UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________

Samuel H. Sloan, 15 CV 6963

Plaintiff,

Affidavit in Opposition
to Motions to Dismiss
-against-

Michael Michel, Jose Miguel Araujo, Ronald Castorina Jr., John Flateau, Maria R. Guastella, Michael A. Rendino, Alan Schulkin, Simon Shamoun, Gregory C. Soumas, Michael J. Ryan, Bianka Perez, Steven Howard Richman, Jerry H. Goldfeder, Stanley Kalmon
Schlein, Venancio Benny Catala, Daniel Szalkiewicz, Stephen Edward Kitzinger, Douglas Arthur Kellner, Kimberly Galvin, Kathleen O'Keefe, Board of Elections in the City of New York, New York State Board of Elections,

Defendants
_________________________________________

Affidavit in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss
_________________________________________

The plaintiff Samuel H. Sloan being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am the plaintiff in the above entitled action. I make this affidavit in opposition to the various motions to dismiss filed by or on behalf of the defendants.
2. In summary I will easily prove that several of the defendants including especially Steve Richman, Kathleen O'Keefe, Stanley Kalmon Schlein, Daniel Szalkiewicz, and to an lesser extent Stephen Edward Kitzinger have committed major felony crimes
including violations of election law by submitting false, fraudulent and altered documents to the boards of elections and to the courts so as to get the candidates they favor elected unopposed and the candidates they oppose thrown off the ballot. If
these defendants are jailed they will at least be back with their friends, the many New York City and State elected officials who are already in jail serving time or are awaiting sentencing for state and federal crimes pertaining to elections.
3. I present as Exhibit A the first 15 pages of one of the many petitions filed by Stanley Kalmon Schlein for candidates in the recent election. I need to explain that I spent months trying to get copies of these petitions. The Board of Elections in
the Bronx refused to let me see much less copy these petitions. This came up at the last hearing before this court by which time I had made a Freedom of Information Law or FOIL request. I finally got to see and copy these petitions one week ago. However,
as there are at least 100 petition sheets for each of the 12 districts, it was not feasible to copy all 1200 pages so I just copied the first 15 pages which are a representative sample. Also, the original petitions are on oversized green colored 8.5 x 18
inches paper and the copy machine used by the Board of Elections is only 8.5 x 14 and my scanner is only 8.5 x 11, so the copies I am submitting as exhibits has seven inches cut off the top. Thus it will be difficult to see the point I am making but if I
am allowed to produce these actual petitions in court using the subpoena power I will be able easily to show how and why these documents are fraudulent and have been tampered with.
4. I believe that the reason Stanley Kalmon Schlein uses oversized specially made 8.5 x 18 paper for his petitions is because no copy machine can copy paper that large and no scanner can scan paper that large so this is one of the dirty tricks
Stanley Schlein uses to prevent objections being made to knock his candidates off the ballot. He also uses a remote hard to find address in the Bronx as his supposed residence for service.
5. If you will look at page two of Exhibit A (page one being just a cover sheet) you will see near the top the scanned page the name of Ruby Stephens, address 1210 Boynton Avenue, Bronx NY 10472. However, if you look carefully you will see a
slightly different tint in the background behind both the name and the address of Ruby Stephens. From this copy, you will not be able to see the reason for this change in tint but when and if I am allowed to subpoena these documents and have them
produced in court and if you are able to feel the document, you will be able to see and feel that a sticker has been placed on the document and the original name on the document which was the name of some other candidate was covered up by this sticker
and the name and address of Ruby Stephens was placed over the name, what ever name it was, of the original candidate.
6. So obviously this petition sheet is invalid because any kind of altering of a petition by whiteout, by or stickers or by any other means invalidates the entire sheet just as if you put whiteout or a sticker on a bank check invalidates the entire
check. Thus it is not only the name of Ruby Stephens that is invalidated by this sticker but the signatures for all of the names on this petition page are invalidated.
