Sloan's Appeal Brief

[Sam Sloan]

Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) 21
Rios vs Schlein, 16-cv-6448-KMW 21
Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 NY 2d 94 21
Sailors et al vs. Board of Education of Kent et al, 387 US 105 (1967) 18, 21
SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). 24

The 11th Amendment States:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
This court dismissed this case on the ground of the 11th Amendment. Nobody can understand this. Perhaps this was a typo. This plainly does not apply to this case because Samuel H. Sloan, the plaintiff, is a citizen and resident of New York State and the New York City and New York State Boards of Elections are agencies of New York City and State.
This court cites Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 149 (2d Cir. 2004)
Citing the Feingold case is wholly inappropriate. Feingold was a traffic court judge for the Division of Motor Vehicles. His suit was in part a claim of religious discrimination in that he was Jewish and his supervisors at the Division of Motor Vehicles were Black and Christian.
There is a lot of confusion in this decision as to what parts of the case had been voluntarily dismissed and what parts were still before the courts.
However, it should be sufficient to state that the Feingold case was a garden variety case alleging religious and sexual discrimination in that Feingold was a gay, Jewish, Man and his supervisors were either heterosexual, Black, Christian or Women.
However, in the instant case plaintiff does not allege any of this sort of religious or sexual discrimination.
Rather, this case is a voting rights case. This case alleges that virtually ALL of the elections that take place in both New York City and New York State are rigged in that an insider group controls which candidates are allowed run and to appear on the ballot. The system if you can even call it a system is that elections in New York State are similar to the elections now going on in Iran where the top Mullahs decide who is allowed to run. If the Mullahs approve your candidacy, you can run. Otherwise not.
However, in Iran, at least there is a real election. Here in New York State there is almost never an election. It almost always happens that the Board of Elections approves only one candidate. All of the other candidates get knocked off the ballot. Write in votes are not allowed either. When there is only one candidate who qualifies, no election is held and the board of elections saves the trouble and expense of hiring poll workers.
This court makes a factual error when it states: “More specifically, because Sloan claims that he was a Democrat and then a Republican, and thus was not a member of any of the independent and minority parties who lack representation on the elections boards,”
However, Sloan also ran as a Libertarian which means that he ran as a Blank because the Libertarian Party is not recognized by New York State as the Libertarians have never gotten 50,000 votes for Governor. See “Sam Sloan, A Candidate For The Libertarian Party's Presidential Nomination, Shares His Views Regarding Bob Barr, Warren Redlich & The Libertarian Love Affair With Gary Johnson”
http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2012/03/sam-sloan-candidate-for-libertarian.html
Yonkers Tribune, “Albany, NY — The Libertarian Party today nominated Warren Redlich as its candidate for Governor of New York. Redlich was chosen over Sam Sloan of New York City by a margin of 27 to 17 in a vote at the LP state convention. Kristin Davis (the Manhattan Madam) had previously expressed interest. She did not attend the convention and her name was not placed in nomination.” http://www.yonkerstribune.com/2010/04/libertarian-party-nominates-warren-redlich-for-governor-new-york
Regarding poll workers, only registered Democrats and Republicans are eligible for jobs working for the Board of Elections either at the polls or in the office. As the complaint alleges, in one of these elections Plaintiff had been hired as a Republican poll worker in Brooklyn. On election day, a district leader named Belida Landros came to the polling place and saw Sam Sloan working there. She immediately went to the supervisor on duty and demanded that Sloan be fired and dismissed. The supervisor said she could not do that because Sloan was the only poll worker there who could speak Spanish and the district was in a predominantly Spanish speaking area. (Sloan lived for a time in Central America and thus can speak Spanish fairly well.) Finally, after some arguments, Sloan was allowed to work until the polls closed that day and was paid for his work, but after that Belinda Landros put Sloan on a black list of persons not allowed to be a Republican Party poll worker. Sloan remained on that black list for years even after he moved to the Bronx several years later.
These kind of things happen all the time with the Board of Elections. Not only do they rig and manipulate who is allowed to run but they rig the poll workers and decide who is allowed to count the votes.
So in short the entire election process is rigged and notoriously so. It has been rigged going back to the days of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. The names of the characters and players have changed but the system has remained the same. Bronx County is one of the counties subject to the jurisdiction of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
This court shows no knowledge at all of the actual realities of elections in New York State. The various state and county boards of elections do not follow any fixed and regular rules. Last year there were two identical cases involving cover sheets, one in the First Department in Manhattan. The other in the Second Department in Brooklyn. On exactly the same issue, one department ruled one way, the other ruled the other way. One ruled technical defects in the cover sheets are to be ignored. The other ruled technical rules governing cover sheets are to be adhered to strictly. This left the New York City Board of Elections to decide which ruling to follow in the future.
One of the spectators at the Oral Argument of this appeal was Jerry H. Goldfeder, author of Goldfeder's Modern Election Law, a book that plaintiff has studied in detail. This book cites more than two hundred cases where decisions by the New York State, City and County Board of elections have been overturned by the various appellate divisions and candidates have been knocked off the ballot or put on the ballot.
In short, there are no regular rules. The various boards of elections and the various judges just do what ever they feel like.
The unfortunate consequence of this courts decision is it wipes out a bunch of similar cases now pending in the district courts. One of these is Rios vs Schlein, 16-cv-6448-KMW now pending before former Playboy Bunny Judge Kimba Wood. The allegations in that complaint are substantially the same as the allegations in the instant case, especially where it alleges that on the petitions the names and addresses of some candidates were taped over and the names of other candidates were put on top of the tape. This was obviously illegal but this practice has apparently been followed for years. The defendants keep getting away with this crime so why stop.
