Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • United States Senate Filing - RE NJ SPECIAL SENATE ELECTION CONTESTED

    Transféré par

    FIXMYLOAN
    4K vues54 pages
    ACCURACY of New Jersey Electronic Voting Machines declared "SUSPECT" by New Jersey Appellate Court. Majority of Candidates take action in U.S. Senate Race. When you walk in the voting booth, tomorrow, or in November, you do want YOUR vote to go to the candidate YOU VOTED FOR, don't you? Well, guess what? That may not be the case. In a heretofore unprecedented action, no less than FIVE of the Candidates in the New Jersey Special Senate Election, which has not even been held yet, have raised a challenge in the United States Senate, after the courts in New Jersey failed to remedy acknowledged illegal actions by election officials in the Balloting process, from construction of the ballots to the accuracy of the electronic voting machines, themselves, effectively disenfranchising the majority of legal voters in New Jersey. Led by Democratic-Republican Candidate and Constitutional Scholar Eugene Martin LaVergne, who attended Seton Hall Law School with NJ Governor Chris Christie, the candidates have exposed a tainted process in selection for ballot placement, intentional disregard for Federal and State Election Laws, and even lying in court on the part of some of the election officials, including members of the staff of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office. This action further reveals to the courts and the public the rampant partisan practices** that normally take place behind closed doors in the selection for ballot position in each county, a process meant to be public. This action permits the Senate Rules Committee to delay seating ANY winner in tomorrow's election contest until a full investigation as to the propriety, Constitutionality, and legality of this election is completed - including a lock-down of the ballot machines, which have already been proven to be able to be programmed to "re-assign" votes cast for one candidate to another candidate - all accomplished with a few lines of code. The New Jersey State Elections Statutes (19:28-1) requires that the machines be impounded (not touched) for a minimum of 15 days following their use in an election. If a challenge is raised, the lock-down period becomes indefinite. New Jersey Election Officials, with NO NOTICE to the general public, or even all of the candidates on the ballot, will begin to erase the programming and individual internal records on the machines beginning only 12 HOURS after the election, contrary to the clear MANDATORY directive of the New Jersey State Legislature. In short, they intend to destroy the only evidence of votes actually cast. It was sworn by Election officials to the New Jersey Supreme Court that it would only take 48 hours to ready all 7000-plus electronic voting machines for the General Election in November, during a June 18th 2013, proceeding before the Court. **Pay particularly close attention to Page 40 onward, to see how ridiculous the process in selecting ballot placement is handled.

    Titre original

    United States Senate filing - RE NJ SPECIAL SENATE ELECTION CONTESTED

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    ACCURACY of New Jersey Electronic Voting Machines declared "SUSPECT" by New Jersey Appellate Court. Majority of Candidates take action in U.S. Senate Race. When you walk in the voting booth, tomorrow, or in November, you do want YOUR vote to go to the candidate YOU VOTED FOR, don't you? Well, guess what? That may not be the case. In a heretofore unprecedented action, no less than FIVE of the Candidates in the New Jersey Special Senate Election, which has not even been held yet, have raised a challenge in the United States Senate, after the courts in New Jersey failed to remedy acknowledged illegal actions by election officials in the Balloting process, from construction of the ballots to the accuracy of the electronic voting machines, themselves, effectively disenfranchising the majority of legal voters in New Jersey. Led by Democratic-Republican Candidate and Constitutional Scholar Eugene Martin LaVergne, who attended Seton Hall Law School with NJ Governor Chris Christie, the candidates have exposed a tainted process in selection for ballot placement, intentional disregard for Federal and State Election Laws, and even lying in court on the part of some of the election officials, including members of the staff of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office. This action further reveals to the courts and the public the rampant partisan practices** that normally take place behind closed doors in the selection for ballot position in each county, a process meant to be public. This action permits the Senate Rules Committee to delay seating ANY winner in tomorrow's election contest until a full investigation as to the propriety, Constitutionality, and legality of this election is completed - including a lock-down of the ballot machines, which have already been proven to be able to be programmed to "re-assign" votes cast for one candidate to another candidate - all accomplished with a few lines of code. The New Jersey State Elections Statutes (19:28-1) requires that the machines be impounded (not touched) for a minimum of 15 days following their use in an election. If a challenge is raised, the lock-down period becomes indefinite. New Jersey Election Officials, with NO NOTICE to the general public, or even all of the candidates on the ballot, will begin to erase the programming and individual internal records on the machines beginning only 12 HOURS after the election, contrary to the clear MANDATORY directive of the New Jersey State Legislature. In short, they intend to destroy the only evidence of votes actually cast. It was sworn by Election officials to the New Jersey Supreme Court that it would only take 48 hours to ready all 7000-plus electronic voting machines for the General Election in November, during a June 18th 2013, proceeding before the Court. **Pay particularly close attention to Page 40 onward, to see how ridiculous the process in selecting ballot placement is handled.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    4K vues54 pages

    United States Senate Filing - RE NJ SPECIAL SENATE ELECTION CONTESTED

    Transféré par

    FIXMYLOAN
    ACCURACY of New Jersey Electronic Voting Machines declared "SUSPECT" by New Jersey Appellate Court. Majority of Candidates take action in U.S. Senate Race. When you walk in the voting booth, tomorrow, or in November, you do want YOUR vote to go to the candidate YOU VOTED FOR, don't you? Well, guess what? That may not be the case. In a heretofore unprecedented action, no less than FIVE of the Candidates in the New Jersey Special Senate Election, which has not even been held yet, have raised a challenge in the United States Senate, after the courts in New Jersey failed to remedy acknowledged illegal actions by election officials in the Balloting process, from construction of the ballots to the accuracy of the electronic voting machines, themselves, effectively disenfranchising the majority of legal voters in New Jersey. Led by Democratic-Republican Candidate and Constitutional Scholar Eugene Martin LaVergne, who attended Seton Hall Law School with NJ Governor Chris Christie, the candidates have exposed a tainted process in selection for ballot placement, intentional disregard for Federal and State Election Laws, and even lying in court on the part of some of the election officials, including members of the staff of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office. This action further reveals to the courts and the public the rampant partisan practices** that normally take place behind closed doors in the selection for ballot position in each county, a process meant to be public. This action permits the Senate Rules Committee to delay seating ANY winner in tomorrow's election contest until a full investigation as to the propriety, Constitutionality, and legality of this election is completed - including a lock-down of the ballot machines, which have already been proven to be able to be programmed to "re-assign" votes cast for one candidate to another candidate - all accomplished with a few lines of code. The New Jersey State Elections Statutes (19:28-1) requires that the machines be impounded (not touched) for a minimum of 15 days following their use in an election. If a challenge is raised, the lock-down period becomes indefinite. New Jersey Election Officials, with NO NOTICE to the general public, or even all of the candidates on the ballot, will begin to erase the programming and individual internal records on the machines beginning only 12 HOURS after the election, contrary to the clear MANDATORY directive of the New Jersey State Legislature. In short, they intend to destroy the only evidence of votes actually cast. It was sworn by Election officials to the New Jersey Supreme Court that it would only take 48 hours to ready all 7000-plus electronic voting machines for the General Election in November, during a June 18th 2013, proceeding before the Court. **Pay particularly close attention to Page 40 onward, to see how ridiculous the process in selecting ballot placement is handled.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 54

    Challenge Petition are duly investigated and decided on the merits by a majority vote of the full United States

    Senate.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Jurisdiction of the Senate: The Constitutional Authority and Jurisdiction of the United States Senate to Rule on the Constitutionality, Legality and Validity of the Results of the October 16, 2013 New Jersey State Special Election for United States Senate: 1. Article I, sec. 5, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution provides as follows: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do business; (Emphasis added). [United States Constitution, Article I, sec. 5, cl. 1] 2. Since the beginning of our government under the United States Constitution,

    Article I, sec. 5, cl. 1 has made clear the absolute and unchallengeable Constitutional Authority of the United States Senate itself to be the sole final arbiter and judge of the Constitutionality, legality and ultimate overall validity of each election of a Senator to the United States Senate. This authority exists by virtue of the express delegation of power from the people to the Senate and to no other Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Body to be the Judge of the Elections of its own Members . Id. 3. Under the Constitution as originally enacted, members of the United States Senate

    were elected by the Legislatures in each State. From the first meeting of the United States Senate and thereafter, the United States Senate throughout history has routinely

    -1-

    exercised its delegated authority to judge the Constitutionality, legality and validity of the election of each of its own members. To this end, whenever a Petition is brought by anyone (whether a candidate or citizen) challenging the Constitutionality, legality and validity of any election of any person to the United States Senate, the full United States Senate has on each and every occasion accepted the Petition and independently inquired into whether the election of the challenged Senator was in fact Constitutional, legal and valid.1 4. The [Seventeenth Amendment] to the United States Constitution, proposed by a

    two thirds vote in the Senate and House of Representatives of the sixty second Congress to the then State Legislatures for ratification under the Constitutions Article V process, was thereafter fully ratified and consummated as permanent Constitutional law on April 8, 1912, and then administratively promulgated and published as permanent Constitutional law by the United States Secretary of State on May 13, 1912 in a Proclamation issued by the Secretary pursuant to ministerial authority delegated in a Federal Statute first enacted in 1818. follows:
    1

    The [Seventeenth Amendment] provides as

    The State of New Jersey has already once had a United States Senator expelled by the full United States Senate after it was determined by a majority vote that the election of that Senator was indeed Unconstitutional, illegal and invalid. Specifically, on March 4, 1865, John P. Stockton was issued credentials from the State of New Jersey claiming that he had been chosen as a United States Senator in a valid election held by the New Jersey State Legislature, which credentials Stockton presented to the Senate, and was then seated. Contemporaneous to Stockton presenting his credentials a formal Petition challenging the Constitutionality, legality and validity of Stocktons election to the Senate was also filed with the full United States Senate. The Senate voted to seat Stockton without prejudice to the consideration of the merits of the Petition so that the State of New Jersey would not be without representation in the Senate while the Petition was investigated and a final vote taken. A year later, on March 27, 1866, after a thorough investigation of the underlying facts and law, Stockton was summarily expelled from the Senate (by a vote of 23 to 20) as having not been Constitutionally, lawfully and validly elected in the first instance. Specifically it was found that Stockton was elected in violation of New Jersey State Law. See United States Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases, 1793-1990, by Anne M. Butler and Wendy Wolff, reprinted in United States Senate Document 103-55, Government Printing Office, Washington: 1995.

