NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action based upon the right of every human being to freely associate. “The
most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his
[energy, ideas and dreams] with those of his fellow creatures and of acting in common with
them.” DE TOCQUEVILLE, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 196 (1963). The desire to join with
others to accomplish goals has been recognized for almost 150 years, as evidenced in the works
of de Tocqueville.
2. For more than three decades, courts have recognized a right to associate freely with
others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and
cultural objectives. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984); Daniel v. Paul,
395 U.S. 298 (1969); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); Douglas, The
Right of Association, 63 COLUM. L. REV. 1361, 1361 (1963) ("The right of association is
closely related to the right to believe as one chooses and to the right of privacy in those
beliefs.&quot . See generally The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 59 (1883) (Harlan, J., dissenting)
(Justice Harlan proclaimed that "[n]o government has ever brought, or ever can bring, its people
into social intercourse against their wishes.&quot .
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the issues concerned in this case constitute federal questions
under the United States Constitution and federal law. To wit, defendants have violated the rights
PRELIMINARY
INJUCTION
REQUESTED
1:16-cv-04114
Non-Conformed Copy
of plaintiff to freely associate with other members of his chosen political Party by establishing,
and promoting, the “unpledged delegate” rule which directly violates the spirit, and language, of
the rest of the Democratic National Committee Charter.
4. Plaintiff acknowledges, and appreciates, the right of political party’s to establish their
own rules. Plaintiff fully supports the right of the Democratic Party to govern its own activities.
5. However, as will be shown in the “Statement of Claim” section, the “unpledged delegate”
rule violates the rights of its own members to freely associate as the rule is in contrast with the
foundations upon which the Democratic Party was founded and the very reason why Plaintiff,
who is similarly situated to millions of other members of the Democratic Party, joined the Party
in the first place.
6. Defendants have acted under color of state action.
7. The delegate selection process of the New York State Democratic Party is coordinated
utilizing public funds and the Democratic National Convention receives funding from the federal
government.
8. The courts, pursuant to Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic
Association, 531 U.S. 288, 291 (2001) have consistently found a private organization’s acts
constitute state action when the organization performed a public function; was created, coerced,
or encouraged by the government; or acted in a symbiotic relationship with the government.
9. Thus, Plaintiff’s right to freely associate in this context is protected under the United
States Constitution and the federal laws flowing from it, as well as the case law protecting such
rights and, therefore, this lawsuit concerns a federal question and proper venue is laid in federal
court.
10. Venue is properly laid in This Court as the injuries complained of occurred within its
borders.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/553fe5ade4b09221a1beb7c0/t/5750db4122482e8f9917ef67/1464916801597/SuperDelegate+Lawsuit%2C+Kurzon+v.+DNC.pdf

The whole "freedom to associate" issue was decided by a 7-2 SCOTUS decision in 2000 in CA v Jones.

The right of people to freely associate in political parties is exactly what gives the D Party the right to have super delegates, or to do anything else they please when it comes to how they select their candidates for office.

The jerk undoes his own argument by stating the above in #4 of his complaint.

Just Bizarre!

Extra pages of empty rhetoric couched in faux-legal terms never impressed a judge.

lol!

They're going to use every single day -till convention- like this for attention seeking plus GOFUNDME stunts!

Joshua A. Douglass (JD3985)
426 Old Route 22
Amenia, NY 12501
(845)504-7694
Attorney for Plaintiff
NYS Bar Registration #4349759
jdouglassesq@gmail.com

COUNT III
SUPERDELEGATE RULE VIOLATES PLAINIFF’S RIGHT TO EQUAL
PROTECTION UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
42. Plaintiff’s right to equal protection, pursuant to the clause of the 14th amendment, is
violated by the superdelegate rule as a result of the holding by the United States' “… having once
granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate
treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

these clowns eventually being held accountable for filing frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits.

This is just more sour grapes, using the courts to express that they're sore losers.

When 'no party' people complain that they have to pay for partisan activities they are not allowed to participate in. I guess none of their tax money goes to other things they don't agree with - like anti-abortion scams, Bengazi witch hunts, drones, senate salaries, fracking, roads to nowhere, etc.

in 2014 the incumbent got 80% of the vote in the primary.

Good luck with that

Also, Rule 13 only identifies how it applies to district, at-large, and the PLEO (party leaders and elected officials). Parts A through D involves the district and alternates. Part E involves at-large and the PLEO (party leader and elected official). Part F deals with no candidate achieving the 15% threshold. Part G prohibits single-delegate districts. Part H instructs state parties to educate the public about non-binding preference events. Like they had in Washington and Nebraska that they are meaningless.

Since the unpledged (automatic) delegates are not referenced in Rule 13 it does not apply to unpledged delegates.

The court should be ruling that the DNC determines the rules they will use. Otherwise the Republican Party will have to change their rules which in many states results in winner take all.

His claim that the unpledged delegates should be beholden to the NYSDC Convention also does not hold water. The rules were already established and cannot be changed for the convention. A vote by state convention delegates cannot change how delegates must vote at the national convention. They don't have the authority. It must be done as a body of the DNC at one of their regular meetings and only DNC members can vote on such matters.

Per the DNC rules any challenge to a state plan must be filed no later than 15 days after a plan has been adopted by a state party by at least 15 persons with standing. People with standing likely does not include riff raff like Kurzon. There are additional restrictions on who can file challenges.

"A fool and his money are soon parted." An idiom that Sanders built a campaign on.