Petition to Reinstate Opportunity to Ballot in Conservative Party




Index No.








Samuel H. Sloan, the petitioner herein, being duly sworn, states:

1. This is a proceeding to reinstate an Opportunity to Ballot petition for United States Congress, Tenth Congressional District, in the Conservative Party for the Primary Election to be held on September 14, 2004. The Opportunity to Ballot petition was filed some time in July. On August 10, 2004, the New York City Board of Elections heard objections to the petition by Gerard "Jerry" Kassar, who is the Chairman of the Kings County Conservative Party. Upon hearing the objections of Mr. Kassar, the New York City Board of Elections voted and removed the opportunity to ballot from the ballot for September 14, 2004.

2. This proceeding is brought under Election Law Sections 16-100 and 16-102.

3. I was not the petitioner in the Opportunity to Ballot Petition. I do not know much about it. Since I was not the petitioner, I did not receive notice of the hearing. However, by coincidence, I happened to be present when the hearing took place. The reason for this was that on the same day, August 10, 2004, I was attending two hearings on my own designating petitions in Kings County Supreme Court against the Republican Party and against the Independence Party. Those hearings were adjourned because of a meeting taking place in the New York City Board of Elections. Since my own petitions were affected, I went along with everybody else to attend the Board of Elections meeting.

4. At the meeting of the New York City Board of Elections on August 10, 2004, I observed Mr. Gerard Kassar stand up before the Board, take the microphone and object vehemently to the Opportunity to Ballot Petition. Mr. Kassar introduced an attorney he had brought along. However, the attorney did not speak. Nobody else appeared or spoke.

5. I was not paying close attention, especially since I had brought my baby along, who was running around behind the Commissioners. I did not say anything and probably would not have been allowed to say anything even if I had wanted to.

6. Since then, however, I have lost all of my appeals and I have been denied leave to appeal by the New York Court of Appeals, so the only chance left for me to get on the ballot is through an Opportunity to Ballot Petition.

7. On August 10, 2004, prior to knocking off the Opportunity to Ballot Petition for the Conservative Party, the Board of Elections voted and ruled that this Opportunity to Ballot would be by paper ballot, since there are only 836 registered members of the Conservative Party in the Tenth Congressional District, which is only slightly more than one per election district.

8. I am a candidate (or at least trying to be a candidate) for election to the United States Congress from the Tenth Congressional District. The incumbent is Edolphus Towns. I am a duly qualified voter residing at 920 Belmont Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11208, which is within the Tenth Congressional District.

9. In researching case law pertaining to my own petitions, I happened to find a significant body of case law pertaining to Opportunity to Ballot Petitions. This case law establishes that the Chairman of a County Committee of a Party is not allowed to object to an Opportunity to Ballot Petition. Therefore, Mr. Gerard Kassar acted improperly in objecting to the Opportunity to Ballot Petition and the Board of Elections acted improperly in allowing Mr. Kassar to stand up, take the microphone and speak at great length against the petition. Mr. Kassar spoke vehemently for about 15 minutes against the Opportunity to Ballot and nobody else spoke.

10. Mr. Kassar poisoned the atmosphere by speaking against the petition when by law he was not allowed to speak at all. In addition, Mr. Kassar improperly and perhaps illegally used the resources and the funds of the Conservative Party to defeat the petition, by bringing in a paid attorney who was paid with party funds to challenge the petition. It is an unfair and unequal struggle between the Chairman of a Party who wants to keep the party under his personal control and has the partyfs funds to do it as opposed to the voters who signed the petition and want nothing more than the right to vote, a right which will be denied them if this opportunity to ballot petition is defeated. This is obviously the reason why the law does not permit the Chairman of ANY Political Party to Challenge an Opportunity to Ballot Petition.