    -2-

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.2 When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the Executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. [United States Constitution, [Seventeenth Amendment]]. 5. The [Seventeenth Amendment] further specifically confirms that each member of

    the Senate shall be chosen in an election by the people of each State. The published precedents of the United States Senate state as follows: An election must authoritatively express the will of the people. This can be accomplished only by an electoral system which clearly identifies those who are qualified to vote, established conditions under which the voter can freely express his choice, and creates standards to accurately record the results of the election. Although the system is important, the exercise of the electoral franchise depends not alone upon procedures but equally upon its honest and efficient administration. * * * The degree to which free choice is exercised within a government is the measure of freedom of the people of that government. This is the very principle upon which American government is founded. Our Declaration of Independence proclaimed that governments derive * * * their just powers from the consent of the governed * * * . The consent of the governed is obtained through elections. When an election is held under such conditions that the citizen cannot freely
    2

    The standard for qualifications of voters as found in the [Seventeenth Amendment] was altered in 1971 by the [Twenty Sixth Amendment] which provides that henceforth anyone eighteen years or older shall be eligible to vote in an election held by a State for the office of United States Senate .

    -3-

    vote his choice then the election has failed, for the free will of the people has not been expressed. [See page 3 in The Election Case of Patrick J. Hurley v. Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (1954), reported in detail in Senate Rules and Administration Committee Report SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO Report of the Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate, Eighty Third Congress, Second Session, Pursuant to Sen. Res. 333 (82d Congress, Second Session) and Senate Resolutions 106 & 137 (83d Congress, First Session) Relative to the New Mexico Senatorial Election of 1952 (March 16, 1954), Senate Report No. 1081, Eighty Third Congress, Second Session (Calendar No. 1083)]. 6. The proper and Constitutional standard for admission of United States Senator to

    the national Legislative Body is not whether some person shows up at the Senate with paperwork issued by some State Election Official that purports as credentials, but rather is whether, taken as a whole, the underlying election by the people in the State from which the Senator comes, which election process preceded the issuance of any purported credentials, was itself conducted in conformance with the Federal and State Constitutions and all applicable Federal and State Election Laws such that the election procedure does not violate the United States Constitutions Article I, sec. 5, cl. 1 and [Seventeenth Amendment] or any other provision of the Federal or State Constitution or Federal or State Statutes. Factual Background Regarding the October 16, 2013 Special Election for United States Senate: 7. On December 12, 2012, New Jersey Lt. Governor / Secretary of State Kim

    Guadagno in her capacity as the Chief Election Official of the State of New Jersey issued a formal and statutory required Certificate of Political Parties pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:12-1 in accordance with New Jersey State Election Law. In the statutorily required Certificate of Political Parties pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:12-1 New Jersey Lt. Governor /

    -4-

    Secretary of State Kim Guadagno specifically found and declared (a) that 2,597,725 total votes were cast at the November 8, 2011 General Election for the office of New Jersey State General Assembly, (b) that 10% of that number equaled 259,773 votes, (c) that the Republican Political Partys candidates received in excess of 259,773 votes total and was therefore declared a statutory political party in New Jersey pursuant to N.J.S.A.19:12-1, (c) that that the Democratic Political Partys candidates received in excess of 259,773 votes total and was therefore declared a statutory political party in New Jersey pursuant to N.J.S.A.19:12-1, and (d) that no other political group met the 10% threshold requirement so as to achieve statutory political party designation in New Jersey pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:12-1. 8. On June 3, 2013 United States Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey passed

    leaving a vacancy for the remainder of his term as a Class 2 Senator in the United States Senate. 9. The next day, June 4, 2013, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, in accordance

    with his Constitutional and New Jersey Statutory authority, and in the proper and lawful exercise of his discretion, issued a formal Writ of Election calling a Special General Election for Wednesday October 16, 2013 to fill the vacancy for the remainder of Senator Frank Lautenbergs unexpired term. The same Writ of Election fixed August 13, 2013 as the day that the two statutory political parties (Democratic and Republican) in New Jersey were required to hold a Special Statutory Political Party Primary Election at which each statutory political party would elect a candidate to stand for election for the unexpired term in the United States Senate on the October 16, 2013 Special General Election Ballot. The same Writ of Election fixed August 13, 2013 as

    -5-

    the day that the candidate from any political party that had not yet achieved statutory political party status (commonly referred to as an alternative political party), or any wholly independent candidate, to file a Nominating Petition in accordance with New Jersey Election State Laws to obtain access to the October 16, 2013 Special General Election Ballot as a candidate for United States Senate. 10. At present there are at least six alternative political party political organizations

    that are active in New Jersey elective politics: The New Jersey Democratic-Republican Party, the Conservative Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Natural Law Party, the Reform Party, and the Constitution Party. As circumstances

    ultimately developed, out of all of the existing alternative political parties presently active in New Jersey elective politics, only the New Jersey Democratic-Republican Party3

    The Democratic-Republican Party was the first recognized political party in the United States, initially formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of the State of Virginia, in the mid 1790s as a way to organize political opposition to the Federal banking and Federal government financial policies advocated by then Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton of New York. Four former United States Presidents (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, all of the State of Virginia, and John Quincy Adams of the State of Massachusetts), 5 former Vice Presidents (Aaron Burr of the State of New York, George Clinton of the State of New York, Elbridge Gerry of the State of Massachusetts, Daniel Thompkins of the State of New York, and John C. Calhoun of the State of South Carolina), and literally thousands of United States Senators and Members of the United States House of Representatives, State Governors, and members of branches of the various State Legislatures, as well as countless elected County and Local Offices, were all members of the Democratic-Republican Party and were all elected as Democratic-Republican Candidates. The Democratic-Republican Organization of New Jersey is the modern counterpart of the Jefferson and Madison formed Democratic-Republican Party, consisting of registered voters who were and/or are still registered as Independents (ie. unaffiliated voters), Democrats, Republicans, and members of the original and real and legitimate modern New Jersey Conservative Party. The members have many diverse political views, but all share at a minimum the following three common political views: (1) that the present so called two party system and campaign finance laws are broken; (2) That the way to fix the political process in the United States is by acknowledging that Article the First has been fully ratified and is law, and that Article the First must be acknowledged as law and promulgated and the size of the House of Representatives must be increased accordingly, and (3) that no candidate who refuses or declines to sign the Change the Rules Pledge should be supported in any election for public office.

    -6-

    endorsed and ran a candidate at the October 16, 2013 Special General Election for United States Senate, that being Eugene Martin LaVergne. 11. As the people of the State of New Jersey would not have full Constitutional

    representation in the United States Senate until such time as a new Senator was lawfully elected and lawfully seated in the United States Senate for the remainder of the unexpired term of now passed Senator Frank Lautenberg, on June 6, 2013 New Jersey Governor Chris Christie further exercised his Constitutional and New Jersey State statutory powers and lawfully and properly exercised his discretion and issued a Certificate of Appointment wherein he unilaterally appointed Jeffrey S. Chiesa from New Jersey a Senator from said State in the Senate of the United States until the vacancy therein caused by the passing of the Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg is filled by election as provided by law. (Emphasis added). On June 10, 2013 Jeffrey S. Chiesa presented the Certificate of Appointment to Vice President and President of the Senate Joseph Biden who received the document, and after various welcoming remarks, Vice President Biden administered the oath of office to now United States Senator Jeffrey S. Chiesa. See June 6, 2013 Certificate of Appointment and proceedings in the United States Senate on June 10, 2013 at Congressional Record Senate (June 10, 2013) at pages S-4040 to S4041. 12. According to the express terms of the Certificate of Appointment, United States

    Senator Jeffrey S. Chiesa shall remain in office until such time as a Senator is duly elected at the scheduled October 16, 2013 Special General Election as long as that Special General Election is conducted by election officials as provided by law. Stated otherwise, in the event that the Special General Election is or was somehow conducted in

    -7-

    violation of Federal Constitutional or statutory law or New Jersey State Constitutional or statutory law and is therefore not conducted as provided by law - then United States Senator Jeffrey S. Chiesa shall remain in office. The terms of the Certificate of Appointment clearly contemplate and indeed specifically require that a lawful election must occur as a condition of the expiration of the appointment.

