IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 645 M.D. 2010 In Re: Nomination Papers of James D. Schneller As Candidate for the United States Congress in the Seventh District Patricia A. Wechsler and Ernest S. Angelos Objectors NOTICE TO DEFEND - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS To: Patricia A. Wechsler , Ernest S. Angelos Pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, you are hereby notified to file a written response to the attached preliminary objections, within 14 days from service thereof or a judgment may be entered against you. _______________________________________ James D. Schneller pro se 500 East Lancaster Avenue # 111D Radnor, PA 19087 610-688-9471 ___________________________________________ James D. Schneller pro se 500 East Lancaster Avenue # 111D Radnor, PA 19087 610-688-9471 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Nomination Papers of James D. Schneller As Candidate for the United States Congress in the Seventh District Patricia A. Wechsler and Ernest S. Angelos Objectors PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF CANDIDATE TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE NOMINATION PAPERS Respondent James D. Schneller, representing himself, files preliminary objections to the objectors' petition to set aside nomination paper, and in support thereof, states as follows. I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION AND FOR IMPROPER VENUE, AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION 1. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) a defendant may raise a preliminary objection based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or the person of the defendant or improper venue. 2. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(5) a defendant may raise a preliminary objection based on nonjoinder of a necessary party or misjoinder of a cause of action. 3. Petitioners make claims which are outside of the venue of the Court, outside of the jurisdiction of the Court, and which are misjoined into the challenge to nomination papers, including: 4. Petitioners claim in the section entitled INVALIDITY OF THE NOMINATING PAPERS AS A WHOLE, starting in paragraph 9, a false claim of fraud or deception of the public, based on respondent's inclusion of one of respondent's four committee-members of the Committee to Fill Vacancies on the nominating papers, and false allegations that said committee member has a reputation in the community, that said reputation is as reputable and upstanding, and that the presence of this committee member on the petition was a holding out and/or representation in support of a credibility of respondent's candidacy. 5. Petitioners falsely claim in paragraph 7 and in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of the section entitled INVALIDITY OF THE NOMINATING PAPERS AS A WHOLE, that workers for another party and/or it's candidate gathered numerous of petitioner's signatures in a collusion or conspiracy, that respondent's candidacy is a sham that undermines the political process, and related claims regarding said committee member's views of the alleged collusion or conspiracy, and the public's lack of knowledge of it. 6. These claims are torts and are also outside of the scope of the Election Code, and so are misjoined and outside of the Court's jurisdiction and purview. Allegations of a pattern of fraud are immaterial in a case involving objections to nomination papers and that such allegations will be disregarded. In Re: Nomination Petition of Rogers, 908 A.2d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) 7. Defendant objects to nonjoinder of necessary party Patrick Meehan, on whose behalf the objectors apparently filed the petition. Candidate Meehan is a necessary party to this action because his rights stand to be affected by the Court's determination . The Candidate's rights are so connected with the claims of the litigants that no decree can be made without impairing or infringing upon those rights. Also, the nominating petition of Patrick Meehan is under review by the Office of Attorney General due to charges of fraud and plagiarism, and Mr. Meehan himself is a U.S. district attorney, so that the substitution of two citizens standing as nominal objectors in this action, for the candidate, is inappropriate and insufficient, especially in light of the bald charges of fraud, misrepresentation, and perjury being alleged against respondent and a notary or notaries. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests that the Court order the section of the petition entitled INVALIDITY OF THE NOMINATING PAPERS AS A WHOLE, and paragraph 7, stricken from the petition. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests that the Court order the necessary party(s) Patrick Meehan and the Republican Party and any other party deemed pertinent, to be joined as a petitioner in this case. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS UNDER PA.R.C.P.1028 (2) FOR INCLUSION OF SCANDALOUS AND IMPERTINENT MATTER 8. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments set forth in all paragraphs in these preliminary objections as though fully set forth herein. 9. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) a defendant may raise a preliminary objection based on inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter. 10. Petitioners allege scandalous and impertinent matter which is intended to portray, through accumulation of itself, rather than proof or a cause of action, the existence of non existent, improper, and/ or unfounded acts on the part of respondent, through bald assertions that are scandalous, and which have no basis in reality, and have no legal support, and are wholly impertinent, prejudicial, and vexatious, and insulting to the Court in which they are pending. 