THE UNTOUCHABLES GROUP

NEW YORK TIMES PAGE ONE STORY FEATURES CARL MAYER AND UNTOUCHABLES FIGHT TO STOP PHONE COMPANIES FROM SPYING ON AMERICANS IN THEIR HOMES.

2007-12-17T07:27:00.000-08:00

December 16, 2007

Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecom Industry

By ERIC LICHTBLAU, JAMES RISEN and SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — For months, the Bush administration has waged a high-profile campaign, including personal lobbying by President Bush and closed-door briefings by top officials, to persuade Congress to pass legislation protecting companies from lawsuits for aiding the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program.

But the battle is really about something much bigger. At stake is the federal government’s extensive but uneasy partnership with industry to conduct a wide range of secret surveillance operations in fighting terrorism and crime.

The N.S.A.’s reliance on telecommunications companies is broader and deeper than ever before, according to government and industry officials, yet that alliance is strained by legal worries and the fear of public exposure.

To detect narcotics trafficking, for example, the government has been collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America, according to several government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. But in 2004, one major phone carrier balked at turning over its customers’ records. Worried about possible privacy violations or public relations problems, company executives declined to help the operation, which has not been previously disclosed.

In a separate N.S.A. project, executives at a Denver phone carrier, Qwest, refused in early 2001 to give the agency access to their most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls, according to people aware of the request, which has not been previously reported. They say the arrangement could have permitted neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveillance of phone traffic without a court order, which alarmed them.

The federal government’s reliance on private industry has been driven by changes in technology. Two decades ago, telephone calls and other communications traveled mostly through the air, relayed along microwave towers or bounced off satellites. The N.S.A. could vacuum up phone, fax and data traffic merely by erecting its own satellite dishes. But the fiber optics revolution has sent more and more international communications by land and undersea cable, forcing the agency to seek company cooperation to get access.

After the disclosure two years ago that the N.S.A. was eavesdropping on the international communications of terrorism suspects inside the United States without warrants, more than 40 lawsuits were filed against the government and phone carriers. As a result, skittish companies and their lawyers have been demanding stricter safeguards before they provide access to the government and, in some cases, are refusing outright to cooperate, officials said.

“It’s a very frayed and strained relationship right now, and that’s not a good thing for the country in terms of keeping all of us safe,” said an industry official who believes that immunity is critical for the phone carriers. “This episode has caused companies to change their conduct in a variety of ways.”

With a vote in the Senate on the issue expected as early as Monday, the Bush administration has intensified its efforts to win retroactive immunity for companies cooperating with counterterrorism operations.

“The intelligence community cannot go it alone,” Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed article Monday urging Congress to pass the immunity provision. “Those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits.”

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey echoed that theme in an op-ed article of his own in The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, saying private companies would be reluctant to provide their “full-hearted help” if they were not given legal protections.

The government’s dependence on the phone industry, driven by the changes in technology and the Bush administration’s desire to expand surveillance capabilities inside the United States, has grown significantly since the Sept. 11 attacks. The N.S.A., though, wanted to extend its reach even earlier. In December 2000, agency officials wrote a transition report to the incoming Bush administration, saying the agency must become a “powerful, permanent presence” on the commercial communications network, a goal that they acknowledged would raise legal and privacy issues.

While the N.S.A. operates under restrictions on domestic spying, the companies have broader concerns — customers’ demands for privacy and shareholders’ worries about bad publicity.

In the drug-trafficking operation, the N.S.A. has been helping the Drug Enforcement Administration in collecting the phone records showing patterns of calls between the United States, Latin America and other drug-producing regions. The program dates to the 1990s, according to several government officials, but it appears to have expanded in recent years.

Officials say the government has not listened to the communications, but has instead used phone numbers and e-mail addresses to analyze links between people in the United States and overseas. Senior Justice Department officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations signed off on the operation, which uses broad administrative subpoenas but does not require court approval to demand the records.

At least one major phone carrier — whose identity could not be confirmed — refused to cooperate, citing concerns in 2004 that the subpoenas were overly broad, government and industry officials said. The executives also worried that if the program were exposed, the company would face a public-relations backlash.

The D.E.A. declined to comment on the call-tracing program, except to say that it “exercises its legal authority” to issue administrative subpoenas. The N.S.A. also declined to comment on it.

In a separate program, N.S.A. officials met with the Qwest executives in February 2001 and asked for more access to their phone system for surveillance operations, according to people familiar with the episode. The company declined, expressing concerns that the request was illegal without a court order.

While Qwest’s refusal was disclosed two months ago in court papers, the details of the N.S.A.’s request were not. The agency, those knowledgeable about the incident said, wanted to install monitoring equipment on Qwest’s “Class 5” switching facilities, which transmit the most localized calls. Limited international traffic also passes through the switches.

A government official said the N.S.A. intended to single out only foreigners on Qwest’s network, and added that the agency believed Joseph Nacchio, then the chief executive of Qwest, and other company officials misunderstood the agency’s proposal. Bob Toevs, a Qwest spokesman, said the company did not comment on matters of national security.

Other N.S.A. initiatives have stirred concerns among phone company workers. A lawsuit was filed in federal court in New Jersey challenging the agency’s wiretapping operations. It claims that in February 2001, just days before agency officials met with Qwest officials, the N.S.A. met with AT&T officials to discuss replicating a network center in Bedminster, N.J., to give the agency access to all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through it.

The accusations rely in large part on the assertions of a former engineer on the project. The engineer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview that he participated in numerous discussions with N.S.A. officials about the proposal. The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency “could listen in” with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review. There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said.

“At some point,” he said, “I started feeling something isn’t right.”

Two other AT&T employees who worked on the proposal discounted his claims, saying in interviews that the project had simply sought to improve the N.S.A.’s internal communications systems and was never designed to allow the agency access to outside communications. Michael Coe, a company spokesman, said: “AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers’ privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security.”

But lawyers for the plaintiffs say that if the suit were allowed to proceed, internal AT&T documents would verify the engineer’s account.

“What he saw,” said Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the plaintiffs along with Carl Mayer, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”

The same lawsuit accuses Verizon of setting up a dedicated fiber optic line from New Jersey to Quantico, Va., home to a large military base, allowing government officials to gain access to all communications flowing through the carrier’s operations center. In an interview, a former consultant who worked on internal security said he had tried numerous times to install safeguards on the line to prevent hacking on the system, as he was doing for other lines at the operations center, but his ideas were rejected by a senior security official.

The facts behind a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco are also shrouded in government secrecy. The case relies on disclosures by a former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, who says he stumbled upon a secret room at an company facility in San Francisco that was reserved for the N.S.A. Company documents he obtained and other former AT&T employees have lent some support to his claim that the facility gave the agency access to a range of domestic and international Internet traffic.

The telecommunications companies that gave the government access are pushing hard for legal protection from Congress. As part of a broader plan to restructure the N.S.A.’s wiretapping authority, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to give immunity to the telecommunications companies, but the Judiciary Committee refused to do so. The White House has threatened to veto any plan that left out immunity, as the House bill does.

“Congress shouldn’t grant amnesty to companies that broke the law by conspiring to illegally spy on Americans” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

But Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral and former N.S.A. director who has publicly criticized the agency’s domestic eavesdropping program, says he still supports immunity for the companies that cooperated.

“The responsibility ought to be on the government, not on the companies that are trying to help with national security requirements,” Admiral Inman said. If the companies decided to stop cooperating, he added, “it would have a huge impact on both the timeliness and availability of critical intelligence.”

Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUED FOR ANTI-DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN TO ILLEGALLY REMOVE THIRD PARTIES FROM BALLOT.

2007-10-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

:
RALPH NADER, :
53 Hillside Avenue :
Winsted, Connecticut 06098 :
:
PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO, :
1760 Barhead Court :
Folsom, CA 95630 :
:
D.B. FANNING :
827 West Summit Avenue :
Flagstaff, AZ 86001 :
:
C.K. IRELAND :
827 West Summit Avenue :
Flagstaff, AZ 86001 :
:
JULIE COYLE :
4101 Drummond Road :
Toledo, OH 43613 :
: COMPLAINT
HERMAN BLANKENSHIP :
235 East Oakland :
Toledo, OH 43608 :
:
LLOYD MARBET :
19142 Southeast Baker’s Ferry Road :
Boring, OR 97009 :
:
GREGORY KAFOURY :
320 Stark Street :
Portland, OR 97204 :
:
PLAINTIFFS, :
:
v. :
:
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE :
430 South Capitol Street, SE :
Washington, DC 20003 :
:
KERRY-EDWARDS 2004 INC. :
10 G Street, NE, Suite 700 :
Washington, DC 20002 :
:
THE BALLOT PROJECT, INC. :
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW :
Washington, DC 20036 :
:
AMERICA COMING TOGETHER :
1101 Vermont Avenue NW, 9th Floor :
Washington, DC 20005 :
:
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION :
1313 L Street, NW :
Washington, DC 20005 :
:
JOHN KERRY :
United States Senate :
304 Russell Building, Third Floor :
Washington, DC 20510 :
:
JACK CORRIGAN :
896 Beacon Street :
Boston, Massachusetts 02215 :
:
TOBY MOFFETT :
499 South Capitol Street, SW, Suite 600 :
Washington, DC 20003 :
:
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN :
2 Park Avenue :
New York, New York 10016 :
:
ROBERT BRANDON :
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 712 :
Washington, DC 20036 :
:
MARK BREWER :
606 Townsend :
Lansing, MI 48933 :
:
and :
:
REED SMITH, LLP :
435 Sixth Avenue :
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15219. :
:
DEFENDANTS. :
:

Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants to redress the deprivation of rights secured them by common law, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Qualifications Clause and other provisions of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and such other further relief as this Court shall deem necessary and proper, and allege the following:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Defendants are members, allies or agents of the Democratic Party who conspired to prevent Plaintiffs Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo (hereinafter, “Nader-Camejo”) from running for President and Vice President of the United States in 2004, in an effort to deny Plaintiff-voters and others the choice of voting for them. Defendants blamed Mr. Nader for the Democrats’ loss in the 2000 presidential election, and they worried that he would “steal” votes from the Democratic candidates if he ran again in 2004. Defendants therefore agreed and conspired that if Mr. Nader did run in 2004, they would launch a massive, nationwide unlawful assault on his candidacy, using unfounded litigation to harass, obstruct and drain his campaign of resources, deny him ballot access and effectively prevent him from running for public office. Defendants reached this agreement and formed this conspiracy with wrongful intent, before they could possibly have any reason to believe such litigation was warranted or justified.
2. As the 2004 election approached, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe publicly appealed to Mr. Nader on numerous occasions not to run. “I wanted to convey to Ralph Nader that…if he were to get in the race again, he could pull votes away from the Democratic nominee. … We can’t afford to have Ralph Nader in the race,” Mr. McAuliffe told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in February 2004. When Mr. Nader announced his candidacy shortly thereafter, on February 22, 2004, Defendants set their obstructive plans and conspiracy in motion.
3. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Nader on June 23, 2004, Mr. McAuliffe made one last effort to dissuade Mr. Nader. This time, Mr. McAuliffe asked Mr. Nader voluntarily not to campaign in certain so-called “battleground” states. If Mr. Nader agreed, Mr. McAuliffe said, he would support Mr. Nader’s campaign in the remaining states. Mr. Nader declined, and objected to the Democratic Party’s effort to deny his candidacy ballot access in various states. That same day, Defendants or their co-conspirators filed their first lawsuit against his campaign.
3. Within the next 12 weeks, between June and September of 2004, Defendants and their co-conspirators filed 24 complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in 17 states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin, and intervened in proceedings to remove Nader-Camejo from the ballot in Oregon. Said conspirators also filed five complaints before the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In each state court lawsuit, said conspirators challenged Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers and asked state elections officials not to certify them as candidates for President and Vice President in the 2004 general election.
4. Defendants’ admitted purpose for bringing these lawsuits, however, was not to vindicate valid legal claims, but rather to bankrupt Nader-Camejo’s campaign by forcing the candidates to spend their limited resources of time, talent and money on the defense of unfounded lawsuits. Defendants’ motive, which they also admitted, was to help Democratic candidates John Kerry and John Edwards win the election by forcing their political competitors from the race.
5. Defendants dedicated millions of dollars’ worth of illegal and unreported campaign contributions to their conspiracy. They recruited at least 95 lawyers from 53 law firms to pursue their unfounded and abusive litigation and organized hundreds of other lawyers to provide support. Defendants also incorporated several Section 527 political organizations, including one called The Ballot Project, which they incorporated specifically for the purpose of coordinating and financing their nationwide assault of unfounded and abusive litigation.
6. In addition to filing 24 state court complaints and five FEC complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign within 12 weeks, said conspirators organized and conducted campaigns of harassment, intimidation and sabotage to prevent the Nader-Camejo Campaign from complying with election laws in several states, and to fabricate grounds for the conspirators’ subsequent lawsuits. In one state, for example, conspirators acting fraudulently and under false pretenses took seats in Nader-Camejo’s nominating convention but refused to sign their petitions, causing the convention to fall short of the requisite number of validated attendees. In other states, said conspirators sabotaged Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers by crossing names out or otherwise invalidating their petitions and, on information and belief, by signing fake names.
7. In violation of state rules of professional conduct, the conspiracy’s bar members sent misleading letters to campaign petitioners, falsely threatening them with heavy fines and jail sentences if signatures they collected were invalidated, and also sought subpoenas ordering campaign petitioners on short notice to attend depositions and produce unreasonably burdensome amounts of personal documents. On numerous occasions, the conspirators, including members of the bar, called campaign petitioners’ homes, and even the homes of citizens and potential voters who signed Nader-Camejo’s petitions. Private detectives also visited petitioners’ homes, unannounced, and claimed to be investigating them. All of this activity was intended to harass and intimidate said petitioners and prevent them from collecting signatures – an effort that succeeded on dozens of occasions.
8. In spite of a multi-million dollar legal team of co-conspirators, and coordinated campaigns of harassment, intimidation and sabotage specifically intended to prevent Nader-Camejo from complying with state election laws, the conspirators eventually lost the great majority of lawsuits they filed. In addition, the FEC dismissed all five of conspirators’ FEC complaints without taking action. Defendants nevertheless succeeded in draining Nader-Camejo’s campaign of time, money and other resources, and in preventing them from gaining ballot access in several states, thereby denying voters in these states the choice of voting for them, as was their intent. Defendants also caused financial injury and other damages to Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo personally, and did severe damage to the third-party and independent candidacy structure which Mr. Nader had built at great expense in time, money and other resources.
9. Although the 2004 election ended nearly three years ago, conspirators continue to pursue their wrongful litigation against Mr. Nader to the present day. To force Nader-Camejo off the ballot in Pennsylvania, Defendants enlisted at least 20 lawyers from three law firms, hired handwriting experts and other consultants, and recruited support from approximately 170 Democratic Party operatives. Afterwards, co-conspirator law firm Reed Smith, which has close ties to the Kerry-Edwards Campaign, submitted a bill of costs in the amount of $81,102.19. No state in the nation has ever assessed such a post-election penalty against candidates who defend their right to appear on the ballot, but the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania approved the bill without opinion. Misreading the plain meaning of the statute, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed without citing a single case in which a candidate had been assessed such costs.
10. While this case was before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, unbeknownst to Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo, Defendant Reed Smith began representing the Chief Justice as his defense counsel in an ethics investigation before the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board. In addition, Reed Smith and conspirators’ second law firm gave $10,000 in campaign contributions to a second Justice, who authored the majority opinion. Reed Smith also has close and long-standing ties with a third Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, who served as of counsel at the firm immediately before joining the court. Reed Smith did not disclose these facts at any time during the proceedings before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, nor thereafter, when the firm induced Mr. Camejo to pay $20,000 to settle the claim against him. Reed Smith subsequently filed Writs of Attachment against Mr. Nader’s personal accounts, and currently seeks to condemn $61,638.45 of Mr. Nader’s personal funds in satisfaction of its unprecedented fraudulently and wrongfully obtained judgment.
11. Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to and did in fact abuse judicial processes in an effort to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign and terminate Nader-Camejo’s candidacy during the 2004 presidential election. Conspirators filed 24 state law complaints and five FEC complaints in less than 12 weeks, with the specific intention of causing Plaintiffs financial injury and other damages and violating their constitutional rights. Defendants did in fact cause such damages, and Defendants continue to cause such damages, by pursuing their unfounded and abusive litigation to the present day.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-204.31 (2007) and D.C. Code § 11-921 (2007). Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees is conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants pursuant to D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(1), as each Defendant participated in a conspiracy organized and directed by parties located in the District of Columbia, and substantial overt acts taken in furtherance of that conspiracy took place within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Personal jurisdiction is alternatively conferred on this Court by D.C. Code §§ 13-423(a)(3) and 13-423(a)(4).
THE PARTIES
14. Unless otherwise stated, the terms “Defendants” and “conspirators” or “co-conspirators” and the charges alleged herein do not necessarily apply to every Defendant and every conspirator named in this complaint.
15. Plaintiff Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and 2004 independent candidate for President of the United States. Mr. Nader’s address is 53 Hillside Avenue, Winsted, Connecticut, 06098.
16. Plaintiff Peter Miguel Camejo is an entrepreneur and 2004 independent candidate for Vice President of the United States. Mr. Camejo joins this complaint as to all Defendants except he asserts no claims against Defendant Reed Smith. Mr. Camejo’s address is 1760 Barhead Court, Folsom, California, 95630.
17. Plaintiff D.B. Fanning is a registered voter in the state of Arizona. Mr. Fanning’s address is 827 West Summit Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86001.
18. Plaintiff C.K. Ireland is a registered voter in the state of Arizona. Ms. Ireland’s address is 827 West Summit Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86001.
19. Plaintiff Julie Coyle is a registered voter in the state of Ohio. Ms. Coyle’s address is 4101 Drummond Road, Toledo, Ohio, 43613.
20. Plaintiff Herman Blankenship is a registered voter in the state of Ohio. Mr. Blankenship’s address is 235 East Oakland Street, Toledo, Ohio, 43608.
21. Plaintiff Lloyd Marbet is a registered voter in the state of Oregon. Mr. Marbet’s address is 19142 Southeast Baker’s Ferry Road, Boring, Oregon, 97009.
22. Plaintiff Gregory Kafoury is a registered voter in the state of Oregon. Mr. Kafoury’s address is 320 Stark Street, Portland, Oregon, 97204.
23. Defendant the Democratic National Committee is the national head of the Democratic Party, and works with national, state and local Democratic Party organizations to elect Democratic candidates. The DNC’s address is 430 S. Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C., 20003.
24. Defendant Kerry-Edwards 2004 Inc. is the principal campaign committee of the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. The committee’s address is 10 G Street NE, Suite 710, Washington, D.C., 20002.
25. Defendant The Ballot Project is a Section 527 organization established on June 2, 2004 to coordinate and finance Defendants’ litigation against Nader-Camejo. The organization’s address is that of consultants Robert Brandon and Associates, at 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 712, Washington, D.C., 20036.
26. Defendant America Coming Together (ACT) is a Democratic Section 527 organization, funded in part by SEIU, which organized a campaign of harassment, intimidation and sabotage in an effort to deny Nader-Camejo ballot access. ACT’s current address is 1101 Vermont Avenue NW, 9th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20005.
27. Defendant Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union with headquarters in Washington, D.C. SEIU’s address is 1313 L Street NW, Washington, D.C., 20005.
28. Defendant John Kerry is a United States Senator from Massachusetts and the 2004 Democratic Party candidate for President. Mr. Kerry’s address is United States Senate, 304 Russell Building, Third Floor, Washington, D.C., 20510.
29. Defendant Jack Corrigan is a lawyer who worked for the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards Campaign to plan and execute Defendants’ wrongful litigation against Nader-Camejo. Mr. Corrigan also served as John Kerry’s personal liaison to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Mr. Corrigan’s address is 896 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02215.
30. Defendant Toby Moffett is president of The Ballot Project and a lobbyist with the Livingston Group. Mr. Moffett’s address is 499 South Capitol Street SW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C., 20003.
31. Defendant Elizabeth Holtzman is director of The Ballot Project and a lawyer. Ms. Holtzman’s address is 2 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10016.
32. Defendant Robert Brandon and his firm Robert Brandon and Associates are consultants to the DNC and other clients. Mr. Brandon’s firm housed The Ballot Project in its offices. Mr. Brandon’s address is 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 712, Washington, D.C., 20036.
33. Defendant Mark Brewer is Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party and Vice Chair of the DNC. Mr. Brewer’s address is 606 Townsend, Lansing, MI, 48933.
34. Defendant Reed Smith is a law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Reed Smith’s address is 435 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15219.

NON-DEFENDANT CO-CONSPIRATORS
35. Non-defendant co-conspirators include the state Democratic Party affiliates of the national Democratic Party who combined and conspired with Defendants to achieve Defendants’ unlawful objectives as herein alleged.
36. Non-defendant co-conspirators include the law firms and lawyers who combined and conspired with Defendants and who, acting as Defendants’ agents, implemented defendants’ illegal scheme in various states as set forth herein.
37. Non-defendant co-conspirator Americans for Jobs is a Section 527 organization established by Timothy Raftis and David W. Jones in 2003 “to accept contributions and make expenditures to influence the election of federal candidates.” Americans for Jobs’ address is 2000 M Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C., 20036.
38. Non-defendant co-conspirator The National Progress Fund is a Section 527 organization established on May 4, 2004 “to engage in election-related activity for the purpose of supporting progressive issues.” The organization was officially terminated on December 31, 2005. The National Progress Fund’s address was PO Box 57154, Washington, D.C., 20037.
39. Non-defendant co-conspirator United Progressives for Victory is a political committee registered on June 16, 2004 and terminated on September 21, 2005. The organization’s address is that of DNC consultants Robert Brandon and Associates, at 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 712, Washington, D.C., 20036.
40. Non-defendant co-conspirator Uniting People for Victory is a Section 527 organization founded by United Progressives for Victory and registered with the IRS on July 21, 2004. The organization’s address is that of DNC consultants Robert Brandon and Associates, at 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 712, Washington, D.C., 20036.
41. Non-defendant co-conspirator Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a 501(c)(3) legal organization that claims to promote “ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials – regardless of party affiliation – who sacrifice the common good to special interests.” The overwhelming majority of individuals and organizations CREW targets, however, are real or perceived competitors of the Democratic Party. CREW’s address is 1400 Eye Street NW, Suite 450, Washington, D.C., 20005.
42. Non-defendant co-conspirator Kathleen Sullivan is former Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and a DNC official. Ms. Sullivan’s address is 95 Market Street, Manchester, NH 03101.
43. Non-defendant co-conspirator Daniel Schneider is, on information and belief, an attorney in Washington, D.C. who filed an FEC complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign. Mr. Schneider’s address is unknown.
44. Non-defendant co-conspirators include the officers and affiliates of the Section 527 organizations and 501(c)(3) organization named herein, including: David W. Jones; Tricia Enright; Chris Kofinis; Karl Frisch; Ginny Hunt; John Hlinko; Katie Aulwes; Karen Mulhauser; Helen Hunt; and Melanie Sloane.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Defendants Conspired to Abuse Judicial Processes with Intent to Cause Plaintiffs Financial Injury and Other Damages and Violate Their Constitutional Rights.

45. After the Democrats’ defeat in the 2000 election, Defendants and their co-conspirators decided to try to prevent Mr. Nader from running for president if he announced his candidacy in 2004. Defendants had already settled on a strategy to accomplish this goal when Mr. Nader made his announcement on February 22, 2004. “Our intent was to drain and distract him,” The Ballot Project president Toby Moffett later explained to the Hartford Courant. Defendants agreed and conspired to launch a nationwide legal assault on Mr. Nader’s campaign, which would drain the campaign of money, time and other resources, in a deliberate attempt to use the sheer burden of litigation itself as a means to prevent Mr. Nader from running for public office. Defendants reached this agreement with wrongful intent, before they could possibly have any reason to believe litigation against Mr. Nader was warranted or justified, and before there was any colorable or potential legal basis for such litigation.
46. Having settled on that strategy, the organizers and leaders of the conspiracy met privately to discuss their plans on July 26, 2004, at the Four Seasons Hotel in Boston. DNC consultant Robert Brandon organized the meeting and, on information and belief, the DNC paid for it. Approximately three dozen people attended, including The Ballot Project president Toby Moffett, The Ballot Project director Liz Holtzman and Democratic consultant Stanley Greenberg.
47. At said Four Seasons meeting, the leaders and organizers of the conspiracy discussed polling, research, and strategy to undermine the Nader-Camejo Campaign in key states where they believed it would adversely affect Democratic candidates John Kerry and John Edwards most, including Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The leaders and organizers of the conspiracy specifically agreed to sue and otherwise obstruct Nader-Camejo not only in these “battleground” states, but also in as many other states as possible. According to Defendant Moffett, however, the purpose of this litigation was simply “to drain [Mr. Nader] of resources and force him to spend his time and money.”
48. Defendant Moffett had conducted a limited campaign against Mr. Nader’s candidacy in the 2000 election. Mr. Moffett considered that effort a failure, because Mr. Nader was listed on most state ballots in 2000. “We’re not going to let him do it again,” Mr. Moffett vowed at the said Four Seasons meeting.
49. The Democratic National Convention began the same day as the conspirators’ Four Seasons meeting, and was taking place across town at Boston’s Fleet Center. The conspirators planned to use the convention as a platform to introduce their litigation strategy to delegates from state Democratic Parties, and to solicit financial support from major party donors.
50. The conspirators prepared a memo for this purpose, which they planned to circulate at the convention. This memo outlined the conspirators’ comprehensive plan of attack against the Nader-Camejo Campaign, which involved not only a nationwide legal assault, but also a communications campaign intended to convince voters not to vote for Nader-Camejo. The memo further stated that Defendants would coordinate and finance their activities with three 527 organizations the conspirators had established. One was The Ballot Project, and the other two were called the National Progress Fund and Uniting People for Victory.
51. The conspirators distributed their memo to donors and delegates at the convention and discussed the perceived threat of Nader-Camejo’s candidacy. They briefed donors and delegates about their litigation plans and solicited contributions to their 527 organizations. The conspirators also recruited state Democratic Party officials to join their effort, and specifically instructed the officials to bring groundless and abusive lawsuits in their states as part of a nationwide strategy to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign and force Nader-Camejo from the race. “This guy is still a huge threat,” Defendant Moffett said at the convention, in reference to Mr. Nader. “We’re just not going to make the same mistake we made in 2000.”
52. Defendant Moffett told New Mexico Democratic Party Chair and DNC official John Wertheim that he should appoint someone to spearhead the effort to keep Nader-Camejo off the ballot in that state. Mr. Wertheim agreed to do so. “This is a central focus of my own duties as chairman,” Mr. Wertheim told The New Mexican.
53. At the close of the Democratic convention, on July 29, 2004, DNC Chairman McAuliffe reiterated his claim that “We can’t afford to have Ralph Nader in the race.” Business Week reported Mr. McAuliffe’s statement under the headline, “The Dems’ Game Plan to Create a Two-Man Race.” That “Game Plan,” which Defendants jointly planned and executed with their co-conspirators, was to file groundless and abusive lawsuits and otherwise obstruct the Nader-Camejo Campaign as many times in as many states as possible during the 2004 election.
54. Eighteen state or local Democratic Parties eventually joined Defendants’ conspiracy and either initiated or materially supported unfounded and abusive lawsuits filed against the Nader-Camejo Campaign, or intervened in proceedings to deny Nader-Camejo ballot access. The state Democratic Parties of Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Washington and Wisconsin initiated such lawsuits, while the state Democratic Parties of Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania materially supported such lawsuits filed in their states. In Oregon, state Democratic Party officials intervened in proceedings to deny Nader-Camejo ballot access. In West Virginia, local Democratic Party officials filed a complaint seeking to compel the Secretary of State to refer Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers to the Attorney General’s office for investigation.
55. In addition to the state law complaints, conspirators filed five FEC complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign. Defendant CREW filed two complaints, Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer filed one, New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Sullivan filed one, and District of Columbia-based attorney Daniel Schneider filed conspirators’ fifth FEC complaint.
56. Of the 24 state court complaints conspirators filed against Nader-Camejo nationwide, DNC officials filed seven in their own names, including Scott Maddox of Florida, Dorothy Melanson of Maine, Mark Brewer of Michigan, Wayne Dowdy of Mississippi, Kathleen Sullivan of New Hampshire (two) and Paul Berendt of Washington. In addition, DNC official James Edmundson of Oregon intervened in the proceedings filed in that state, and on information and belief, DNC officials Michael Madigan of Illinois and John Wertheim of New Mexico assisted in complaints filed in their states. Finally, DNC official Anna Burger is Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU, the conspirators’ Oregon plaintiff. Thus, on information and belief, at least ten DNC officials directly participated in the conspirators’ nationwide legal assault.
57. Furthermore, unidentified DNC officials specifically directed state party officials to initiate litigation against Nader-Camejo. The DNC also hired and paid for several state parties’ lawyers and, on information and belief, coordinated with The Ballot Project to secure pro bono counsel in other states. High-level DNC staff developed and coordinated the conspiracy’s nationwide litigation strategy, while rank-and-file DNC staff helped prepare the conspirators’ complaints.
58. For example, an email DNC employee Caroline Adler sent to DNC staff contained an attachment entitled “Script for Nader Petition Signers,” which DNC employees used to help conspirators manufacture evidence upon which to challenge Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers. The electronic document’s properties indicate that DNC and Kerry-Edwards Campaign consultant Jack Corrigan authored this document.
59. The Kerry-Edwards Campaign also joined the conspiracy, coordinating with lawyers and directly participating in the conspiracy’s litigation. For example, an email from Judy Reardon, the Kerry-Edwards Campaign’s deputy national director for northern New England, indicates Ms. Reardon herself drafted one of the conspirators’ complaints and coordinated with the Democratic Party officials and attorneys who filed it, including New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Sullivan.
60. The Ballot Project directed the conspiracy in conjunction with the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards Campaign, all headquartered in the District of Columbia, and coordinated with state Democratic Parties to recruit attorneys to provide counsel for the conspiracy’s nationwide legal assault. As Defendant Moffett told the New York Times, “We’re doing everything we can to facilitate lawyers in over 20 states.”
61. At least 95 lawyers from 53 law firms eventually joined the litigation. The DNC, state Democratic Parties and The Ballot Project collectively paid these firms nearly $1 million, while their co-conspirator bar members contributed in excess of $2 million in pro bono legal services.
62. Despite their massive expenditure of resources and their campaigns of harassment, intimidation and sabotage, the conspirators eventually lost the vast majority of lawsuits they filed. The FEC also dismissed all five complaints conspirators filed. The conspirator’s intent, however, was not to vindicate valid claims, but to use the sheer burden of litigation itself as a means to bankrupt and disrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign, to keep Nader-Camejo off the ballot, and to suppress the candidates’ speech and the Plaintiff-voters’ rights of association. As Defendant Moffett admitted to the Washington Post in August 2004, “We wanted to neutralize his campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things, but much to our astonishment we’ve actually been more successful than we thought we’d be in stopping him from getting on at all.”
63. After the 2004 election, Defendant Moffett reaffirmed Defendants’ unlawful intent. “We had a role in the ballot challenges,” Defendant Moffett told The Guardian UK in December 2004. “We distracted him and drained him of resources. I’d be less than honest if I said it was all about the law. It was about stopping Bush from getting elected.”
64. During the election, however, Defendants denied and fraudulently concealed their involvement in conspirators’ groundless and abusive litigation against Nader-Camejo. In September 2004, for example, DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera told the Associated Press, “Our state parties made the decision to make sure that if Ralph Nader wanted to get on the ballot, that he was playing by the rules.” Mr. Cabrera also specifically denied that the DNC was funding the state parties’ litigation. In fact, FEC records now confirm, the DNC hired several of the state parties’ law firms.
65. Defendant John Kerry likewise denied involvement in conspirators’ wrongful litigation. “I respect [Mr. Nader]. I’m not going to attack him in any way,” Mr. Kerry told the Associated Press in April 2004. “I’m just going to try to talk to his people and point out that we’ve got to beat George Bush. And I hope that by the end of this race I can make it unnecessary for people to feel they need to vote for someone else.” In fact, however, despite John Kerry’s prior disavowal, the Kerry-Edwards Campaign directly participated in at least one lawsuit conspirators filed against Nader-Camejo.
66. Defendants’ conspiracy against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in 2004 was unprecedented in its magnitude and scope. The DNC, the Kerry-Edwards Campaign, The Ballot Project, 18 state or local Democratic Parties, at least 95 lawyers from 53 law firms, and hundreds if not thousands of Democratic Party operatives conspired with the specific intent of using legal and administrative processes to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign and prevent Nader-Camejo from running for President and Vice President, thereby denying millions of Americans the choice of voting for them. Accordingly, Defendants unlawfully conspired to abuse legal and administrative processes to achieve four distinct but related improper purposes:
i. Defendants unlawfully conspired to cause financial injury and other damages to the Nader-Camejo 2004 presidential campaign;

ii. Defendants unlawfully conspired to cause financial injury and other damages to Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo personally;

iii. Defendants unlawfully conspired with state actors and acted under color of state law to violate Nader-Camejo’s constitutional rights by preventing them from appearing on the ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election;

iv. Defendants unlawfully conspired with state actors and acted under color of state law to violate Plaintiff-voters’ constitutional rights, and those of others similarly situated, by denying voters their free choice of candidates in the 2004 presidential election.

II. Defendants Engaged in Acts of Harassment, Intimidation and Sabotage in Furtherance of Their Conspiracy.

67. The conspirators knew that litigation alone would be insufficient to prevent Nader-Camejo from gaining ballot access in certain states. Therefore, to support their legal assault, conspirators in these states engaged in acts of harassment, intimidation and sabotage, often under fraudulent or false pretenses. These acts were specifically intended to prevent Nader-Camejo from complying with state election laws, and to manufacture legal grounds for the conspirators’ otherwise baseless claims.
68. In Ohio, where Mr. Nader received 117,857 votes in 2000, and where Nader-Camejo could gain ballot access in 2004 by collecting 5,000 signatures, conspirators orchestrated a massive campaign of harassment and intimidation to prevent Nader-Camejo petitioners from collecting signatures. Conspirators hired private investigators to visit petitioners’ homes and warn them that they were the subject of a “background check” the investigators were conducting. Conspirators’ lawyers also attempted to subpoena 27 different petitioners, and repeatedly called them at home to demand their compliance. The subpoenas’ demands were so unreasonable and burdensome that compliance would have prevented petitioners from doing anything else – including collecting signatures. Specifically, the subpoenas demanded that petitioners on short notice report to the offices of law firms throughout the state and produce:
(1) All documents, including but not limited to correspondence, memoranda, notes, electronic mail, and part-petitions, relating to the obtaining of signatures from Ohio residents for part-petitions and/or the Statement of Candidacy and Nominating Petition filed by Ralph Nader;

(2) All documents, including but not limited to correspondence, memoranda, notes, and/or electronic mail, relating to communications with: any persons affiliated with Ralph Nader; and any persons acting as solicitors to obtain signatures for Ralph Nader to qualify him for certification to the ballot for the general election as an independent candidate in Ohio;

(3) All documents, including but not limited to correspondence, memoranda, notes, electronic mail, contracts, bank checks, and bank account statements, relating to your being paid for obtaining signatures for Ralph Nader to qualify him for certification to the ballot for the general election as an independent candidate in Ohio;

(4) All documents, including but not limited to, voter registration cards, drivers’ licenses, bank account statements, leases, deeds, property tax assessments, and utility bills, evidencing your residence since January 1, 2000; and

(5) All documents, including but not limited to, voter registration cards, evidencing the states in which you have been registered to vote.”

69. In Oregon, where Mr. Nader received 77,357 votes in 2000, and where Nader-Camejo could gain ballot access in 2004 by holding a nominating convention with 1,000 attendees, conspirators openly admitted their intention to interfere. “If we think it gets to a point where we need to step in and mobilize to make sure he doesn’t get on the ballot, then we will,” a spokesperson for America Coming Together (ACT), a Democratic 527 founded by SEIU, told CBS News in April 2004. ACT, SEIU, Oregon Democratic Party members and at least one local Oregon Democratic Party official subsequently engaged in a coordinated effort to disrupt two Nader-Camejo nominating conventions, held in April and in June, causing them to fail. When Nader-Camejo later tried to gain ballot access by collecting signatures on nominating petitions, ACT and SEIU organized teams of operatives to sabotage the petitions under false pretenses, by deliberately signing them in the wrong place, thereby invalidating the entire sheet. Conspirators then resorted to the same harassment and intimidation tactics they employed in Ohio. Private detectives visited petitioners’ homes and threatened them with jail time, while their co-conspirator attorneys sent misleading letters falsely threatening petitioners with “conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years” if they submitted signatures that were later invalidated.
70. In Pennsylvania, where Mr. Nader received 103,392 votes in 2000, and where Nader-Camejo could gain ballot access in 2004 by submitting 25,697 signatures, on information and belief conspirators sabotaged Nader-Camejo’s petitions under false pretenses by signing thousands of fake names. Nader-Camejo petitioners expunged approximately 7,000 such names, but did not detect a small number (687 or 1.3% of the total) among the 51,273 signatures they submitted. The conspirators later used this manufactured evidence as a basis for their lawsuit and subsequent demand for $81,102.19 in litigation costs.
71. The conspirators’ campaign of harassment, intimidation and sabotage was decisive to the success of their litigation against Nader-Camejo. The conspirators won their lawsuits in Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania, and Illinois, but lost in every other state. Nader-Camejo also withdrew in Arizona, where the conspirators sued first, due to the prohibitive cost of defending the litigation. Mr. Nader was on the ballot in each of these states as a candidate in the 2000 presidential election, and Nader-Camejo would have been in 2004 but for the conspirators’ unlawful interference.

III. Defendants or Their Co-Conspirators Filed 24 State Law Complaints and Five FEC Complaints Against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Furtherance of Their Conspiracy.

1) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Arizona.

72. On June 23, 2004, Dorothy Schultz and Betty Elizabeth Hughes, registered Democrats in Arizona, filed a complaint in the Maricopa County Superior Court challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under A.R.S. § 16-351. The complaint identified Andrew S. Gordon and the law firm of Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer, Owens and Nelson, P.L.C. as attorneys for Dorothy Schultz and Betty Elizabeth Hughes.
73. State law prohibits the Arizona Democratic Party from filing challenges in its own name, but Chairman and DNC official Jim Pederson told the Associated Press that the Party had supported the plaintiffs and had informed the Kerry-Edwards Campaign about the lawsuit.
74. On July 2, 2004, Nader-Camejo was forced to withdraw their nomination papers and end the proceeding due to the prohibitive cost of the litigation.
75. On August 16, 2004, Nader-Camejo filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging Arizona’s filing deadline.
76. On August 31, 2004, plaintiff Schultz filed an intervenor’s motion to dismiss and requested Rule 11 sanctions in Nader-Camejo’s District Court proceeding. Plaintiff Schultz’s motion to dismiss identified Thomas K. Irvine, Larry J. Wulkan, the Irvine Law Firm, P.A., Marty Harper, Kelly J. Flood and Shughart, Thompson and Kilroy, P.C. as her attorneys.
77. On September 10, 2004, the District Court denied Plaintiff Schultz’s Rule 11 motion and denied Nader-Camejo injunctive relief. Nader-Camejo did not appear on the Arizona ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
78. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $253,458 to the Arizona Democratic Party, and at least $2,500 to Arizona Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

2) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Arkansas.