This court also cites 10 Ellicott Square Court Corp. v. Mountain Valley Indem. Co., 634 F.3d 112, 125 (2d Cir. 2011) saying under that Sloan lacks standing. This again is a ridiculous citation. The Ellicott Square Court case was a diversity case where the plaintiff had suffered injuries and was claiming compensation under an umbrella policy. This was not related in even the slightest way to the case before this court. One must conclude that this court believes that the pro se plaintiff lacks the capability to look up these cases and find out what they are about.
Plaintiff is required to point out that although he is not a lawyer he has argued orally and won a case before the United States Supreme Court and is the only and last non-lawyer ever to do so. After that, the US Supreme Court changed their rules to prohibit non-lawyers from doing this. See SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). https://www.yahoo.com/news/only-lawyers-now-argue-supreme-court-083024863.html
“Only lawyers now can argue before Supreme Court” “New York resident Samuel H. Sloan, now 68, was the last non-lawyer to do it when he represented himself in 1978 in a lawsuit involving stock trading. Sloan says he interviewed several lawyers who volunteered to represent him for free, just for the prestige of appearing before the court, but he decided to handle the job himself. "It wasn't on an ego thing or anything like that," he said recently. "I wanted to win the case. I was convinced I couldn't win the case in any other way but to argue my own case. He won 9-0.”
Plaintiff resides in the Bronx and has run for election in the Bronx. The New York State Board of Elections website shows the following number of voters in the Bronx at
https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/enrollment/county/county_apr17.pdf
Democrat = 617,119 or 77.5%
Republican = 47,112 or 05.9%
Conservative = 3,277 or 00.4%
Green = 826 or 00.1%
Working Families = 3,133 or 00.3%
Independence = 15,271 or 01.9%
Woman's Equality Party = 334 or 00.04%
Blank = 108,192 or 13.6%
Total = 795,402
As anybody can see, the whole thing is ridiculous. The Republicans have only 5.9 % of the registered voters yet they get five seats on the New York City Board of Elections, one for each borough of New York City. Plus the Republicans have never won an election in the Bronx of any kind at all in more than 50 years.
The Blanks have nearly three times as many voters as the Republicans yet they have no representation at all on the Board of Elections.
The Republicans also get 50% of the jobs. There is no Civil Service. In order to get a job with the Board of Elections either as a office worker or as a poll worker, one much be a registered Democrat or a Republican, plus pay homage to the District Leader who decides who gets the jobs.
This case arose after a series of elections over a period of several years for various public offices in which Plaintiff was a candidate. Plaintiff contends that in each of these elections, the state and city boards of elections favored the insider candidates causing the insider candidates including the incumbents to have their names placed on the ballots even though their documents including their petitions were defective and also causing the outsider candidates those not favored by the board to be tossed off the ballot even though their petitions were entirely correct and had nothing wrong with them.
Thus, the complaint alleges a systematic rigging of the elections by the boards of elections over a period of many years.
The result has usually been that only one candidate, the insider candidate, was left on the ballot and as a result no election was held. This is not new. It has been going on for years since Tammany Hall. Articles in the New York Times, the New York Post and the New York Daily News have often appeared complaining about this.
There has been no change. The system is still rigged. Outsiders have almost no real chance.
Plaintiff was currently a candidate for President of the United States and for United States Congress from the 13th Congressional District of New York.
Meanwhile, the state officials elected by these fraudulent means have often been arrested by the FBI for more crimes committed after they were elected. Essentially, the complaint alleges that the elections were rigged, the state officials were elected by fraudulent means and once elected they committed even more crimes and are now sitting in jail or have not yet been caught and convicted.
More than 30 New York State elected officials have been charged or prosecuted for crimes during just the past few years and still more are currently under investigation.
Plaintiff alleges that this keeps happening because the entire system of electing state officials is unconstitutional for several reasons, one of them being that only the Republican and Democratic Party Bosses appoint the Commissioners of Election. The voters have no say in choosing the commissioners. Also, the minority party members and the independent voters have no say-so in choosing the commissioners. Thus, the Democratic Party Commissioners get to decide which Democratic Party members get their names on the ballot and Republican Party Commissioners get to decide which Republican Party members get their names on the ballot.
This particular case arose after an exceptionally egregious instance of election rigging. This year, there was an election for candidates for Civil Court Judge and for Judicial Delegates who nominate the State Supreme Court judges. This year there were two slates with 12 candidates on each slate. There was the outsider slate (The Good Guys) led by Richard Soto and the insider slate (The Bad Guys) led by Stanley Schlein.
As usual, the Bad Guys won by the most egregious and fraudulent means.
The Bad Guys representing the County Committee submitted petitions in which the names of some of the candidates and their addresses had been changed. The names and addresses of some of the original candidates on the petitions had been taped over with clear plastic nearly invisible tape and on the tape were the names and addresses of different candidates.
This was obviously an illegal tampering with the petitions. The petitions were obviously void and should without question have been thrown out. This was so carefully done that it was hard to see but on close inspection it was definitely there.
The opponents (The Good Guys) objected. When the objection was heard before the full board of elections, Steve Richman, the corrupt General Counsel for the Board of Elections, made a long speech defending the Bad Guys petitions in which he stated among other things “this is essentially an allegation of fraud and the board will not normally rule on an allegation of fraud” and these candidates should go on the ballot.
At the same time, the actual Bad Guys petitions were not produced before the board. Instead, a different batch of petitions were switched and substituted. Thus, the Board of Elections never got to see the petitions to which the Good Guys objection had been made.
Here, the District court below was in error. The decision below states, “Here, Plaintiff unsuccessfully brought actions in New York state court challenging his exclusion from ballots in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 primary elections.”