PRESS RELEASE



Schneller for Congress Files Concluding Brief In Supreme Court Appeal 

  - Noting Uselessness and Unconstitutionality of Limited Investigation and Prosecution of GOP Candidate -



Tuesday, April 5, 2011    11:00 PM (EST)
Contact : Press Office | 610-688-9471 | info@Jim4US.com


    Jim Schneller, candidate for Congress' 7th district-PA, has filed his reply brief in the Supreme Court appeal regarding Schneller's case that demands that the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Attorney General resume and complete their investiagtion of the nominating petitions of Patrick Meehan, who is the purported GOP candidate and "victor".

    Meehan's seating in the House was vigorously opposed by Schneller.  That  cause was not taken up by any Congressperson at the appropriate time.

     Schneller claims that the Supreme Court is authorized more than ever to reverse the Commonwealth Court and allow the case to be judged and tried because: 1) the Secretary and the District Attorney did not raise their prominent defense that the case is moot, during the Commonwealth Court litigation, so they cannot now raise that issue on appeal.  They claim that because Meehan has taken office the appeal is needless; 2) the claim of mootness is irrelevant anyway. At the very least the case will establish a record so that any future Congressional investigation panel would have a basis to look into the matter, 3) the Commonwealth Court and the Supreme Court intentionally delayed the pace of the case, so that Congress will have additional reason to look into the political favoritism aspects of the matter, 4) the case is further capable of establishing wrongful acts by additional petition circulators for the Meehan campaign, which in turn establishes further reason to impeach Meehan, such as, for signing off on the nomination petitions despite the fact that the errors are evident on the face of the petitions, and 5) additional reasons too numerous to mention here.


    Schneller has also strongly opposed a motion by the current Secretary of the Commonwealth and Attorney General to substitute themselves for their predecessors Basil Merenda and Thomas Corbett, in the case, because, among other reasons,  Schneller's suit asserts particular claims against the prior officeholders that can't, and shouldn't, be transferred to the successor officeholders. Schneller has requested that if the defendants want to tinker with the identity of the parties being sued, then Acting Secretary Aichele and Attorney General Ryan should add themselves to existing defendants Merenda and Corbett, as third and fourth defendants.

    Jim Schneller also has claimed that the Supreme Court has before it,  substantial legal questions, which are capable of repetition unless settled, and so must be resolved in the interests of the future elections. A looming general question is how the public is supposed to have faith in elections after watching the Meehan campaign, and the candidate for Governor, sweep the matter under the rug, which constituted an act of obstruction by two candidates, who were both highest level government attorneys at the time. 

     Another legal point hoped to be affirmed is that Schneller's request for Court order to the Secretary and the Attorney General to complete investigations and put a hold or a stop on the Meehan candidacy, was completely legal, because of the clearly visible fraud upon the public and collusion between officials, including between a candidate, and the government agencies holding the authority to investigate him. "Conflict of interest is always a sign of impediments to government fairness" says Schneller. "Our liberty depends on fairness in the actions of leaders.  When fairness takes second fiddle, attempts at rule by an elite are not far behind."

    Schneller also has requested the Supreme Court to resolve a legal question as to why a third party candidate may not challenge the nomination petition of a GOP or Democrat candidate, when major party candidates have been freely challenging nomination petitions of the third party nominees without any restrictions, for decades.  

    Schneller argues that there is no real precedent for this policy other than a 1987 case which relied on the level of "interest" that a candidate has in an election or primary, finding that only members of the same party have a "substantial interest" in a nomination.   However, as the recent Schneller-Meehan-Lentz race showed, Lentz and Meehan's sweetheart deal to end the Lentz challenge to Meehan's nomination affected Schneller tremendously, that is, the third party had a strong "interest" in the democrat challenge to GOP petitions.   Simply put, the effect of the outcome of primaries is, in no way, irrelevant to the remainder of the election, and even if primaries should mainly be the domain of the major parties, they should not be the exclusive domain of the major parties. If Meehan had been put off the ballot, a new candidate could have been legally placed on the ballot in his place, and Meehan had no GOP challenger anyway, so that the republican voters would not have lost a right to vote in the primary, since there was no choice in the first place.