11. Petitioners falsely, obdurately, and vexatiously claim in the section entitled INVALIDITY OF THE NOMINATING PAPERS AS A WHOLE starting in paragraph 9, a claim of fraud or deception of the public by way of inclusion of one of respondent's four committee-members of the Committee to fill vacancies and false allegations that said committee member has a reputation in the community, that said reputation is reputable and upstanding, and that the presence of this committee member on the petition was a holding out and/or representation in support of credibility of respondent's candidacy. The said claims are plainly scandalous, and impertinent. In Re: Nomination Petition of Rogers 12. In a similar manner, petitioners falsely, obdurately, and vexatiously claim in paragraph 7 and in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of the section entitled INVALIDITY OF THE NOMINATING PAPERS AS A WHOLE, scandalous and impertinent claims that workers for another party and/or it's candidate gathered numerous of petitioner's signatures in a collusion or conspiracy, that respondent's candidacy is a sham that undermines the political process, and related claims regarding said committee member's views of the alleged collusion or conspiracy, which are outside of the jurisdiction of the Court and outside of the scope of a challenge to signatures. 13. The claim that said committee member withdrew herself from the Committee to Fill Vacancies and reasons given are plainly scandalous and impertinent. 14. Petitioners' driving force Patrick Meehan and/or his campaign have falsely, vexatiously, and obdurately released the claims at issue in the preceding paragraphs to the press and public, using their inclusion of the allegations in this petition as a bolstering, by way of their presence in a legal document, of what are, in reality, false and unfounded claims, violating in said act the Rules of Professional Conduct. 15. Said candidate is under investigation by the office of the Attorney General for fraud in his nominating petition. 16. Said candidate and his campaign falsely and maliciously approached, misrepresented to, and badgered other members of the Jim Schneller for Congress committee to fill vacancies, wrongfully attempting to detract from and debilitate respondent's nominating paper, and conspiratorially and tortiously causing turmoil and loss of resources and reputation. 17. These acts are violations of Acts of the Assembly including 25 Pa.C.S.§ 3547 entitled Prohibiting duress and intimidation of voters and interference with the free exercise of the elective franchise, and sections of Title 18. Crimes Code. 18. Petitioners' allegation in petitioners section entitled Notarial Objections, of an unsubstantiated claim of failure to notarize 92 pages of the nomination paper in the presence of a notary is scandalous and impertinent and are apparently pled despite clear failure to state a legal claim. The claim is based on a reporters statement in a newspaper article that "the campaign had the petitions notarized" which is, even if read as intended by objectors, only a remote and implausible possibility of a statement of wrongful notarization. The statement is a reporter's statement, whereas the news article has ten quotes including four quotes from respondent, so the statement, as is the claim itself, is definitively arbitrary, speculative, and so it's inclusion is impertinent and is scandalous, including in it's application of a false aura of illegality to respondent and his campaign. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests that the Court order the section of the petition entitled INVALIDITY OF THE NOMINATING PAPERS AS A WHOLE be stricken from the petition and declared stricken for the purposes of this action. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests that the Court order the paragraphs of the petition claiming facts regarding collection of signatures by any political party or it's members or campaign workers, stricken from the petition, and declared stricken for the purposes of this action. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests that the Court order the paragraphs of the section of the petition entitled Notarial Objections be stricken from the petition, and declared stricken for the purposes of this action. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS UNDER PA.R.C.P. 1028 (2) FOR DUE TO FAILURE TO CONFORM TO LAW AND COURT RULES AND PA.R.C.P. 1028 (2) FOR INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY IN THE PLEADING. 19. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments set forth in all paragraphs in these preliminary objections as though fully set forth herein. 20. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) a defendant may raise a preliminary objection based on failure to adhere to law or rule of court. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) a defendant may raise a preliminary objection based on insufficient specificity in a pleading 21. Petitioners fail to conform to the rules of particularity by not stating the object of the suit , which is at least in part, the campaign of Patrick Meehan, and the interests of the GOP of Delaware, Montgomery, and Chester counties. 22. Petitioners fail to particularize the elements of fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy. 23. Petitioners do not state the address of respondent nor his campaign in the petition. 24. The petition is not signed by a party despite it's public importance, which is a violation especially considering the fact that a verification was not mandatory. 25. Petitioners' failure to attach a notice to defend has caused the petition to be null. The petitioners and their attorney knew that respondent would have only a short time to respond, that he might be representing himself, and that the petition is fraught with claims needful of an answer to the Court. The above are also violations of 25 Pa.C.S. § 2937 entitled Objections to nomination petitions and papers. WHEREFORE, the Court is respectfully requested to strike or quash the petition to set aside nomination paper. IV. DEMURRER TO PETITION AND MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED 26. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) a defendant may raise a preliminary objection due to legal insufficiency of a petition. 27. Respondent files this demurrer firstly to petitioners' allegation in the section entitled Notarial Objections, of an unsubstantiated claim of failure to notarize 92 pages of the nomination paper in the presence of a notary. The claim is apparently pled despite clear failure to state a legal claim. The claim is based on a reporters statement in a newspaper article that "the campaign had the petitions notarized" which is, even if read as intended by objectors, only a remote and implausible possibility of a statement of wrongful notarization. Even if a press article could stand as a singular basis for a claim of illegality, the statement is a reporter's statement, whereas the news article has ten quotes, including four quotes from respondent, so the statement, as is the claim itself, is definitively arbitrary, speculative, and nowhere near the strength required for an adjudication by the Court. 28. Respondent was the signor of 83 of the 92 pages and did so while sitting at a desk with the notary. Respondent personally witnessed the signing of the remainder of the nomination papers while standing in the same room as the notary and the signors. Respondent attaches a verification hereto. 29. Respondent files this demurrer secondly, to the Claim entitled Further Specific Line Objections, stating as follows: 30. Petitioners claim that respondent has filed 8130 signatures. 31. Petitioners claim that 1,561 signors are not registered to vote in the 7th District, 32. Petitioners claim that 932 signature lines are defective for reasons including missing data, missing signature, and not notarized. 33. Petitioners claim that 2,047 signature lines are defective for specific errors such as wrong address, wrong municipality, wrong nickname, wrong hand, and wrong signature. 34. Because 4,200 signatures of electors are required prior to nomination, petitioners must prove that 3,930 signatures are wholly invalid, after any rehabilitations permitted. 35. Petitioners' claimed 4,540 invalid signatures per their Specific Line Objections, as stated in paragraphs 31, 32, and 33 above, will aggregate to a total of 3,930 only if petitioners achieve an 89 % success rate in satisfying the burden of proof for invalidity. 36. Respondents claim a fatal, indisputable insufficiency of the claims as to invalidity of 197 signatures ( already signed nominating petitions - P#31), 1,144 signatures ( collector already circulated nominating petition - P#32 ), and 3,481 signatures ( unsubstantiated claim of failure to notarize in presence of notary - "Notarial Objections" P#19). Respondent demurs to these counts. 37. Petitioners make no mention of the fact that the above named sets of electors overlap with each other. 38. Therefore the stated 89 % is the lowest possible estimate and objectors in reality are burdened with a necessary success rate of at least 94 %. 39. Demurrer is abundantly supported because a rate of success at proving invalidity of 89 % or 94 % is highly unlikely, especially in light of the circumstances, and in light of the fact that rehabilitation will be proposed and accomplished for many of the invalidities claimed by petitioners. 40. The Count is therefore insufficient, speculative, fails to state a cause of action for setting aside of the nominating paper, and is frivolous, arbitrary, and in bad faith. 41. Respondent thirdly, also motions for a striking of the claim of nullity of 197 signatures based on a non-existent precedent that signors who have already signed nominating petitions may not sign nomination papers. The claim is indisputably without merit. 42. Respondent, fourthly, motions for a striking of the claim of nullity of 1,144 signatures for the stated reason that the collector had already circulated nominating petitions in the primary phase of this election cycle. The claim is indisputably without merit. 43. Respondent, lastly, demurs to the claims for fraud discussed in section I and II above because they are insufficient, suffer from lack of jurisdiction of the Court, and lack required specificity. 44. The petition is therefore, in the entirety, insufficient, fails to state a cause of action for setting aside of the nominating paper, and is frivolous, arbitrary, and in bad faith. 45. The petition has no purpose other than to deplete the time and resources of respondent and to force respondent to repeatedly address and readdress claims that are not true, vexatious, contrived, all of this in a retaliation for respondent's filing a nomination paper and opposing respondent's chosen candidate or candidates, the underlying sources of this action. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests the Court to strike the petition to set aside nominating petition, or to deny it with prejudice as a frivolous and bad faith petition. V. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests the Court to strike the petition to set aside nominating petition, or to deny it with prejudice as a frivolous and bad faith petition, and in the alternative, to strike any and all portions of the petition deemed such or as otherwise improperly before the Court. WHEREFORE, respondent moves in the alternative that the petition be quashed or quashed in part. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests notice of or to reserve, the right to expeditiously file an answer to the petition after adjudication of these preliminary objections or as directed by the Court. WHEREFORE, respondent, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 3731and I.O.P. § 67.45, respectfully requests en banc or panel decision of these preliminary objections at the discretion of the Court because the matter is highly controversial, and is a party-intensive election matter, and the race is in the national spotlight, and because respondent proceeds pro se, all of these causing a needfulness of utmost in fairness and the widest intellectual scope and basis of wisdom possible. Date: August 15, 2010 _________________________________ James D. Schneller pro se IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 645 M.D. 2010 In Re: Nomination Papers of James D. Schneller As Candidate for the United States Congress in the Seventh District Patricia A. Wechsler and Ernest S. Angelos Objectors VERIFICATION I, James D. Schneller, verify that the statements made in the foregoing preliminary objections are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. _______________________________________ Date: August 15, 2010 James D. Schneller