Appendix NEWS REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE Richard Richards Chairman RNC 82-100 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: JENNIFER HILLINGS OCTOBER 20, 1982 (202) 484-6550 RNC ANNOUNCES $5,000 REWARD PROGRAM TO DETER VOTING FRAUD VIOLATIONS Washington, D.C. -- Republican National Committee Chairman Richard Richards today announced a program offering $5,000 rewards to individuals who give information which leads to the arrest, conviction and punishment of any election official who violates state or federal laws against voting fraud. "It has saddened us to learn that vote fraud still exists in certain areas of this country," Richards said in a letter to all 50 secretaries of state. "Since the right to vote is the keystone of all other rights we cherish as Americans, any dilution of the vote by fraud or error must be stopped." Attached please find a copy of the letter. Dwight D Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003 (202) 484-6550 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE REWARD OFFER DRAFT October 15, 1982 Dear Secretary of State: As we approach this important general election, we wish to recognize the excellent work of the hundreds of thousands of American Citizens who will serve their fellow citizens as election officials. We recognize they must serve long hours, often for nominal pay, and often in cramped work places. In the vast majority of cases, American election workers do a fine job of quickly and accurately obtaining the vote and reporting the totals to their fellow citizens. However, it has saddened us in the last few years to learn that vote fraud still exists in certain areas of this country. Fraud serves to undermine the most precious right of Americans -- the right to vote. Since the right to vote is the keystone of all other rights we cherish as Americans, any dilution of the vote by fraud or error must be stopped. We know that your office will make every effort to see that every lawful vote is counted accurately, and that violations of the law are quickly stopped and offenses are prosecuted. In order to help in such efforts, the Republican National Committee has decided to post a reward of $5,000 to any citizen who gives information that leads to the arrest, conviction and punishment of any election official who violates state or federal laws against vote fraud. We have established telephone numbers that will be manned by attorneys who will assist in putting them in touch with the proper State and Federal officials who will proceed with such complaint. We ask you to cooperate with us by informing us of a contact person in your state that might be used in the event such an occurrence happens in your state. Please contact Mark Braden or Catherine Gensior at 202/484-6638 Very truly yours, Richard Richards RR:jd cc: State Chairman CLA Members United State Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 84-5884 September Term, 1985 Kenneth F. Collier, C.A. No. 84-03570 James M. Collier Appellant vs. United States of America, et al. BEFORE: Wright, Ginsburg and Scalia, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of appellees' Motion for Summary Affirmance and the opposition thereto. It is ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied. The district court's peremptory dismissal of this case on the same day the complaint was accepted for filing issued prior to this court's decision in Sills v. Bureau of Prisons, 761 F. 2d 792 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Summary affirmance of the dismissal, as Sills clarifies, received the "fullest consideration necessary to a just determination." 781 F. 2 at 794. It is FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the district court's dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this court's opinion in Sills. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the requests to treat the parties 'submissions on the Motion for Summary Affirmance as briefs on appeal are dismissed as moot. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See Local Rule 14. PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WHY THE WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED CONDENSED: Where Petitioners have been victimized by a jurist who obtained jurisdiction sua sponte to rule in a case wherein a long-term colleague is a material witness due process demands that such a ruling should be vacated. Your Petitioners recognize the extreme seriousness of actually accusing a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia of willful and deliberate political case-fixing, but when the following facts are considered, no other conclusion can be drawn. A lengthy investigation of Judge HENRY F. GREENE'S behavior in this matter was conducted by his peers and superiors on that Court, including three Chief Judges thereon whose cooperation with Your Petitioners was voluntarily granted in the wake of the several facially-anomalous actions committed by Judge GREENE in his so-far successful derailing of a "non-frivolous" $20 million damage suit against the Republican National Committee. "Non-frivolous" in that two judges on that Court have denied summary judgment to the RNC's attorneys on identical pleadings, (plus one lengthy hearing), in the litigation proceeding the events described below. "Non frivolous" in that several Court-ordered depositions were granted to Your Petitioners in their preparation for the jury trial which RNC attorneys sought to avoid at any cost. 1. The first "facially-anomalous" action committed by Judge GREENE was the manner in which he used self-help to obtain pre-trial jurisdiction of the case. The Chief Judge's investigation confirms that Judge GREENE personally picked up the telephone and called the pre-trial assignment office just a few minutes before Your Petitioners (acting pro se) were scheduled for a long-awaited and hard-won pretrial conference. With this phone call Judge GREENE ordered the assignment clerk to send the "next available" case to his chambers. Significantly, Judge GREENE was not the official pretrial judge, but was conducting a trial in another division, which he recessed to enable him to reach out for this case. In light of what ensued. Your Petitioners took the extraordinary step of bringing suit against Judge GREENE and the RNC attorney who worked hand-in-glove with him to run two "non-frivolous" (as above) pro se litigants out of Court. The following are three key sentences from the Complaint of that suit... THAT this is an action sounded in tortious conduct amounting to civil conspiracy in which, the defendants had a meeting of the minds and cooperated together for the same object which they mutually sought to be accomplished, namely the unlawful misuse of Henry Greene's, employment as a Superior Court judge to deny, Plaintiffs due process in a United States court in the District of Columbia, (Superior Court Case 10935084) both on and off the bench. THAT in furtherance of said civil conspiracy, Defendants committed unlawful acts to calculatedly and deliberately and knowingly defraud Plaintiffs from being treated in Superior Court in an impartial, non-prejudicial manner as related to being assigned a judge for a pre-trial conference, and conspirator GREENE misused his position of implied authority to deliberately telephone the Civil Assignment office at the precise hour (1/6/85) when Plaintiffs' $20 million lawsuit was already assigned to be heard by Judge W. Thompson, (a duly-appointed judge of the PRE-TRIAL DIVISION) but which phone call "suddenly" WRONGFULLY caused motions clerk SANFORD COLEMAN to switch Plaintiffs from the proper and normal routine assignment of a judge in the pre-trial division to HENRY GREENE, a trial judge in Civil II THAT in deliberately reaching out from his busy schedule as a trial judge to snare a highly political and controversial multi-million dollar suit to place under his EAGER jurisdiction. GREENE conspired with CARR as judge-and-attorney for the Republican National Committee (Defendant in the suit) to silence and ignore Plaintiffs vigorous objections that GREENE had no right whatsoever to overturn a previous ruling denying defendants a summary judgment, acting without permission or due process to "hear" a motion for reconsideration which had been framed solely for reconsidertion[sic] by the judge who had denied the original motion, but instead conspired with CARR to reopen the entire case, to fabricate "Supreme Court" opinions on the record, and to dismiss the case out of hand. Certainly, your Petitioners objected to the jurisdiction of Judge GREENE and did so during the off-the-record meeting in his chambers during which Judge GREENE revealed that he had been a colleague for 13 years in the Justice Department with the key (adverse) material witness listed on the plaintiffs' pretrial form. Then, when the RNC attorney asked Judge GREENE to "reconsider" the denial of summary judgment rendered by a co-equal Superior Court Judge just three weeks earlier. Petitioners objected once again, but were silenced on threat of arrest and told to "be" at a hearing three days hence at which time the entire case would be re-argued in de novo proceedings. Thus, using coercion in the form of guaranteed dismissal if Your Petitioners failed to appear at the hastily arranged hearing. Judge GREENE set the stage "for his granting a summary judgment, thus obviating the necessity for his former colleague/friend (above) to testify in a highly public jury trial featuring the videotaped votefraud evidence which that former colleague/friend had refused to screen when it had been presented to him at the Justice Department in connection with the REWARD OFFER. At the fatal hearing itself, which was purported to be a "motion to reconsider" on the part of the RNC, no testimony was taken, no evidence whatsover [sic] was introduced by the RNC, nothing to justify holding such a motion hearing on the dispositive issues of the case. The only purpose in holding a de novo hearing at that stage of the litigation was to provide a courtroom context for Judge GREENE to suddenly "reverse" the law of the case as previously determined by two previous Superior Court judges. The record shows that Your Petitioners objected to being forced to participate in the hearing. With the Court's indulgence, your Petitioners extract a portion of that hearing below: MR. COLLIER: Judge Nunzio did, in fact, sit and hear lengthy argument on both sides, oral argument, and when it was over, he stated that he would throw out the punitive damages and he would allow us to continue to press our claim in court so that we could have a jury determine what is reasonable or not reasonable for the public to assume when they read a reward offer put out by the party in power. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Collier, let me just say I resolved that issue when I resolved to hear the motion for reconsideration. I told you and Mr. Carr in chambers that it seemed to me appropriate for Judge Nunzio to hear the motion for reconsideration, and that's the way it usually works, but I also told you that Judge Nunzio was in a situation where he was in a different assignment now and, indeed he has retired, but the effective date isn't clear, and I wasn't sure how the civil division of this court and the administrators of that division would want to handle this matter. I called the assignment commissioner -- they asked me to handle it, and I indicated to counsel that I would. So, for purposes of this motion to reconsider I am, in essence, sitting as Judge Nunzio and reconsidering what he did in that case. So, the fact -- stare decisis does not apply to reconsideration of this matter. Now, if Judge Nunzio articulated some things in his denial of the motion for summary judgment that you think are relevant, I would certainly like to be informed about those things, because I was not there. So, if he articulated some reason as to why he thought there were material factual issues that remained in dispute in this case, and what those issues are, please address those. MR. COLLIER: Judge Nunzio, by his very decision, stated to us -- looked right in my eye and said. "It's not all over. You can still pursue it," or words to that effect. He had come to his decision -- THE COURT: But did he say what factual issues, what material factual issues he viewed as remaining in dispute in this case? This type of colloquy continued throughout a five hour hearing, during which time the issues under examination were boiled down to what Judge GREENE referred to as "the crux of the matter." To wit: THE COURT: Now tell me what's the evidence? MR. COLLIER: I submit that the statements made by Richard Richards in his deposition are exactly what Your Honor is referring to, and that where the complaint in this case states that the -- that the Defendants had no authority to make this promise, during our participation. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I guess that gets to the crux of the matter. MR. COLLIER: He agreed he had no authority to make the promise, and he signed the letter. THE COURT: I think that -- okay. I think that gets to the crux of this matter, Mr. Collier. It is my view, as a matter of law, that no reasonable person could interpret the language "Who will proceed with such complaint" following "federal officials" as anything other than predictive, that no reasonable person could construe that language as a guarantee by the Republican National Committee as to what federal officials would do and --and I guess that really is the crux of the matter. MR. COLLIER: May I address myself to that? THE COURT: And I say that as a -- as a predicate to my restating the same question. Now, if -- if we view that language as a guarantee, as you tend to view it and think it should be viewed, then I grant you that under the language of Bennett versus Kiggins, one could conclude that at least the reward offer and that portion of the reward offer which constitutes an alleged promise was made by the promisor with knowledge that the events would not occur. As you've indicated, Mr. Richards indicated in his deposition that nobody ever intended to guarantee what federal officials would do, but, it seems to me that the word -- and I -- I -- I -- in preparation for this, I was looking in a dictionary of English usage last night, and the word "will" of course, used as a verb, has several connotations. Sometimes it has connotations that amount to a guarantee but, in other contexts, it has only a predictive connotation, that is, that it will rain today. If I tell you it will rain tonight or it will snow tonight, the word "will" is being used with a predictive connotation, because there's no way that I can guarantee that it will rain or that it will snow tonight. Your Petitioners were appalled that Judge GREENE was so obviously contemptuous of us as pro se litigants that he would simply and cavalierly refer to his home dictionary as being the sole source from which he drew the conclusion "as a matter of law" that the word "will" under dispute had no guarantory meaning. Significantly, Judge GREENE conceded that here are "several" ways of interpreting that word, thereby conceding that the language was clearly facially ambiguous. Your Petitioners were cognizant of the background of Judge GREENE related in his prior 13 year employment as an attorney in the Justice Department, due to Judge GREENE's remarks in chambers (as above) and further recognized that if we were to later claim bias and prejudice on the part of the trial judge we would have to confront him on the record and ask for his recusal due to his past lengthy association with the above-mentioned "material witness" whose tenure at the DOJ mirrored Judge GREENE's. The following comprised his reply: THE COURT: Your request is denied, Mr. Collier, and you may have a seat. MR. COLLIER: All right. THE COURT: Your request for recusal is denied. CONCLUSION When the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's summary judgment, it provided in its rationale the very reason (and legal citation) why the decision of Judge GREENE should be reversed. As the below-quoted paragraph from the D.C.C.A. shows, a "facially ambiguous" phrase should not be interpreted by the Court "as a matter of law." The REWARD OFFER agreement itself placed an obligation on the RNC to "put Claimants in touch with the proper state and federal officials who will proceed with such complaint." The evidence in this case shows that Your Petitioners relied on that phrase when they embarked upon their videotaping mission. (COLLIER Affidavit. PARA: 1-12) That phrase (the inducement clause) should be interpreted by a jury to determine whether or not a "reasonable person" would have relied upon it as a "promise." DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS We turn first to a key argument of appellants on appeal, that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the reward offer as affording no guaranty to those responding to the offer that enforcement action would in fact be taken by state and federal officials to whom possible voter fraud information was provided. An interpretation of an integrated agreement in a document is facially ambiguous. 1010 Potomac Assoc. v. Grocery Manufacturers of America. Inc. 485 A, 2d 199, 205 (D.C. 1984). Clearly, Your Petitioners have earned the right to a jury trial to resolve the issues in dispute in this lawsuit, and therefore pray for reversal of the lower Court's arbitrary, capricious and prejudicial extinguishment of our claim. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. DATED 23 June 1987 KENNETH COLLIER JAMES COLLIER Ed. NOTE: THE COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THE CASE AND NO WRIT OF CERT. WAS ISSUED.