    The Existing Conflict in New Jersey Election Laws Regarding the Correct Time Frame for the Holding of a Statutory Political Party Special Primary Election in Time Relation to a Special General Election: 13. Under New Jersey Election Laws, any statutory political party (at present only the

    Republican and Democratic Parties) is required to select the statutory political partys candidate who will appear on any General Election Ballot (including any Special General Election Ballot) at a state financed and regulated statutory Political Party Primary Election. The Writ of Election signed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie fixed Wednesday October 16, 2013 as the day for the Special General Election. As such, each of the statutory political parties were required to choose a candidate whose name would appear on the October 16, 2013 Special General Election Ballot for United States Senate at a Special Statutory Political Party Primary Election. 14. The first question is therefore, exactly when in time must the Statutory Political

    Special Party Primary Elections be held in relation to the October 16, 2013 Special General Election date? The answer is not so clear, despite the time frame declared in the Writ of Election. This is because there is a direct conflict that exists in New Jersey Election Laws regarding the mandatory timing of when such a Statutory Political Party Special Primary Election to choose a statutory political partys candidate must be held in

    -8-

    time relation to any Special General Election. Firstly, there is N.J.S.A. 19:2-1, which by specific and mandatory non discretionary statutory terms applicable to all Special Elections (of which this is one) provides in relevant part that Primary elections for special elections shall be held not earlier than 30 nor later than 20 days prior to the special elections. (Emphasis added). Id. Secondly and conversely, N.J.S.A. 19:27-6, the statute specifically relied upon in the June 4, 2013 Writ of Election, which statute specifically references a Special Election for United States Senate, states that the Special General Election shall be not less than 64 nor more than 70 days following the day of the special primary election. Id. This conflict in New Jersey Election Laws is NOT a direct part of the factual and legal claims asserted in this Petition as a basis for voiding any result in the October 16, 2013 Special General Election4, but rather is noted herein to confirm that both conflicting statutes nevertheless dictate and require a timeframe for the holding of a Statutory Political Party Special Primary Election that is in a time frame that is well after a date of 85 days before the Special General Election. The Nominating Petitions of Alternative Political Party Candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne, Democratic-Republican for United States Senate, are filed before the deadline of August 13, 2013: 15. Eugene Martin LaVergne, Democratic-Republican for United States Senate, the

    only alternative political party candidate on the ballot at the October 16, 2013 Special General Election, filed his Nominating Petitions with the Office of the New Jersey
    4

    Indeed, clearly New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had to choose one of the two statutes, and it is an elementary principle of statutory construction that when you have two conflicting statutes which are specific to circumstances, one must rely upon the terms of the more specific statute if there is one. As N.J.S.A. 19:27-6 specifically referred to a special election for United States Senate, and N.J.S.A. 19:2-1 only referred to all special elections generally, it was manifestly appropriate and legally correct - for Governor Christie to rely upon N.J.S.A. 19:27-6 rather than N.J.S.A. 19:2-1 when scheduling the Special Statutory Political Party Primary Elections.

    -9-

    Secretary of State, Division of Elections, before the deadline of August 13, 2013 as required by law. On Eugene Martin LaVergnes Nominating Petitions it was

    specifically requested that the slogan Democratic-Republican be printed and associated with his name on the General Election Ballots in all of New Jerseys 21 Counties. The Office of the New Jersey Secretary of State, Division of Elections, rejected Eugene Martin LaVergnes formal and otherwise valid request to use the slogan DemocraticRepublican but then allowed Eugene Martin LaVergne to use the alternatively requested slogan of D-R Party. The Nominating Petitions of the five other wholly Independent Candidates for United States Senate are filed before the deadline of August 13, 2013: 16. Robert DePasquale filed Nominating Petitions with the Office of the New

    Jersey Secretary of State, Division of Elections, before the deadline of August 13, 2013 as required by law. In his Nominating Petitions Robert DePasqualle requested to use various slogans associated and printed with his name on the different Special General Election Ballots in all twenty one Counties in the State of New Jersey, including No Amnesty Period, American Citizens First, Jobs for Americans, and Vote Robert DePasquale. 17. Stuart David Meissner filed Nominating Petitions with the Office of the New

    Jersey Secretary of State, Division of Elections, before the deadline of August 13, 2013 as required by law. In his Nominating Petitions Stuart David Meissner requested to use the slogan Alimony Reform Now associated and printed with his name on the different Special General Election Ballots in all twenty one Counties in the State of New Jersey.

    - 10 -

    18.

    Antonio Nico Sabas filed Nominating Petitions with the Office of the New

    Jersey Secretary of State, Division of Elections, before the deadline of August 13, 2013 as required by law. In his Nominating Petitions Antonio Nico Sabas requested to use the slogan Freedom of Choice associated and printed with his name on the different Special General Election Ballots in all twenty one Counties in the State of New Jersey. 19. Pablo Olivera filed Nominating Petitions with the Office of the New Jersey

    Secretary of State, Division of Elections, before the deadline of August 13, 2013 as required by law. In his Nominating Petitions Pablo Olivera requested to use the slogan Unity is Strength associated and printed with his name on the different Special General Election Ballots in all twenty one Counties in the State of New Jersey. 20. Edward C. Stackhouse, Jr. filed Nominating Petitions with the Office of the

    New Jersey Secretary of State, Division of Elections, before the deadline of August 13, 2013 as required by law. In his Nominating Petitions Edward C. Stackhouse, Jr. requested to use the slogan Ed the Barber associated and printed with his name on the different Special General Election Ballots in all twenty one Counties in the State of New Jersey. The Special Statutory Political Primary Elections of August 13, 2013: 21. On August 13, 2013 the Democratic Party held their Statutory Political Party

    Special Primary Election. There were four candidates on the Ballot in the Democratic Statutory Political Party Special Primary Election. Candidate Corey Booker won the election. A total of 367,778 Ballots were cast among the four candidates at the August 13, 2013 Democratic Statutory Political Party Special Primary Election. The number of 367,778 total ballots cast clearly exceeds the number of 259,775.

    - 11 -

    22.

    On August 13, 2013 the Republican Party held their Statutory Political Party

    Special Primary Election. There were two candidates on the Ballot in the Republican Statutory Political Party Special Primary Election. Candidate Steven M. Lonegan won the election. A total of 130,340 Ballots were cast among the two candidates at the August 13, 2013 Republican Statutory Political Party Special Primary Election. The number of 130,340 total ballots cast clearly does not exceed the number of 259,775. The Certification of Candidates by the Secretary of State on August 22, 2013: 23. On August 22, 2013, New Jersey Secretary of State / Lt. Governor Kimberly

    Guadagno certified the following persons as the only candidates for the office of United States Senate whose names and accompanying slogan / party affiliation will appear on all October 16, 2013 Special General Election Ballots in all of New Jerseys 21 Counties:

    Candidate Name: Eugene Martin LaVergne Robert DePasqualle

    Candidate Slogan(s) / Party Affiliation: D-R Party (All 21 Counties) No Amnesty Period, American Citizens First, Jobs for Americans, Vote for Robert DePasqualle (as specifically allocated by the candidate to different Counties) Alimony Reform Now (All 21 Counties)

    Stuart David Meissner

    Antonio Nico Sabas

    Freedom of Choice (All 21 Counties)

    Pablo Olivera

    Unity is Strength (All 21 Counties)

    Edward Stackhouse

    Ed the Barber (All 21 Counties)

    - 12 -

    Corey Booker

    Democrat (All 21 Counties)

    Steven M. Lonegan 24.

    Republican (All 21 Counties)

    The State of New Jersey had a 2010 census population of 8,807,501 persons,

    which today in calendar year 2013 is now actually closer to if not now in excess of - 9 Million persons. Of a census population of approximately 9 Million people, there are a total of only eight candidates who have managed to lawfully obtain access to the October 16, 2013 Special General Election Ballot seeking the office of United States Senate, or otherwise stated, one candidate on average for each more than 1 million persons residing in the State. Of the approximately 9 Million persons residing in the State, there are at least 5,475,727 persons who are lawfully registered and qualified to vote at the October 13 ,2013 Special General Election for United States Senate. It should be noted that at the August 13, 2013 Special Primary Election, statutory political party candidate Corey Booker received votes equal to only 3.78% of the registered voters in New Jersey, whereas statutory political party candidate Steven M. Lonegan received votes equal to 1.8% of the registered voters in New Jersey. Neither showing equates with a statistic or numerically significant showing of public support, either for each person as a candidate, or for the statutory political party under whose name they each seek to run. In fact the actual turn out at the August 13, 2013 Republican Special Statutory Political Party Primary Election was so minimal that each vote cast by a participant at that Special Primary Election cost the taxpayers of New Jersey $48.oo! 25. What is a factual and legal certainty, is that as long as the Special General

    Election is held in accordance with Law, one of the eight persons whose name will

    - 13 -

    appear on the ballots Eugene Martin LaVergne, Robert DePasqualle, Stuart David Meissner, Antonio Nico Sabas, Pablo Olivera, Edward Stackhouse, Corey Booker, or Steven M. Lonegan will be elected as the next United States Senator from New Jersey. 26. Each of the eight candidates whose name and slogan / party designation will

    appear on the Special General Election Ballots is required by Constitutional and Statutory law to be treated equally and fairly in the election process, and no one or more candidates may be given arbitrary preferential treatment over any of the other candidate by State or County Election Officials. Moreover, the Federal and State Constitution and laws

    requires that the each vote cast be counted, and that each vote cast be counted by the same uniform standards. 27. However, as this Special Election process has developed in the short time at issue,

    New Jersey State and County Election Officials and others have conducted and administered this Special General Election in intentional and knowing and reckless and negligent violation of the mandatory minimum standards of the United States Constitution, applicable Federal Statutory Law, the New Jersey State Constitution, and applicable New Jersey Statutory Law, as is required for the valid and lawful and legitimate election of a United States Senator. Moreover, the electronic voting machines that will be used are on judicial record as inaccurately counting and tabulating votes cast by the voters resulting in a losing candidate being declared the winner of an election. No measures have been taken to guard against this. As such, for the following specific reasons, the undersigned candidates are hereby taking what we each believe to be an unprecedented and extraordinary but nevertheless necessary and honorable step of asking the full United States Senate by formal Petition, before the actual Special General

    - 14 -

    Election even occurs, to rule and declare that any result of the October 13, 2013 Special General Election that may be declared by New Jersey State Election Officials whatever that may be, including any decision that may declare any of the undersigned the winners of such Special Election be declared void and a complete nullity, and that the United States Senate decline to seat any person declared by New Jersey State Election Officials as the winner of the October 16, 2013 Special Election. Moreover, since whatever the result, the October 16, 2013 Special General Election will not have taken places as provided by law, that the United States Senate further leave New Jersey Senator Jeffrey S. Chiesa seated until such time as a successor is filled by election as provided by law ..., as it is clear that a legal election is specifically required by the Governors June 10, 2013 Certificate of Appointment as a pre-condition to the expiration of the Governors appointment, and a lawful election will not take place on October 16, 2013 in New Jersey.

