Judge Keeps Freeze on Independence Party’s Funds |

On July 14, a New York lower state court refused to let the Independence Party of New York regain use of $1,100,000 that has been frozen for several months. The party received the money in 2009 from Mayor Mike Bloomberg. The party was supposed to use the money to hire a firm that would set up poll watchers across the city. The party gave most of the money to a company that, allegedly, did not do any work for the mayor. Instead the money was allegedly used by the company to buy a home for the company’s owner. That owner is the defendant in a criminal case that is still ongoing, Vance v Haggerty, 401544/10, Manhatten.

While the criminal case against the owner of the company is proceeding, the Independence Party is being required to keep the same amount of money frozen, so that (depending on the outcome of the criminal case) Mayor Bloomberg can be reimbursed. The Independence Party had been trying to be released from this order, but has not yet succeeded. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

Sotomayor (formerly USCA2C and now aka SCOTUS assoc justice) has said in USCA2C panel opinion:

“New York’s Election Law allows any individual, whether enrolled in a political party or not, to sign an independent nominating petition for elected office. See N.Y. Election Law §§ 6-138 and 6-140 (McKinney 1998). The plaintiffs are registered voters, not enrolled in any political party, who wish to restrict eligibility to sign independent nominating petitions to non-enrolled registered voters.

As for the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, we find that the plaintiffs have failed to allege injury-in-fact and, therefore, lack standing to assert this claim. See Lee v. Board. of Governors, 118 F.3d 905, 910 (2d Cir. 1997). The plaintiffs did not allege, for example, that they had circulated or intended to submit a nominating petition for any elected office. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555, 564 (1992). Moreover, the plaintiffs did not claim that the requirements of §§ 6-138 and 6-140 eliminated their associational right to have their nominating petitions signed by whomever they choose or coerced them into allowing enrolled party members to sign their petitions. To the extent that the plaintiffs claim to be injured by the increased burden §§ 6-138 and 6-140 place on the non-enrolled registered voter by increasing the percentage of signatures they must obtain in order to nominate a candidate, removal of the requirements would not eliminate the burden because New York election law requires a specific number of signatures regardless of whether enrolled party members are allowed to sign. See N.Y. Election Law 6-142 (McKinney 1998). We reject the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim because the plaintiffs have not shown that they were subjected to any intentional or purposeful discrimination, see Gelb v. Board. of Elections, 224 F.3d 149, 154 (2d. Cir. 2000), or that they have been treated differently from others similarly situated, see City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Finally, the plaintiffs’ due process claim fails because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that § 6-138 or § 6-140 causes something more than an unintended irregularity in the conduct of elections. See Gold v. Feinberg, 101 F.3d 796, 801 (2d Cir. 1996).”

Comments

Judge Keeps Freeze on Independence Party’s Funds — No Comments

Libertarian Voter on August 1, 2011 at 9:35 pm said:

If Bloomberg gets those funds, I bet he’ll use it for his presidential campaign with Americans Ele…oops, did I say that out loud?
natural born citizen party on August 2, 2011 at 1:18 am said:

Richard:
When are you going to blog the Strunk v NYS-BOE / SWP /IPNY et al case — hearing in Kings County NYSSC August 22, 2011?

re: political espionage role in the 2008 POTUS nomination in NYS of the RNC and DNC (and SWP) presidential candidates.

Assuming POTUS is ineligible, his signing of the federal debt ceiling Reid / McConnell “agreement” will be void and it will be debt ceiling Ground Hog Day revisited in several months — not two years after the next POTUS election.
natural born citizen party on August 2, 2011 at 1:29 am said:

Sotomayor (formerly USCA2C and now aka SCOTUS assoc justice) has said in USCA2C panel opinion:

“New York’s Election Law allows any individual, whether enrolled in a political party or not, to sign an independent nominating petition for elected office. See N.Y. Election Law §§ 6-138 and 6-140 (McKinney 1998). The plaintiffs are registered voters, not enrolled in any political party, who wish to restrict eligibility to sign independent nominating petitions to non-enrolled registered voters.

As for the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, we find that the plaintiffs have failed to allege injury-in-fact and, therefore, lack standing to assert this claim. See Lee v. Board. of Governors, 118 F.3d 905, 910 (2d Cir. 1997). The plaintiffs did not allege, for example, that they had circulated or intended to submit a nominating petition for any elected office. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555, 564 (1992). Moreover, the plaintiffs did not claim that the requirements of §§ 6-138 and 6-140 eliminated their associational right to have their nominating petitions signed by whomever they choose or coerced them into allowing enrolled party members to sign their petitions. To the extent that the plaintiffs claim to be injured by the increased burden §§ 6-138 and 6-140 place on the non-enrolled registered voter by increasing the percentage of signatures they must obtain in order to nominate a candidate, removal of the requirements would not eliminate the burden because New York election law requires a specific number of signatures regardless of whether enrolled party members are allowed to sign. See N.Y. Election Law 6-142 (McKinney 1998). We reject the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim because the plaintiffs have not shown that they were subjected to any intentional or purposeful discrimination, see Gelb v. Board. of Elections, 224 F.3d 149, 154 (2d. Cir. 2000), or that they have been treated differently from others similarly situated, see City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Finally, the plaintiffs’ due process claim fails because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that § 6-138 or § 6-140 causes something more than an unintended irregularity in the conduct of elections. See Gold v. Feinberg, 101 F.3d 796, 801 (2d Cir. 1996).”
natural born citizen party on August 2, 2011 at 1:43 am said:

#2 scribd.com link

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55841693/NOM-Transfer-With-Exhibits-Strunk-v-NYS-BOE-et-al-NYS-Sup-Ct-Cty-Kings-Index-6500-2011
Pingback: Judge Keeps Freeze on Independence Party’s Funds | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Leave a Reply