Brief filed in the Appellate Division - Second Department against the Republican Party

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION - SECOND DEPARTMENT
________________________________________________

SAMUEL H. SLOAN,

Petitioner- Appellant,

Index No. 25231/2004

-against-

NERO GRAHAM, FREDERIC M. UMANE, WEYMAN A. CAREY, MICHAEL J. CILMI, MARK B. HERMAN, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, TERRENCE C. O'CONNOR, NANCY MOTTOLA-SCHACHER, STEPHAN H. WEINER, Commissioners of Elections of the City of New York, constituting the Board of Elections in the City of New York and BIBI S. KHAN, THEODORE ALATSAS, KHOURSHED CHOWDHURY, DIANE HASLETT RUDIANO, GLADYS PEMBERTON, AARON MASLOW, LORI MASLOW, HY SINGER, HARVEY R. CLARKE, KING'S COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Respondents-Respondents.
_____________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT
_____________________________________________________________

Samuel H. Sloan
920 Belmont Avenue
Brooklyn NY 11208

(718) 277-6957

samsloan@samsloan.com

http://www.samsloan.com/vreppet.htm

Time Requested:
15 Minutes for Argument

CASES

Blonstein v. Bauer (1995 3d Dept.) 218 AD 2d 912, 630 NYS 2d 814

Burton v. Coveney, 346 NYS 2d 269

Dioguardi v. Donohue (1994 3rd Dept.) 207 AD 2d 922, 615 NYS2d 948

Isabella v. Hotaling, 615 NYS 2d 945 (3d Dept. 1994)

NeMoyer vs. New York State Board of Elections (1984) 125 Misc. 2d 1054, 480 NYS 2d 871 affd (3d Dept.) 105 App. Div. 2d 488, 481 NYS 2d 320

SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978)

Sloan vs. Conroy, No. 04 Civ. 2946 (DGT) (EDNY)

Sloan vs. Rudiano, No. 04 Civ. 2791 (DGT) (EDNY)

Matter of Squitieri v. Power, 303 NYS 2d 663

Thompson v. New York State Board of Elections, 387 NYS 2d 657 (Court of Appeals, 1976)

Werbel v. Gernstein, 78 NYS 2d 440 (1948)

Zuckman v. Donahue, 80 NYS 2d 698 (1948)


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION-SECOND DEPARTMENT

_______________________________________________________________

SAMUEL H. SLOAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

Index No. 25231/2004
2004-07081

-against-

NERO GRAHAM, FREDERIC M. UMANE, WEYMAN A. CAREY, MICHAEL J. CILMI, MARK B. HERMAN, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER, TERRENCE C. O'CONNOR, NANCY MOTTOLA-SCHACHER, STEPHAN H. WEINER, Commissioners of Elections of the City of New York, constituting the Board of Elections in the City of New York and BIBI S. KHAN, THEODORE ALATSAS, KHOURSHED CHOWDHURY, DIANE HASLETT RUDIANO, GLADYS PEMBERTON, AARON MASLOW, LORI MASLOW, HY SINGER, HARVEY R. CLARKE, KING'S COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Respondents-Respondents.

________________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

________________________________________________________________________

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

Samuel H. Sloan, the Petitioner herein, is a candidate for election to the United States Congress from the Tenth Congressional District. The incumbent is Edolphus Towns. Petitioner is a duly qualified voter residing at 920 Belmont Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11208, which is within the Tenth Congressional District.

In summary, the petition alleges that Petiotioner is the real Republican Party candidate and that he was nominated as such at a meeting of the Republican Party County Executive Committee on May 5, 2004. Petitioner was granted a Wilson-Pakula on that date. Nevertheless, in spite of winning the contested vote, Republican Party officials, including Aaron Maslow, who chaired that meeting, and Diane Haslett Rudiano, the secretary and minute taker of that meeting, have refused to fulfill their legal obligation to file that Wilson-Pakula with the Board of Elections. More than that, they got an employee, Bibi S. Khan, to file an objection which got the petitioner kicked off the ballot.

All of this was improper, illegal, and a violation of Election Law and the Republican Party by-laws.

In view of this and in view of the fact that it is only the Republican Party who is objecting to these petitions, the name of the Petitioner should be restored to the ballot. "Petitioner who claims that he is the true party nominee has standing under 16-102." NeMoyer vs. New York State Board of Elections (1984) 125 Misc. 2d 1054, 480 NYS 2d 871 affd (3d Dept.) 105 App. Div. 2d 488, 481 NYS 2d 320

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Designating Petitions naming Petitioner as a candidate for United States Congress were filed with the New York City Board of Elections on July 15, 2004. On August 4, 2004, Petitioner was ruled off the ballot. By statute, Petitioner had three business days to file a validating petition with the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Thus, Monday, August 9, 2004, was the last day to file.

This proceeding was commenced on August 9, 2004. An Order to Show Cause was signed late in the afternoon of the same day. Petitioner waited in the courthouse for several hours while this process was taking place. Finally, after 5 minutes before 5:00 PM, as most of the regular court personnel was streaming out of their office on their way home, the clerks office gave petitioner a copy of the signed order to show cause.

To his great surprise, the order to show cause set the hearing on this matter for 9:30 AM the following morning and required petitioner to serve the motion papers on August 9, 2004. Thus, Petitioner had only seven hours late at night to serve these papers.

Petitioner first caught the subway and took the train to the New York City Board of Elections at 32 Broadway. Petitioner did this in great haste because Petitioner feared that they would close at 5:00 PM and Petitioner would not be able to serve the petition. Fortunately, when Petitioner got there, they were still working. Petitioner gave them the order to show cause and they time stamped it at 5:05 PM and gave Petitioner a copy. Please note the time stamp on the front page of the Order to Show Cause which is annexed as an exhibit.