79. On September 10, 2004, Linda Chesterfield, a registered Democrat in Arkansas, and the Democratic Party of Arkansas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Sixth Division, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 7-7-103(d). The complaint identified Robin J. Carroll, the law firm of Vickery and Carroll, P.A. and Brian D. Greer as plaintiffs’ attorneys.
80. On September 20, 2004, the Circuit Court of Pulaski County ordered the Secretary of State to remove Nader-Camejo from the Arkansas state ballot.
81. On September 21, 2004, Nader-Camejo appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which vacated the lower court’s order and directed the Secretary of State to certify Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Arkansas ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
82. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $266,101 to the Arkansas Democratic Party, and at least $286,364 to Arkansas Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

3) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed two complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Colorado.

83. On September 13, 2004, Valentin Vigil, Gary Fedel and Susan Fedel, registered voters in Colorado, and Colorado Democratic Party Executive Director Julie DeWoody, on behalf of the Colorado Democratic Party, filed a complaint in the District Court of Denver County, Colorado challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under C.R.S. 1-4-501(3). The complaint identified David Fine, Michael Belo, the law firm Kelly, Haglund, Garnsey and Kahn, LLC, and the law firm Berenbaum, Wienshienk and Eason as their attorneys.
84. On September 13, 2004, Nancy Pakieser, a registered Democrat in Colorado, and Maurice O. Nyquist, a registered voter in Colorado, filed a separate complaint in the District Court of Denver County, Colorado, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under C.R.S. 1-4-501(3). The Pakieser complaint identified Mark G. Grueskin of the firm Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Woods and Levy, P.C. as their attorneys.
85. In an oral decision, the District Court dismissed both complaints, and Nader-Camejo appeared on the Colorado ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
86. IRS records indicate that The Ballot Project coordinated with Isaacson Rosenbaum and reimbursed the firm for its expenses. In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $224,930 to the Colorado Democratic Party, and at least $1,973,504 to Colorado Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

4) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed two complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Florida.

87. On September 2, 2004, Candice Wilson and Alan Herman, registered voters in Florida, Scott Maddox, Chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, and the Florida Democratic Party filed a complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit Court for Leon County, Florida, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under Fla. Stat. § 102.168. The complaint identified Stephen Rosenthal, Michael Olin, Maria Kayanan, Mark Herron, Richard Rosenthal, the law firm Podhurst Orseck, P.A., the law firm Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A., and the Law Offices of Richard Rosenthal as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
88. On September 2, 2004, Florida voters Harriet Jane Black, William Chapman, Robert Rackleff and Terry Anderson filed a separate complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit Court for Leon County, Florida, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under Fla. Stat. § 102.168. The complaint identified Edward Stafman as attorney for the plaintiffs. Subsequent filings identified Brooke Lewis and David Miller of the firm Broad and Cassel, and Joel Perwin of the Law Office of Joel S. Perwin as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
89. On September 9, 2004, the Circuit Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Secretary of State from certifying Nader-Camejo as candidates for President and Vice President in Florida. “I’m quite confident in the ruling,” Circuit Court Judge Kevin P. Davey told the Washington Post. “There’s at least 15 reasons as to why they won’t qualify, at least 15 that I counted up. If it was one or two, I’d be worried about it, but there’s a whole lot of reasons Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo aren’t going to appear on the ballot in Florida.”
90. “Florida is huge – huge,” Mr. Moffett told a Knight-Ridder reporter after Judge Davey’s decision. “Florida is not only important for the obvious reasons, but also as a symbolic victory.”
91. On September 10, 2004, Nader-Camejo appealed to Florida’s First District Court of Appeals for a stay of the Circuit Court’s preliminary injunction. Attorneys Stephen Rosenthal, Michael Olin, Maria Kayanan, Mark Herron, Richard Rosenthal and Joel Perwin filed an opposition to this appeal. The Court of Appeals sua sponte certified the case to the Supreme Court of Florida. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction but directed the Circuit Court to proceed to final judgment first.
92. On September 15, 2004, the Circuit Court issued an order enjoining the Secretary of State from certifying Nader-Camejo as candidates for President and Vice President in Florida.
93. On September 16, 2004, attorneys Edward Stafman, Kelly Overstreet Johnson, David Miller and Brooke Lewis submitted an appellees’ brief to the Supreme Court of Florida in support of plaintiffs below. Attorneys Laurence Tribe, Joel Perwin, Stephen Rosenthal, Michael Olin, Maria Kayanan, Mark Herron, Richard Rosenthal, Martin Lederman, Eric Seiler, Amy Brown and Katherine Pringle submitted a separate appellees’ brief in support of plaintiffs below.
94. Attorney Pringle’s bio on her firm’s website states that she “served as co-counsel to the Kerry for President Campaign in litigation concerning the 2004 Florida election ballot.”
95. On September 17, 2004, attorney Laurence Tribe argued before the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiffs below that Nader-Camejo did not meet the requirements to be candidates for President and Vice President in Florida. Defending his involvement, Mr. Tribe told Harvard Law School’s independent newspaper The Record, “I believe that Ralph Nader is unfortunately responsible for the fact that Bush rather than Gore became the 43rd President.”
96. A team of attorneys assisted Mr. Tribe, including M. Stephen Turner, Edward Stafman, Kelly Overstreet Johnson, David Miller, Brooke Lewis, Stephen Rosenthal, Michael Olin, Maria Kayanan, Mark Herron, Thomas Findley, Richard Rosenthal and Joel Perwin.
97. On September 17, 2004, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed the trial court and vacated the Court of Appeals’ injunction. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Florida ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
98. The conspirators reportedly recruited 30 lawyers in total to challenge Nader-Camejo’s Florida nomination papers. The conspirators did not sue other candidates on Florida’s ballot, Mr. Moffett told the Washington Post, because those candidates didn’t pose a threat to the Kerry-Edwards Campaign.
99. IRS records indicate that The Ballot Project paid $150,000 to Broad and Cassel for representing the Florida plaintiffs, and another $5,000 to attorney Samuel Dubbin. The Ballot Project also paid $20,534 to American University professor Allan Lichtman to testify as an expert witness. FEC records indicate that the Florida Democratic Party retained Messer, Caparello and Self, and paid the firm $57,481 in 2004. FEC records also indicate that the DNC reimbursed Joel S. Perwin and Martin Lederman $975 and $536, respectively, for travel expenses in 2004. Finally, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $1,709,626 to the Florida Democratic Party, and at least $4,789,765 to Florida Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

5) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Illinois.

100. On June 28, 2004, John F. Tully, Jr., a registered Democrat in Illinois, filed a complaint with the Illinois State Board of Elections challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under 10 ILCS 5/10-8. Michael Kasper and Michael Kreloff served as Mr. Tully’s attorneys before the Board of Elections and in subsequent proceedings. Mr. Kasper is General Counsel and Treasurer of the Illinois Democratic Party. Mr. Kreloff is a Democratic Party Committeeman from Cook County.
101. Neither Mr. Kasper nor Mr. Kreloff disclosed his employment by or affiliation with the Illinois Democratic Party in court filings, but the Illinois Times reported that Mr. Tully “formally filed the objection” on the Party’s behalf. Media reports and records from the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners also indicate that Democratic Speaker of the Illinois State House Michael Madigan’s staff secured copies of Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers in order, on information and belief, to help prepare Mr. Tully’s complaint.
102. On July 6, 2004, the Board of Elections invalidated thousands of signatures on Nader-Camejo’s nomination petition and determined that it was short of the 25,000 required by Illinois law.
103. On July 27, 2004, Nader-Camejo sought a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, to enjoin the Board of Elections from removing them from the Illinois ballot.
104. On August 4, 2004, Mr. Tully, through his Democratic Party attorneys Mr. Kasper and Mr. Kreloff, filed a motion to dismiss Nader-Camejo’s complaint in the District Court.
105. On August 19, 2004, the Board of Elections found that Nader-Camejo were not certified as candidates for President and Vice President in Illinois.
106. On August 23, 2004, the District Court denied Nader-Camejo’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Nader-Camejo immediately appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
107. On August 27, 2004, Nader-Camejo sought expedited review of the Board of Elections’ August 19th decision in the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
108. On September 23, 2004, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Board of Elections’ decision to remove Nader-Camejo from the Illinois ballot.
109. On September 29, 2004, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Nader-Camejo’s appeal. Nader-Camejo did not appear on the Illinois ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
110. The Ballot Project paid Mr. Kreloff $12,000 for legal consulting in 2004. In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $86,301 to the Illinois Democratic Party, and at least $5,000 to Illinois Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

6) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Iowa.

111. On August 20, 2004, Lee Baldwin Jolliffe, a registered Democrat, filed a complaint with the Iowa State Commissioner of Elections challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under Iowa Code § 44.4. The complaint identified Steven P. Wandro, the law firm of Wandro, Baer and Casper, P.C., Glenn L. Norris and the law firm of Hawkins and Norris, P.C. as her attorneys.
112. On August 26, 2004, Ms. Jolliffe told the Des Moines Register that she was a supporter of John Kerry, and that she filed her objection because “I was really upset with the last election,” when Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. The Des Moines Register also identified Mr. Wandro and Mr. Norris as Democrats.
113. Ms. Jolliffe filed her complaint based upon a review of Nader-Camejo’s petition to determine whether the signers were included as registered voters on the Iowa Democratic Party’s Voter Activation Network, a proprietary database of voters. Ms. Jolliffe thus received valuable material support from the Iowa State Democratic Party in preparing her complaint.
114. On August 30, 2004, Iowa’s Secretary of State found Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers valid. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Iowa ballot as candidates for President and Vice President.
115. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $1,294,404 to the Iowa Democratic Party, and at least $1,420,650 to Iowa Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

7) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed two complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Maine.

116. On August 23, 2004, Maine Democratic Party Chair and DNC official Dorothy M. Melanson filed a complaint with Maine’s Secretary of State challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under 21-A M.R.S. § 356. The complaint identified Michael K. Mahoney and the law firm Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau, Pachios, and Haley as Ms. Melanson’s attorneys.
117. On August 23, 2004, Benjamin Tucker, a registered Democrat in Maine, filed a second complaint challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under 21-A M.R.S. § 356. Mr. Tucker’s complaint identified James T. Kilbreth and the law firm Verrill and Dana, LLP as Mr. Tucker’s attorneys.
118. On August 30-31, 2004, the Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions held a public hearing on Ms. Melanson’s and Mr. Tucker’s complaints. At the hearing, Ms. Melanson testified that she was a salaried employee of the Democratic Party, and that she had formerly held many positions with the DNC. In fact, Ms. Melanson was and is currently a DNC official. In response to questioning from Nader-Camejo’s attorney, Ms. Melanson testified:
Q: I’m asking you if the Democratic Party has contacted you personally and said we will support with money with other supports that as you need them to bring a challenge against the petitions of Ralph Nader in Maine. Has the Democratic Party contacted you personally and asked you to do this?

A: Yes.

Q: And have they said they will help you pay for it?

A: They have said they would help in many ways.

Q: Did they say they would help you pay for it?

A: Yes.

Q: Are they paying for your attorneys?

A: They are.

Q: Do they expect that you should make a response to them in your capacity as state Democratic Chair once these hearings are concluded and a decision is rendered by the Secretary of State’s office?

A: Are they expecting to hear what the decision is?

Q: From you personally?

A: Yes.

Q: Was this part of the agreement that you made with them? I mean, I characterize what I’ve heard so far as an agreement between them and you to perform certain deeds for funds and to make a response as part of this agreement. Is that correct? In other words, they’re expecting a report?

A: There are members of the DNC who certainly want to hear what the outcome of this is.

Q: They’re expecting to hear this from you and from no other person?

A: Or from my attorneys.

119. On September 8, 2004, the Secretary of State denied both Ms. Melanson’s and Mr. Tucker’s complaints. Ms. Melanson appealed to the Kennebec Superior Court of Maine on September 10, 2004. The Superior Court denied the appeal on September 27, 2004. Ms. Melanson appealed that decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which affirmed the Superior Court on October 8, 2004. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Maine ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
120. The DNC retained Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau, Pachios, and Haley in September and October of 2004, and paid the firm $32,282 in legal and political consulting fees. In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $222,412 to the Maine Democratic Party, and at least $373,559 to Maine Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

8) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed an FEC complaint and a state court complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Michigan.

121. On July 9, 2004, Michigan’s Secretary of State refused to certify Nader-Camejo’s nomination as the Reform Party candidates for President and Vice President in Michigan.
122. On July 15, 2004, Nader-Camejo filed a nomination petition to gain ballot access as a independent candidates for President and Vice President. The next day, the Michigan Democratic Party issued a press release entitled, “Democrats to File Complaint Unless Nader Withdraws.”
123. On July 22, 2004, Mark Brewer, Michigan Democratic Party Executive Chair and Vice Chair of the DNC, filed a complaint with the Michigan State Bureau of Elections challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under NCLS § 168.552. The complaint identified Mary Ellen Gurewitz, Andrew Nickelhoff, and the law firm of Sachs, Waldman as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
124. Ms. Gurewitz’s bio on the Sachs Waldman website states that Ms. Gurewitz “provides representation to the Michigan Democratic Party and has represented many candidates…in election related matters, including ballot access.” Mr. Nickelhoff’s bio states that Mr. Nickelhoff “provides representation and advice to the Michigan Democratic Party, as well as Democratic Party organizations and candidates.”
125. On September 3, 2004, the Michigan State Court of Appeals ruled that Nader-Camejo was qualified to appear on Michigan’s ballot. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Michigan ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
126. On September 17, 2004, Mr. Brewer filed an FEC complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign, requesting that the FEC suspend presidential matching fund payments to the campaign. The FEC took no action against the Nader-Camejo Campaign and dismissed the complaint by unanimous vote on June 23, 2005.
127. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $251,327 to the Michigan Democratic Party, and at least $2,963,649 to Michigan Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

9) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Mississippi.

128. On September 3, 2004, Wayne Dowdy, DNC official and Chairman of the Mississippi Democratic Party, filed a complaint on behalf of the party with the Mississippi State Board of Election, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under Miss. Code Ann, 23-15-963. The complaint identified Samuel L. Begley and Begley Law Firm, PLLC as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
129. On September 7, 2004, the Board of Election Commissioners held a hearing on the complaint. Mr. Begley, Brad Pigott of Pigott, Reeves, Johnson and Minor, P.A., and Richard Davidson represented the Democratic Party at the hearing. At the hearing’s conclusion, the Board denied the Democratic Party’s complaint. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Mississippi ballot as a candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
130. The DNC paid the Begley Law Firm legal consulting fees of $6,501 on October 15, 2004. In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $89,519 to the Mississippi Democratic Party. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

10) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Nevada.

131. On August 24, 2004, registered Democrats Renee McKinley and Joan T. Ward, joined by registered voter Myrna McKinley and the Nevada State Democratic Party, filed a complaint in Nevada’s First Judicial District Court challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 298.109. The complaint and subsequent court filings identified Paul E. Larsen, Allen J. Wilt, and the law firm of Lionel, Sawyer and Collins as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
132. On August 30, the District Court commenced a three-day expedited hearing to consider the complaint. Ian Glinka, Director of Information Technology for the Nevada State Democratic Party, testified that he had reviewed Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers and concluded that thousands of signatures were invalid.
133. On September 1, 2004, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ complaint, and they appealed to the Nevada State Supreme Court, which affirmed the District Court on September 15, 2004. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Nevada ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
134. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $575,458 to the Nevada Democratic Party, and at least $1,146,292 to Nevada Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

11) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed an FEC complaint and two state court complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in New Hampshire.

135. On August 10, 2004, New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Sullivan filed an FEC complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign. The FEC took no action against the Nader-Camejo Campaign and dismissed the complaint by unanimous vote on June 23, 2005.
136. On September 7, 2004, DNC official and New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Sullivan and the New Hampshire Democratic State Committee filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under RSA 655:44.
137. On September 13, 2004, Kathleen Sullivan and New Hampshire voters Hazel R. Tremblay, Dorie M. Grizzard and Brian Farias filed a second complaint challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under RSA 655:44. The complaint identified Martha Van Oot, Emily Gray Rice and the law firm Orr and Reno, P.A. as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
138. Ms. Van Oot and Ms. Rice worked on the lawsuit in coordination with Kathleen Sullivan and Judy Reardon, the Kerry-Edwards Campaign’s deputy national director for Northern New England. Ms. Reardon drafted the complaint, while Ms. Van Oot made hand-written revisions, which were circulated to Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Reardon and attorneys Mark Atkins of Welts, White and Fontain, Burt Nadler of Petrucelly and Nadler, and Martin Honigberg of Sulloway and Hollis.
139. On September 24, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the two complaints. Nader-Camejo appeared on the New Hampshire ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
140. The Kerry-Edwards Campaign paid Ms. Reardon $64,000 from March to July, 2004. In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $284,554 to the New Hampshire Democratic Party, and at least $978,590 to New Hampshire Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

12) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in New Mexico.

141. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, The Ballot Project president Toby Moffett told New Mexico State Democratic Party Chair and DNC official John Wertheim that he should appoint someone to spearhead the party’s efforts to deny Nader-Camejo ballot access in New Mexico. Mr. Wertheim agreed to do so, stating, “This is a central focus of my own duties as chairman.”
142. On September 10, 2004, attorney Eric Sedillo Jeffries, the New Mexico contact for the group Lawyers for Kerry, wrote to New Mexico’s Secretary of State that he represented “at least three Democrats who will probably be filing a suit on the Nader petitions received by your office.” On the last page of Attorney Jeffries’ letter, he indicated that he had copied several parties, including the clients referenced above and Mr. Nader. Attorney Jeffries used the standard “cc:” designation to indicate this fact. On a separate page of the letter, which was otherwise blank, Attorney Jeffries indicated that he had secretly copied three additional parties via email. Jeffries used the standard “bcc:” designation to indicate this fact. The three additional parties were New Mexico State Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Gideon Elliot, New Mexico State Democratic Party Chair and DNC Official John Wertheim, and attorney Andrew Schultz.
143. On September 15, 2004, plaintiffs Moises Griego, Richard W. Kirschner, Abraham Gutman, Vanessa M. Alarid and Laura LaFlamme filed a complaint in the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, presumably under N.M. Dist. Ct. R.C.P. 1-096, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from placing Nader-Camejo on New Mexico’s ballot as candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. The complaint identified Eric Sedillo Jeffries, Andrew G. Schultz, the law firm Jeffries, Rugge, and Rosales, P.C., and the law firm Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin and Robb, P.A. as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
144. On September 17, 2004, District Court Judge Wendy York issued an order denying Nader-Camejo’s right to run as independent candidates for President and Vice President in New Mexico. Three days later, several New Mexico voters revealed that Judge York had donated $1,000 to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s campaign. Judge York’s order was vacated, and she recused herself from the case. That same day, District Court Judge Theresa Baca issued an identical order.
145. On September 23, 2004, pursuant to Nader-Camejo’s appeal, the New Mexico State Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s order, and directed the Secretary of State not to destroy or distribute any ballots pending further order. That same day, three registered New Mexico voters filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint requested the federal District Court to direct the Secretary of State to place Nader-Camejo on New Mexico’s ballot as candidates for President and Vice President of the United States.
146. On September 24, 2004, the federal District Court held a hearing. Attorney Jerry Todd Wertheim made an oral motion to intervene on behalf of state court plaintiff Venessa Alarid. The court denied Attorney Wertheim’s motion. Jerry Todd Wertheim is a partner with the firm Jones, Snead, Wertheim and Wentworth, P.A., where New Mexico Democratic Party Chair and DNC official John Wertheim is also a partner.
147. On September 28, 2004, the federal District Court directed the Secretary of State to place Nader-Camejo on New Mexico’s ballot. Nader-Camejo appeared on the New Mexico ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election .
148. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $621,992 to the New Mexico Democratic Party, and at least $1,167,980 to New Mexico Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

13) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed two complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Ohio.

149. On August 18, 2004, the Nader-Camejo Campaign submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State’s Election Division a nomination petition with 14,473 signatures. State law required the campaign to submit 5,000 valid signatures, and no more than 15,000 signatures in total.
150. On August 30, 2004, Ohio voters Benson A. Wolman, Jerilyn L. Wolman, Zachary E. Manifold, Julia E. Manifold, Bassel Korkor, Rebecca S. Mosher, Barry C. Keenan, Gerald L. Robinson, Scott Austin, Mary C. Woods, Johnathon Brunner, Max Kravitz and Daniel T. Kobil filed a complaint with Ohio’s Secretary of State challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under ORC Ann. 3513.05 and 3513.257. The complaint identified Donald J. McTigue and the law offices of Donald J. McTigue as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
151. On August 30, 2004, Attorney McTigue requested the Secretary of State to issue subpoenas to nine Nader-Camejo Campaign petitioners, commanding them to appear at the offices of McGinnis and Associates, a court reporting firm, only four days later, on September 3, 2004. Attorney McTigue’s request stated:
Each subpoena should command the individual to bring with them all documents which relate in any manner to the circulation of nominating petitions on behalf of Ralph Nader…in Ohio or any other state, all documents which document any contract or payment from the circulation of such petitions, all documents regarding their voter registration status in Ohio or any other state at anytime, and all assessments, which evidence any residence or residences by such person in Ohio during the years 2000 through 2004.

The Secretary of State did not issue any subpoenas pursuant to this request.
152. On September 2, 2004, plaintiffs Benson Wolman, Marjorie Bender and Robert Crosby, Jr. filed a second complaint, presumably also under ORC Ann. 3513.05, and 3513.257, for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County. The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction enjoining the Secretary of State from placing Nader-Camejo on Ohio’s ballot as candidates for President and Vice President.
153. On September 4, 2004, plaintiffs Benson Wolman, Marjorie Bender and Robert Crosby, Jr. secured subpoenas from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas for several Nader-Camejo Campaign petitioners. The subpoenas identified John P. Gilligan and Russell J. Kuttell of the law firm Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, L.P.A, and Attorney McTigue as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
154. The subpoenas commanded Nader-Camejo petitioners to appear and give testimony at law firm offices throughout Ohio. Six petitioners were to appear at the offices of Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, L.P.A. in Cleveland on September 8, 2004. Six petitioners were to appear at the offices of Beckman, Weil, Shepardson and Faller, LLC in Cincinnati on September 9, 2004. Eleven petitioners were to appear at the offices of Sebaly, Shillito and Dyer, L.P.A. in Dayton on September 10 and 13, 2004. Four petitioners were to appear at the offices of Eastman and Smith, Ltd. in Toledo on September 14, 2004.
155. The subpoenas also commanded each Nader-Camejo petitioner – many of them volunteers – to produce:
1) All documents, including but not limited to correspondence, memoranda, notes, electronic mail, and part-petitions, relating to the obtaining of signatures from Ohio residents for part-petitions and/or the Statement of Candidacy and Nominating Petition filed by Ralph Nader.

2) All documents, including but not limited to correspondence, memoranda, notes, and/or electronic mail, relating to communications with:

a. any persons affiliated with Ralph Nader; and

b. any persons acting as solicitors to obtain signatures for Ralph Nader to qualify him for certification to the ballot for the general election as an independent candidate in Ohio.

3) All documents, including but not limited to correspondence, memoranda, notes, electronic mail, contracts, bank checks, and bank account statements, relating to your being paid for obtaining signatures for Ralph Nader to qualify him for certification to the ballot for the general election as an independent candidate in Ohio.

4) All documents, including but not limited to, voter registration cards, drivers’ licenses, bank account statements, leases, deeds, property tax assessments, and utility bills, evidencing your residence since January 1, 2000.

5) All documents, including but not limited to, voter registration cards, evidencing the states in which you have been registered to vote.

156. One volunteer petitioner received repeated phone calls from Andrew Clubock, an attorney in Washington, D.C. with the law firm Kirkland and Ellis, who left only his name and the message, “Call me about the subpoena.” Another volunteer petitioner received a visit to her home from a private detective who claimed to be investigating her. He left a card and told her to call his firm.
157. On September 7, 2004, Ohio’s Attorney General filed a motion for a protective order in the Court of Common Pleas to prevent enforcement of plaintiffs’ subpoenas. The Attorney General’s memorandum in support of the motion stated:
The Plaintiffs in this case seek to prohibit Ralph Nader from securing a spot to run for president on the Ohio ballot. As part of that strategy, either these specific plaintiffs, or those acting in concert with them, have filed protests with the Ohio Secretary of State concerning various Nader petitions.

158. On September 7, 2004, Attorneys Gilligan, Kuttell and Steven D. Forry of Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn and Attorney McTigue filed a motion to compel depositions and requested oral argument on the motion. The same day, attorney Attorney Clubock of Kirkland and Ellis wrote to Nader-Camejo’s counsel, threatening, “we have no choice but to take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena and seek any other potential remedies for your conduct.”
159. On September 8, 2004, the Secretary of State found that 6,464 signatures on Nader-Camejo’s petition were valid and certified the petition. That same day, the Court of Common Pleas granted the Secretary of State’s motion for a protective order and stay of discovery.
160. On September 24, 2004, attorneys Andrew Clubock, Gregory F. Corbett and Jennifer Levy of Kirkland and Ellis conducted a deposition of Nader-Camejo Campaign Manager Theresa Amato, which lasted approximately 1-1/2 hours.
161. On September 28, 2004, pursuant to hearings on conspirators’ complaints, the Secretary of State invalidated 2,756 more signatures and reversed certification of Nader-Camejo’s petition.
162. On October 6, 2004, Nader-Camejo filed for injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. On October 7, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene, asserting that they “are truly the real parties in interest here.” The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to intervene and denied Nader-Camejo’s motion for injunctive relief on October 12, 2004. Nader-Camejo appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on or about October 18, 2004.
163. On October 19, 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Nader-Camejo’s request for a writ of mandamus. Nader-Camejo did not appear on the Ohio ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
164. According to the Toledo Blade, the Ohio challenge to Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers was “filed by attorneys hired by or allied with the Ohio Democratic Party…[as] part of a nationwide effort to prevent Mr. Nader from siphoning votes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.” In fact, Attorney Gilligan of Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn was the Columbus, Ohio contact and Attorney Gregory Corbett of Kirkland and Ellis was the Washington, D.C. contact for the group Lawyers for Kerry. In addition, Attorney McTigue identified the Ohio Democratic Party as his client in an email to Ohio county boards of elections on August 22, 2004. Attorney McTigue also wrote a letter to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections on December 10, 2004, stating that John Kerry had personally appointed Attorney McTigue “as his legal counsel…with full authority to act on behalf of him and John Edwards” during the Ohio recount of the 2004 presidential election returns.
165. The DNC retained Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, L.P.A. and paid the firm $39,486 in legal and political consulting fees in September and October of 2004. The DNC also retained Kirkland and Ellis, and paid the firm $247,711 in legal and political consulting fees in September and November of 2004. In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $2,585,189 to the Ohio Democratic Party, and at least $3,065,661 to Ohio Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

14) Defendants or their co-conspirators intervened in proceedings to deny Nader-Camejo ballot access in Oregon.

166. In April 2004, a spokesperson for the Democratic 527 organization ACT told CBS News, “If we think it gets to a point where we need to step in and mobilize to make sure [Nader-Camejo] doesn’t get on the ballot, then we will.” Later that month, according to CBS, “ACT joined forces with other organizations in the state to discourage people from signing the petition” at Nader-Camejo’s April nominating convention, causing the convention to fall short of the 1,000 signing attendees necessary to qualify for ballot access under state law.
167. On June 26, 2004, Nader-Camejo held another nominating convention. This time the conspirators, acting under false pretenses, took seats at the convention but refused to sign Nader-Camejo’s petitions. The conspirators acted pursuant to an email Multnomah County Democratic Party official Moses Ross sent to party members, stating:
We need as many Oregon Democrats as possible to fill that room and NOT sign that petition. If we attend in large numbers and politely refuse to sign, Nader is denied his needed numbers. It’s that simple. Please make every attempt to attend this important event.

168. State officials from Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury’s office restricted entry to the convention to one doorway, and counted attendees with a manual clicker. In violation of state law providing that nominating conventions may last up to 24 hours, state officials shut the doors after counting approximately 1,100 attendees, before Mr. Nader had even addressed the convention. State officials thereafter refused entry to Nader-Camejo’s legitimate supporters. This action by state officials, together with the actions of conspirators who attended the convention but refused to sign the petitions, caused the convention to fall short of the 1,000 signing attendees.
169. On the same day that conspirators disrupted Nader-Camejo’s June convention, they also organized a campaign of harassing phone calls to the office of Plaintiff-voter Gregory Kafoury, which was serving as Nader-Camejo’s nomination convention headquarters. Each caller to Mr. Kafoury’s office spoke virtually identical words, as if speaking from a script, and the calls came so rapidly that they incapacitated the office phones for the entire day.
170. After disrupting Nader-Camejo’s two nominating conventions, the conspirators launched a coordinated campaign of harassment, intimidation and sabotage intended to prevent Nader-Camejo from gaining ballot access by submitting signatures, as Oregon state law alternatively permits. On August 12, 2004, private investigators hired by SEIU visited petitioners at their homes and falsely threatened them with jail time if signatures they collected were subsequently invalidated. The investigators also delivered petitioners a letter from attorney Margaret Olney of the law firm Smith, Diamond and Olney, which reiterated the false threat. The letter stated that the petitioners must certify that they “obtained the signatures of qualified voters,” or face “conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years.” This false threat was accompanied by a suggestion that the petitioners call Attorney Olney if they had any information to assist an investigation she claimed her firm was conducting. The blog Blue Oregon subsequently quoted SEIU local 49 chief Alice Dale admitting that SEIU had mailed the letters to 59 petitioners, and that “Two were delivered in person.”
171. SEIU and ACT took even more extreme measures to deny Nader-Camejo ballot access. According to Portland, Oregon ACT employee William Gillis, the groups jointly orchestrated a campaign to sabotage Nader-Camejo’s petitions. Following is an excerpt from Mr. Gillis’ blog, posted in August 2004:
The offices that I work in, at America Coming Together, are shared by SEIU’s election campaign and both organizations are rather heavily tied…For days now, most of the ACT staff had been aware of, if not complicit in, a scheme against the Nader Campaign.

People were pulled into side rooms and the higher echelons of both staffs exchanged a barrage of unusual whispered conversations. What’s more, today was set up to be a massive single-day canvassing effort on the part of ACT.

In the last few days I’ve heard of a concerted effort among the ACT/SEIU staff to attack the Nader petition drive.

A few of my fellow canvassers who were likely to be in the vicinity of the Nader campaign told me they had been asked to “mistakenly” invalidate petition papers. Misspelling names or information was a classical attack, but the SEIU had figured a better method.
On every page of signatures in an Oregon petition there is a small section on the bottom for the signature gatherer to sign, asserting their valid oversight. If asked to sign the Nader petition, our canvassers were encouraged to accidentally sign their name in that section instead. Upon realizing their mistake, these innocent canvassers would scribble it out, thus invalidating an entire sheet of signatures.
172. Despite coordinated efforts by the Oregon Democratic Party, SEIU and ACT to prevent Nader-Camejo from complying with state law, on August 24, 2004 the Nader-Camejo Campaign submitted 18,186 signatures, already certified as valid by county elections officials, to Secretary Bradbury’s office. This was almost 2,800 more valid signatures than Oregon law required.
173. On August 25, 2004, attorney Roy Pulvers sent a letter to Secretary Bradbury challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers. Mr. Pulvers is a contributor to the DNC and a member of the Oregon Democratic Party’s President Council, “the party’s largest revenue source for “federal” dollars to support presidential, senatorial, and congressional candidates.” Attorney Pulvers sent a second letter the same day, asserting that Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers were “misnumbered” and should be disqualified.
174. On September 2, 2004, Secretary Bradbury sent Nader-Camejo a letter stating that “there are not sufficient qualified signatures for you to gain ballot access.” In an unprecedented act, Secretary Bradbury had invalidated thousands of signatures that county elections officials had already certified as valid, and which Nader-Camejo submitted in accordance with instructions from Secretary Bradbury’s own office. Secretary Bradbury invalidated hundreds of these signatures due to alleged defects in Nader-Camejo petitioners’ own signatures – just as SEIU and ACT had planned.
175. On September 9, 2004, pursuant to a complaint filed by the Nader-Camejo Campaign, Oregon’s Marion County Circuit Court found that Secretary Bradbury’s action violated Oregon law. Of the methods Secretary Bradbury used to disqualify Nader-Camejo’s validated signatures, the Court wrote, “Neither action was authorized by administrative rule or statute, and each was inconsistent with both the state elections policy as established by the Legislature…and with the prior policy of the Secretary of State.” The Court ordered Secretary Bradbury to certify Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers.
176. On September 17, 2004, the Oregon Supreme Court deferred to Secretary Bradbury’s discretion to interpret and enforce state election laws and granted him a writ of mandamus requiring the Circuit Court to vacate its order. The Oregon Democratic Party, John Neel Pender, the Party’s Executive Director, and James Edmundson, the Party’s Chair, intervened as parties to this proceeding. The United States Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Nader-Camejo did not appear on the Oregon ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
177. SEIU maintains close political and financial ties with the DNC. SEIU’s Secretary-Treasurer, Anna Burger, is a DNC official, and SEIU endorsed and publicly committed its resources to electing John Kerry in 2004. SEIU also donated $1,000,000 to the DNC in 2004, while the DNC made numerous payments to SEIU, including $33,072 in political consulting fees in October and November 2004. SEIU was also a founding member of ACT and its largest contributor, donating $26 million in 2004, and housing the 527 in SEIU’s Portland office.
178. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $261,609 to the Oregon Democratic Party, and at least $896,002 to Oregon Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

15) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed two complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Pennsylvania.

179. On August 9, 2004, Philadelphia resident Ralph Dade filed a class action complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, alleging that he and several others were owed approximately $200 each for signatures they had collected for the campaign. The complaint identified Louis Agre, a Philadelphia Democratic Party Ward leader, and Thomas Martin as attorneys for the plaintiffs. Nader-Camejo disputed the claim on the ground that plaintiffs had submitted invalid signatures, and the complaint was dismissed.
180. On August 9, 2004, Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown and Julia O’Connell, registered Democrats in Pennsylvania, filed a second complaint in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under 25 PS § 2937. The complaint identified Gregory Harvey, another Philadelphia Democratic Party Ward leader, and Efrem Grail, Daniel Booker, Cynthia Kernick, Brian A. Gordon, Reed Smith LLP, Montgomery McCracken, Walker and Rhoads LLP, and the law offices of Brian A. Gordon as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
181. The complaint challenged approximately 35,000 of the 51,273 signatures on Nader-Camejo’s nominating petition on technical grounds, and alleged numerous procedural grounds for disqualifying Nader-Camejo from Pennsylvania’s ballot. Plaintiffs’ attorneys prepared the complaint in cooperation with Pennsylvania Democratic Party leaders, including state House Minority Leader Bill DeWeese and former Democratic Whip Mike DeWeese, and with support from approximately 170 Democratic Party volunteers Mr. DeWeese and Mr. Veon recruited.
182. On numerous occasions before, during and after the litigation, Mr. DeWeese, Mr. Veon and other party officials stated that the purpose of their lawsuit was to help John Kerry win the election. In July 2004, before Plaintiffs filed their complaint, Pennsylvania Democratic Party Executive Director Don Morabito told the Philadelphia City Paper, “we want to make sure” Nader-Camejo doesn’t detract votes from Mr. Kerry. On August 2, 2004, Mr. DeWeese told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “Working with the AFL-CIO, we will do everything humanly possible to fight [Nader-Camejo]….You don’t need a Ph.D in mathematics to understand that 100 percent of the vote [Nader-Camejo] gets will be skimmed from Senator Kerry’s total.” On August 9, 2004, the day plaintiffs filed their complaint, Mr. DeWeese told the Post-Gazette, “We are being completely open about our intentions. Our goal is to help elect John Kerry the next President of the United States.” After the election, Mr. DeWeese and Mr. Veon issued a press release stating, “our efforts to strike [Nader-Camejo] from the ballot proved successful for John Kerry in Pennsylvania.”
183. On August 30, 2004, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court set aside Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers and ordered their names stricken from the Pennsylvania ballot, because they were running as independent candidates in Pennsylvania and as candidates of a political party in other states.
184. On September 2, 2004, Nader-Camejo appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and vacated the Commonwealth Court’s order on September 20, 2004, and remanded to the Commonwealth Court for hearings. The Commonwealth Court immediately scheduled hearings in approximately 48 counties and 13 courtrooms; seven hearings were scheduled simultaneously in six different counties, with two hearings in Philadelphia.
185. On September 22, 2004, Nader-Camejo’s attorneys notified the court that they lacked staff to attend voter review hearings in 48 counties, and that they lacked attorneys to appear in 13 different courtrooms, because the conspirators’ nationwide legal assault had severely depleted the campaign’s resources. Nader-Camejo’s attorneys therefore requested the court to hold hearings in only one or two courtrooms. The Commonwealth Court rejected this request on September 23, 2004. Several hearings therefore proceeded without counsel present on behalf of Nader-Camejo.
186. To prepare for these hearings, the conspirators simply recruited more attorneys. On August 19, 2004, attorney Daniel Booker of Reed, Smith told the New York Times that “eight to ten lawyers in his firm were working on the case, 80 hours each a week for two weeks, and could end up working six more weeks.” Attorney Booker indicated that his firm had also taken on more than 100 volunteers to work on the case.
187. In fact, Attorney Booker’s estimate was low: Reed, Smith attorneys Ira Lefton, Christopher K. Walters, Milind Shah, Jeremy Feinstein, Mark Tamburi, James Doerfler, John McIntyre, Lisa Campoli, Barbara (Kiely) Hager, Andrea (Simonson) Weingarten, Jeffrey Bresch, Kim Watterson, Melissa Oretsky and James Williamson joined the litigation, for a total of at least 17 Reed, Smith attorneys. On October 1, 2004, American Lawyer reported that these attorneys had logged 1,300 pro bono hours on the case. “And that’s just the pre-election challenge,” the magazine reported.
188. On October 13, 2004, following three weeks of hearings in counties across Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins, who was elected to the bench as a Democrat, issued an opinion invalidating more than 30,000 of Nader-Camejo’s signatures on technical grounds. For example, approximately 9,000 signatures were invalidated because qualified electors – who could vote – had not yet registered on the day they signed Nader-Camejo’s nomination petition (even though Pennsylvania law specifies no such requirement). Another 6,000 signatures were invalidated because voters’ current addresses didn’t match their registered addresses. Thus, after striking a total of 32,455 signatures on these and other technical grounds, Judge Colins concluded that only 18,818 signatures were valid, and set aside Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers.
189. On October 14, 2004, Judge Colins issued an order directing Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo personally to pay all litigation costs arising from plaintiffs’ challenge. No state in the nation – including Pennsylvania – has ever ordered candidates to pay such costs after defending their right to ballot access.
190. On October 19, 2004, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order removing Nader-Camejo from the Pennsylvania ballot. The United States Supreme Court denied Nader-Camejo’s petition for a writ of certiorari on October 23, 2004. Nader-Camejo did not appear on the Pennsylvania ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
191. On December 3, 2004, attorneys Efrem Grail, Daniel Booker and Cynthia Kernick of Reed Smith, Gregory Harvey of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, and Brian A. Gordon, a solo practitioner, submitted a bill of costs to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the amount of $81,102.19. The attorneys claimed that the bill “is true and correct and accurately reflects costs incurred by [plaintiffs].” In fact, however, the plaintiffs did not incur any costs, being nominal parties conspirators recruited to sue the Nader-Camejo Campaign. As the true party in interest seeking to collect the costs, Reed Smith nevertheless submitted its bill on the plaintiffs’ behalf, claiming “Justice requires that this Court award [plaintiffs] the costs incurred.” Reed Smith’s attorneys never informed the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court that the DNC had already paid the firm $136,142, nor did they clarify or correct their many public claims to be working on the case pro bono.
192. Reed Smith lawyers also falsely claimed, in the brief they filed before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of their bill of costs, that Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers included “literally thousands of forged petition signatures.” In fact, however, Judge Colins counted only 687 out of 51,273 signatures (or 1.3%) as “forgeries,” which were submitted by people engaged in mischief or sabotage. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor previously emphasized this fact in a dissenting opinion, in an effort to correct prior distortions of the record. Justice Saylor also noted that the record contained “no evidence” to support Reed Smith’s allegations of fraud by anyone associated with the Nader-Camejo Campaign.
193. To the contrary, Nader-Camejo Campaign staff voluntarily expunged approximately 7,000 apparently fictitious names from Nader-Camejo’s nomination petitions, in an effort to lessen the Commonwealth Court’s burden. On information and belief, conspirators including Ralph Dade and the other plaintiffs in the dismissed class action complaint signed these names under false pretenses, in a deliberate attempt to sabotage Nader-Camejo’s petitions and manufacture evidence to support their Commonwealth Court complaint.
194. On January 14, 2005, Judge Colins entered an order approving the bill of costs without opinion, despite the fact that the record contains “no evidence” – much less a finding – of wrongdoing by anyone associated with the Nader-Camejo Campaign. A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court nevertheless affirmed without citing a single case as precedent for the order, thus upholding what appears to be the first post-election penalty assessed against a candidate in the history of American jurisprudence.
195. During the proceedings before Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Reed Smith never disclosed several ties the firm had with Justices of the court, which give rise to an obvious appearance of impropriety that would have provided grounds for Nader-Camejo to seek the Justices’ disqualification. Specifically:
• Reed Smith represented Chief Justice Ralph Cappy as his defense counsel in an ethics investigation that was ongoing while this case was before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court;

• Reed Smith and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads gave $10,000 in campaign contributions ($5,000 from each firm) to Justice Sandra Newman, who authored the majority opinion, in November 2005, while this case was before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Reed Smith gave Justice Newman another $6,100 during her previous election;

• Reed Smith extended an open-ended offer of employment to Justice Ronald Castille in 1985, which he accepted in 1991 and served of counsel at Reed Smith for nearly three years immediately before he joined the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1993;

• Reed Smith and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads gave at least $67,900 in campaign contributions to four out of five Justices who voted to affirm judgment in Reed Smith’s favor, and to one Justice who concurred and dissented; at least $58,900 of this total came from Reed Smith and its lawyers.

