IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert Ted Pritchard Sr. Appellant v. Laura Lint , Director of the Fayette County Election Bureau , Vincent Vicites , Vincent Zapotosky Angela Zimmer link , Fayette County Board Of Elections , Appellees Appellantís Brief To the Honorable Judge of said Court your appellant respective fully epresent that the following argument should apply to his appeal . That this appeal is based on two laws which one were enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature more specifically referred to Chapter 25 PSA Section 1901 Subsection (b) as the VOTERS REGISTRATION REMOVAL ACT , the other enacted by Congress specifically referred to as Title 42 U.S.C Section 1973 gg-6 REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ADMINNISTRATION OF VOTER REGISTRATION Of the NATIONAL VOTER ACT . Both of these laws were enacted For the sole purpose of to protect the integrity of the electoral process by Ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration rolls for all elections pertaining for both Federal and State . Through the following process when followed and complied with the integrity of the elections can be guaranteed not to be corrupt And not To give an opportunity to unscrupulous politicians to utilize for their Benefit . 1. Change of address notification to the Election Bureau to Send out questionnaires and if it appears a registrant has moved To a different residence in the same jurisdiction in which the Registrant is currently registered . (in the case of Appellant To a different Magisterial District ) to a different address that Would adversely effect the voters registration in the appellant 's Magisterial District the voter registration should reflect this And the registrant not remain on the registration list where He is no longer a resident thereof . 2. The above is the same procedure when Penn Dot sends the Election Bureau notification of address on drivers licenses , vehicle Registrations , or titles . 3. Also notification from the Pennsylvania Department of Health Division of Vital Statistics notification on deceased voters that Are on the voters registration rolls. 4. Also it is a requirement that the Election Bureau complete A Mandatory Voter Removal Program before the Primary and General Elections which any Federal office to be Elected per Title 42 U.S.C Section 1973 gg-6 . But per Chapter 25 P.S.A Section 1901 Subsection (b) Paragraph 4 does not include Federal Office but Infers any Primary or General Election . Wherefore , The appellants petition to the lower court challenges that the Above process was not complied with and that the Fayette County Election Bureau is in non compliance with the herein cited law . This non compliance shows that the true electorate was thwarted , upon the non compliance of the Voters Registration removal act , Barnett V. Manmouth County Board of Elections 307 N.J. Super 403 , 704 A2d 1053 decision affirmed 307 N.J. Super 191 , 704 A 2d 945 ( App. Div. 1997 ) That the Pennsylvania appellate courts has never visited these laws . That the said appellate court at this first instance must entertain said appeal to give guild lines , procedures For the lower to follow in non compliance of hese laws . That said appellant moved the lower court in his petition that if it found that the Voters registration roll at the precincts within his Magisterial District Contained voters that should have been removed here fore tainted the Voter registration roll at the precincts giving an opportunity for voter fraud Wherefore, the precincts must be stricken ordered null and void . When ever a process is tainted by a wrongful , corrupt ,Non compliant act then the process must be stricken in the interest of justice . Where there has Been an undeterminable number of illegal votes (inactive or inactive voters converted to active voters ) cast in An Election , and particularly where there is accompanying fraud or disregard For election laws ,the entire vote of the precinct may be rejected in determining the result of the election , Dunshays contested election 21 N.J. Misc. , 360 A 2d 299 ( Cir. Ct. 1943 ) . A new Election may be ordered b y the court Even the percentage of illegal votes is small , if the illegality is attended by Fraud or willful violation of the election procedure , Rogers V. Holder 636 S.O 2d 645 . This demonstrates an irregularity Or illegality sufficient to change or place in doubt the election Copeland v. Tracy 111 Ohio App. 3d 648 , 676 N.E. 2d 1214 (10 th dist . Franklin County 1996 ) . Whereupon , When there are two not one precincts that reported zero votes For the appellant then these precincts must be recounted for the interest