to see if Mr. Stevens and Mr. Bozulich appear.
18
Proceedings
So, gentlemen, take a second.
MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, there's one last
In Paragraph 19 of the petition, there's a claim
by the candidate, it's verified, "petitioners are new
candidates who have never appeared in the ballot before
in any election. We have never designated circulating
petitions for any party or election previously." In
2004, Mr. Sloan himself sought to be a candidate in what
was then the 10th Congressional District. That candidacy
was unsuccessfully denied, but there were petitions
submitted and there was litigation at minimum for the
Eastern District Of New York seeking to validate that
petition.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Also, your Honor, if I may,
there's also, in 2010, I believe he ran on the
libertarian line for the governor and submitted petitions
as well.
Taking it a step further, should you reach the
constitutional argument and for what is on Mr. Sloan's
favor, what the Court did not rule on are the 1,473
objections to the validity of the signatures that were on
those that would determine that the subscribing witnesses
are not enrolled. So the bulk of these parties didn't
19
Proceedings
even sign the petition to begin with and were not
registered as a Republican party.
If we need to go this far, we'd like permission
of the Court to either file a verified cross petition,
which we have a copy of right here, or would have an
answer likewise with an affirmative defense that the
invalidating time period should be commenced in order to
make sure that these remaining signatures are removed
from the petition as well which would bring Mr. Sloan
well below the 3,750 signatures he needs in order to be
placed on the ballot.
THE COURT: The application that you're asking
for, did you submit that as a counterclaim?
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I did not submit it as a
counterclaim, but I can, I have actually followed up in
an answer, but I can change it in-between this call and
the second call.
THE COURT: But the affirmative defense -- you
have filed an affirmative defense to Mr. Sloan's
petition?
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I have it in front of me
right now. I was planning on giving it up to the Court.
THE COURT: So you have not served it yet?
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: I have not. It's in front of
me.
20
Proceedings
THE COURT: Because I didn't see it in my file.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I address the --
THE COURT: No. I hear it. That's all. This
is all procedural.
We'll second-call this at, approximately, 11:10.
So thank you.
(Case recalled.)
THE COURT: Okay. First of all, it is now
11:10 on August 5th. This matter having been called once
for the 9:30 calendar now being second-called at the
11:00 a.m. calendar.
Mr. Stevens, Thomas Stevens, the petitioner, not
having appeared and not having appeared pursuant to an
attorney or proper representative. A Mr. Richard
Bozulich, I'll spell it, B-O-Z-U-L-I-C-H, also a second
petitioner not having appeared at the 9:30 call of the
calendar, not having appeared at the second call of the
calendar at 11:00 a.m., and having no legal or proper
representative of same, the application on the order to
show cause to validate is hereby dismissed for failure to
appear.
In addition, the Court, having herein wishing to
correct an error that it earlier made which would apply
not only to Mr. Sloan who is here today, but to the other
two petitioners, Mr. Bozulich and Mr. Stevens. According
21
Proceedings
to the affidavit of service, there is an affidavit of
service in which a Mr. George Rankoth, spelled
R-A-N-K-O-T-H, properly served an order to show cause
petition, an affidavit in support on the respondent,
Daniel Szalkiewicz, and having also that same person
having served an order to show cause affidavit in support
on petition on Mr. Salvatore Caruso timely. However, the
Board of Elections, according to the information put
forward by Mr. Sloan that they were served with a copy of
the validating petition, is timed-stamped properly.
Also, they were served with a copy of the affidavit in
support, but there is no time stamp that shows that Mr.
Sloan properly served them with a copy of the order to
show cause --
MR. SLOAN: I have the time stamp, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, let me see it, sir.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, the Board of Elections
keeps these records and they're not objecting and they
don't claim that they weren't served. I don't see why
I'm going through all these papers.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. SLOAN: I can't find it, but it's definitely
at home. I definitely did serve. I definitely do have a
time-stamped copy of it.
22
Proceedings
THE COURT: You have a time stamp of the order
to show cause?
MR. SLOAN: The order to show cause, yes, but
it's at home.
THE COURT: When did you serve them?
MR. SLOAN: At exactly 4:35. In other words --
MR. KITZINGER: Your Honor, we don't -- the
Board doesn't dispute that he received it, but Mr.
Sloan's statement that "I served" is somewhat disturbing
in light of Mr. Szalkiewicz's prior argument, and --
THE COURT: No. I'll take that as the generic
"we." If you believe that he served it, if you believe
that "he" meaning means the "we" as the candidates
somehow served the order to show cause, I'll take that he
has jurisdiction. I just don't have proof that he had
served the order to show cause -- the order of the order
to show cause.
