In the United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 1 1of of 11 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carl Romanelli : Plaintiff : : v. : CIVIL DOCKET NO: : William DeWeese, individually and as : Member of the House Democratic Caucus : and as a coconspirator : Michael Veon, individually, and as a : a member of the House Democratic : Caucus and as a coconspirator : Brett Cott, individually and as an employee : Of the 2006 House Democratic Caucus : and as a coconspirator : Jeff Forman, individually and as counsel : For the House Democratic Caucus : and as a coconspirator : Michael Manzo, individually and as an : Employee of St. Rep. Mike Veon, and as a : coconspirator : Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus : Individually and as a coconspirator : Pennsylvania Democratic Party, individually: And as a coconspirator : Karen Steiner, individually and as an : Employee of the House Democratic Caucus : And as a coconspirator : Bob Caton, individually and as an : Employee of the House Democratic Caucus : And as a coconspirator : John and Jane Does, 1-100, individually and: as employees of the House Democratic : Caucus and as coconspirators :

COMPLAINT

1 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 2 2of of 11 11

I. INTRODUCTION

In order to appear on an election ballot, candidates must file nomination documents, which include, inter alia, petitions on which the signatures, printed name, address and date are collected and recorded. In 2006, Carl Romanelli filed a nomination petition for the office of United States Senator on the Green Party line. Romanelli was required to obtain 67,070 signatures. His petitions were filed on August 1, 2006 in the office of the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. Romanelli filed 3704 petition pages that contained 94,544 signatures of Pennsylvania voters.

The nomination petitions can be challenged in court after a prospective candidate has filed them.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Carl Romanelli in 2006, the employees and the resources of the House Democratic Caucus historically and routinely were utilized to conduct petition challenges against candidates who were opponents of Caucus incumbents or the Democratic Party. Meetings with employees regarding petition challenges and the participation of Caucus employees were typically conducted by defendants Michael Manzo and Brett Cott at the behest of the leadership of the House

Democratic Caucus. In 2006 the leaders of the Caucus were defendants William

DeWeese and Michael Veon, elected state representatives from Western Pennsylvania. At the meetings conducted by defendants Manzo and Cott, employees would receive instructions on reviewing petition pages for irregularities that would lead to invalidation of an individual signature or the entire page. The employees who were all paid by the

Commonwealth with taxpayer money would conduct reviews during normal working hours at their Caucus workplaces, utilizing their Caucus computers to research

2 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 3 3of of 11 11

information on individual whose names appeared as signatories on the petitions through the Constituent Tracking Service (CTS), a program which was designed and intended for legitimate legislative use, and which included voter registration information. The Caucus computers were further utilized to compile and transmit the information which would be used to challenge signatures on petition pages. The Caucus employees were not required to, and did not take leave for the time spent during their regular work hours on these endeavors.

The Election Code requires that challenges to the petitions must be filed no later than one week after the petitions were filed. The defendants honed their skills for large petition challenges by taking on Ralph Nader in 2004. Nader was running for President of the United States. John Kerry was the Democratic candidate. Attorney Cliff Levine was the Pennsylvania Legal coordinator for the Kerry campaign. In Pennsylvania, Nader filed

1,183 pages containing 51, 273 signatures. As many as 50 Caucus staff members participated in the Nader challenge effort and contributed a staggering number of man- hours to this project. The Caucus staff members worked on the Nader petitions during normal business hours and after hours and were paid their regular state wage and in addition were awarded tax payer funded bonuses. The fruits of their labors were reflected in a challenge petition which was timely filed. All tolled, more than 34,000 signatures were challenged due to improprieties found during the Caucus review process.

Ultimately, the challenge was successful and Nader was removed from the Pennsylvania ballot.

The Caucus effort to prevent Carl Romanelli from appearing on the ballot as a

Green Party candidate for the United States Senate was disturbingly similar to the Nader

3 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 4 4of of 11 11

effort in scope, methodology, and misappropriation of taxpayer funded resources. The clear goal of this effort was to enhance the elect ability of the Democratic nominee,

Robert P. Casey, Jr. by eliminating a challenger whose votes would likely come at

Casey’s expense. As mentioned before, Romanelli’s petitions filed on August 1, 2006 consisted of 3,704 pages, almost four times the Nader number from 2004, and 94,544 signatures, almost double the Nader number.

Defendant Brett Cott and others organized and orchestrated the 2006 operation.

The petition pages were obtained on the August 1, 2006, the date they were filed. The call for “volunteers” was put out in advance of the anticipated filing. The response, as usual, was impressive. The initial meeting was held in Defendant William DeWeese’s

Office and as many as thirty (30) staffers attended. Defendant Michael Manzo presided at this meeting. Defendant Cott gave the instructions on how to review the petitions and obtain and compile the information to challenge the signatures. Cott announced that it was very important to “leadership”, i.e., Defendants DeWeese and Veon, that Plaintiff

Carl Romanelli NOT appear on the November ballot. The staffers were told “not to worry about leave” but to focus on getting the work on the petition pages done as soon as possible.