196. The appearance of impropriety arising from these ties between Reed Smith and the Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is manifest and unmistakable. In this case, moreover, the appearance of impropriety is compounded by Reed Smith’s status not merely as plaintiffs’ counsel, but also as the true party in interest seeking to collect a money judgment in the proceedings. Nevertheless, at no time during these proceedings did Reed Smith disclose its ties with four out of five Justices who voted to affirm the unprecedented $81,102.19 judgment in Reed Smith’s favor.
197. By contrast, the lone dissenter, Justice Thomas Saylor, has no apparent ties to Reed Smith. Justice Saylor dissented on the ground that Pennsylvania law – like the laws of every other state in the nation – simply does not authorize a taxation of costs against candidates who defend their nomination papers, but only against parties who challenge candidates’ nomination papers.
198. Reed Smith’s concealment of its ties with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices thus constitutes a fraud upon the court, because the firm induced its judgment in a manner that deprived Nader-Camejo of the opportunity to move for the Justices’ disqualification, in violation of basic principles of fairness, impartiality and due process.
199. Even while concealing their own fraud, Reed Smith’s attorneys repeatedly slandered Mr. Nader in the news media with accusations of fraud, and libeled him on the pro bono page of their website, where they published the following defamatory statement:
Our intensive effort to remove Ralph Nader from the 2004 Presidential ballot in Pennsylvania won national headlines, with the courts upholding our claim that 30,000 signatures supporting Mr. Nader were forged or otherwise fraudulent.
200. On March 8, 2007, Mr. Nader wrote to the partners of Reed Smith to protest this ongoing defamation, as well as the fraud and misrepresentation by which the firm obtained its judgment. Mr. Nader had not yet discovered that the judgment itself was tainted by an overwhelming appearance of impropriety arising from the foregoing undisclosed ties with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices. Reed Smith immediately removed the libelous language from its website, but otherwise did not respond.
201. Neither Mr. Nader nor Mr. Camejo discovered Reed Smith’s ties to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices until September 2007. Thus, prior to that time, Reed Smith induced Mr. Camejo to pay the firm $20,000 to settle its claim, without disclosing the fraud upon the court the firm had perpetrated. Mr. Nader did not settle. Reed Smith therefore commenced attachment proceedings against his personal accounts.
202. On July 13, 2007, Reed Smith served Amalgamated Bank with an Application for Writ of Attachment, filed with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, stating that “any money, property or credits of Ralph Nader in Amalgamated Bank’s possession are hereby seized by this Writ of Attachment.” In fact, however, the Superior Court had entered no such writ. Amalgamated Bank nevertheless froze Mr. Nader’s accounts on July 13, 2007.
203. On July 17, 2007, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered writs of attachment against Amalgamated Bank, M&T Bank and PNC Bank as garnishees of Mr. Nader’s accounts. Pursuant to these writs, Amalgamated Bank froze $27,420.16, and PNC Bank froze $34,218.29, for a total of $61,638.45. Reed Smith filed a motion to condemn these funds on August 28, 2007, which was denied, and another on September 25, 2007, which is pending.
204. Reed Smith attorneys repeatedly told the news media in 2004 that the Democratic Party had not retained or paid Reed Smith, thereby fraudulently concealing the firm’s involvement in Defendants’ conspiracy. In fact, however, the DNC retained Reed Smith and paid the firm $136,142 for “political consulting” and “legal consulting” during the election. In addition, Reed Smith has represented John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the HJ Heinz Corporation and the Heinz Family Foundation. Reed Smith most recently defended Senator Kerry in a civil lawsuit for defamation, which arose out of the 2004 election and was decided in August 2006. Furthermore, “Heinz is still a major and active client,” Legal Business reported in December 2006/January 2007.
205. On August 3, 2004, The Ballot Project paid attorney Gregory Harvey’s firm Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads $6,000 for reimbursed costs. In October and November of 2004, the DNC paid Reed Smith $136,142 in legal and political consulting fees. In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $182,825 to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, and at least $5,132,220 to Pennsylvania Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

16) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed two complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Washington.

206. On August 31, 2004, attorney Parker Folse III sent Washington’s Secretary of State a letter stating, “I represent a voter who has an interest in whether Mr. Nader has complied with the law.” Mr. Folse asked Secretary Reed not to certify Mr. Nader as a candidate for President of the United States in Washington until Mr. Folse could examine the nomination papers. Mr. Folse indicated that attorney Drew D. Hansen would assist him. Later that day Attorney Folse sent the Secretary of State another letter alleging that Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers included an insufficient number of valid signatures. On September 1, 2004, Attorney Folse sent another letter outlining additional concerns and requesting an investigation.
207. On September 1, 2004, the Secretary of State certified Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers and ordered their placement on the Washington ballot as candidates for President and Vice President.
208. On September 3, 2004, attorney James Foley filed a complaint on behalf of attorney Ken Valz in the Thurston County Superior Court of Washington, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under RWC 29A.20.191. The complaint’s “legal argument” was one paragraph long, and concluded with a request that Nader-Camejo’s nominating signatures be declared invalid.
209. On September 8, 2004, Attorneys Folse, Hansen and Rachel Black filed a separate complaint in the Thurston County Superior Court on behalf of the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, Josh Castle, DiAnne Grieser, Randy Poplock, Ann Thoeny and Elizabeth Walter, challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under RWC 29A.20.191. The complaint requested the court to overrule the Secretary of State and to remove Nader-Camejo from the Washington ballot as candidates for President and Vice President.
210. DiAnne Grieser signed an online petition to support John Kerry as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2008, identifying herself as the 2003-2004 moderator for the Kerry-Edwards Campaign blog. Randy Poplock identified himself on the John Kerry Meetup Online Message Board as an affiliate of the 527 United Progressives for Victory, and an organizer for the Kerry-Edwards Campaign.
211. On September 15, 2004, the court upheld the Secretary of State’s decision, and Nader-Camejo appeared on the Washington ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
212. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $490,000 to the Washington Democratic Party, and at least $534,894 to Washington Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

17) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in West Virginia.

213. On July 29, 2004, the Nader-Camejo Campaign submitted nomination papers with a petition including more than 23,000 signatures to satisfy West Virginia’s requirement of 12,962 signatures. Secretary of State Joe Manchin certified 15,302 signatures as valid and determined that Nader-Camejo qualified as candidates for President and Vice President in West Virginia.
214. On August 16, 2004, Kanawha County Democratic Executive Committee Chairman Norris Light, Democratic Party presidential elector Phil Hancock, and registered voters Deirdre Purdy, Gary Collias and Karen Coria filed a petition in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Secretary Manchin either to initiate an investigation into Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers, or to refer the matter to the Attorney General’s office. The petition identified Jason E. Huber and the law firm of Forman and Huber, L.C. as petitioners’ attorneys.
215. Attorney Huber had previously written an open letter to the West Virginia Mountain Party, which was already qualified for ballot listing in the 2004 election, urging the party not to nominate Mr. Nader as its presidential candidate. “The most obvious risk with horrendous consequences,” Attorney Huber wrote, “is that a Nader nomination will cost Kerry the presidential race…This risk is most apparent in key states like West Virginia.” The letter continued:
Considering this, we must take every precaution to assure that Kerry wins West Virginia even if it includes keeping Nader off the ballot. … It is for these reasons that I ask all those who support a Nader nomination to cast aside your third-party ideals for this one election (like I have done)…hold your nose and vote Kerry in 2004.

216. On August 19, 2004, Secretary Manchin, a Democrat who was running for governor, reversed his prior decision, “accompanied by intense political pressure from the Democratic Party,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Secretary Manchin thus wrote to West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw, also a Democrat, stating that “a measure of doubt exists as to the validity” of Nader-Camejo’s petition. The letter requested Attorney General McGraw to institute a quo warranto proceeding to determine the validity of Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers under West Virginia Code § 3-5-23.
217. The basis for Secretary Manchin’s newfound doubt was that a group of citizens had complained that Nader-Camejo petitioners did not display proper credentials or did not display the petition appropriately. Several citizens filed affidavits to this effect, but only four out of approximately 23,000 people who actually signed the petition raised such complaints.
218. On August 23, 2004, Attorney General McGraw filed a Complaint in Quo Warranto “in the name of the state of West Virginia” in Kanawha County Circuit Court. The complaint stated, “the State of West Virginia prays that this Court immediately issue an order requiring Defendant Ralph Nader to appear at said hearing and show cause why he should not be precluded from being nominated.” The complaint sought “such declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the purported nomination of Ralph Nader as may be warranted by the evidence.”
219. On or about August 30, 2004, the Circuit Court dismissed Attorney General McGraw’s complaint. The Court called the complaint “extraordinary” and noted that “the testimony of a half dozen citizens” was insufficient to invalidate an entire petition signed by 23,000 citizens. Attorney General McGraw nevertheless appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on September 9, 2004. Nader-Camejo appeared on the West Virginia ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
220. In 2004 the DNC transferred at least $152,433 to the West Virginia Democratic Party, and at least $878,315 to West Virginia Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

18) Defendants or their co-conspirators filed a complaint against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in Wisconsin.

221. On September 10, 2004, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Kim Warkentin, its Executive Director, filed a complaint before the Wisconsin Elections Board challenging Nader-Camejo’s nomination papers. The complaint identified Jeralyn B. Wendelberger, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s counsel, as plaintiffs’ attorney. In subsequent proceedings Lester Pines, Tamara Packard, the law firm Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach LLP, Brenda Lewison, Tricia Knight, James Troupis, Eric McLeod, John Scheller, Brian Rybarik and the law firm Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP also represented the plaintiffs.
222. On September 22, 2004, the Elections Board dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint and ordered Nader-Camejo to be placed on the Wisconsin ballot as candidates for President and Vice President.
223. On September 24, 2004, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Executive Director Warkentin appealed the Elections Board decision to Wisconsin’s Dane County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court found that the Elections Board applied an incorrect standard when reviewing plaintiffs’ complaint. On September 28, 2004, the Circuit Court ordered Nader-Camejo removed from the ballot.
224. On September 28, 2004, Nader-Camejo filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus requesting the Wisconsin Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court granted Nader-Camejo’s petition and held a hearing on the same day.
225. On September 30, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that the Elections Board did not abuse its discretion and vacated the Circuit Court decision. Nader-Camejo appeared on the Wisconsin ballot as candidates in the 2004 presidential election.
226. On October 18, 2004, the Wisconsin Democratic Party paid Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach LLP $553 for “Nader Ballot Challenge Legal Support.” In addition, in 2004 the DNC transferred at least $544,542 to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and at least $2,688,997 to Wisconsin Victory 2004. On information and belief, conspirators used a portion of these funds to finance acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
19) Defendants or their co-conspirators in Washington, D.C. filed three FEC complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign.

227. In addition to the foregoing litigation conspirators initiated or supported in 18 states, co-conspirator CREW filed two FEC complaints and co-conspirator Daniel Schneider filed one FEC complaint in the District of Columbia. The basis for CREW’s first FEC complaint was nothing more than a newspaper article reporting that the Nader-Camejo Campaign shared office space with a non-profit organization. The FEC took no action against the Nader-Camejo Campaign and dismissed the complaint by unanimous vote on February 10, 2005. The FEC took no action against the Nader-Camejo Campaign and dismissed CREW’s second complaint by unanimous vote on June 23, 2005. The FEC took no action against the Nader-Camejo Campaign and dismissed Mr. Schneider’s complaint by unanimous vote on April 21, 2006. Campaign staff and attorneys dedicated a significant amount of time, energy and resources to respond to these complaints.

IV. Defendants’ Conspiracy Caused Plaintiffs Financial Injury and Other Damages and Violated their Constitutional Rights.

228. Defendants’ conspiracy caused severe financial injury to Nader-Camejo’s 2004 presidential campaign. Defendants’ nationwide legal assault in the form of abuse of process and malicious prosecution forced Nader-Camejo to secure counsel in 18 states, while their campaign of harassment, intimidation and sabotage consumed Nader-Camejo Campaign staffers’ time. Nader-Camejo’s campaign manager herself was personally compelled to attend depositions and other legal proceedings rather than running the campaign. In short, Defendants’ efforts to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign produced its intended effect: in October 2004, Mr. Nader was forced to loan the campaign $100,000 to cover legal bills, staff salaries and operating expenses. The campaign has not repaid this loan.
229. Not content merely to try to bankrupt Nader-Camejo’s campaign, Defendant Reed Smith sought to collect payment on a wrongfully obtained, fraudulently induced judgment from Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo personally. Reed Smith induced Mr. Camejo to pay the firm $20,000 to settle its claim, and currently seeks to condemn $61,638.45 of Mr. Nader’s funds, which it has already attached.
230. Furthermore, although Nader-Camjeo prevailed in the great majority of lawsuits filed against them, Defendants’ conspiracy largely succeeded in achieving its unlawful objectives. Five states denied Nader-Camejo ballot access as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Moreover, the burden of defending their right to ballot access in lawsuits in 18 states – many of them simultaneous – prevented Nader-Camejo from dedicating resources necessary to gain ballot access in a dozen others. Denial of ballot access in these states also deprived Nader-Camejo of valuable fundraising opportunities to solicit voters for contributions as qualified candidates.
231. More than 1.3 million Americans living in the 17 states that denied Nader-Camejo ballot access in 2004 voted for Mr. Nader in 2000. Hundreds of thousands signed Nader-Camejo’s petitions in 2004. Defendants therefore denied Plaintiff-voters and every other voter similarly situated in 17 states their free choice of candidates in the 2004 presidential election. Defendants’ conspiracy thus violated not only Mr. Nader’s and Mr. Camejo’s constitutional rights, but also those of Plaintiff-voters and millions of other voters.
232. In summary: Defendants conspired to and did in fact cause financial injury and other damages to Ralph Nader’s and Peter Miguel Camejo’s 2004 presidential campaign and to the third-party and independent candidacy structure previously built by Mr. Nader; Defendants conspired to and did in fact cause financial injury and other damages to Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo personally; Defendants conspired to and did in fact violate Ralph Nader’s and Peter Miguel Camejo’s constitutional rights by unlawfully interfering with and obstructing their campaign in the 2004 presidential election; and Defendants conspired to and did in fact violate Plaintiff-voters’ and millions of other voters’ constitutional rights by denying them their free choice of candidates in the 2004 presidential election, all in an effort to preserve their electoral monopoly and perceived entitlement to votes. The 2004 election has long since concluded, yet Defendant Reed Smith persists in its flagrant and willful abuse of process in an effort to enforce an unprecedented, wrongfully obtained, fraudulently induced and unquestionably tainted judgment. Defendants thus leave Plaintiffs no alternative but to seek relief from this Court.

COUNT I
(Conspiracy To Commit Abuse Of Process and Malicious Prosecution)

233. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-232 as if set forth fully herein.
234. Defendants conspired and agreed among themselves to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and cause them financial injury and other damages by orchestrating a nationwide legal assault on the Nader-Camejo 2004 presidential campaign.
235. Defendants’ purpose was to use unfounded and abusive litigation as a means to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign and force Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo from the 2004 presidential election, thereby denying voters the choice of voting for them. Defendants’ motive was to help John Kerry and John Edwards win the election by unlawfully forcing their political competitors from the race.
236. In furtherance of Defendants’ conspiracy, conspirators filed 24 complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign within 12 weeks between June and September of 2004, pursuing unfounded and abusive litigation against the campaign in 18 different states. Conspirators also engaged in acts of harassment, intimidation and sabotage, often under fraudulent pretenses, as described herein.
237. Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendants’ acts.

COUNT II
(Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin)

238. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 237 as if set forth fully herein.
239. Defendants conspired and agreed among themselves to abuse judicial processes and engage in malicious prosecution in order to cause Plaintiffs financial injury and other damages and violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by filing 24 complaints against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in less than 12 weeks between June and September of 2004.
240. Defendants’ purpose was to use unfounded and abusive litigation as a means to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign and force Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo from the 2004 presidential election, thereby denying voters the choice of voting for them. Defendants’ motive was to help John Kerry and John Edwards win the election by unlawfully forcing their political competitors from the race.
241. Defendants’ conduct as set forth herein violated the common law of abuse of process and malicious prosecution under the state law of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
242. In furtherance of their conspiracy to abuse judicial processes and engage in malicious prosecution, the Defendants named herein and others either initiated or materially supported litigation filed against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in their states. The DNC, The Ballot Project and the Kerry-Edwards Campaign coordinated with State Democratic Parties to hire or secure pro bono counsel to prosecute this litigation.
243. Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendants’ acts.
COUNT III
(Conspiracy To Violate 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, The Qualifications Clause And The First And Fourteenth Amendments Of The United States Constitution)

244. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 243 as if set forth fully herein.
245. Defendants conspired and agreed among themselves to use court processes and other means to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights guaranteed by the Qualifications Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and otherwise secured by the United States Constitution.
246. Defendants’ purpose was to use unfounded and abusive litigation as a means to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign and force Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo from the 2004 presidential election, thereby denying voters the choice of voting for them. Defendants’ motive was to help John Kerry and John Edwards win the election by unlawfully forcing their political competitors from the race.
247. In furtherance of Defendants’ conspiracy, the DNC, under the leadership of Chairman McAuliffe, among other things, directed and agreed with state Democratic Party officials to file unfounded and abusive lawsuits against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in their states. Eighteen state or local Democratic Parties did in fact sue or materially support such litigation against the Nader-Camejo Campaign with the aid and assistance of the DNC, the Kerry-Edwards Campaign and The Ballot Project.
248. Defendants engaged in state action and acted under color of state law and acted jointly and in concert with individuals who acted under color of state authority. Defendants’ actions unlawfully burdened Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights guaranteed to them through the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
249. Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendants’ acts.

COUNT IV
(Violation of 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, The Qualifications Clause And The First And Fourteenth Amendments Of The United States Constitution)

250. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 249 as if set forth fully herein.
251. Defendants abused court processes and engaged in malicious prosecution and used other means to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and cause them financial injury and other damages. Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed by the Qualifications Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and otherwise secured by the United States Constitution.
252. Defendants’ purpose was to use unfounded and abusive litigation as a means to bankrupt the Nader-Camejo Campaign and force Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo from the 2004 presidential election, thereby denying voters the choice of voting for them. Defendants’ motive was to help John Kerry and John Edwards win the election by unlawfully forcing their political competitors from the race.
253. In furtherance of Defendants’ conspiracy, the DNC, under the leadership of Chairman McAuliffe, among other things, directed and agreed with state Democratic Party officials to file unfounded and abusive lawsuits against the Nader-Camejo Campaign in their states. Eighteen state or local Democratic Parties did in fact sue or materially support such litigation against the Nader-Camejo Campaign with the aid and assistance of the DNC, the Kerry-Edwards Campaign and The Ballot Project.
254. Defendants engaged in state action and acted under color of state law and acted jointly and in concert with individuals who acted under color of state authority. Defendants’ actions unlawfully burdened Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights guaranteed to them through the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
255. Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendants’ acts.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as follows:
1) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

2) Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

3) Permanent injunctive relief against all ongoing and future violations of law by Defendants and their co-conspirators as set forth herein;

4) Attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1988(b) and as otherwise permitted;

5) Court costs; and

6) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the District of Columbia Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury in this action.

Dated: Washington, D.C. Respectfully Submitted,
October 30, 2007

Oliver B. Hall, Esquire
D.C. Bar No. 976463
1835 16th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20009
(617) 953-0161
Counsel of Record

Bruce Afran, Esquire
10 Braeburn Drive
Princeton, NJ 08540
Of Counsel

Mark R. Brown, Esquire
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Of Counsel

Carl J. Mayer, Esquire
Mayer Law Group, LLC
1040 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2400
New York, NY 10018
Of Counsel

Matt Gonzalez, Esquire
Gonzalez & Leigh, LLP
Two Shaw Alley
San Francisco, CA 94105
Of Counsel

G. Whitney Leigh, Esquire
Gonzalez & Leigh, LLP
Two Shaw Alley
San Francisco, CA 94105
Of Counsel

HOW TO JOIN OUR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CHEATING PATRIOTS.

2007-09-30T08:53:00.000-07:00

Thank you Jets fans and citizens from all over the country who have called to support or join our lawsuit.

To join, simply email us at carlmayer@carlmayer.com with your name, address, email and phone number and whether you are a season ticketholder OR a ticketholder to a game in Giants stadium between the Jets and Patriots.

We will file an amended complaint and will add plaintiffs.

Please be patient as we have been swamped with calls, emails and letters. We will get back to you.

To the Patriots fans, we say: keep the phone calls and email coming. We are offering free spelling and grammar lessons to Patriots fans as they plainly could use some work in that area. None of the language used can be printed here, but we have learned some new words, none suitable for children.

Our favorite comments are the ones by Patriots fans claiming their team didn't cheat, even though the NFL Commissioner found, in writing, that the Patriots broke the rules. Keep the fiction coming, Patriots fans.

JETS FANS SUE PATRIOTS, BELICHICK

2007-09-28T04:31:00.000-07:00

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Carl J. Mayer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Bill Belichick and The New England Patriots.
Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by their counsel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as and for their Complaint against Defendants assert upon information and belief as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This case is brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder on behalf of all similarly situated New York Jets season ticket-holders and other New York Jets ticket-holders against the Defendant New England Patriots and their coach, Defendant Bill Belichick. The core of this action is that the Defendants, during a game with the New York Jets on September 9, 2007, instructed an agent of the Defendants to surreptitiously videotape the New York Jets coaches and players on the field with the purpose of illegally recording, capturing and stealing the New York Jets signals and visual coaching instructions. The Defendants were in fact subsequently found by the National Football League (“NFL”) to have improperly engaged in such conduct. This violated the contractual expectations and rights of New York Jets ticket-holders who fully anticipated and contracted for a ticket to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations.
2. Plaintiffs contend that in purchasing tickets to watch the New York Jets that, as a matter of contract, the tickets imply that each game played will be played in accordance with NFL rules and regulations as well as all applicable federal and state laws. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants tortuously interfered with their contractual relations with the New York Jets in purchasing the tickets. They further claim that Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants violated federal and state racketeering laws by using the National Football League as an enterprise to carry out their illegal scheme. Because the Defendants have been found in other games by other teams to have illegally used video equipment, this action seeks damages for New York Jets ticket-holders for all games played in Giants stadium between the New York Jets and the New England Patriots since Bill Belichick became head coach in 2000.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. §2201, 12 U.S.C. §3416, 12 U.S.C. §3417, 12 U.S.C. §3418, and over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 and 28 U.S.C. §1367.
4. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendant has sufficient contacts with this district generally and, in particular, with the events herein alleged, that Defendants are subject to the exercise of jurisdiction of this court over the person of such Defendants and that venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. The proper venue for this is in the Newark vicinage because the acts complained of occurred in northern New Jersey.
5. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that, based on the places of business of Defendants identified above and/or on the national reach of Defendants, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims herein alleged occurred in this district and that Defendant and/or agents of Defendant may be found in this district. Plaintiffs and Defendants routinely engaged in business and transactions within this jurisdiction.
6. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Carl J. Mayer is a season ticket-holder and, as such, specifically purchased a ticket and parking pass for the game between the New York Jets and the New England Patriots on September 9 , 2007. Plaintiff is a life-long New York Jets fan and resides in Mercer County, New Jersey.
8. Defendant New England Patriots has its headquarters at One Patriot Place, Foxborough, Massachusetts 02035.
9. Defendant Bill Belichick resides at 116 Meadowbrook Road, Weston, Massachusetts 02493.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO ALL COUNTS

10. On September 9, 2007 the New York Jets and the New England Patriots played a professional football game in Giants Stadium, located in the Meadowlands in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Plaintiffs held tickets and parking passes to that game.
11. As first reported on the news website ESPN.com, the NFL began looking into claims a New England Patriots employee was videotaping signals by Jets coaches on New York's sideline during the season opener game played on September 9, 2007.
12. ESPN.com reported that NFL security confiscated a video camera and tape from a Patriots employee during New England's 38-14 victory over the Jets that day. The employee was accused of aiming his camera at the Jets' defensive coaches, who were sending signals out to the players, sources told ESPN.
13. The New England Patriots denied that they had violated League rules. New England cornerback Ellis Hobbs said publicly he was unwilling to believe his team had cheated. "We put too many hours in as individuals and a team to have to go out and cheat," he said. "If it's true, obviously, we're in the wrong. But I'm standing behind my team, my coaches. I don't think we do that stuff."
14. This was not the first time Defendants had been accused of cheating. In November 2006, the Green Bay Packers professional football team found a man wearing a Patriots staff credential and carrying a video camera on the sidelines at Lambeau Field, their home field. Teams are allowed to have a limited number of their own videographers on the sideline during the game, but they must have a credential that authorizes them to shoot video, and wear a yellow vest. But Packers spokesman Jeff Blumb said the person in question didn't have the right credential and wasn't wearing a yellow vest, so Packers security asked him to put away the camera and he was escorted out of the stadium.
15. After the videotape of the New York Jets game was confiscated on September 9, 2007, Patriots coach Bill Belichick apologized, saying: "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players.” He refused to take questions from reporters about the NFL investigation, however, and stormed out of a weekly press conference with reporters on September 12, 2007.
16. On September 13, 2007, the NFL found the Defendants guilty of violating all applicable NFL rules by engaging in a surreptitious videotaping program. The New England coach, Bill Belichick, was fined $500,000 and the Patriots were ordered to pay $250,000 for stealing an opponent's defensive signals. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell also ordered the Patriots to give up next year's first-round draft choice if it reaches the playoffs and second- and third-round picks if it doesn't. "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots. The Commissioner specifically imposed penalties on the Defendant Patriot organization because "Coach Belichick not only serves as the head coach but also has substantial control over all aspects of New England's football operations. His actions and decisions are properly attributed to the club." Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft refused to comment. The New York Jets issued a statement saying: "We support the commissioner and his findings."
17. The specific NFL rule violated by Defendants states: "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." The rules also specifically state that all video for coaching purposes must be shot from locations "enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers. In it, Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
18. Belichick appeared to accept full responsibility, stating on September 13, 2007: “Once again, I apologize to the Kraft family and every person directly or indirectly associated with the New England Patriots for the embarrassment, distraction and penalty my mistake caused. I also apologize to Patriots fans and would like to thank them for their support during the past few days and throughout my career.” But then, bizarrely, he attempted to deny responsibility, stating: “ We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress…With tonight's resolution, I will not be offering any further comments on this matter. We are moving on with our preparations for Sunday's game."
19. The New York Jets ticket-holders who have purchased tickets to watch the Jets play the New England Patriots are not willing to move on. On information and belief, Defendants deployed their unlawful videotape program during every game played against the Jets in Giants stadium from 2000 through 2007, a total of eight games. The Defendants have turned over to the NFL many videotapes for further examination. Meanwhile, Jets fans have collectively spent well over $61 million on tickets to watch eight supposedly honest, competitive games between the New York Jets and New England Patriots between 2000 and 20007. This action seeks restitution for the money spent on games that were systematically and illegally tainted by the actions of defendants.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 (a) and (b), Plaintiff Carl J. Mayer brings this action on behalf of himself and a Nationwide Class of similarly situated persons defined as:
All New York Jets season ticket-holders and other ticket-holders who purchased tickets to games between the New York Jets and the New England Patriots in Giants stadium since Bill Belichick became the head coach of the New England Patriots in 2000.

21. The Nationwide Class seeks certification of claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et. seq., 12 U.S.C. § 3417 and 12 U.S.C. § 3418.
22. Plaintiffs also bring the claims on behalf of the following New Jersey Subclass defined as:
All individuals that are residents of the State of New Jersey and that purchased tickets to watch the New York Jets play the New England Patriots between 2000 and 2007 in Giants stadium.

23. The New Jersey Subclass seeks certification of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for restitution.
24. Excluded from the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass are the officers, directors, and employees of Defendants, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of Defendants.
25. This action is brought as a class action and may properly be so maintained pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify the Nationwide Class and the New Jersey Subclass definitions and the class period based on the results of discovery.
26. Numerosity of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass: Members of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass are so numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable. The precise numbers and addresses of members of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass are unknown to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs estimate that the Nationwide Class consists of tens of thousands of members and the New Jersey Subclass consists of thousands of members. The precise number of persons in both the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass and their identities and addresses may be ascertained from Defendant’s records or the records of interested parties.
27. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the members of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass. These common legal and factual questions include: (a) Whether Defendants have engaged in racketeering by using the enterprise of the NFL to further an illegal scheme in violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) 18 U.S.C. 1961 et.seq. (b) Whether Defendants committed consumer fraud and engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. seq. and whether, as regards the New Jersey Subclass members’, the Defendants engaged in unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. seq.; (c) Whether Plaintiffs and New Jersey Subclass members are entitled to restitution, disgorgement of profits, or other equitable relief to remedy Defendant’s unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices; (d) Whether Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, whether as a result of Defendant’s fraudulent, illegal and deceitful conduct, and/or otherwise; and (e) Whether Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of this suit.
28. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass because Plaintiff is a season ticket-holder and lifelong fan of the New York Jets. Plaintiffs and all members of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass have similarly suffered harm arising from Defendant’s violations of law, as alleged herein.
29. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the classes they seek to represent. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and intend to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass.
30. This suit may also be maintained as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2) because Plaintiffs and both the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and all of the above factors of numerosity, common questions of fact and law, typicality and adequacy are present. Moreover, Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs and both the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass as a whole, thereby making declaratory and/or injunctive relief proper.
31. Predominance and Superiority: This suit may also be maintained as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b) (3) because questions of law and fact common to the Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass predominate over the questions affecting only individual members of the classes and a class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this dispute. The damages suffered by each individual class member may be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. Furthermore, it would be virtually impossible for the class members, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them. Moreover, even if class members themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individual litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system presented by the complex legal issue of the case. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

COUNT I
Tortuous Interference With Contractual Relations.

32. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
33. Plaintiff and members of the class had a contract with the New York Jets under which the ticket-holders purchased the right to attend and observe the matches between the New York Jets and the New England Patriots.
34. Plaintiff and members of the class purchased tickets and entered into the contract with the New York Jets with the understanding, both express and implied, that the game will be played honestly and according to established rules and conditions that are known in advance by all parties.
35.The understanding that the New York Jets football games are to be played honestly and according to the agreed rules and conditions is a material condition of the ticket-holders’ contract.
36.Defendants’ intentionally and knowingly interfered with the ticket-holders’ contractual right and expectation to an honest match played according to the agreed rules and conditions by illegally recording and capturing the New York Jets’ coaching and player signals; Defendants did so for their own private benefit seeking to gain an illegal advantage over the New York Jets.
37. Accordingly, Defendants tortuously interfered with the contract and relationship between the members of the nationwide class and the New York Jets and are liable to plaintiff and other members of the class for restitution of the ticket prices for each of said games along with interest, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.

COUNT II
Common Law Fraud.

38. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
39. Defendants contracted repeatedly with the New York Jets and/or the NFL to play home football games at the New York Jets’ stadium at which it was known and understood that New York Jets ticket-holders would pay for the right to observe and attend the game.
40. New York Jets ticket-holders purchased tickets to said games under the express and implied condition that the game is to be played honestly and according to agreed rules and conditions.
41. Defendants individually and in concert violated this expectation and understanding by illegally recording and capturing New York Jets coaching and player signals, a direct violation of the agreed rules and conditions.
42. The ticket-holders including plaintiff and other members of the class, are direct beneficiaries, i.e., third party beneficiaries, of the contract between the Defendants and the New York Jets and/or the NFL.
43. Defendants entered into the game contracts with the New York Jets and/or the NFL with the intent to violate the agreed rules and conditions or entered into the individual games with such knowing intent.
44. Defendants concealed and omitted to make any disclosure of their intent to illegally record and capture the New York Jets coaching and player signals, an act that violated the agreed rules and conditions of the game contract.
45. It is a material condition to the purchase of tickets by Plaintiff and other members of the class that the participants in the game will pay honestly and according to the agreed rules and conditions.
46. Defendants concealed their intent to violate this material understanding.
47. Defendants committed the violation of the rule by stealth and surreptitious conduct by recording and capturing New York Jets signals by the use of a non-uniformed agent on the field.
48. Plaintiff and other members of the class relied to their detriment in purchasing tickets to the New York Jets-Patriots games.
49. Plaintiff and other members of the class were injured by their payment of money for the New York Jets – Patriots games.
50. It is a material and agreed fact, understanding and condition that the NFL games are to be played honestly and to be a match of contestants following the same essential rules and conditions. Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, other members of the class, would not have purchased tickets to the games if the Patriots and Belichick had disclosed that they intended to play the game corruptly and in violation of an essential and material game rule.
51. Accordingly, Defendants are liable in fraud to plaintiff and other members of the class for monies paid by the ticket-holders for the New York Jets’ home games with the Patriots, as set forth above, along with interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
52. Defendants intentionally and knowingly acted to violate the game rule and knew or should have known that such rule is material to the honest performance of the game contract.
53. Defendants conspired to violate the game rule and did so by stealth and deception and have been previously caught committing similar acts.
54. Such violation corrupted the sport of football. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the class respectfully seek punitive damages be assessed against Defendants, along with interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit.

COUNT III
Deceptive Business Practices, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7

55. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
56. By the aforesaid acts, Defendants violated N.J.S.A., 2C:21-7.
57. Accordingly, defendants are liable for the value of tickets purchased by Plaintiff and other members of the class for the New York Jets – Patriots games, along with treble damages, interest, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.

COUNT IV
New Jersey Racketeering, N.J.S.A., 2C:41-2

58. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
59. By their above described acts, Defendants, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2, Defendants, individually and jointly, through a pattern of racketeering activity, (A) derived income, directly or indirectly, through certain enterprises owned and/or controlled by them that are engaged in the playing and performance of professional football games; (B) acquired and/or maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Enterprises, which affected trade or commerce; and (C) conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the Enterprises’ affairs.
60. Upon information and belief, the Enterprises are (a) the New England Patriots football organization, (b) the National Football League; c) the New York Jets football organization.
61. The Enterprises engaged employees to perform and play the professional football games and to carry out the scheme to defraud and deceive.
62.Defendants engaged in a practice and pattern of racketeering by engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct, one of which occurred after the effective date of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 et seq. and the last of which occurred within 10 years after a prior incident of such activity.
63.Defendants, by the above described acts, fraudulently induced consumers of New Jets tickets to purchase said tickets by concealing their intent to violate the agreed rules and conditions of the game contracts with the New Jersey Jets and/or the NFL and concealed and omitted to disclose to the ticket-holders their intent to subvert and corrupt the New York Jets home games by illegally recording and capturing the New York Jets coaching and player signals in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7 (deceptive business practices), causing damage to Plaintiff and class members.
64. Accordingly, Defendants are liable under the New Jersey racketeering statutes to the Plaintiff and other class members for restitution of the ticket prices paid for said games, along with treble damages, interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit.
COUNT V
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
18 U.S.C., 1961(a), (b), (c), (d)

65. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
66. Defendants, by their above described acts, engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity through the performance of at least two acts of racketeering within a ten year period through the use of the mails and/or the interstate wires as a material element of their scheme to defraud New York Jets ticket-holders.
67. Defendants received income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity to use or invest or used, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a).
68.Defendants through a pattern of racketeering activity acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of an enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b).
69.Defendants employed themselves or others in, or were ,associated with an enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c).
70. Defendants conspired to violate subsections (a), (b), or (c) of 18 U.S.C. 1962, as described in 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).
71. The above-described enterprises consisted of a) the New England Patriots football organization, b) the National Football League and c) the New York Jets football organization.
72. Defendants, by the above described acts, committed predicate acts through the use of the mails or interstate wires in furthering their fraudulent inducement of consumers of New Jets tickets to purchase said tickets by concealing their intent to violate the agreed rules and conditions of the Defendants’ game contracts with the New Jersey Jets and/or the NFL and concealed and omitted to disclose to the ticket-holders their intent to subvert and corrupt the New York Jets home games by illegally recording and capturing the New York Jets coaching and player signals, causing damage to Plaintiff and class members.
73. Accordingly, Defendants are liable under to Plaintiff and other class members for restitution of the ticket prices paid for said games, along with treble damages, interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
COUNT VI
Violation of Ticket-holders rights as Third Party Beneficiaries.
74. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
75. Plaintiff and other class members is an intended third party beneficiary of the contracts between the New York Patriots and the New York Jets and/or the NFL.
76. The understanding that the New York Jets football games are to be played honestly and according to the agreed rules and conditions is a material condition of the Patriots’ contract with the New York Jets and/or the NFL and the ticket-holders are the intended third party beneficiaries of said contracts.
77. Defendants violated and interfered with the third party benefit to the ticket-holders by illegally recording and capturing the New York Jets’ coaching and player signals.
78. Accordingly, are liable to plaintiff and other members of the class as third party beneficiaries of the Patriots’ contract with the New York Jets and/or the NFL for restitution of the ticket prices for each of said games along with interest, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.
COUNT VII
CONTRACT
79. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
80. Plaintiffs plead in the alternative that they have an implied or quasi contract with the New England Patriots who violated such contract by illegally recording and capturing the New York Jets’ coaching and player signals.
81. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and other members of the class as third party beneficiaries of the Patriots’ contract with the New York Jets and/or the NFL for restitution of the ticket prices for each of said games along with interest, attorney’s fees and cost of suit.

COUNT VIII
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. Seq.

82. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as if set forth fully herein.
83. Defendants conduct violated The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. Seq. by committing a fraud, deception, misrepresentation, unconscionable business practice, concealment, suppression and omissions in conducting their business in the State of New Jersey.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs for themselves and all others similarly situated respectfully request that the Court:
A. Declare that Defendant’s fraud, tortuous interference with contractual relations and violations of NFL policy as alleged herein violates applicable law including without limitation:
(i) The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. Seq.
(ii) The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et.seq.
(iii) The common law of tortuous interference with contractual relations.
(iv) The New Jersey Racketeering Law N.J.S.A., 2C:41-2
(v) The common law of fraud and contract.
(vi) Deceptive Business Practices, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7

B. Award equitable relief, including without limitation, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants’ continued or future videotaping in violation of NFL rules and New Jersey and federal law:
(i) Pursuant to The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et.seq., as to the Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class; and
(ii) Pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. seq., and the Deceptive Business Practices, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-7
C. Award statutory damages to the extent permitted by law to each Plaintiff and class member in the sum of:
(i) actual damages sustained by the customers in the amount of $61,6000,000 for the amount paid by New York Jets ticket-holders to watch eight fraudulent games between the New England Patriots and the New York Jets between 2000 and 2007.
(ii) treble damages pursuant to The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et.seq.and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. seq. for a total amount of compensatory damages of $184,800,000.00.
D. Award punitive damages to the extent permitted by law to each Plaintiff and class member, including without limitation:
(i) An appropriate sum pursuant to The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et.seq.
(ii) An appropriate sum pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. seq.
E. Award to Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and other costs of suit to the extent permitted by law, including without limitation pursuant to The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et.seq. and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et. Seq.
F. Award restitution, disgorgement, and all other relief allowed under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as to the New Jersey Subclass.
G. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial for all issues triable by jury including, but not limited to, those issues and claims set forth in any amended complaint or consolidated action.

DATED: September 28, 2007 CARL J. MAYER, ESQ., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.

By: /s/ Carl J. Mayer, Esq. .

CARL J. MAYER, ESQ.
MAYER LAW GROUP LLC
66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 414
Princeton, NJ 08542
Telephone: 609/921-8025
Facsimile: 609/921-6964

_____________________
BRUCE I. AFRAN, ESQ.
10 Braeburn Drive
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone : 609-924-2075

AOL TIME-WARNER HANGS UP ON CONSUMERS

2007-08-20T07:14:00.001-07:00

THE NEW LANGUAGE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE

Frustration with customer service is at an all time high, according to recent national surveys.
To determine if media exposes and lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General have redressed mounting buyer complaints, our law firm recorded a customer service conversation with Time-Warner Inc., a corporation notorious for knocking about consumers. (It was recorded lawfully, in anticipation of litigation.)

The conversation began with promise, as the company apparently has replaced fallible humans with infallible machines:

[Ringing]

AMERICA ONLINE COMPUTER WITH “VOICE RECOGNITION” SOFTWARE (“AOL ”): Thanks for calling AOL. To ensure quality service, your call may be monitored or recorded. Today there's even more choice with the new AOL. Introducing AOL Open Ride, our newest software…it will revolutionize the way you use the Internet. You've got to see it to believe it… [Note to reader: “Open Ride” is what crashed my computer to begin with; hence, the call.] Are you currently paying to use the AOL service? Please say yes or press one. No or press two.

CUSTOMER: Yes.

AOL : Great, let’s look up your account. Please enter or say your home telephone number, area code first.

CUSTOMER: [Number recited.]

AOL : Sorry. I didn't understand. Please enter or say your home telephone number.

CUSTOMER: [Number entered.]

AOL : Let me make sure we've got the right account. Your screen name is spelled C-A-R-L-M-A-Y-E-R. Is that right?

CUSTOMER: That's right.

AOL : Sorry, I can't tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

CUSTOMER: Yes.

AOL : Sorry, I didn't hear you. Please say “yes” or “no”.

CUSTOMER: Yes.

AOL : I've pulled up your account information. First, please choose one of the following AOL Departments. You can say: “order high speed”, “tech support”, “billing”, “passwords” or “cancellation.”

CUSTOMER: Tech support.

AOL : All right. I can help you with your password. But first, AOL security requires some verification. You've got an account security question here. Let us try that. What school did you go to?

CUSTOMER: Uh, Princeton, but I need tech support.

AOL : Hmm, that doesn't seem to match what I've got on file. Let's try that again. Please speak your answer or say, "I don't know it". What school did you go to?

CUSTOMER: Princeton University.

AOL : I think you said you wanted to start over and go back to the main menu. Is that correct?

CUSTOMER: Uh no. I want tech support.

AOL : Sorry, I can't tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

CUSTOMER: Yes.

AOL : You can say: “order high speed”, “tech support”, “billing”, “passwords”, or “cancellation.”

CUSTOMER: Tech support.

AOL : Sorry, I didn't understand. Please choose one of the following AOL departments: “order high speed”, “tech support”, “billing”, “passwords” –

CUSTOMER: Tech support.

AOL : Sorry I still didn't understand.

CUSTOMER: You've got to be kidding me. Tech support.

AOL : You're calling for technical support, right?

CUSTOMER: Right.

AOL : Sorry, I can't tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

CUSTOMER: Yes.

AOL: Now in a few words please tell me what tech support problem you're calling about. For example, you could say something like, "I'm having trouble with email attachments".

CUSTOMER: Having problems with the software. It crashes.

AOL : Sorry, I still didn't understand. In a few words, please tell me why you're calling today. For example, "I can't send email". Okay, go ahead.

CUSTOMER: I can't send email.

AOL : I think you said you wanted to start over and go back to the main menu. Is that correct?

CUSTOMER: No. I said I can't send email.

AOL : Sorry, I can't tell whether you said “yes” or “no”.

CUSTOMER: I can’t send email.

AOL : Please say one of the following words: “connection problems”, “can't sign on”, “web browser problems”, “installation”, “email”.

CUSTOMER: Web browser problems.

AOL : When you're ready to continue just say, "Let’s go". If you want to call back say, "Goodbye" or just hang up.

CUSTOMER: I'd like to speak to a customer service representative.

AOL : When you're ready say, "Let’s go" or press 1 or if you want to call us back just say, "Goodbye".

CUSTOMER: No, I'd like to speak to a customer service representative.

[Two Beeps]

AOL : Current wait time to speak with a customer service consultant may be up to two and a half minutes. May I continue where we left off? Yes or no?

CUSTOMER: No. I want to speak to a consultant.

AOL: Okay, thank you. Our tech support staff should be able to help you with this situation. Please hold.

[Two Beeps]

[Music playing]

[Phone rings twenty-two times.]

AOL : We are unable to answer your call at this time. Please try your call again later. Thank you.

[Dial tone]

[Beep after machine hangs up]

Eureka! Time-Warner Inc., the world’s largest media conglomerate, has created a perfectly closed loop. No need for humans in this operation.

No longer do customers have to worry about language barriers generated by service personnel in foreign lands.

Time-Warner Inc. stock is surging along with the market. This economy is great unless you belong to the majority of Americans who do not own individual stocks. Then, you are merely a lowly consumer. And as long as companies can keep padding the bottom line by skimping on customer service, who cares about consumers?

Carl J. Mayer runs the Mayer Law Group LLC; the firm represents consumers and investors. Phone: 609-462-7979. He can be reached at carlmayer@aol.com.

(Mr. Mayer's opinion pieces have appeared in the New York Times, Newsday, Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, Asbury Park Press, Philadelphia Inquirer and other publications.)

UNTOUCHABLES DEMAND US ATTORNEY INVESTIGATE CORZINE

2007-08-20T07:08:00.000-07:00

MARCH 29, 2007

Christopher Christie
United States Attorney, District of New Jersey
970 Broad Street, 7th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Fax: 973-645-2702

Dear U.S. Attorney Christie:

We hereby request that you open a criminal investigation into the issue of Governor Corzine’s falsification of his United States Senate disclosure documents for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. Just days ago the Governor admitted that he had amended his reports for those years to comply with Senate reporting requirements.

As you know, the United States criminal code specifically prescribes penalties for such records falsification.

The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), made it clear that the Justice Department could investigate false statements made to the legislative branch. Indeed, 18 U.S.C. 1001 sets out criminal penalties for the falsification of documents such as the Senate Disclosure Reports.

There is abundant evidence that Governor Corzine knowingly and willfully falsified is Senate Disclosure Reports.

First, by extending a mortgage to Carla Katz using a Delaware corporation – JSC LLC – he appeared to be consciously hiding the mortgage and his relationship with Ms. Katz.

Second, Governor Corzine disclosed loans to other invididuals, indicating that he knew how to make the disclosures, but wanted to hide the transaction involving Carla Katz. In his 2000 Report Senator Corzine listed as an asset “Avis Yates – Personal Loan; Newark, NJ.” See Exhibit B, Part IIIB at p. 2 of 4. That same year, Senator Corzine listed as an asset “Two Skirts, LLC – loan to clothing store; Telluride, CO.” Id. In his 2001 Report, he listed as an asset “Diane Kessenich – New York, NY; Personal Loan.” See Exhibit C, Part IIIB at p. 2 of 5. There is no difference between the loans the Senator was obligated to report in 2000 and 2001 and that which he failed to disclose in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the Senator willfully chose not to disclose his interest in JSC INVESTMENTS, LLC in 2000, 2001 and 2002 and thereafter, willfully chose not to disclose JSC INVESTMENTS, LLC’s $470,000 asset, i.e., its mortgage interest in the home of Carla Katz.

Third, Governor Corzine appeared to try to cover up these loans. A reasonable person in Corzine’s position should have recognized that a Senator’s mortgage loan and subsequent forgiveness of a nearly one-half million dollar loan to a high union official is a matter of intense public interest that must be reported. Corzine and Katz have displayed an unreal and irresponsible attitude as to this gift, with Corzine saying it is a mere “personal” matter and Katz likening it to “box of chocolates”. See New York Times, August 4, 2005.
Since revelations of the mortgage were disclosed by media outlets, Governor Senator Corzine appears to have engaged in a cover-up. Then Senator Corzine first insisted on Friday, August 5, 2005 that he had disclosed the loan on his Report. See Asbury Park Pres., August 6, 2005.

Later that same Friday, Senator Corzine’s counsel Mark Elias said that the Senator had misspoken and the loan had not been disclosed but that it did not have to be disclosed because it was a personal transaction. Id.
Subsequently, the Senator, through spokesman, has maintained that mortgage is neither an asset nor an interest in real estate – two utterly fanciful assertions. Even more incredibly, the Senator has maintained that he did not have to report the interest because he later forgave it. This would mean that no Senator would have to report any interest, including in public companies, if they later forgave it.

Sincerely,

Bruce Afran, Esq.
Hon. Carl J. Mayer, Esq.

PRINCETON'S TREES ARE DYING; PHYLISS MARCHAND AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

2006-11-12T13:58:00.000-08:00

Are Princeton’s trees dying?

My preliminary inquiry into the matter suggests that they may well be.

I began to ask this question by noticing that of the roughly 100 sycamore (also called London Plane) trees on Battle Road; approximately 10% have died in just the last five years. Prior to this time, the trees appeared healthy.

I started with Greg O’Neil who works for Princeton Township. Greg is an arborist and, in my opinion, is a national treasure. When I served on Township Committee I went out with his crew and have followed his work since and he is top flight.

He says there are several diseases attacking these trees: anthracnose, bacterial leaf scorch and gypsy moth.

It appears, after investigating with other sources, that the problem is not limited to Battle Road.

The Riverside section of town was devastated last year by a gypsy moth infection that may have defoliated over 5,000 trees; if they return next year, the trees may be done for.

My experience on Township Committee tells me that while the staff is top flight, the political leadership of the Committee is utterly unresponsive to the needs of the community on issues like the health of Princeton’s trees.

I am told that the Township will not pay to preserve the trees on PUBLIC land on Battle road or anywhere else in Princeton; if homeowners want to band together, they can, but the Township doesn’t have the money. The Township doesn’t even list this is a problem on its home webpage.

Given that the Township has money for a massive town hall and a never ending deer extermination program, you would think it would set aside funds to deal with the tree problem. Nope. I guess they are saving the money to keep Princeton taxes low.

The Committee and the Borough (along with Princeton University, which I am sure wants to volunteer its services as it pays no taxes) ought to develop a comprehensive plan to preserve Princeton’s trees. They should also alert homeowners about what they can do on their own property.

While they are at it, they might also come up with a plan to make Princeton the most energy efficient and green town in the country. Don’t hold your breath. (If any citizen wants to see all the great green solutions already on the shelf that Princeton doesn’t use, just go to: www. rmi.org.)

I suspect the reason for the lack of action is the same reason the current congress works only 100 days out of 365: the politicians of both parties are too busy raising money for the permanent campaign.

Locally, Mayor Marchand and Congressman Holt are spending their time trying to elect Bob Menendez to the Senate, even as Menendez has already been subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney’s office and is destined to follow a long line of Democrats either indicted or convicted in office.

Not that this message is partisan, Republicans have not offered any credible plan to clean up corruption in the state or to tackle local issues like the death of Princeton’s trees or the erosion of the environment.

Which is why I want to thank so many Princetonians for the encouragement in our Independent efforts to clean up politics and the environment.

For the latest efforts, log in to www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com.

If you want to take measures to preserve the historic sycamore trees of Battle Road, call me at 609-462-7979 or email cyberesquire@aol.com.

Carl Mayer

UNTOUCHABLES FILE ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST MENENDEZ

2006-11-02T14:17:00.000-08:00

Before the Senate Committee on Ethics

In the Matter of

ROBERT MENENDEZ,

UNITED STATES SENATOR

-----------------------------------------------------------

Report and Statement of Complaint

________________________________________

Petitioners by their attorneys report the following Report and Statement of Complaint to the Committee on Ethics:

1. ROBERT MENENDEZ is the appointed junior Senator from the State of New Jersey.
2. Senator Menendez was appointed by Governor Jon Corzine in January 2006 to fill Corzine’s vacant seat.
3. Senator Menendez is the 2006 democratic nominee for New Jersey’s senate seat at the November 2006 General Election.
4. This complaint is predicated on evidence of extensive and widespread violations of federal and state anti-corruption and campaign finance laws by Senator Menendez.
5. These acts and violations took place beginning in or about 1993 and have continued.
Introduction

6. Senator Menendez’ diversion of public and campaign funds to Kay LiCausi, with whom he is widely believed to have maintained an intimate relationship, a fact never denied by Menendez or LiCausi, give rise to a substantial question of fact as to violations of federal embezzlement, racketeering and campaign finance laws.
7. Beginning in January 2001, Menendez, while still a member of the House of Representatives, began a pattern of diverting public monies and campaign funds to employ LiCausi in a position for which she had no prior training or experience; such diversion began only after LiCausi reputedly commenced an intimate relationship with Menendez and set up a joint household in Hoboken, New Jersey. Beginning at such time, Menendez commenced a diversion of public and campaign funds to employ LiCausi first, as an aide in his district office, and later as a purported lobbyist for political committees controlled by Menendez. Menendez also secured lobbying contracts for LiCausi with private companies for whom he had sought federal grants or was expecting to do so.
8. These acts, as documented below, give rise to a high likelihood that Senator Menendez has committed a substantial number of civil and criminal violations of both federal and state laws, as set forth more full in this instant complaint.
9. Based upon the contents of this Complaint, complainants believe that this committee should impose a finding of discipline against the Junior Senator from New Jersey, including censure and/or expulsion from the Senate of the United States and a referral of these allegations to the Department of Justice.
The Senator’s Relationship with Ms. LiCausi and
his diversion of official funds to employ her.
10. From January 1998 through December 2001, LiCausi was a low level clerical employee at Menendez’ district congressional office. In her position as district scheduler she was paid a standard staff salary of $25,654 annually. LiCausi had no advanced education and no known special skills.
11. Beginning in December 2000, Menendez promoted LiCausi to the position of district director in his district congressional office at an annual salary that reached, after several raises, $80,000 within one-year, more than doubling her starting salary as a district scheduler.
12. Neither Menendez nor LiCausi have denied the existence of an intimate relationship nor denied that Menendez moved into LiCausi’s Hoboken apartment after he separated from his wife, Jane.
13. Aside from such relationship with then-Rep. Menendez, LiCausi is not known to have acquired any change in skills or experience that would justify her promotion and salary increase.
14. According to media reports, none of which have been denied by Menendez or LiCausi, beginning in or about January 2001 Menendez left his wife, moved out of his martial residence and began living with Kay LiCausi at an apartment in Hoboken, New Jersey. Following this move, Menendez again promoted LiCausi and more than doubled her salary to approximately $80,000, making LiCausi Menendez’ highest paid employee.
15. Aside from her relationship with Menendez, LiCausi is not known to have acquired any skills or experience that would justify this second substantial salary increase.
16. By means of these promotions and salary increases, Menendez used public monies as a gift to his presumptive intimate partner. Federal law prohibits the use of official funds for personal purposes, 18 U.S.C. 641 , et seq., and gifts have been held to be violations of section 641. See e.g., United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Circuit 1995). Menendez benefited from such use of official funds by diverting public monies to LiCausi at a time when he appears to have been engaged in an intimate relationship with her and was purportedly cohabiting with her thereby augmenting his household income from official funds used to pay her salary.
17. On July 17, 2005, the New York Times reported the widespread belief among elected officials and political consultants in Hudson County, Menendez’ home, that Menendez and LiCausi had been engaged in an intimate relationship. Menendez has refused to deny such reports, telling the New York Times “That’s strictly personal”. New York Times, July 17, 2006. Based on such statements by Menendez this Complaint necessarily assumes the truth of such assertions.
18. LiCausi’s salary in Menendez’ Congressional office more than doubled within one year of the commencement of her intimate relationship with Menendez.
19. LiCausi lacked sufficient skills or experience to justify such promotions and received such promotions because of her relationship with Menendez.

LiCausi and her newly-established lobbying company begin
receiving payments from Menendez’ PAC and his campaign committee
20. In Fall 2002, LiCausi resigned from Menendez’ district office but continued to receive payments through Menendez’ campaign and his leadership PAC.
21. Following her resignation from Menendez’ district office, LiCausi began receiving combined payments of $10,000 monthly from Menendez’ campaign and his New Millennium leadership PAC while she continued to cohabit with Menendez.
22. In 2003, New Millennium PAC paid LiCausi’s company, KL Strategies, Inc. $45,000 in “media consulting” fees. At the time, LiCausi did not appear to have any professional background that would justify such a retainer for “media consulting”.
23. Also in 2003 Menendez directed the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) to pay LiCausi or her company $10,000 monthly in the period 2003 to 2004. LiCausi received $130,000 in payments from the DCCC.
24. During the 2003-2004 election cycle, Menendez’ campaign committee paid LiCausi’s company KL Strategies $61,493 in fundraising consulting fees.
25. These payments, nominally routed through KL Strategies, had the direct effect of enlarging LiCausi’s income at a time when she began cohabiting and presumably sharing household expenses with Menendez.
26. By diverting such monies to LiCausi at a time when he was engaged in an intimate relationship with her, Menendez appears to have misused official funds and campaign funds and by doing so while apparently cohabiting with her Menendez effectively increased and augmented his own household income by passing payments to LiCausi from Menendez’ controlled political committees.
Menendez begins to direct lobbying contracts to KL Strategies
27. After placing LiCausi on his committee payrolls and directing campaign consulting contracts to her, Menendez began directing private lobbying assignments to LiCausi.
28. These clients hired LiCausi’s company, KL Strategies, not because of any inherent lobbying skill or experience of LiCausi but as a means of continuing their relationship with Menendez. Individuals retaining LiCausi’s firm were close confidantes or fundraisers for Menendez and hired LiCausi because of their relationship with Menendez.
29. The New York Times reported on July 17, 2005 that these lobbying contracts between 2003 and 2004 exceeded $200,000. Menendez has acknowledged making such recommendations for lobbying contracts for LiCausi. See New York Times, July 17, 2005.
30. Liberty HealthCare System retained LiCausi as an apparent effort to gain favor with Menendez. As reported by the New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, Liberty’s president Jonathan Metsch is a longtime fundraiser for Menendez and at a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Jersey City Medical Center in 2004 “Dr. Metsch lavished the congressman with praise for his help in securing government-backed bonds”. NY Times, July 17, 2005. When interviewed as to LiCausi’s lobbying services for Liberty HealthCare, the hospital’s Chairman, James McLaughlin, told Gettleman “that he had never heard of her.” Id.
31. Similarly, Imperial Construction Group, a Hudson County management firm also appears to have retained LiCausi to curry favor with Menendez. Imperial paid LiCausi $22,500 in 2004. As with Liberty HealthCare, Imperial was unable to tell the New York Times what actual lobbying LiCausi performed. When asked why he hired LiCausi, Lou Fernandez, one of Imperial’s two co-founders, said "Bob's a great guy; that's all I got to say."
32. In all LiCausi listed 10 clients through 2004 with the New Jersey Election law Enforcement Commission and was paid by them a total of $143,500 but reported performing lobbying work for only three of them and that work appears to have been at a minimal level. Goldman Sachs, for example, confirmed that it had hired LiCausi as a lobbyist. When asked what work she did, a Goldman Sachs spokesperson said that she was “helpful in tracking legislation and arranging meetings.” New York Times, July 17, 2005.
33. One client of LiCausi’s, Liberty National, is an affiliate of Applied Development Company, a waterfront developer founded by Joseph Barry, a longtime Menendez ally who was convicted in 2004 on charges that he bribed a Hudson County Official in connection with a project in Hoboken. Barry was sentenced to a 25-month prison term. In addition to being retained by Barry’s firm, LiCausi occupied an office owned by Applied.

34. Some of LiCausi’s work appears to be “make work”. George D. Warrington, the executive director of New Jersey Transit, told the New York Times that his staff learned of her through her work for Menendez and that she was hired in December 2004 for $3,000 a month to do community outreach. It is unclear just what “community outreach” refers to and why New Jersey Transit needed to perform such work.
35. Other work appears to be part of an implied quid pro quo for favors from Menendez in which clients hire LiCausi in exchange for official action by Menendez.
36. For example, the Mills Corporation, one of the developers of the billion-dollar Xanadu entertainment and shopping complex in New Jersey’s Meadowlands, hired LiCausi for $7,500 per month. Part of the plans for Xanadu call for construction of a light rail transportation line to bring consumers from New York and the New Jersey transit trunk lines to the Xanadu complex. At the time LiCausi was hired by Mills Corporation, Menendez sat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that must approve federal financing for the light rail line. Another client of LiCausi’s, Union County, New Jersey, was seeking federal highway transportation funds from Menendez’ House Committee at the time she was hired. The New York Times reported that LiCausi had lobbied Menendez in connection with such hoped-for grants.
37. As noted above, Liberty HealthCare’s Chairman James McLaughlin was unaware even of LiCausi’s existence though his company had “hired” her as a lobbyist. Liberty HealthCare had also received large federal grants through Menendez’ sponsorship before hiring LiCausi.

The “Pass Through” of Head Start grants from
North Hudson Community Action Corp. to Menendez
38. Separately and with no apparent relation to LiCausi, Menendez appears to have diverted hundreds of thousand dollars in Head Start grants to himself from the North Hudson Community Action Corp. (North Hudson), a New Jersey Head Start agency.
39. During a ten-year period from approximately 1993 to 2003, Menendez lobbied for and obtained two Head Start grants for North Hudson in the amount of $181,080, and $573,849. Menendez also obtained for North Hudson a $1 million grant for its health centers and $1.17 million to help expand the health centers. New York Times, July 17, 2005.
40. During this same period, North Hudson entered into an arrangement to lease office space owned by Menendez at a small three story building in Union City, New Jersey.
41. North Hudson paid Menendez $353,400 for rent over this same 10-year period, thereby using Head Start grants to supplement Menendez’ Congressional salary by $35,000 annually, an unauthorized and illegal salary increase of 25 per cent above Menendez’ congressional salary using restricted federal funds intended for the education and medical care of young children.
42. Thus, out of approximately $3 million in government grants obtained by Menendez, North Hudson paid Menendez an effective “commission” in the form of office rent equal to more than 10 per cent of the total grants.
43. Menendez used the office lease arrangement with North Hudson to pass through to himself $353,400 in government grants intended for early childhood education.
Monies passed through to LiCausi were routed to Menendez’ political allies
44. Prior to 2000 when she became an intimate of Menendez, LiCausi’s sole political donation recorded on the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission records was a single $50.00 contribution to Mary Bono a state legislative candidate.
45. Beginning in 2003, when LiCausi began receiving large payments from Menendez-controlled political committees, LiCausi became one of the largest individual political donors in the state giving, for example, a total of 11,000 in a single nine month period (April 2003 to January 2004) to the Hudson County Democratic Committee, a donation far beyond that which would ordinarily be supported by her annual income and one that is unusual even for political insiders in New Jersey.
46. In the 2004 federal election cycle LiCaiusi gave a total of $17,000 to candidates for federal office, again a gross departure from her pre-Menendez level of giving and one that is inconsistent with givers at her income level.
47. LiCausi was enabled to give such large political donations solely by means of the large transfers she received from Menendez’ political committees that began in 2003.
48. Consequently, it would appear that through such transfers Menendez facilitated an unusual level of giving by LiCausi that she could not have accomplished based on her own means prior to her promotions by Menendez.
49. Your complainants believe that there exists a substantial issue of fact as to whether Menendez has used LiCausi as a means of directing political contributions that would otherwise have been beyond her financial ability and that represent a gross departure from her prior standards of giving before she began receiving transfers from Menendez.
Menendez’ pattern of associating with convicted criminals
50. Senator Menendez has received political contributions from admitted federal felons and associated with these known felons.
51. Of most concern to the Committee should be Menendez’s association with United Gunite Corporation. That company and its principal officers -- Gerry Free and Steven W. Carroll of Irvington, NJ – pled guilty in federal court to multiple crimes, including bribery, embezzlement and violations of the federal Hobbs Act.
52. Despite this, Menendez continues to hold onto contributions made by admitted federal felons. Steven W. Carroll contributed $1,000 to Menendez’s campaign on March 23, 1999. The consistent pattern in the state has been that Carroll and Free gave both legal and illegal contributions to politicians throughout the state of New Jersey (Many, like the Mayor of Irvington and Paterson, were sent to jail for their involvement with United Gunite.). Of concern to the Committee should be Senator Menendez’s association with these convicted felons.
53. Carroll of United Gunite -- a New Jersey- based national construction firm -- admitted he routinely authorized payoffs to public officials throughout the State, saying corruption is so widespread that companies are forced to offer bribes to get work. "If you don't pay, the work isn't going to come," said Carroll's lawyer, Avraham Moskowitz in entering a guilty plea for Carroll. Carroll's admissions came during a hearing in Newark before U.S. District Judge William Bassler. The Gunite president provided a detailed account of payoffs and gifts to officials in Paterson, where the company has done millions of dollars in sewer repair work. A statement issued by Carroll and Moskowitz said, " Unfortunately, due to the corrupt political environment…United Gunite felt compelled to make ill-advised payments and give ill-advised gifts to government officials in order to maintain its ability to do business…". Most of these criminal activities involving Gunite took place within Hudson County – the home county of Senator Menendez who rules as the county’s “Boss”. The Committee should rightly ask what United Gunite and its principals expected in return for contributions to Bob Menendez.
54. The Committee should also be concerned that Bob Menendez associated with John Lynch, another New Jersey political “Boss” who contributed to Mendez’s campaign and who recently pled guilty to federal crimes and is awaiting sentence.
55. According to an analysis by the Star-Ledger newspaper, Menendez has received $150,000 since 1987 from 18 donors who either had been convicted of a felony before they made the donations, or were convicted later.
56. In 2003, in yet another example of Menendez’ association with known criminals, he sold his Union City building (the same building for which he received improper rent from North Hudson Community Action Corp.) to Lourdes Lopez who had earlier pled guilty to embezzling funds from Union City while Menendez was Mayor. Menendez later denied recognizing Lopez at the time he sold the property although his congressional campaign had repeatedly used Lopez’ Union City restaurant for catering services and Menendez had repeatedly met her at the restaurant.
57. In another example of his association with convicted felons, Menendez obtained lobbying work for LiCausi from Joseph Barry, the founder of Applied Development Corp., who was convicted in 2004 of paying off Hudson County officials. Not only did Menendez direct that Applied hire LiCausi, but LiCausi’s office was located in Applied’s property in Union City. Barry was convicted and sentenced to 24 months in federal prison. Menendez has never denied news media reports that he directed such lobbying contracts.

Menendez’ pattern of lobbying referrals to LiCausi gives rise
to an implied quid pro quo under federal racketeering law.
58. Menendez appears to have arranged for at least $200,000 in lobbying contracts, many of which appear to have been arranged solely in consequence of the clients’ relationships with Menendez not because of any good faith or arms length business need. New York Times, July 17, 2006. These monies were directed to LiCausi at a time when she appears to have been in an intimate relationship and apparently cohabiting with Menendez and effectively augmented and increased Menendez’ and LiCausi’s household income, as well as constituting a gift to LiCausi. In cases noted above, these “lobbying” contracts appear to embrace the implied understanding that the lobbying contracts were necessary for continued positive relations between the client and Menendez. As admitted by Lou Fernandez, when asked why his Imperial Construction hired LiCausi, "Bob's a great guy; that's all I got to say." See para. 31, supra. As a further example, Menendez directed a lobbying contract for LiCausi from Mills Development at a time when it need Menendez’ assistance on the House Transportation committee for light rail funding for the Xanadu project. See para. 36, supra. Union County also retained LiCausi at a time when the County was seeking federal highway funds. See para. 36, supra. Menendez took more than $350,000 in “rent” from the North Hudson Community Action Corp during a ten-year period when Menendez repeatedly sought federal grants for the agency. See paras. 38-43, supra.
59. To sustain a prima facie charge of racketeering, federal law, as applied in both the District of New Jersey and the United States at large, requires only proof of an “implied understanding” that money is given in exchange for official action. United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245 (Third Circuit, 2001). Outside of the limited class of cases involving campaign contributions to candidates, no proof is required of an express agreement that official action is to be given in exchange for money to maintain a charge of bribery, conspiracy or racketeering under the federal Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S. C. 1961, et seq.
60. Prosecutions are approved in the Third Circuit (that includes New Jersey) based upon an “implicit quid pro quo requirement.” See United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245 (Third Circuit, 2001). Under the decision in Antico, which is premised upon identical holdings of the Supreme Court, no express agreement need be proved. Antico requires only an “implied understanding” that money is given in exchange for official acts.
61. Rejecting any requirement that an express agreement be proved to establish a quid pro quo, the Third Circuit in Antico stated:
“We echo the Supreme Court's satisfaction with an implicit quid pro quo requirement. In United States v. Bradley, 173 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 1999), we considered the question of whether, in a non-campaign contribution Hobbs Act extortion case, an express agreement must be shown. Relying on Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Evans, we agreed that " 'the official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in express terms, for otherwise the law's effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods.' " Bradley, 173 F.3d at 231 (citing Evans, 504 U.S. at 274) [emphasis added]. United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245.
62. Under Antico, a prosecution for racketeering or bribery will be sustained
“if the public official understands that he is expected, as a result of the payment, to exercise particular kinds of influence or to do certain things connected with his office as specific opportunities arise.” United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245, [emphasis added].
63. The continued pattern of repeated lobbying contracts by Menendez allies and entities that received grants through Menendez with large payments to Menendez’ intimate partner who had no lobbying experience and no special skills and who has been unable to document any substantive lobbying work, gives rise to a question of fact as to whether Menendez engineered said lobbying contracts as part of a pattern of implied agreements for continued favored action in his official capacity.
64. Several of LiCausi’s “clients” had received substantial federal grants through Menendez’ intervention prior to or contemporaneous with their hiring of LiCausi, including Liberty HealthCare, or had made direct payments to Menendez as part of a continued practice of obtaining grants, i.e., North Hudson Community Action Corp. Others appear to have pending matters before Menendez’ Congressional committee at the time they retained LiCausi, such as Mills Development’s Xanadu project and Union County. Imperial Construction frankly admitted it hired LiCausi because of Menendez: “Bob’s a great guy. That’s all I got to say”. Para. 36, supra.
65. This pattern gives rise to a clear and decisive question as to whether Menendez has engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of illegal diversions of public and campaign funds to his intimate, his referral of lobbying contracts to LiCausi as part of an implied understanding of continued favorable official action by Menendez and his outright diversion of Head Start monies from an agency for which he had obtained federal early childhood education funds.
66. At minimum this disturbing pattern of contracts and diversion of funds to LiCausi from businesses that recently received grants through Menendez or that expected to do so, his taking of payments from North Hudson Community Action Corp. and his association with known felons, give rise to a severe and substantial question of Menendez’ fitness to continue in legislative office and whether he has created the appearance of ethical conflicts and impropriety. These issues require investigation and discipline by the Senate and referral to the Justice Department for investigation pursuant to the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act., 18 U.S. C. 1961, et seq.
Basis for Investigation and Discipline.
67. By repeatedly referring lobbying contracts to LiCausi from certain commercial entities for which he had performed legislative services or expected to do so, Menendez has engaged in a pattern of activity that gives rise to an implied understanding that he accepted monies in the form of employment for LiCausi in exchange for continued favorable political and legislative treatment, in violation of the federal Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S. C. 1961, et seq.
68. The use of North Hudson Community Action Corp. grants for payment to Menendez during a period when Menendez was actively lobbying for North Hudson Menendez gives rise to an implied understanding that Menendez accepted monies from North Hudson in exchange for continued favor political and legislative treatment, in violation of the federal Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S. C. 1961, et seq.
69. By promoting and rewarding LiCausi with massive salary raises for a position for which she had no experience or known skills at a time when he was initiating and fomenting an intimate relationship, Menendez appears to have used official and campaign funds for personal purposes in violation of 18 U.S.C. 641, et seq. The use of official funds and restricted campaign funds to make gifts to another person has been found to be a violation of section 641. See e.g., United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Circuit 1995).
70. By rewarding his intimate associate through promotion and pay raises without disclosure of said relationship to the House of Representatives, Menendez would appear to have concealed a material fact of the basis for the promotion and salary increases in violation of the False Reporting Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001, et seq.
71. By demanding and receiving Head Start and other appropriated federal funds from the North Hudson Community Action Corp. as “rent” for his Union City office space, Menendez would appear to have converted official funds to his own use in violation of 18 U.S.C. 641, et seq.
72. Accordingly, there is a substantive and indisputable basis for investigation and discipline of Senator Menendez by this body and for referral of these matters to the United States Department of Justice.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Committee accept this report of Complaint and act thereon and investigate and impose discipline on the Junior Senator from New Jersey.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Committee refer these matters to the criminal division of the Department of Justice.
Respectfully submitted,

___________________________
Carl J. Mayer, Complainant

___________________________
Bruce I. Afran, Complainant

Princeton, New Jersey
October 25, 2006

SUPREME COURT ASKED TO HALT NJ CORRUPTION

2006-10-17T21:06:00.000-07:00

No.
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
CARL J. MAYER, ESQ., ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Carl J. Mayer
pro se
MAYER LAW GROUP
66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 414
Princeton, NJ 08542
609-921-0253
CURRY & TAYLOR ! WASH D.C. ! (202) 393-4141 ! USSCINFO.COM
Bruce Afran, Esq.
pro se
10 Braeburn Drive
Princeton, NJ 08540
(609)924-2075
Ted Rosenberg, Esq.
pro se
321 New Albany Road
P.O. Box 97
Moorestown, NJ 08057
(856)608-9999
John Gural
pro se
739 Parry Avenue
Palmyra, NJ 08065
(609)868-1303
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Does the “presentment” clause of the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution secure the autonomy of
a federal Grand Jury to investigate and bring criminal
charges (independent of Executive Branch prosecutors
and Judicial Branch judges) particularly in cases of
criminal political corruption, thereby rendering
unconstitutional the advisory committee notes to Rule 7
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?
Are citizens protected by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution in
communicating evidence of crimes directly to federal
Grand Juries, independent of prosecutors or judges?
Did the Framers of the Constitution intend to include the
Grand Jury within the ambit of the Constitution’s
Separation of Powers scheme such that the Grand Jury
remains autonomous of the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial Branches and is always available, as it has been
historically, to independently investigate evidence
presented by citizens of criminal corruption by
government officials of any branch of government?
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
Petitioners
Carl J. Mayer, Esq.
Bruce Afran, Esq.
Ted Rosenberg, Esq.
John Gural
Respondent
United States
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Q
UESTIONS PRESENTED.............................................................. i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................................iv
OPINIONS BELOW......................................................................... 1
JURISDICTION............................................................................... 1
RELEVANT PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..........................................1
STATEMENT ................................................................................. 1
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION............................... 14
CONCLUSION............................................................................... 30
APPENDIX
Circuit Court Decision ......................................................... 1a
District Court Decision ........................................................ 2a
Relevant Provisions Involved ........................................... 14a
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
BLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 273, 280, 39
S.CT. 468, 63 L.ED. 979 (1919)............................................... 22
FRISBIE V. UNITED STATES, 157 U.S. 160, 163, 15 S.
CT. 586, 587, 39 L. ED. 657, 658 (1895) .................................. 27
HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 62, 26 S.CT. 370, 50
L.ED. 652. N12 (1906) ........................................................22, 27
HOTT V. YARBOROUGH, 112 TEX. 179, 245 S.W. 676
(TEX. COMM'N APP. 1922) ..................................................... 20
IN RE LESTER, 77 GA. 143, 1886 WL 1476, AT 3 (GA.
1886)......................................................................................... 20
KING V. SECOND NAT'L BANK & TRUST CO., 234 ALA.
106, 173 SO. 498, 499 (ALA. 1937) .......................................... 20
MORGAN V. NULL, 117 F. SUPP. 11, 15 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) ........ 20
STATE EX REL. MILLER V. SMITH, 285 S.E. 2D 500 (W.
VA. 1981).................................................................................. 20
STATE EX REL. WILD V. OTIS, 257 N.W.2D 361, 364
(MINN. 1977) ........................................................................... 28
STATE V. STEWART, 45 LA. ANN. 1164, 14 SO. 143, 145
(LA. 1893) ................................................................................ 20
SULLIVAN V. UNITED STATES, 1954, 348 U.S. 170,
173, 75 S.CT. 182, 99 L.ED. 210 794 (5TH CIR. 1975).............. 22
UNITED STATES V. BRIGGS, 514 F.2D 794(5TH CIR.
1975) ........................................................................................ 22
v
UNITED STATES V. CHRISTIAN 660 F.2D 892 (3D CIR.
1981)......................................................................................... 21
UNITED STATES V. COACHMAN, 243 U.S. APP. D.C.
228, 752 F.2D 685, 689 N.23 (D.C.CIR. 1985)......................... 22
UNITED STATES V. COX, 342 F.2D 167 (5TH CIR. 1965) ......... 22
UNITED STATES V. KEMP, 362 F. SUPP. 2D 591 (2005) ............ 8
UNITED STATES V. SELLS ENGINEERING, INC., 463
U.S. 418, 430 (1983)................................................................. 26
UNITED STATES V. SMYTH, 104 F. SUPP. 283, 287
(N.D. CAL. 1952)................................................................23, 25
UNITED STATES V. STIRONE, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960).......... 26
UNITED STATES V. ZAVALA, 839 F.2D 523, 529 (9TH
CIR. 1988), CERT. DENIED, 488 U.S. 831, 102 L. ED.
2D 62, 109 S. CT. 86 (1988) ...................................................... 22
WILD V. OTIS, 434 U.S. 1003, 98 S. CT. 707, 54 L. ED.
2D 746 (1978)............................................................................ 28
WOODS V. GEORGIA 370 U.S. 375 (1962) .................................. 27
STATUTES
18 U.S.C. § 371............................................................................... 8
18 U.S.C. § 1341............................................................................. 8
18 U.S.C. § 1343............................................................................. 8
18 U.S.C. § 1951............................................................................. 8
18 U.S.C.A. § 1504......................................................................... 7
vi
18 USCS § 1961 ............................................................................. 8
28 U.S.C. 1254(1)........................................................................... 1
18 USCS § 1961 ............................................................................. 8
COLO. REV. STAT. § 16-5-204(4)(L) ........................................... 19
ME. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. 15.................................................... 19
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-626(D) .................................................. 19
NEB. REV. STAT. § 29-1410.01................................................... 19
TENN. CODE ANN. § 40-12-104(A) ............................................ 19
TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. § 20.09..................................... 20
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. CONST. AMEND. I ............................................................... 27
U.S. CONST. AMEND. V.............................................................. 16
U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV......................................................... 27
RULES
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 121........................ 15
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 7 ........ 15
OTHER AUTHORITIES
AMERICAN GRAND JURY: ITS HISTORY, ITS
SECRECY, AND ITS PROCESS, 24 FLA. ST. U. L.
vii
REV. 9 (1996)........................................................................... 18
DREW R. MCCOY, THE LAST OF THE FATHERS: JAMES
MADISON & THE REPUBLICAN LEGACY 89 (1989) ............21
HELENE E. SCHWARTZ, DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE
HISTORIC ROLE OF THE GRAND JURY, 10 AM.
CRIM L. REV. 701, 703-710 (1972)......................................... 17
J. JACOBY, ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
AMERICAN PROSECUTIONS (1980).......................................19
KARSON, THE IMPLICATIONS OF A KEY-MAN SYSTEM
FOR SELECTING A GRAND JURY: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY (2006) SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, VOL. 3(1). PP. 3-16. .................................................21
MARK KADISH, BEHIND THE LOCKED DOOR OF AN
AMERICAN GRAND JURY: ITS HISTORY, ITS
SECRECY, AND ITS PROCESS, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV.
9 (1996). ....................................................................................18
MARVIN E. FRANKEL & GARY NAFTALIS, THE GRAND
JURY: AN INSTITUTION ON TRIAL (1977). ..........................17
NOTE, POWERS OF FEDERAL GRAND JURIES, 4
STAN. L. REV. 77 (1951)......................................................... 18
NOTE, THE GRAND JURY AS A INVESTIGATORY
BODY, 74 HARV. L. REV. 590 (1961)..................................... 27
PHILLIP E. HASSMAN, ANNOTATION, AUTHORITY OF
FEDERAL GRAND JURY TO ISSUE INDICTMENT OR
REPORT CHARGING UNINDICTED PERSON WITH
CRIME OR MISCONDUCT, 28 A.L.R. FED. 851 (1976) ........ 17
RENEE B. LETTOW, REVIVING FEDERAL GRAND
JURY PRESENTMENTS, 103 YALE L.J. 1333, 1342
viii
N.50 (1994) ..........................................................................16, 19
RICHARD CALKINS, THE FADING MYTH OF GRAND
JURY SECRECY, 1 J. MARSHALL J. PRAC. & PROC.
18, 19 (1967) ............................................................................. 18
RICHARD D. YOUNGER, THE PEOPLE'S PANEL: THE
GRAND JURY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1634-1941, AT
29-30(1963)...............................................................................18
1

OPINIONS BELOW
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued no
opinion and granted summary action in an order dated
May 8, 2006. This order is reprinted in the Appendix To
The Petition. (“App.”)
The District Court’s opinion is unpublished and is
reprinted at App. 2a.
JURISDICTION
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals order granting
summary action was entered on May 8, 2006.
The District Court’s opinion was entered on January 3,
2006.
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1)
RELEVANT PROVISIONS INVOLVED
(See Appendix)
STATEMENT
Petitioners submitted evidence of federal crimes related
to political corruption before a federal judge and asked
that he instruct a federal Grand Jury that it can consider
the evidence independently of federal prosecutors and
return a “presentment”: an alternative to an indictment,
specifically enumerated in the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
The judge refused and ruled that the advisory notes to
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure declare
presentments and Grand Jury autonomy obsolete. The
2

Third Circuit affirmed, and Petitioners now seek review
of the fundamental constitutional questions raised.
Petitioners represent themselves pro se and pro bono.
Petitioners neither expect nor shall they receive any
remuneration for bringing this action, nor are they
affiliated with any interest group or organization of any
kind. They bring this Petition exclusively in the hopes
of upholding the Constitution of the United States and,
at long last, curbing corruption and illegality in High
Office: a cancer that is eroding democracy and the rule
of law in New Jersey and in the nation.
Petitioners are either members of the Bar or elected
officials. They each have different political affiliations.
Petitioner Carl J. Mayer, Esq. formerly served as an
elected member of the Township Committee of
Princeton, New Jersey. He was elected as an
Independent. He is a former professor of law and
clerked for Caleb M. Wright, United States District Court
Judge. Petitioner John Gural is the Mayor of Palmyra,
New Jersey and was elected as a Democrat. Ted
Rosenberg, Esq., a Democrat, is the Township Attorney
in Palmyra, New Jersey. Bruce Afran, Esq. is an adjunct
law professor at Rutgers-Camden law school and has
run for office as a Republican.
A. Facts
"The best thing you do . . . Make him a fucking judge
and get rid of him. . . [he] disappears… whatever the
case” Boss George Norcross1

1 Transcript of conversation recorded by New Jersey State Attorney
General at Commerce Bank Headquarters of “Boss” George
Norcross, p. 40, 1/3/01 Transcript.
3

“[I]n the end, the McGreevey’s [the former New Jersey
Governor], the Corzines [the current New Jersey
Governor], they're all going to be with me. Because not
that they like me, but because they have no choice."
Boss George Norcross2
1. Evidence of Crimes Presented To A Federal Grand
Jury.
Petitioner John Gural is the Mayor of Palmyra, New
Jersey. In 2000 he was approached by “Boss” George
Norcross, one of the most powerful leaders of the
Democratic party in New Jersey. Gural is also a
Democrat. Norcross demanded that Gural fire
Petitioner Ted Rosenberg, the Township Attorney for
Palmyra. In return, Gural was promised more business
opportunities; if he declined, it was made clear that
Gural’s business would suffer.
Norcross wanted the Township Attorney fired because
he was known as a political reformer within the
Democratic Party. Norcross also wanted the Township
to do more business with entities he controlled.
Norcross is one of the dozen or so most powerful men in
New Jersey; he personally claims to be more powerful
than Governors or Senators, and he doesn’t hold any
office. He is almost always referred to in the press as
“Boss Norcross”.3 (Except for a brief interregnum under
the governorship of Woodrow Wilson, politics in New
Jersey has been dominated by the “Boss” system: the
Bosses raise the money, pick the candidates and control
each major political party, right down to the county and
township level.)

2 Id.
3 A. Guenther, “Boss Norcross”, Courier-Post, Feb. 16, 2003.
4

By day, Norcross sits on the board of Commerce Bank, a
large regional bank, and controls $60 million of that
company’s stock; by night, he ladles out corporate cash
to political candidates and rules his party with an iron
fist. (Although, as in most matters, New Jersey is open
for business: Boss Norcross and his bank give liberally
to Republicans as well.)
Devoting attention to New Jersey municipalities like
Palmyra is quite lucrative for Commerce Bank: onefifth
of the bank’s business is government deposits, a
cool $4 billion of taxpayer dollars. The $17.7 billion-ayear
financial behemoth has ladled out more campaign
cash and received more government no-bid contracts
than any financial institution in New Jersey. 4 Compared
to Boss Tweed, Boss Norcross is a very rich man, and
rules with as much power as Boss Tweed ever accrued.
Mayor Gural and Township Attorney Rosenberg came to
believe that Norcross was committing crimes and
approached the New Jersey Attorney General’s office.
Specifically, Petitioners knew it was a crime for
Norcross to attempt to bribe and extort the Mayor to
fire Rosenberg. The Attorney General agreed to
investigate and his staff wired Gural and Rosenberg and
the two secretly recorded many hours of phone
conversations with Norcross and his associates.5
The contents of the tapes are stunning for what they
reveal about the perversion of American democracy by
lobbyists, political bosses and criminal wrongdoers. On
April 1, 2005, the tapes were released to the public after

4 C. Riley, “Banking On Your Money: Commerce Counts On Political
Ties.”, Bergen Record, May 21, 2003
5The Justices can listen to the actual tapes or read the transcripts
at: http://courierpostonline.com/specialreports/jca/
5

a lawsuit brought by news organizations, including the
New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. 6
The recordings, for example, capture Norcross
instructing Gural: "I want you to fire that fuck. [Y]ou
need to get this fuck Rosenberg [the town attorney] for
me and teach this jerk-off a lesson. He has to be
punished…Rosenberg is history and he is done and
anything I can do to crush his ass, I wanna do because I
just think he’s just done, an evil fuck." 7
Later, Norcross explains how he handled a member of
the New Jersey legislature: “I sat him [the legislator]
down and said … ‘don’t fuck with me on this one... if
you ever do that and I catch you one more time doing it,
you're gonna get your fucking balls cut off.’ He got the
message." 8
Norcross brags that his political enemies will always
respect him “[b]ecause they know we put up the gun
and we pulled the trigger and we blew their brains
out…”9
Boss Norcross, himself, sums up the deal. “[I]n the end,
the McGreeveys [the former New Jersey Governor], the
Corzines [the current New Jersey Governor], they're all
going to be with me. Because not that they like me, but
because they have no choice”10

6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10Id.
6

The transcripts of the recorded phone conversations
also reveal multiple efforts on the part of Norcross and
his associates to bribe or extort Mayor Gural.11
It came as no surprise that despite the cooperation of
Gural and Rosenberg, despite the tapes and despite the
willingness of two members of Norcross’ own party to
testify against him, the New Jersey Attorney General
refused to indict either Norcross or Commerce Bank.
At the time, New Jersey Attorney General Harvey was
almost routinely referred to in the press as “Peter See
No Evil Harvey”12. The Attorney General, moreover, was
appointed by then Governor James McGreevey – a man
Boss Norcross bragged about controlling – and whose
ascent to power in New Jersey was substantially
bankrolled by Boss Norcross. The Attorney General’s
office claimed to have lost a videotape of George
Norcross meeting ex parte with a Deputy Attorney
General (the meeting was conceded) in an effort to
persuade the Attorney General not to indict. The
Attorney General even refused, after declining
indictment, to release the taped conversations until
compelled by Court order. Instead, the Attorney
General focused his energies on bringing an action
against Blockbuster Video Inc. for charging customers
late fees.
The subsequent New Jersey Attorney General, Zulima
Farber, resigned her post after a special prosecutor
appointed by the Governor concluded she had herself
violated state ethics codes and after it was revealed that
the Attorney General had at least four bench warrants

11 Id.
12 B. Engle, “Governor Trying To Work Around Attorney General”,
Courier-Post, December 6, 2004. (“Public corruption is something
Harvey couldn’t identify in a lineup.”)
7

outstanding for her own arrest.13 Welcome to New
Jersey.
At this juncture, Petitioners Mayer and Afran – public
interest lawyers who frequently fight corruption in
government -- approached Gural and Rosenberg, whom
they had never met before. Mayer suggested they
submit their evidence directly to a federal Grand Jury.
On August 8, 2005, they did just that.
They moved before United States District Court Judge
Chesler for the following:
1. Permit the Petitioners to present directly to
the Grand Jury evidence of federal crimes.
The petitioners relied on the First, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution as well as 18 U.S.C.A. § 1504
which provides that "nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit the
communication of a request to appear before
the Grand Jury”.
2. Issue a declaratory judgment that Rule 7 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
prohibiting Grand Jury’s from returning
presentments is unconstitutional and that
Grand Jury presentments are specifically
permitted in the federal system.
3. Impanel a special Grand Jury to investigate
widespread violations of racketeering and
related statutes by lobbyists and politicians.

13 B. DiFalco, “New Jersey Attorney General Quits Over Ethics.”
ABC.com, August 16, 2006.
8

The Petitioners further informed Judge Chesler in New
Jersey that his brethren Pennsylvania United States
District Judge Michael M. Baylson, sua sponte,
suggested in open court on May 9, 2005 that
racketeering charges be brought against Commerce
Bank and other defendants in connection with bribes
paid to government officials in Philadelphia. The judge
presided over a trial in which two executives of
Commerce Bank were convicted of conspiracy to
commit honest services fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
371, honest services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1343 and 1346 and honest services mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346. See United
States v. Kemp, 362 F. Supp. 2d 591; 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 5070 (2005) (and related opinions). Judge
Baylson took the further unusual step of sentencing one
of the defendants in the scheme to more time than
requested by the U.S. Attorney.
Petitioners suggested to Judge Chesler that Boss
Norcross and Commerce Bank had engaged in violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) 18 USCS §§ 1961 et seq., the Hobbs Act, 18
U.S.C. § 1951 as well as violations of the statutes
prohibiting honest services fraud referenced above. In
essence, they claimed that Norcross and Commerce
Bank engaged in Palmyra, New Jersey in conduct similar
to the conduct that was the subject of the Kemp case: in
return for bribes and extortion, government contracts
and favors were sought.
2. Background: Criminal Corruption In New Jersey.
Some background regarding pervasive and persistent
criminal corruption extant amongst lobbyists,
politicians and elected officials in New Jersey (and,
9

increasingly, the nation) is in order to underscore the
important precepts at stake in this case.
New Jersey has established itself in the eyes of
academics, political observers and its own citizenry as
probably the most criminally corrupt state in the nation.
Many federal crimes – including embezzlement, fraud,
extortion and theft of honest services – have been
prosecuted by the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s office,
under pressure from citizens. But these prosecutions
are merely the tip of the iceberg. Often, the most
powerful politicians and lobbyists in the state are left to
continue illegal activity, while lesser figures are
prosecuted.
It is impossible to recount the litany of crimes
committed by politicians and lobbyists in New Jersey
within the confines of a petition for writ of certiorari. A
truckload of Brandeis Briefs could not do justice to a
venality and avarice that would make the Senators of
ancient Rome blush. One is tempted to try, merely
because a full recitation of the facts would cause peels
of laughter to reverberate down the alabaster hallways
of our nation’s Highest Court.
Humor, however, ought not to be the motive;
underpinning this farce is a substantial unfolding
tragedy in the practice of American democracy.
A mere sampling will make the point:
• Former United States Senator Robert Torricelli, a
Democrat, ended his campaign for re-election in
2002 after an associate – subsequently
imprisoned – admitted to illegal and unreported
payments to the Senator. The Senator was never
prosecuted even though there was substantial
10

independent evidence and the associate was
prepared to testify against the Senator.14 (Many
people are now on Death Row on the basis of
lesser evidence.)
• The presumptive Republican nominee for Senate,
James Treffinger, billed himself as a reformer to
replace Torricelli; he terminated his candidacy
when the FBI raided his offices. He later pled
guilty to extorting campaign contributions. 15
• On the heels of Senator Torricelli’s resignation,
Governor McGreevey resigned, not so much
because he admitted to an extra-marital affair
with a man, but because he had placed his
paramour on the government payroll in a job he
was uniquely unqualified to hold: State Homeland
Security Adviser. All the federal security
agencies refused to brief the man because, as a
foreign national, he could never obtain security
clearance. McGreevey was never prosecuted. 16
• An Assemblyman and close advisor to Newark
Mayor Sharpe James was found with $150,000 in
stolen cash in the floorboards of his home.17
• The leading fundraiser for former Governor
James McGreevey, Robert Kushner, was under
investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office for
illegal campaign contributions when it was

14 “Resignation Heats Up Senate Race”, BBC News, October 1, 2002.
15 R. Smothers, “Treffinger Pleads Guilty,” New York Times, June 8,
2003.
16 J. Margolin, “McGreevey’s Reclusive Israeli Aide Steps Down”
New Jersey Capital Report, August 15, 2002.
17B. Alberts, “Williams Scandal Fuels Essex Reputation for
Corruption,” PoliticsNJ.com, Dec. 27, 2005.
11

revealed that Kushner sought to tamper with a
federal witness. He did so by hiring a New York
City prostitute who arranged for a tryst with the
married witness; the encounter was
surreptitiously videotaped. Kushner attempted to
intimidate the witness by sending him the video.18
• The major media in New Jersey have documented
in series after series, often on the front page, the
corrupt -- usually criminal-- payoffs that lobbyists
tender to public figures in return for government
contracts and emoluments.19
• Well-known New Jersey lobbyist Alan Marcus
confided to New York Magazine: "In New Jersey,
you contribute money not for access but results.
Anybody who doesn't admit that is lying." 20
• Petitioner Carl Mayer, while serving on the
Princeton Township Committee, was asked by
the CBS news program “Sixty Minutes” to assist
in an investigation of corruption he witnessed as
an elected official. In the course of the Sixty
Minutes investigation, the CEO of United Gunite
Corporation – a New Jersey company – actually
offered a cash bribe to a Sixty Minutes
cameraman to stop filming: a first in Sixty
Minutes history. After the program aired, federal
agents must have decided it was bad for New
Jersey’s image to have bribes offered on national
television; FBI agents tailed the Gunite CEO and

18 R. Smothers, “Democratic Donor Receives Two-Year Prison
Sentence,” New York Times, March 5, 2005.
19See e.g. “The Power Brokers: How A Dozen Men Control New
Jersey Politics”, Asbury Park Press, October 24, 2004.
20 C. Horowitz, “Jim McGreevey And His Main Man,” New York
Magazine, Sep. 20, 2004.
12

found that he was offering unreported cash
bribes to public officials throughout the state of
New Jersey in return for government contracts.21
• In New Jersey the practice of exchanging money
for government contracts and favors is routinely
referred to as “Pay-To-Play,” leaving no doubt
that an illegal quid pro quo is the order of the
day.
• By 2004 New Jersey had developed such a
national reputation for criminal corruption that
its interim Governor Richard Codey (appointed
by Jim McGreevey) decided that the State needed
a new slogan to repair its image. Contests to coin
a slogan were held around the state; herewith
some entries submitted by New Jersey’s own
citizens:
“New Jersey: Pay to Play: Reap the Benefits.”
"New Jersey: Where the roads are paved and the
pockets lined with good intentions"
"New Jersey: Pay to play, play to win”.
"New Jersey: Corrupt and proud."
“New Jersey: Everything you’ve heard is true.”
"New Jersey: One state, under indictment."22

21 CBS Sixty Minutes, May 12, 1996.
22 M. Yant Kinney, “New Jersey: Who Needs A Slogan,” Philadelphia
Inquirer, Nov. 15, 2005.
13

The current race for United States Senator in New
Jersey is, once again, consumed exclusively with
whether the Democratic or Republican nominee is more
criminally corrupt. The U.S. Attorney for New Jersey
even took the unusual step of issuing -- during the
campaign -- a subpoena to the Democratic nominee for
Senate regarding possible illegal real estate dealings.
The Democratic Party promptly accused the U.S.
Attorney for New Jersey of being partisan, pointing out
that he and his family are major political contributors to
the Republican Party and the President of the United
States.23
And, so it goes. Amidst endless posturing, there is no
serious effort to end criminal political corruption in
New Jersey. Massive illegality by the leaders of
government undermines the rule of law and saps
confidence in every branch of government, including the
judiciary.
Petitioners respectfully urge this Court to issue the writ
to determine whether the federal Grand Jury can launch
its own investigations and presentments and fulfill its
historic and constitutional role as the “fourth branch of
government”: the critical backstop essential to
terminating criminal corruption in High Office.
B. Proceedings Below
The District Court denied Petitioners motion on January
3, 2006. See App. 2a.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary
action on May 8, 2006. See App. 1a.

23 C. Mondics, “Menendez Hits US Attorney Over Subpeona”,
Philadelphia Inquirer, September 9, 2006.
14

Mr. Justice Souter granted an extension of time until
October 5, 2006 to file this petition for writ of certiorari.
REASONS FOR GRANTING OF THE PETITION
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be,
secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be
concealed from them." Patrick Henry
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If
we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we
destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
The Petition should be granted for several reasons.
First, the Third Circuit, in upholding the District Court’s
opinion that Grand Juries cannot make presentments,
directly contravened the language and history of the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Second, the opinion below reflects a split in the Circuits
that must be resolved. Third, Supreme Court dicta
suggesting that Grand Juries have autonomous power
conflicts with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Fourth, this case raises the issue of whether a citizen’s
right to submit evidence of crimes to Federal Grand
Juries is protected by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Finally, the Court
should grant the Petition to determine how Grand Juries
fit within the Separation of Powers scheme conceived
by the Founders.
A. The Third Circuit Order Countermands the
Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
Places Squarely Before the Court The Issue Of
Whether A Provision of The Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure Denying A Grand Jury’s
Autonomous Power Violates The Constitution
15

And Hundreds Of Years of Independent Action
by Grand Juries.
The Third Circuit, in granting summary action, upheld
the District Court. The core of the District court ruling
was that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not
allow “presentments”: investigations conducted solely
by the Grand Jury, without the assistance of
prosecutors. See App. at 7a. The District Court also held
that individuals cannot present facts directly to a Grand
Jury.
The courts below relied on the notes of the advisory
committee to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 7. ("Presentment is not included as an additional
type of formal accusation, since presentments as a
method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least
as concerns the Federal courts."). FED. R. CRIM. P. 7
(a) adv. comm. note 4; see CHARLES A. WRIGHT,
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 121, at 338
(1982). See App. 3a.
The constitutionality of this advisory rule was
prefigured by Justice Hugo Black, who dissented from
the decision to enact the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure:
“Whether by this transmittal the individual members of
the Court who voted to transmit the rules intended to
express approval of the varied policy decisions the rules
embody I am not sure. I am reasonably certain,
however, that the Court's transmittal does not carry
with it a decision that the amended rules are all
constitutional.” Fed. R. Crim. P., Orders of the Supreme
Court of the United States Adopting and Amending
Rules, Order of Feb. 28, 1966 (Black, J., dissenting). See
Renee B. Lettow, Reviving Federal Grand Jury
16

Presentments, 103 Yale L.J. 1333, 1342 n.50 (1994).
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a Grand Jury.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
In making a distinction between indictment and
presentment24, the Framers undoubtedly understood
that in colonial times Grand Juries acted as selfgoverning
bodies and used their time-honored powers to
make presentments independent of government
prosecutors.
Both the language and legislative history of the
Constitution grant considerable autonomy to Grand
Juries and grant citizens the right to present information
to a Grand Jury of a crime. See Phillip E. Hassman,
Annotation, Authority of Federal Grand Jury To Issue

24 Black’s law dictionary defines presentment:
“The written notice taken by a Grand Jury of any offense,
from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill
of indictment laid before them at the suit of the
government. A presentment is an accusation, initiated by
the Grand Jury itself, and in effect an instruction that an
indictment be drawn.”
A similar procedure is described by Blackstone under the
heading of "Prosecution -- By Presentment":
"A presentment, properly speaking, is the notice taken by a
Grand Jury of any offense from their own knowledge or
observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them
at the suit of the king, as the presentment of a nuisance, a
libel, and the like; upon which the officer of the court must
afterward frame an indictment, before the party presented
can be put to answer it. W. BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES at 301. (1854).
17

Indictment Or Report Charging Unindicted Person With
Crime Or Misconduct, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 851 (1976).
The ancient history of Grand Juries, both in England and
colonial America, demonstrates that these bodies acted
independently of prosecuting authorities. This was the
very purpose of the institution: to act as a bulwark
against tyrannical power and to provide an outlet for
grievances against corrupt officials.25
Grand Juries were enormously popular in the
Revolutionary period. Local Grand Juries refused to
indict the editors of the Boston Gazette for libeling the

25 The Grand Jury may be the oldest institution in America’s
criminal justice system:
It originated in 1164 when King Henry II signed the
Constitutions of Clarendon, which allowed for the use of an
accusing jury to charge all laity who were to be tried in
ecclesiastical courts. Two years later he established the
Assize of Clarendon, which was composed of twelve men
who would "present" those suspected of crimes to the royal
courts. These accusatory panels were progenitors of the
modern-day Grand Jury. See Helene E. Schwartz,
Demythologizing the Historic Role of the Grand Jury, 10
Am. Crim L. Rev. 701, 703-710 (1972); Marvin E. Frankel &
Gary Naftalis, The Grand Jury: An Institution on Trial
(1977).
In pre-Revolutionary America, the Grand Jury took on a life
of its own. See Mark Kadish, Behind the Locked Door of an
American Grand Jury: Its History, Its Secrecy, and Its Process, 24
Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 9 (1996). American grand juries initiated
prosecutions against corrupt agents of the government, often in
response to complaints from individuals acting "in several of the
colonies as spokesmen for the people... and [as] vehicles for
complaints against officialdom." Frankel & Naftalis, supra, at The
Grand 107-116 (1977). Note, Powers of Federal Grand Juries, 4 Stan.
L. Rev. 77 (1951).
18

governor of Massachusetts and refused to indict the
leaders of the Stamp Act Rebellion. Frankel & Naftalis
at 11. A Philadelphia Grand Jury condemned the use of
the tea tax to compensate British officials, encouraged a
rejection of all British goods, and called for organization
with other colonies to demand redress of grievances.
Frankel & Naftalis, at 11-12. A Boston Grand Jury in
1769 actively sought to enforce the law against British
soldiers by indicting them for alleged transgressions
against citizens, such as breaking and entering private
homes. Richard D. Younger, The People's Panel: The
Grand Jury in the United States, 1634-1941, at 29-
30(1963). During the Revolutionary war, Grand Juries
indicted for treason those individuals who joined or
colluded with the British army.
The process for receiving private testimony, outside the
presence of the court officials, remained a common
practice for a century after the Grand Jury was
enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Richard Calkins, The
Fading Myth of Grand Jury Secrecy, 1 J. Marshall J.
Prac. & Proc. 18, 19 (1967). Throughout the 19th
century, Grand Juries often acted on their own initiative
in the face of opposition from a district attorney. It was
just such a Grand Jury that probed and toppled the
notorious Boss Tweed and his cronies in New York City
in 1872. Without the prosecutor's assistance, the Tweed
Grand Jury independently carried out its own
investigation in a district that had otherwise been very
loyal to Tweed. See Frankel & Naftalis, supra at 15.26

26 The Populist era of the early 20th Century saw some attempts to
revitalize the Grand Jury. During that period, ex-jurors acted to
protect the Grand Jury's powers by forming associations. The
Grand Juror's Association of New York was founded in 1912, and
began publishing The Panel, a pro-Grand Jury periodical, in 1924.
Chicagoans founded the Grand Juror's Federation of America in
19

Many states explicitly allow citizens to directly present
evidence of crimes to a Grand Jury.27

1931, and associations apparently sprang up in other localities. See
Renee B. Lettow, Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments, 103
Yale L.J. 1333, 1342 n.50 (1994). J. Jacoby, Origins and Development
of American Prosecutions (1980)
In the modern era, commentators still champion the
institution: "Grand juries come from the people. They are not
elected and thus are not involved in the political process. Their oath
and composition assure a non-partisan body. The Grand Jury does
its job with no axe to grind and then disperses." Peter Megargee
Brown, Ten Reasons Why the Grand Jury in New York Should Be
Retained and Strengthened, 22 Rec. Bar Ass'n N.Y. 471, 472 (1967).
Grand juries are seen as an essential link between the people and
the law, as non-political and non-partisan, as the people’s
conscience and having the confidence of the public.
27 Some states allow citizens to contact grand juries by statute, but
leave it to the discretion of the judge to allow the citizen to appear
before the Grand Jury. . See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-204(4)(l)
("Any person may approach the prosecuting attorney or the Grand
Jury and request . . . to appear before a Grand Jury. . . . The court
may permit the person to testify or appear before the Grand Jury, if
the court finds that such testimony or appearance would serve the
interests of justice."); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1256); Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 29-1410.01; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-626(d)
Other state statutes explicitly allow citizens to present
evidence of crimes to a Grand Jury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-12-104(a)
("Any person having knowledge or proof of the commission
of a public offense triable or indictable in the county may testify
before the Grand Jury."); Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. § 20.09 ("The
Grand Jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of
which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be
informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other
credible person.").
West Virginia is unique because a citizen's right to
approach a Grand Jury and present evidence of an offense is a
constitutional right. State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 285 S.E. 2d 500 (W.
Va. 1981). The Supreme Court of West Virginia stated the following
in justifying this right: “To fulfill its functions of protecting
individual citizens and providing them with a forum for bringing
complaints within the criminal justice system, the Grand Jury must
be open to the public for the independent presentation of evidence
20

The Framers of the Constitution were familiar with the
historic role of Grand Juries in this country and in
England. The Grand Jury was considered so important
by the nation’s Founding Fathers that the Bill of Rights
included an amendment guaranteeing the right of an
indictment by a Grand Jury for all infamous or capital
crimes. Its use was so accepted by the colonists
however, that it wasn’t even considered an issue to be
defended by Hamilton when The Federalist Papers were
published in support of the proposed Constitution.
Madison, for example, was specifically intent upon
keeping an independent Grand Jury in the new
Constitution because of that institution’s centrality to
fighting the Crown. Karson, The Implications of a Key-
Man System for Selecting a Grand Jury: An Exploratory
Study (2006) Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol. 3(1). pp. 3-16. See Drew R. McCoy, The Last of the

before it. [Thus], ... any person may go to the Grand Jury to present
a complaint to it.” Id. at 504-05.
Other states permit citizens to contact grand juries by operation of
common law. See, e.g., King v. Second Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 234
Ala. 106, 173 So. 498, 499 (Ala. 1937); In re Lester, 77 Ga. 143, 1886
WL 1476, at 3 (Ga. 1886) (holding that "any citizen" can prosecute
offenses or "give information of the fact to the Grand Jury"); State v.
Stewart, 45 La. Ann. 1164, 14 So. 143, 145 (La. 1893) ( In re Petition
of Thomas, 434 A.2d 503, 507 (Me. 1981); Piracci v. State, 207 Md.
499, 115 A.2d 262, 268 (Md. 1955) citing Brack v. Wells, 184 Md. 86,
40 A.2d 319, 321-24 (Md. 1944))); Hott v. Yarborough, 112 Tex. 179,
245 S.W. 676 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1922) ("It is unquestionably the
right, if not, in fact, the duty, of every one who has knowledge of
the commission of a criminal offense . . . to call to the attention of
the Grand Jury the facts within his knowledge . . . .") Cf. IN THE
MATTER OF THE GRAND JURY APPEARANCE REQUEST BY
LARRY LOIGMAN, ESQ., SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY,
2005 N.J. LEXIS 303, ( April 11, 2005,).See, e.g., Morgan v. Null, 117
F. Supp. 11, 15 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) ("New York State has long denied
any right of a person to submit information to, or to be heard
before, a Grand Jury.)
21

Fathers: James Madison & the Republican Legacy 89
(1989)
B. The Court of Appeals Holding Conflicts With
Rulings in Other Circuits On The Issue Of
Grand Jury Independence.
The Supreme Court should grant the petition because
there is a split in the circuits, with the Fifth Circuit
suggesting in dicta that Grand Juries are not
independent and at least one court in the 9th Circuit
ruling they are independent and have presentment
power.
The Fifth Circuit cases relied on by the District Court
below (App. at 3a) do suggest that Grand Jury
presentments are obsolete but none so hold and the
language is dicta.28 These cases never reach the
question of whether federal Grand Juries can
independently issue presentments. United States v.
Briggs, 514 F.2d 794(5th Cir. 1975) really deals with the
issue of whether a Grand Jury can issue a report naming
an individual without indicting. See App. 3(a).29
The central case relied upon by the Third Circuit below
was United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1965)
involving an effort by a federal Grand Jury in Mississippi
to exert its autonomy and hold the U.S. Attorney in

28 The District Court below also relied on United States v. Christian
660 F.2d 892 (3d Cir. 1981) for the proposition that presentments
are obsolete in the federal system. That case ruled only that
presentments are not in force in the U.S. Virgin Islands and never
reached the constitutionality of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
29 United States v. Zavala, 839 F.2d 523, 529 (9th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 831, 102 L. Ed. 2d 62, 109 S. Ct. 86 (1988), also
relied on by the Third Circuit below, only addresses the issue of
presentment in the dissent.
22

contempt for failing to obey the Grand Jury’s order to
indict a group of persons in Mississippi. This
extraordinary case, with multiple opinions, dissents and
concurrences, occurred in the racially charged
atmosphere of the 1960’s in which it appeared that a
white jury wanted to indict African-American
defendants. Although a narrow 4-3 majority concluded
that the Executive Branch thorough the U.S. Attorney
General must sign an indictment, a majority
concurrence written by judge Wisdom, also suggested
the following: “A criminal presentment based on the
Grand Jury's own knowledge or on knowledge furnished
by others may be in disuse in federal courts, but it has
not been read out of the Constitution.” Id. at 189
(Wisdom J., concurring specially) citing Hale v. Henkel,
1906, 201 U.S. 43, 62, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652. n12 See
also Blair v. United States, 1919, 250 U.S. 273, 280, 39
S.Ct. 468, 63 L.Ed. 979 and Sullivan v. United States,
1954, 348 U.S. 170, 173, 75 S.Ct. 182, 99 L.Ed. 210; Kuh,
The Grand Jury 'Presentment'; Foul Blow or Fair Play,
55 Col.L.Rev. 1103 (1955).30
In United States v. Cox there was even disagreement as
to what constitutes a presentment. Some judges read a
presentment to mean simply that anyone can present
evidence to a Grand Jury; others argued that
presentment means the Grand Jury has a power to indict
on its own. This is an additional reason that this Court
ought to grant the petition for certiorari.

30 United States v. Coachman, 243 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 752 F.2d 685,
689 n.23 (D.C.Cir. 1981) also relied on by the Third Circuit, held
only that the "use of an adequate indictment has become a
constitutional imperative and never reached the question of
whether the Grand Jury has independent presentment powers.
23

In a Northern District of California case, United States v.
Smyth, 104 F. Supp. 283, 287 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1952),
decided after the adoption of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Chief Judge Fee concluded that:
"grand jurors . . . may initiate prosecutions based on
information received from persons who have no
connection officially with them." Id. at 295. Squarely
before the court was the issue of whether Grand Juries
can receive information from sources independent of
the prosecutor and whether Grand Juries have
independent presentment power. The case holding
answered both questions in the affirmative.
Judge Fee elaborated the distinguished pedigree of the
Grand Jury:
“The institution of the Grand Jury is a
development which comes to us out of the mists
of early English history. It has undergone
changes, but has been remarkably stable because
the institution has been molded into an
instrument of democratic government,
extraordinarily efficient for reflecting not the
desires or whims of any official or of any class or
party, but the deep feeling of the people. As such,
with its essential elements of plenary power to
investigate and secrecy of its deliberations, it was
preserved by the Constitution of the United
States not only to protect the defendant but to
permit public spirited citizens, chosen by
democratic procedures, to attach corrupt
conditions. A criticism of the action of the Grand
Jury is a criticism of democracy itself.
The Grand Jury developed a stubborn tenacity of
its own. Ever since they wrote 'Ignoramus' upon
the bill of indictment presented by the Crown
24

against the Earl of Shaftsbury, it has been held
an inviolable tradition that they need follow the
orders or instruction of the judge neither as to
what they consider nor as to whom they indict or
fail to indict. The Grand Jury is similar to the
trial jury, who may convict notwithstanding
positive instructions to acquit and who may
pardon notwithstanding a direction to find guilty.
Unquestionably, the Grand Jury are under no
necessity to follow the orders of the prosecutor.
They can present an indictment whether he will
or no. Indeed, they may have a presentment
contrary to the direct orders of a judge, the
prosecutor for the King or the Chief Executive.
This power of the Grand Jury springs from
inherent qualities. The jurors are instruments of
the people of the community. They reflect the
sentiment of the particular locale- the fama
publica. In their character as representatives,
they may call for witnesses and documents which
may verify or negative the suspicions or rumors
of crime which affect the neighborhood. In his
character as witness, each may speak of those
things which he himself has observed. In
England the private person who claimed a crime
has been committed could lay an indictment
before the Grand Jury. Although private
prosecutions as such have been abandoned in the
country, the grand jurors retain enough of this
tradition that they may initiate prosecutions
based on information received from persons who
have no connection officially with them.
Under the Federal Constitution, a Grand Jury
may either present or indict. The word
'presentment' technically characterizes the
25

process whereby a Grand Jury initiates an
independent investigation and asks that a charge
be drawn to cover the facts should they
constitute a crime. The authority to initiate
independent investigations cannot be taken away
without erasing the word 'presentment' from the
fundamental law of the land.
The Grand Jury breathes the spirit of a
community into the enforcement of law. Its
effect as an institution for investigation of all, no
matter how highly placed, creates the élan of
democracy. Here the people speak through their
chosen representatives. This feature has been
largely disregarded by the critics. But it is the
essence of the rule of the people. The grand
jurors may commit serious errors. But the voters
are not deprived of suffrage because of
occasional mischances.” Id. at 291-296.
C. The Supreme Court in Hale and Stirone
Suggested That Grand Juries Are Autonomous
In Contradiction To the Advisory Notes To the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This
Conflict Needs To Be Resolved.
The Supreme Court has often suggested in dicta that
Grand Juries are independent of federal prosecutors,
language that is directly at odds with the Third Circuit
holding here. Moreover, the Supreme Court opinions
date from both before and after the enactment of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As the Supreme
Court has written, "the very purpose of the requirement
that a man be indicted by Grand Jury is to limit his
jeopardy to offenses charged by a group of his fellow
citizens acting independently of either prosecuting
attorney or judge." United States v. Stirone, 361 U.S.
26

212, 218 (1960); see United States v. Sells Engineering,
Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 430 (1983) ("The purpose of the Grand
Jury requires that it remain free, within constitutional
and statutory limits, to operate independently of either
prosecuting attorney or judge.'")
The Supreme Court emphasizes the linkage between the
constitutional right to Grand Jury indictment and the
Grand Jury's institutional independence. The Fifth
Amendment right is not simply a technical right to have
a Grand Jury sign the prosecutor's indictment, but
rather a "right to have the Grand Jury make the charge
on its own judgment," a constitutional entitlement that
the Court describes as a "substantial right." Stirone, 361
U.S. at 218-219 (refusing to allow trial court to amend
Grand Jury indictment).
According to the Supreme Court, the Grand Jury is
"entitled to determine for itself whether a crime has
been committed." R. Enter. Inc., 498 U.S. at 303. In this
view, the Grand Jury has broad subpoena powers
because it needs to inquire into "all information that
might possibly bear on its investigation until it has
identified an offense or has satisfied itself that none has
occurred." Id. at 297.
In 1906 the United States Supreme Court dealt with the
question of whether Grand Juries could be restricted
from straying into investigations of issues not formally
presented to them by prosecutors. Hale v. Henkel, 201
U.S. 43 (1916). The Court held that it was "entirely
clear... under the practice in this country," that grand
jurors may proceed upon either their own knowledge or
upon the examination of witnesses brought before them,
"to inquire for themselves whether a crime cognizable in
the court has been committed." See generally Note, The
Grand Jury as an Investigatory Body, 74 Harv. L. Rev.
27

590 (1961). See also Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S.
160, 163, 15 S. Ct. 586, 587, 39 L. Ed. 657, 658 (1895)(“But
in this country the common practice is for the Grand
Jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or
by whom suggested to them...”)
D. The Third Circuit Ruling Decided Adversely to
The First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
Rights of Citizens To Directly Submit Evidence
To Grand Juries.
In Woods v. Georgia 370 U.S. 375 (1962) the U.S.
Supreme Court held that individuals have First, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present
information to a Grand Jury:
“Particularly in matters of local political
corruption and investigations it is important that
freedom of communication be kept open and that
the real issues not become obscured to the Grand
Jury. It cannot effectively operate in a vacuum. It
has been said that the ‘ancestors of our 'grand
jurors' are from the first neither exactly accusers,
nor exactly witnesses; they are to give voice to
common repute.’ Id. at quoting 2 Pollock and
Maitland, History of the English Law (2d ed.
1909).”
These provide independent constitutional grounds for
the Court to grant the petition.") See also, State ex rel.
Wild v. Otis, 257 N.W.2d 361, 364 (Minn. 1977) ("[A
citizen]… is free to attempt to get the Grand Jury to take
action, and under [Minnesota court rules], the Grand
Jury can permit an aggrieved citizen to appear as a
witness for this purpose."), cert. denied sub nom. Wild
v. Otis, 434 U.S. 1003, 98 S. Ct. 707, 54 L. Ed. 2d 746
(1978).
28

E. The Third Circuit Ruling Would Leave The
Grand Jury As An Appendage Of The Executive
Branch and Violate Separation of Powers.
By placing the Grand Jury under the complete control of
prosecutors, the Third Circuit ruling violates the very
Separation of Powers scheme central to the United
States Constitution, raising grave constitutional
concerns.
The Framers of the Constitution were massively focused
on avoiding the corruption of societies throughout
history. Steeped in Ancient history and literature, the
Framers entire concept of constitutional democracy
based on Separation of Powers was informed by their
profound desire to avoid the tyranny not just of George
III, but of autocrats through the Ages. The eminent and
historically-minded John Adams analogized to the
Roman Republic to explain the alarming threat to the
foundations of English liberty by corrupt legislators.
“The government of England” he said (quoting Roman
historian Sallust), had descended to the level where "the
Roman republic was when Jugurtha left it, having
pronounced it a 'venal city, ripe for destruction if it can
only find a purchaser.' "
Adams words could describe parts of the American
Republic in the twenty-first century.
The Founders solution was to create a balance of power
scheme that relied on institutions to curb the debased
actions of men. The Grand Jury was just such an
institution. Often called the “fourth branch” of
government, the Grand Jury has for many years of this
Republic been central to independently and
autonomously rooting out corruption in High Office.
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue; it is not an
29

ideological issue. Rather, this issue goes to the very
question of what institutions are necessary and
constitutionally mandated for the functioning of a
vibrant democracy.
This Court need not grant a petition to review the
autonomy of Grand Juries in every context; it could
simply make a limited inquiry as to whether autonomy is
merited on the specific issue of criminal political
corruption.
If ever there was a time in American history that a
revitalized institution – dedicated to its historic role –
was required, that time is now. If ever the Supreme
Court needed to clarify the role of this fundamental
entity, that moment has arrived.
CONCLUSION
30

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl J. Mayer, Esq.
pro Se
MAYER LAW GROUP
66 Witherspoon Street,
Suite 414
Princeton, New Jersey
08542
609-921-0253
Bruce Afran, Esq.
pro se
10 Braeburn Drive
Princeton, NJ 08540
(609)924-2075
Ted Rosenberg, Esq.
pro se
321 New Albany Road
P.O. Box 97
Moorestown, NJ
08057
(856)608-9999
John Gural
pro se
739 Parry Avenue
Palmyra, NJ 08065
(609)868-1303

1a

(any footnotes trail end of each document)
Dated: 4/11/06
No. 06-1235
IN RE: PETITION OF CARL J. MAYER, ESQ.
Carl J. Mayer, Esq. Appellant
U.S. District Court of New Jersey (Trenton): No. 05-
mc-33
Present: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND FISHER,
Circuit Judge
1. Motion by Appellee, USA, for Summary Action.
2. Response by Appellant in Opposition to Motion
for Summary Action.
ORDER
The foregoing motion for Summary Action is hereby
granted.
2a

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEARANCE OF
CARL J. MAYER, ESQ., et al. BEFORE A
FEDERAL GRAND JURY
MISC. NO. OS-33 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a motion
(docket entry #1), filed by Petitioners, requesting this
Court to: (1) impanel a special grand jury to examine
alleged violations of federal racketeering and related
laws; (2) permit the Petitioners to present evidence to
this special grand jury "autonomously and
independently" of the United States Attorney's Office;
and (3) issue a declaratory judgment that the Advisory
Committee Notes to FED. R. CRIM. P. 7 prohibiting
federal grand juries from returning presentments1 is
unconstitutional and that presentments to federal
grand juries are specifically permitted in the federal
system. The Court, having considered the papers
submitted by the parties, for the reasons set forth
below, and for good cause shown, DENIES the
Motion.
I. DISCUSSION
3a

A "presentment" is "an accusation that is initiated by
the grand jury itself."2 38A C.J.S. Grand Juries § 85
(2005). The distinction between a presentment and an
indictment is that an indictment is prepared by a
prosecutor and approved by the grand jury, while
presentments are charges prepared by the grand jury
on its own initiative. 1 C. WRIGHT, FEDERAL
(CRIMINAL) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §
121, at 58 (1999). See also In re Grand Jury
Proceedings, Special Grand Jury 89-2, 813 F.
Supp.1451,1462 (D.Colo.1992) ("In contrast to an
indictment, a presentment is `an accusation initiated by
the grand jury itself, and in effect an instruction that an
indictment be drawn."') (quoting United States v.
Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 803 n, 14 (5th Cir.1975)).
Historically, the charges in a presentment would need
to be restated in formal terms by the government in the
form of an indictment in order to initiate criminal
proceedings. S. BEALE, W. BRYSON, J. FELMAN,
M. ELSTON, GRAND JURY LAW AND
PRACTICE, § 1.8 (2d Ed. 2005).
In modern practice, presentments are no longer used in
the federal grand jury system. Under the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, there are specific
provisions to empower federal grand juries to file
indictments, provided that they are "signed by an
attorney for the government," but there are no
provisions that enable federal grand juries to deliver a
presentment. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 7. The Advisory
Committee Notes accompanying Rule 7 explain this
omission by noting that "presentments as a method of
instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as
concerns Federal courts." FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(a), adv.
comm. note 4.
4a

The Petitioners in this case are seeking to present their
information to a federal grand jury "autonomously and
independently" of the US Attorney's Office. (Pl. Br. at
1.) To grant the Petitioners' motion would require a
finding that federal grand juries have the ability to
employ their investigatory and charging powers
without the participation of the US Attorney's Office or
other government attorneys acting as prosecutors in
the process. The current federal rules governing the
formation and function of grand juries grant no
authority for returning presentments, leaving federal
grand juries without the statutory ability to bring
criminal charges without the participation of a
government attorney. In order to overcome this
statutory limitation and grant the Petitioners' motion,
this Court would need to find adequate constitutional
grounds to overrule the relevant federal rules of
criminal procedure regarding federal grand juries and
their ability to return presentments. For the reasons
noted below, however, this Court finds that there is no
constitutional or statutory right for individuals to
bypass government prosecutorial authorities and
present allegations or evidence of a crime directly to a
federal grand jury, nor are the current federal rules
which deny federal grand juries the authority to
return presentments unconstitutional. Accordingly,
the Petitioners' motion is DENIED.
A. There is No Constitutional Right for Private
Citizens to Independently Bring Criminal Charges
and Allegations Before a Federal Grand Jury.
Under the Fifth Amendment, "[n]o person shall be
held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
5a

Grand jury." U.S. CONST, AMEND, V. The
Petitioners allege that "individuals have First, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present
information to a [g]rand jury." (Pl. Br, at 3.) To
support this contention, Petitioners have noted a
series of historical precedents that all support the
notion that a grand jury functions as an independent
body, authorized to act "independently of either
prosecuting attorney or judge." (Pl. Br. at 3 (quoting
U.S. v. Stirone, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960).) This
independence, however, is designed to "`afford a
safeguard against oppressive actions of the
prosecutor or court,"' not to allow individuals to
present to a grand jury independently of the
government prosecutor. Gaither v. U.S., 413, F.2d
1061, 1066 (D.C. Cir.1969) (quoting U.S. v. Cox, 342
F.2d 167,170 (5th Cir.1965) (emphasis added). The
constitutional role of the grand jury is to serve as "a
check on prosecutorial power, not a substitute for the
prosecutor," In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Special
Grand Jury 89-2, 813 F.Supp. 1451, 1462
(D.Colo.1992).
The constitutionally enshrined role of the grand jury
lies in its ability to protect individuals against
unfounded criminal prosecutions by conducting an
independent inquiry to determine whether there is
probable cause to believe a crime has been
committed. United States v. Sells Eng'g, 463 U.S.
418, 423 (1983). As the Fifth Circuit noted:
The constitutional requirement of an indictment
or presentment as a predicate to a prosecution
for capital or infamous crimes has for its
6a

primary purpose the protection of the individual
from jeopardy except on a finding of probable
cause by a group of his fellow citizens, and is
designed to afford a safeguard against
oppressive actions of the prosecutor or a court.
The constitutional provision is not to be read as
conferring on or preserving to the grand jury,
as such, any rights or prerogatives. The
constitutional provision is, as has been said, for
the benefit of the accused.
U.S. v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167,169 (5th Cir. 1965) (emphasis
added).
While the grand jury serves a dual purpose, acting as
"both a sword and a shield of justice - a sword because
it is the terror of criminals, [and] a shield because it is
the protection of the innocent against unjust
prosecution," the grand jury "earned its place in the
Bill of Rights by its shield, not by its sword." Id. at
186 (Wisdom, J., concurring); see also SUSAN W.
BRENNER, GREGORY G. LOCKHART, 2
FEDERAL GRAND JURY: A GUIDE TO LAW
AND PRACTICE, §2.2 ("The clause [(of the Fifth
Amendment)] was intended to preserve a shield
against unwarranted prosecution.") Under the Fifth
Amendment, the grand jury affords constitutional
protections to preserve the rights of the accused.
There is, however, no corresponding constitutional
right for individuals to use the power of a grand jury
to levy criminal accusations.3 See Cox, 342 F.2d at 186
(Wisdom, J., concurring) (noting that when the role of
a grand jury "goes beyond inquiry and report and
becomes accusatorial, no aura of traditional or
7a

constitutional sanctity surrounds the grand jury").
Accordingly, the Petitioners cannot claim a
constitutional prerogative that would allow them to
independently bring criminal charges and accusations
before a federal grand jury.
B. There is No Constitutional Requirement for
Grand Juries to be Empowered to Return
Presentments.
The constitutional role of the grand jury in protecting
the accused does not necessarily require that the
grand jury be empowered to return a presentment.
The Fifth Amendment ... does not offer a grand
jury a choice between presentment or
indictment. Unless there is a bill of indictment
preferred to the grand jury at the instance of
the Government, there can be no indictment. It
is entirely in the hands of the Government
whether to submit an accusation to the grand
jury leading to presentment in the form of an
indictment and serving as the initial pleading in
a criminal prosecution.
U.S. v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167,186 (5th Cir. 1965) (Wisdom,
J. concurring). While presentments are no longer used
in federal practice, the requirement for adequate
indictments in order to commence prosecutions
adequately fulfills the constitutional requirements of
the Fifth Amendment in protecting the rights of the
accused.4 See United States v. Coachman, 752 F.2d
685, 689 n. 23 (D.C.Cir.1981) (noting "use of an
adequate indictment has become a constitutional
imperative"); 1 C. WRIGHT, FEDERAL
8a

(CRIMINAL) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, §
121, at 518 (1999) ("The use of a presentment is
obsolete in the federal courts[,] ... [a]ccordingly,
where the constitutional provision is applicable, an
indictment must be used.") Because there is no
constitutional requirement that grand juries be
empowered to issue presentments, the Petitioners'
request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment
that the Advisory Committee Notes to FED. R.
GRIM. P. 7, which specifically preclude federal grand
juries from issuing presentments, are
unconstitutional is DENIED.
C. There is No Statutory Authority to Permit the
Petitioners to Bypass Government Prosecutorial
Authorities to Directly and Independently Present
Allegations of Criminal Activity to a Federal Grand
Jury.
Grand juries, as an institution, were adopted from the
common law and, through the Fifth Amendment,
"became a fundamental part of our country's system
for the prosecution of crime." U.S. v. Christian, 660
F.2d 892, 897 (3d Cir.1981) (citing Ex Parte Bain,121
U.S. 1, 6 (1887); U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343-44
(1974)). Grand juries, however, are "creature[s] of
statute." Id. at 898 (citing In Re Mills, 135 U.S. 263,
267 (1890)). The statutory authority for grand juries
is provided for and limited by the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Id. at 900 n13 (citing U.S. v.
Fein, 504 F.2d 1170 (2d Cir.1974)).
The statutory authority that governs federal grand
juries does not grant the authority to these grand
juries to issue presentments. Id. at 901 (noting that
9a

"nothing in the language of [FED. R. CRIM. P.] 6 and 7
lends any support to the proposition that any federal
grand juries are authorized to make presentments"); see
also FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(a), adv. comm. note 4 (noting
"presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are
obsolete, at least as concerns Federal courts"). Absent
the statutory authority to make presentments, the sole
means for a federal grand jury to accuse a suspect of a
crime is through an indictment. Indictments, by
definition, require the signature of an attorney for the
government. FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(c)(1). This means that,
without the participation of a government attorney, the
grand jury would be statutorily limited to a purely
investigatory purpose, since it could not return either a
presentment or an indictment.
While grand juries serve a vital investigatory function
within the federal system, there is no authority for grand
juries to conduct an "investigation for its own sake." Id. at
900. Although the federal rules do not specifically forbid
purely investigatory grand juries that investigate but
cannot indict, the Third Circuit has found "nothing in
[FED. R. CRIM. P.] Rule 6(a) which can be fairly
construed to authorize them." Id. at 900. A grand jury's
investigatory power, therefore, is tied to their ability to
culminate in a disposition of whether or not to accuse a
suspect of a crime. Id.
This leaves no statutory authority for a federal grand jury
to hear information from the Petitioners that is presented
"autonomously and independently" (Pl. Br. at 1) of the
United States Attorney's Office. Without the support of a
government attorney, a grand jury's investigation would
extend beyond the statutory scope of its investigatory
powers since there would be no means for it to culminate
in "a disposition that furthers the prosecutorial process."
10a

Christian, 660 F.2d at 900. This leaves no statutory
authority to allow individuals, such as the Petitioners, to
bypass the governmental prosecutorial authorities in
order to directly and independently present criminal
charges and allegations to a federal grand jury.
Accordingly, the Petitioners' request to present
directly to a federal grand jury is DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court appreciates what appears to be a good faith
effort by the Petitioners to assist in the investigation
and prosecution of public corruption allegations. While
public corruption must be vigorously investigated and,
where violations of the law are found, actively
prosecuted, the means being sought by the Petitioners
to accomplish this goal are contrary to the
constitutional and statutory authority that governs
the operation of federal grand juries. For the reasons
stated above, and for good cause shown, the
Petitioners' motion is DENIED. An appropriate form
of order will be filed herewith.
Date: January 3, 2006
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
Footnotes
1The specific section of the Advisory Committee Notes
at issue states that "presentment is not included as an
additional type of formal accusation, since
presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions
are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."
FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(a), adv. comm. note 4.
11a

2 The presentment played an important role in the
historical functions of the grand jury:
Presentments played a major role in pre-
Revolutionary America, and continued to be
important for the first half of the nineteenth
century. During this period, state and federal
grand juries investigated not only criminal
activity, but also matters of public concern such
as the state of local services and the possibility
of corruption among public servants. As one
author notes, they performed many functions
that are now carried out by civil servants and
administrative agencies.
Grand juries that discovered criminal conduct
could return charges, either by way of an
indictment or a presentment, but those inquiring
into noncriminal misconduct had to find some
other way of acting on what they discovered.
They developed the practice of issuing reports,
which for some reason became known as
"presentments." Unlike the common law
presentment, which was a statement of criminal
charges, these presentments levelled no charges
and, indeed, often concerned matters having
nothing to do with criminal conduct. Colonial
grand juries, for example, issued presentments
that were concerned with matters as diverse as
maintaining street lamps, bridge repair and the
state of public morality. After the Revolution,
grand juries actively monitored civic affairs,
especially the conduct of public officials.
12a

SUSAN W. BRENNER, GREGORY G.
LOCKHART, FEDERAL GRAND JURY: A
GUIDE TO LAW AND PRACTICE, §3.3
3Granting individuals direct access to grand juries can
run a substantial risk of undermining the very rights
of the accused that the Fifth Amendment is designed
to protect. As the New Jersey Supreme Court
recently noted:
[G] iving private persons the right of direct
access to the grand jury would be fraught with
abuse. Permitting prosecutorial bypass might
encourage some persons not to bring pertinent
information promptly to law enforcement
authorities in the hope of gaining direct contact
with the grand jury. In some cases, a private
person might be bent on pursuing an ill-motive
or vindictive agenda. . . . For instance, political
candidates, on the eve of an election, might
charge their opponents with fraud or some
other nefarious activity and request admission
to the grand jury.
In the Matter of the Grand Jury Appearance by Larry
S. Loigman, Esq,183 N.J. 133,145 (2005). Giving
individuals direct access to the grand jury and
removing the governmental prosecuting authorities
from the process would undermine the prosecutor's
screening authority and almost certainly "increase the
likelihood that wrongful indictments would be
returned," thereby undermining the very rights of the
accused that the Fifth Amendment seeks to protect.
Id. at 147. See also In re: New Haven Grand Jury, 604
F.Supp. 453, 460 (D.Conn.1985) ("[A] rule that would
13a

afford the general public unsupervised access to the
grand jury is a rule calculated to empower the
mischievous and the criminal and injure the innocent.")
4 Unlike indictments, presentments pose unique risks
to the rights of the accused. A presentment has the
force of a judicial document but, unlike an indictment,
lacks "the right to answer and to appeal." In re: Grand
Jury Proceedings, Special Grand Jury, 813 F. Supp.
1451, 1462 (D.Colo. 1992) (citations omitted). A
presentment "accuses, but furnishes no forum for
denial." Id. "An indictment may be challenged-even
defeated[, but t]he presentment is immune." Id.
14a

RELEVANT PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
15a

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among
the several states according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each
state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right
to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial
officers of a state, or the members of the legislature
thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such
state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the
United States, or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall
bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President and
Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any state, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any state legislature, or as an executive or
judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution
of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to
the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of
two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in
16a

suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned. But neither the United States nor any state
shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in
aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United
States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any
slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be
held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (2006)
III. THE GRAND JURY, THE INDICTMENT, AND
THE INFORMATION
Rule 7. The I Indictment the Information
ndictment and (a) When Used.
(1) Felony.
An offense (other than criminal contempt) must
be prosecuted by an indictment if it is punishable:
(A) by death; or
(B) by imprisonment for more than one year.
(2) Misdemeanor.
An offense punishable by imprisonment for one
year or less may be prosecuted in accordance with
Rule 58(b)(1).
17a

FED. R. CRIM. P. 7 (a) adv. comm. note 4; see
CHARLES A. WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE § 121, at 338 (1982).
"Presentment is not included as an additional type of
formal accusation, since presentments as a method of
instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as
concerns the Federal courts."

BANKS ARE TARGET OF LAWSUIT

2006-09-22T14:55:00.000-07:00

Published on Friday, September 22, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Corporate America's Uncashed Check: Disgorging the Ill-Gotten Gains of Slave Labor
by Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, Bruce I. Afran, and Carl J. Mayer

On September 27th in a federal courthouse in Chicago an appellate panel will hear argument in the first case that seeks to hold major American financial institutions liable for their role in financing, underwriting and profiting from slavery in the United States.

Many groups have received reparations for past atrocities and historical injustices, but never African-Americans.

This recent lawsuit marks a new departure in the battle for reparations. Rather than seek to hold the government responsible for the general historic wrongs of slavery, this litigation targets the companies that specifically profited – often illegally – from slavery. The plaintiffs are descendants of slaves upon whom these financial institutions profited.

For years, these companies covered-up their shameful role in what historians call “the peculiar institution.” As late as March 2004 a representative of JP Morgan Chase told a Chicago City Council meeting that it had searched its archives and could not find a connection to slavery. By January 2005, the multi-billion dollar bank admitted on its website that its predecessor bank used 13,000 slaves as collateral on loans and actually took possession of 1,200 African-American slaves.

Similarly, Bank of America denied until 2005 that it had any involvement in America’s slave trade. Through the dogged determination of researchers, it turns out that Bank of America’s predecessor banks actually facilitated the illegal importation of up to 41,000 African slaves into America. (This type of slave trafficking was made illegal by federal and state statute as early as the eighteenth century.)

Defendant Brown Brothers Harriman built their merchant bank by lending to southern planters, brokering slave grown cotton and acting as a clearinghouse for the South's complex financial system. It earned commissions arranging cotton shipments from southern ports to mills in New England and Britain and loaned millions directly to planters, merchants and cotton brokers throughout the South. When those planters or their banks failed, Brown Brothers used its local agents to run repossessed plantations that included enslaved Africans.

The movement for corporate restitution is gaining momentum. Recently an organization called Blacks in Government – with over a million members – passed a resolution to hold Aetna corporation accountable for its role in slavery. Aetna – a Connecticut-based insurance company --financed the domestic enslavement of African Americans through writing insurance policies on slaves with slave owners as the beneficiaries. The state of California and the City of Chicago now require corporations seeking to do government business to disclose their historic involvement in slavery; up to nine other states have passed similar resolutions.

The legal principle at stake in this case is simple and timeless: corporations must be made to disgorge the profits they unjustly earned on the backs of brutalized slaves. A similar principle was at work when banks and corporations who profited from slave labor used by the Nazi regime disgorged their ill-gotten gains.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once spoke of a check marked “insufficient funds” that America owed blacks. Only days before he died, King said: “It's all right to tell a man to lift himself up by his bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to a bootless man that he should lift himself up by his bootstraps."

Some of America’s largest financial powerhouses financed the cruel institution of slavery, thereby ensuring that several generations of African-Americans would remain, in King’s words, “bootless.” It is time for corporate America to pay the first installment on America’s uncashed check.

Deadria Farmer-Paellmann is the founder of the Restitution study group and the lead plaintiff in Farmer-Paellmann et. al. v. Brown and Williamson. Bruce I. Afran and Carl J. Mayer are public interest attorneys working on the litigation. For more information on the case go to www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com or to www.rsgincorp.com. Reader response: Paellmann@rcn.com.

###

BYE-BYE JOHN: NEW JERSEY'S LEADING CRIMINAL JAILED ON CORRUPTION CHARGES

2006-09-15T04:09:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE

September 15, 2006 CONTACT: Carl Mayer
(609)462-7979 (cell)
cyberesquire@aol.com
www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com

NJ CORRUPTION FIGHTER PRAISES LYNCH PRISON DEAL
CALLS FOR WIDER PROBE OF COUNTY BOSSES AND LOBBYISTS

In a first, New Jersey corruption fighter Carl Mayer today praised U.S. Attorney Chris Christie for his work in forcing John Lynch into a plea deal which will result in prison time for the so called “Boss” of New Jersey.

Mayer is the author of Shakedown: the Fleecing of the Garden State, the definitive book on corruption in New Jersey politics. A former Committeeman in Princeton, he also went undercover with Sixty Minutes ten years ago to expose criminal corruption in New Jersey politics. Several of the corporate lobbyists from that investigation were sent to prison. Mayer is available for commentary on the Lynch plea deal.

“This prosecution is vitally important because John Lynch was the de facto Governor of New Jersey and the architect of much of the criminal corruption that has undermined democracy in New Jersey,” said Mayer. “’This is the first time a criminal plea deal has pierced the inner circle of corporate and political corruption in this state and Chris Christie deserves credit for taking this step.”

Mayer had written Christie’s boss Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on August 8, 2005 requesting a broader investigation of New Jersey corruption. “I don’t know whether U.S. Attorney Christie took the suggestions in my letter, but citizens throughout the state should be glad this investigation appears to be broadening.”

Mayer called on Christie to take further steps: “First, the U.S. Attorney should call in the County Chairs/Bosses from every New Jersey County -- regardless of party--for questioning and for an opportunity to turn state’s evidence. Second, the U.S. Attorney should team up with the State Attorney General to use federal and state racketeering laws to break the grip of corrupt corporate lobbyists and politicians on politics and the two-party system in New Jersey.”

“I’m looking forward to the day when the only “Boss” in New Jersey will be Bruce Springsteen,” concluded Mayer.

Mayer runs the only blog devoted to ending New Jersey corruption: www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com and The Untouchables Group, a network of lawyers, whistleblowers and citizens dedicated to getting all private money out of politics and locking up those who engage in criminal political corruption.

###

HERE IS HOW TO JOIN OUR LAWSUIT

2006-05-17T06:35:00.000-07:00

Thank you. We have been deluged with calls and emails from around the country from people supporting our lawsuit against the phone companies. Virtually every one of the hundreds and hundreds of call and emails have been positive and people from over 30 states have signed up to join our lawsuit.

If you want to join, do the following:

Send you name, address, email and phone numbers and your phone company to our email address at:

elizarnone@comcast.net

State specifically that you want to be a plaintiff and that you want us to represent you. ALSO, VERY IMPORTANT, INDICATE WHEN YOU BEGAN YOUR SERVICE AND WHEN IT WAS TERMINATED, IF TERMINATED.

Remember, these cases take a long time, but we are determined to fight the most extensive invasion of civil liberties in our country and with your help we will prevail. Please be patient as we are deluged with great folks like you offering to help. If you email rather than call it will help us manage the case more effectively.

Plaintiffs have no expenses; the lawyers bear the cost of this lawsuit.

Thanks. Yours, in the fight.

Carl J. Mayer

UNTOUCHABLES GROUP FILES FIRST LAWSUIT TO STOP SPYING ON AMERICANS AT HOME; FRONT PAGE NEW YORK TIMES.

2006-05-14T06:26:00.000-07:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 13, 2006
Questions Raised for Phone Giants in Spy Data Furor
By JOHN MARKOFF
The former chief executive of Qwest, the nation's fourth-largest phone company, rebuffed government requests for the company's calling records after 9/11 because of "a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," his lawyer said yesterday.

The statement on behalf of the former Qwest executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, followed a report that the other big phone companies — AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon — had complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records, without warrants, to increase its surveillance capabilities after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Those companies insisted yesterday that they were vigilant about their customers' privacy, but did not directly address their cooperation with the government effort, which was reported on Thursday by USA Today. Verizon said that it provided customer information to a government agency "only where authorized by law for appropriately defined and focused purposes," but that it could not comment on any relationship with a national security program that was "highly classified."

Legal experts said the companies faced the prospect of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages over cooperation in the program, citing communications privacy legislation stretching back to the 1930's. A federal lawsuit was filed in Manhattan yesterday seeking as much as $50 billion in civil damages against Verizon on behalf of its subscribers.

For a second day, there was political fallout on Capitol Hill, where Senate Democrats intend to use next week's confirmation hearings for a new C.I.A. director to press the Bush administration on its broad surveillance programs.

As senior lawmakers in Washington vowed to examine the phone database operation and possibly issue subpoenas to the telephone companies, executives at some of the companies said they would comply with requests to appear on Capitol Hill but stopped short of describing how much would be disclosed, at least in public sessions.

"If Congress asks us to appear, we will appear," said Selim Bingol, a spokesman at AT&T. "We will act within the laws and rules that apply."

Qwest was apparently alone among the four major telephone companies to have resisted the requests to cooperate with the government effort. A statement issued on behalf of Mr. Nacchio yesterday by his lawyer, Herbert J. Stern, said that after the government's first approach in the fall of 2001, "Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request."

"When he learned that no such authority had been granted, and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," Mr. Nacchio concluded that the requests violated federal privacy requirements "and issued instructions to refuse to comply."

The statement said the requests continued until Mr. Nacchio left in June 2002. His departure came amid accusations of fraud at the company, and he now faces federal charges of insider trading.

The database reportedly assembled by the security agency from calling records has dozens of fields of information, including called and calling numbers and the duration of calls, but nothing related to the substance of the calls. But it could permit what intelligence analysts and commercial data miners refer to as "link analysis," a statistical technique for investigators to identify calling patterns in a seemingly impenetrable mountain of digital data.

The law governing the release of phone company data has been modified repeatedly to grapple with changing computer and communications technologies that have increasingly bedeviled law enforcement agencies. The laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.

Wiretapping — actually listening to phone calls — has been tightly regulated by these laws. But in general, the laws have set a lower legal standard required by the government to obtain what has traditionally been called pen register or trap-and-trace information — calling records obtained when intelligence and police agencies attached a specialized device to subscribers' telephone lines.

Those restrictions still hold, said a range of legal scholars, in the face of new computer databases with decades' worth of calling records. AT&T created such technology during the 1990's for use in fraud detection and has previously made such information available to law enforcement with proper warrants.

Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University, said his reading of the relevant statutes put the phone companies at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order.

"This is not a happy day for the general counsels" of the phone companies, he said. "If you have a class action involving 10 million Americans, that's 10 million times $1,000 — that's 10 billion."

The New Jersey lawyers who filed the federal suit against Verizon in Manhattan yesterday, Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, said they would consider filing suits against BellSouth and AT&T in other jurisdictions.

"This is almost certainly the largest single intrusion into American civil liberties ever committed by any U.S. administration," Mr. Afran said. "Americans expect their phone records to be private. That's our bedrock governing principle of our phone system." In addition to damages, the suit seeks an injunction against the security agency to stop the collection of phone numbers.

Several legal experts cited ambiguities in the laws that may be used by the government and the phone companies to defend the National Security Agency program.

"There's a loophole," said Mark Rasch, the former head of computer-crime investigations for the Justice Department and now the senior vice president of Solutionary, a computer security company. "Records of phones that have called each other without identifying information are not covered by any of these laws."

Civil liberties lawyers were quick to dispute that claim.

"This is an incredible red herring," said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy rights group that has sued AT&T over its cooperation with the government, including access to calling records. "There is no legal process that contemplates getting entire databases of data."

The group sued AT&T in late January, contending that the company was violating the law by giving the government access to its customer call record data and permitting the agency to tap its Internet network. The suit followed reports in The New York Times in December that telecommunications companies had cooperated with such government requests without warrants.

A number of industry executives pointed to the national climate in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks to explain why phone companies might have risked legal entanglement in cooperating with the requests for data without warrants.

An AT&T spokesman said yesterday that the company had gotten some calls and e-mail messages about the news reports, but characterized the volume as "not heavy" and said there were responses on both sides of the issue.

Reaction around the country also appeared to be divided.

Cathy Reed, 45, a wealth manager from Austin, Tex., who was visiting Boston, said she did not see a problem with the government's reviewing call logs. "I really don't think it matters," she said. "I bet every credit card company already has them."

Others responded critically. Pat Randall, 63, a receptionist at an Atlanta high-rise, said, "Our phone conversations are just personal, and to me, the phone companies that cooperated, I think we should move our phone services to the company that did not cooperate."

While the telephone companies have both business contracts and regulatory issues before the federal government, executives in the industry yesterday dismissed the notion that they felt pressure to take part in any surveillance programs. The small group of executives with the security clearance necessary to deal with the government on such matters, they said, are separate from the regulatory and government contracting divisions of the companies.

Reporting for this article was contributed by Ken Belson, Brenda Goodman, Stephen Labaton, Matt Richtel and Katie Zezima.

Untouchables Group Completes West Coast Tour

2006-04-07T15:57:00.000-07:00

The Center on Corporations, Law & Society invites you to the following guest lecture:

Attorney Carl Mayer

on

“Will Corporations End American Democracy In Our Lifetimes?”

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

4:30-5:50 p.m.

Seattle University School of Law

Sullivan Hall, Room C1

The Center on Corporations, Law and Society welcomes east-coast attorney Carl Mayer for a talk on the role law plays in giving corporations power over the lives of citizens while offering various strategies for restoring a citizen-driven democracy. Mr. Mayer, former special counsel to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is known for his scholarly work on corporations’ use of civil rights, his undercover work in a corporate fraud investigation that resulted in jail terms for several corporate lobbyists and politicians, and writing an amicus brief in the famous Nike v. Kasky case challenging Nike’s use of the First Amendment to deceive consumers about their use of sweat-shop labor.

Mr. Mayer is a magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University and holds a J.D. degree from the University of Chicago Law School and an L.L.M. degree from Harvard Law School. He clerked for United States District Court Judge Caleb M. Wright and is a former professor at Hofstra Law School. Mr. Mayer currently runs the Mayer Law Group, where among his many clients is a class of descendants of African-American slaves in a lawsuit before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The action seeks reparations from banks that took slaves as collateral for loans, using theories that won reparations from companies that abbetted the Nazi regime.

Mr. Mayer is a prolific writer and legal activist on issues relating corporate accountability, corporate influence in politics, and the application of constitutional rights to corporations. He is the author of and/or contributor to several books including Shakedown; Public Domain, Private Dominion; Lawyers' Desk Book on White Collar Crime; Collateral Consequences of Convictions of Organizations; and The United States Constitution. Mr. Mayer also wrote an amicus brief in the famous Nike v. Kasky case in the United States Supreme Court challenging Nike’s use of the First Amendment as a shield to continue deceiving consumers about sweat-shop labor in violation of consumer protection statutes. Among his many law review and popular articles is the oft-cited Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights (41 Hastings Law Journal 577).

Described by the New York Times as “a populist crusader… and maverick lawyer,” one of Mr. Mayer’s most significant impacts was when he was profiled by Mike Wallace and Morley Safer on the CBS News Program "Sixty Minutes". Mayer—then an elected Independent town councilman in Princeton, New Jersey—went undercover and wore a wire to expose corruption in New Jersey politics. On that program, the CEO of United Gunite Inc. (a construction company) was caught offering a cash bribe to a "Sixty Minutes" cameraman to stop his filming: a first in "Sixty Minutes" history. The same CEO was subsequently indicted by the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey and cooperated in indicting corporate lobbyists and the mayors of several New Jersey cities, including Paterson and Irvington. The fallout continues as over seventy-five elected officials and corporate lobbyists have been sent to jail for bribery, extortion and other corruption charges.

Please join us for what promises to be a timely and engaging lecture on the role of law in navigating the relationship between corporations and the public interest.

The Center on Corporations, Law & Society at Seattle University School of Law was established in 2003 to foster interdisciplinary scholarship and dialogue about the extent to which corporate institutions in our society operate in a manner that maximizes their positive contributions while simultaneously protecting the interests of consumers, shareholders, employees, the environment and other fundamental public interest values. In addition to serving as a platform for enhanced scholarly inquiry, the Center provides a forum for sustained discussion among academics, legal practitioners, business leaders, activists, policy makers and community members on the complex and important relationship between business enterprises and their many stakeholders.

Seattle University School of Law educates lawyers who distinguish themselves through their outstanding legal skills and their dedication to law in the service of justice.

HOW NJ CORRUPTION WORKS CAUGHT ON TAPE.

2006-02-15T05:04:00.000-08:00

(This opinion piece is also published at www.hallnj.org)

THE NEW TAMANNY HALL MUST FALL.

By Carl J. Mayer

After a pitched court battle, the public last year got a staggering glimpse of New Jersey politics’ brutal and corrupt underside. The New Jersey Attorney General released surreptitious tape recordings prepared during a political corruption investigation. The transcripts were only coughed up when reformers and news organizations, including the New York Times, brought a lawsuit.

Listening to these tapes, citizens in New Jersey and around the nation should seethe with indignation at the perversion of American democracy by corporate lobbyists, political bosses and criminal wrongdoers. They should be doubly indignant that State Attorney General Peter Harvey refused to bring an indictment as did US Attorney Chris Christie. Shame on them for taking a dive while New Jersey power brokers continue to intimidate the public.

The recordings, for example, capture New Jersey political boss (and bank executive) George Norcross instructing a councilman in Palmyra, a diminutive New Jersey municipality (pop.7091), to fire the town attorney, because he dared criticize Norcross’ control over South Jersey politics: "I want you to fire that f---[Y]ou need to get this f--- Rosenberg [the town attorney] for me and teach this jerk-off a lesson. He has to be punished."

"A lot of people don't like John Harrington," Norcross is heard saying of an attorney then being considered for a judgeship, and who is now a state court judge. "The best thing you do . . . Make him a f------ judge and get rid of him. . . Harrington disappears… whatever the case. We move on."

Later, Norcross explains how he handled a member of the New Jersey legislature: “I sat him [the legislator] down and said … ‘don’t f--- with me on this one... Don't make nice with Joe Doria [a Norcross enemy and Assemblyman] …if you ever do that and I catch you one more time doing it, you're gonna get your f------ b---- cut off.’ He got the message."

Norcross brags that his political enemies will always respect him “[b]ecause they know we put up the gun and we pulled the trigger and we blew their brains out. . . “
Nobody can dismiss these tapes as the vulgarian rantings of a would-be mafia-don. They demonstrate how malevolent power politics works in New Jersey and, increasingly, the nation.

Who is George Norcross, anyway? He is one of the dozen or so most powerful men in New Jersey, more powerful than Governors or Senators, and he doesn’t hold any office. He is the new face of American politics: meet the CEO as political boss. By day, Norcross sits on the board of Commerce Bank and controls $60 million of that company’s stock; by night, he ladles out corporate cash to political candidates and rules with an iron fist.

Apparently, devoting attention to even the tiniest New Jersey municipality is quite lucrative for Commerce Bank: one fifth of the bank’s business is government deposits, a cool $4 billion of taxpayer dollars. The $17.7 billion-a-year financial behemoth has ladled out more campaign cash and received more government no-bid contracts than any financial institution in New Jersey. The new suburban corporate Tammany Hall would make portly old Boss Tweed salivate.

This is no petty corruption. It is systemic, its tentacles radiate from top to bottom, it reaches across all three branches of government and it is bi-partisan. Graft is destroying democracy in New Jersey. Boss Norcross, himself, sums up the deal. “[I]n the end,” says Norcross on the tapes, “the McGreeveys, the Corzines, they're all going to be with me. Because not that they like me, but because they have no choice." (Again, no idle boast: Corzine is one of Norcross’ largest contributors and Norcross and his bank shower millions on Republicans and Democrats, alike.)

The Garden State has become the Graft State, and news organizations have documented, in series after series, the corrupt -- often criminal-- payoffs that corporations like Commerce Bank make to extract millions in government favors. The results have also been detailed: searing poverty in New Jersey’s inner cities, including Newark (the second most impoverished American city) and Camden (the most dangerous city in the land); worst-in-the nation environmental problems that ravage middle-class communities; and the highest property taxes in America.

It is long past time for prosecutors to deal with the George Norcross’s of the world and crack down on boss-led political crime with the same ferocity that they attack mob-led street crime. The citizens of New Jersey and the nation will not long tolerate the tyranny of the new corporate Tammany Hall.

That the New Jersey Attorney General refused to indict Norcross when two members of his own party offered to testify that Norcross bribed them is an outrage. Even more contemptible is the Attorney General’s refusal to release hundreds of additional hours of tapes (only ninety minutes were made public), allowing citizens, finally, to listen to how their own leaders enrich themselves and their corporate benefactors at the expense of taxpayers.

The Justice Department should move with a bi-partisan coalition of U.S. Attorneys from New York and Pennsylvania to jointly subpoena Norcross and the other bosses before a Grand Jury now that U.S. Attorney for New Jerey Chris Christie has refused to indict.

At the very least, Boss Norcross and his brethren should be brought in for questioning.

The new Tammany Hall must fall.

The Untouchables Group recently moved before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals to allow citizens to directly present evidence of crimes to Grand Juries. We will keep you posted.

Carl J. Mayer, an attorney, is the author of “Shakedown: The Fleecing of the Garden State.” He is a former professor at Hofstra Law School and former Special Counsel to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. As a town councilman in Princeton, he was featured on the news program Sixty Minutes for going undercover to fight corruption in New Jersey.

Untouchables Group Says AG Pick Doesn't Show Corruption Fighting Commitment

2006-01-13T11:59:00.000-08:00

Posted on Thu, Jan. 12, 2006
Mixed reviews greet pick for A.G.Zulima Farber, a former state public advocate, won praise for her acumen. Critics questioned her experience.By Jennifer Moroz and Kaitlin GurneyInquirer Trenton Bureau
TRENTON - Gov.-elect Jon S. Corzine made what is widely considered the defining appointment of his fledgling administration yesterday, naming former state Public Advocate Zulima Farber his attorney general.
If her nomination is confirmed by the Senate, Farber, 61, a partner in a prominent New Jersey law firm, will get one of the state's most powerful posts, leading the sprawling agency in charge of statewide law enforcement. As chief of the Department of Law and Public Safety, she would oversee 10 divisions, including state police, four independent agencies, 9,600 employees, and an annual budget of nearly $1 billion.
Latino leaders praised the selection of the Cuban-born Farber, who would become New Jersey's first Hispanic attorney general. Friends and colleagues, too, voiced their support for a lawyer they say is smart, honest, aggressive and likable.
But critics quietly questioned whether Farber has the record or skills to effectively lead the attack on public corruption that Corzine has said will be a cornerstone of his administration - and that many say is needed to restore public confidence in the Attorney General's Office.
Attorney General Peter C. Harvey has come under fire - he says unfairly - for his department's weak reputation on corruption prosecutions.
Farber said she was "honored and humbled" by the nomination and pledged that policing government would be a "top priority."
"I'm very grateful to the governor for placing his confidence in me," she said.
Farber already has a long history with the state, including a failed bid for a seat on the Supreme Court.
A graduate of Rutgers Law School, Farber served as assistant prosecutor in Bergen County and as assistant counsel to Gov. Brendan Byrne and as assistant prosecutor in Bergen County before joining the Lowenstein Sandler law firm in Roseland, where she rose to partner in 1986.
Between 1992 and 1994, she served under Gov. Jim Florio as public advocate, a role designed to provide a voice for consumers and minorities.
In 2003, Farber appeared poised to become the state's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, but Gov. Jim McGreevey withdrew his support when he learned that a bench warrant had been issued after Farber, who has a history of driving violations, failed to respond to a traffic citation. He instead nominated John E. Wallace Jr., an appellate judge from Gloucester County. The move infuriated Latino leaders, who yesterday rejoiced.
"Today is a celebration," said Martin Perez, president of the Latino Leadership Association of New Jersey. "Zulima is a legal professional who has the respect not just of Latinos but of the whole legal community of New Jersey... . This is a vindication because the past administration failed to treat her with the respect and dignity she deserved."
Republican lobbyist Alan Marcus called Farber "the ultimate diversity appointment," but questioned whether she was in the right job.
He wondered why Corzine had not chosen Stuart Rabner, a federal prosecutor with a long corruption-busting record. The governor-elect instead named Rabner his chief counsel.
"I would say that given New Jersey's well-established national reputation for being the most corrupt state in the country, Gov. Corzine should have appointed someone who has significant corruption-fighting experience," said Carl Mayer, a Princeton lawyer and good-government activist who has tussled with Corzine before. "It would have been more logical to appoint his own counsel."
Christopher Christie, U.S. attorney for New Jersey, said he had recommended Rabner, his top criminal prosecutor, to Corzine, and was surprised that his deputy ended up in the "political" chief counsel role.
Of Corzine's choice for attorney general, Christie said: "I judge people when I meet them - and I've only met Zulima a couple of times."
John Degnan, who was attorney general under Byrne and helped Corzine in the selection process, said Corzine originally had looked at 20 candidates and interviewed six or seven for a job he considered "if not his most important appointment, then one of the two or three most important."
Corzine "told me the person has to be an excellent lawyer with good administrative skills and unquestionable integrity," Degnan said. "Some of the candidates were stronger on law enforcement... but the A.G.'s office is more than just criminal justice."
Bob Del Tufo, a former attorney general who served with Farber on Corzine's ethics advisory panel, called her a "very astute and honorable person" and "a seasoned veteran of the law."
With the help of a deputy with a strong law enforcement background to head the Division of Criminal Justice, "she should be fine," he said.
Several lawmakers reserved judgment, saying they awaited the answers Farber would provide during her confirmation hearings.
"The most important thing the next A.G. can do is resuscitate the long-standing tradition that the New Jersey attorney general pays attention to ethics and corruption," said Assemblyman Bill Baroni (R., Mercer).
Sen. John Adler (D., Camden), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was confident the panel "will engage in a full examination of Zulima Farber's credentials."
"The committee members look forward to Ms. Farber providing her priorities and goals for fighting public corruption, protecting us from terrorists and ensuring the safety of our children," Adler said in a statement.
Farber said that her plans were "very general at this point," but that she wanted to review whether the department could be more cost-efficient.
And, she said, "I know that public corruption has been an issue in New Jersey and that the people rightly care very much about it. I plan to review the work specifically of the Division of Criminal Justice and take action. It is an important issue, and as chief law enforcement officer, it must be a top priority."
Zulima Farber
Age: 61.
Party: Democratic.
Home:North Bergen, N.J.
Occupation: Law partner at Lowenstein Sandler of Roseland, N.J., since 1986.
Education: Bachelor's and master's degrees from what is now Montclair State University. Law degree from Rutgers University Law School in Newark.
Career highlights: Assistant counsel to Gov. Brendan Byrne, 1978-81. Public advocate and public defender in the cabinet of Gov. James J. Florio, 1992-94.
Family: Divorced. No children.
SOURCE: Associated Press
Contact staff writer Jennifer Moroz at 609-989-8990 or jmoroz@phillynews.com.
© 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.philly.com

BYE-BYE BRAD: DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR ASS ON THE WAY OUT.

2006-01-08T07:36:00.000-08:00

BYE-BYE BRAD: DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR ASS ON THE WAY OUT.

CORZINE DUMPS BRAD CAMPBELL: ENEMY #1 OF NJ ENVIRONMENT.

After weeks of obseqious lobbying to retain his position as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, Brad Campbell was dumped by Governor-Elect Jon Corzine.

For weeks, the Untouchables Group had called on Corzine to "Can Campbell" and yesterday that call became a reality.

Thanks to all our supporters who helped lobby to defeat the most anti-environment Commissioner in the history of New Jersey.

Be sure to read the recently published opinion piece by the Untouchables Group in the Asbury Park Press about why Campbell had to go. The opinion piece is re-printed in our archive section -- simply click on it now.

Stay tuned: On Tuesday, January 10, 2006 The Untouchables are back in Superior Court in New Jersey attempting to block Corzine's appointment of Robert Menendez, the Boss of Hudson County, to be our next Senator.

NEW YORK TIMES CALLS TO END CULTURE OF CORRUPTION AND CRONYISM

2006-01-08T06:16:00.000-08:00

NEW YORK TIMES

January 7, 2006
Editorial
New Jersey's Medical School Mess
If Jon Corzine, the governor-elect of New Jersey, wants to cleanse the whiff of impropriety still lingering from his coziness with machine politicians, he has a very good place to start. He can do what some associates say he plans to do and throw his weight behind cleaning up corruption and mismanagement at the state's health care university.
The scope of the wrongdoing at that institution, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, is staggering. More than $700 million in no-bid contracts was awarded over five years, often to politically connected recipients, some of whom did little or no work for the money. Jobs were filled by patronage. School funds were siphoned off for campaign contributions to elected officials. Lavish perquisites and bonuses were given to administrators. The board was riddled with conflicts of interest.
The most egregious wrong, to our mind, was the double-billing of Medicaid for the care provided to poor people. Doctors were billing for the services they provided at university clinics, and the university was separately billing for the same services, generating almost $5 million in extra payments at latest count. What makes this double-billing especially reprehensible is that university officials were warned by internal whistle-blowers and outside counsel years ago that the practice was probably illegal. Those responsible for continuing the overcharging scheme deserve to be indicted.
These sorry events speak to a culture of corruption and cronyism in the state and a paucity of strong oversight and monitoring. It should be a mark of shame for New Jersey that the driving force in calling the university to account was a federal prosecutor - United States Attorney Christopher Christie - not the governor, the state attorney general, the Legislature or the university's board of trustees.
Using the threat of criminal prosecution of the university for health care fraud, Mr. Christie forced the trustees to adopt a number of management reforms, accept a federal monitor and agree to repay the overcharges. The continuing federal investigation and monitoring may well turn up further evidence of abuses. But reform should not be left to a federal prosecutor and a monitor or to a university board and administration that have been woefully slow to move against corruption in the past.
The governorship in New Jersey is the most powerful in the nation. Mr. Corzine needs to use every tool at his disposal to restore the reputation of a medical institution whose most dedicated practitioners are committed to excellence and appalled at the administrative corruption around them.

UNTOUCHABLES DEMAND INDICTMENTS AS MORE NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS PICK UP ON MASSIVE RACKETEERING IN NEW JERSEY

2006-01-08T06:06:00.000-08:00

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES
January 7, 2006
Power Brokers
No Title and No Elective Office, but Influence Across New Jersey
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
It was a piece of legislation that could reshape New Jersey's landscape and affect the lives of millions of people.
In the spring of 2004, Gov. James E. McGreevey was pushing the Highlands Preservation Act, a proposal to severely limit new construction near the streams and reservoirs in northern New Jersey, to protect the source of drinking water for half of the state's nine million residents and rein in the growing problem of sprawl in the country's most densely populated state.
As the bill was being crafted in the State Legislature, it had the support of environmentalists and much of the business community, but ran into one major obstacle: George E. Norcross III, the political leader from Camden County.
Mr. Norcross holds no elective office or party title, and he is based at the other end of the state, but he had enough loyalty within the Legislature to be able to kill the program if he and his political and business associates did not like what was in the bill.
Mr. Norcross's legislative allies held out for changes that would make it easier for developers to build in the overcrowded suburbs, according to people involved in the negotiations.
At the same time, the involved parties say, they used the opportunity to pressure the state to block an oil company's plan to establish a nature preserve on Petty's Island, in the Delaware River near Camden. Mr. Norcross and his political and business associates argued that the oil company was simply trying to avoid the cost of cleaning up pollution on the island, and maintain that their plan to build a golf resort and housing development there would help revitalize the blighted area.
Mr. McGreevey eventually got the votes he needed for the Highlands plan, and Mr. Norcross walked away with what he wanted, too: both the so-called fast-track provision and the revised plan for Petty's Island. The achievements cemented his status as the state's most influential power broker.
Through a network of union leaders, legislators, developers and lawyers, Mr. Norcross has grown from a regional figure in Camden to a pivotal player in state politics. He has a say in a wide range of major decisions made by the state government, as well as in smaller government actions shown to enrich his allies and to cost taxpayers.
He has also helped Commerce Bank, where he is C.E.O. of the insurance division, win contracts in 31 of the 37 municipalities in Camden County.
Pulling State Funds South
Mr. Norcross rarely speaks in public, and when he does, he describes himself as "an activist" for South Jersey, where residents have long complained that they are overlooked by a state government dominated by the wealthier, more densely populated counties to the north.
He is proud to take credit for helping South Jersey residents receive infusions of state money and job appointment in recent years, including $175 million designated to rehabilitate sections of Camden and millions for Cooper Hospital there.
"I'm part of a great team of South Jersey Democrats," Mr. Norcross said, in the only remarks he would allow to be quoted for this article. "We've worked hard in recent years to bring South Jersey its fair share."
But Mr. Norcross's activities and interests clearly extend far north of New Jersey's geographic midpoint, the Raritan River. His ability to raise millions in campaign money has allowed him to donate generously in Bergen, Essex and Mercer Counties, gaining influence there.
It has enabled him to demand a seat at the table when Democratic leaders choose their nominees for governor or other high office. It also gives him an important voice on virtually every major state issue, from property taxes to the plan to build a hockey arena in downtown Newark and one in Pennsauken, where at the time he owned the rights to a minor-league franchise.
Mr. Norcross earned unwelcome notoriety last year when two Democratic political rivals revealed secretly recorded audio tapes in which he made expletive-laden threats about his adversaries and boasted of his ability to make political appointments.
"In the end, the McGreeveys, the Corzines, they're all going to be with me," Mr. Norcross said in the most memorable sound bite, which was disseminated on television, radio and the Internet and in Republican campaign advertisements. "Not that they like me, but because they have no choice."
Federal prosecutors are investigating whether his statements constitute official corruption, but Mr. Norcross's lawyer, William Tambussi, said that was nothing more than tough talk.
Governor-elect Jon S. Corzine brushed off Mr. Norcross's statements as unfounded chest beating, and insists he will not be pressured by political leaders or contributors.
"I don't think I've talked to that person more than once in the past year," Mr. Corzine said of Mr. Norcross during a recent interview. "And he's certainly not going to have any more say in state policy than anyone else."
But when he takes office on Jan. 17, Mr. Corzine will have to contend with more than a dozen legislators who receive substantial financial support from Mr. Norcross, including his former partner in a chain of optometry stores, Joseph J. Roberts Jr., who recently became Assembly speaker.
Mr. Norcross's ascent is a testament to the resilience of New Jersey's political power brokers. Fifty years ago, they ran gritty urban organizations that derived much of their influence from union halls, housing projects and church basements. The growth of suburbia diluted the power of political machines in many other parts of the country.
But New Jersey's lax campaign-contribution laws and strong tradition of home rule, which gives municipal officials broad powers to make decisions regarding development issues, allowed the county bosses to adapt and flourish.
Mr. Norcross's organization mirrors the changes that have reshaped the state in the last half-century. His political coalition includes investment bankers, laborers, suburbanites and city dwellers, and cuts across racial and ethnic lines. That diversity also extends to those who contribute to the various campaign funds that Mr. Norcross controls; they include unions, government contractors, lawyers, engineering firms and his associates in banking and insurance.
He has used that money to become the most technologically innovative of the state's Democratic political leaders, investing millions to provide his candidates with state-of-the-art polling, target marketing and opposition research.
Although Mr. Norcross, a self-professed "Reagan Democrat," often urges elected officials to practice fiscal restraint, he is not reluctant to spend with abandon to help them win elections. In 2003, Mr. Norcross and the Camden County Democratic Organization raised $4.4 million to help a former state police superintendent, Fred Madden, win a State Senate seat that has an annual salary of $49,000.
When Mr. Corzine ran for the United States Senate in 2000, Mr. Norcross threw his organization's weight behind his opponent in the primary, former Gov. Jim Florio. Mr. Corzine won, but only after spending $30 million. The two men later made peace, and records show that Mr. Corzine has given more than $700,000 to Mr. Norcross's various political committees.
Mr. Norcross, 49, said he learned to act decisively and cherish political loyalty from his father, George Jr., who served for years as the president of the Southern New Jersey A.F.L.-C.I.O. Central Labor Council.
County Chairman in His 30's
After Mr. Norcross dropped out of Rutgers University at Camden in the late 1970's, his father helped him start a small insurance company and introduced him to the mayor of Camden, who appointed him to the only government position he has ever held: chairman of the city's parking authority. By 1989, he had shown such skill at running campaigns and mobilizing unions that he rose to the chairmanship of Camden County's Democratic organization.
Mr. Norcross left the post in 1995. His brother Donald, a union leader, runs it now. A year later, Commerce Bancorp bought Mr. Norcross's insurance company and brought him in to start up its insurance division, and both he and the bank began to take a far more prominent role in state affairs.
Commerce, based in Cherry Hill, opened or acquired dozens of branches across New Jersey. Its political action committee doled out $1.5 million to New Jersey political candidates between 1998 and 2003, much of it in communities that gave Commerce banking, insurance and bond underwriting work.
The insurance division run by Mr. Norcross now brings the bank more than $50 million a year in premiums from various municipal governments and authorities.
David Flaherty, a spokesman for the company, has said that Commerce has attracted business from governments around the state because it is a New Jersey-based company and provides quality service at a reasonable price.
Mr. Norcross is paid $1.3 million a year by Commerce. According to financial records filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, he now holds bank stock worth more than $100 million.
Mr. Norcross is up by 4 a.m. most days to coordinate his political work, is at the office by 6 a.m., and often works late into the evening. He and his wife, Sandy, have two children - Lexie, 18, and Alex, 9 - and despite his long hours, he prides himself on being an involved father.
When Mr. McGreevey sought support for the Highlands protection plan, Mr. Norcross told the administration and legislative leaders that he considered the plan hostile to the business community, according to people involved in the talks.
Senator Stephen M. Sweeney of Gloucester County, vice chairman of the environmental committee, balked at bringing the matter to a vote. Mr. Sweeney, whose record-setting $1.8 million campaign for the Senate in 2001 had received sizable contributions from Mr. Norcross and the Camden County Democratic organization, first wanted the administration to support his proposal to speed the pace of construction elsewhere in the state.
As the standoff dragged on, Mr. Norcross's brother Phil, the managing partner of a prominent law firm, negotiated with Mr. McGreevey's legal advisers at the Marriott hotel, a few blocks from the State House, people familiar with the effort at the time said. Phil Norcross did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages requesting comment.
In the General Assembly, meanwhile, the Budget Committee chairman Louis D. Greenwald, of Camden County, pressed the administration for assurances that it would not permit Citgo Petroleum to establish a nature preserve on Petty's Island, where Mr. Norcross's associates were hoping to build a hotel, golf resort and residential development.
The McGreevey administration ultimately relented on both fronts.
When Mr. Corzine becomes governor he will have the opportunity to reverse both of those decisions.
Petty's Island still needs many state approvals before development can begin. Mr. McGreevey signed the fast-track bill, but later, in the lame-duck period after he announced he was resigning because of a sex scandal, he issued an executive order postponing it. Mr. Corzine has said that he is undecided about Petty's Island, but that he opposes the fast-track law.
Mr. Norcross declined to speak specifically about either issue. But Senator Sweeney said that the fast-track bill would spur economic growth and sensible development by cutting bureaucracy.
"We're not going away on this one," Mr. Sweeney said. "We're going to keep fighting."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Home
Privacy Policy
Search
Corrections
XML
Help
Contact Us
Work for Us
Site Map
Back to Top

NEW JERSEY CONTINUES TO BE THE LAUGHING-STOCK OF AMERICA'S POLITICS.

2006-01-08T05:59:00.000-08:00

"The Republican candidate is running an ad featuring the Democratic candidate's ex-wife, and the Democratic candidate is allegedly spreading rumors that the Republican candidate had an affair with an ex-Miss New Jersey. Boy, remember the good old days in Jersey when all they had to worry about was a crooked gay governor?" (Jay Leno, Tonight Show, November 7, 2005)

BYE BYE BRAD: DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR ASS ON THE WAY OUT.

2006-01-07T03:48:00.000-08:00

CORZINE DUMPS BRAD CAMPBELL: ENEMY #1 OF NJ ENVIRONMENT.

After weeks of obseqious lobbying to retain his position as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, Brad Campbell was dumped by Governor-Elect Jon Corzine.

For weeks, the Untouchables Group had called to Corzine to "Can Campbell" and yesterday that call became a reality.

Thanks to all our supporters who helped lobby to defeat the most anti-environment Commissioner in the history of New Jersey.

Be sure to read the recently published opinion piece by the Untouchables Group in the Asbury Park Press about why Campbell had to go. The opinion piece is re-printed in our archive section -- simply click on it now.

Stay tuned: Next week the Untouchables are back in court to further shake up New Jersey politics.

HIGHLIGHTS OF NJ CORRUPTION HUMOR

2006-01-05T20:40:00.000-08:00

Compliments to Monica Yant Kinney, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist, who wrote the following suggestions for New Jersey's "name search.":

New Jersey: The only state you have to pay to leave."

What you make, Trenton takes

Paul Viggiano of Haddon Heights seemed to be speaking directly to Gov.-elect Jon Corzine with his slogan:
"Come to New Jersey, where the landscape will take your breath away - and so will your tax bill."

Come to think of it, so did John Miscenich, who wrote, "New Jersey: Things are as bad as they seem."

After an ugly election, it's no surprise many of you focused your pen on politicians behaving badly.
"New Jersey: Where the roads are paved and the pockets lined with good intentions" was how Mount Laurel's Joe Reale saw it.

"New Jersey: Pay to play, play to win" came from Chuck Fest, a retired gym teacher in Moorestown.

Now, a slogan like "New Jersey: You got a problem with that?" certainly speaks to our feisty point of view.

But "New Jersey: Corrupt and proud" is probably a bit edgier than anything Codey has in mind.
Everyone loves The Sopranos, but something tells me the tourism board won't go for your mobbed-up mottos.

So to Paul DeSantis, I apologize.
"New Jersey: We can have you killed" may be, technically, true. But is it inviting?
From The Sopranos to Springsteen, you do love your Jersey guys.

My favorite Bruce looter? Roger Weaver of Medford, who reminded us:
"New Jersey: It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap, get out while you're young."

And the winner is...
Coming in third place is Jim Shulman, a well-traveled marketing consultant from Bryn Mawr with the ethically challenged "New Jersey: One state, under indictment."
Great work, Jim. How much would you have charged for that?

Second place goes to Michelle Hong for the "It's so obvious, I can't believe I didn't think of it" slogan:
"New Jersey: Way better than Old Jersey."
Michelle, I mean this when I say I can see that one on a trucker hat.

And the winner?
After several sleepless nights and expensive psychic consultations, I hereby award first place to Katie Yeager, a recent arrival from Colorado.
Yeager's entry blends her culture shock and outsider's bemusement.
Even better? It's a double entendre, if one is inclined to read it that way.
And here, without further ado, is your new state slogan:
"New Jersey: Everything you've heard is true."

Asbury Park Press Publishes Untouchables Editorial on Brad Campbell: Enemy of New Jersey's Environment.

2006-01-05T20:37:00.000-08:00

State needs fresh leadership for environmental protection

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 12/15/05 BY CARL J. MAYER

The first tests of Gov.-elect Jon S. Corzine's leadership will begin before he takes office. One of the keys will be who Corzine appoints to lead the state Department of Environmental Protection.

New Jersey has more environmental problems than any other state, thus this position is vitally important. The current commissioner, Bradley M. Campbell, has failed to safeguard New Jersey's environment and wildlife. He needs to be replaced by someone who will actually protect the environment of the state rather than do the bidding of developers and special-interest groups.

Here are five reasons Corzine ought not to reappoint Campbell:

Campbell recently approved New Jersey's first bear hunt in almost 35 years. You can't be an environmental leader and work to destroy wildlife. Yosemite Park has thousands of people and bears in close proximity; they routinely manage by using nonlethal methods.

Campbell not only approved the slaughter of deer in New Jersey in 2001, but he approved a vicious method called "net and bolt" that is condemned by the Humane Society and virtually every other animal welfare organization in the country. Under "net and bolt," animals are wrestled to the ground after being trapped under a net and then an 8-inch steel rod is exploded into their heads, causing a gruesome death.

Campbell is controlled by the bosses who have corrupted New Jersey politics for decades. The best example of this is the proposed development of Petty's Island off Pennsauken in Camden County. News outlets reported earlier this year that Campbell opposed preserving this island — home to nesting bald eagles — in favor of developing it after he was lobbied by South Jersey political boss George E. Norcross III. The development will be done by Cherokee Partners, a firm that has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Norcross and Campbell's Democratic Party.

Campbell is an appointee of former Gov. James E. McGreevey. Outside his office, Campbell had a framed picture of McGreevey, addressed to Campbell, that said: "Thanks Brad." Corzine cannot call himself a reformer if he reappoints McGreevey holdovers.

Campbell approved the worst environmental law in New Jersey and maybe the country — the so-called "fast-track" bill. It allows developers to bypass the legal and environmental protections afforded land in New Jersey and continue to build uncontrollably. The Sierra Club and the entire environmental community opposed this measure because it endangers the remaining 20 percent of New Jersey that is open space. It was passed in a backroom deal, written behind closed doors, with the exclusive input of industry and without the environmental community.

I have witnessed Campbell's management style. In 2001 I represented, as a lawyer, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and various groups in New Jersey that wanted to stop the "net and bolt" torture of animals. We had a meeting in Campbell's office. Rather than listen to any of the facts or evidence regarding the costliness and ineffectiveness of killing deer, Campbell spent the entire meeting arguing how "net and bolt" was actually humane.

When McGreevey was on a statewide radio call-in show, I called to point out that McGreevey had called the "net and bolt" procedure "heinous." He agreed that it was. Minutes later, I received a call from Campbell critical of my call and threatening to cancel a previously arranged meeting.

You can't run a government agency by berating environmental advocates. You can't be an environmental leader and favor torturing wildlife and loosening controls on developers. Campbell tried this. It didn't work. He must go. Corzine should find a new leader to protect the environment of New Jersey.

Carl J. Mayer is lawyer in Princeton.

Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press.

New Jersey Corruption Goes National

2006-01-02T11:32:00.000-08:00

George F. Will: High cost of N.J. politics
By George F. WillPublished 2:15 am PST Sunday, November 6, 2005NEWARK, N.J. — Sen. Jon Corzine, the New Jersey Democrat, brings his characteristic grandiosity even to his buyer's remorse. In 2000, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs pulled $60.2 million from his wallet to buy a U.S. Senate seat. But just four years after the most expensive Senate campaign in American history, he decided to escape from that seat — for which he paid $27,489.03 a day, prorated over six years — and try to become governor.
His Senate colleagues, their feelings injured, may wonder, "Was it something we said?" New Jersey should wonder whether some future Corzine whim might make him flee from Trenton, the pleasures of which might pall on someone of his restless ambitiousness.
But before he can regret purchasing the governorship, he must deal with Douglas Forrester, the Republican candidate who has come from double-digit deficits in polls two months ago to within 4 points in a recent poll. Forrester, too, is a rich businessman, and is largely financing his own campaign — this is the world that campaign finance reformers have made, with contribution limits that make fundraising more difficult. Since securing the Democratic nomination, Corzine has outspent Forrester by $15 million.
When Arch Moore was running against West Virginia's Democratic governor Jay Rockefeller in 1980, a popular bumper sticker said: "Make him spend it all, Arch." Forrester cannot make Corzine spend all his $260 million, even if, as in 2000, Corzine pays to bus people in from Philadelphia homeless shelters and halfway houses to do whatever such people are paid to do on Election Day. And even if, as in 2000, Corzine's version of faith-based campaigning contributes much more than 30 pieces of silver to some churches whose clergy then endorse him. In 2000, Corzine — who of course in 2002 supported the McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions for others — outspent his opponent 10-1, but won just 50-47.
Never mind Corzine's campaign spending and the $470,000 "loan" that he made and forgave to his former girlfriend who heads one of the state's largest public employee unions, with which the next governor will negotiate. He has done well even while doing good, as he understands that, in the Senate. The Bergen Record reports that while serving on the Foreign Relations Committee, Corzine voted for a treaty containing "a narrowly crafted clause" that conferred a lucrative tax exemption on Corzine and some other wealthy investors in a Japanese bank.
Forrester's two issues — the ideal number — are corruption and property taxes. New Jersey leads the nation in both. At $1,908 per capita, property taxes are almost double the national average. And assuming, perhaps rashly, that Hurricane Katrina disrupted business-as-usual in Louisiana, New Jersey may now have, temporarily, the nation's most persistently corrupt politics. When New Jersey's last elected governor resigned after revelations of his affair with a male assistant, the state seemed to merely shrug, perhaps because peculation was minimally involved, for a change.
Forrester's problem is that New Jersey has become a deep shade of blue. In 1988, George H. W. Bush's winning margin was 13.6 percent. Just eight years later, Bill Clinton's winning margin was 17.9 percent. Some Corzine ads end: "Doug Forrester: George Bush's choice for governor. Is he yours?" New Jersey's choice is to protest high taxes and culture of corruption, or forever hold its peace.
In politics, boredom can be, if not a virtue, a sign of one — impatience with impotence. Under Corzine's chairmanship in the 2004 election cycle, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised more money than its Republican counterpart, yet Democrats suffered a net loss of four seats and he recoiled from the prospect of a protracted Senate service in the minority.
A New Jersey governor is an American caesar. The most powerful of all governors, he or she is the only state official elected statewide and appoints the other state officials. Still, some people suspect that Corzine wants the governorship because he has his eye on another property 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Senate with which he has become disenchanted. Many more presidents have come from governorships than from Senate seats, and New Jersey's governor gets attention in the largest media markets in two contiguous blue states — Philadelphia and New York City.
` Forrester says wryly — and accurately — that he would be in the Senate from which Corzine is fleeing if in October 2002, the Democrats had not dumped his opponent, the ethically challenged Sen. Robert Torricelli, and replaced him with a then-retired Sen. Frank Lautenberg. Oh, New Jersey.

LETTER TO A CORPORATE SCROOGE

2005-12-24T13:12:00.000-08:00

Mr. Nicholas DeBelleville Katzenbach
Chairman, MCI Corporation
33 Greenhouse Drive
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Phone: 609-924-8536

Dear Mr. Katzenbach:

On behalf of thousands of aggrieved MCI customers, I dropped by your home in Princeton, New Jersey today – Christmas Eve – to bestow upon your company an award of ignominious distinction.

In your capacity as the Chairman of the Board of MCI, I am presenting you with America’s First Annual “Bah, Humbug” Corporate Scrooge Award.

As a consumer advocate, I know a Scrooge when I see a Scrooge. And MCI’s attitude towards its customers and shareholders is succinctly encapsulated by the oft-quoted words of Ebenezer Scrooge: “Bah, Humbug.”

You may think I am tendering the award retroactively for MCI’s role in perpetrating an $11 billion accounting fraud: the largest financial fraud and bankruptcy in U.S. history, costing investors billions and devastating retirees and communities. But the award is not for that.

The First Annual “Bah, Humbug” Corporate Scrooge Award is for MCI’s relentless drive since you joined the Board in 2002 to over-bill, double-bill, fraudulently bill and provide some of the worst customer service in the United States, while simultaneously shipping American jobs overseas.

Dickens remarkable prose, penned over 100 year ago, could apply to your corporation today: “[H]e was a tight-fisted hand at the grind- stone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire…” Substitute MCI for Scrooge and you have a perfectly accurate description of MCI customer service, in my opinion.

On behalf of aggrieved phone customers, workers and suppliers I present you with MCI’s award: a lump of coal in a stocking and a copy of Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol. Although your customers consider it unlikely, perhaps you will heed the lessons of Dickens’s parable and persuade your Scrooge corporation to redeem itself by retaining jobs in America and engaging in lawful, ethical business practices.

I know first-hand how MCI corporation fleeces consumers.

I signed up for MCI phone service in November, 2003. I selected your “Neighborhood Complete” plan which was advertised as a “revolution” in phone service and offered an all-inclusive rate of $49.99 per month for all local, state and national long distance calls.

Your company’s first month’s bill clocked in at $253.11. By March, MCI was billing me $482.79 per month and, for an entire year, my bill averaged well over $120 per month.

I tried to correct this problem with dozens of calls to your “customer service” department.

I talked to MCI employees in the Philippines, Argentina, Canada and Mexico. All of the calls had a wait time of no less than one-half hour and none of the employees could fix the problem. They were well-trained, however, to say that they could not identify their supervisors for “security reasons” and refused to give the phone number for your executive offices.

I cancelled my service in January 2005. Astoundingly, MCI kept billing me and continues to bill me until this day for services I do not use.

Having no other recourse, I sued your company in New York State Civil Court.

Your lawyers failed to appear and I was awarded a default judgment in the amount of $2,893. (Mayer v. MCI, SCM 15189-05, Civil Court of the City of New York, Small Claims/Commercial Part, August 1, 2005)

When your lawyers missed the Judge’s calendar call, the bailiff smiled knowingly at the judge and the judge smiled knowingly back at the bailiff. On the way out of the courtroom, I asked the bailiff why the exchange of knowing nods. His answer: MCI is sued several times a week in just one small claims court in New York City and they never bother to send a lawyer to defend.

Now I know why.

Despite the fact that I have a legal judgment, your company has still not paid the judgment. I will shortly send out New York City Marshals to attach MCI’s bank account for failure to pay a legal judgment.

MCI apparently routinely engages in illicit conduct without the slightest worry that the costs of getting caught would outweigh the benefits of continuing the conduct.

The recently released (December 14, 2005) national Corporate Reputation Survey by Harris Interactive Polling revealed that Americans still consider MCI one of the least trustworthy and most unethical corporations in America today.

On May 31, 2005, the California Board of Public Utilities launched an investigation into massive fraudulent billing practices by MCI. The investigation was triggered because MCI continues to violate a California cease and desist order of March 2004 that directed the company to stop billing customers for services they never ordered, a practice known as “cramming.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) disclosed that in the first half of 2003 (the last year figures were available) MCI was the subject of more billing complaints than any other long distance carrier. Astoundingly, in 2003, billing complaints filed with the FTC against MCI rose 310% to over 8,000 per year – double the rate of any other carrier.

MCI settled a lawsuit in 2002 for $8 million after being sued by the California Attorney General for defrauding thousands of consumers by “cramming” (unauthorized bills) and “slamming” (unauthorized service). (Of course, $8 million is chump change for a company set to pull down $20 billion this year.)

Please enlighten me, Mr. Katzenbach. Are you aware of the serial illegal practices of your corporation since you joined the Board in 2002, and therefore are complicit, or has this transpired without your knowledge?

Here is what you assured MCI shareholders and customers in a public letter of September 21, 2004 after you were chosen Chairman:

“Since joining MCI’s Board of Directors in July, 2002, I’ve had the opportunity to witness firsthand the company’s absolute commitment to the highest standards of corporate governance and ethics…it is a community marked by integrity, transparency and accountability…I am proud to serve a company so profoundly dedicated to serving its shareholders, customers, employees and the public-at-large with both innovation and integrity.”

The lawsuits and regulatory actions against your company do not begin to convey the utter contempt with which MCI treats its customers.

For that, you need only go to any of the consumer websites that field corporate customer complaints. Try sites like www.mythreecents.com or www.consumeraffairs.com or www.ripoffreport.com and read the hundreds of letters from people who have been ripped-off, pushed around, defrauded and otherwise victimized by your company.

How many hundreds of meritorious small claims lawsuits have been brought against MCI?

How many thousands of ripped-off MCI customers just give up and take it?

How many hours of consumers’ one irreplaceable commodity – their time -- has your company willfully taken, knowing that the law provides no remedy?

How many of your 20 million customers – the second largest group of phone customers in the United States -- have taken time away from work – as single-mothers or working families -- only to have your company cancel the appointment or been placed on hold for hours?

How many millions of dollars has your company stolen from Americans by falsely billing or fraudulently billing?

How many lives have you affected by shipping over 14,000 American jobs overseas?

We will never know the answers to those questions. But you do know the following:

You know that the lap-dog Attorneys’ General of the fifty states will never make your company pay meaningful penalties.

You know that the Congress and state legislatures that MCI slathers with campaign contributions will never stop MCI’s deceptive practices.

You know that the various state and federal regulatory agencies are toothless tigers.

It is not the common practice to deliver a petition for redress to the private home of a Corporate Chairman, but you leave consumers no choice. Your company makes it virtually impossible to reach supervisors or your executive officers who might help and that is undoubtedly by design.

You have no expectation of privacy as your number and address are listed in the phone book and on the web as a matter of public record.

Our group will urge other consumers to write and call you directly until your company complies with the laws of the United States of America.

In so doing, we will set a higher standard than MCI. We will urge people to call you after 9am or before 5pm. We will urge aggrieved customers to be polite and send polite complaints to your home address. We are specifically advocating that customers and other contact you in a lawful manner.

May I suggest you use your considerable talents to restore your own reputation for trust and honesty and to instill those values in the company you lead.

Not since the Great Depression and the end of the Gilded Era have the citizens of the United States held the CEO’s of major corporations in such disrepute.

Over 90% of the public, according to a recent New York Times poll, believes that corporations have too much power in Washington. 74% of the public does not trust Big Business.

It is because of the illicit and illegal behavior of companies like yours that people hold Big Business in such contempt.

It is time for you and your fellow Corporate Chieftains to take some individual responsibility for this state of affairs.

Corporate leaders and their purchased think tanks are only too quick to demand that the least prosperous members of society assume individual responsibility for their condition, while CEO’s shirk responsibility for their own misdeeds.

We, therefore, today squarely place before you the question of whether you will accept personal responsibility for the ongoing misdeeds of your corporation.

I look forward to your answer and to a meeting at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Carl J. Mayer, Esq.

LETTER TO A CORPORATE SCROOGE

2005-12-23T19:18:00.000-08:00

December 24, 2005

Mr. Nicholas DeBelleville Katzenbach
Chairman, MCI Corporation
33 Greenhouse Drive
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Phone: 609-924-8536

Dear Mr. Katzenbach:

On behalf of thousands of aggrieved MCI customers, I dropped by your home in Princeton, New Jersey today – Christmas Eve – to bestow upon your company an award of ignominious distinction.

In your capacity as the Chairman of the Board of MCI, I am presenting you with America’s First Annual “Bah, Humbug” Corporate Scrooge Award.

As a consumer advocate, I know a Scrooge when I see a Scrooge. And MCI’s attitude towards its customers and shareholders is succinctly encapsulated by the oft-quoted words of Ebenezer Scrooge: “Bah, Humbug.”

You may think I am tendering the award retroactively for MCI’s role in perpetrating an $11 billion accounting fraud: the largest financial fraud and bankruptcy in U.S. history, costing investors billions and devastating retirees and communities. But the award is not for that.

The First Annual “Bah, Humbug” Corporate Scrooge Award is for MCI’s relentless drive since you joined the Board in 2002 to over-bill, double-bill, fraudulently bill and provide some of the worst customer service in the United States, while simultaneously shipping American jobs overseas.

Dickens remarkable prose, penned over 100 year ago, could apply to your corporation today: “[H]e was a tight-fisted hand at the grind- stone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire…” Substitute MCI for Scrooge and you have a perfectly accurate description of MCI customer service, in my opinion.

On behalf of aggrieved phone customers, workers and suppliers I present you with MCI’s award: a lump of coal in a stocking and a copy of Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol. Although your customers consider it unlikely, perhaps you will heed the lessons of Dickens’s parable and persuade your Scrooge corporation to redeem itself by retaining jobs in America and engaging in lawful, ethical business practices.

I know first-hand how MCI corporation fleeces consumers.

I signed up for MCI phone service in November, 2003. I selected your “Neighborhood Complete” plan which was advertised as a “revolution” in phone service and offered an all-inclusive rate of $49.99 per month for all local, state and national long distance calls.

Your company’s first month’s bill clocked in at $253.11. By March, MCI was billing me $482.79 per month and, for an entire year, my bill averaged well over $120 per month.

I tried to correct this problem with dozens of calls to your “customer service” department.

I talked to MCI employees in the Philippines, Argentina, Canada and Mexico. All of the calls had a wait time of no less than one-half hour and none of the employees could fix the problem. They were well-trained, however, to say that they could not identify their supervisors for “security reasons” and refused to give the phone number for your executive offices.

I cancelled my service in January 2005. Astoundingly, MCI kept billing me and continues to bill me until this day for services I do not use.

Having no other recourse, I sued your company in New York State Civil Court.

Your lawyers failed to appear and I was awarded a default judgment in the amount of $2,893. (Mayer v. MCI, SCM 15189-05, Civil Court of the City of New York, Small Claims/Commercial Part, August 1, 2005)

When your lawyers missed the Judge’s calendar call, the bailiff smiled knowingly at the judge and the judge smiled knowingly back at the bailiff. On the way out of the courtroom, I asked the bailiff why the exchange of knowing nods. His answer: MCI is sued several times a week in just one small claims court in New York City and they never bother to send a lawyer to defend.

Now I know why.

Despite the fact that I have a legal judgment, your company has still not paid the judgment. I will shortly send out New York City Marshals to attach MCI’s bank account for failure to pay a legal judgment.

MCI apparently routinely engages in illicit conduct without the slightest worry that the costs of getting caught would outweigh the benefits of continuing the conduct.

The recently released (December 14, 2005) national Corporate Reputation Survey by Harris Interactive Polling revealed that Americans still consider MCI one of the least trustworthy and most unethical corporations in America today.

On May 31, 2005, the California Board of Public Utilities launched an investigation into massive fraudulent billing practices by MCI. The investigation was triggered because MCI continues to violate a California cease and desist order of March 2004 that directed the company to stop billing customers for services they never ordered, a practice known as “cramming.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) disclosed that in the first half of 2003 (the last year figures were available) MCI was the subject of more billing complaints than any other long distance carrier. Astoundingly, in 2003, billing complaints filed with the FTC against MCI rose 310% to over 8,000 per year – double the rate of any other carrier.

MCI settled a lawsuit in 2002 for $8 million after being sued by the California Attorney General for defrauding thousands of consumers by “cramming” (unauthorized bills) and “slamming” (unauthorized service). (Of course, $8 million is chump change for a company set to pull down $20 billion this year.)

Please enlighten me, Mr. Katzenbach. Are you aware of the serial illegal practices of your corporation since you joined the Board in 2002, and therefore are complicit, or has this transpired without your knowledge?

Here is what you assured MCI shareholders and customers in a public letter of September 21, 2004 after you were chosen Chairman:

“Since joining MCI’s Board of Directors in July, 2002, I’ve had the opportunity to witness firsthand the company’s absolute commitment to the highest standards of corporate governance and ethics…it is a community marked by integrity, transparency and accountability…I am proud to serve a company so profoundly dedicated to serving its shareholders, customers, employees and the public-at-large with both innovation and integrity.”

The lawsuits and regulatory actions against your company do not begin to convey the utter contempt with which MCI treats its customers.

For that, you need only go to any of the consumer websites that field corporate customer complaints. Try sites like www.mythreecents.com or www.consumeraffairs.com or www.ripoffreport.com and read the hundreds of letters from people who have been ripped-off, pushed around, defrauded and otherwise victimized by your company.

How many hundreds of meritorious small claims lawsuits have been brought against MCI?

How many thousands of ripped-off MCI customers just give up and take it?

How many hours of consumers’ one irreplaceable commodity – their time -- has your company willfully taken, knowing that the law provides no remedy?

How many of your 20 million customers – the second largest group of phone customers in the United States -- have taken time away from work – as single-mothers or working families -- only to have your company cancel the appointment or been placed on hold for hours?

How many millions of dollars has your company stolen from Americans by falsely billing or fraudulently billing?

How many lives have you affected by shipping over 14,000 American jobs overseas?

We will never know the answers to those questions. But you do know the following:

You know that the lap-dog Attorneys’ General of the fifty states will never make your company pay meaningful penalties.

You know that the Congress and state legislatures that MCI slathers with campaign contributions will never stop MCI’s deceptive practices.

You know that the various state and federal regulatory agencies are toothless tigers.

It is not the common practice to deliver a petition for redress to the private home of a Corporate Chairman, but you leave consumers no choice. Your company makes it virtually impossible to reach supervisors or your executive officers who might help and that is undoubtedly by design.

You have no expectation of privacy as your number and address are listed in the phone book and on the web as a matter of public record.

Our group will urge other consumers to write and call you directly until your company complies with the laws of the United States of America.

In so doing, we will set a higher standard than MCI. We will urge people to call you after 9am or before 5pm. We will urge aggrieved customers to be polite and send polite complaints to your home address. We are specifically advocating that customers and other contact you in a lawful manner.

May I suggest you use your considerable talents to restore your own reputation for trust and honesty and to instill those values in the company you lead.

Not since the Great Depression and the end of the Gilded Era have the citizens of the United States held the CEO’s of major corporations in such disrepute.

Over 90% of the public, according to a recent New York Times poll, believes that corporations have too much power in Washington. 74% of the public does not trust Big Business.

It is because of the illicit and illegal behavior of companies like yours that people hold Big Business in such contempt.

It is time for you and your fellow Corporate Chieftains to take some individual responsibility for this state of affairs.

Corporate leaders and their purchased think tanks are only too quick to demand that the least prosperous members of society assume individual responsibility for their condition, while CEO’s shirk responsibility for their own misdeeds.

We, therefore, today squarely place before you the question of whether you will accept personal responsibility for the ongoing misdeeds of your corporation.

I look forward to your answer and to a meeting at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Carl J. Mayer, Esq.

"Bah, Humbug" Corporate Scrooge Award Goes To MCI.

2005-12-21T17:11:00.000-08:00

PRESS ADVISORY

Embargoed Until:
Saturday, December 24, 2005 2:30 pm CONTACT: Carl Mayer
609-921-0253 (office)
609-462-7979 (cell)
http://www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com
CONSUMER ADVOCATE GIVES SCROOGE AWARD TO MCI
PRESENTS TO MCI CHIEF OUTSIDE HIS PRINCETON HOME
WILL PUBLISH CHAIR’S HOME PHONE AND ADDRESS ON WEB
LETTER ASKS AG TO STOP MCI-VERIZON MERGER

WHAT: Press Conference
WHERE: 33 Greenhouse Drive, Princeton Township, New Jersey
(On the public right-of-way in front of the home of Nicholas Katzenbach, Chairman of MCI corporation, the nation’s second largest provider of phone service.)
WHEN: Saturday, December 24, 2005 at 2:30 pm.
WHO: Carl Mayer with EBENEEZER SCROOGE AND TINY TIM.

Carl Mayer, an attorney and consumer advocate, will hold a press conference on the public right-of-way outside of the Princeton, NJ home of MCI Chairman Nicholas Katzenbach. Mayer will present to Katzenbach the First Annual Bah Humbug Corporate Scrooge Award. The award is on behalf of The Untouchables Group, a public interest firm founded by Mayer.

“’Bah, Humbug’ is what MCI says to its customers while giving them the worst consumer phone service in the nation,” said Mayer. “This award underscores that MCI is still a recidivist, law-breaking corporation.”

In a new tactic, Mayer will place Katzenbach’s listed phone and address on the World Wide Web and encourage consumers to lawfully write and call Katzenbach to fix MCI’s broken and illegal customer service. Mayer will also release a letter asking the New Jersey Attorney General to stop the merger of MCI and Verizon.

Directions: From Trenton: Princeton Pike (Mercer) North. You will pass the Princeton Battlefield on the right: Greenhouse lane is the first left before the top of the hill. From Newark: Take NJ Turnpike to exit 9. Take Route One south for about ½ hour to Alexander Road West exit. This dead ends at Mercer. Take a left and the first right after Olden Lane is Greenhouse.

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY OF EBENEEZER SCROOGE AND TINY TIM
READING ACTUAL MCI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS.
###

Memo to Corzine: Don't Re-Appoint McGreevey Hack

2005-12-14T06:36:00.000-08:00

MEMO TO CORZINE: DO NOT REAPPOINT THE MOST ANTI-ENVIRONMENT COMMISSIONER IN NEW JERSEY HISTORY.

By Carl J. Mayer.

The first tests of Governor-elect Corzine’s leadership will begin before he takes office.

One of the keys will be who Corzine appoints to lead the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

New Jersey has more environmental problems than any other state in the country, thus this position is vitally important.

The current Commissioner Bradley Campbell has failed to safeguard New Jersey’s environment and wildlife and needs to be replaced by someone who will actually protect the environment of the state rather than do the bidding of developers and special interest groups.

Herewith the top five reasons Corzine ought not to re-appoint Campbell:

5. Campbell recently approved New Jersey’s first bear hunt in almost 35 years. You can’t be an environmental leader and work to destroy wildlife. Yosemite Park has thousands of people and bears in close proximity; they routinely manage by using non-lethal methods.

4. Commissioner Campbell not only approved the slaughter of Deer in New Jersey in 2001, but he approved a vicious method called “Net and Bolt” that is condemned by the Humane Society and virtually every other animal welfare organization in the country. Under “Net and Bolt” animals are wrestled to the ground after being trapped under a net and then an eight-inch steel rod is exploded into their heads, causing a gruesome, painful death.

3. Campbell is controlled by the bosses who have corrupted New Jersey politics for decades. The best example of this is the proposed development of Petty Island in South Jersey. News outlets reported earlier this year that Campbell opposed preserving this island – home to nesting bald eagles – in favor of developing it after he was lobbied by notorious political boss George Norcross (currently under investigation by the U.S. Attorney). The development will be done by Cherokee Partners – a firm that has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Norcross and Campbell’s party.

2. Campbell is a McGreevey appointee and was close to the Governor and the corrupt bosses that control politics in New Jersey. Outside his office, Campbell had a framed picture of Jim McGreevey, addressed to Campbell that said: “Thanks Brad.” Corzine cannot call himself a reformer if he re-appoints McGreevey holdovers.

1. Campbell approved the worst environmental law in the modern history of New Jersey and maybe the country. This so called “fast-track” bill allows developers to bypass the ordinary legal and environmental protections afforded land in New Jersey and continue to build uncontrollably. The Sierra Club and the entire environmental community opposed this measure because it endangers the remaining 20% of New Jersey that is open space. It was passed in a back-room deal, written behind closed doors, with the exclusive input of industry and without the environmental community.

I personally have witnessed Campbell’s failed management style.

In 2001 I represented, as a lawyer, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and various groups in New Jersey that wanted to stop the “Net and Bolt” torture of animals. We had a meeting with a Commissioner Campbell at his office.

Rather than listen to any of the facts or evidence regarding the costliness and ineffectiveness of killing deer, Commissioner Campbell spent the entire meeting ranting and raving about how “Net and Bolt’ was actually humane, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Campbell has a history of these outbursts. When Governor McGreevey was on statewide radio call in show, I called the show and pointed out that McGreevey had himself called the “Net and Bolt” deer slaughter “heinous” and he agreed that it was.

Minutes later I received a call from Campbell screaming about how I dare call the Governor and threatening to cancel a previously arranged meeting.

You can’t run a government agency by calling environmental advocates and shouting at them. You can’t be an environmental leader and favor torturing wildlife and loosening controls on developers.

Campbell tried this. It didn’t work. He must go and Corzine should find a new leader to protect the environment of New Jersey.

Carl J. Mayer

Carl J. Mayer, a lawyer, runs the blog devoted to ending corruption in New Jersey: www.newjerseyuntouchables.org.

Phone: 609-462-7979

THANK YOU, NEW JERSEY CITIZENS

2005-11-01T17:20:00.000-08:00

Thank you for the overwhelming response to the only blog devoted to ending criminal corruption in New Jersey. The support has been terrific. By assisting our work, you become part of a network of lawyers, activists and other professionals around the state working to clean up our democracy. Here is what you get for helping out:

1. You get the latest news on New Jersey corruption.
2. You get quality lawyers filing ethics complaints, district court actions, prosecutorial referals and other lawsuits all in an effort to eliminate graft in New Jersey.
3. You get to support whistleblowers whose information has sent dozens of New Jersey lobbyists and politicians to jail.

Don't forget to take our challenge and read the posting on Commerce Bank. If you reply, you are eligible for a copy of Shakedown: The Fleecing of the Garden State, the classic book on New Jersey corruption.

THE SPEECH THE GOV. CANDIDATES WOULD GIVE IF THEY WERE SERIOUS.

2005-10-25T20:15:00.000-07:00

THE SPEECH THAT WILL WIN DRUMTHWACKET

By Carl J. Mayer

With only days left in a close gubernatorial election that has focused almost exclusively on which candidate is the most corrupt, the following speech, delivered by either candidate, would bring home almost certain victory:

“Fellow citizens of New Jersey: I come before you this evening to make the most important announcement of my campaign.

I have today asked for the resignations of all my paid campaign advisors and professional consultants.

I intend, from this day forward, to restore the public’s trust in government, and I will do so by deed, not by word.

I have today instructed my financial advisors to sell all my holdings and invest the entire proceeds in New Jersey municipal bonds.

These bonds will be managed in a truly blind trust of which I will have no knowledge, other than the fact that my money is invested in a way that supports the people of New Jersey. As long as I govern this state, this is how my personal money will be handled and it will ensure the citizenry that I will have no conflicts and cannot benefit monetarily from government service.

Upon my election, I will open for a day the Governor’s mansion – Drumthwacket -- to every citizen in New Jersey who cares to come by with a suggestion or a greeting and I will personally shake each hand extended to me. Abraham Lincoln conceived of this practice, and it needs to be re-discovered.

Upon assuming office I pledge to immediately appoint as my Attorney General the most aggressive prosecutor I can find – from my opponent’s party.

I will appoint an Attorney General whose integrity is beyond reproach and who will have as his or her top priority ending corruption in New Jersey.

I will specifically instruct my Attorney General to interview every one of the so-called “Bosses” and lobbyists who run politics in New Jersey. I will direct my Attorney General to inquire of each Boss what knowledge he (there are only male Bosses) has of the dozens of local and county officials who have served jail terms for engaging in bribery, extortion and other violations of the public trust.

My first act as Governor will be to propose to the legislature a bill called the “Clean Money Act.” This measure has been adopted in other states, notably Arizona, Maine and Vermont. The Clean Money Act takes all private money out of politics. I know New Jersey taxpayers would rather pay a few extra bucks to have clean and honest elections if that means stopping the graft and the millions of taxpayer dollars sent down the rat hole of New Jersey fraud, dishonesty and bribery.

My second act will be to ban all no-bid contracts in the state of New Jersey so that never again will private interests fleece the taxpayer.

My third act will be to propose a constitutional convention for the specific purpose of enacting initiative and referendum in this state so that the people -- not the lobbyists --will control their own destiny.

Should I fail to act on any of these promises, I will immediately resign and call for a Special Election to fill the office with someone who will fight the corrosive graft that has become the hallmark of New Jersey government.

I have removed all of my attack commercials from the airways and will only campaign in person or by making this speech available in various media outlets for the duration of the campaign.

I hope each New Jersey citizen will join me in restoring faith and confidence in our common public endeavors.

Thank you and goodnight.”

Carl J. Mayer, an attorney, runs the only blog devoted to ending corruption in New Jersey: newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com.

LETTER ON REFORM IN DAILY PRINCETONIAN

2005-10-25T13:01:00.000-07:00

What Would Woodrow Wilson Think About Woodrow Wilson?
By Carl J. Mayer.

As a graduate of the Woodrow Wilson School’s undergraduate program (’81) I am quite impressed by the dedication Dean Slaughter applied to launching the 75th anniversary of the school.

Plainly, the anniversary celebration is a reflection of the renewed energy Dean Slaughter brings to the institution. I can personally vouch for the fact that, other than friends and family, my e-mail box is deluged with more invitations and updates from the Woodrow Wilson School than from any other quarter.

I can’t help wonder, however, what Woodrow Wilson himself would think of the direction of the Woodrow Wilson School as it celebrates its gala anniversary year.

Undoubtedly Wilson would have been impressed by the school’s renewed focus on foreign policy (and likely puzzled by the distinctly unilateralist flavor of many of the school’s offerings and assumptions) but Wilson’s most fundamental question would be: Where is the link between American democracy at home and our nation’s foreign policy abroad?

The core of Wilson’s thinking was that in order to lead by example, American democratic institutions need to be strengthened in order to foster the spread of democratic ideals around the globe. One of Wilson’s overriding concerns was the elimination of corruption in American politics and a steadfast belief that perfecting a clean and participatory democracy at home would serve as a model for other nations abroad.

In his book, Congressional Government, Wilson noted: "the voter, moreover, feels that his want of confidence in Congress is justified by what he hears of the power of corrupt lobbyists to turn legislation to their own uses. He hears of enormous subsidies begged and obtained... of appropriations made in the interest of dishonest contractors…”

These words could easily have been penned today but you will not find much discussion of this dimension of Woodrow Wilson’s thinking at the school today.

It is similarly puzzling that there is not one course offering on the problem of corruption in American politics at the Woodrow Wilson School.

Enter the word “corruption” in the Woodrow Wilson school website and up pop wonderful papers about monitoring graft in Indonesia and money-laundering in South Africa, but no studies of the most crooked state in the Union that is home to the Woodrow Wilson School: New Jersey. The abject venality of New Jersey politics – leading to the resignation of the last two state-wide elected leaders – has been the subject of academic commentary and has been chronicled relentlessly on the front pages of all of New Jersey’s major newspapers. A Quinnipiac University poll on New Jersey politics released yesterday found that a stunning 92% of New Jersey voters believe corruption is the leading issue in the state.

I am even told that an ethical or criminal transgression or two has occurred recently in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.

You would not know this, unfortunately, by following the Wilson School’s curriculum or even perusing the school’s conference schedule or paper offerings.

Were he to return from the great beyond Woodrow Wilson would undoubtedly be tremendously saddened to see that in New Jersey the Democratic Party that he led as a party of reform has become the party of graft and criminality. He would be doubly distraught to learn that an institution bearing his name is not leading the fight to understand and then combat the very roadblocks to true democracy that Wilson focused on when he perambulated the halls of Old Nassau.

Gradually, I believe, there is a growing awakening in the academy that the many fine papers and policy proposals on poverty, environmentalism, transportation and a host of other subjects go unread and unheeded by elected leaders who spend 24/7 supplicating themselves to special interests and raising corporate cash as fast as their fingers can dial.

Only when the problem of corruption (sometimes criminal) is studied, acted upon and then eradicated will the substantive ideas of many important scholars, laboring in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, have a chance to have a chance.

The biggest challenge for the Woodrow Wilson School today is quite simply that only a small minority of its graduates actually go into government service. The problem has become so acute that the school’s largest benefactors are now in well-known litigation.

As someone who has served in government and has been involved in politics it is no surprise why many choose not to serve. The overriding attitude of my classmates from ’81 is: why would you want to do that? They think politics and political service is cheap, phony, mercenary and above all crooked.

If the Wilson School re-captured Wilson’s own high-minded idealism and democratic vision, and focused on ending the reign of the special interests in American politics, maybe the school would attract more individuals dedicated to service and reform.

Carl J. Mayer, ’81.

Carl Mayer, an attorney, is the author of the book: Shakedown: The Fleecing of the Garden State. His blog is www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com. He can be reached at carlmayer@aol.com.

Phone: 609-462-7979

Cover-Up: Princeton Packet Refuses To Publish Letter On Commerce Bank Fees.

2005-10-25T12:28:00.000-07:00

To The Editor:

Edward J. McManimon III’s letter (The Packet, Oct. 14) suggests why Princeton taxes are so high: Mayor Marchand pays lawyers like Mr. McManimon through sweetheart no-bid contracts, while these same lawyers refuse to disclose the most elementary information owed taxpayers.

Mr. McManimon is stonewalling by refusing to release the amounts paid to Commerce Bank by Princeton taxpayers, as demanded in my October 7 letter. The taxpayers are entitled to this information, down to the penny, for every single transaction done by Commerce in Princeton Township and Borough, including the lavish counsel fees earned by Mr. McManimon.

In my letter, I revealed that Princeton Township did over $20 million in deals with the tarnished Commerce Bank between 1997 and 2002, yet Mr. McManimon refuses to release the amounts paid Commerce for those transactions.

Even worse, Mr. McManimon disingenuously reports only the partial fees taxpayers paid for one Commerce Bank transaction (out of several). He intentionally omits the amount paid to bond counsel (McManimon) or the “spread” which is where bankers make most of their money.

Mr. McManimon admits that Commerce does no-bid bond work for Princeton Township.

Mr. McManimon never denies that two of Commerce’s top executives were sentenced to jail only weeks ago for bribing government officials to obtain lucrative government business.

Mr. McManimon never denies that George Norcross -- the man the press calls “The Boss” of South Jersey and a Commerce board member -- was caught on tape threatening the Mayor of Palmyra, New Jersey. (A matter currently under investigation by the United States Attorney’s office.)

If you want to learn why your taxes are so high and New Jersey government is so corrupt, read Clint Riley’s series on Commerce Bank in the Bergen Record. Simply Google the following search: “Clint Riley Banking On Your Money”. Click on the first search result and read in devastating detail how Commerce Bank has systematically over-charged municipalities and taxpayers throughout the state by engaging in corrupt no-bid transactions. (Clint Riley, incidentally, is one of the best investigative reporters in the nation and won the prestigious Loeb journalism award for this series.)

When you are done reading this series, read the articles and the transcripts of George Norcross’ attempts to bribe the Mayor of Palmyra. (See: http://courierpostonline.com/specialreports/jca/.) The thuggish behavior by a Democratic Party Boss and Commerce Bank executive is so shocking that much of the language cannot be printed in a family newspaper like The Packet.

Here is my civics challenge to every Princeton citizen: if, after taking twenty minutes to read the above-mentioned documents, you do not believe Princeton should immediately cease business with Commerce Bank, I will send you a free copy of my book on corruption in New Jersey politics: “Shakedown: The Fleecing of the Garden State.” Just contact our web blog devoted to ending corruption in New Jersey: www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com.

Rather than terminating business with a tarnished institution, Mr. McManimon and Mayor Marchand continue to deny Princeton taxpayers their right to know.

Carl Mayer
Battle Road
609-462-7969

PRINCETON MAYOR MARCHAND DOES BUSINESS WITH CROOKED COMMERCE BANK

2005-10-06T19:20:00.000-07:00

To The Editor:

The only issue, alas, in the race for Governor is which candidate is more corrupt and beholden to corrupt special interests.

The campaigns, the press and the public acknowledge as much.

This is not surprising given that New Jersey has established a national reputation as probably the most politically crooked state in the Union.

Our last two state-wide elected officials – Jim McGreevey and Robert Torricelli—have resigned in disgrace after the indictments and convictions of their associates.

Every major paper in the state has published investigative series documenting in great detail how massive corruption and graft by both parties has ripped apart our democracy and led to some of the highest taxes in the nation.

Even by New Jersey standards it gets more bizarre. In one of the strangest letters in American political history, the chairman of the New Jersey Republican party wrote in August to the chairman of the New Jersey Democratic party. His request: if you promise not to drop your irreparably damaged gubernatorial candidate, we will not drop ours.

It is against this backdrop that I was surprised to learn that the elected Democratic leaders in Princeton Township do business with the very same elements at the center of state-wide criminality and corruption scandals.

In particular, I was shocked to learn that Princeton Township has used as its bond underwriter the notorious Commerce Bank. This bank, led by South Jersey political Boss George Norcross, had two of its senior executives convicted by a federal jury this year on charges of bribing politicians in return for receiving business. Commerce Bank was also implicated in another alleged scheme to bribe and extort the Mayor of Palmyra, a South Jersey town. (The matter is under investigation by the United States Attorney.)

It is doubly surprising then that Commerce Bank has done massive bond business with the Township of Princeton. Commerce bank has done over $20 million of bond business with Princeton Township in the period 1997-2002, the last year for which public figures were available.

The citizens of Princeton deserve to know exactly how much money was paid to Commerce bank for its “services” in borrowing money for the town. In other instances, investment banks have taken up to 25% of the amount of bonds issued for a town. (In a hypothetical example, say Princeton borrowed $1 million dollars, only $750,000 would go for projects in town while $250,000 would go into the pockets of politically connected investment bankers.)

The Democratic Party has run the town like its own fiefdom for decades and will never bring fiscal responsibility to Princeton. The predictable result: taxes up over 50% in five years. But the Republicans have not promised to end business with Commerce Bank or end no-bid contracts. If Republicans or Independents pledge to end this corrupt arrangement, they merit consideration. As for the incumbents, the citizens deserve answers within the week.

Carl Mayer, an attorney, is the author of the book: Shakedown: The Fleecing of the Garden State. His blog is www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com.
Phone: 609-462-7979

CORZINE GETS RICH ON BACKS OF NJ TAXPAYERS

2005-10-06T19:10:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 CONTACT: MAYER AND AFRAN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 609-921-0253 (office)
http://www.newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com 609-462-7979 (cell)
609-924-2075 (office)

MASSIVE NEW CORZINE CONFLICTS REVEALED
CORZINE: INVESTED IN CROOKED GAMBLING DEAL
CORZINE: WELFARE KING BLEEDING NJ TAXPAYERS
CORZINE: LIED ABOUT BLIND TRUST HOLDINGS

Watchdog attorneys Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer today revealed two massive new conflicts of interest involving Jon Corzine.

First the pair revealed that Goldman Sachs is moving to acquire Gtech, the company that operates the lottery system for the State of New Jersey. Corzine served as head of Goldman Sachs and maintains a financial stake in the firm worth tens of millions of dollars. The pair also revealed that Gtech is partners with the gambling firms Ballys and Harrahs: owners of New Jersey casinos. This raises the possibility that Corzine could not legally hold Goldman stock as Governor if Goldman is running New Jersey gambling interests.

Second, Afran and Mayer disclosed that while Jon Corzine was chair of Goldman Sachs the firm did billions of dollars of bond work for the State of New Jersey. Most of this work was done on a non-competitive basis resulting in over $110 million of dollars in no-bid pay-to-play fees for Goldman and Corzine. Goldman Sachs continues to do hundreds of millions of dollars in bond business with the state of New Jersey and Afran and Mayer called on Corzine to immediately divest all of his Goldman Sachs holdings and to write a letter to Goldman Sachs demanding that the firm give back its no-bid fees.

The corruption-fighting duo also questioned Corzine’s assertion that that his assets are in a “blind trust”. The so-called “blind trust” is run by Corzine’s former business partners and its massive holdings in Goldman Sachs stock violate Corzine’s own pledge to unload those shares.
“For more than six years now, Jon Corzine has hidden his finances from the people of New Jersey. First it was a deal brokered with Bob Torricelli and convicted felon Charlie Kushner to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a taxpayer funded arena in Newark. Then the loans and gifts he gave to the head of the union—which violated the law and resulted in his being investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee. Next we learned he invests with casino owner /corporate raider Carl Icahn, an investment that would be illegal if he were elected Governor. Now, we've learned that Goldman Sachs, from whom Mr. Corzine continues to derive substantial income, is trying to purchase Gtech, the company that has the contract to run New Jersey's lottery program. Conflict after conflict after conflict,” said Afran.

“In 2000, Mr. Corzine said he'd remedy conflicts by liquidating his holdings in Goldman. He didn't. He said he'd put his assets in a blind trust. He didn't. When he does chose to disclose information that would help shed light on the potential conflicts he has, he gives us the names of shell companies but tells us nothing about the business in which they are engaged. Mr. Corzine's financial arrangements make sense for a secretive businessman, but not for a man who wants to be Governor,” said Mayer

“The public has a right to know whether Jon Corzine is protecting their interest or protecting his own,” said Mayer. “Corzine turns out to be Senator Non-Disclosure, Senator Stonewall and Senator Conflicts all wrapped up in one. The Senator needs to sell his Goldman holdings and fully disclose, immediately.”

I. CORZINE PROFITS FROM GTECH: A CROOKED GAMBLING MONOPOLIST THAT RUNS NEW JERSEY’S LOTTERY

When Goldman Sachs announced on September 13, 2005 that it was moving to acquire Gtech, New Jersey citizens were probably not aware that Gtech runs the New Jersey lottery.

According to Corzine’s latest financial disclosure statements, the Senator has up to $50 million in Goldman Sachs stock and that would make him a major investor in the New Jersey lottery operator once the Goldman acquisition is consummated.
Even worse, from Corzine’s perspective, is the fact that Gtech is engaged in joint ventures with Bally’s and Harrahs, New Jersey casino operators. Gtech has a lottery video machine manufacturing deal with Bally Gaming. Gtech also entered into a joint venture with Harrah's Entertainment. Harrah's is the world's largest gaming company and operates New Jersey casinos.

Gtech has a particularly sordid history and the company has been investigated numerous times for bid-rigging and other violations, mostly stemming from its monopolistic practices and corrupt pay-to-play modus operandi. They include:

-- In 1998, Gtech founder Guy Snowden lost a libel battle over bribery allegations by British billionaire Richard Branson. Snowden's GTech and a Branson-led consortium were fighting to win England's national lottery business, the worlds largest. GTech won the bid. But after a London jury awarded Branson about $180,000 plus $1-million in legal costs, Snowden agreed to resign.” I’ve lobbied for 30 years, and I've never seen anything dirtier than lottery stuff," GTech lobbyist Barry Horenbein told the St. Petersburg Times in 1995.
-- The Securities and Exchange Commission launched a formal investigation of Gtech in 2004. Gtech is also being sued civilly by Brazil's Public Ministry over the company's contracts with Caixa Economica Federal, the state-owned bank that runs Brazil's lottery. Gtech has been plagued since 2003 by allegations of bribery involving the bank's awarding lottery contracts to the company
-- Snowden was called a "brutish executive" in a 1996 Fortune magazine article; Snowden built Gtech into the world's leading lottery vendor in fifteen years. According to Fortune, Gtech never lost a contract it went after. "Somebody was said to have the ear of a governor? He'd be retained by Gtech, often on the eve of bidding. A political contribution was needed to help a legislator see things from Gtech's point of view? Never a problem. Was a little wining and dining in order? Snowden would go all out," Fortune wrote.
--"We'd go to dinner with the lottery director and find out that Gtech had hired a yacht and taken out the whole goddamn legislature," said Hubert Plummer, the former president of Automated Wagering, Gtech's archrival. "It was like shooting your popgun, and they were firing a howitzer."
--Gtech's former national sales manager, J. David Smith, was convicted for fraud and bribery involving lotto lobbyists in New Jersey. In 1997 The Houston Chronicle reported that Smith boasted about bribing at least ten state legislators to ensure passage of the lottery bill in Texas and getting the contract for Gtech. The paper said a former Kentucky lottery official told investigators that in 1993 Smith named eight or ten Texas lawmakers he said he paid up to $10,000 apiece for "favorable consideration" of a lottery bill.
--The reported boast took place about six months after a major lottery push in a special Texas legislative session. Texas voters approved a state lottery in 1991, and Gtech began running its on-line games in 1992. Nora Linares, Texas Lottery Commission director, was fired in 1997 after confirming that a close friend -- an indicted state official who later went to prison -- worked as a Gtech consultant. In California, a Gtech lobbyist was captured on tape bragging that California's lottery director was "our gal."
-- With record $1 billion revenues Gtech operates lotteries in more than half the states, Gtech, as the nation's leading lottery contractor, is giving new meaning to lottos. Of 80 governments around the world relying on Gtech's lottery systems for smooth operation of their game
-- Gtech has paid its lobbyists a percentage of the lottery profits even after its former national sales manager was imprisoned on federal charges for kickbacks to lobbyists who helped land the New Jersey lotto contract
—Gtech is a monopolist. The company runs all five of the country's biggest state lottery systems - New York, Texas, Georgia, California and Florida. Altogether, GTech operates 26 of the 36 state lottery systems, plus the Washington, D.C., system and actually brags that it controls 70% of the world lottery market. serving 80 lotteries in 44 countries. This is not your “mamma's lottery, nor your father's grocery store,” as Gtech's annual report puts it. The corporation runs the lotteries in New Zealand, Turkey, Singapore, Estonia and Lithuania.-- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quotes Russ Davidson, the former chief financial officer of the Kentucky lottery, saying, "You're dealing with the dirtiest industry I've ever seen in my 30 years of doing business ...."-- According to an Associated Press article, over a 16-year period, GTech was the subject of four federal grand jury investigations-- David Rainey of the Lawrence Journal-Weekly reported that a former lottery worker in Kansas filed a sexual harassment suit against GTech, claiming she was ordered to dig up dirt on the deputy director of the Kansas lottery in order to make him susceptible to blackmail during negotiations with the company.-- On April 12, 1998, a gambling industry analyst proclaimed Gtech's ethical troubles were a thing of the past. On September 18, 1998, the Dallas Morning News reported that Gtech settled a lawsuit brought by former Texas lottery director Nora Linares in which she alleged Gtech hired her boyfriend to gain leverage over her. Less than two years later, on July 7, 2000, the Austin American Statesman reported that Gtech executives were forced to resign over a number issues, including failure to disclose a computer glitch to their clients that caused erroneous payments in millions of lottery transactions in Texas and Great Britain.--Gtech’s mission is to addict Americans to gambling. Its GameScape subsidiary has developed a colorful lotto game machine to appeal to a new generation of gamblers in the South. Using tactical marketing polls and cultural studies, Gtech has come up with HotTrax, a new interactive 3-D game featuring racecars speeding around a track. "Designed to appeal to consumers who don't ordinarily play traditional lottery or casino-style games, HotTrax stimulates a high level of player involvement and friendly competition," says Gtech's annual report. Gtech's gaming machines could be at all the racetracks, coin laundries and service stations. The company's marketing strategy is to place the machines everywhere there's a checkout counter, including service stations, groceries and malls. They want to make it simple to play the lotto on Gtech's new EZ Express, a self-service kiosk designed to be "an easy, fun way to play in busy retail settings," according to Gtech. Slot machines are called the "crack cocaine" of gaming, and Gtech could be inventing a new drug

II. GOLDMAN AND CORZINE: NJ’S CORPORATE WELFARE KINGS.

It is fitting that Goldman is set to acquire Gtech as both companies thrive by fleecing taxpayers around the nation.

Of particular interest in the New Jersey gubernatorial race is the fact that Goldman Sachs was a major recipient of no-bid contracts in New Jersey.

Afran and Mayer reported that Goldman Sachs has done billions of dollars worth of business with the state of New Jersey and related entities. Goldman Sachs was the underwriter on 16 bond deals between 1997 and 1999 – when Corzine chaired Goldman -- worth over 2.4 billion dollars.

Of the sixteen deals done while Jon Corzine was chairman of Goldman Sachs, 10 were non-competitive. On these deals Goldman fleeced New Jersey taxpayers by charging up to 26 percent of the deal. In all, Goldman Sachs fleeced New Jersey taxpayers for $110 million dollars on these no-bid deals

On at least three of the deals, Goldman was co-underwriter with George Norcross’ bank, Commerce Bank, all on a non-competitive basis. The attached spreadsheet lists all of Goldman Sachs bond deals for the years Corzine was Goldman chairman.

Goldman Sachs continues to be a major bond underwriter for New Jersey, creating further conflicts between Corzine's personal interests and the State's, the attorneyssaid. "Such conflicts will be rife throughout New Jersey’s state government, if Corzine is elected Governor and still holds Goldman Sachs stock," Mayersaid. "This year alone [2005], Goldman Sachs booked nearly one billion dollars in New Jersey government bond underwriting," Afran told reporters. (In 2005 Goldman wasawarded a $500 million underwriting bid for schools reconstruction and a $497million Port Authority bond.)

III. CORZINE’S “BLIND TRUST” IS A SHAM.

Afran and Mayer also criticized Corzine for failing to place all of his assets in a blind trust. Indeed, Corzine’s Goldman holdings are in what he calls a “blind trust” but the trust does not appear to be blind at all. It is managed by two former Goldman Sachs partners and by holding Goldman stock – and soon Gtech stock – Corzine is caught in exactly the conflicts many predicted.

“When multi-millionaire U.S. Sen. Jon S. Corzine ran for his seat six years ago, he promised voters he would place his assets in a blind trust. The move was to counter critics who charged that his portfolio, especially in a global investment banking and securities firm, could pose a conflict of interest.” (“Not All of Corzine’s Assets Are In Blind Trust As Promised,” The Asbury Park Press, August 5, 2005) Corzine in 2000 said: “We have pledged that we will put my assets in a blind trust if elected.” (“Campaign 2000: The New Jersey Senate Debate,” The New York Times, October 9, 2000)

Not only did Corzine not place his assets in a blind trust, he did not have the trust approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. “[A] review of his financial disclosure forms shows that Corzine, a Democrat seeking to become governor, has not put all of his assets in a blind trust. Moreover, the U.S. Senate ethics committee has not approved the trust that he has set up.” ( “Not All Of Corzine’s Assets Are In Blind Trust As Promised,” The Asbury Park Press, August 5, 2005)

Even worse, Corzine’s blind trust has the came mailing address as his Senate campaign committee. “And Corzine’s blind trust may not be that blind: The Newark mailing address for the trust is the same as his U.S. Senate campaign committee, according to his state financial disclosure form.” (“Not All Of Corzine’s Assets Are In Blind Trust As Promised,” The Asbury Park Press, August 5, 2005)

To get approved by the Senate Ethics Committee would require that the trust have an independent manager. “[G]etting approval [from the Senate ethics committee] means the agreement governing the trust would be a public record, and that Corzine would have to comply with strict Senate rules regulating such funds, including a requirement that the manager be independent, and not related to, the senator. ‘Once the ethics committee has approved it, it’s truly blind,’ said Pamela Gavin, the Senate’s superintendent of public records. ‘If it’s not a qualified blind trust, it has not been blessed by (the) ethics (committee).’”( “Not All Of Corzine’s Assets Are In Blind Trust As Promised,” The Asbury Park Press, August 5, 2005)

Mayer and Afran said that New Jersey voters should be outraged that Corzine’s “blind trust is managed by two former Goldman Sachs partners, one of whom is listed as an official with his Senate and Gubernatorial campaigns. “In 2001, Corzine told the Gannett News Service that two former Goldman Sachs partners, Jacob Goldfield and Chris Flowers, and a lawyer, Nancy Dunlap, would manage the blind trust. Dunlap is listed as an official with his U.S. Senate and gubernatorial political campaigns.” ( “Not All Of Corzine’s Assets Are In Blind Trust As Promised,” The Asbury Park Press, August 5, 2005) “This looks like an attempted Wall Street takeover of New Jersey government,” said Mayer

Even worse, Corzine’s blind trust share the same address as his actively managed funds. “JSC Investments LLC, The Corzine Blind Trust and another investment company called Wiley’s Corp. all share the same post office box with Corzine’s Senate campaign committee at One Riverfront Plaza in Newark, according to a state and federal filing. That post office box is paid for by the Corzine campaign.” (“Not All Of Corzine’s Assets Are In Blind Trust As Promised,” The Asbury Park Press, August 5, 2005)

According to Corzine’s 2004 Senate disclosure report, he owned between $86 million and $262 million in publicly held, and non-publicly held, assets. Between approximately 35 percent and 40 percent of that was in what Corzine calls The Corzine Blind Trust., “Not All Of Corzine’s Assets Are In Blind Trust As Promised,” The Asbury Park Press, August 5, 2005).

“Jon Corzine has a congenital inability to be honest with New Jersey voters about his own finances. Just by scratching the surface we learn that he and his Wall Street buddies at Goldman Sachs have been fleecing New Jersey taxpayers for years. We don’t believe that New Jersey voters want a wholesale takeover of New Jersey government by Wall Street that will enrich investment bankers and impoverish taxpayers” concluded Afran and Mayer.

IV. WATCHDOG ATTORNEYS DEMAND DIVESTMENT AND DISCLOSURE.

Afran and Mayer said that Corzine could only resolve his conflicts by doing the following:

Immediately divest all interests in Goldman Sachs, including stocks and options.
Immediately disclose how many hundreds of millions of dollars Goldman Sachs made on all New Jersey bond deals both while Corzine was Chairman of the firm and while he was Senator.
Disclose whether he or any of his staff discussed New Jersey bond deals with George Norcross.
Write a letter to Goldman Sachs CEO demanding that the firm return its no-bid fees and that it undertake only competitive deals in the future.
Place all his remaining assets in a qualified blind trust.
Promise to ban all no-bid bond contracts as Governor.
Release his severance agreement with Goldman Sachs and any other schedule of assets prepared during litigation so that the voters of New Jersey know what Corzine owns and therefore what are the possibilities for more conflicts.
Provide more information about Corzine’s secretive non-public assets and the specific holdings of the various shell companies, like Wiley's Corporation and JSC Investments.

“The time for disclosure is long over-due. Only with full disclosure can the people truly understand the nature and extent of Jon Corzine’s conflicts. People have a right to know more about the business of a man who wants to be their Governor,” said Mayer.

###