11. For these reasons, the Opportunity to Ballot Petition must be reinstated.

12. When I realized all this, I contacted Steven H. Richman, Counsel for the New York City Board of Elections, and asked to be heard on this matter at the BOE meeting scheduled for August 31, 2004. Mr. Richman replied that the meeting for that date would not be held, because the Republican National Convention was taking place at the same time. I then asked Mr. Richman to schedule me to be heard at the meeting on September 7, 2004 (yesterday). Mr. Richman denied that request. I then informed Mr. Richman by e-mail that I would appear before the Commissioners on September 7, 2004 anyway and try to make my case.

13. I appeared at the meeting of the Board of Elections on September 7, 2004. Initially, the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Nero Graham, agreed to let me speak. However, Mr. Richman objected. Commissioner Douglas A. Kellner ruled in favor of Mr. Richman and therefore I was not allowed to speak.

14. After the formal conclusion of the meeting, Commissioner Terrence C. O'Connor agreed to hear me. (I suspect that Commissioner OfConnor did this because he is trying to get me indicted for something, as Commissioner OfConnor is always trying to get somebody indicted for something, but I am not complaining because at least he let me speak and agreed to hear me.)

15. Mr. Richman opposed my contention that Gerard Kassar was barred from objecting to the Opportunity to Ballot Petition, on the ground that Mr. Kassar was appearing in his capacity of the contact person for the actual objector, a Mr. Johnson, a person unknown to me who did not appear, and not in his capacity of Chairman of a Party. I contended that similar arguments have been rejected by the courts including in a case just decided two weeks ago in the Fourth Department. Mr. Richman, who was familiar with that case, said that that case was different.

16. Mr. Richman said that the fact that the attorney (whose name I have never learned) did not speak was immaterial, as the only thing that matters was that he signed the sign-up sheet.

17. I contended that the real objector was Mr. Kassar. This Mr. Johnson, who did not appear and whom I have never seen and know nothing about, was just a front, a straw man, a facade or whatever for the real objector, Mr. Kassar.

18. At the conclusion of this heated although brief debate, Commissioner OfConnor Ruled: "You should file in court, and if youfre right, youfll win."

19. To this, I replied to Mr. Richman, "Ifll see you tomorrow".

20. So here I am.

21. I am attempting to avoid the possibility of failing to name a necessary party by naming Marianna Blume as a respondent. She was not involved in this proceeding. However, her rights may be affected since she is the Conservative Party candidate for Congress from the Tenth Congressional District. I have since found out that she does not reside in the Tenth Congressional District. She resides in Park Slope in the Eleventh Congressional District. She has committed an election fraud because she is the Republican Party District Leader of the 58th Assembly District, but she does not reside in that district. She resides in the 44th Assembly District at 1661 11th Avenue, Apt. D7, Brooklyn NY 11215. District Leaders are required to reside in the district they represent.

22. I have named as a respondent Ernest Johnson, because Mr. Richman told me that he is the objector. However, I know nothing about him. I have never seen his objection or the paperwork on this matter. I do not know where Mr. Johnson lives nor how to find or contact him. I do not even know if he exists. He is not entitled to notice anyway because, according to Mr. Richman, Mr. Kassar is his contact person.

23. I have named as a respondent Diane Haslett-Rudiano, because her name came up and because she declared War on me on May 13, 2004 and has ever since been doing everything in her power both as Vice-Chairman and Secretary of the Kings County Republican Party and as Chief Clerk of the Kings County Board of Elections to stop me from getting on the ballot. I make no secret of the fact that I have complained about her to the Department of Investigations, because she is registered to vote and has voted from a fraudulent address, which is 258 Schenck Avenue. She has never resided at that address. She has committed another fraud in that she is the District Leader for District 54 but 258 Schenck Avenue is located in District 55. District Leaders are required to reside in the district they represent. I have filed four lawsuits against Diane Haslett-Rudiano because of this War she has declared on me. She should disqualify herself from involvement my cases but has not done so.

