Preview
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 1 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
Katherine D. Hartman, Esquire (027091991)
ATTORNEYS HARTMAN, CHARTERED
68 East Main Street
Moorestown, New Jersey 08057
Phone (856) 235-0220; Fax (856) 273-8617
kdhesq@attorneyshartman.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Martin Nock
Our File No. 19-0066
MARTIN NOCK,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION
Vv. BURLINGTON COUNTY
SAMANTHA E. WHITFIELD, KAYA
Docket No.: BUR-L-00785-19
MCINTOSH, TIFFANI WORTHY, and
SARAH WOODING,
Civil Action
Defendants.
TRIAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
STRIKING CANDIDATES FROM
BALLOT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Martin Nock, as a candidate for Township Council in Willingboro, has brought
this action challenging the legitimacy of the petition filed by Samantha Whitfield, Kaya
McIntosh and Tiffani Worthy, each of whom are designated as “Democrats for a Better
Willingboro” (hereinafter, the “Petition”). There are numerous deficiencies warranting
invalidation of the Petition, and which require that the persons submitting it be excluded
from appearing on the ballot in Willingboro this June.
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 2 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
The validity of the Petition was originally made to the Municipal Clerk, Sarah
Wooding, by letter dated April 5, 2019. Supplemental information was provided to Ms.
Wooding’s attorney by letter dated, April 11, 2019.
On April 18%, Ms. Wooding rejected a challenge to the Petition filed by Mayor
Nock. On April 15, Mayor Nock filed the Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint
before this Court. Subsequently, Plaintiff has filed six affidavits in support of his claims
regarding the invalidity of the Petition.
BURDEN OF PROOF
A claimant challenging a nomination petition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:29-1 et seq.
must establish the claim raised by a preponderance of the evidence, just as it applies
generally in civil matters. Historically, some courts have evinced a concern that, when
the basis of the challenge may “invite criminal penalties,” such as fraud, then a higher
standard of proof should apply. See In re General Election of Nov. 5, 1991 for Office of
Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Maplewood, Essex Cnty., 255 N.J. Super. 690, 702-04 (Law Div.
1992) (quoting In re Evans, 227 N.J. Super. 339, 347-48 (Law Div. 1988) and citing cases).
This approach, however, led to an unprincipled, and therefore unworkable
distinction: when the specter of criminality might apply the standard would be clear and
convincing, and when the interest was merely “public interest” the lower standard of
preponderance of the evidence would apply. Id. at 702-03. Judge Villanueva, however,
correctly recognized that regardless of the nature of the challenge to the petition, the
public interest is equally present in both sides of the case and thus there is no sense in
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 3 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
imposing a higher standard of proof for one type of claim over another. Id. at 703. Judge
Villanueva reasoned as follows:
Why afford an illegal voter greater rights and protections and require a
higher standard of proof for a petitioner to nullify an illegal vote? Why
grant an illegal voter greater protection than afforded a legal voter? It is
obvious that an illegal voter, by voting wrongfully, dilutes the rights and
votes of all legally qualified voters. Thus, the illegal voter should be
afforded no greater protection than a legal voter.
Id. at 704.
That reasoning applies equally to the challenges made here. Accordingly, the
standard applicable here is the preponderance of the evidence standard.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
THE PETITION IS INCURABLY DEFECTIVE
The legislative requirements for a nominating petition serve the significant public
interest of “maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.” See, e.g., Lesniak v.
Budzash, 133 N.J. 1, 16 (1993). As applied to a candidate for municipal office, these
requirements include obtaining signatures from fifty registered voters from the
candidate’s party residing within the same municipality. N.J.S.A. 19:23-5 & 19:23-8.
Thus, a candidate for municipal office circulating a nominating petition individually
must obtain fifty signatures. Further, the circulators of the nomination petition must
verify by oath or affirmation that the persons who signed the petition are appropriate
signatories and that the petition was prepared “in absolute good faith for the sole purpose
of indorsing the person or persons therein named.” N.J.S.A. 19:23-11.
