Case Citations Needed Please I have filed notices of appeal to the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department in my cases against the Republican Party 25231/2004 and the Independence Party 25230/2004. You can see the progress at I would like to receive some help in writing my brief. If I can file my brief by Monday I can get a full hearing by the Appellate Division as early as Wednesday. If I lose there, I can be in the Court of Appeals of New York State in Albany by the following Wednesday and if I lose there I can be in the United States Supreme Court a few days after that. Please note that this speedy progress all the way up to the United States Supreme Court is possible only because this is an Election Law case. Normal cases would take years to complete the process that in an election case will only take weeks. Normally, I would write my own brief and spend a month or two working on it, but because of the need for speed I am asking for help from anyone who will give it. What I need now is cases I can cite in support of the arguments I want to make. For example, my own case which I won in the United States Supreme Court is cited as SEC vs. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). I need citations like that. My citations should pertain to New York State Law Cases. Cases from other states will probably not be helpful. However, since my brief may ultimately be presented to the United States Supreme Court, I would like to include arguments which that court might find interesting. One of these points would be that in New York State more than in any other state the elected officials are controlled by Party Bosses, in the tradition of Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall. The system has not changed much since then. Nowadays, the Republicans in the New York State Legislature are controlled by Joe Bruno and the Democrats are controlled by Sheldon Silver. Those two persons negotiate with the Governor and the three of them make all the decisions. Dissent by the underlings is not tolerated. This pertains to my case because it is obvious that the reason why the Republicans are trying so hard to kick me off the ballot, after first nominating me, is that they realize that they cannot control me. They would rather have a reliable Democrat in office than a loose cannon Republican. The main issue in my case concerns service of papers. I have been serving my own papers for years and nobody ever questioned this before, especially since my opponents always got the papers I served whereas many professional process servers use sewer service (which means that they throw the papers in the sewer rather than serving them on the opponents). My cases were filed on Monday, August 9, 2004. Pursuant to New York Election Law the last day to file was three business days after I was kicked off the ballot by the Board of Elections. That day was Wednesday, August 4, 2004, so Monday, August 9 was the last day to file. My order to show cause was granted and given to me at 4:55 PM that day as the regular workers were all leaving the office. To my great surprise, the judge deleted the language I had copied from the Election Law Book. Instead, he said that service must be made in accordance with CPLR 308(1). CPLR 308(1) states: "308. Personal service upon a natural person. Personal service upon a natural person shall be made by any of the following methods: 1. by delivering the summons within the state to the person to be served." The language in the Election Law law book says: "Service parties designated as objectors be dispensed with, and that service of a copy of this order upon said respondent-objectors be made by enclosing the same in a securely sealed and duly postpaid wrapper addressed and mailed to each of the said respondent-objectors on or before the _____ day of _______ be deemed good and sufficient service thereof." The problem is that precedent in such cases requires that the objectors who got the candidate kicked off the ballot are required to be named as respondents to any petition to restore a candidate to the ballot. However, if these objectors are able to make themselves unavailable to be served they can defeat a petitioners right to be on the ballot. As it turned out, that is what happened in almost every case before Judge Levine. For example, one candidate whose name was something like Anthony Solaris (if somebody knows his correct name please tell me) told the court that the objector had barricaded herself inside her apartment, refused to open the door although her voice could be heard inside, took down the petition which had been posted to her door and called first the security guards and then the police to keep the process server away from her door. Undaunted, the process server waited outside her apartment for six hours until the time for service expired at Midnight. In that case, the attorney arguing against Solaris, who also argued against several other petitioners, said that he had not been retained by anybody and was not prepared to reveal who might retain him if he is retained. In short, he was arguing on behalf of an anonymous client. This is obviously never allowed by any court, but amazingly Judge Levine allowed this attorney to argue at great length and ultimately allowed him to prevail, as a result of which Solaris and several other candidates were kept off the ballot. In my case, I felt that I would not have this problem because both of my objectors had listed contact persons who were attorneys. Bibi S. Khan is represented by Theodore Alatsas and Charles E. Knapp is represented by Gary Sinawski. Service upon an attorney can be made by serving his office. It is not necessary to touch him with the papers, especially since he might be out of town. Accordingly, on the evening of August 9, 2004, I left papers at the law office of Gary Sinawski and Theodore