7. It is not only this one name on this one petition sheet that is invalidated but on all or almost all of the more than 100 sheets in each of the 12 districts filed by Stanley Kalmon Schlein these kind of stickers are on them. If you will look
carefully at every page of the 15 pages I am submitting as Exhibit A you will see they all contain these type stickers. These are just typical examples of the approximately 1200 pages that contain these stickers which are so clear and carefully placed as
to be nearly invisible. Since all of the candidates submitted by Stanley Kalmon Schlein had these type of stickers on their petitions and since these candidates were all candidates for judge or judicial delegate, this means that every one of the new
judges who took ten year terms of office in the Bronx just this new year got into office by means of fraudulently tampered with election petitions !!!
8. It is not reasonable or realistic to expect for the judges of the New York State Courts to throw out these election petitions, because all of the state court judges were elected by this same fraudulent process. No judge elected by fraud is going
to find or admit that his own election was fraudulent. Thus, the only chance to win this case or a case like this is through the federal courts.
9. I was actually told this by Judge Wooten of the Manhattan Supreme Court when I had this case before him. After the hearing was over and the opposing counsel had all left the courtroom and only he and I were still there, Judge Wooten said, "You
are never going to win this case in state court. You are wasting your time here. The only way to win your case is to file in federal court. You need to file this case over there", he said pointing.
10. It can be seen by playing the youtube video at the hearing on July 28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Qlw-G0lOc (and I suggest that you play it several times), that Mr. Stanley Schlein repeatedly interrupts the commissioners while they are
speaking and fights with Steve Richman over several issues. Every time Commissioner Umane is saying something in my favor, and there are several instances of this, Stanley Schlein interrupts him and does not allow him to continue.
11. Most importantly, when the board is being polled to see whether these candidates get on the ballot or not, Stanley Schlein interrupts and we cannot hear the vote.
12. At 55:50 on the video Steve Richman arrives at this case where the clients represented by Stanley Schlein had initially been thrown off the ballot by the CRU for reasons including that the petitions were modified with stickers after the
signatures had been collected. Here Steve Richman General Counsel for the Board of Elections makes a long five minute speech where he says that while many of these petitions do contain stickers, but the objector, Egidio Sementelli (the same person who is
on the vacancy committee in the case before this court) does not allege "with particularity" how these stickers were attached to the petitions and thus the objections to them were invalid. This statement by General Counsel to the Board of Elections lasts
for five minutes from 55:50 until 1:00:35 on the video and Steve Richman hands up a brief or counsel report to the Commissioners stating that all six of the objections by Sementilli should be disallowed for some technical reason such as "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 no time at the hearing are the actual petitions handed up to the board for examination unlike the normal
practice before this board where the actual petitions are present in the hearing room and in a contested case such as this one the Commissioners examine the physical petitions.
13. Here it is obvious that the board is showing favoritism to Mr. Schlein and his candidates as when a sticker is attached to a petition with no way to determine whether the sticker was attached before or after the witness signed it is obviously
invalid. Steve Richman's statement that the Board would not normally rule on this type of allegation is simply not true. It is just plain common sense that the stickers that were attached changing the addresses of the candidates must have been attached
after the petitions were signed because otherwise the petitions would simply have been reprinted with the correct names and addresses on them. Thus the petitions submitted by Stanley Kalmon Schlein were obviously invalid and yet the board passed them.
14. Now when it comes to the petitions with my name on them just as Steve Richman goes to extreme lengths to rule that the obviously invalid petitions submitted by Stanley Kalmon Schlein should pass Richman goes to great lengths to throw the
candidates on the petitions with Sloan's name on them off the ballot even though there is nothing wrong with the "Sloan petitions". He states that the cover sheets were attached to the petitions (which indeed is the requirement of state law) and the
petition sheets were not sequentially numbered, which is not true because they were sequentially numbered. I was informed by Troy Johnson head of the CRU or "Candidates Record Unit" that the "Sloan candidates" had been thrown off the ballot by July 12
which was 16 days before the hearing on July 28 "for failure to respond to the non-compliance notice". I asked the CRU for a copy of the non-compliance notice and they said they did not have it. I repeatedly and persistently asked for this non-compliance
notice visiting the Board of Elections many times until after the hearing on July 28. I found out that Steve Richman is not in charge of the CRU. The CRU does not work for Steve Richman and he is not their boss although he often talks and acts like he is
their boss. I eventually found out that by the time this case was in court that there were three different non-compliance notices each saying something different. I still today have not found out which notices were sent out, by whom they were sent out,
when they were sent out and to whom they were sent. I can state that they were not sent to me as I have not received any of them and I still do not have a copy of any of them. Also, Mr. Egidio Sementilli who was on the vacancy committee where I was a
candidate did not receive one nor did the head of the vacancy committee receive one. In addition and most importantly the Candidate Record Unit or CRU does not have any record of a non-compliance notice being sent out. Thus it is apparent that it must
have been Steve Richman himself who sent out this non-compliance notice and he must have sent it to the homeless shelter on Jerome Avenue where Millie Quinones was residing in a large woman's dormitory facility with two hundred beds and even had she
received it she would not have known what to do with it.
