MEMO ENDORSED

BYHAND
TheHonorableRichardMBerman
UnitedStatesDistrictCourtJudge
SouthernDistrictOf NewYork
NewYor
USDC SDN
DOC#:

J+----------------
.... ,"""2
DearJudgeBerman,
13
IamwritinginregardstotheelectionforExecutiveSecretaryTreasurerwhich
theReviewOfficerhasdirectedtobeheld, whereheholdsnoauthorityunderthe
StipulationandOrdertodo so. Thereis nothingintheStipulationandOrderorthe
courtapprovedelectionruleswhichgivestheReviewOfficertheauthoritywhichheis
nowattemptingtowield. Hehasexceededhisauthorityinthismatter, andIam
seekingJudicialReviewoftheReviewOfficersactionsinthismatterundersection11
of theStipulationandOrder.(seeatt. 1)
IalsoobjecttotheReviewOfficerretainingnon-reviewableauthorityto
disqualifymembersfromrunningforthisposition. BasedontheReviewOfficer's
responsetomyearliersubmissionstothecourtregardingtheabortedelection,itis
apparentthattheReviewOfficerhasattheveryleastmadesubmissionstothecourtin
1
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1443 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 3
regards to past elections which he believed were false and conceded that he has failed
to fulfill the obligations which he holds under the Stipulation and Order to ensure that
the District Council is democratically governed.
The Review Officers response does not paint a picture of someone who should
have any form of non-reviewable authority, at the very least the Review Officers
submissions plainly shows that he is wont to base his decisions on personal
predilections rather than facts. He has never provided any type of record in any matter
which has been brought before this court to show that his determinations are based on
anything but his own personal opinions. I believe that the fear which was expressed by
Judge Haight, that the Review Officer might use his authority to disqualify candidates
simply because he did not like them is now the reality.
I believe that it would be a great disservice to the District Council to allow the
Review Officer to retain the non-reviewable authority to disqualify candidates from
running for elected positions when the scant record that the Review Officer did make
in his submissions clearly show a person who is not averse to making arbitrary and
capricious determinations.
What is before the Court in this matter is a person who asked the court to allow
him to alter the election rules and reopen nominations, and when this was not
forthcoming, took it upon himself to assume the authority to create new election rules
to reopen nominations.(see att. 2)
2
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1443 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 3
Thiscourthasheldthattherewillbeapolicyofzerotoleranceshownforthose
whocomeintoconflictwiththeStipulationandOrder. Thismustapplyequallytothe
ReviewOfficerastoanyoneelse.
~ i b .
PatrickNee /212/13
6818 52ndDr
Maspeth,NY 11378
ccBenjaminTorrance
DennisWalsh
viaemail
3
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1443 Filed 12/04/13 Page 3 of 3