24. I know Mr. Jerry Kassar because at a meeting on May 5, 2004, leaders of the King's County Republican Party recommended that I seek the nominations of the Conservative Party and the Independence Party and they handed me a flyer giving me the telephone numbers to the relevant persons in those parties. I contacted and appeared before the screening committee of the Conservative Party on May 6, 2004. I was then told by Jerry Kassar, Chairman of the King's County Conservative Party, that they would probably follow the Republican Party lead. Later, Jerry Kassar informed me that I was rejected as a Conservative Party candidate because I had been rejected by the Republican Party because, according to Mr. Kassar, the Republican Party did not like my website. The telephone numbers of Mr. Kassar are 718-748-9010, 718-921-2158, 917-834-6118 (Cell Phone) and 518-356-7882. His email address is and . His office address is Brooklyn Conservative Party, 486 78th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11209.


26. It is completely clear that the law specifically prohibits the Chairman of a Party Committee, any party, even a different party, from objecting to a petition when that objection would result in a primary election being cancelled.

27. Election Law Section 16-102 states:

S 16-102. Proceedings as to designations and nominations, primary elections, etc. 1. The nomination or designation of any candidate for any public office or party position or any independent nomination, or the holding of an uncontested primary election, by reason of a petition for an opportunity to ballot having been filed, or the election of any person to any party position may be contested in a proceeding instituted in the supreme court by any aggrieved candidate, or by the chairman of any party committee or by a person who shall have filed objections, as provided in this chapter, except that the chairman of a party committee may not bring a proceeding with respect to a designation or the holding of an otherwise uncontested primary.

28. The operative words in the above paragraph are: "except that the chairman of a party committee may not bring a proceeding with respect to a designation or the holding of an otherwise uncontested primary."

29. In Soda v. Dahlke, decided August 18, 2004, , the Appellate Division - Fourth Department ruled that the Chairman of the Democratic Party could not object to a petition with respect to a candidate in the Independence Party.

30. In each of my cases, the objector was not an opposing candidate, but rather the Chairman of the party and Party Counsel. In the case presented here, the nominal objector did not appear. The General Counsel to the Kings County Conservative Party appeared. Who paid the fees of this attorney? Did the nominal objector pay? I doubt it, since the nominal objector did not come to the hearing. If the Conservative Party paid, this may constitute a criminal offense of misuse of party funds.

31. The nominal objector is just a front. He is not a candidate and has no reason to object. However, the Chairman wants to keep control of his party by making sure that only the persons he designates gets on the ballot and no primary election is held. It is precisely because the Chairman of a Party would want to keep the party under his personal control to the exclusion of the voters and the other members of his party that New York State Election Law prohibits the Chairman of any Party Committee from objecting to a Petition, if the result is that there is no primary election. The relevant case law is: Davis v. Dutchess County Board of Elections 153 AD 2d 716, 544 NYS 2d 683 (1989 2d Dept.), Matter of Crawley v Board of Elections of County of Rensselaer, 218 AD2d 914, 915, lv denied 86 NY2d 704; Matter of Maltese v Anderson, 264 AD2d 457; Matter of Grogan v Conservative Party of N.Y. State, 77 AD2d 736, 736-737), Soda v. Dahlke, decided August 18, 2004, In short, this Mr. Johnson, is obviously a frontman. The actual objector is the Party Chairman. The Party Chairman and his counsel have committed a fraud on the other members of his party, on the Board of Elections and ultimately on the voters by putting up this front person to play the role of objector, when the Chairman, who is barred from this activity, is the real objector.

32. No prior application has been made for the relief requested herein.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner demands:

1. An Order reinstating the Opportunity to Ballot Petition in the Tenth Congressional District for the Conservative Party for the Primary Election of September 14, 2004.

2. An order enjoining and restraining the said Board of Elections in the City of New York from printing, issuing or distributing for use during said Primary Election in the Tenth Congressional District any official ballot of the Conservative Party which does not contain a space for a write-in vote.

3. Such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.

Samuel H. Sloan

Sworn to Before me this 8th
Day of September 2004


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

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

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

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

What is your opinion of this? Express Your Opinion in the Guestbook.

Here is what I have filed thus far:

Here are other candidates for election:
My Home Page

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