15. When and if a hearing is held on this matter I will produce via subpoena the actual petitions with my name on them and it will be shown that there was nothing wrong with them. I got to see them myself for the first time last week pursuant to the
same FOIL request and was able to observe that there was nothing wrong with the petitions or the cover sheet. I was a candidate and according to that authoritative work "Goldfeder's Modern Election Law" authored by Jerry Goldfeder one of the defendants
in this case, a candidate should not be in any way involved in circulating the petitions or collecting and submitting them to the Board of Elections. In addition I was in Marin County California on another legal matter during the entire petitioning
period and I never got to see the actual petitions and they were not produced nor available at the hearing or in court so I never got to see them before.
16. Another thing about the petitions in Exhibit A is that all of them are perfect. Every box is neatly filled out. Every signature is clear and legible. There are no cross-outs or erasures. Nobody wrote across the lines. Nobody wrote in the wrong
box or out of a box. When the petitioner went to a building, everybody in the building signed. Everybody was at home to sign. Nobody was away at work, or in the hospital or just did not like the candidate and did not want to sign.
17. Anybody with experience petitioning and collecting signatures will know that this never happens. Many people sign with illegible signatures. Many give the wrong address. Many sign with addresses in another city or state or in another borough on
New York City. Experienced petitioners know that if somebody gives a bad signature or a wrong address do not argue with or correct the person signing. Just move on to the next person. Some signers will just scribble something illegible or write Mickey
Mouse who is a resident in the apartment just to get rid of you.
18. Perfect petition sheets such as those submitted by Stanley Kalmon Schlein will never happen in the real world. Thus I suspect fraud in the collection and submission of these signatures.
19. Attached as Exhibit B are just 6 pages of petition sheets with my name on them submitted by Millie Quinones. There were more than 500 pages of these petition sheets but again I am just submitting 6 pages as a representative sample. Here you can
see examples of the subject petition. Notice there are cross-outs and erasures like one will find on any real petition.
20. Exhibit C is the first 20 pages of the objections file by the objector for Stanley Kalmon Schlein against the petition of Egidio Sementilli. Again I am just submitting the first 20 pages not the hundred pages of the actual objection. Here the
actual objection is done in the correct and proper way. It is a line by line objection showing the exact page and line number containing a signature to which there is an objection and the nature of the objection by code. At the bottom of each sheet is a
tabulation of how many signatures are on the sheet, how many valid and how many invalid. This is the way it is supposed to be done.
21. Exhibit D is the so-called "Specific Objection" filed by Stanley Kalmon Schlein against me. As you will see it is only three pages long although the actual petitions submitted with my name on them were 400 pages long. In short, this is not a
specific objection at all. For this reason the CRU ruled that no specific objections had been filed as to my candidacy and the other candidates on the list that included me.
22. This is a serious problem with the Candidates Record Unit or CRU. They time and date stamp everything that comes in. However, they do not keep a record of what they send out and when and where they sent it. I have been to their office at 32
Broadway 7th floor many many times asking about this. They cannot tell me what non-compliance notices were sent and when and by whom they were sent and to whom they were sent. When I went there and asked about this they could not provide an answer. Their
rules state that the non-compliance notice is to be sent "to the contact person or to the head of the vacancy committee". One problem is the word "or". They did not know and could not state whether it was sent to the head of the vacancy committee Mr.
