Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 28th 13, 02:45 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Sloan vs New York City Boardof Elections

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 12:32:44 AM UTC-7, samsloan wrote:
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





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.

  #2   Report Post  
Old August 28th 13, 02:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2012
Posts: 13
Default Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Sloan vs New York City Boardof Elections

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:45:01 PM UTC-4, samsloan wrote:

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 ****ing 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 ****ing petition is based. And now you say it does not apply. You truly are a completely stupid ****ing 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.













Sam Sloan

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Introduction to The Model Architect by Sam Sloan samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 May 18th 07 02:49 AM
Introduction to The Model Architect by Sam Sloan samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 May 17th 07 04:42 PM
USCF Issues Forum: "Five Sam Sloan Fabrications in a Single Post! (New record?)" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017