of Justice . This goes to show that enough illegal votes were cast to change the result , Therefore as ancillary to the proper determination of the result of an election the court may be authorized to order a recount , Ex Rel Dawson v Custer 12 S. W. 2d 402 . Furthermore, in August 2008 a purge of about 25000 Fayette County inactive voters who failed to show up at the polls were delayed until after the November General 2008 election .. This goes to show that enough illegal votes were cast to change the result , Although these voters failed to show Up at the polls what about the inactive voters that did vote through Impersonators , In re Ramseur , 139 N.C. App 442 , 533 S.E. 2d 295 (2000) That this delay goes to Show not only defects or irregularities in the election but also prove that the flawed election led to a result that is not true by leaving inactive voters on the Voter Registration rolls , Jackson v. District of Columbia Bd. Of elections and Ethics 770 A2d 79 (D. C. 2001 ) where there is accompanying fraud or disregard For election laws ,the entire vote of the precinct may be rejected in determining the result of the election , Dunshays contested election 21 N.J. Misc. , 360 A 2d 299 ( Cir. Ct. 1943 ) . A new Election may be ordered b y the court Fayette County is the only County among the ones throughout the Commonwealth that is in non compliance and has been for the past twelve years or even more . That in comparison to the twenty five thousand inactive voters that a purge were delayed until after the November 2008 General Election on February 27, 2009 the Fayette County Bureau of Elections mailed out 9000 notices to inactive voters so an inconsistency can be noticed between the purge that was delayed in August 2008 and the one purge in February 2009 that supposedly has commenced . Through the Opportunity of impersonation of inactive voters thereby converts them into active voters . Thereby where a Voters Registration process that has not Completed a mandatory voter removal program for several years being non Compliant of both Federal and both State laws taints the voters registration at the precincts and as a whole (county wide ) which the May 19 , 2009 Primary that appellant has challenged must be thrown out or stricken . Show not only defects or irregularities in the election but also prove that the flawed election led to a result that is not true by leaving inactive voters on the Voter Registration rolls , Jackson v. District of Columbia Bd. Of elections and Ethics 770 A2d 79 (D. C. 2001 ) Also these unlawful acts prove that either fraud or irregularities are present and that , but for the fraud or irregularities , the out come of the election would have been different , Savage v. Edwards , 728 S.O. 2d 428 722 S.O. 2d 1004 , 1998 Also prove that violations of the elections code occurred , and that they Materially affected the outcome of the election , That the appellant would have been successful if it were not for the fraud and irregularities .In re Ramseur , 139 N.C. App 442 , 533 S.E. 2d 295 (2000) The one that was delayed is in direct violation of both Federal and State Voter Registration Removal Acts. This non compliance shows that the true Electorate was thwarted, upon the non compliance of the Voterts Registration removal act , Barnett V. Manmouth County Board of Elections 307 N.J. Super 403 ,704 A2d 1053 decision affirmed 307 N.J. Super 191 , 704 A 2d 945 ( App. Div. 1997 ) Furthermore , when the appellant requests through his petition a recount As a result of possible fraud or the illegality of the election through violations of the election code , the statutory recount procedure can be omitted when the candidate seeks a recount or contest only when such matters contain the above . Miller v. County Comm. Of Boone County 208 W,Va. 263 , 539 S.E. 2d 770 (2000) WHEREFORE , the appellant has met his burden of proof on itís face for appeal to withstand all challenges and pray this honorable court acts favorably on his appeal in the best interest of justice and society . That this honorable court may as an adjunctive relief bring in consideration the voters registration roll in Fayette County as a whole in addition to appellantís district for which he was a candidate that the non compliant purge included The voters registration county wide .. Note: Thgey are makinhg an attempt to have the Appallate Court to treat his as a non Election issue , I have no objections but in the event the Court rul,es in my flavor then the NOVEMBER ELECTION WILL BE A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY , THEN THE ONES THAT WERE A CANDIDATE WILL RUN IN 2010 PROVEDED THE VOTERS REGISTRATION ROLL IS CLEANED UP .