PAUL C. WILLIAMS 35 BROAD STREET #C4 TOMS RIVER NJ 08753-6564 p.c.williams70@gmail. com Ph: 732.998.6707 September 8, 2023 Honorable Craig L. Wellerson, P.J. Civ. Part Superior Court of New Jersey 100 Washington Street, Courtroom 10 PO Box 2191 Toms River NJ 08754-2191 RE: Paul C. Williams vs. Ocean County Democratic Committee. et al. Docket No. (TBD) Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraints ORAL ARUGMENT REQUESTED Dear Judge Wellerson: | am the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter and represent myself. In lieu of a more formal pleading, please accept this letter memorandum in support of Plaintiff's application for an order to show cause with temporary restraints pursuant to Rule 4:52- 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Itis incumbent upon political party organizations to comply with the Constitution, Statutes, their bylaws and principles of fundamental faimess; particularly when it comes to contested matters of selecting a candidate to fill a vacanoy created by a primary election candidate for municipal office. After all, political party organizations, along with their leaders and members, are at least theoretically expected by the public to do this so that the public may have good reason to trust and rely on its invaluable electoralsystem. Here, numerous of the Defendants have failed to comply with the Constitution, Statutes, their by-laws and principles of fundamental faimess, with regard to selecting candidates to fill vacancies that were created by 2023 primary election candidates for the office of Mayor and the office of Council At Large of the municipality of Toms River Township. Instead, numerous of the Defendants appear to have simply placed their personal interests and desires above all else, pursued and/or acquiesced in the pursuit of ultra vires, illegal, unreliable, and fraudulent process for selecting the candidates, and relied on such means to submit names of candidates to be placed on the 2023 general election ballot, as if those names were genuinely and legitimately selected by the members of the political party organization. Indeed, Defendant HORN, with the knowledge and acquiesces of Defendants EARP, MAMMANO, and HURYK, suddenly and inexplicably interjected an extraordinary process for selecting the candidates. More specifically, HORN simply advised that the selection would be made by way of a "Zoom Poll" ... no actual meeting, notwithstanding a meeting being expressly required by state law, and just a poll/vote. As well, the process was without any adequate and reasonable safeguards and, in fact, was fraught with vulnerabilities that completely compromised its integrity, reliability, and accuracy. Defendants simply have not been conferred with any authority to conduct the selection process without a meeting or otherwise by way of a Zoom Poll. Additionally, the Zoom Poll was able to and, in fact, did include people voting multiple times and also other people, who were statutorily not allowed, to vote. Accordingly, Defendants and their actions have violated at least New Jerseystate law, denied fundamental fairness and rights to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons, and jeopardized the integrity and accuracy of the selection process. As such, and for the reasons set forth below, this situation is the quintessential scenario in which the granting of temporary restraints to preserve the status quo ante, and to limit continued irreparable harm, is appropriate and necessary. The Office of the County Clerk and the County Clerk must be enjoined from placing the names of certain persons on the 2023 General Election ballot as the Democratic nominees for municipal offices. STATEMENT OF FACTS The relevant facts are set forth in the Verified Complaint, dated September 8, 2023, submitted to the Court simultaneously herewith for filing, and are expressly incorporated herein. LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT! ‘THE PROCESS FOR SELECTING CANDIDATES WAS IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, ULTRA VIRES, DENIED FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND RIGHTS, AND WAS FRAUGHT WITH BOTH POSSIBLE AND ACTUAL FRAUD,AND JEOPARDIZES THE INTEGRITY OF THE PUBLIC ELECTORAL SYSTEM. Defendant's conduct, in simply declaring that the process for selecting candidates to fill vacancies created among primary election candidates for municipal office would be by “Zoom Poll,” without a meeting, is simply in contravention of the statutory law that governs the process and, thus, clearly constitutes ultra vires action and is therefore void. ("Ultra vires” acts are those taken “beyond the scope of the powers of a corporation . . . as defined by its charter’ or ‘acts which are in excess of powers granted and not prohibited.” New Jersey Dep't of Children & Families’Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit v. S.P., 402 N.J. Super. 