.The Original Complaint and Order to Show Cause

Prior to the federal complaint filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York on Novemeber 6, 2006, which is  one day PRIOR TO  the General Election, considerable research was conducted over the course of the past seven years and during that time more than one-hundred election cases were reviewed.  However, there are a selected few election cases in recent history that are of great importance to the election process in New York State, at the very least.

When United States Senator John McCain could not get "on the ballot" for the Republican Presidential Primary Election in 1999, a complaint was filed in the because of the stringent signature requirements in New York State,  legal action had to be taken  into Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The name of John McCain was placed on the ballot without fulfilling the stringent signature requirements.   And since that "gift" was provied to McCain, while the Democratic Royalty thought no one was watching,  Alan Keyes was plaved on the same Republican Presidential Primary Election Ballot by piggybacking onto McCain's action, which set a precedent in New York State.

The name of  Alan Keyes was placed on the ballot in the State of New York for the Presidential Republican Primary  without submitting one signature!   Yes, not one signature was submitted to the New York State Board of Elections and now the Democratic Royalty must live by that decsion and the federal district courts must uphold the case law in the complaint filed in the Southern District Court on November 6, 2006 just as the federal court must uphold the Bush vs. Gore election case that somehow found  its way all the way to the United States Supreme Court!

Bush v. Gore was decided in a contentious 5 to 4 vote by the Court in favor of Plaintiff George W. Bush. Although it was a contentious decision, seven justices agreed on one issue alone -- the process of counting votes in Florida violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of Constitution of the United States, which goes to the heart of one of the issues of the complaint before the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Since the manner of counting votes is something that has already been ruled on in the highest court in the land, the federal district court must abide by the ruling of Bush v. Gore in every case thereafter regarding the methods by which votes are counted.

At the heart of Murawski v. Pataki, et al (originally Murawski v. Boards of Election) is the violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of Constitution of the United States Americ, of which the State of New York and all its elected officials were put on notice in the year 2000 as a result of  Bush v. Gore.  That was six years ago.

New York State is the last state to sign on with the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA") that was passed in 2002 to asssit in helping states repair the election process as a result of the Florida Fiasco (Bush v. Gore).

In November of 2004, the New York State and New York City Boards of Election were informed of  issues regarding the election process in the state and city raising contitutional questions, specifically violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of Constitution of the United States of America.  Information delivered to the boards of elections were also presented to other high ranking elected officials in the city, state and federal government and again the oath subcribed to by all to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America was intentionally ignored..

New York State and the leadership of it representatives "elected" by We the Preople have been intentionally negligent in their duty, responsibility and obligation to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.  All of them took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America when they were elected into office and instead chose to ignore their oath for personal gain.