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 4 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
These processes are “at the very core of the concept of democracy|,] for it is by this
means that the citizenry is given a voice in the selection of its public representatives.”
Matter of Mattice, 73 N.J. 103, 105 (1977) (internal citations omitted). Tampering with
these processes is “[t]ampering with the fundamental right of suffrage, which includes
the right to nominate,” and thus “cannot be condoned.” Id.
As discussed in detail below, the Petition here is defective because the signatures
were improperly obtained, a problem which is compounded by the failure of the
circulators to submit a circulator oath next to the signatures, and by the many
irregularities in the submission of the Petition as well as improprieties on the part of the
Township Clerk. In addition, many of the signatures obtained appear to be in the same
handwriting, a concern made more troubling by Defendants’ submission of affidavits
containing signatures of ineligible voters, signatures of persons who signed other
nominating petitions, and signatures which do not match the same person’s signature on
the Petition.
A Improprieties in the procurement of the signatures.
There is substantial evidence showing that Defendants and their circulators
misrepresented the Petition to Signers. The Petition purports to be a joint petition for all
three candidates. Such a joint petition is permissible under N.J.S.A. 19:23-18, and would
typically require fifty signatures. As our courts have recognized, “[t]here is nothing
inherently wrong or invidious in permitting candidates with like views to be grouped
together on the ballot.” Quaremba v. Allan, 128 N.J. Super. 570, 575 (App. Div. 1974).
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 5 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
However, the validity of a joint petition may be called into question when fraud was used
to induce signatures.
Here, there is testimony by several persons who signed the Petition stating that
they believed they were signing on behalf of only one candidate rather than the entire
slate. For instance, both Pastor Branch and Clayton Sills swore that they attended a
meeting of the Economic Development Committee Meeting on or about March 18, 2019,
which was attended by Candidate Kaya McIntosh. There was a one-page document
circulated containing only lines for names, addresses and signatures - no cover page was
provided, and Ms. McIntosh never told Mr. Branch and Mr. Sills that they were signing
in support of three candidates. The Petition, which Defendants now claim was a joint
petition, was circulated in the presence of one candidate with no cover page and no other
indication that the petition was joint. As a result, both Mr. Branch and Mr. Sills
reasonably believed that they were signing a petition solely for Ms. McIntosh, and that
they did not intend to support either of the other two candidates. In fact, both men
testified that they in fact they had never heard of the other two candidates.
Ms. Geraldine Johnson swore that she two received a one page document
circulated by Patricia Harvey, was never shown a cover page and was never told that the
petition was for three candidates.
Sylvia Miles-Wright also describes attending a sorority meeting after which
Tiffany Worthy requested her sorority sisters support her candidacy. At no time did Ms.
Worthy indicate she was seeking support for her running mates or that the petition was
in support of three candidates.
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 6 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
Joyce Abrams also will testify that Patricia Harvey came to her home and asked
her to sign a petition on behalf of Kaya McIntosh but never mentioned the other two
candidates.
As the above-discussed testimony demonstrates, the circulators’ methods of
obtaining signatures were such that any reasonable person would believe the Petition
was for an individual rather than a slate of three people. This, in conjunction with the
other improprieties in the submission of the Petition, clearly evince an intent to satisfy
the requirements of Title 19 through fraudulent means. In any event, while it is difficult
to imagine an innocent motive for leaving off the cover sheet to the Petition identifying
the candidates, it does not matter whether the circulators were merely negligent or acting
with fraudulent intent, as the outcome is the same: the signers of the Petition believed
they were endorsing one candidate rather than a slate of three. As such, the Petition
cannot stand.
B Improprieties in the Circulator Oath.
