On November 7th I was originally informed by the pro-se office of the court that it was necessary to file the original complaint on the two defendants named in the action for the purpose of retaining my right to appeal the denial of the Order to Show Cause by Federal District Judge Hulwell asking for a Temporary Restraining Order, which I planned to do within the ten day time-frame for filing an interlocutory appeal as I filed a Notice of Appeal with the court on November 7th.

Since it was also determined to file an amended complaint prior to serving the original complaint for the purpose of adding additional defendants and monetary damages against all of the defendants, I visited the pro-se office a number of times prior to November 21st to review the entire process because I was proceeding "outside of the box" and wanted to insure that all of the legal documents were filed in a timely manner and in accordance to court defined procedures.

On November 21st a car was rented and a colleague was prepared to serve the original complaint on the New York State and New York City Boards of Election.  However, after filing the amended complaint, receiving the amended summons and instructions on serving the amended complaint I realized the original summons was not in my possession and did not recall receiving it although it was shown to me on November 7th.  I then asked the pro-se attorney for a copy of the original summons and was flatly told that "I do not have access to the file right now".    With that, I traveled by taxi back home to search my records for the original summons because I was also told by that same attorney that "I guarantee that you did not leave this office without the summons" of which such summons could not be located in my home after a thirty minute search although I found all other documents provided by the pro-se office. 

Because the clock is ticking on the time for appeal the pro-se office by immediately contacted by telephone to find out if the file was available for the purpose of copying the original summons while my colleague waited patiently in the rental car ready to serve the original complaint and summons.   Once again I was met with the same attitude that it was guaranteed that I had the original summons in my possession even though this particular attorney never met me prior to filing the amended the complaint on November 21st.  

After a determined stance that I did not have the original summons the attorney told me I could come to the office and make a copy from the open file area of the court, which I did and there was NOT A COPY of the original summons that could be photocopied.  Therefore, I could not serve the original complaint and summons on the two original defendants placing the appeal in jeopardy.

I then walked to the pro-se office (the adjacent office) to inform them there was no summons to copy and that's when I was faced with "there seems to be a confusion here" with the service of the papers on the defendants. I was dumbfounded at this "confusion" because of my focused attention to detail and especially in matters of great importance.

I was lastly informed at approximately 4:00 p.m. that the original complaint and summons did not have to be served on the original two defendants, which is contrary to the original directions provided that were verified and reverified on my visits to the pro-se office prior to November 21st. I was also informed that the only papers that had to be served on all defendants are the Order to Show Cause, the amended complaint and the amended summons, which makes absolutely no logical sense in terms of the appeal.

How will the two original defendants ever know what was originally filed against them and how can they respond with any type of answer in their defense?  Since the original complaint is officially part of the record how can the original complaint and summons not be served on the original two defendants?

In any event, the issue of the appeal,  the original summons and complaint will be vigorously pursued with the Chief Judge and Court Clerk.  

On another issue, the amended complaint was filed on November 21st adding three high level elected officials, one former elected official, two internet companies and one person who manages a political website to the complaint for their actions in violating my civil rights protected by the following laws:  The 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America; the Voting Rights Act; the Civil Rights Act; and the Americans with Disabilties Act (ADA).  

The relief requested from the court is to have the New York State Election Process be declared unconstitutional in terms of using signatures, getting "on the ballot", time to gather signatures for independent candidates, and vote counting and recounting procedures.   Additionally, monetary damages in the amount of sixty-three million dollars is requested for damages which is spread over all of the defendants in varying dollar amounts and were carefully determined based upon the continued violations of my civil rights that dates back to 1997.

The Questions:  Since I was told by another employee of the court the open file area does not close for lunch, why was I told "I do not have access to the file right now" and why was I not told when it was discovered the original summons was not in my possession that I could just walk into the adjacent office and make a copy of the original summons?  In addition to these questions and the fact there is "confusion" on the service of the original complaint and summons, the net result is that the appeal is now in jeopardy for being filed in a timely manner.  But fear not, all is not lost because there WILL be a trial by jury in the matter and the matter WILL be pursued to the United States Supreme Court if necessary!

Since the complaints have yet to be served on any of defendants, from a moral perspective, neither of the complaints can be posted on the website as of yet because fairness is an important part of my life.

Thank you for your anticipated patience in this matter.

Yours truly,

Bill Murawski
 

About the Original Complaint and Decision

.One day prior to the election in New York State, I filed a compaint against the New York State and the New York City Boards of Elections.  I also filed an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") asking the Court for a Temporary Restraining Order asking it to stay the election until the State Board of Elections could placing the names of William E. Murawski and Donald Winkfield on the ballot for Governor and Lt. Governor, respectively.  I also asked the Court to order the Board of Elections to use paper ballots only with a two-part  NCR for the purpose of the voter having a receipt for his or her records.  USDJ Holwell denied the request.