    Specification No. 1: On September 16, 2013 a New Jersey State Appellate Court ruled that the very same Electronic Voting Machines that will be used by New Jersey State and County Election Officials in 20 of New Jerseys 21 Counties at the October 16, 2013 Special General Election for United States Senate are prima facie unreliable and therefore may not be trusted and can not be presumed, without further protective procedures and measures, to have accurately and correctly recorded the votes that are cast by the voters. In short, the Electronic Voting Machines that will be used may not be relied upon by Election Officials to have accurately recorded and accurately tabulated the actual votes cast by voters and therefore, as a threshold matter, the accuracy and validity of any result lacks sufficient Constitutional and statutory integrity:

    - 15 -

    1.

    In 2004, the New Jersey State Legislature passed legislation to change from

    mechanical voting machines to a new form of electronic voting machine commonly referred to as a direct recording electronic voting machine, or DRE voting machine. DRE voting machines are essentially low tech computers that, operating in accordance with dedicated software programming, electronically record a voters votes on a computer hard drive or tape cartridge and then automatically tabulate all votes cast for each candidate on each voting machine, while temporarily electronically storing the results of all votes cast at that election on that DRE voting machine on the DRE voting machines hard drive or tape cartridge. 2. After the passage of a variety of mandatory statutory and Constitutionally

    required time waiting periods after each election (the shortest of which is 15 days), the DRE voting machines computer hard drive or tape cartridge is then at some point completely erased leaving no record or evidence whatsoever of the votes cast at the election last used, with the now blank hard drive or tape cartridge able to be re-used at the next election in which the DRE voting machine is used. 3. The DRE voting machines approved by the legislature for use in 2004 operate in a

    completely paperless manner, and do not generate any separate paper trail of the votes or any other permanent or semi-permanent record: All information is only temporarily electronically stored on the hard drive or tape cartridge. Once the hard drives or tape cartridges are cleared or erased, the only information regarding voting that actually occurred at the last election is literally destroyed and is gone forever leaving literally no record whatsoever in the event that there is an election challenge or contest.

    - 16 -

    4.

    Even in 2004 (which was a full three years before the release of the First

    Generation IPhone) there was readily available technology that would have easily allowed a permanent paper trail of the votes cast on each DRE voting machine through implementation of simple technology referred to as a verified paper audit tool, or VVPAT. For reasons that are unclear and will not be speculated upon, the New Jersey State Legislation for some reason did not initially require that all new DRE Machines purchased also have a VVPAT and therefore a separate corresponding paper trail. As such, the new election machines purchased starting in 2004 through New Jersey State government contracts were indeed DRE voting machines without a VVPAT paper back up. And as noted, the DRE voting machines that will be used, while purchased starting in 2004, contain 1990 computer technology. 5. Outraged at the fact that there would not be any permanent or verifiable record of

    election results, in 2004 New Jersey State Assemblyman Reed Gusciora and others filed suit against then Governor James McGreevy and the State Election Officials alleging, on a variety of theories, that the States approval of the new DRE voting machines without an accompanying VVPAT paper back up violated New Jersey Election Laws and various Federal and State Constitutional provisions. 6. While the Gusciora court case proceeded in the State Court system, the New

    Jersey State Legislature (where Reed Gusciora was an elected Member) on its own without any Court Order shortly thereafter legislatively concluded that there was no valid reason not to require that all the new DRE voting machines that were to be purchased and used in New Jersey Elections be required to have VVPAT technology so that a permanent and verifiable paper record would be created and readily available so that all election

    - 17 -

    results could be memorialized for history and also available to use as a basis for candidates or voters to determine wither to bring an application for a statutory re-count or an application for a statutory election contest (or any other form of lawful challenge) to the results of any election. In 2005, the New Jersey State Legislature enacted, and the Governor approved, a specific legal requirement that after January 1, 2008 any and all DRE voting machines were either required to be retrofitted with a VVPAT paper back up, or replaced with new DRE voting machines with a VVPAT paper back up, as after January 1, 2008, it would be illegal for any State or County Election Official to use DRE voting machine in any election in New Jersey if the DRE voting machine did not also have a VVPAT paper back up. See L. 2005, c. 137. 7. Again for reasons not clear, this mandatory statutory deadline of January 1,

    2008 was extended by the New Jersey State Legislature, and ultimately in March of 2009 the Legislature indefinitely suspended implementation of the VVPAT paper backup requirement until the unspecified time when federal or state funds might be appropriated. See L. 2009, c. 17, now codified at N.J.S.A. 19:48-1(b)(2) and N.J.S.A. 19:53A-3(i)(2). That was four years ago, and to date, the DRE voting machines that are still being used throughout New Jersey have neither been retrofitted with VVPAT paper back up technology or replaced with new DRE voting machines that have VVPAT paper back up technology, and operate with 1990 computer technology. 8. At the October 16, 2013 Special Election for United States Senate in New Jersey,

    the State and County Election Officials in 20 of New Jerseys 21 Counties will use DRE voting machines without a VVPAT paper back up (which paper back up has actually been required by law since 2005, but never actually been implemented).

    - 18 -

    9.

    New Jersey State Election Laws N.J.S.A. 19:48-1.a(h)5 and N.J.S.A. 19:53A-3(h)6

    require that any voting machine that is used at any election in New Jersey shall be required to at all times accurately and correctly register and tabulate the votes as cast by the voters. 10. Article II, Section I of the New Jersey State Constitution (1947), as amended,

    operates so as to require that any voting machine that is used at any election in New Jersey shall at all times accurately and correctly register and tabulate the votes as cast by the voters. Moreover, this Article of the New Jersey Constitution has been clarified to mean, in essence, the right to participate in an electoral process that is necessarily structured to maintain the integrity of the democratic system. New Jersey Conservative Party v. Farmer, 332 N.J.Super. 278, 287 (citing in part Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992)). 11. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

    Constitution further has been construed to require that all votes cast at a federal election

    N.J.S.A. 19:48-1.a(h) provides as follows: a. Any thoroughly tested and reliable voting machine may be adopted, rented, purchased or used, which shall be so constructed as to fulfill the following requirements: *** (h) It shall correctly register or record and accurately count all votes cast for any and all persons, and for or against any and all questions.

    ***
    6

    N.J.S.A. 19:53A-3(h) provides as follows: Every electronic voting system, consisting of a voting device in combination with automatic tabulation equipment, acquired or used in accordance with this act, shall: (h) When properly operated, record correctly and count accurately every vote cast, including all over votes or under votes and all affirmative votes or negative votes on all public questions or referenda; * * *

    - 19 -

    be counted and tabulated by the same uniform standards. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 981 (2000). 12. Less than 1 month ago, on September 16, 2013 in Gusciora v. Christie, A-5608-

    10T37, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division upheld in most parts but in a limited ruling significant to and directly applicable to this election in part reversed trial courts ruling regarding the reliability of DRE Voting Machines in the ongoing court case started by Assemblyman Gusciora in 2004. The three New Jersey State Appellate Court Judges without reservation called into question the integrity of any election that uses a DRE voting machine without a VVPAT paper backup because there are not yet any adequate procedures that have been established and put into place by New Jersey Election Officials to ensure that the software used in a DRE voting machine has in fact been properly loaded and properly configured in the DRE voting machine by the election officials in the first instance. In short, the State Appellate Court ruled that there are not or not yet - adequate procedures in place to ensure that when a voter actually casts a vote for a given candidate that the DRE voting machine software will have been properly installed, and therefore there is not adequate assurances that the votes cast will in fact be accurately and correctly recorded rather than erroneously record as a vote cast for some other candidate. This concern from the State Appellate Court is based upon an actual case in New Jersey where a DRE voting machine incorrectly recorded votes which ultimately resulted in the wrong person being declared the winner of an election!

    The recent Gusciora v. Christie Appellate Division opinion is found at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11615146553337169370&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=sc holarr

    - 20 -

    13.