Part of the original challenge by Mayor Nock was the absence of a circulator
petition by Patricia Lindsay Harvey. Ms. Harvey did not sign a circulator oath on the
Petition that was submitted, as required by N.J.S.A. 19:23-11. Particularly where, as here,
there is a dispute as to the validity of signatures, this requirement is more than a mere
formality, as this requirement provides that the affiant verify that “the petition is signed
by each of the signers [of the petition] in his proper handwriting.”
Subsequently, Ms. Harvey attempted to cure that defect by submitting a belated
affidavit. However, that affidavit did not cure the problem because it did not identify
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 7 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
which signatures she gathered on the Petition. As the Court is aware, petitions include
the circulator oaths next to the names the circulator solicited because the purpose of the
oath is to verify the identity of the signer. Ms. Harvey failed to do so and, as a result, we
are unable to determine whose signatures Ms. Harvey is attempting to verify, and
whether those signatures are valid. As such, the signatures on the Petition are unverified,
and the Petition should be struck.
Cc Many signatures are questionable at best.
Numerous signatures on the Petition appear to be written by the same person,
even though they purport to represent numerous individuals. For example, page 14 of
the Petition, beginning at line 37 and running through the entirety of page 15, appear to
be the same handwriting. It is submitted that these signatures are the product of a
“kitchen petition,” in which one person writes multiple names while sitting at their
kitchen table. Particularly given the failure of Ms. Harvey to provide a timely or complete
oath as required by N.J.S.A. 19:23-11, these signatures raise serious questions about the
validity of the Petition.
D. The Petition was improperly submitted and received.
Further, Defendants’ Petition was improperly marked received by the Township
Clerk, and affidavits attached to the Petition appear to have been finalized after the 4 p.m.
deadline on April 1s. An affidavit submitted by Darvis Holley, another candidate who
was in the Clerk’s office on April 1s‘, describes his observations as follows. Samantha
Whitfield turned in additional signatures to her petition on April 1%. A look at the filed
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 8 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
copy of the Petition shows it stamped “received” on March 29, 2019, by the office of the
Township Clerk. It is unknown what signatures were thereafter provided on April 1+.
What is known is that the supplemental signatures should have been stamped received
on April 1, 2019, yet were apparently added to the back of the Petition with no way of
identifying when those signatures were obtained or submitted.
Additionally, further review of the Petition shows that Kaya McIntosh also
submitted additional signatures on April 1*; however, there is no marking indicating
receipt of these signatures. More troubling is that a copy of the Petition given to a
candidate at 4:20 p.m. on April 1st shows that Ms. MclIntosh’s signatures were not
notarized as to the new signatures. But, on the next day, Martin Nock received a copy of
the Petition showing their signatures notarized on April 1. One of the notaries, Shaleen
Bolling Gonzalez, is a code enforcement official who, upon information and belief, did
not witness the signatures she later certified.
These improprieties alone are enough to raise serious doubts as to the validity of
the Petition. In conjunction with the Defendants’ conduct in obtaining signatures and
submitting the Petition, it is clear that there can be no faith in the electoral process if the
Petition is accepted.
E. Defendants’ supporting affidavits raise additional concerns.
Defendants provided affidavits to this Court in support of their contention that
they circulated joint petitions. These affidavits, however, are of a piece with the Petition,
as they contain signatures of ineligible voters, signatures of persons who signed other
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 9 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
nominating petitions, and include suspicious signatures that do not match the signatures
provided on the Petition.
As part of this litigation, Defendants submitted 65 affidavits, purportedly from
residents of Willingboro, claiming the following: that they are registered Democrats
eligible to vote in the upcoming primary; that they signed the Petition for candidacy for
Samantha Whitfield, Kaya McIntosh and Tiffani Worthy; and that they were made aware
at the time they signed the Petition that it was a joint petition for all three candidates.
Upon review, these affidavits are sloppy at best, and at worst a deliberate attempt to
mislead the Court.
By way of example, James Lemon, 7 Genesee Lane, is not in the VANS system as
of March 2019. Amy (Emily) Dean, 52 Shetland Lane, signed under an address of 27
Buckingham Lane which is registered to Amy O. Dean.