U.S. Dictrict Judge Holwell's decision on the matter is as follows.

"Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary restraining injunction is denied.  Plaintiff was aware that his name was not on the ballot no later than September 6, 2006.  Plaintiffs unjustified delay in seeking equitable relief is sufficient in itself to deny the requested relief.  A review of his papers further indicates that his claimed right to be on the ballot is lacking in merit leaving aside any merit of his other cliams, no reason is given why such claims were not asserted until the eleventh hour".

My opinion of the decision of Judge Holwell is listed below.

I intitially believed the reason Judge Holwell denied my request for equitable relief was because I was unfamiliar with the rules of filing complaints with the United States District Federal Court in the Southern District but after reviewing the decision and discussing the matter with Donald Winkfield, that opinion is no longer valid.

Judge Holwell did not address the issues raised regarding the violations of the freedom of speech clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America nor did he address the violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, AND he provided no standing case law supporting his opinion as to why  "Plaintiffs unjustified delay in seeking equitable relief is sufficient in itself to deny the requested relief."   Furthermore, Judge Holwell did not address the issue of the precedent set in 1999 when Alan Keyes was placed on the ballot in the Republican Primary in New York State for the Office of the President of the United States without submitting ONE SIGNATURE when he "piggybacked" on to complaint filed by John McCain to get on the ballot in 1999. Please see comments on the matter and what is written about the stringent rules of petitioning in New York State before the case was decided at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law.  And regarding the corrupted database of active registered voters in the City of New York that demonstates there are voters over the age of 150 years old, he ignored that one as well as the additional allegations against both election boards.

Regarding another issue in the matter, it was not until the morning of NOVEMBER 6, 2006 that I was notified in writing by the Special Counsel of the New York State Board of Elections that we were not officially on the ballot.  Furthermore, the document provided by the Special Counsel indicating that our petition was invalidated by the New York State Board of Elections STILL  did not bear any official seal or signature of any any offical of the board that we were not on the ballot, which by the way, I had been requesting from the Board of Elections a few days after we filed the petitons with it back in late August.  And it should be noted that the board did not post the certified ballot on its website until October 3, 2006.  Therefore, it is beleived that the statement made by Judge Holwell that we "officially and legally"  (my words)  knew that we were not on the ballot as early as a September 6, 2006 in my opinion is incorrect.

To be clear about it, the only piece of paper that was ever received from the board was one with only words printed on a plain white piece of paper upon which there was not an official seal of the State of New York Board of Elections or any officail signature affixed to the piece of paper.  So I ask you, would you pay a bill to a company that you had no prior contact with and especially since it came through the U.P.S. and not through the United States Postal Service?

As a result of all that is stated above, I filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the denial of the OSC. And just so everyone is aware, Judge Holwell was appointed by George W. Bush who was placed into the Office of President of the United States by the Supreme Court of the United States of America as a result of the many ballot and voting issues that ocurred during the Presidential Election in Florida in 2000 that resulted in nothing more than a "dog and pony" show for the world to see.

The text below regarding Judge Richard J. Holwell's nomination is from the website of a group  WashingtonWatch Dog.com

[Congressional Record: September 17, 2003 (Senate)] [Page S11623] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr17se03-180]

NOMINATION OF RICHARD J. HOLWELL, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.

The legislative clerk read the nomination of Richard J. Holwell, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Richard J. Holwell of New York to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York?

Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Richard J. Holwell, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Holwell is a 1970 cum laude graduate of Columbia Law School. The following year he earned his diploma in criminology from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology. He then entered private practice with the New York law firm White & Case, first as an associate, then as a partner. Currently, he heads the firm's global litigation practice.

Mr. Holwell has spent most of his professional career litigating complex securities, antitrust, bankruptcy, and other financial market cases before both trial and appellate courts. He has extensive experience in both civil and criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other Federal agencies.

Mr. Holwell has also been a zealous advocate for the underserved. In 1987, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund awarded him its Pro Bono Award for his successful litigation of Capers v. Long Island Rail Road, a 10-year protracted title VII case in which he fought to protect the rights of black employees. In addition to title VII suits, he has represented indigent clients in landlord-tenant and custody disputes.

Mr. Holwell is an extremely well-qualified nominee. He brings compassion as well as more than 30 years of legal experience to the Federal bench. I am confident that he will be a fine addition to the bench and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his confirmation

READ Can I Help?