Petitioner then went to Staples where Petitioner made more copies of the Order to Show Cause to serve on the other parties.

Petitioner called Gary Sinawski, Counsel of Record for the Independence Party, and Theodore Alatsas, Counsel of Record for the Kingfs County Republican Party. Since neither of them were still in their respective offices, this being at about 5:30 PM, Petitioner left messages on their respective machines notifying them of the Order to Show Cause and the time and place for the hearing scheduled for the following morning.

Having made sufficient copies of the Order to Show Cause, Petitioner then spent the next several hours going to addresses in Manhattan and Brooklyn personally serving the respective parties.

Petitioner arrived at the Office of Gary Sinawski at 250 West 57th Street, Room 2017, Brooklyn NY at about 5:45 PM. When Petitioner arrived there, there was one lawyer in his office, an elderly man, but he was just leaving and walking out the door. He told Petitioner that he had no connection with Mr. Sinawski, even though they both worked in the same office. He told Petitioner to leave the papers on his secretaryfs desk, which Petitioner did.

Please note that service of papers on an attorney by leaving them at his law office is valid, good and sufficient service. A lawyer cannot evade service of papers by simply absenting himself from his office. Petitioner do not mean to suggest in any way that Mr. Sinawski was evading service of process. He was simply not there at 5:45 PM.

Petitioner then went back to Brooklyn where Petitioner served the offices of Hy Singer and the Kingfs County Republican Party at 26 Court Street and Petitioner went to the Kingfs County Board of Elections at 345 Adams Street, which is also the Office of Diane Haslett Rudiano, and served the papers there. Please note the time stamp from the Kingfs County Board of Elections on an exhibit.

Petitioner then served Charles Knapp, the respondent-objector in the parallel proceeding, at his residence at 458 State Street. Petitioner rang his doorbell and he came down and took the papers without any problem at all.

Finally, Petitioner took the long Q-Train ride with my baby down to Avenue U where Petitioner served Theodore Alatsas by leaving a copy of the order to show cause on his door at 2115 Avenue U.

Petitioner then went home, arriving at about 11:00 PM. Then, early in the morning, sent all parties plus the Board of Elections copies of the Order to Show Cause and the Petition by e-mail and Petitioner posted them on the Internet.

The hearing was set for 9:30 AM. There were 42 cases on the calendar. Petitionerfs two cases were the last. When Petitionerfs case was called, all parties were present. After three opposing attorneys had noted their appearances on the record, the court almost immediately dismissed the petitions saying that Petitioner had not filed an affidavit of service.

Petitioner believe that this was wrong and should not have been done. There was no issue about an affidavit of service because all parties were present. An affidavit of service is only needed if someone fails to appear and a party requests a default judgment. Here, there was no such issue. All parties were present in the courtroom.

The court said that Petitioner was required to file the affidavits of service by 9:30 AM according to the court rules which Petitioner should have read. A clerk handed Petitioner a copy of a notice published in the New York Law Journal, which is annexed. Petitioner pointed out that Petitioner is not a lawyer and Petitioner does not read the Law Journal. The court replied that he cannot bend the rules for non-lawyers and the rules required Petitioner to file the affidavit of service by 9:30 AM. However, the court was wrong. The notice in the Law Journal merely states that the affidavit of service must be filed in the part. It does not say when. Petitioner did in fact file affidavits of service later in the day. Copies of the affidavits of service are annexedto the petition along with a stamp showing that they were filed in the Clerks Office on August 10, 2004. (Incidentally, Petitioner also had to attend a long hearing at the Board of Elections at 42 Broadway, New York NY the same day.)

Petitioner also pointed out to the court that it was physically impossible for Petitioner to serve all the papers and prepare and file affidavits of service by 9:30 AM. Petitioner was given the order to show cause at 4:55 PM. Petitioner had to go all over Manhattan and Brooklyn with his baby serving papers until late in the night and then sleep and get up the next morning to make it to the court on time. It is impossible to find a notary public to notarize an affidavit of service late at night and difficult to find one early in the morning or at any other time. Petitioner is a notary public myself but Petitioner cannot notarize his own signature.

In hearing the other cases as they were called, Petitioner observed that in every other contested case, the court questioned the affidavit of service. In one case, the court complained that the moving party had used a 14-year-old Bloomberg Form. In another case, which was apparently continued from the previous day, the court complained that the affidavit of service had been brought to the court by the process server at 9:45 AM whereas the court had ordered it to be filed by 9:30 AM.

One of these petitions was dismissed, that one being for the 15 minute lateness, while another was continued for a hearing the next day.

In the case where the complaint was that an old Bloomberg Form had been used, the attorney was saying that his adversary was present in court. Petitioner certainly cannot claim that the court was singling Petitioner out for discrimination. Every petitioner was having difficultly complying with the unusual requirements by the court regarding affidavits of service.

It is important to note that every petitioner in this group of cases is in court because he was ruled off the ballot by the Board of Elections. Because of this, Petitioner question whether there should even be such a strict requirement for service of process. One petitioner claimed that his adversary, a candidate for election, barricaded herself in her apartment and called security guards and finally the police to keep the process server away from her front door. The process server had waited for six hours outside her door trying to serve her and could hear her voice inside. Petitioner question whether in such cases of a person who is obviously evading service of process the court should dismiss the proceeding, as it did, instead of proceeding to the merits. These cases are essentially appeals. Every petitioner here was the losing party before the Board of Elections. A respondent to an appeal cannot be allowed to defeat the appeal merely by evading service of process. Service by overnight mail should be sufficient.