Kaya McIntosh, one of the candidates herself, signed Martin Nock’s Petition as
well as this claimed joint petition which would oversubscribe her and make her ineligible
to be counted in support of her own petition.
Tony John signed on behalf of four candidates if the court were to find this petition as a
joint petition for three candidates. Alice McIntosh again signed on behalf of four
candidates when there were only three vacancies. Austin McIntosh as well.
Patricia Lindsey Harvey and William Harvey certified they were residents of
Willingboro; however, the address that they used to support that residency does not have
a certificate of occupancy and was up for final tax sale in March. In addition, at least
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 10 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639
fourteen of the signatures which appear on the affidavits are in stark contrast to the
signatures which appear on the petition, thus bringing their veracity into question.
CONCLUSION
In McCaskey v. Kirchoff, 56 N.J. Super. 178 (App. Div. 1959), the Appellate Division
stated the obvious: it is essential to keep the petition process free from fraud. If
designating petitions are to perform their lawful and intended functions, it is essential
that they be kept free from fraud in the making. See, e.g., State v. Toland, 123NJ. Super.
N.J. Super.
286, 289-90 (App. Div. 1973) (observing “[o]ne of the purposes of the Election Law . .
to purify the politics of the State by preventing fraud and wrongdoing in the nominating
procedure”) (quoting Sadloch v. Allan, 25 N.J. 118, 129 (1957)). It is for that reason the
Legislature has made meticulous requirements with respect to petition process.
Here, the wrongdoing starts with the procurement of signatures and runs all the
way through the submission of the nominating petition and beyond. The Petition is
irrevocably and incurably tainted, and therefore must be invalidated. Moreover, the
decision to invalidate the entirety of the Petition - even if some of the signatures were
properly obtained - accords with the “equitable principle that a wrongdoer should not
benefit from his own wrongdoing.” Petition of Smith, 114 N.J. Super. 421, 429 (App. Div.
1971).
ATTORNEYS HARTMAN, CHARTERED
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Martin Nock
a-----. [sf Katherine Hartmanw.____
Dated: April 23, 2019 Katherine D. Hartman, Esq.
10
Preview
BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 1 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 Katherine D. Hartman, Esquire (027091991) ATTORNEYS HARTMAN, CHARTERED 68 East Main Street Moorestown, New Jersey 08057 Phone (856) 235-0220; Fax (856) 273-8617 kdhesq@attorneyshartman.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Martin Nock Our File No. 19-0066 MARTIN NOCK, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION Vv. BURLINGTON COUNTY SAMANTHA E. WHITFIELD, KAYA Docket No.: BUR-L-00785-19 MCINTOSH, TIFFANI WORTHY, and SARAH WOODING, Civil Action Defendants. TRIAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF STRIKING CANDIDATES FROM BALLOT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Martin Nock, as a candidate for Township Council in Willingboro, has brought this action challenging the legitimacy of the petition filed by Samantha Whitfield, Kaya McIntosh and Tiffani Worthy, each of whom are designated as “Democrats for a Better Willingboro” (hereinafter, the “Petition”). There are numerous deficiencies warranting invalidation of the Petition, and which require that the persons submitting it be excluded from appearing on the ballot in Willingboro this June. BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 2 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 The validity of the Petition was originally made to the Municipal Clerk, Sarah Wooding, by letter dated April 5, 2019. Supplemental information was provided to Ms. Wooding’s attorney by letter dated, April 11, 2019. On April 18%, Ms. Wooding rejected a challenge to the Petition filed by Mayor Nock. On April 15, Mayor Nock filed the Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint before this Court. Subsequently, Plaintiff has filed six affidavits in support of his claims regarding the invalidity of the Petition. BURDEN OF PROOF A claimant challenging a nomination petition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:29-1 et seq. must establish the claim raised by a preponderance of the evidence, just as it applies generally in civil matters. Historically, some courts have evinced a concern that, when the basis of the challenge may “invite criminal penalties,” such as fraud, then a higher standard of proof should apply. See In re General Election of Nov. 5, 1991 for Office of Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Maplewood, Essex Cnty., 255 N.J. Super. 690, 702-04 (Law Div. 1992) (quoting In re Evans, 227 N.J. Super. 339, 347-48 (Law Div. 1988) and citing cases). This approach, however, led to an unprincipled, and therefore unworkable distinction: when the specter of criminality might apply the standard would be clear and convincing, and when the interest was merely “public interest” the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence would apply. Id. at 702-03. Judge Villanueva, however, correctly recognized that regardless of the nature of the challenge to the petition, the public interest is equally present in both sides of the case and thus there is no sense in BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 3 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 imposing a higher standard of proof for one type of claim over another. Id. at 703. Judge Villanueva reasoned as follows: Why afford an illegal voter greater rights and protections and require a higher standard of proof for a petitioner to nullify an illegal vote? Why grant an illegal voter greater protection than afforded a legal voter? It is obvious that an illegal voter, by voting wrongfully, dilutes the rights and votes of all legally qualified voters. Thus, the illegal voter should be afforded no greater protection than a legal voter. Id. at 704. That reasoning applies equally to the challenges made here. Accordingly, the standard applicable here is the preponderance of the evidence standard. LEGAL ARGUMENT THE PETITION IS INCURABLY DEFECTIVE The legislative requirements for a nominating petition serve the significant public interest of “maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.” See, e.g., Lesniak v. Budzash, 133 N.J. 1, 16 (1993). As applied to a candidate for municipal office, these requirements include obtaining signatures from fifty registered voters from the candidate’s party residing within the same municipality. N.J.S.A. 19:23-5 & 19:23-8. Thus, a candidate for municipal office circulating a nominating petition individually must obtain fifty signatures. Further, the circulators of the nomination petition must verify by oath or affirmation that the persons who signed the petition are appropriate signatories and that the petition was prepared “in absolute good faith for the sole purpose of indorsing the person or persons therein named.” N.J.S.A. 19:23-11. BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 4 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 These processes are “at the very core of the concept of democracy|,] for it is by this means that the citizenry is given a voice in the selection of its public representatives.” Matter of Mattice, 73 N.J. 103, 105 (1977) (internal citations omitted). Tampering with these processes is “[t]ampering with the fundamental right of suffrage, which includes the right to nominate,” and thus “cannot be condoned.” Id. As discussed in detail below, the Petition here is defective because the signatures were improperly obtained, a problem which is compounded by the failure of the circulators to submit a circulator oath next to the signatures, and by the many irregularities in the submission of the Petition as well as improprieties on the part of the Township Clerk. In addition, many of the signatures obtained appear to be in the same handwriting, a concern made more troubling by Defendants’ submission of affidavits containing signatures of ineligible voters, signatures of persons who signed other nominating petitions, and signatures which do not match the same person’s signature on the Petition. A Improprieties in the procurement of the signatures. There is substantial evidence showing that Defendants and their circulators misrepresented the Petition to Signers. The Petition purports to be a joint petition for all three candidates. Such a joint petition is permissible under N.J.S.A. 19:23-18, and would typically require fifty signatures. As our courts have recognized, “[t]here is nothing inherently wrong or invidious in permitting candidates with like views to be grouped together on the ballot.” Quaremba v. Allan, 128 N.J. Super. 570, 575 (App. Div. 1974). BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 5 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 However, the validity of a joint petition may be called into question when fraud was used to induce signatures. Here, there is testimony by several persons who signed the Petition stating that they believed they were signing on behalf of only one candidate rather than the entire slate. For instance, both Pastor Branch and Clayton Sills swore that they attended a meeting of the Economic Development Committee Meeting on or about March 18, 2019, which was attended by Candidate Kaya McIntosh. There was a one-page document circulated containing only lines for names, addresses and signatures - no cover page was provided, and Ms. McIntosh never told Mr. Branch and Mr. Sills that they were signing in support of three candidates. The Petition, which Defendants now claim was a joint petition, was circulated in the presence of one candidate with no cover page and no other indication that the petition was joint. As a result, both Mr. Branch and Mr. Sills reasonably believed that they were signing a petition solely for Ms. McIntosh, and that they did not intend to support either of the other two candidates. In fact, both men testified that they in fact they had never heard of the other two candidates. Ms. Geraldine Johnson swore that she two received a one page document circulated by Patricia Harvey, was never shown a cover page and was never told that the petition was for three candidates. Sylvia Miles-Wright also describes attending a sorority meeting after which Tiffany Worthy requested her sorority sisters support her candidacy. At no time did Ms. Worthy indicate she was seeking support for her running mates or that the petition was in support of three candidates. BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 6 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 Joyce Abrams also will testify that Patricia Harvey came to her home and asked her to sign a petition on behalf of Kaya McIntosh but never mentioned the other two candidates. As the above-discussed testimony demonstrates, the circulators’ methods of obtaining signatures were such that any reasonable person would believe the Petition was for an individual rather than a slate of three people. This, in conjunction with the other improprieties in the submission of the Petition, clearly evince an intent to satisfy the requirements of Title 19 through fraudulent means. In any event, while it is difficult to imagine an innocent motive for leaving off the cover sheet to the Petition identifying the candidates, it does not matter whether the circulators were merely negligent or acting with fraudulent intent, as the outcome is the same: the signers of the Petition believed they were endorsing one candidate rather than a slate of three. As such, the Petition cannot stand. B Improprieties in the Circulator Oath. Part of the original challenge by Mayor Nock was the absence of a circulator petition by Patricia Lindsay Harvey. Ms. Harvey did not sign a circulator oath on the Petition that was submitted, as required by N.J.S.A. 19:23-11. Particularly where, as here, there is a dispute as to the validity of signatures, this requirement is more than a mere formality, as this requirement provides that the affiant verify that “the petition is signed by each of the signers [of the petition] in his proper handwriting.” Subsequently, Ms. Harvey attempted to cure that defect by submitting a belated affidavit. However, that affidavit did not cure the problem because it did not identify BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 7 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 which signatures she gathered on the Petition. As the Court is aware, petitions include the circulator oaths next to the names the circulator solicited because the purpose of the oath is to verify the identity of the signer. Ms. Harvey failed to do so and, as a result, we are unable to determine whose signatures Ms. Harvey is attempting to verify, and whether those signatures are valid. As such, the signatures on the Petition are unverified, and the Petition should be struck. Cc Many signatures are questionable at best. Numerous signatures on the Petition appear to be written by the same person, even though they purport to represent numerous individuals. For example, page 14 of the Petition, beginning at line 37 and running through the entirety of page 15, appear to be the same handwriting. It is submitted that these signatures are the product of a “kitchen petition,” in which one person writes multiple names while sitting at their kitchen table. Particularly given the failure of Ms. Harvey to provide a timely or complete oath as required by N.J.S.A. 19:23-11, these signatures raise serious questions about the validity of the Petition. D. The Petition was improperly submitted and received. Further, Defendants’ Petition was improperly marked received by the Township Clerk, and affidavits attached to the Petition appear to have been finalized after the 4 p.m. deadline on April 1s. An affidavit submitted by Darvis Holley, another candidate who was in the Clerk’s office on April 1s‘, describes his observations as follows. Samantha Whitfield turned in additional signatures to her petition on April 1%. A look at the filed BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 8 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 copy of the Petition shows it stamped “received” on March 29, 2019, by the office of the Township Clerk. It is unknown what