    Specifically, while the Gusciora case was proceeding through the Court system,

    there was a separate case in Cumberland County New Jersey where a candidate named Zirkle was running for county committee from his local election district in a Statutory Political Party Primary Election where a DRE voting machine without a VVPAT paper back up was being used. In such elections (where the candidate for office of County Committee is only on the ballot in 1 election district in 1 town) it is not uncommon for less than 40 votes total to be cast, and with a person receiving much less than 40 votes actually winning the election. 14. After the election was concluded, Zirkle was listed as receiving only 8 votes and

    was declared the loser, yet Zirkle knew that he should have received at least 28 votes based upon friends who specifically went to the polls to vote for him. Either Zirkles friends and neighbors who all specifically went to the polls to vote for Zirkle were either lying and had for some reason voted for someone else, or the DRE voting machine was not accurately tabulating votes cast for Zirkle, either erroneously allocating votes for Zirkle to some other candidate, or simply not recording the votes cast for Zirkle. 15. After a court challenge and an objective diagnostic evaluation of the DRE voting

    machine (without VVPAT paper back up) that was used in the election, it was discovered that in fact at least 28 people had indeed voted for Zirkle, but that somehow (this is New Jersey, remember) the software had somehow mysteriously erroneously recorded 20 of those votes more than 2/3 of the votes for another, and the wrong, candidate. This error was only able to be discovered due to the unique circumstances of such a small universe of voters participating in an election for a seat on a political partys county committee. However, as roughly 2 out of every 3 votes cast for Zirkle were

    - 21 -

    erroneously recorded for another candidate, has this election been a statewide election for United States Senate such as at issue here, and had Zirkle actually received 900,000 votes for example, the DRE voting machine by proportion would have erroneously recorded only 300,000 of those votes case for Zirkle and erroneously recorded more than 600,000 of Zirkles votes for another candidate or candidates! Otherwise stated, the DRE voting machines would report the wrong winner, and once the hard drive or tape cartridge was erased, since there was no VVPAT paper backup, there would be no record or evidence to check to ever discover this! 16. Literally stunned by this revelation that DRE voting machines without VVPAT

    paper back up are now without factual or historical or legal question on Court record as erroneously recording votes and now on factual and historical and legal record as actually also erroneously reporting the incorrect person as winning an election, the Appellate Division was moved to state the obvious: In a free society this is intolerable. As stated by the Appellate Division: * * * We express deep concern as a result of the Zirkle litigation, not as to the fallibility of DREs relative to other voting devices, but rather as to the efforts made by the State to minimize the likelihood of error. It is obvious that but for the very limited pool of voters involved in the Zirkle litigation, the human error that lead to completely erroneous election results would never have been detected. In other words, has the election involved 10,000 votes, the fact that the DREs were erroneously programmed would never have been discovered, because it is highly unlikely that a challenger could have been established the results were wrong through affidavits of voters or other proof. Even though the DRE involved in the Zirkle litigation performed as it was programmed to do, the preLAT failed to reveal the programming error. Ironically, Appel spoke to the limits of a pre-LAT during the trial

    - 22 -

    before Judge Feinberg. The Zirkle Litigation demonstrates how a pre-LAT performed in an inattentive or otherwise non-thorough manner can result in the wrong candidate winning. Whether a lack of sufficient, mandatory preelection testing of all DREs without a VVPAT amounts to a violation of Title 19 is a legitimate issue, based on the results of the Zirkle litigation. We do not believe we can exercise our original jurisdiction on the record provided from the Zirkle litigation itself. R. 2:10-5. We are compelled to remand the matter to the Law Division for a further hearing, that shall focus on whether the State has devised and implemented mandatory statewide pre-election testing procedures to provide reasonable assurances that programming errors will not go undetected. We urge the Law Division to conduct its review with due speed, but we leave the conduct of the remand to the sound discretion of the judge. (Emphasis added). 17. The due speed in the Gusciora case on remand to the trial Court is as follows:

    The unreliable and untrustworthy DRE voting machines (without VVPAT and therefore without paper back up) will be used at the October 16, 2013 Special General Election for United States Senate notwithstanding the Appellate Division decision. And the first time that the New Jersey Trial Court will take up on remand and consider the issues of the unreliability of the DRE voting machines on remand from the Appellate Division? At a status conference conveniently scheduled for October 17, 2013, literally the day after the untrustworthy machines will be used at this statewide election for United States Senate! 18. As a threshold matter, Petitioners assert that the use of DRE voting machines

    without a VVPAT paper back up violate the candidates and voters rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Article I, sec. 5, cl. 1, Fourteenth Amendment, [Seventeenth Amendment], the New Jersey State Constitution (1947), as amended,

    - 23 -

    Article II, Section I, and by New Jersey Election Laws 19:48-1.a(h) and N.J.S.A. 19:53A3(h). It gets worse if that can be believed.

    Specification No. 2: In violation of New Jersey State Election Laws, and only 16 hours after of the closing of the election polls for the October 16, 2013 Special General Election, at noon on September 17, 2013 New Jersey State and County Election Officials will immediately start to erase all date from the hard drives and tape cartridges in every DRE voting machines in New Jersey and therefore will irretrievably destroy all evidence of the votes actually cast by the voters: 1. After using compromised DRE voting machines (all without a VVPAT and

    therefore without paper back up) at the statewide Senate Election in the first instance, in a situation where there still will not be any VVPAT paper back up, which paper back up has been required by New Jersey State Election Law for Five years but which requirement has not been implemented due to failure to appropriate the necessary funding, the only actual evidence to determine whether the votes were correctly counted and tabulated by each individual DRE voting machine will be contained on the hard drive or the tape cartridges in the DRE. Under a variety of New Jersey Election Laws the DRE voting machines and the hard drives and tape cartridges with the information and data from the election ordinarily are without exception required to be impounded and locked down and not be allowed to be touched for at least a minimum of 15 days. This is so that there will be adequate evidence in the event of an election challenge in the way of a demand for a recount or an election contest brought on some other grounds.

    - 24 -

    2.

    However, relative to the October 16, 2013 Special General Election for United

    States Senate, on September 24, 2013, the New Jersey Attorney General filed an emergent action in New Jersey State Court on behalf of 20 of New Jerseys 21 County Election Officials entitled In the Matter of the Application to Recheck the Voting

    Machines to be Used in the October 16, 2013 Special General Election for the Office of United States Senator, Docket No. MER-L-2013-13, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. This case was brought because the Attorney General and the State and County Election officials claimed that they had suddenly just realized that they will have to use every single existing DRE voting machine in the entire State of New Jersey at the October 16, 2013 Special General Election for United States Senate, and they will also need to use those same machines again at the November 5, 2013 Regular New Jersey Statewide General Election less than three weeks later. 3. In that Court application the New Jersey Attorney General and the 20 County

    Election officials propose that they conduct an immediate and free Election Recount of the a total of 7,942 separate DRE machines in all 20 Counties, starting on Thursday October 17, 2013 at 12 noon (the day after the election, 16 hours after the polls close, when the unofficial result of the Special Election may not even be known yet) in Northfield in Atlantic County, and ending six days later on Tuesday October 22, 2013 in Cape May County. Moreover, they propose that after this free process is completed on Tuesday October 22, 2013, only 6 days after the Special Senate Election, that each of the 7,942 DRE voting machines shall then be released immediately from impoundment so that it may be prepared for the November 5 General Election and that the cartridges for all the voting machines shall be released to the custody of the County

    - 25 -

    Commissioner of Registration, upon the commencement of the recheck, of such cartridges are in the possession of the County Clerk. In short, otherwise and more accurately described, the Attorney General and 20 County Election Officials were seeking an Order to interfere with the existing election process and within 6 days of the Special Senate Election (and by Court Order) receive immediate and unconditional permission to release from impoundment of all of the 7,942 separate DRE voting machines all without a VVPAT paper back up back to the custody and control of the State and County Election Officials so that they can then in turn immediately erase the hard drives and tape cartridges and thereby destroy the only actual record of the voting at the October 16 Senate Election! This, so that these same DRE machines - and their hard drives and tape cartridges - can then be erased and reconfigured and prepared and then used at the November 5 statewide General Election. 4. The State Attorney General was specifically Ordered to serve each of the

    candidates and other persons as listed in the Order to Show Cause issued by the Court so that the Court would have jurisdiction over the request and so the parties and the voting public would know what was being requested, and so that the candidates and the public would know the implications of what was being requested in the event that the application was granted. As a matter of uncontested fact, as circumstances developed, the State Attorney General failed to serve anyone and failed to even attempt to serve anyone. Almost by happenstance candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne found out about this application and opposed the application on both procedural grounds and substantive grounds.

    - 26 -

    5.

    Notwithstanding the failure of service on anyone (a prerequisite to the State Court

    having jurisdiction in the first instance) the State Court, after candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne formally objected to the lack of service on anyone or notice to the public at large as to what was occurring with the Election, the State Court simply verbally and without any explanation modified the requirement of service in the Order to Show Cause to notice, and viewed the circumstances (where the only opposition or appearance was from candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne) as if there was somehow sufficient notice to most (but not all parties). 6. Eugene Martin LaVergne further substantively opposed the application of the

    State Attorney General, noting that State Election Officials had specifically and in detail certified as fact to the New Jersey Supreme Court on June 18, 2013 that all the time that would be needed to prepared the DRE voting machines for the November 5, 2013 Regular General Election after the October 16, 2013 Special General Election was 48 hours for all of the more than 7,000 DRE voting machines in the States. That being the case, the 15 day statutory lock down period required by New Jersey Election Law statutes would still give more than adequate time to the State Election Officials. Eugene Martin LaVergne argued that mere convenience without any actual need was not a basis upon which a Court could judicially re-write a mandatory statute. The Court ignored the arguments of candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne, and without even so much as articulating any legal standard that was being relied upon, and without any Court finding of need, the State Court simply and without issue and without any notice to the public at large - arbitrarily, and in violation of the New Jersey State Separation of Powers Doctrine, judicially removed by Judicial Order what was and is a mandatory legislatively

    - 27 -

    imposed minimum period of 15 days time period where all DRE voting machines were required to be locked down, unilaterally changing the time for the impoundment and lock down from a statutory 15 days to a Judicial 16 hours! After which 16 hours the State and County Election Officials will start to destroy all evidence of actual voting, with all evidence completely destroyed within a period of only 6 days. Therefore, absent an Order from the United States Senate imposing a lock down or impoundment period while this United States Senate Election Challenge Petition is being considered, there will not be any evidence left to review.