MR. KITZINGER: But I think he said "I", not
"we."
THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to take that as
testimony. He's pro se so I'm not going to hold it
against him. But you believe that he did serve the order
of the order to show cause.
MR. KITZINGER: The Board of Elections received
a copy of each of the three documents.
23
Proceedings
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, because I only
have proof of two.
Very well. Thank you, Mr. Sloan.
Okay. I've heard the application under the
offer of proof, and I have the Board report. And under
the Board report which says that the number of signatures
submitted by Mr. Sloan was 4,297, the total number of
invalid signatures was 4,208 - I'm sorry, yeah, 4,208,
the total valid was 89 and the number of signatures
required was 3,750. Under that application, I've asked
for an offer of proof and Mr. Sloan has come forward that
he wishes to rely solely on the argument that certain SWs
should be reversed by this Court because of the
requirement that those SWs be enrolled members of the
party.
Under this situation, Mr. Sloan also admits that
he was unaware of the requirement that members of the
party -- Republican party had to be SWs. In addition to
that, he now raises as his sole application a
constitutional claim that the requirement under the
election law that requires that the SWs on the
designating petition be enrolled members of the
representative party, however, that application for a
constitutional claim is jurisdictionally defective
because, under the rules of the court, if you make a
24
Proceedings
constitutional claim in state court, you must serve the
Attorney General. And in this particular case, you
would've had to serve the Attorney General before the
last day to bring the order to show cause to designate a
ballot, which was on July 25, 2013.
Having admitted that you haven't served the
Attorney General renders the constitutional claim
jurisdictionally defective and, therefore, it is denied
based on the offer of proof that this is the only claim
that you have to reverse the position of the Board that
is prima facie defective. It is insufficient proof here
to even proceed on an order to show cause -- on the
line-by-line order to show cause based on your
representations here in court. Therefore, the order to
show cause, an application to validate, is hereby denied.
You can order the transcript in which I will
so-order the transcript in this period if you wish to
proceed and appeal this matter to the First Department.
Understand that the First Department will be hearing all
appeals on August 12 and August 13, which is next week,
so, therefore, ordering the transcript should be
expeditious to you.
MR. SLOAN: Yes. I do wish to order the
transcript and I will appeal.
THE COURT: Okay. Very well, sir.
25
Proceedings
Anything else, Counsel?
MR. SLOAN: Yes, your Honor, I would like to
address one more issue that we didn't do yet, and that is
I'm certain that the signature of Mr. Caruso on the
specific objection is a forgery because the signatures
are so totally different from the voter registration
card. He signed it one way --
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. I'm not even
hearing this application now. I asked for your offer of
proof earlier, you didn't even mention this. Now that
I've ruled, you want to come up with something new.
MR. SLOAN: No --
THE COURT: No, no. I'm not going to permit
you to put that on the record when I asked you what was
your offer of proof, sir.
So please, Mr. Sloan, I've ruled. You're
obviously an intelligent gentleman. You're reserving
your rights for an appeal.
Anything else?
MR. SZALKIEWICZ: Just that a verified answer
has been served on the Board and Mr. Sloan -- two others
were put in the mail, two other named respondents.
THE COURT: We do have the answer which you
handed up today. I point out the answer does not have
any counterclaims in it, which would have to be served
26
before July 25th. So it's a general denial.
I do understand that you reserve the right to
somehow bring forward other objections, whether that's
appropriate or inappropriate at another time, I don't
believe so, but the matter has been ruled on. This
matter is adjourned.
MR. KITZINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. RICHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.
**********************************
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ORIGINAL STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING.
__________________________
VANESSA MILLER
Senior Court Reporter
Thank you for providing this link to the Appellate Court decision.

However, this does not apply to my case as I clearly did have enough signatures if those invalidated by the party witness rule are included.

Sam Sloan
y***@gmail.com
2013-08-28 13:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by samsloan
Thank you for providing this link to the Appellate Court decision.
However, this does not apply to my case as I clearly did have enough signatures if those invalidated by the party witness rule are included.
Are you fucking retarded Scam Slop? The linked case is the one you cited in your petition as precedent: Case 1:02-cv-04762-SJ-RML. It is the case upon which your retarded fucking petition is based. And now you say it does not apply. You truly are a completely stupid fucking moron.

All I can figure is that you're so desperate to win a lawsuit that you're now reduced to arguing against yourself. The bad news is that you are so inept that you'd manage to bollox up both arguments.
Post by samsloan
Sam Sloan
Loading...