signatures were thereafter provided on April 1+. What is known is that the supplemental signatures should have been stamped received on April 1, 2019, yet were apparently added to the back of the Petition with no way of identifying when those signatures were obtained or submitted. Additionally, further review of the Petition shows that Kaya McIntosh also submitted additional signatures on April 1*; however, there is no marking indicating receipt of these signatures. More troubling is that a copy of the Petition given to a candidate at 4:20 p.m. on April 1st shows that Ms. MclIntosh’s signatures were not notarized as to the new signatures. But, on the next day, Martin Nock received a copy of the Petition showing their signatures notarized on April 1. One of the notaries, Shaleen Bolling Gonzalez, is a code enforcement official who, upon information and belief, did not witness the signatures she later certified. These improprieties alone are enough to raise serious doubts as to the validity of the Petition. In conjunction with the Defendants’ conduct in obtaining signatures and submitting the Petition, it is clear that there can be no faith in the electoral process if the Petition is accepted. E. Defendants’ supporting affidavits raise additional concerns. Defendants provided affidavits to this Court in support of their contention that they circulated joint petitions. These affidavits, however, are of a piece with the Petition, as they contain signatures of ineligible voters, signatures of persons who signed other BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 9 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 nominating petitions, and include suspicious signatures that do not match the signatures provided on the Petition. As part of this litigation, Defendants submitted 65 affidavits, purportedly from residents of Willingboro, claiming the following: that they are registered Democrats eligible to vote in the upcoming primary; that they signed the Petition for candidacy for Samantha Whitfield, Kaya McIntosh and Tiffani Worthy; and that they were made aware at the time they signed the Petition that it was a joint petition for all three candidates. Upon review, these affidavits are sloppy at best, and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. By way of example, James Lemon, 7 Genesee Lane, is not in the VANS system as of March 2019. Amy (Emily) Dean, 52 Shetland Lane, signed under an address of 27 Buckingham Lane which is registered to Amy O. Dean. Kaya McIntosh, one of the candidates herself, signed Martin Nock’s Petition as well as this claimed joint petition which would oversubscribe her and make her ineligible to be counted in support of her own petition. Tony John signed on behalf of four candidates if the court were to find this petition as a joint petition for three candidates. Alice McIntosh again signed on behalf of four candidates when there were only three vacancies. Austin McIntosh as well. Patricia Lindsey Harvey and William Harvey certified they were residents of Willingboro; however, the address that they used to support that residency does not have a certificate of occupancy and was up for final tax sale in March. In addition, at least BUR-L-000785-19 04/23/2019 9:33:26 AM Pg 10 of 10 Trans ID: LCV2019708639 fourteen of the signatures which appear on the affidavits are in stark contrast to the signatures which appear on the petition, thus bringing their veracity into question. CONCLUSION In McCaskey v. Kirchoff, 56 N.J. Super. 178 (App. Div. 1959), the Appellate Division stated the obvious: it is essential to keep the petition process free from fraud. If designating petitions are to perform their lawful and intended functions, it is essential that they be kept free from fraud in the making. See, e.g., State v. Toland, 123NJ. Super. N.J. Super. 286, 289-90 (App. Div. 1973) (observing “[o]ne of the purposes of the Election Law . . to purify the politics of the State by preventing fraud and wrongdoing in the nominating procedure”) (quoting Sadloch v. Allan, 25 N.J. 118, 129 (1957)). It is for that reason the Legislature has made meticulous requirements with respect to petition process. Here, the wrongdoing starts with the procurement of signatures and runs all the way through the submission of the nominating petition and beyond. The Petition is irrevocably and incurably tainted, and therefore must be invalidated. Moreover, the decision to invalidate the entirety of the Petition - even if some of the signatures were properly obtained - accords with the “equitable principle that a wrongdoer should not benefit from his own wrongdoing.” Petition of Smith, 114 N.J. Super. 421, 429 (App. Div. 1971). ATTORNEYS HARTMAN, CHARTERED Attorneys for Plaintiff, Martin Nock a-----. [sf Katherine Hartmanw.____ Dated: April 23, 2019 Katherine D. Hartman, Esq. 10