255, 274 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary (1979)). Moreover, the process also discouraged and disenfranchised many, if not most, of the eighty-one (81) people who are eligible to participate in the selection process. Additionally and perhaps most disturbingly, the process was fraught with both possible and actual fraud in the forms of people voting numerous times and other people voting who are not eligible to vote in the matter at all. POINT I! PLAINTIFF 1S ENTITLED TO PRELIMINARY RESTRAINTS PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER. New Jersey has long recognized the power of its courts to grant preliminary injunctive relief to prevent a threatening or irreparable harm, and to preserve the status quo, until opportunity is afforded for a full and deliberate investigation of the case. Princeton Ins. Co. v. 349 Associates, LLC, 147 N.J. 337, 340 (1997); Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-136 (1982). Moreover, if the public's interest is impacted by the grant or denial of an application for such relief, then the Court should give that interest substantial weight. Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. v. Union County Util, Auth., 399 N.J. Super. 508, 536 (App. Div. 2008) (holding that “Jn the matter at hand, the public interest is significantly impacted, and, once defined, should play a significant role in the judge's determination.”) Under New Jersey law, temporary, preliminary or summary relief should issue when a moving party demonstrates the following: (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits of the underlying legal claims; (2) that such relief is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm; (3) the legal rights underlying the moving party's claims are settled; and (4) the balance of harms, favors the granting ofpreliminary relief. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132-136. (The third factor under Crowe - that the legal right underlying a claim be settled — does not apply in cases ‘such as the instant ‘one, where Plaintiff seeks to simply preserve the status quo ante. As such, this factor is not addressed in this brief. In the event the Court believes this factor should be considered, Plaintiff, as a member of the Ocean County Democratic Committee has the settled right to enforce the provisions of the OCDO's Bylaws. See, e.9., Hartman v. Covert, 303 N.J. Super. 326 (L. Div. 1997). In addition, where the public interest is at issue, the Court should also consider the effect that granting or denying injunctive relief will have on the public interest. See Garden State Equality v. Dow, 216 N.J Here, itis clear that the names the Defendants EARP and/or HORN submitted to the County Clerk, to be placed on the 2023 General Election ballot, were not genuinely and legitimately selected by the elected members of the OCDO. Plaintif, therefore, submits that there is a reasonable probability of success on the merits of the underlying legal claims. As Plaintiff has been and continues to be a member of the OCDO and faithful to the discharge of his duty and responsibility as a member, he is, along with other similarly situated members, suffering irreparable harm and is threatened with further such harm by the names of persons being placed on the 2023 General Election as if they had been genuinely and legitimately selected by the members of the OCDO. Those names were not genuinely and legitimately selected and placing them on the ballot would perpetrate a fraud on the general public. Accordingly, Plaintiff submits that enjoining the County Clerk from placing such names on the 2023 General Election ballot is necessary to prevent further immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiff and thegeneral public. The legal rights underlying Plaintiff claims is settled. There is no dispute about what the law in this matter. A meeting is required to be had and, here, no meeting was had. Instead, there was simply a “Zoom Poll” sort of vote. In terms of the balance of harms, Plaintiff submits that the balance favors granting the preliminary relief. In fact, he contends that there does not appear to be any harm, real or imagined, to be suffered by the Defendants if the names are not placed on the 2023 General Election ballot. As well, those persons, like Plaintiff and any other person whose name does not appear on the ballot, can still seek election by way of a write in campaign. Conversely, Plaintiff and many others would suffer a hardship by the names being placed on the ballot without those names having been genuinely and legitimately selected in accordance with the law. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully urged that the Court grant Plaintiff's application for an order to show cause with temporary restraints. /‘Resee jully submitted, Paul C. Williams spew cc: File