Alatsas. Neither of them were in their offices. The next day, Judge Levine ruled that affidavits of service had been required to be filed by 9:30 AM. I had not known about this special rule made by Judge Levine (no other court has such a rule) so I had not filed affidavits of service by that time, which would have been impossible anyway. The following day, Wednesday, Judge Levine signed my Order to Show Cause to restore my case to the calendar. This time, he gave me until Midnight the following day to serve papers. I told him that I would have no difficulty making that time limit, since this time I would be able to serve papers in the daytime, whereas previously I had been required to serve at night. In fact, I reached the office of Gary Sinawski at 5:05 PM the same day, Wednesday, August 11. Mr. Sinawski personally took the papers and asked his secretary to sign for them. Because Theodore Alatsas has his office way down on Avenue U near Coney Island, I could not reach him the same day, but I went there the following day, arriving there at about 12:00 Noon. He was not in the office yet but his secretary Melissa took them. Fearing that Mr. Alatsas might contend that this was inadequate service, I returned later the same day at about 5:00 PM. Mr. Alatsas was present, took the papers and signed for them. At the hearing the following day, I clocked in all the affidavits of service at 9:20 AM, in view of the judgefs ruling that all affidavits of service must be received by 9:30 AM. At the hearing, Harry Kresky filed a substitution of counsel in place of Gary Sinawski and filed an affirmation in opposition to my petition. Theodore Alatsas appeared in person and filed nothing. Both Herry Kresky and Theodore Alatsas made the same argument. They both admitted that they had received the papers and the fact that they were present in court was proof of that. However, they claimed that I was required to hire a process server and could not serve the papers myself. I contended that since both attorneys admitted that they had received the papers and had signed for them and there was no dispute about this, that there is no requirement that I use a process server. I have been involved in many court cases over the years. I have always served my own papers. There has never been any dispute over this. Indeed, if I had been required to hire a process server every time I would never have had the money to pay them all to fight my case which I eventually won in the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, there cases are not lawsuits. Under New York Law, these are called "Special Proceedings". This particular Special Proceeding is essentially an administrative appeal from the New York City Board of Elections. As a result, notice by personal service which usually involves handing the summons and complaint to the defendant should not be required. One of the objectors in my case, Bibi S. Khan, definitely does not live at her address of record, 100 Hill Street, Brooklyn NY 11208. I have not been able to find where she lives and Mr. Alatsas who represents her refused to answer when I asked. He did tell the court that she works for the Board of Elections. This brings up another issue. By established practice, half of the members of the Board of Elections and half of the employees of the Board of Elections must be Democrats and the other half Republicans. Other parties and non-enrolled voters have no representation in the Board of Elections. In my case against the Republican Party, the counsel for the Republican Party is representing two persons who work for the Board of Elections, Diane Haslett Rudiano and Bibi Salima Khan. Nevertheless, Judge Levine agreed with the arguments presented by Harry Kresky and Theodore Alatsas and dismissed my petitions. I believe that this is entirely wrong. I would like to be able to cite cases on my points. My points are that these are appeals from an administrative agency. I agree that the objectors should be notified. However, there should be no requirement that they be notified by personal service. The objectors started the case. They already know that a case is going. They should not be able to deprive the courts of jurisdiction merely by, for example, leaving town for a few days or evading service of process. Please note that the Election Law lawbook forms provide for service by mail. Overnight Express Mail should be more than adequate service. Express Mail is a verifiable method of service on existing parties. It appears that Judge Levine has made his own law. No other court has made rules like his. The fact that both attorneys admitted that they had received my papers negates their claim that I should not have served them myself. Also, the burden of hiring a process server is considerable. Not only is there great expense and difficulty in hiring a process server, but many process servers are unreliable, defrauding not only the opponent but the attorney who hired them but claiming that they had made personal service when actually they had not. I worked for a Brooklyn attorney (who killed himself) for several years and I have direct personal experience with this problem. In any event, Judge Levine should not have dismissed the proceedings altogether. The worst he could have done was give me more time to serve the papers, and then allow a hearing on the merits of my petition. I would appreciate any case citations that can be used to argue these points. Sam Sloan P.S. I would also appreciate some campaign contributions. The expense of these appeals is considerable. I have had to pay $162 to the court reporter, Delores Dixon, for the transcripts, for example. Contributions may be made at
What is your opinion of this? Express Your Opinion in the Guestbook.

Here is what I have filed thus far:

Here are other candidates for election:
My Home Page

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: