Civil Action: County of Burlington, and State of New Jersey, and Plaintiff Pro Se Frederick John LaVergne, residing at

Transcription

1 Edward Forchion 1020 Hanover Boulevard Browns Mills, New Jersey Telephone: (818) Plaintiff Pro Se Frederick John LaVergne 312 Walnut Street Delanco, New Jersey Telephone: (856) Plaintiff Pro Se EDWARD FORCHION and FREDERICK JOHN LaVERGNE, Plaintiffs, vs. KIMBERLY GUADAGNO, New Jersey Lt. Governor and New Jersey Secretary of State; AIMEE BELGARDE, Democratic Candidate for Congress in the Third Congressional District of New Jersey; and DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - CIVIL PART MERCER COUNTY DOCKET NO. Civil Action: VERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendants. Plaintiff Pro Se Edward Forchion, residing at 1020 Hanover Boulevard in the town of Browns Mills, County of Burlington, and State of New Jersey, and Plaintiff Pro Se Frederick John LaVergne, residing at 312 Walnut Street in the town of Delanco, County of Burlington, and State of New Jersey, by way of Verified Complaint against the named defendants say as follows: The Parties: FIRST COUNT: 1. Plaintiff Edward Forchion (hereinafter Forschion ) is a candidate seeking the public elective Office of the United States House of Representatives for the Third Congressional District in New Jersey at

2 the November 2014 General Election. Forschion is running with the slogan Legalize Marijuana Party. Forschion filed a Nominating Petition with the New Jersey Division of Elections on or before 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 3, 2014 seeking access as a candidate to the 2014 General Election Ballot. After the required preliminary review, the New Jersey Division of Elections found Forschion s Nominating Petition to facially comply with law and to facially have sufficient valid signatures so as to meet the statutory requirements of New Jersey Elections Laws as found in Title 19. As the Division of Elections found the Nominating Petition to facially comply with the law, the Nominating Petition was then filed by the Division of Elections and from that point on was a public document available for inspection by anyone who may seek to review the Nominating Petition for review for legal deficiencies so as to bring a statutory objection to the Nominating Petition as permitted by and within the time frame outlined in N.J.S.A. 19: Plaintiff Frederick John LaVergne (hereinafter LaVergne ) is a candidate seeking the public elective Office of the United States House of Representatives for the Third Congressional District in New Jersey at the November 2014 General Election. LaVergne is the chosen candidate of the Democratic-Republican Organization of New Jersey and is seeking to run with the slogan Democratic-Republican, although to date the Division of Elections has only approved the alternative slogan D-R Party. LaVergne filed a Nominating Petition with the New Jersey Division of Elections on or before 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 3, 2014 seeking access as a candidate to the 2014 General Election Ballot. After the required preliminary review, the New Jersey Division of Elections found LaVergne s Nominating Petition to facially comply with law and to facially have sufficient valid signatures so as to meet the statutory requirements of New Jersey Elections Laws as found in Title 19. As the Division of Elections found the Nominating Petition to facially comply with the law, the Nominating Petition was then filed by the Division of Elections and from that point on was a public document available for inspection

3 by anyone who may seek to review the Nominating Petition for review for legal deficiencies so as to bring a statutory objection to the Nominating Petition as permitted by and within the time frame outlined in N.J.S.A. 19: Defendant Kimberly Guadagno is sued in her official capacity as the Lieutenant Governor / Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey. In her official capacity as the Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, defendant Guadagno is the Chief State Election Official and is ultimately in charge of the State of New Jersey, Department of State, Division of Elections. The Division of Elections is charged by law in the first instance with interpreting and enforcing various New Jersey State Election Laws as outlined in New Jersey Statutes Title 19 and elsewhere regarding elections for federal offices and for statewide offices. The New Jersey Division of Elections is charged by law with accepting and approving Nominating Petitions who obtain access to the General Election Ballot through use of the Primary Election and Nomination and Petition process for those seeking the elected public office of United States Representative. The New Jersey Division of Elections is located at 225 West State Street 5 th Floor in the City of Trenton, in the County of Mercer, in the State of New Jersey. 4. Defendant Aimee Belgarde (hereinafter Belgarde ) is the candidate of the New Jersey State Democratic Party who will be seeking the public elective Office of the United States House of Representatives for the Third Congressional District in New Jersey at the November 2014 General Election. Defendant Belgarde obtained access as a candidate to the November 2014 General Election Ballot by winning the Primary Election on June 3, 2014 over the other candidate whose name appeared on the Primary Election Ballot. Defendant Belgarde is therefore entitled to use the slogan Democratic on the November 2014 General Election Ballot.

4 5. Defendant New Jersey State Democratic Committee is an incorporated business entity with principle place of business located at 196 West State Street, Trenton, New Jersey. Defendant New Jersey Democratic State Committee has achieved statutory political party status as per N.J.S.A. 19:12-1 and therefore selects candidates at a Primary Elections. The Facts: 6. Six calendar days after the Nomination Petition filing deadline of June 3, 2014 at 4:00 p.m., specifically on Monday June 9, 2014 after 4:00 p.m., defendants Belgarde and the Democratic State Committee started the process of seeking to bring a statutory N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 objection to the Nominating Petition of Edward Forschion. 7. More specifically, on June 9, 2014 at 4:03 p.m. a two page letter was faxed to the Division of Elections by Rajiv D. Parikh, Esq., on behalf of his client the Democratic State Committee objecting to the Nominating Petition of Forschion. A true copy of the letter is attached hereto at Exhibit A and made a part hereof. As can be seen, the letter by its own terms is dated Monday June 9, 2014 and was sent that date by fax to the Division of Elections. Also on June 9, 2014 the original signed copy of that two page letter was sent to the Division of Elections by UPS overnight with the intention that the original would arrive at the Division of Elections on Tuesday June 10, 2014, seven (7) days after the June 3, 2014 statutory deadline for the filing of Nominating Petitions. Stated somewhat more directly, the defendants statutory N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 objection was first ever faxed (but not filed ) on Monday June 9, 2014, which is six days after the June 3, 2014 statutory deadline for the filing of Nominating Petitions, and the defendants statutory N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 objection was not filed until it arrived by UPS overnight at the Division of

5 Elections on Tuesday June 10, 2014, which is seven days after the June 3, 2014 statutory deadline for the filing of Nominating Petitions. 8. Over the objections of Forschion, late in the evening of Monday June 9, 2014, which is six days after the June 3, 2014 statutory deadline for the filing of Nominating Petitions, defendant Guadagno referred the defendants statutory N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 objection to the Office of Administrative Law to conduct an Administrative Hearing and to make a recommendation as to what defendant Guadagno should do regarding the defendants statutory N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 objection to Forschion s Nominating Petition. Forschion was advised by telephone by the Division of Elections late in the evening of Monday June 9, 2014 that he was required to appear at a hearing the next day at 11:00 a.m. before an Administrative Law Judge June 10, 2014 regarding the defendants statutory N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 objection to his Nominating Petition. 9. On Tuesday June 10, 2014 (now seven days after the June 3, 2014 statutory deadline for the filing of Nominating Petitions) Forschion appeared at the Office of Administrative Law. Forschion objected to the case from proceeding as the defendants statutory N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 objection was not filed after the expiration of the four day deadline specifically fixed in N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 within which time any objection to a filed Nominating Petition must be filed. The ALJ s Initial Opinion stated that Forshion contends that the petitioner s challenge is improper, as it was neither timely nor filed by a proper party to the case. See (Amended) Initial Decision in Democratic State Committee v. Edward Forchion, O.A.L. Docket No. STE (June 12, 2014 by Honorable Robert Bingham, II, A.L.J.). Over Forschion s objections, the Court reserved on deciding this issue of timeliness and nevertheless proceeded with the hearing over Forschion s objections.

6 10. At the hearing the Democratic State Committee produced no witnesses and no one appeared on behalf of the Democratic State Committee other than their attorney. Over Forschion s objections the attorney for the Democratic State Committee, Rajiv D. Parikh, Esq., was allowed to both represent the Democratic State Committee and appear as the witness presenting the case of the Democratic State Committee. Such was a clear violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, specifically including R.P.C. 3.7 which prohibits a lawyer from acting as an advocate at trial in which the lawyer is a witness. Here Parikh was not merely a witness for the defendants, he was the only witness for the defendants. (See (Amended) O.A.L. Initial Decision, Id., Witness List, confirming no witnesses called by Petitioner to meet their burden). The OAL hearing continued all day and into the early morning hours of Wednesday June 11, It was not until June 12, 2014 that the Administrative Law Judge issued his initial decision. Plaintiff Forschion filed anticipatory exceptions to the Initial Decision with the Division of Elections on July 12, 2014 by hand delivering and fling (not faxing) the exceptions with the Division of Elections before the Initial Decision was even rendered. It is noted that N.J.S.A. 19:13-11 required that defendant Guadagno to file her determination on the objection in [her] office on or before the ninth day after the last day for the filing of petitions, which was June 12, See Id. Defendant Guadagno failed to meet the nine day June 12, 2014 N.J.S.A. 19:13-11 statutory deadline for filing her decision on the defendants objection. In his exceptions Forschion argued primarily that the defendant s objections were not filed timely and therefore could not as a matter of law have been properly considered as it was out of time. 12. The next morning, with defendant Guadagno now already out of time by one day to file her determination on the defendant s objection, plaintiff LaVergne, a candidate in the same election whose

7 rights will be affected by any decision, filed written exceptions to the Initial Decision on the morning of June 13, 2014, before defendant Guadagno took any action, by hand delivering the exceptions and filing the exceptions with the Division of Elections. In his exceptions LaVergne argued primarily that the defendants objections were not filed timely and therefore could not as a matter of law have been properly considered as it was out of time. 13. Late on the evening on Friday June 13, 2014, after the deadline required by N.J.S.A.19:13-11 had already passed, defendant Guadagno filed her Final Decision. See Democratic State Committee v. Edward Forchion, Final Decision, O.A.L.Docket No. STE (June 13, 2014, Kimberly M. Guadagon, Secretary of State). In that Final Decision, defendant Guadagno found that [b]y fax dated June 9, 2014, petitioner [Democratic State Committee] filed written objections to the validity of the petition. Id. at page 1. Defendant Guadagno also improperly rejected several otherwise valid signatures on Forschion s Nominating Petitions such that confirms that there are at least 100 valid signatures. 14. N.J.S.A. 19:13-10, the Title 19 Nominating Petition challenge statute, provides as follows: Every petition of nomination in apparent conformity with the provisions of this Title shall be deemed valid, unless objection thereto be duly made in writing and filed with the officer with whom the original petition was filed not later than the fourth day after the last day for the filing of petitions If such objection is made, notice thereof, signed by such officer shall forthwith be mailed to the candidate, who may be affected thereby, addressed to him at his place of residence as given on the petition of nomination. [N.J.S.A. 19:13-10]. 15. This cited statute relied upon by defendants as the basis for their statutory objection to the validity of Forschion s Nominating Petitions, N.J.S.A. 19:13-10, by its clear and express terms fixes a mandatory

8 statutory deadline requiring that any N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection to a Nominating Petition must be filed with the New Jersey Division of Elections not later than the fourth day after the last day for the filing of petitions. (Emphasis added). Since the last day for the filing of petitions at issue here was Tuesday June 3, 2014, it can not be disputed that as a matter of fact and law that the the fourth day after the last day for the filing of petitions was Saturday June 7, N.J.S.A. 19:11-1 provides as follows: [N.J.S.A. 19:11-1]. Should the day for the filing of any petition, declaration, resignation, instrument in writing or other paper or document required to be filed in any office under the provisions of this title, or for the performance of any duty required by this title by any person, candidate or official, fall on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, or any legal holiday, such filing or performance of duty shall be effected upon the next following business day. (Emphasis added). 17. More directly stated, [s]hould the day for the filing of any instrument in writing or other paper or document required to be filed in any office under the provisions of [the Elections Laws of Title 19], fall on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, such filing shall be effected upon the next following business day. Id. 18. The legislature specifically included in the Election Laws in N.J.S.A. 19:11-1 an exception to any specifically stated Title 19 Election Law deadline for any specific filing date when the filing date happens by circumstances to fall on a Sunday. In such a case (where a filing deadline falls on a Sunday) then the filing deadline is extended to the next business day (expected to be the next day Monday, unless such Monday is a holiday). There is no such specific statutory extension for when circumstances are such that

9 a filing deadline falls on a Saturday. By specifically including only SUNDAY in the N.J.S.A. 19:11-1 extension, the legislature thereby specifically excluded the day of SATURDAY from such extension. 19. Stated otherwise, the fourth day deadline for the filing of any N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection to Forschion s Nominating Petition was Saturday June 7, As N.J.S.A. 19:11-1 only grants an extension for filing when a deadline falls on a Sunday, there is no extension that applies here, and the deadline for anyone to file a N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection to Forschion s Nominating Petition passed at midnight (or 11:59 and 59 seconds p.m.) on Saturday June 7, It is undisputed that defendants did not even fax their N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection to Forschion s Nominating Petition until late in the day on Monday June 9, 2014, already two days out of time. 21. It is moreover undisputed that defendants did not literally file their N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection to Forschion s Nominating Petition until Tuesday June 10, Whether faxing: and filing can be treated by the Division of Elections as the same for purposes of N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 is a question that need not necessarily be decided as by this Court to dispose of this case in plaintiffs favor as neither (faxing or filing) took place until Monday June 9, 2014, at that time already two days out of time. As the defendants N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection to Forschion s Nominating Petition was untimely under N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 and N.J.S.A. 19:11-1 in the first instance, the statutory objection is barred by law and may not be (and should not have been) considered by defendant Guadagno and should have been dismissed. As the N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection was untimely, defendant Guadagno has no legal authority to remove Forchion s name from the General Election Ballot.

10 23. N.J.S.A. 19:13-12 provides in relevant part as follows: Any judge of the Superior Court, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the electors of the entire State or more than one county thereof, and in all other cases a judge of the Superior Court assigned to the county in which any petition of nomination shall be filed, on the application or complaint, duly verified, of any candidate, which application or complaint shall be made on or before the twelfth day after the last day for the filing of petition, setting forth any invasion or threatened invasion of his rights under the petition of nomination filed with the Secretary of State or with any county clerk, shall hear such application or complaint in a summary way and make such order thereon as will protect and enforce the rights of such candidates, which order or determination shall be filed within three days after the filing of the application or complaint. * * * [N.J.S.A. 19:13-12]. 24. N.J.S.A. 19:13-12 statutorily authorizes a candidate who is suffering any invasion or threatened invasion of his rights under the petition of nomination filed with the Secretary of State (emphasis added) to file a verified application or complaint with the Superior Court for relief. The statute by its terms refers to rights, which includes Constitutional, statutory and other rights. Any such verified application or complaint must be filed with the Superior Court on or before the twelfth day after the last day for the filing of petitions. Id. As the last day for the filing of petitions was Tuesday June 3, 2014, the twelfth day after June 3 is June 15, 2014, which is a Sunday. As June 15, 2014 is a Sunday, this means that the filing deadline (not the faxing deadline) for any Candidate to bring an N.J.S.A. 19:13-12 statutory challenge is, by operation of N.J.S.A. 19:11-1, extended to close of business on Monday June 16, As the defendants N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection to Forschion s Nominating Petition was untimely under N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 and N.J.S.A. 19:11-1 in the first instance, the statutory objection is barred by law and may not be (and should not have been) considered by defendant Guadagno and should have been

11 dismissed. In this regard, defendant Guadagno s consideration of the defendants objection, and defendant Guadagon s Final Decision removing plaintiff Forchion from the General Election Ballot, must be declared contrary to law and invalid and a nullity, and this Court must Order that plaintiff Foreschion s name be included on all November 2014 General Election Ballots for the elected public office of Representative in the Third District. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants individually, jointly or severally as follows: A) Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C declaring that the N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection of Belgarde and the Democratic Committee to Forschion s Nominating Petition was untimely under N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 and N.J.S.A. 19:11-1 in the first instance as it was not filed (faxed or otherwise) by the statutory four day statutory deadline of Saturday June 7, B) Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C declaring that it was a clear violation of the rights of Forechion and LaVergne under Title 19 of New Jersey Statutes and Article I, 4, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution (commonly referred to as the Elections Clause ) and the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution for defendant Guadagno to even entertain the N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection of Belgarde and the Democratic Committee to Forschion s Nominating Petition;

12 C) Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C declaring that it was a clear violation of the rights of Forechion and LaVergne under Title 19 of New Jersey Statutes and Article I, 4, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution (commonly referred to as the Elections Clause ) and the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution for defendant Guadagno to Order Foreschion s name be taken off of the 2014 General Election Ballots for the Office of Representative in the Third District; D) Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C declaring that faxing and filing are not synonymous in N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 and that mere faxing does not comply with a statutory requirement of filing; E) Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C declaring that petitioners Belgarde and Democratic State Committee, in failing to call any witnesses, failed to meet their burden under law as a matter of law as is required for an N.J.S.A. 19:13-10 statutory objection ; F) Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C declaring defendant Guadagno s June 13, 2014 FINAL DECISION a nullity as being entered without any legal authority or jurisdiction to do so as the initial ;

13 G) Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C directing that Foreshon s name and slogan be restored to all 2014 General Election Ballots for the elected public office of Representative in the Third District; and H) In the event that the Court does not enter the relief in paragraphs (A) through (G) substantially as requested herein, that alternatively Judgment pursuant to the New Jersey Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51 et. seq. and / or 42 U.S.C be entered directing that plaintiff Foreshon shall be entitled to present evidence and supplement the record to demonstrate that that signers of his Nominating Petition were improperly rejected by defendant Guadagno; and

14 I) In any or either event, Judgment awarding costs, attorneys fees, and such further relief as the Court deems fair, just and equitable. Dated: Edward Forchion Plaintiff Pro Se Dated: Frederick John LaVergne Plaintiff Pro Se

15 Edward Forchion hereby certifies as follows: Verification: 1. I am the plaintiff in the within matter and as such I am fully familiar with all facts relevant to this case. 2. All facts contained in this Verified Complaint are true. All Exhibits attached to this Verified Complaint true copies of the original documents. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false I am subject to punishment. Dated: Edward Forchion Plaintiff Pro Se Verification: Frederick John LaVergne hereby certifies as follows: 1. I am the plaintiff in the within matter and as such I am fully familiar with all facts relevant to this case. 2. All facts contained in this Verified Complaint are true. All Exhibits attached to this Verified Complaint true copies of the original documents. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false I am subject to punishment. Dated: Frederick John LaVergne Plaintiff Pro Se

16 Certification under R. 4:5-1: Edward Forchion hereby certifies as follows: 1. I am the plaintiff in the within matter and as such I am fully familiar with all facts relevant to this case. 2. I know of no other parties that should be joined in this action. 3. I know of no other actions or arbitration proceedings involving this controversy and none are contemplated except as follows: NONE. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false I am subject to punishment. Dated: Edward Forchion Plaintiff Pro Se Certification under R. 4:5-1: Frederick John LaVergne hereby certifies as follows: 1. I am the plaintiff in the within matter and as such I am fully familiar with all facts relevant to this case. 2. I know of no other parties that should be joined in this action. 3. I know of no other actions or arbitration proceedings involving this controversy and none are contemplated except as follows: Legal Challenge to the right to use the slogan Democratic-Republican and legal challenge to ballot preference for the Democratic and Republican Candidates on the General Election Ballot. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false I am subject to punishment. Dated: Frederick John Lavergne Plaintiff Pro Se