{news} Nader-Camejo's Letter to PA Gov. Rendell (high costs of petitions )

[Tim McKee]

Forwarded by Carl Romanelli, who writes:
"[Y]esterday the PA Supreme Court declined to
hear our request for reargument.  Sam Stretton
(one of my attorneys) wants to appeal to the US
Supreme Court.   I have been calling the conduct
of the court and the PA Dept of State criminal. 
I've publicly been asking the PA Attorney General
to expand the current investigation to include
review of both.  This is a classic case of
conspiracy with the court as a player.  Nader's
letter is the story today."


Ralph Nader
Peter Miguel Camejo
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, D.C. 20009
January 23, 2008

Governor Edward G. Rendell
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Dear Governor Rendell,

Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins
recently announced his interest in filling the
vacancy on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court created
by Chief Justice Ralph Cappy?s retirement. As
concerned citizens who have firsthand experience
with Judge Colins? jurisprudence, we are writing
to urge you to reject his bid for appointment to
this position. In our experience, Judge Colins
lacks the legal acumen and judicial temperament
necessary for a successful tenure as a Justice of
the Commonwealth?s high court.

Judge Colins presided over a challenge to the
nomination papers we submitted in Pennsylvania as
candidates for President and Vice President
during the 2004 general election. In setting
aside our nomination papers, Judge Colins issued
an opinion in which he falsely accused our
campaign of seeking to gain ballot access by
fraud. This false accusation ? in Judge Colins?
characteristically hyperbolic style ? was
publicized widely, both during and after the
election. As Judge Colins? own factual findings
prove, however, his accusation is not only false,
but a mathematical impossibility.

The Nader-Camejo campaign submitted a nomination
petition with 51,273 signatures to satisfy a
requirement of 25,697 signatures. Judge Colins
counted 49,499 of these signatures either as
valid, or invalid based on narrow technical or
procedural grounds, and another 1,087 signatures
as duplicates. Finally, Judge Colins counted a
tiny number of signatures ? 687 or 1.3 percent of
the total ? as ?forgeries,? a category that
included phony or fictitious names signed by
people bent on sabotage or mischief, which a
review of the petition prior to submission failed
to detect. In fact, pursuant to this review, our
campaign had already struck approximately 7,000
such signatures before submitting the petition,
because they were obviously the result of
sabotage or mischief.

After summarizing these findings, Judge Colins
inexplicably concluded that the petition was ?the
most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever
perpetrated upon this Court,? and that the
petition included ?thousands of names that were
created at random.?

Simply put, these accusations are false, and
demonstrably so. Judge Colins? own findings
indicate that he counted 50,586 out of 51,273
signatures (or 98.7 percent) as free from any
possible impropriety. Judge Colins? claim that
the petition included ?thousands? of fraudulent
signatures is therefore a mathematical
impossibility.

In short, Judge Colins? false accusations against
the Nader-Camejo campaign constitute a gross and
flagrant distortion of the facts in this case.

Justice Thomas Saylor, who was the only member of
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to address Judge
Colins? accusations on the merits, accordingly
concluded that the record contains ?no evidence?
to support them. (The other members of the high
court, by contrast, upheld Judge Colins? decision
without opinion, issuing an unsigned order that
was only three sentences long.) Nevertheless,
Judge Colins never issued a correction, despite
receiving notice from Justice Saylor not only of
his egregious error of fact, but also regarding
errors of law constituting grounds for reversing
his entire decision.

Worse, Judge Colins, who was elected to the bench
as a Democrat, subsequently ordered us to pay
$81,102.19 in litigation costs to Reed Smith,
LLP, the corporate law firm that challenged our
nomination papers in cooperation with
Pennsylvania House Democratic leaders H. William
DeWeese, Michael Veon and a reported 170
Democratic Party ?volunteers? Mr. DeWeese and Mr.
Veon recruited.

No state in the nation, including Pennsylvania,
has ever taxed candidates for public office with
such costs. Indeed, Judge Colins? unprecedented
order functions much like a poll tax, effectively
penalizing candidates for attempting to run for
office, just as poll taxes once penalized voters
for attempting to vote.*

The impact of Judge Colins? mishandling of our
case has been immediate, farreaching and severe.
In Pennsylvania?s 2006 general election, only one
minor party candidate, Carl Romanelli of the
Green Party, was willing to risk personal
financial ruin by defending his nomination papers
against attack by Democratic Party challengers.

Now Mr. Romanelli, too, is fighting an order to
pay more than $80,000 in litigation costs to a
corporate law firm, Thorp, Reed and Armstrong,
that the Democratic Party retained to force him
off the ballot. Furthermore, because no other
minor party candidate ran for office in 2006, the
state of Pennsylvania no longer recognizes the
formerly-qualified Constitution, Libertarian and
Green Parties. Judge Colins? order taxing
candidates? rights to speak, petition and
assemble within Pennsylvania?s electoral system
therefore ultimately punishes Pennsylvania?s
voters, leaving them with fewer voices in the
political sphere and fewer choices at the
polls.**

Only Judge Colins himself knows how or why he so
grossly mishandled our case, issuing an opinion
that his own facts contradict, followed by an
unprecedented judgment punishing core protected
First Amendment activity. Nevertheless, Judge
Colins? conduct in this case falls far short of
the high standards of judicial excellence
necessary for appointment to the Commonwealth?s
high court. We call on you to apply these
standards and disqualify Judge Colins from your
consideration. James Gardner Colins is not fit
for appointment to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court.

We enclose the opinions from our case for your
review, and urge you to confirm the foregoing
facts for yourself.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Peter Miguel Camejo
2004 Independent Candidates for President and
Vice President

* In keeping with its recent practice of
abdicating its role as the nation?s highest
appellate court, the Supreme Court of the United
States declined to review this case.
Nevertheless, Judge Colins? unprecedented order
clearly violates Supreme Court precedents
prohibiting states from requiring candidates and
voters to pay costs associated with holding
elections. See Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709
(1974) (striking down candidate filing fees
ranging up to $982); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S.
134 (1972) (striking down candidate filing fees
ranging up to $8,900); Harper v. Virginia Bd. of
Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (striking down
poll taxes).

**Although a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court
upheld Judge Colins? taxation of costs in our
case, that court appears to have reconsidered,
and recently reversed and remanded the
Commonwealth Court?s taxation of costs against
Mr. Romanelli






    


***********************************************************************
  Tim McKee
  Manchester CT
  Home-860-643-2282
  Cell-860-778-1304
  Tim McKee, is a National Commitee member of the Green Party of the United States and is a spokesperson for the Green Party of CT.
  BLOG- http://TheBigGreenPicture.blogspot.com/

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080124/c066358f/attachment.html>