Soto or to the contact person Miss Quinones. In either case, it was not sent to any of the 12 candidates including me. Should not the candidates who are the persons most affected by this receive these notices? As will be seen, when my objector objected
to the petitions of Congressman Serrano, the objections were sent to Jerry Goldfeder who was both the contact person and the attorney for Congressman Serrano and who admitted to receiving them. There, the board said that I was required to serve the
candidate personally on the same day that the objections were filed even though it was impossible to do so because on that day Congressman Serrano was in Washington DC appearing before a Congressional committee on Internet security. This is one reason
why I am suing both Jerry Goldfeder and Board of Elections then President Gregory C. Soumas because at the hearing before the board when Jerry Goldfeder started to speak on this issue President Soumas interrupted him and told him not to say anything.
Since Congressman Serrano did not have enough signatures to get on the ballot, President Soumas was protecting Jerry Goldfeder and Congressman Serrano from having to answer questions about this issue. As a result, Congressman Serrano was re-elected to
the US Congress. Had President Soumas not protected Congressman Serrano then I Sam Sloan would have been elected unopposed because in the Bronx the Democrats always win and the Republican Party for practical purposes does not exist in the Bronx and does
not seriously contest these elections.
23. Now you see that my objectors objection to the petitions of Congressman Serrano was dis-allowed on the ground that I had not served the candidate personally on that day (although he was served the following day) even though the contact person
Jerry Goldfeder was served, yet in the 2015 year case I the candidate was not served nor were any of the other 11 candidates served and we still do not know who if anybody else was served, yet we were all knocked off the ballot.
24. Looking at the latest declaration by the board, they have changed their story. Here is what it says on page 9
"These defects were presented to the duly appointed Commissioners' Cover Sheet Review Committee (the "Committee") at their meeting held on July 9, 2015. The Committee unanimously confirmed the staff's recommendations and directed that Notices
of Non-Compliance be issued to the designated contact person, Millie Quinones."

25. Millie Quinones was and is a homeless person then living in a homeless shelter on Jerome Avenue with about 200 other residents in a dormitory setting. This just about guaranteed that she would never get the notice. More importantly, the last day
to file was MIDNIGHT on July 9, 2015. Yet, the entire slate of 12 candidates was thrown off the ballot in the early afternoon on July 9 while the petitioning was still taking place.
26. The Cover Sheet Committee just consisted of two new and inexperienced commissioners and Steve Richman General Counsel who stated that this petition had been submitted by Mr. Sloan who has given us trouble before. In fact, I had not submitted the
petition and I was not even in the state when the petition was drafted and circulated. I was in California.
27. I found out that I had been thrown off the ballot by a youtube video which is here: 7-9-15 Coversheet Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inc-fqTl-lA
It starts at 13:09 and continues at 14:20
28. Steve Richman is leafing through pages of the 300 plus page petition at 15:11 and ends at 17:40. It is obvious here that Steve Richman is not doing a cover sheet review. He is doing a general search of the petition. This is not allowed. His
compatriot even says at one point on the video there is no problem with the cover sheet. It is with the content of the petition.
29. Steve Richman says at 15:45 "The person who filed this is Mr. Sam Sloan has a habit of litigating against the board on the ground that we usually discriminate against him and that we single him out for special treatment". Actually, I did not
file the petition. I was not even in New York. I was just one of the candidates on the list. The fact that he keeps mentioning my name shows the prejudicial attitude of the board against me.
30. It is difficult to see but take a close look at the second group of candidates. All of them are a slightly different color. This is because they were all on a sticker. All the names and addresses of the candidates had been changed. This
obviously invalidated the entire petition and since almost all of the petitions were like this, all of the petitions were invalid. The opponents objected to all of this but Steve Richman overruled these objections and all of these petitions were passed
and all of these candidates were elected. Since these candidates were all judges or judicial delegates this means that every judge that has taken office in Bronx County this year has won his seat by virtue of a fraud.
31. The brief by the board also states that the Commissioners of Election are appointed by the City Council. This is not true. The Commissioners are appointed by the party bosses who are not elected officials. The Chairman of the Republican Party in
each Borough appoints one commissioner and the Chairmen of the Democratic party in each borough appoints one Commissioner. This is obviously unconstitutional because this means that the Democratic Party bosses are the ultimate authority to decide who
gets on the ballot. For example, here the insider group in the Bronx led by Stanley Kalmon Schlein who is obviously being paid by the Bronx County Committee received approval by the Democratic Commissioners whereas the outsider not approved group of non-
approved candidates including me got thrown off the ballot.
32. In the 2015 case involving Jerry Goldfeder and Congressman Serrano I was asked to run because Congressman Serrano is an extreme left-winger that some might call him a Communist and is opposed to the economic development plan advocated by the
Bronx Borough President Reuben Diaz Jr. Congressman Serrano is very far to the left and is rated as further to the left than Bernie Sanders and his only other issue is independence for Puerto Rico, so the regulars who circulate petitions for Democratic
Party candidates were unwilling to circulate petitions for him and as a result he did not have enough signatures.
33. The petitions filed by Congressman Serrano were filled with obviously false and in some cases fraudulent signatures. Many of his subscribing witnesses are not registered to vote including Javier Lopez, Stephen Castillo and Dave McKay. There are
also many cases of completely illegible signature, completely different signature, no signature at all, signature does not match the signature on the buff care and a few obvious forgeries.
34. For these reasons, his petitions should have been thrown out as permeated with fraud, in addition to having an insufficient number of signatures.
35. With great difficulty I had to make copies of the buff cards of all of the witness to Serrano's petitions and I matched them with the witnesses on the petitions. This was difficult to so because as part of the fraud they had shuffled and mixed
up the petitions so that petitions filed by the same witness did not appear together and the clerks checking these petitions upon finding one where the witness was not registered to vote would not realize that there were many by the same witness
scattered throughout the petition sheets.
36. Another suspicious circumstance was that in every case on all of Serrano's petitions the signature of the witness bears the exact same date as the signature of the signer of the petition and there are no cross-outs, erasures or corrections.
Anybody who does petitioning knows that in real life real signers often fill in the boxes wrong or in the wrong place or cross out their names and petitioners usually carry these petitions for several days or weeks and do not witness them until they
bring them into the office to get paid.
37. Many of the signatures were in the same handwriting. All were from the same buildings but with no apartment number. In all likelihood, the petitioner just copied the names off the wall.
38. The Board of Elections refused to look at and consider these specific objections saying that they are moot in that the Specific Objector did not serve Congressman Serrano on the same day that they were filed. However, there is no statutory law
saying that the Specific Objections must be served on the same day that they are filed. This is just a rule of the Board of Elections in the City of New York. Other boards such as the boards in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties have different
rules. The rule is clearly unfair and unreasonable as applied in this case as Congressman Serrano was in Washington DC on that date of April 16, 2014 attending a Congressional Committee meeting and thus could not be served on New York State on that date.
He was served the next day and thus there was no fraud.
39. The Board of Elections is making up its own Ad Hoc Rules as it goes along. It ruled that I was not allowed to speak at the hearing on April 24, 2014 because I am not an attorney at law, even though I was the candidate. There is no such rule.
Nobody has ever heard of a rule like that. At these hearings, in the past everyone has been allowed to speak.
40. As another example, another candidate for Congress Yolanda Garcia who was seeking to run in the 13th Congressional District had specific objections filed against her. The CRU ruled that the specific objections violated prima facie Rule H11 their
rules in four different ways including no objection number, no binding and cover sheet not attached. Nevertheless, the Board of Elections overruled these four violations of their rules and is allowing these specific objections to proceed. This shows that
the Board of Elections is acting unfairly and is biased.
41. There was a special problem in this case because Congressman Jose E. Serrano who is regularly in Washington DC or in Virginia where he actually resides is not to be found in New York State. His apartment across the street from the Bronx Supreme
Court Building does not have anybody actually living there.
42. 2014 was unusual in that having lost the primary for US Congress there was still time to run for state office, so I was asked to run for governor. Sam Sloan ran on a slate as a Democratic candidate for Governor of New York State, Nenad Bach as
Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of New York State, Geeta Rankoth as Candidate for Comptroller of New York State and Neil V. Grimaldi as Candidate for Attorney General of New York State in the Democratic Primary to be held on September 9, 2014.
43. Incorporating herein as evidence is the youtube video of these proceedings linked at http://www.elections.ny.gov/2014Meetings.html which shows that they clearly violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
44. It is clear from this video that it was not on the calendar to remove these candidates from the ballot and these names were not on the list of names read by Commissioner Kellner of candidates to be removed from the ballot for reason of
objections.
45. These candidates were required to be given notice as to the sufficiency and quality of their signatures. This was not done as there was never any objections of specifications filed against Sam Sloan or Nenad Bach and required by NY election law
16-102 and 6-154 which states "the written objection to such petition may be filed within three days after the filing of such party certificate or the making of such party nomination. When such an objection is filed, specifications of the grounds of the
objections shall be filed within six days thereafter with the same officer or board and if specifications are not timely filed, the objection shall be null and void."
46. The video illustrates that there was no witness at the hearing as requited by NY state evidence law as to the insufficiency of the petitions. The Board of Elections never even reviewed the petitions. On July 8, 2014, four volumes of petitions
were filed nominating Sam Sloan as a Democratic candidate for Governor of New York State, Nenad Bach as Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of New York State, Geeta Rankoth as Candidate for Comptroller of New York State and Neil V. Grimaldi as Candidate
for Attorney General of New York State in the Democratic Primary to be held on September 9, 2014. These petitions have four volumes. Volume 1 starts with page One and ends with page 807. Volume 2 starts with page 1 and ends with page 659. Volume 3 starts
on page 1 and ends on page 1197. Volume 4 starts on page 1 and ends on page 1402. Thus there are 807 + 659+ 1197 + 1402 or a total of 4065 page numbers on the petition.
47. These petitions were marked valid as appeared on the Board of Elections website at http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled
48. However, on August 4, 2014, nearly one month later, the Board of Elections changed them from valid to invalid. Board of Elections did not have a right to review of the petitions because they had the appearance of validity and there were no
specific objections.
49. The so-called specific objections filed against Geeta Rankoth and Neil Grimaldi were not sufficiently specific in that they were not line-by-line objections and lacked the specificity necessary to review them. Although the objection to Rankoth
said that she did not have enough signatures, it did not state how many signatures she had and how many are required. As a result, the Board of Elections did NOT throw these candidates off because of objections and they were not on the list of candidates
read by Commissioner Kellner at the meeting on August 1, 2014 who were thrown off because of objections. Rather, Sloan, Bach, Rankoth and Grimaldi were thrown off the ballot at the oral request of Kimberley Galvin, the Republican Party Counsel on the
Board of Elections.
50. Here Kathleen O'Keefe has earned herself a place on my defendants list and my recommendation that she spend several years in federal prison through a massive fraud upon the courts because she submitted into evidence a short stack of about 140
pages of white 8.5 x 11 copy paper claiming that these were the petitions filed by the Sloan candidates and they could not possibly contain 15,000 signatures at ten signature per page. In reality the actual petitions on behalf of the Sloan candidates was
more than four thousand pages of 8.5 x 14 green cardstock more than a foot high and there were easily enough pages and enough signatures to qualify.
51. It is well established that under the law of the State of New York including Section 16-102 of Election Law if a candidate files facially valid petitions and there are no objections filed then the candidate goes on the ballot. There are specific
rules about objections in Section 6-154 such as that General Objections must be filed within three days and Specific Objections must be filed within six days more.
52. Here there were no objections filed as to the candidacies of SAM SLOAN, as Candidate for Governor of the State of New York and NENAD BACH as Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York. The rule based on Section 16-102 of New York
Election Law is that if there are no objections to a candidate, his name remains on the ballot. Thus the New York Board of Elections had no jurisdiction to remove Sam Sloan and Nenad Bach from the ballot.

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)