The petition pages were delivered, as soon as the pages were obtained from the

Department of State by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, to a conference room in

Defendant Veon’s office. Cott then distributed the pages, collected the pages and the resultant work product from the staffers. During the one week time period, there was a parade of Caucus employees in and out of Veon’s office, picking up and delivering petition work. Defendant Jeff Forman assisted in the directing the contribution of Veon’s

4 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 5 5of of 11 11

office staff, which worked day in and day out on the petitions, while being paid by the taxpayers.

Defendant Cott assumed the responsibility for assuring that the Caucus work product was collected, assimilated and transmitted to the challenge attorneys which included Clifford Levine, Shawn Gallagher and David Montgomery at the law office of

Thorp, Reed and Armstrong. Levine, Gallagher and Montgomery knew or should have known how this product was created. They attached the gigantic work product illegally created by state employees, using state resources to the petition that they filed with

Commonwealth Court seven days later in August, 2006. The Herculean effort of the employees of the House Democratic Caucus created a document which detailed “global challenges to 1,782 petition pages that contained 45,918 signatures and a total of 69, 692

“individual line” signature challenges. Their effort succeeded on September 26, 2006 when Romanelli was ordered off the ballot.

On July 10, 2008, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett announced the

Statewide Grand Jury Presentment and indictment of the so called “Bonusgate” defendants including some of the defendants herein for a multitude of criminal offenses including theft, conflict of interest and conspiracy for a number of acts including the those specifically related to the petition challenge to Carl Romanelli in 2006.

5 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 6 6of of 11 11

JURISDICTION

1. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction founded on 42 U. S. C. Section 1983 and federal question, 28 U. S. C. Section 1331a, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

VENUE

2. All the acts and omissions given rise to the claims stated herein occurred in the Middle

District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff resides within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Defendants’ acts in furtherance of a criminal and civil conspiracy to remove Plaintiff from the 2006 United States Senate ballot all occurred in or around Harrisburg within the

Middle District. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.

S. C. Section 1391 (b) (1 & 2) and ( c).

PARTIES

3. Carl Romanelli is a citizen of the United States who resides in Luzerne County within the Middle District.

4. William DeWeese is a state representative with offices inside the state capitol in

Harrisburg. In 2006 he was the Majority Leader of the House Democratic Caucus.

5. Michael Veon was a state representative with offices inside the state capitol in

Harrisburg. In 2006 he was the party whip of the House Democratic Caucus.

6. Brett Cott was a state employee working for the House Democratic Caucus in 2006.

His office was located in the State Capitol in Harrisburg. He was directly employed in the office of Michael Veon.

6 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 7 7of of 11 11

7. Michael Manzo was a state employee working for the House Democratic Caucus in

2006. His office was located within the state capitol in Harrisburg. Manzo was directly employed by William DeWeese as his Chief of Staff.

8. Jeff Forman was a state employee working for the House Democratic Caucus in 2006.

His office was located within the state capitol in Harrisburg. Forman was legal counsel for the House Democratic Caucus.

9. Defendants John and Jane Does 1-100 are all state workers employed by the House

Democratic Caucus in 2006. These as yet unidentified individuals performed petition review work on state time, using state resources and generated the documents used to challenge the Romanelli petitions in 2006. They all worked within the state capitol in

Harrisburg.

10. The Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus is an entity made up of the Democratic members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives located in Harrisburg PA.

11. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party is the statewide arm of the national Democratic

Party with offices in Harrisburg, PA.

12. Karen Steiner Balnar is a state employee who worked for the Pennsylvania House

Democratic Caucus in 2006 and worked on the Romanelli petition challenge while being paid by the Commonwealth.

13. Bob Caton, is a state employee who worked for the Pennsylvania House Democratic

Caucus in 2006 and worked on the Romanelli petition challenge while being paid by the

Commonwealth.

7 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 8 8of of 11 11

FACTS

14. On or about August 1, 2006, Carl Romanelli filed nomination petitions for the federal office of United States Senate as a member of the Green Party with the Pennsylvania

Department of State. Romanelli filed 3704 petition pages that contained 94,544 signatures of Pennsylvania voters.

15. On July 28, 2006, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party requested a copy of the

Romanelli petitions and paid the Department of State the sum of $3704 for the copies on

August 1, 2006.

16. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party, in furtherance of a civil and criminal conspiracy, picked up copies of the Romanelli petitions from the Department of State and delivered them to the offices of the Pennsylvania Democratic Caucus to begin the preparation of a challenge document to attempt to remove Romanelli from the 2006 November ballot.

17. The law firm of Thorp, Reed and Armstrong was retained to file the challenge with

Commonwealth Court. Clifford Levine, Shawn Gallagher and David Montgomery at the law office of Thorp, Reed and Armstrong knew or should have known how the challenge product was created.