    Specification No. 3: On October 3, 2013 the New Jersey Court ruled that New Jersey State and County Election Officials directly and without legal excuse knowingly violated Election Laws When placing Candidates on the Special General Election Ballots which State Court finding as a matter of law confirms what is also factually Federal and State criminal and civil wrongful conduct by State and County Election Officials in the Administration of the Special General Election for United States Senate: 1. Ordinarily at Regular General Elections New Jersey Elections Laws by legislative

    design specifically confer preferred ballot placement treatment to the candidates of the statutory political parties (here, the Democratic and Republican Parties) by statute, specifically N.J.S.A. 19:14-12. The statute at issue, N.J.S.A. 19:14-12, requires the

    County Clerk in each County to hold a drawing 85 days before an election at 3:00 p.m. to determine candidate ballot location, directing that the first and second columns be reserved for the statutory political parties, and the other candidates be placed elsewhere as outlined in the statute. However, N.J.S.A. 19:27-1, provides as follows:

    - 28 -

    Except as herein otherwise provided candidates for public office to be voted for at any special election shall be nominated and the special election shall be conducted and the results thereof ascertained and certified in the same manner and under the same conditions, restrictions and penalties as herein provided for primary and general elections. (Emphasis added). [N.J.S.A. 19:27-1]. 2. As noted earlier, the time frame for the statutory political parties to select their

    candidate for a Special Election at a Special Primary Election under New Jersey Election Laws is either N.J.S.A. 19:2-1, which by specific and mandatory non discretionary statutory terms applicable to all Special Elections (of which this is one) provides in relevant part that Primary elections for special elections shall be held not earlier than 30 nor later than 20 days prior to the special elections. (Emphasis added), Id., or N.J.S.A. 19:27-6, the statute specifically relied upon in the June 4, 2013 Writ of Election, which statute specifically references a Special Election for United States Senate, and in so doing states that the Special General Election shall be not less than 64 nor more than 70 days following the day of the special primary election. Id. 3. Under basic application of N.J.S.A. 19:27-1 (Except as herein otherwise

    provided) to N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 (requiring a Clerks drawing 85 days before an election at 3:00 p.m.), under application of either N.J.S.A. 19:2-1 or N.J.S.A. 19:27-6 fixing the time for a statutory political party Special Primary Election, the clear and elementary fact is that both time frames require Special Primary Elections to be held well after the mandatory 85 day time frame in N.J.S.A. 19:14-12. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it appears that there is NO statutory ballot location preference and Clerks drawing that

    - 29 -

    applies to Special Elections in New Jersey as N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 by its clear numerical terms can not apply to Special Elections. 4. Separate and aside from the questionable applicability of N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 to

    Special Elections in the first instance, there is no question that IF SOMEHOW the statutory candidate ballot location preference in N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 applies to Special Elections (despite the impossibility created by the numbers), N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 contains an express and clear caveat to the preferred placement of statutory political party candidates in N.J.S.A. 19:14-12. 5. N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 provides as follows: A political party may nominate candidates for public office at primary elections provided for in this Title, elect committees for the party within the State, County or Municipality, as the case may be, and in every other respect may exercise the rights and shall be subject to the restrictions herein provided for political parties; except that no political party which fails to poll at any primary election for a general election at least ten per centum (10%) of the votes cast in the State for members of the General Assembly at the next preceding general election, held for the election of all the members of the General Assembly, shall be entitled to have a party column on the official ballot at the general election for which the primary election has been held. In such case the names of the candidates so nominated at the primary election shall be printed in the column or columns noted Nomination by Petition on the official ballot under the respective titles of office for which the nominations have been made, followed by the designation of the political part of which the candidates are members. (Emphasis added). [N.J.S.A. 19:5-1]. 6. As applies to this case, for a statutory political party and their candidate (here the

    Republican and Democratic candidates for United States Senate) to be entitled (or

    - 30 -

    required) to be placed in the preferred and advantageous position by placement by the County Clerks in a separate political party column on the Special General Election Ballot and to be entitled (or required) to participate in a drawing by the County Clerk under N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 (assuming the applicability of that statute to Special Elections) for the most preferred and advantageous positions on the Special General Election Ballot in the two top left columns, the statutory political party must have met or exceeded the 10% threshold in N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 at the August 13, 2013 Special Primary Election. Stated simply, for the statutory preferences to apply here and for the October 16, 2013 Special General Election, at least 259,775 persons must have cast ballots at the August 13, 2013 Special Primary Election for each statutory political party. The Democratic Party met the N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 statutory 10% threshold with 367,778 total ballots cast. The Republican Party failed to meet the N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 statutory 10% threshold with only 130,340 total ballots cast. 7. Therefore, only Democratic candidate Corey Booker is entitled (and indeed, if

    N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 applies to Special Elections is required) to be placed in a separate political party column and is the only candidate entitled (and indeed required) to participate in the N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 drawing. Stated somewhat more simply, there is no technical need for any actual Clerks drawing between the statutory political parties for the preferred ballot positions as by operation of New Jersey Elections Laws to the facts extant, as Democratic candidate Booker, the only candidate of the only statutory political party to meet the 10% threshold in N.J.S.A. 19:5-1, is required to be placed by all 21 County Clerks in a separate party column in column 1 (or column A) at the top left of the Special General Election Ballot. This is because, conversely, Republican

    - 31 -

    candidate Lonegan, by virtue of the failure of the Republican Party to meet the 10% threshold at the August 13, 2013 Special Primary Election, is specifically required to be placed by all 21 County Clerks in the same identical single Nomination by Petition column as the other 6 candidates (all but Booker), with the County Clerks (or a Special Master) having to re-draw for column positions (or line) 1 through 7 in the Nomination by Petition column. This is the case whether the County Clerk in their statutory discretion uses a vertical or horizontal Special General Election ballot format. 8. Aware that - notwithstanding the clear law - the 21 County Clerks would absent

    intervention knowingly and intentionally ignore the New Jersey Elections Laws and still give defendant Republican candidate Lonegan his own separate political party column on the Special General Election Ballot, and also then allow defendant Republican candidate Lonegan to participate in the N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 drawing (which all 6 other candidates including Plaintiff were excluded from) Plaintiff sent a formal letter on August 16, 2013 to defendant Lt. Governor / Secretary of State Guadagno, to defendant Acting Attorney General Hoffman, and to all 21 County Clerk defendants, demanding that they comply with N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 if there was to be an N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 drawing. 9. Plaintiff Eugene Martin LaVergne thereafter confirmed that each party to whom

    the letter was addressed actually received the August 16, 2013 letter before August 23, 2013. Plaintiff Eugene Martin LaVergne therefore exhausted any possible administrative remedies that might have been available to him to have these New Jersey State and County Election Officials comply with the law absent Court Intervention.

    - 32 -

    10.

    On August 23, 2013, despite the law (N.J.S.A. 19:5-1) and despite actual

    knowledge by each of the 21 respective County Clerks that they were violating the law (N.J.S.A. 19:5-1) by virtue of the fact that each of the 21 County Clerks had actually received the August 16, 2013 letter from candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne, each of the 21 County Clerks gave candidates Booker and Lonegan their own political party column in violation of law, and then held a N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 drawing between candidates Booker and Lonegan for column 1 and column 2 (or A & B) also in clear violation of law. For example, in Democratic controlled Essex County (where vertical format Ballots are being used), candidate Booker won Column 1 in the Clerks drawing, and in Republican controlled Burlington County (where horizontal format Ballots are being used), candidate Lonegan won Column 1. Under no circumstances is it legal for candidate Lonegan to appear in a separate party column, and under no circumstances is it legal for candidate Lonegan to appear in Column 1 by himself. 11. The reality is that the Clerks drawing conducted by the 21 County Clerks under

    the purported authority of N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 which statute clearly specifies a Clerks drawing that takes place 85 days before a General Election at 3:00 p.m. was nevertheless held 45 days before the Special General Election at 10:00 a.m., was held without any advance notice to any of the Candidates that such a Clerks drawing would even be taking place, and was held including Republican candidate Steven M. Lonegan who was clearly not entitled to participate, and was held after each of the 21 County Clerks had received the August 16, 2013 letter from candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne which they read and simply ignored.

    - 33 -

    12.

    After discovering that a Clerks drawing had already taken place, and only after

    candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne complained repeatedly to State Election Officials at the Division of Elections, suddenly a Chart that had been allegedly prepared on July 11, 2013 but never before posted suddenly appeared on the New Jersey Division of Elections Web Site, this being well after the events just described. This Chart, not certified and without attributed authorship, declares that a drawing for the two statutory political parties will take place by each of the 21 County Clerks 45 days before the Special General Election at 10:00 a.m. under the purported authority of N.J.S.A. 19:1412, which again states 85 days before an election at 3:00 p.m. When candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne asked State Election Officials upon what authority a Chart made by someone could lawfully re-write an existing mandatory State Election Law, there was no response. County Officials refused to provide copies of the results of the Clerks Drawings, and ultimately demands and requests under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act had to be filed to obtain this public information. 13. On September 13, 2013 candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne filed an emergent

    lawsuit against State and County Election Officials for violating State Election Laws and demanding that the Special General Election Ballots be reconfigured in accordance with existing and applicable New Jersey Election laws. That case was entitled LaVergne v. Lonegan, and was assigned Docket No. MER-L-1933-13. On September 16, 2013 the Court signed an Order to Show Cause, but despite the case being filed as an emergent election matter, the Court fixed the return date for October 3, 2013, which was approximately 3 weeks after the case was filed (rather than 10 days as is customary in such emergent election cases).

    - 34 -

    14.