In a normal lawsuit, the process server has an advantage, to the extent that the defendant usually does not know that a lawsuit is about to be filed and will not know that a process server is coming to serve him and therefore often will not evade service. However, in the special proceedings before this court, the respondents know the exact last day to file and will know that simply by evading service or absenting from the jurisdiction for a few hours, the respondent can defeat the petitionerfs right to be heard. This cannot be allowed.

In one of the other cases argued on August 10, 2004, the opposing attorney said that he had not been retained to represent anybody and if he is retained he is not prepared to reveal who might retain him. In short, he was arguing in behalf of an anonymous client. The court should never have allowed him to stand up before the court and argue if he was not prepared to state who he was representing. Not only did the court to allow him to argue but it allowed him to prevail. The court ordered the name of the candidate, Anthony Solaris (phonetic spelling), to be stricken from the ballot. The end result was that ALL 42 PETITIONS ON THE CALENDAR WERE DISMISSED, most frequently because of claimed defects in the affidavit of service. ALL CANDIDATES WERE ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE BALLOT.

Petitioner then moved for a rehearing by order to show cause. The Order to Show Cause was signed on the afternoon on August 11, 2004. This time, Petitioner was given until Midnight the following day to serve the papers and the hearing was set for 9:30 AM Friday, the Thirteenth, August 2004.

Because this time Petitioner had a somewhat reasonable time to serve, he was able to serve all the parties without much difficulty. Petitioner actually served most of the parties twice and made two affidavits of service for most of the parties for fear of another complaint about affidavits of service. In the case of Theodore Alatsas, who is listed as the contact person for the objector, Bibi S. Khan, Petitioner served him twice, the first time at about Noon, when Mr. Alatsas was not in, so Petitioner left it with his secretary, and the second time at about 5:00 PM by which time Mr. Alatsas was in his office. Mr. Alatsas signed that he had received a copy of Petitionerfs petition and even complained about the fact that Petitioner had served him twice.

Petitioner served the New York City Board of Elections and the Kingfs County Board of Elections and obtained time-stamped receipts from both offices. (Note the overkill. Service was not required on both, only on one of them.)

This time, because Petitioner knew about the judgefs personal rule that affidavits of service must be filed before 9:30 AM, petitioner filed them at 9:20 AM. (Petitioner tried to file them earlier than that, but the court clerk would not take them.)

When the case was called, the court immediately questioned the affidavits of service even though opposing counsel, Theodore Alatsas, did not raise this issue and admitted that he had not been served. Nevertheless, the court, Judge Levine, picked through the five proofs of service filed by Petitioner one by one trying to find some defect in them. He also asked the counsel for the New York City Board of Elections whether Petitioner had served them and counsel for the BOE acknowledged that they had received service.

Finally, not being able to find anything wrong with any of the affidavits of service, Judge Levine dismissed both petitions anyway, saying that petitioner had improperly served the petitions and the orders to show cause himself, rather than through a process server.

Because Judge Levine dismissed the proceedings solely on the grounds of affidavits of service, he did not reach the merits. However, Petitioner believes that the court should reach the merits, which are as follows:

Designating Petitions naming Petitioner as a candidate for United States Congress were filed with the New York City Board of Elections on July 15, 2004. On August 4, 2004, Petitioner was ruled off the ballot on August 4, 2004. By statute, Petitioner has three business days to file a validating petition with the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Thus, Monday, August 9, 2004, was the last day to file.

On July 19, 2004, General Objections to the petitions of Petitioner were filed by Bibi S. Khan of 100 Hill Street, Brooklyn NY 11208, represented by Theodore Alatsas, who is counsel to the Kinges County Republican Party.

On July 26, 2004, Specific Objections to Petitionerfs petitions were filed by Bibi S. Khan of 100 Hill Street, Brooklyn NY 11208, also represented by Theodore Alatsas.

On August 3, 2004, Petitioner filed objections to the specific objections of Bibi S. Khan. The objections to her objections included the fact that her voting address is false and fraudulent. Bibi S. Khan is registered to vote at 100 Hill Street, Brooklyn NY 11208. However, this is fraudulent, as she does not reside there and has not resided there since at least 1997. This makes Bibi S. Khan guilty of a Class E felony. This means that her voter registration is not valid. Because her voter registration is not valid, she is not registered to vote. Because she is not registered to vote, she lacks standing to file objections to the petitions. Since she is the only person who filed objections to these petitions, the Board of Elections cannot declare the petitions invalid. Bibi S. Khan must go directly to jail and cannot collect $200. Two hundred dollars is the amount she has been getting for serving as a poll watcher for the Republican Party on election days. Turns out that Bibi S. Khan is both an employee of the Board of Elections and an employee of the Kingfs County Republican Party. This conflict of interest is why these things keep happening.

More importantly, Diane Haslett Rudiano, who is the Chief Clerk of the Kingfs County Board of Elections, is registered to vote at a fake and fraudulent address. She is registered to vote since 1988 at 258 Schenck Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11207. This is in East New York near the Van Siclen Station of the A-Train. There are almost no white people living in that neighborhood and it should have long been obvious that an Upper-Crust White Lady like Diane Rudiano could not be living there in that somewhat run-down modest frame house in a black neighborhood. The actual resident of that address is Theresa McGovern, who is 98 years old and who purchased that house on November 20, 1952. She apparently has an arrangement whereby she receives mail at that address for Diane Haslett Rudiano. However, this is not legal. A person must be registered to vote at the place at which they actually reside. It cannot be just a place of business or work or a friendfs address. It must be an actual residence. Since Diane Haslett Rudiano is registered to vote at a fake address she must be removed from her positions of both the Chief Clerk of the Kingfs County Board of Elections and the Secretary of the Kingfs County Republican Party and the District Leader of District 54 of Kingfs County Republican Party. She also must go directly to jail. Petitioner has made a complaint to the Kingfs County District Attorney about the fact that Diane Haslett Rudiano is holding public office on a false and fraudulent basis by being registered to vote and voting since 1988 at an address where she does not actually reside and she is using her position to block Petitioner from running as a candidate for US Congress. A copy of a letter from the Brooklyn DAfs Office is annexed to the petition.

Petitioner is a registered voter with no party enrollment. Petitioner is known as a blank voter, which means that he is registered to vote but is not a member of any recognized political party. However, on or about April 30, 2004, Petitioner handed in a change of party enrollment form for the purpose of enrolling as a Republican. This change in enrollment will not be effective until after the November elections.

At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the King's County Republican Party on May 5, 2004, Petitioner was nominated and seconded as a candidate for election to the United States Congress for the Tenth Congressional District. A quorum was present and the assembled body voted overwhelming in favor of Petitioner, especially since there was no other previously announced candidate for this office. At the conclusion of that meeting, Petitioner was informed by Aaron Maslow, the Chairman of the Meeting, that he had been granted a Wilson-Pakula, which gave him the right to petition for signatures and to run for election as a Republican. However, Diane Haslett Rudiano, who occupied multiple positions of being secretary and minute taker of the meeting plus is the Chief Clerk of the King's County Board of Elections, had said that she wanted to take a weighted telephone vote of the district leaders to determine who the candidate would be. During the meeting, Mariana Blume, a district leader, had suddenly and to everyone's surprise said that she would like to be a candidate for US Congress. Because of this last moment announcement from a long-established Republican Party member and because Diane Rudiano did not want Petitioner to be the candidate, and in view of Diane Rudiano's controlling position as being Chief Clerk of the King's County Board of Elections, it was decided to hold a telephone vote on who would be the candidate. It was decided that the telephone vote would be taken and counted by Diane Haslett Rudiano and would be concluded by Wednesday, May 12, 2004.

The Petitioner, Samuel H. Sloan, won the subsequent telephone vote by a vote of 972.5 to 444. The only person who voted for Mariana Blume was Mariana Blume herself. Her district has 888 voters who are enrolled as Republicans. As the female district leader, she was entitled to vote half of these votes. She voted those 444 votes for herself, but nobody else voted for her, and so the Petitioner, Samuel H. Sloan, won the nomination.

At a Republican Party meeting at "Giando of the Water" on the evening of May 12, 2004, with more than 200 Republican Party members present including almost all of the party's district leaders and candidates, Petitioner (along with his wife and daughter) were introduced to the assembled crowd as the Republican Party Candidate for the Tenth Congressional District of Brooklyn. Diane Haslett Rudiano was present at the meeting and made no objection. Mariana Blume tried to object was but ignored by the chairman of the meeting. Later at the meeting, Mariana Blume complained to Petitioner that they were trying to find a black woman, any black woman, to run for Congress rather than either of them.

In spite of the fact that the Petitioner Samuel H. Sloan was the duly nominated candidate of the Republican Party for election to the Tenth Congressional District of Brooklyn, Diane Haslett Rudiano has ever since led a fight to stop Petitioner from appearing on the ballot. This is a conflict of interest because Diane Haslett Rudiano is also the Chief Clerk of the King's County Board of Elections. Starting on the morning of Thursday May 13, Diane Haslett Rudiano started calling other officials of the King's County Republican Party to inform them that she had discovered on Petitioner's website that he is a Muslim. She was assisted in this by Gladys Pemberton, who is also a district leader. By her statements that the Petitioner is a Muslim, Diane Haslett Rudiano and Gladys Pemberton were able to stir up calumny and ridicule against the Petitioner. In addition, Diane Haslett Rudiano and Gladys Pemberton spent many hours reading the more than 3024 pages on Petitioner's website and found many places in which Petitioner expressed disagreement with the policy of the US President. Petitioner had in fact fully disclosed his areas of disagreement with the policies of the US President in his candidate's statement which he had distributed to the members of the King's Country Republican Party Executive Committee on May 5. For example his candidates statement said, "I am opposed to government surveillance of our Internet communications, detentions without trial, national guardsmen in the subways and police barricades around Police Plaza, especially in view of the taxpayer expense of these activities. Right now, the federal income tax brings in $ 1.7 trillion, and yet we have deficit spending. This must be greatly reduced."

Anybody reading this would realize that Petitioner was not adhering to the Official Republican Party Line. In their campaign to remove Petitioner from being the duly nominated candidate, Diane Haslett Rudiano and Gladys Pemberton used these statements as part of a campaign to subject Petitioner to calumny and ridicule.

Because of these acts of Diane Haslett Rudiano and Gladys Pemberton, on the morning of May 13, 2004, Aaron Maslow announced that Adrienne Britton was the Republican Party candidate. This was entirely wrong because Adrienne Britton had not been nominated or seconded for this nomination.

It happened by chance that Petitioner knew Adrienne Britton and so he called her. Adrienne Britton told Petitioner that she was not running for Congress, had no intention of running for Congress and this was the craziest thing she had ever heard of because nobody other than Petitioner had even told her that she had been nominated for Congress. Adrienne Britton demanded that her name be removed for any petition.

Subsequently, Aaron Maslow announced that Isabelle Jefferson was the Republican Party Candidate for Congress. Petitioner attempted to contact Isabelle Jefferson only to discover that she had left New York City in April to go to stay with her family in South Carolina and was not expected to return until August. Isabella Jefferson is 76 years old and had never run for federal office before. It was obvious that her name was put on just to fill up a space and to stop Petitioner from running for and being elected to United States Congress.

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that Isabelle Jefferson could not be contacted to determine whether she was even willing to run for US Congress, Aaron Maslow had petitions printed and circulated listing Isabelle Jefferson rather than Sam Sloan as the official candidate. These petitions were then submitted to the Board of Elections. Sure enough, as soon as Isabelle Jefferson returned from Charleston, South Carolina and found out that she was being listed as a candidate for US Congress, she demanded that her name be removed.

Thereupon, Diane Haslett Rudiano notarized a statement by Isabelle Jefferson declining the nomination as a candidate. Then, instead of substituting the name of Sam Sloan who had been voted in as a candidate by both the County Executive Committee and by a weighted vote of the District Leaders, they instead put in the name of Harvey R. Clarke who was a newly registered voter who registered to vote for the first time on June 4, 2004. This substitution of a candidate was signed by Hy Singer, Lori Maslow and Gladys Pemberton and was notarized by Diane Rudiano.

All of the above changes, first putting on Adrienne Britton, then Isabelle Jefferson and finally Harvey R. Clarke, were made without following any formal rules or procedures. No meetings were held. No votes were taken. The primary actor in all of this was Diane Haslett Rudiano, who kept using her position of Chief Clerk of the Kingfs County Board of Elections to put in whomever she wanted as a candidate for US Congress.

The King's County Republican Party circulated petitions for all the Republican Party Candidates including candidates for State Senate, State Legislature and Civil Court Judge and each of these petitions listed Isabelle Jefferson as the official Republican Party Candidate for US Congress. These petitions were fraudulent. Isabelle Jefferson was not the Official Republican Party Candidate for Congress. Samuel H. Sloan was the official Republican Party Candidate for Congress. Accordingly, all signed petitions bearing the name of Isabelle Jefferson as a candidate for US Congress should be deemed as petitions for Sam Sloan as a candidate for US Congress.

On May 5, 2004, the Executive Committee of the King's County Republican Party voted overwhelmingly to grant Petitioner a "Wilson-Pakula". Subsequently, however, statements appeared in the press that the leadership of the King's Country Republican Party was stating that the Wilson-Pakula was not properly issued because of some defect in the procedure that was followed. This is all part of a conspiracy to stop Petitioner from being elected to Congress. Petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to run as the Republican Party Candidate for Congress.

At the meeting on May 5, 2004, leaders of the King's County Republican Party recommended to Petitioner that he seek the nominations of the Conservative Party and the Independence Party and they handed him a flyer giving him the telephone numbers to the relevant persons in those parties. Petitioner contacted and appeared before the screening committees of both parties. Petitioner was told by Jeffrey Kassar, Chairman of the King's County Conservative Party, that they would probably follow the Republican Party lead. Later, Jeffrey Kassar informed Petitioner that he was rejected as a Conservative Party candidate because he had been rejected by the Republican Party because, according to Mr. Kassar, the Republican Party did not like Petitioner's website.

Although Petitioner was never notified that his Wilson-Pakula was invalid or had been revoked, statements appeared in the press stating that Republican Party officials had stated that the Wilson-Pakula was not valid. On June 7, 2004, an article appeared in the Courier Life chain of newspapers and at http://www.lidbrooklyn.org/bp060704.htm stating the following:

By Erik Engquist
As printed in the Courier Life Newspapers
June 7, 2004

Initially, Sloan might have seemed like an intriguing candidate to the G.O.P. because he claims to speak 15 languages including Spanish "virtually fluently," to be an expert chess player, and to be the last non-lawyer to have represented himself before the Supreme Court and won (in 1978, when as a bond trader he was sued by the SEC, represented by Harvey Pitt).

[snip]

Embarrassingly, before researching Sloan, Republican leaders voted to give him an exemption so he could run as a Republican despite not being a registered party member. They were relieved to discover their action was technically invalid. The party later chose Isabelle Jefferson to run against Towns, meaning Sloan would have to collect signatures on his own from the few registered Republicans in the V-shaped congressional district, which runs from Sloan's neighborhood of East New York to Midwood and to Boerum Hill.

It would be a daunting task, but Sloan strikes us as the kind of guy who might try it. He's already spent countless thousands of hours on such projects as tracing his family tree back to the 1500s to prove his relation to King Erik XIV of Sweden, and that he and Queen Elizabeth II are 12th cousins two times removed. Somehow, we believe that. After all, there is a history of madness in the British royal family.

Because of reading these and similar statements in the press, combined with the fact that Officials of the Kingfs County Republican Party refused even to talk to him plus the fact that Petitioner received an e-mail from Gladys Pemberton stating that his Wilson-Pakula was not valid, Petitioner could not dare to circulate petitions to run for election as a Republican. This left Petitioner with no choice but to file a case in federal court.

In a telephone hearing on July 8, 2004 in that case, which is Sloan vs. Rudiano, No. 04 Civ. 2791 (DGT), Judge David G. Trager ruled that, assuming that the facts are as Petitioner states that they are (which will be determined at a later hearing), Petitioner was entitled to circulate petitions as a Republican Candidate for US Congress.

Since the last day to file petitions was July 15, 2004, this left Petitioner only 7 days to collect 882 Republican Party signatures, whereas all other candidates had six weeks from June 8, 2004 to July 15, 2004 to collect the signatures.

An article dated July 19, 2004 appearing in the Courier Life chain of newspapers and at http://www.lidbrooklyn.org/bp.htm stated the following:

A federal judge said he was inclined to agree with Sam Sloan's argument that Sloan received a valid Wilson-Pakula from the Republican Party, qualifying him to seek ballot access on the Republican line. Unfortunately for Sloan, the case was heard just a week before the petition deadline, leaving him with the impossible task of getting valid signatures from 886 registered Republicans in the 11th Congressional District by midnight on July 15. Sloan was struggling to find three Republicans to place on his committee on vacancies, let alone 886 to sign his petitions (which he hadn't even printed). Looks like Sloan will only be able to claim a moral victory for his would-be campaign against Rep. Ed TownsE

Volunteers supporting Sam Sloan for Congress thereafter collected and filed with the Board of Elections designating petitions. The petitions were filed on July 15, 2004, the last day to file. However, these were promptly challenged in objections signed by Bibi S. Khan.

This matter was then referred to the Chief Clerk of the Kingfs County Board of Elections, who happens to be Diane Haslett Rudiano, the same person who has been trying since May 5, 2004 to block the candidacy of the Petitioner.

Attached as an exhibit was the Clerkfs Report signed by Diane Haslett Rudiano and her subordinate, Maryrose Sattie. Based upon this clerkfs report, Petitioner was kicked off the ballot.

Petitioner also filed Objections to the Petitions signed on behalf of Isabelle Jefferson. Petitioner objected to some of the petitions on the ground that they were witnessed by Diane Haslett Rudiano and Bibi S. Khan, both of whom were registered to vote at false addresses. Exhibit H is one sheet of objections of Petitioner in which it is stated: "False address for subscribing witness. Diane Rudiano does not reside at 258 Schenck Avenue."

In an obvious violation of the Conflict of Interest Rules, Diane Rudiano ruled in her clerkfs certificate that the signatures she witnessed were valid.

All of the above acts constituted violations of New York Election Law and the Constitutional and Statutory Rights of the Petitioner as well as the by-laws of the Republican Party.

Theresa McGovern purchased the house located at 258 Schenck Avenue on November 20, 1952. The deed is recorded at the Brooklyn Recorder's Office in Liber 8022 Page 313. There has never been a mortgage or encumbrance on the house. The online computer records only go back to 1965 and therefore the deed cannot be downloaded at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/acris.html . The deed is illegible because it is 52 years old, but that is the deed.

The house at 100 Hill Street was sold by Bibi S. Khan and George Khan on December 10, 1990. The Deed is recorded on Reel 2658 Page 1441. A Copy of the deed was annexed.

Therefore, unless Diane Haslett Rudiano can prove that she is a rent paying tenant at 258 Schenck Avenue, is it rather conclusive that she is representing District 54 on a fraudulent basis and also she is holding a high-paying job as Chief Clerk of the King's County Board of Elections on a fraudulent basis.

Petitioner mailed the affidavit in Exhibit F by certified mail on August 3, 2004 to Bibi S. Khan and

Diane Haslett Rudiano at their respective addresses. These mailings can be tracked with the following numbers at http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirm.htm?from=global&page=0035trackandconfirm .

7003 2260 0004 4662 5287 Bibi S. Khan

7003 2260 0004 4662 5294 Diane Haslett Rudiano

The certified letter addressed to Bibi S. Khan was forwarded to another address. Here is the what the USPS website states:

Track & Confirm

Ship

ment Details Y

ou entered 7003 2260 0004 4662 5287 Your item was forwarded to a different address at 10:13 am on August 07, 2004 in BROOKLYN, NY 11208. This was because of forwarding instructions or because the address or ZIP Code on the label was incorrect. Information, if available, is updated every evening. Please check again later. Here is what happened earlier: nUNDELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, August 05, 2004, 5:46 pm, BROOKLYN, NY 11208 nNOTICE LEFT, August 05, 2004, 11:39 am, BROOKLYN, NY 11208 nENROUTE, August 05, 2004, 9:11 am, BROOKLYN, NY 11208 ACCEPTANCE, August 03, 2004, 4:00 pm, BROOKLYN, NY 11201

Petitioner sent the affidavit marked Exhibit F to Diane Haslett Rudiano at 258 Schenck Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11207. This one was signed for and returned. However, the signature was not that of Diane Rudiano. The signature was obviously of Theresa McGovern, the 98 year old woman who lives there.

In March, 2004, Petitioner was asked by Gally Lim, a Republican Party political activist and the person who collected the most signatures of any person in both the Bloomberg campaign for Mayor and in the Pataki Campaigns, to become a candidate for US Congress, since the Republican Party had no candidate at that time. On Thursday, March 31, 2004, Gally Lim took Petitioner and his baby to a cocktail party in Mill Basin, Brooklyn, featuring Mayor Bloomberg. Mayor Bloomberg held the baby, Sandra Sloan, aged 2, in his arms for a photo opportunity by the assembled news photographers.

Because of the support of Gally Lim, a prodigious collector of signatures, Petitioner decided to run for election and so notified almost all of the leaders of the Republican Party in Brooklyn.

Because of the near impossibility of obtaining the 3500 signatures which a non-party member is required to obtain to get on the ballot, Petitioner has sought the nomination of various political parties, including the Republican Party.

For the past more than three months Petitioner has been seeking the Republican Party line in his campaign for US Congress from the 10th Congressional District, which is entirely in Brooklyn. He is a registered blank, meaning that he has no party registration. For this reason, he cannot run as a Republican or as a Democrat, for example, unless they grant him a Wilson-Pakula. New York Election Law Section 6-120(3), the "Wilson-Pakula" law, states:

"3. The members of the party committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which a designation or nomination is to be made, unless the rules of the party provide for another committee, in which case the members of such other committee ... may, by a majority vote of those present at such meeting provided a quorum is present, authorize the designation or nomination of a person as candidate for any office who is not enrolled as a member of such party as provided in this section. ... The certificate of authorization shall be filed not later than four days after the last day to file the designating petition ... to which such authorization relates. The certificate of authorization shall be signed and acknowledged by the presiding officer and the secretary of the meeting at which such authorization was given."

The petition alleges that the Republican Party Respondents are discriminating against the Petitioner on the grounds of religion, Muslim, and race, White, and sex, male. They want a black Christian female, anyone will do. This is a violation of the civil rights of Petitioner.

On May 5, 2004 on "Candidate's Night" Petitioner was granted a Wilson-Pakula by the Kingfs County Republican Party. However, they have failed and refused to file this Wilson-Pakula with the Board of Elections. The clear intention of the majority of voters present at the May 5, 2004 meeting of the Executive Committee of the Kingfs County Republican Party was to nominate Sam Sloan as their candidate. This is established by the fact that the Republican Party does not like primaries. They would never have granted a Wilson-Pakula to a candidate if they had any intention of nominating any other candidate.

The only reason a vote was not taken then and there making Petitioner a candidate was that Diane Rudiano said that she wanted to take a weighted telephone vote. The telephone vote was taken over the next week and Petitioner prevailed. Nevertheless, Diane Rudiano has continued aggressively to take action after action to block Petitioner from being listed on the ballot as a candidate.

All of the actions of both Diane Rudiano and Bibi S. Khan are invalid because they are both registered to vote at a false address.

Diane Haslett-Rudiano is the chief clerk of the King's County Board of Elections. She has embarked on an elaborate partisan campaign to stop Plaintiff from becoming a candidate for US Congress in her dual capacity of also being the Secretary of the King's County Republican Party.

All of the above acts constituted violations of New York Election Law and the Constitutional and Statutory Rights of the Plaintiff as well as the by-laws of the Republican Party.

ARGUMENT

The first point that must be noted is that the court below is wrong on the law. The fact that petitioner served the papers personally does not deprive the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction. Petitioner has researched the law on this and found that IN NO REPORTED CASE has a proceeding been dismissed solely because the petitioner served the papers himself. It is true that it is customary for an affidavit of service to state that the deponent "is not a party to this action", but that is not legally required. Petitioner has argued orally before the United States Supreme Court, the only non-lawyer in more than 40 years to do, SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978), and in that entire litigation all the way from the lowest court to the United States Supreme Court petitioner served all the papers himself. No objection was made by anybody to this and ultimately petitioner won the case 9-0.

Judge Levine clearly knew that petitioner was serving the papers himself, because the affidavits of service he filed on August 10, 2004 said so. More than that, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for petitioner to obtain the services of a process server at 4:55 PM, with service being required to be made all the way down to the Coney Island area by Midnight the same night. Another petitioner before Judge Levine, Anthony Solaris (phonetic spelling) tried to do that and his case was dismissed because his process server did not bring the affidavit of service to court until 9:45 AM, whereas Judge Levine had told him that it had to be filed before 9:30 AM. This fifteen minute lateness means that voters in his district will be deprived of the right and the opportunity to vote at all, because there will be only one candidate.

The Board of Elections gave no reason for kicking Petitioner off the ballot and the record is silent on this point. Therefore, petitioner should be restored to the ballot. Dioguardi v. Donohue (1994 3rd Dept.) 207 AD 2d 922, 615 NYS2d 948. In addition, the Respondent, Republican Party filed nothing at all and made no statement as to the reasons for kicking petitioner off the ballot, and for that reason petitionerfs ballot status must be restored. Isabella v. Hotaling, 615 NYS 2d 945 (3d Dept. 1994)

Next, it must be noted that the only objection to this petition comes from the Republican Party, through their attorney, Theodore Alatsas. Thus, if Petitioner can establish that he and the Republican Party have acted improperly, illegally or fraudulently, Petitioner should be restored to the ballot, since they are the only objectors.

It is also important to note that the Respondents have no other candidate. There is no other Republican Party candidate. Except for Petitioner, the incumbent, Ed Towns, is running unopposed. (The Republican Party has offered straw-man candidates, Mariana Blume and Harry Clarke, just to keep Petitioner off the ballot, but they have no intention of campaigning seriously.) In fact, the Republican Party has never run a candidate for US Congress in the Tenth Congressional District in more than a decade.

Thus, if Petitioner is kept off the ballot, there will be no candidate by the Republican Party. This means that members of that party will not have the opportunity to vote in a primary election and will not have the opportunity to vote for an Republican Party candidate in the November General Election.

In short, it is not merely that the petitioner herein is not being allowed to appear on the ballot but, more importantly, the voters are not being allowed to vote at all.

What we have here in the Tenth Congressional District and in many if not most of the state assembly and senatorial districts in New York City and State is that there is only one candidate and the candidate has been selected by the party bosses. This is not unlike the Old Soviet Union. Everybody had the right to vote, but they were only allowed to vote for the one candidate which had been selected by the one party, which was the Communist Party. The candidate always got 99% of the vote, just as candidates in New York City often get, because there is only one candidate to vote for.

The present system seems to be designed to insure that the party bosses control all the power to decide who gets to run, which means that they can control the candidate and the issues he runs on. The end result is that the party bosses control the entire legislative branch of New York State and the voters have almost no say-so in how things are run.

The courts should examine this situation and make changes. The first change to make would be to allow the petitioner here, Samuel H. Sloan, to run for election, which in itself would upset the applecart of the political bosses of New York City sand State.

In the case presented here, the initial Order to Show Cause was not signed by Judge Joseph Levine. It was signed by Judge Ariel E. Belen. Being late Friday afternoon, Judge Levine had gone for the day, for obvious reasons. The importance of this is that at the hearing the following day, Judge Levine said that Petitioner should have known about his special rules, which were published in the New York Law Journal. However, Petitioner is not a lawyer and does not read the Law Journal and had not read those rules. Moreover, even if he had read the law journal, he would have read Judge Belenfs rules, not Judge Levinefs rules, because it was Judge Belen who had signed the order. Petitioner had no way of knowing who the judge would be the following day. More importantly that that, the ruling by Judge Levine was unreasonable. Petitioner received the signed order to show cause at 4:55 PM. He then had to make copies and go all over Manhattan and Brooklyn, serving the various respondents. He went as far up as 250 West 57th Street and as far down as 2115 Avenue U in Brooklyn, near Coney Island, arriving home at 11:00 PM.

Most of the Respondents did not get the petition in time that way, because most of them had gone for the day. However, Petitioner also called them on the telephone and sent a copy of the Order to Show Cause to all of the Respondents by email. Petitioner also sent a copy of the Order to Show Cause and the supporting affidavit to all of the Republican District Leaders in Brooklyn by email.

There is a line of cases which state that the petition in Election Cases must be served within the three day time period allowed for filing a petition. However, there cases are old. The most recent one was 1976. Also, all are summary short-form orders. No explanation is provided. There has apparently never been a contested case related to this issue. These cases are Thompson v. New York State Board of Elections, 387 NYS 2d 657 (Court of Appeals, 1976), citing Burton v. Coveney, 346 NYS 2d 269, Matter of Squitieri v. Power, 303 NYS 2d 663.

These pre-1976 decisions came before email was invented, before there was a World Wide Web, and even before there were FAX machines. There is no reported case on this issue which reflects modern technology.

What would have been reasonable is for Judge Levine to require service by mail by Express Overnight Delivery or by Federal Express. This would have provided tracking numbers which would have enabled the petitioner to prove that he sent the documents on time and to prove more importantly that the Respondents either received them or did not receive them because they were refused or because Respondents were not available or out of town.

The instant cases are not really original proceedings. These cases are essentially appeals from the order of an administrative agency, in this case the Board of Elections. Petitioner did not start these proceedings. The respondent-objectors did. The respondent objectors were required merely to serve the petitioner by mailing by certified mail. The petitioner on the other have was required to search out and locate the respondents and serve them personally. This is obviously an unfair and unequal situation. More than that, the address and whereabouts of the petitioner is known because he is a candidate for election. The respondents, who are the objectors below, can be anybody. Any registered voter can object. The objector could even be a fake person using a fake name. Such cases are not uncommon. The attorney for the objector in the Anthony Solaris case refused even to reveal who his client was. He should be disbarred.

In the case here, the Republican Party objector, Bibi S. Khan, is registered to vote at a fake address. She does not live at 100 Hill Street, Brooklyn NY 11208. Petitioner is prepared to prove this at a fact hearing. In addition, Diane Haslett Rudiano, who is the Secretary of the Kingfs County Republican Party, is also the Chief Clerk of the Kingfs County Board of Elections, and she is also registered to vote at a false and fraudulent address, which is 258 Schenck Avenue. Petitioner is prepared to prove this at a fact a hearing, a hearing which could not be held because Judge Levine dismissed the petition. Because Diane Haslett Rudiano is registered to vote at a false address, this means that she is not registered to vote at all. Blonstein v. Bauer (1995 3d Dept.) 218 AD 2d 912, 630 NYS 2d 814. This means that she is illegally occupying the position of Chief Clerk of the Kings County Board of Elections, because one must be registered to vote in Brooklyn to hold that position. She is guilty of numerous election frauds and should be criminally prosecuted. This means that her certificate stating that Petitionerfs petitions were improper is invalid. Petitioner intends to prove all this at a hearing, if one is ever held.

Please note that even before any of this happened, Petitioner had filed two lawsuits in federal court against Diane Haslett Rudiano over this same issue. These cases are now pending. They are Sloan vs. Rudiano, No. 04 Civ. 2791 (DGT) and Sloan vs. Conroy, No. 04 Civ. 2946 (DGT). In view of these two pending lawsuits, both filed around the first of July, Diane Rudiano was required under conflict of interest rules to disqualify herself from being the referee to Petitionerfs petitions. However, she did not disqualify herself and instead judged the petitions and signed the certificate thereto. Since her involvement in this case was improper, Petitioner should be restored to the ballot.

In summary, Petitioner contends and is prepared to prove at a fact hearing that he is the real Republican Party candidate and that he was nominated as such at a meeting of the Republican Party County Executive Committee on May 5, 2004. Petitioner was granted a Wilson-Pakula on that date. Nevertheless, in spite of winning the contested vote, Republican Party officials, including Aaron Maslow, who chaired that meeting, and Diane Haslett Rudiano, the secretary and minute taker of that meeting, have refused to fulfill their legal obligation to file that Wilson-Pakula with the Board of Elections. More than that, they got an employee, Bibi S. Khan to file an objection which got the petitioner kicked off the ballot.

All of this was improper, illegal, and a violation of Election Law and the Republican Party by-laws.

In view of this and in view of the fact that it is only the Republican Party who is objecting to these petitions, the name of the Petitioner should be restored to the ballot.

CONCLUSION

For all of the Reasons set forth above, the decision of the court below should be reversed and this court should order the name of the petitioner to be restored to the ballot.

Respectfully Submitted,

Samuel H. Sloan


Latest Developments in New York Board of Elections Corruption Case:
What is your opinion of this? Express Your Opinion in the Guestbook.


I have filed three petitions for a Writ of Certiorari in the US Supreme Court. All of the petitions I have filed seek to be reinstated on the ballot as a candidate for US Congress for the Tenth Congressional District of New York.

Here are the petitions I have filed in the United States Supreme Court, in HTML Format:

Here are the same three petitions exactly as filed in downloadable PDF Format:

Here are the same petitions on the US Supreme Court website:


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: samsloan@samsloan.com