18. In furtherance of a civil and criminal conspiracies, Defendants DeWeese, Veon,

Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus, Manzo, Cott, Forman and others organized and orchestrated the operation against Romanelli. At the direction of the defendants, the petition pages were again obtained on the August 1, 2006, the date they were filed. The call for “volunteers” was put out in advance of the anticipated filing. The response, as usual, was impressive. The initial meeting was held in Defendant William DeWeese’s

Office and as many as thirty (30) staffers attended. Defendant Michael Manzo presided at

8 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 9 9of of 11 11

this meeting. Defendant Cott gave the instructions on how to review the petitions and obtain and compile the information to challenge the signatures. Cott announced that it was very important to “leadership”, i.e., Defendants DeWeese and Veon, that Plaintiff

Carl Romanelli NOT appear on the November ballot. The staffers were told “not to worry about leave” but to focus on getting the work on the petition pages done as soon as possible.

19. The petition pages were delivered, as soon as the pages were obtained from the

Department of State by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, to a conference room in

20. Defendant Cott and others assumed the responsibility for assuring that the Caucus work product was collected, assimilated and transmitted to the challenge attorneys

Clifford Levine, Shawn Gallagher and David Montgomery at the law office of Thorp,

Reed and Armstrong. Levine, Gallagher and Montgomery knew or should have known how this product was created. They attached the work product to the petition challenge that they filed on August 9, 2006. The Herculean effort of the employees of the House

Democratic Caucus, Defendants John and Jane Doe 1-100, created a document which detailed “global challenges to 1,782 petition pages that contained 45,918 signatures and a

9 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 10 10 of of 11 11

total of 69, 692 “individual line” signature challenges. Their effort succeeded on

September 26, 2006 when Romanelli was ordered off the ballot.

21. Romanelli expended large sums of money to collect, review and file the petitions and was forced to expend additional monies for legal fees and costs to defend his petitions.

22. Romanelli had no information regarding the civil and criminal conspiracies of defendants’ conduct until July 10, 2008 when the Office of Attorney General announced indicted a number of the defendants.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

23. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.

24. Defendants agreed to use the taxpayer funded resources of the House Democratic

Caucus and staff members paid by the taxpayers to challenge the Romanelli United States

Senate petition to aid in the election of Robert Casey, Jr. as United States Senator.

25. The document unlawfully prepared and funded with tax payer money was Exhibit A to the Challenge Petition prepared and filed by Clifford Levine, Esquire on behalf of the

Objectors.

26. Ballot access is recognized as an important aspect of voting rights. See Bullock v.

Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972) ("laws that affect candidates always have at least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters"). ‘The right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system,’

” Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974) (quoting

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964)).

10 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885 1 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 11 11 of of 11 11

27. Defendants’ overt actions in furthernace of civil and criminal conspriacies and the use of tax money to fund the challenge to Romanelli’s Seante petitions directly affected

Romanelli’s access to the ballot to run for federal office in an unimpared fashion.

28. Defendants tax funded challenge to Romanelli’s ballot access violated Romanelli’s civil and constitutional rights under the First and Fourtheenth Amendments.

WHERFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Court:

a. Award compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiff against the defendants

individually and jointly and severally in excess of $150,000;

b. Award compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiff against the defendants in

their official capacities in excess of $150,000;

c. Award costs of this action to the Plaintiff;

d. Award reasonable attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff;

e. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire ______LAWRENCE M. OTTER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Attorney ID No: 31383 PO BOX 2131 Doylestown, PA 18901 215-230-5330 215-230-7197(fax) email: [email protected]

11 CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885-2 1-2 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 1 1of of 2 2 OJS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) ’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5 Defendant of Business In Another State (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES ’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 610 Agriculture ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 400 State Reapportionment ’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 362 Personal Injury - ’ 620 Other Food & Drug ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 410 Antitrust ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 ’ 430 Banks and Banking ’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 450 Commerce ’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability ’ 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 460 Deportation & Enforcement of Judgment Slander ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 640 R.R. & Truck ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and ’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Injury Product ’ 650 Airline Regs. ’ 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations ’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability ’ 660 Occupational ’ 840 Trademark ’ 480 Consumer Credit Student Loans ’ 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV (Excl. Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 690 Other ’ 810 Selective Service ’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability ’ 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange ’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 875 Customer Challenge ’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410 ’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Product Liability ’ 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions ’ 196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 892 Economic Stabilization Act ’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 441 Voting ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 893 Environmental Matters ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 442 Employment Sentence ’ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) ’ 894 Energy Allocation Act ’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 895 Freedom of Information ’ 240 Torts to Land Accommodations ’ 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act ’ 245 Tort Product Liability ’ 444 Welfare ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION ’ 900Appeal of Fee Determination ’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access Employment ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice ’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee ’ 950 Constitutionality of Other ’ 465 Other Immigration State Statutes ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Appeal to District ’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 7 Judge from Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened another district Litigation Magistrate (specify) Judgment Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/07) CaseCase 3:10-cv-01434-ARC 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 885-2 1-2 Filed Filed 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 Page Page 2 2of of 2 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment)”. II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.