    On the return date, the Court quickly (albeit 21 days after the action was filed)

    and without hesitation ruled in favor of candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne and ruled that the State and County Officials had indeed without excuse clearly violated New Jersey State Election Laws and placed the names of the candidates on the Special General Election Ballots illegally and in clear violation of existing Federal and State election laws. Based upon the finding of the State Court Judge, the affirmative actions and willful and intentional inactions of the 21 County Clerks or their assistants at issue in this case in knowingly and intentionally violating the mandatory requirements of N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 and N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 constitutes both a Criminal and Civil Federal and State Offenses. See 18 U.S.C. sec. 5958; 5 U.S.C. sec. 1502(a)(1)9; N.J.S.A. 19:34-4810 and N.J.S.A. 2C:30211; A separate complaint is also being filed with the Office of United States Special

    10

    11

    18 U.S.C. sec. 595 of the United States Criminal Code provides as follows: Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by any State or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof uses his official authority for purposes of interfering with, or affecting, the election of any candidate for the office of Member of the Senate shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (Emphasis added). 5 U.S.C. sec. 1502(a)(1) of the Hatch Act provides in relevant part as follows: (a) A State or local officer or employee may not (1) Use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office; Id. N.J.S.A. 19:34-48 provides as follows: Every person charged with the performance of any duty under the provisions of any law of this State relating to elections who willfully neglects or refuses to perform it, or who, in his official capacity, knowingly and fraudulently acts in contravention or violation of any of the provisions of such laws, shall be guilt of a crime of the third degree. N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 provides as follows: A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or deprive another of a benefit: (a) He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or

    - 35 -

    Counsel under 5 U.S.C. sec. 1504. The State and County Election Officials should be held accountable. 15. However, after the State Court made a finding that the State and County Election

    Officials had without excuse violated mandatory directives in State Election Laws, the Court turned to the question of remedy. The Attorney General and the County Election Officials stated as fact to the Court that it would take at least 14 days to reconfigure the DRE voting machines , and that there simply was no time to remedy the violation of State Election Laws. The Court ruled that since it was then October 3, 2013, and the Special General Election for United States Senate was October 16, 2013 13 days in the future that there could be no timely remedy Ordered by the Court, this being based upon the express representations from the Attorney General and the State and County Election Officials that it would take at least 14 days to reconfigure the DRE voting machines .

    Specification No. 4: The August 23, 2013 County Clerks Drawings that were held without the candidates knowledge were also conducted illegally by certain County Clerks with certain County Clerks cheating in the process12:

    (b) He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law as is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
    12

    This issue was specifically raised in detail to the trial court in LaVergne v. Lonegan, and the Trial Court simply refused to address or allow any further inquiry into these very serious factual allegations of criminal conduct on the part of certain New Jersey County Election Officials.

    - 36 -

    1.

    Almost 30 years ago the New Jersey Supreme Court in Mochary v. Caputo, 100

    N.J. 119 (1985) essentially took judicial notice of the advantages in ballot location on the General Election Ballot in a United States Senate Election. In an election for United States Senate in 1984, it was recognized that somehow the Democratic Party had managed to draw the first column at the top of the ballot (under the exact same process in N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 at issue here) 40 out of 41 years in a row over the Republican Party in Essex County, New Jersey. Essex County was and is a predominantly Democratic County, and the elected County Clerk was a Democrat. A lawsuit was brought by the Republican Party bringing an as applied [First Amendment] and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection challenge, where it was argued that for such an occurrence to be natural in nature and not the result of some tampering or fraud would have to overcome statistical odds - based upon simple math of in excess of 50 Billion to 1! 2. While no relief was granted in time for the United States Senate election and

    ballot placement in 1984, the New Jersey Supreme Court in a per curium opinion issued nine months after the election still addressed the merits of the claim. In so doing the Court stated in relevant part as follows: The issue in this appeal concerns the manner in which voters should be assured of absolute fairness in the choice of ballot positions for candidates of political parties. The controversy is moot because a general election including the candidates has already occurred. Nevertheless, we believe that the issues are recurrent and warrant consideration. * * * If the issues had arisen in a way that would have permitted the court to fashion a timely remedy, the results of this suit would undoubtedly have been different. (Emphasis added). [Mochary v. Caputo, 100 N.J. 119, 120-121 (1985)].

    - 37 -

    3.

    In the Mochary v. Caputo case, then (now retired) State Supreme Court Justice

    Robert Clifford was not so impassive to what had occurred (to that point) over a 41 year period of time in fixing and placing the position of candidates on the General Election Ballot in Essex County, New Jersey as were other members who made up the per curium opinion. Justice Clifford wrote a separate concurrence noting the following: * * * But despite the County Clerks apparent compliance with the statute in this instance, one can not help being struck by the marvel, the otherworldly coincidence, of any party winning the drawing forty out of forty-one times. That the record supports this numerical result is not open to question. Nor is it open to any doubt whatsoever that assuming a fair and random selection of one item out of a possibility of two, the odds of drawing line A forty times out of forty-one draws are about one in fifty billion. Get that? ONE in FIFTY BILLION! It understates the case to suggest that this extraordinary state of affairs should act as a challenge to anyone and everyone concerned with the preservation of voter confidence. The finger does not point to Mr. Caputo, who did not conduct all of the forty-one drawings himself it points at the system. And a system that produces the results noted above has to excite some skepticism about whether it is on the up-and-up. That kind of skepticism is a symptom of a diseased system, one that should no longer be tolerated. If such a system is not to be suffered henceforth, corrective measures must be imposed. [Mochary v. Caputo, supra., 100 N.J. at 128-129 (Clifford, J., concurring)]. 4. Once again, on August 23, 2013 when the County Clerk in Essex County (a

    Democratic controlled County) held the drawing for ballot position (illegally including defendant candidate Lonegan in the drawing for column 1 & 2 with Democrat Booker), surprise of all surprises, once again, the Democratic candidate won column 1. And when the County Clerk in Burlington County (a Republican controlled County) held the

    - 38 -

    drawing for ballot position (illegally including defendant candidate Lonegan in the drawing for column 1 & 2 with Democrat Booker) on August 23, 2013, surprise of all surprises, once again, the Republican candidate won column 1. So once again, the same statute at issue 30 years ago in a United States Senate Election in Mochary, N.J.S.A. 19:14-12, still today in a United States Senate Election has resulted in a very predictable and mathematically impossible result, in two Counties (it is essentially the same in all the other 19 Counties). 5. However, here and today, United States Senate Candidate Eugene Martin

    LaVergne knows something that Justice Clifford and the New Jersey Supreme Court did not know 30 years ago. He now knows how this trick is accomplished The Grammar School Magician Trick and the N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 Clerks Drawing: 6. The last part of N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 specifies the manner in which the County Clerk

    is required to draw lots. Specifically, slips of paper with the name of each statutory political party (since at least 1929 only Republican and Democrat) are put in plastic capsules, and then each plastic capsule is put into a box, the box is shaken, and the County Clerk then reaches into the box and picks a capsule, and then removes and tears opens the capsule. The name of the political party on the slip of paper removed from the now opened capsule first removed dictates which party receives the first column on the top left of the ballot, and the remaining party receives the second column from the top left (whether vertical or horizontal ballots). This so called fair process has fostered a level of guaranteed rigging of the ballot placement for a preferred party by the use of a simple third graders magic trick. This secret method is actually informally passed on from Clerk to Clerk in select Counties who retain long time single political party

    - 39 -

    control and is oddly, not even really a secret anymore but has in some counties evolved into something informally recognized as more of a political tradition than recognized as the flagrant and blatant criminal and civil violation of Federal and State Law that it is. 7. For example, as noted, Essex County is a so called long time Democratic

    stronghold, and long time Essex County Clerk Nicholas Caputo, an elected Democrat, or his assistant, has in 1984 miraculously pulled the capsule of the Democratic Party first each and every time except once almost 40 years in a row, thereby conferring by statute, the preferred position of the first column on the left to the Democratic Party, this being for almost 40 years in a row. That was 30 years ago. As noted, Math actuaries and statisticians wrote in the media and reported as witnesses in Court cases that this occurrence was literally a statistic impossibility not a statistic improbability, but a statistic impossibility. And yet it occurred, without explanation, for 40 years to that point, and now almost 70 years to date. 8. Point in fact, the actual explanation for how this statistic impossibility actually

    occurred is really quite simple, and candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne will now explain the process of how in certain Counties the Clerk or their designee cheat in the N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 candidate ballot location drawing. The capsules used by Democratic County Clerk Caputo were always made out of a plastic/gel composite, either of the sort used to hold medicine in pills (a 2 piece plastic pill casing), or of the sort slightly larger used to hold small toys in vending machines (also 2 pieces) often (or once often) found outside supermarkets alongside gumball machines. Indeed, this oddly is what the New Jersey Election Laws have specifically required since the mid 1940s. Democratic County Clerk Caputo or his assistant indeed always took two plastic capsules and put a piece of paper

    - 40 -

    with the name Republican and Democrat in each capsule. This is where the fairness stopped and a County Clerks ministerial action then became a Federal Crime and a Federal Civil Offense and an act of corruption by an elected public official. Caputo

    (or his assistant) would next then place the plastic capsules inside the box, and while doing so, would slightly squeeze and crush or crimp the plastic capsule with the word Democrat inside. Caputo (or his assistant) would then, as required by the statute, shake the box to mix up the two plastic capsules to give the illusion that the process was arbitrary and left to chance. This was indeed all part of a literal magic trick show conducted right in front of any witnesses who may have appeared. Usually there are no witnesses. Then, as required by statute, Caputo himself (or his assistant) would reach inside the box to pick one plastic capsule, and he (or his assistant) could quickly identify by touch the crushed or crimped plastic capsule of the Democrats, which would be the plastic capsule he (or his assistant) removed. As he (or his assistant) was removing the plastic capsule he (or his assistant) would simultaneously rip the plastic capsule in half to open it, and in so doing would damage the plastic capsule, which would immediately be throw away as he simultaneously pronounced the winner of the draw as the Democrats by showing the paper. Were one to bother to check the contents of the garbage can, indeed the plastic capsule would evidence damage, but damage thought to have initially occurred when breaking the plastic capsule open into two pieces. A variant on this procedure is where the capsule of the opposite party of the County Clerk would be crushed or crimped, and the smooth capsule (containing the name of the political party of the County Clerk performing the N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 drawing) would be felt for and

    - 41 -

    taken first. After this, the second crushed or crimped capsule would be taken out and broken apart as removed in one seamless motion, destroying the evidence of tampering. 9. As pointed out, once again, in Essex County (a Democratic County, home of now

    deceased County Clerk Caputo, still with a Democratic County Clerk), as is and has become political tradition, Democratic candidate Corey Booker won the N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 drawing, and defendant candidate Lonegan was then - illegally - placed in his own party column and given column 2 (or B). Conversely, in Burlington County (a Republican controlled County with a Republican County Clerk) as is and has become political tradition, Republican candidate defendant Lonegan who is prohibited by law from participating in the N.J.S.A. 19:14-12 drawing at all was allowed to participate nonetheless, and defendant candidate Lonegan actually won the drawing and was illegally placed in his own party column and given column 1 (or A). There is simply no scenario where the Burlington County Special General Election Ballots are legal: The Ballots all clearly violate the mandatory terms of N.J.S.A. 19:5-1. 10. Perhaps not all of the 21 County Clerks have actually intentionally committed Perhaps some of the 21 County Clerks are just

    Federal Criminal and Civil acts.

    incompetent in their failing to follow the law when configuring of the Special General Election Ballots. However, in light of the August 16, 2013 letter from candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne sent to each of them, and in light of past litigation with these same parties on the specific legal questions at issue, the sad fact is that it is unlikely that the culpability of all 21 County Clerks will in the end be found to be limited simply to utter incompetence but rather, after a full review to at least in come cases - be the product of

    - 42 -

    a flagrant and contemptuous disregard for the very Election Laws these public officials have sworn to abide by. 11. Thirty years ago, after the New Jersey Supreme Court issued the opinion in

    Mochary, the opinion was hailed as perhaps the beginning of the end of discriminatory ballot placement of candidates on the General Election Ballots in New Jersey. See Court in New Jersey Upholds Equal Odds for All, by Joseph Sullivan (July 23, 1985) in New York Times Newspaper, abstract at www.nytimes.com/1985/07/23/nyregion/court-injersey-upholds-equal-odds-for-all.html .

    Yet, 30 years later nothing has really changed.

    12.

    Just last year in 2012 it was revealed (really no surprise to anyone actually

    paying attention) that the Monmouth County Clerk an elected office held exclusively by a Republican since the mid 1970s had drawn Column 1 for the Republican Party 30 out of 33 times over the last 33 years, a mathematical statistic that to be legitimate and to occur in nature without tampering would require somehow overcoming odds of more than 1 in 1.5 Million. Theoretically possible? Maybe? Probable? NEVER. See Are Monmouth County Republicans Cheating?, by Kathleen Hopkins (October 7, 2012) in the Asbury Park Press Newspaper, abstract at

    www.app.com/article/20121007/NJNEWS/31007004/Monmouth-County-ballots .

    To quote New

    Jersey Justice Clifford from his concurrence 30 years ago: a system that produces the results noted above has to excite some skepticism about whether it is on the up-andup. That kind of skepticism is a symptom of a diseased system, one that should no longer be tolerated. If such a system if not to be suffered henceforth, corrective measures must be imposed. [Mochary v. Caputo, supra., 100 N.J. at 128-129 (Clifford, J., concurring)].

    - 43 -

    Against this 70 year background of what is clearly a diseased system for holding and administering elections, it is submitted that now with 30 more years of experience with impropriety after Mochary, the Senate must not countenance an election process for a United States Senator that is accurately described as a diseased system of election. 13. Moreover, the County Clerks that did in fact cheat as outlined herein did much

    more than merely cheat in a Federal Election: This conduct is criminal as a violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 595; 5 U.S.C. sec. 1502(a)(1); N.J.S.A. 19:34-48 and N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2. Specification No. 5: The New Jersey Election Officials are caught in a lie to the State Court about the time frame required to provide a meaningful remedy for the violation of Election Laws: 1. On the evening of October 3, 2013, several hours after the State Court had finally

    made a decision in LaVergne v. Lonegan and specifically ruled in favor or candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne, but then did not provide any remedy for the violation of Election Laws based upon a representation from the Attorney General and the State and County Election Officials that it would take at least 14 days to reconfigure the DRE voting machines , with the Court ruling that with such a time frame there simply was no time to remedy the violation of State Election Laws13, candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne discovered that the Attorney General and the State and County Election Officials had misrepresented to the Court and to him the true time frame at issue. 2. Specifically, candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne discovered that literally the very

    same Attorney General who had argued to the Court the afternoon of October 3, 2013
    This being the very same State Court Judge that for no particular reason took 3 weeks to finally hear an emergent election matter, when emergent matters are routinely heard in less than 10 days.
    13

    - 44 -

    that it would take at least 14 days to reconfigure the DRE voting machines , had on June 18, 2013 submitted a certification of facts to the New Jersey Supreme Court on the identical issue through a Mr. Giles, head of the Division of Elections, certifying that it would take 48 hours 2 days NOT 2 weeks to reconfigure every DRE voting machine in the State. 3. Candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne immediately moved for emergent

    reconsideration with this new evidence which motion was filed on October 4, 2013. On October 8, 2013 this emergent motion for reconsideration was heard, and for reasons that are not clear, the Court noted that perhaps there was still time, but nevertheless the Court declined to grant a remedy, allowing the election to go forward with illegally configured ballots. The entirety of the oral argument on the motion for reconsideration can be found on www.youtube.com .

    Specification No. 6: Candidates Eugene Martin LaVergne and Stuart David Meissner are denied a timely remedy for Equal Time Violations by ABC and NBC Television Networks because of the Federal Communications Commission closure due to the Federal Government Shut Down: 1. On August 29, 2013 it was announced that on October 4, 2013 the ABC

    Broadcast Television Network would hosted a Televised candidates debate that was only going to include Democratic candidate Booker and Republican candidate Lonegan, and it was also announced that on October 9, 2013 the NBC Broadcast Television Network would host a Televised candidates debate that was only going to include Democratic candidate Booker and Republican candidate Lonegan.

    - 45 -

    2.

    On September 25, 2013, after demanding and being denied equal time under 47

    U.S.C. sec. 315, candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne filed an emergent Complaint with the Political Unit of the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC). Candidate Eugene Martin LaVergne also filed an emergent Petition for Review directly with the Commissioners of the entitled: In the Matter of: Emergent Petition of Eugene Martin LaVergne, Democratic-Republican for United States Senate from New Jersey at the October 16, 2013 Special General Election, for emergent and expedited clarification of actual scope the Federal Communication Communications 1983 announced expanded interpretation of the 47 U.S.C. sec. 315(a)(4) exemption regarding political candidate debates as announced in Matter of Petitions of Henry Geller and the National Association of Broadcasters and the Radio-Television News Directors Association to Change Commission Interpretation of Certain Subsections of the Communications Act, 48 Federal Register 53166-03, 95 F.C.C. 2d 1236, summarily affirmed without opinion sub nom League of Women Voters v. Federal Communications Commission, 731 F.2d 995 (D.C. Cir. 1984). 3. Candidate Stuart David Meissner also similarly demanded Equal Time and filed

    applications with the FCC. 4. The FCC closed because of the Government Shut Down and as such could not

    Order that Equal Time be provided to both candidates Eugene Martin LaVergne and Stuart David Meissner. Under applicable law as applied to the facts of this Broadcast Network Sponsored Debate, it is clear that the FCC was required to order Equal Time and that but for the government shut down there would have been Equal Time provided. 5. The Broadcast Networks ABC and NBC have violated federal law, specifically 47

    U.S.C. sec. 315, which has affected the United States Senate Election at issue and, because of the Federal Government shut down, the candidates are once again left with yet another clear violation of election law without a meaningful and timely remedy.

    - 46 -

    Conclusion: Against the factual background of this Special General Election for United States Senate, considered in consort with each Specification as outlined herein taken individually, and the cumulative effect of all Specifications taken together, operate to render the entire elective process of the October 16, 2013 Special General Election for United States Senate in New Jersey at issue in violation of the United States Constitutions Elections Clause and [Seventeenth Amendment] specifically, and the other Federal and New Jersey State Constitutional provisions and Federal and New Jersey State Laws outlined herein generally. Therefore, no matter what the result of the October 16, 2013 Special General Election as may be declared by New Jersey State Election Officials, such result will not be the product of a fair and Constitutional and otherwise lawful Federal election process. It is submitted and requested by the undersigned that any result declared by State Election Officials should therefore be declared by the United States Senate to be void and a nullity as a matter of fact and law. Moreover since a New Jersey State Court Judge has already ruled on record that, as a matter of historical fact and law, the State and County Election Officials in New Jersey at issue have clearly and without question violated applicable New Jersey State Election Laws in this Special General Election, that there should no longer be found to exist any legal, factual, equitable, or political presumption that the New Jersey State and County Election Officials acted properly and in accordance with the Constitution and Laws, and rather the presumption is that such State and County Election Officials have not acted properly and in accordance with the Constitution and Laws in the administration of the October 16,

    - 47 -

    2013 Special General Election. Therefore, there is a legal, factual, equitable, or political presumption that any result reached at the October 16, 2013 Special General Election will be unlawful. As this is the case, it is therefore further submitted by the undersigned Petitioners that the unquestionably lawfully appointed United States Senator from New Jersey Jeffrey S. Chiesa should remain seated without prejudice until such time as the factual and legal claims now brought forward in this United States Senate Election Challenge Petition are duly investigated and decided on the merits by a majority vote of the full United States Senate.

    - 48 -

    - 49 -

    - 50 -

    - 51 -

    - 52 -

    - 53 -

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi