the portion of the Anthem premiums used for bribes are returned to Plainitiffs, the injury
will be favorably redressed.

Having made the above analysis for both classes of Defendants, Plaintiffs are
unable to parse out any different treatment that might be applied to one or the other class.
Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, provides absolute immunity for members of Congress
acting in that function. That is why Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not name any Defendant
in his official capacity as a United States Senator or Member of the United States House
of Representatives. Defendants might claim Plaintiffs can’t sue the Defendants as civil
officers, but the same constitutional circuit results. If Defendant legislators are acting as
civil officers in their capacities as Agents of their respective campaign committees, then
the FECA Law is unconstitutional; if they are not so acting, it is constitutional. Once
again the Court’s decision on the underlying Constitutional question determines whether
Plaintiffs have standing.

A Brief History of the Emoluments Clause

Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution in final draft form
was agreed to at the Constitutional Convention on September 12, 1787.7

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was

elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United

States, which shall have been created, or the Emojuments whereof shall

have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office

under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his

Continuance in Office.”

The clause was drafted as an anti-corruption clause. [fere are some of the notes from the

framers in the drafting process:

” “1787 Drafting the U.S. Constitution,” Wilbourn E. Benton, editor, (1986), pg.739.


D. That the Court issue a Restraining Order forbidding the six legislators
from voting on or filibustering any future health care bill until all illegal
bribes received from Big Health in the past six years have been returned to
the donors.

£. That the part of Plaintiffs’ Anthem premiums used to pay illegal bribes
to the six legislators be returned to the Plaintiffs in the amount of $1.

F, That the six legislators pay for the costs of this action.

G. That the six legislators be referred to the Justice Department as
required by law.

THE END

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

Schonberg, Pro Se
7938 Circle

Ocala, FL 34480
352-789-0610

60 Wilson Hill Road
Merrimack, NH 03054
352-789-9474

Email: maribethnh@aol.com



was unable to pass off as a campaign expense. Congress also only requires its members
to disclose to the FEC the monthly amounts of their PACs’ credit card debt; no
itemization seems to be required.”!

The Court has but a solitary, single and simple question to answer for the
Plaintiffs and the People of the United States of America: when does an agent of
an election campaign committee become a civil officer under the “Authority of
the United States?" An office is a public station, or employment, conferred by
the appointment of government. The term embraces the ideas of tenure,
duration, emolument, and duties. U.S. v. Hartwell, 73 U.S.385, 393 (1867).
Applying this Hartwell definition to Defendant Civil Agents:

A. Appointment: Once their PACs are formed the FECA Law appoints
them as Agents.””

B. Tenure: The Defendant Agents hold their offices and direct the
activities of their campaign committees.

C. Duration: The Agency continues as long as the campaign committee
exists.

D. Emolument: Millions of Dollars.

E. Duties: Golf, entertainment, providing political favors to
contributors,” etc.

*' Plaintiffs were unable to find any credit card itemizations on the FEC.gov website.
® 2 U.S.C. $432(e)(2)

a “Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid.” Alexander Hamilton, as quoted in the Benton
text, FN 7.supra, pg. 692.


industry and the pharmaceutical industry, (hereinafter referred to as “Big Health.”) On
legislative issues, these Defendants have consistently voted in favor of Big Health and
against the interests of the Plaintiffs. Defendants McCain, McConnell, Boehner and
Cantor are leaders in their political party in the effort to defeat health care reform.
Defendant Lieberman is an independent legislator who has threatened to filibuster any
health insurance reform bill on the floor of the Senate. Defendant Lincoln is a
democratic legislator who intends to block any “public option” in health care reform
legislation. Hereinafter these honorable public servants are referred to as “the six
legislators.”

4. Defendants Boehner and Cantor are also the directors of their
unconstitutional leadership Political Action Committees, (PAC’s.) “The Freedom
Project” is Defendant Boehner’s and “Every Republican Is Crucial (EricPac) is
Defendant Cantor's. The only difference between these committees and the principal
campaign committees of the defendants is that instead of appointing themselves “agents”

rectors.” The Emoluments Clause

under the FECA Law they appoint themselves as “
prohibits the appointments and illegal gratuities and/or bribes” as described below.

5. Defendant Sanders is NOT one of the six legislators. He is in favor of public
financing of federal elections, but as the Civil Officer and Agent for his Principal
Campaign Committee, Defendant Sanders has received millions of dollars in illegal
contributions. Defendant Sanders plans to vote against presently drafted health care
reform. He plans to vote “no” to any proposed legislation that fails to contain a robust

public option to prevent another huge windfall to Big Health. Defendant Sanders

* Called just “bribes” henceforth.


Mr. Pierce Butler: “Look at the history of the government of Great Britain,
where there is a very flimsy exclusion—Does it not ruin their goverment? A
man takes a seat in parliament to get an office for himself or friends or both;
and this is the great source from which flows its great venality and
corruption.”

Mr. Alexander Hamilton: “I am, therefore. against all exclusions and
refinements, except only in this case; that when a member takes his seat, he
should vacate every other office.®

“Mr. Rutledge, was for preserving the Legislature as pure as possible, by

shutting the door against appointments of its own members to offices, which
RLY:

was one source of corruption.”

“Mr. Jenifer remarked that in Maryland, the Senators chosen for five years,
could hold no other office and that this circumstance gained them the greatest
confidence of the people.”

Gov. John Rutledge: “No person ought to come to the legislature with an eye
to his own emolument in any shape.”''

Mr. George Mason: “But if we do not provide against corruption, our
government will soon be at an end...”"

Mr. James Madison: “I believe all public bodies are inclined, from various
motives, to support its members; but it is not always done from the base
motives of venality..."

Mr. Roger Sherman: “The Constitution should lay as few temptations as
possible in the way of those in power.”

These notes support what Plaintiffs and many others learned in high school history class.
The Founding Fathers were honorable men who wrote the Constitution with an eye

toward preventing corruption. And if the Court wants to take our country a step back in

"fd at 715
Sida 717
” fd at 718
” fdat72\
z Idat 723
Mid

" Id at 732


For any person, corporation, or other entity to provide any
advertising or promotion for any candidate running for an elected
federal office. No person, corporation, or other entity may
provide any advertising or promotion for any elected official for
any purpose.

THE PENALTY for violation of this Amendment shall be no Jess
than two years in prison and a fine of no less than treble the
value of any illegai gift, contribution or thing of value for the
contributor, candidate and elected official.

Section 2

Each State shall pass legislation to enhance the prosecution
and severity of penalties set forth in this Amendment for all
residents, corporations and other entities in the State who violate
this criminal provision.

Each State shall determine how to finance the campaigns for its
candidates for the U.S Senate and House of Representatives.

Each State shall determine how it contributes to the campaigns
of candidates for President of the United States from a
distribution from the United States Treasury in amounts to be
decided by Congress. This Treasury distribution will be made
equitably to the States based on United States Census Bureau
population estimates for the several states.

Governor Lynch, thank you for your continued attention to this most important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Steven E. Schonberg, MD, JD

ce To the Honorable:
Barack Obama, President of the United States, Fax only: 202-228-4260
Senator Judd Gregg, Fax only: 202-224-4952
enator Jeanne Shaheen, only: 202-228-3194
Representative Carol Shea-Porter: Fax only 2 25-5822
S. Representative Paul Hodes: Fax only 202-225-2946
NH District 9 State Senator Sheila Roberge sheila.rober
NH District 19 Representatives:



treated the Defendant and his friends to $31.400 in free golf with all the trimmings at the
Naples, Florida Ritz Carlton.'* The FECA Law states:

(2) Conversion. For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be
considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any
commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the
candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office,
including—

(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;

(B) a clothing purchase:

{C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;

(D) a country club membership;

(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;

(F) a household food item;

(G) a tuition payment:

(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment
not associated with an election campaign; and

(0) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.

2 U.S.C. § 439a.(b)(2). Thus Defendant Boehner gives himself and friends unlimited golf, food,
drink, souvenirs and lodging at the most expensive resort in the area, but it’s no vacation and no
country club membership. What a joke of a law Congress enacted for themselves!

As to the exception that [Senators and Representatives] cannot be appointed

to offices created by themselves, or the emoluments of which are by

themselves increased, it is certainly of little consequence, since they may

: - Rat

easily evade it... Luther Martin .
In 2 U.S.C. § 439a.(a)(2), Congress legislated to allow themselves to use their illicit
contributions “for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of

the individual as a holder of Federal office.” Plaintiffs cannot determine what those

necessary expenses are, but they probably include expenses which Defendant Boehner

'* From The Washington Post online, By Mary Ann Akers, June 24, 2009

" From, “The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution”, John F.
O'Connor, 24 Hofstra Law Review 89 (1995), citing Luther Martin, “The Genuine Information Delivered
to the Legislature of the State of Maryland Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention Lately
Held at Philadelphia, in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 19, $2 (Herbert J. Storing., 1981). Luther Martin
was an anti-federalist delegate from Maryland who refused to sign the Constitution.


The second prong of Lujan requires Plaintiffs to show “a causal connection between
the injury” and the challenged action, Lujan, supra at 560. Plaintiffs claim that the six
legislators’ have received enormous campaign contributions from Big Health’, that they
consistently vote for Big Health and against the interests of the Plaintiffs, and that the six
legislators intend to block health care reform, Plaintiffs’ Complaint, §3. Defendant
McConnell is alleged to have received a $2000 bribe from the CEO of WELLPOINT
when Plaintiffs were paying an inflated health insurance premium to Anthem Health Plan
which WELLPOINT owned. Part of Plaintiffs’ premium went to pay for the bribe.
Plaintiffs’ premiums also paid salaries to WELLPOINT managers and executives who
used some of that money to bribe Boehner, Cantor, Lieberman and Lincoln. With respect
to the bribes, causation is obvious. Plaintiffs unwittingly paid money to a company that
used it to bribe members of Congress. The cause of the injury was the bribe.

And if a jury instruction were given at a trial for receiving illegal gratuities by one
of the six legislators, it would include the following in order to prove the U.S. Attorney’s
case (against a senator):

One, the defendant was a United States Senator:
Two, the defendant received a thing of value not authorized by law; and

Three, the defendant did so for an official act to be performed by
Senator

See 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B).
With this jury instruction, the government need not have direct evidence of intent.

If the defendant legislator is found to have received an unauthorized thing of value and

* The six legislators referred to in Plaintiffs Complaint are Defendants Lincoln, McCain, McConnell,
Lieberman, Boehner, and Cantor. Defendant Bernie Sanders is NOT one of the six legislators.

5 This is the slogan used in the Complaint to refer to the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical
industry


Law. and the bribes or illegal gratuities continued, the six legislators would be placed ina
federal prison.
Medicare Plus 5%

18. “Medicare Plus 5%” refers to a health insurance plan put forth in Congress
during health reform legislation discussions in 2009. The idea was to allow any citizen of
the United States under the age of 65 an option to purchase Medicare insurance at the
cost of the insurance plus an additional 5% premium. The plan was a simple,
straightforward one which would not have increased taxes; and yet it would provide relief
from the unfair burdens addressed in this Complaint. ‘The plan was scuttled primarily by
the six legislators because it probably would have put for-profit health insurance
companies like WELLPOINT out of business. The main reason Medicare plus 5% failed
to gain the support of Congress was intense lobbying of the six legislators which included
illegal bribes unconstitutionally permitted in the FECA Law.

Basis for Constitutional Claims
19. The Emoluments Clause forbids a sitting member of Congress from taking

on a second job as a civil] officer of the United States “under the Authority of the United

State: The FECA Law at 2 U - $432(e\(2) requires that members of Congress who
form campaign committees for the purpose of raising campaign gifts (“emoluments®) be
considered as Agents of their campaign committees. This agency relationship creates a
civil office under the Authority of the United States and the Defendant Agents are the

civil officers in charge of the committees.

* Black's Law Dictionary defines emolument as “[aJny perquisite, advantage, profit or gain arising from
the possession of an office.” (6" ed,1990, pg 524)


RECEIVED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. JEC -3 14 9: 08
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MARIBETH SCHONBERG.
STEVEN E. SCHONBERG,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No.

Civil Officer BERNIE SANDERS, Agent of the
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Principal
Campaign Committee, A/K/A “Friends of
Bernie Sanders,” et al,

5:09-CU-534-OC-10GRJ

a Ss i NS

Defendants

Notice Requesting Emergency Three-Judge Court
To the U.S. District Court Clerk for the Middle District of Florida
Pursuant to local rule 1.06(d), please take notice that the above-captioned and
docketed matter draws into question the constitutionality of 2 U.S.C. §432, $434, §439,
and §441i of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the
FECA Law.) The constitutional grounds upon which this case assails these sections of
the FECA Law are:
1. In2 U.S.C. §432, §4 $439, and §441i Congress allowed its members to be
appointed to civil Offices for the purpose of receiving illegal gratuiti

bribes, referred to in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2
431 et seq. as “campaign contributions.”

2. These civil Offices are forbidden by Article I. Section 6, Clause 2 of the
United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs request, pursuant to the local rule and 28 U.S.C. Section 2403, that a

Three-Judge Court be composed to rule on this matter. A Complaint for an Emergency


oe bElVED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 070-2) 3: 44
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA .

MARIBE TH SCHONBERG.
STEVEN E. SCHONBERG,

Plaintitts.
Y Civil Action No.
Civil Officer BERNIE -S4NDERE: Agent of the
See rite wk tai 5:09-CU-534-OC-10GRI
Bemie Sanders.” et al.

Defendants

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Emergency Motion
, to Shorten Time and for Leave to File a Reply

The United States Senate is in the midst of an historic debate to reform the health
insurance industry lor all Americans. Plaintifls huve alleged that four of the Senators named in
the Complaint received unconstitutional and illegal gratuities and/or bribes from the industry that

they are about to regulate. There is a clear and present immediate danger that the Senate will

draft and approve a health care reform measure that has been tainted by the alleved illegal

conduct. A tainted bill will tum into a corrupt law that will adversely affect the Plaintiffs for
many years. until Plaintiff M. Schonberg is eligible tor Medicare.

President Barack Obama has said there is @ heulth insurance crisis in the country that
needs immediate resolution. At the President's urging a majority of the members of the U.S,
Senate have been and will continue to pul in long. exhaustive duys in un effort to ect a health

insurance bill out of the Senile by the end of 2009,



Anthem Health Plan Payments:
3000 GOFFS FALLS RD
MANCHESTER, NH 03111 0001
9/28/09 - $1,447.53

6/29/09 - $1,447.53

3/27/09 - $1,447.53

12/30/08 - $1,447.53

9/30/08 - $1,447.53

6/27/08 - $1,281.81

3/25/08 - $1,281.81

9. Approximately 25% of these premium payments were the result of the six
legislators failing to put an end to “for profit” health insurance companies. Plaintiffs
exorbitant healthcare insurance and costs will continue because of the corruption of the
six legislators permitted by the FECA Law.

10. For all times material herein, the Chief Executive Officer of WELLPOINT is
Angela Braly. According to Defendant FEC, among the tens of thousands of dollars
Braly provided in illegal bribes to the members of Congress opposing health care reform
was a $2000 gift to Defendant McConnell. Plaintiffs paid an inflated premium to

Anthem whose profits were forwarded to WELLPOINT. Some of Plaintiffs’ premium

paid part of Braly’s flagrant and scandalous 2008 salary and long term compensation of
$9,844,212." Braly then used part of plaintiffs’ premium to give illegal bribes to
Defendant McConnell who is and was an opponent of any health care reform that would

benefit the Plaintiffs.

+ This amount was reported by the Wal Stret Journal as of November 23, 2009 at

‘system of government is seriously flawed when captive Ri aicaarty Hae Tatas pay
bribes which inure to benefit the NOG coe he main flaw is the FECA Law.



believes that all of the People of the United States should have a “single payer” option
like the Medicare program in which Plaintiff S. Schonberg is enrolled.

6. Defendant Federal Election Commission, (“FEC”), is a commission created
by the United States Congress in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. §
431 et seq., (hereinafter referred to as the FECA LawTM.) The FECA Law is not only
unconstitutional, but is also defective: it does not even define the agency relationship
which it illegally established for the Defendant Agents.

Standing to Sue

7. Plaintiff M. Schonberg is a patient who, after being forced to move from
Florida to New Hampshire because of a lack of health insurance availability in Florida,
has been gouged by higher and higher premiums with fewer benefits. The only major
medical coverage known to her in either New Hampshire or Florida was with New
Hampshire’s Anthem Health Plan a/k/a Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. In the year
2007, Plaintiff M. Schonberg’s Anthem insurance premium was huge, approximately
$5100 per year. Anthem is owned by WELLPOINT, a profit-making insurance company
that is part of Big Health and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol “WLP.” In late 2009 Anthem raised its already outrageous premium for M.
Schonberg to approximately $8100 per year, an increase of almost 60% in 2 years.

8. Here are the recent Anthem payments made by S. Schonberg:

* Last month, Plaintiff M. Schonberg found a slightly less exorbitant rate for her health insurance with a
company owned by Coventry Health Systems. another for-profit company traded on the NYSE under the
ticker symbo! CVH.


voted favorably for the (insurance company) in his official actions, that’s all the proof the
Government would need for a Court or Jury to decide guilt or innocence. The focus for
this Court's decision are the words in sentence 7wo of the suggested instruction “not
authorized by law.” Buckley, supra, needs to be overturned to make such a case possible.

In the 38 years of the existence of the FECA Law, it has never been questioned as
a violation of the Emoluments Clause. Defendants, their brethren, sisterhood, and
predecessors always thought that the FECA Law was constitutional; receipt of millions
of dollars in gifts was “business as usual.” [t’s obvious that they receive campaign
contributions authorized by FECA Law. And, it’s blatantly clear the six legislators vote
in Congress to protect their major contributors. Clearly, the second Lujan prong is also
met if the FECA Law is unconstitutional, id. Plaintiffs injuries were, are, and will be the
result of a continued protection of “for profit” health insurance companies by the six
legislators. These legislators vote “no” to any public option that could jeopardize the
financial well-being of Big Health, from whom they have received hundreds of thousands
of dollars in bribes (according to Plaintiffs) or campaign contributions (according to
Defendants.)

What an unusual case for the Court to decide. /t can resolve the underlying
constitutional question by deciding whether or not standing exists in the first place! If
the FECA Law is unconstitutional, Plaintiffs have standing; if it is constitutional with
respect to the Emoluments Clause, there is no standing.

The third prong of Lujan is that “it must be likely,” as opposed to speculative, that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” /d at 561, (internal cites omitted).

This prong is the equivalent of asking, “Do bribes work?” Also plain and clear is that if


that each can retain citizenship in their respective states. The travel costs for the trips
back and forth have averaged approximately $2000 per year for the past three years.

15. These injuries will continue in the future as long as the six legislators receive
bribes and/or illegal gratuities. The cause of these injuries is the bribery of. and/or illegal
gratuities given to the six legislators by Big Health. If there were no bribes or illegal
gratuities, these Defendants and the rest of Congress would probably act in the best
interests of the Plaintiffs and the People of the United States. Real health insurance
reform legislation would result. Plaintiff M. Schonberg would become eligible for major
medical health insurance in Florida; and Plaintiff S. Schonberg would pay the reasonable
cost.

16. The six legislators provide themselves with Cadillac health insurance
coverage which is superb. The U.S. Congress requires that the Plaintiffs and the People
of the United States pay for about 75% of the health insurance premiums for the six
legislators. These Cadillac plans cost the six legislators about half of the premium that
Plaintiff S. Schonberg paid for his wifes insurance; and the Cadillac plans pay for more
than twice the medical benefits. Plaintiff S. Schonberg estimates that he has paid in
excess of four times the cost for his wife’s medical insurance and care in the past 3 years
than each of the six legislators would have paid under similar circumstances.

17. The FECA Law’s unconstitutional sections have allowed unconscionable
campaign contributions, outright bribery of, and/or illegal gratuities given to the six
legislators by Big Health. But for this corruption in Congress allowed by the FECA Law

and paid to these Defendants, Plaintiffs would have no injuries. If there were no FECA


Founding Fathers, Hamilton, Madison, Mason, Jackson, Rutledge, Washington,
Jefferson and those other magnificent souls from ] 787 crafted the law of our land. Had
they known that their Constitution could ever allow the incredible Congressional power
and money “grab” we are witnessing. the Founding I‘athers surely would have placed into
the lifeblood of the American Democracy an Amendment to the Constitution similar to

the one contained in EXHIBIT I to this memorandum. **

Respectfully submitted,

Steveir€, Schonberg, Pro Se
7938 SE 12" Circle

Ocala, FL 34480
352-789-0610

Email: sschonberg @aol.com

Maribeth Schonberg, Pro Se
60 Wilson Hill Road
Merrimack, NH 03054
352-789-9474

Email: maribethnh@aol.com

** Exhibit | to this Memorandum is a letter faxed to New Hampshire Governor John Lynch earlier this year
in regard to the suggested Constitutional Amendment. The “original” of Exhibit | was signed by Plaintiff
S. Schonberg and sent to Governor Lynch and those “ce’d.” Schonberg wants the New Hampshire State
Legislature to be the first State to vote “up or down” to convene a Constitutional Convention pursuant to
Article V of the United States Constitution. The sole purpose of the convention would be for campaign
finance reform. The States must adopt the Amendment because Congress will never enact significant
reform that is contrary to the self-interests of its members.

WW


AO 440 (Rev. 01/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Middle District of Florida

Maribeth Schonberg, Steven E. Schonberg

Plaintiff

Defendant

)
)
5 Civil Action N
Federal Election Commission y omacien SOL -5B 4-00 -/D6EY
)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address) Steven T. Walther
Chairman, Federal Election Commission
999 E St. NW
Washington D.C. 20463

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P, 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are: Maribeth Schonberg Steven E. Schonberg

60 Wilson Hill Road 7938 SE 12th Circle
Merrimack, NH 03054 Ocala, FL 34480

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the refief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

SHERYL L. LOESCH
CLERK OF COURT

pa: _ \2ARLOF aoe

Signature of Check ur Deputy Clerk



and regulate the relationship of Defendant Civil Officers, Agents and directors to their
campaign committees are unconstitutional.

23. Defendant McConnell admits that the American electorate is losing
confidence in the democratic process because of the spectre of actual and apparent
corruption created by “soft money” and other campaign finance abuses, and because of
the climate of evasion of legitimate regulation that has come to characterize our political
system.

24. [n their unconstitutional activities as FECA Law civil officers. Defendants
McConnell, Boehner and Cantor, and probably Defendants McCain, Lincoln and
Lieberman are in violation of several Federal Criminal Statutes, e.g. receiving illegal
gratuities, (18 U.S.C. § 201), racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1961) and extortion (18 U.S.C. §
1951.)

25. Defendant Boehner, an avid golfer, immerses himself in illegal golf
emoluments. Earlier this year, his illegal PAC, “The Freedom Project,” put on a golf
tournament which treated the Defendant and his friends to $31,400 in free golf with all
the trimmings at the Naples, Florida Ritz Carlton.®

Basis for Emergency Request

26. In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the Supreme Court decided the winner
of the 2000 United States Presidential Election in 5 days and issued a 60-page opinion.
There was a national emergency. At the time of the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the
United States was in a health insurance crisis which President Barack Obama said was

the cause of forty thousand deaths per year in the under-insured population. Health care

* From The Washington Post online, By Mary Ann Akers, June 24, 2009

10


20. The Defendant Civil Officers and Agents illegally receive, manage and
distribute millions of dollars of FECA Law moncy while Defendants are also sitting
members of Congress. Here are pertinent amounts raised by all of the Defendants’ civil

offices for the present election cycle:”

Friends of Bernie Sanders 2005-2010 $5,813,062
John Boehner Combined PACs for 2010 $2.148.792
Blanche Lincoln Combined PACs 2005-2010 $7,094,737
Joe Lieberman Combined PACs 2005-2010 $20,187,719
Mitch McConnell Combined PACs 2005-2010 $23,882,771
John McCain Combined PACs 2005-2010 $20.653,777
Eric Cantor Combined PACs for 2010 $2,575,223

21, The above multi-million dollar civil offices are antithetical to the role of the
U.S. Congress envisioned by the Founding Fathers of our Country and the Framers of the
Constitution. The civil offices do nothing beneficial for the People of the United States
of America. These civil offices detract the members of our legislature from their duties,
ensnare them in constant fundraising, enrage the electorate, and tarnish the reputation of
the United States in the world community of nations.

22. The obscene emoluments received and distributed by Defendant Civil
Officers and Agents also unconstitutionally “encrease” over time. The illicit payments
begin shortly after the Defendant Civil Officer and Agent is sworn into office as a
member of Congress following her/his last election victory. As the next election
approaches, the bribes and/or illegal gratuities pour into the campaigns in greater and

greater amounts. Sections 432, 434, 439. and 441i of the FECA Law, which authorize

” Data retrieved from the Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org on November 2!
Combined PACs include both the Leadership PAC and the Principal Campaign Committee.

9


NOTH ANYN AiLLNNOD 2AM ‘SNOLLYNILSIO NOL WHUALMI Hos

+0° 9 RF Oz

|
|

LESL-Z2z-008-) Ie

woo'sdsn" MAM #5!
SNIMDVYL HO dNHOld HOS

alia CB OTEK
[AN #IPLL DF bbb
| wwe? Uni Dey 7 ape] VPUL ey?
OYE LOY 11 UPA ALO

at Danons

\UNINd aaa) OL

era Ming oe a L

QRPAE WA 'P2O |
Youg en SEGL |

f jeuoneuseju] pue 9RSeUI0G 10

- edojenuz Bulyrey

Abani on | ae } |
ee alu ef osserse
meres somes seine SO ecengre “on 109 soe eso =
Sate DS het ne aoe
mie tines wanes teomaees eeneet =
ace az
xg | $
a

oun tdweny Aanyea
(AINO 3SN W1SOd) AUZAIISG

SESSOIPPY OL 2NNO SOG —-*F2N4aS WLSOU Sauvis.a3LINN

VN |
SSIUdXF

voo2 wareW\ BAtt 9027

leqe7 Suen

L

2009 DEC ~b AA

“SBViS OMLIND

Ay
Tareas

SIE fel:

Sf 2999G09h0 93

OD € ONINVIW Fu NOA ‘OYVH SS3ud

gimgDUN ATIWFYLX=

toda

ADIAYAS TVLSOd SALVLS GALINI

IIVIN Pra
SSAUdX



Alf the defendants have huge level staffs.’ There will be no resulting prejudice by

expedited bricting.

aa SUBMITTED BY:

Steven EF. Schonberg. Pro Se
7938 SE 12" Circle

Ocala. FL 34480
352-789-0610

Fail: ssehonberg a aolcom

U% /

P , 2
Maribeth Schonberg. Pfo Se
60 Wilson Hill Road
Merrimack, NH 03034
352-789-9474

Fimail: maribethnhva aol.com

" One of the egresiously unconstittitional provisions of the FECA Law permits the civil officer defendunty to pay
for “ordinary ond necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal
fifties” from there illegal campaign committees, The section allows for more of the PAC tvasure troves to be
completely untraceable and listed as generic credit card charges. See 2 U.S.C. $439%4.(4K2). So Defendant
legislators could theoretically use pitt of the illicit millions of dollars in their PACs to pay legal fees,

5



11. WELLPOINT has its own Political Action Committee made up of executives
and managers in the company. Named “WELLPOINT, INC. WELLPOINT.” the
committee has provided $34,350 in illegal bribes to Defendant Boehner, $24,000 to
Defendant Cantor. $16,000 to Defendant Lieberman, $26,000 to Defendant Lincoln, and

$12,000 to Defendant McConnell.* Some of Plaintiffs’ premiums also paid for these

bribes which have helped the six legislators make real health care reform a pipe-dream,
as matters presently stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate,

12. Plaintiff M. Schonberg has needed medication and testing for her pre-
existing medical condition. The costs incurred have been enormous and mostly
uncovered by Anthem due to pervasive corporate corruption in the Congress of the
United States. E.g., a single medication prescribed for his wife in 2008 cost Plaintiff S.
Schonberg $2200 per month in cash, out of pocket. These are outlandish medical
expenses incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of the six legislators’ unconstitutional support
of Big Health.

13. [n 2009, the legislative support the six legislators provided to Big Iealth was
given in a quid pro quo fashion in concert with the six legislators’ receipt of hundreds of
thousands of dollars in bribes or illegal gratuities, which are referred to in the
unconstitutional FECA Law as campaign contributions.

14. Plaintiffs’ specific, concrete injuries giving them standing are a lack of
availability of health insurance in Florida for M. Schonberg and paying exorbitant health
insurance premiums and health care costs suffered by S. Schonberg. For the plaintiffs to

stay together, they must spend half of their time in Florida and half in New Hampshire so

* The amounts were gathered from the FEC. gov website on November 29, 2009.

6


time when there was less Congressional malevolence, it should find Defendant Agents to
be civil officers under the authority of the United States and in violation of the
Emoluments Clause.'*
Civil Office
Undefined in the Constitution, the term “civil office” in the Emoluments Clause

has been rarely interpreted by the Courts. It’s certain that the Office of the Secretary of
State of the United States or a U.S. military appellate court are offices.

The Incompatibility Clause'® of the Constitution which prohibits a Member

of Congress from “holding any Office under the United States.” precludes a

Member of Congress from serving on a Court of Criminal Appeals, as such a

position is an “office” that must be filled by an “Officer of the United States.”

U.S. v. Lane, U.S. Armed Forces 2006, 64 M.J. 1, reconsideration denied 64

MJ. 312.7
The less lofty civil office of Agent of a federal campaign committee regulated by and
under the authority of the FEC is awaiting a determination by this Court. But how can
the office of a federal campaign committee “Agent” not likewise be prohibited by the
Emoluments Clause when Defendant Agents can freely use the funds gathered to pay the
expenses of their Congressional offices?

Defendant Boehner, an avid golfer, immerses himself in illegal golf emoluments.

Earlier this year, his illegal PAC, “The Freedom Project,” put on a golf tournament which

* Plaintiffs pro se have no staff and are almost out of available time. They apologize to the Court that this
brief is being hurried and that it shows. Plaintiffs have tried to refrain from cluttering the record just to fill
pages.

‘© Some Courts and commentators refer to the Emoluments Clause as the “incompatibility clause,” the
“sinecure clause,” or the “ineligibility clause.”

"Taken verbatim from pocket part of U.S.C.A. regarding Emoluments Clause.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTID&£ -3 Ay 9: 29
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MARIBETH SCHONBERG,
STEVEN E. SCHONBERG,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No.
Civil Officer BERNIE SANDERS, Agent of the
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Principal
Campaign Committee, A/K/A “Friends of

Bernie Sanders,” et al,

5:09-CU-534-OC-10GRJ

Defendants

Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion
to Shorten Time and for Leave to File a Reply

1. Plaintiffs move the Court for an Emergency Order shortening the time for Defendants to
respond to the Complaint for Emergency Injunction and Motion for Declaratory Judgment in this
matter. Time is of the essence because the issue before the Court may and should affect the
Health Care Reform proceedings ongoing in the Senate of the United States.

2. Plaintiffs ask that Defendants be ordered to file their responses to Plaintiffs’ initial
pleadings no later than 10 days after they have been served.

3. Plaintiffs request leave of the Court to file a single 15 page reply brief to all Defendants”
Responses no later than 10 days after receipt thereof.

4. This pleading and accompanying memorandum in support are being served on Defendants
with the original Complaint in this matter. Plaintiffs have no opportunity to consult with

opposing counsel for concurrence.


Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction of the Court in this action is created in Article III... Section 2,

Clause | of the Constitution, being a claim arising under the Constitution, codified at 28

U.S.C. $1346. Plaintiffs contend that 2 U.S.C. $432. §434, §439. and §441i are
unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution. Article I, Section 6. Clause 2:

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was
elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United
States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall
have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office
under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his
Continuance in Office.

This clause of the United States Constitution will hereinafter be referred to as the
“Emoluments Clause.”!
Parties

2. Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Plaintiff Maribeth Schonberg was a citizen
of the State of Florida, but became a citizen of the State of New Hampshire because she
was denied major medical health insurance coverage in Florida due to a pre-existing
condition. Plaintiff Steven E. Schonberg is a citizen of the State of Florida and is the
beneficial recipient of “public option” medical care in Florida from the Veterans
Administration and Medicare. Plaintiff S. Schonberg pays for his wife’s medical
insurance and medical bills.

3. The Defendant Civil Officers and Agents of their respective Principal
Campaign Committees are also members of Congress who, except for Defendant

Sanders, have received enormous campaign contributions from the health insurance

There is a clause forbidding the President from receiving emoluments in Article 1, Seciton |, Clause 7 of
the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ Complaint only deals with the Article | Emoluments clause.

4


ECEIVED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. 1302-3 AM 9:07
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MARIBETH SCHONBERG,
STEVEN E. SCHONBERG,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No.

Civil Officer BERNIE SANDERS, Agent of the
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Principal
Campaign Committee, A/K/A “Friends of
Bernie Sanders,” et al,

$:09-CU-534-OC-10GRJ

Defendants

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Complaint for Emergency
Injunction, Damages, and Motion for Declaratory Judgment

A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar
-H. L. Mencken

‘This challenge to 2 U.S.C. Sections 432, 439, and 441i as a violation of Article I,
Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution! is a matter of first impression for
the Court. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as
amended in 1974?, was constitutional in Buckley v. Valeo. 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct.612
(1976). Things change, and that Court never addressed the Emoluments Clause.

“In constitutional adjudication as elsewhere in life, changed
circumstances may impose new obligations, and the thoughtful
part of the Nation could accept each decision to overrule a prior

case as a response to the Court's constitutional duty.”

Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 305 U.S. 833, 86(1992).

' Referred to henceforth as “The Emoluments Clause.”

> The Federal Election Campaign Act of 197] is hereinafter referred to as the “FECA Law.”


Law unconstitutional, it could grant the Plaintiffs the relief requested and enjoin all
members of Congress who have illegal fundraising campaign committees.

Yo satisfy “the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” as to both classes
of Defendants, Plaintiffs must satisfy the three prongs set forth in Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 at 560, (1992.) First, Plaintiffs must show an injury-in-fact, i.e.,
“an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” /d.

Plaintiffs’ concrete and particularized injuries are:

1. A lack of availability of major medical health insurance in Florida for M.
Schonberg,

2. Meeting 6 month residency requirements for S. Schonberg in Florida and M.
Schonberg in New Hampshire at a cost of approximately $2000 per year.

3. Paying exorbitant health insurance premiums incurred by S. Schonberg,

4. Having insurance with poor benefits and uncovered costs, e.g. a medication
prescribed for Plaintiff M. Schonberg in 2008 which cost Plaintiff S. Schonberg
$2200 per month in out-of-pocket expenses.

5. Unwanted participation in CEO Braly’s and WELLPOINT’S bribery of
Defendants Boehner, Cantor, Lieberman, Lincoln and McConnell by virtue of the
high premiums paid to Anthem insurance which went to pay the exorbitant

WELLPOINT salaries and other compensation.

6. The injuries are likely to continue in the future absent a favorable ruling by the
Court.

See Plaintiffs’ Complaint, fs 7 thru 12. These injuries are concrete and particularized. If
this were a tort claim, the damages would be itemized in a jury instruction. Recompense
would be sought. A court or jury could determine a fair and just monetary award. And
for the purposes of Defendants’ Motions to dismiss, the allegations must be accepted as

true.


ECEIVED

S0EC -3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . -

THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MARIBETH SCHONBERG, )
STEVEN E. SCHONBERG, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. )

) Civil Action No._

Civil Officer BERNIE SANDERS, Agent of the)

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Principal )
Campaign Committee, A/K/A “Friends of ) §:09-CU-534-OC-10GRJ

Bernie Sanders, )

)

Civil Officer JOE LIEBERMAN, Agent of the U.S. )

Senator Joe Lieberman Principal Campaign —)}

Committee, A/K/A “Friends of Joe »]

Lieberman,” y)

Civil Officer JOHN McCAIN, Agent of Civil Officer BLANCHE LINCOLN,
the U.S. Senator John McCain Agent of U.S, Senator Blanche
Principal Campaign Committee, Lincoln Principal Campaign
A/K/A “Friends of John McCain, Committee, A/K/A “Friends of
Inc.” Blanche Lincoln,”

Civil Officer ERIC CANTOR, Agent of Civil Officer JOHN BOEHNER,
the U.S. Representative Eric Cantor Agent of the U.S. Representative
Principal Campaign Committee, John Boehner Principal Campaign
A/K/A “Cantor for Congress,” Committee, A/K/A “Friends of John

Boehner.”

Civil Officer MITCH McCONNELL,

Agent of the U.S. Senator Mitch FEDERAL ELECTION
MeConnell Principal Campaign COMMISSION,

Committee, A/K/A “McConnell
Senate Committee “14”

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION,

DAMAGES, AND MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT


Steven E. Schonberg
60 Wilson Hill Rd
Merrimack, NII 03054
603-423-2017 E-mail sschonberg@aol.com

EXHIBIT |

September 27, 2009

VIA FAX ONLY

To the Honorable John Lynch

Governor of the Great State of New Hampshire
State House

25 Capitol Street

Concord, NH 03301

FAX: 2 pages total to (603)271-7680

RE: Federal Campaign Finance Reform

Dear Governor Lynch:

Since my last correspondence to you, there have been a number of responses to the
amendment proposal, mainly positive. In order to pare down the complexity of the proposed
amendment, and to provide more power to the states to oversee federal election campaign

financing, here is the latest iteration:

2" Revision of Proposed Constitutional Amendment XXVIII

Section 1

IT SHALL BE ILLEGAL

For any person, corporation or other entity to contribute anything

of value to the campaign of an individual running for elected

federal office.

For a federal candidate to contribute anything of value to her or

his own campaign.

For an individual running for elected federal office to accept
anything of value from any person, corporation or other entity.

For any Federal official to accept anything of value from any

person, corporation or other entity.

Pagel


Civil Officer John Boehner
1011 LONGWORTH H.0.B.
WASHINGTON, DC 20515

Civil Officer Joe Lieberman

706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

Civil Officer Blanche Lincoln

355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

Civil Officer John McCain

241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

Civil Officer Mitch McConnell

361A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

November 3, 2009
To the Honorable Blanche Lincoln and Gentlemen:
Enclosed Please Find:

1. SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

Civil Officer Eric Cantor
329 CANNON BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515

Civil Officer Bernie Sanders
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510

Steven T. Walther

Chairman, Federal Election Commission
999 E St NW

Washington D.C. 20463

U.S.Attorney, A. Brian Albritton
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, Florida 33602

Attorney General of the United States
Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

. Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Damages, and Motion for Declaratory Judgment
3. Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Damages, and Motion

for Declaratory Judgment

4. Notice Requesting Emergency Three-Judge Court
5. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Shorten Time and for Leave to File a Reply
6. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Emergency Motion to Shorten Time and for Leave to File a

Reply

Steven E. Schonberg, pro se
7938 SE 12" Circle

Ocala, FL 34480
352-789-0610
sschonberg@aol.com


Injunction has been filed. Time is of the essence.

LLY SUBMITTED BY:



RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:



reform is being debated on the floor of the U. S. Senate in the midst of Big Health’s
absolute torrent of illegal money siphoning into the pockets of the Senators who are
deciding the fate of the American people. {f the Court granted the relief requested before
the end of the calendar year 2009, real health care reform in the United States of America
would be enacted by the Congress that is now in session. Plaintiffs’ damages would be
mitigated. And Plaintiff M. Schonberg could re-establish her citizenship in the State of
Florida with major medical health insurance coverage.
Motion for Declaratory Judgment
27. Plaintiffs hereby move the Court for an Order declaring that 2 U.S.C. §432,
§434, §439, and §441i are unconstitutional and in violation of Article I, Section 6, Clause
2 of the United States Constitution.
Emergency Injunctive Relief
27. Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
A. That the Court immediately Order the dissolution of all FECA Law
campaign committees of the Defendant Civil Officers and Agents.
B. That the Court immediately Order that all remaining funds in the
campaign committees of Defendant Civil Officers and Agents be returned
to the donors.
C. If any Defendant Civil Officers and Agents refuse to obey the Orders
of the Court requested above, then Plaintiffs pray that the Court shall
dismiss each one of them as a “Member of either House during his

Continuance in Office,” pursuant to the Emoluments Clause.


“Buckley may stand today. But it cannot stand the test of time. Plaintiffs hereby
respectfully ask this Court to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, supra.

The essence of Plaintiffs’ Complaint contends Defendant Agents", who are also
Members of Congress, have unconstitutionally appointed themselves as civil officers in
charge of their campaign fundraising committees. And the illegal status of their
multimillion dollar “civil offices” is the essence of this important matter. But first,

Standing

Plaintiffs anticipate that all Defendants, with the possible exception of civil
Officer Bemie Sanders, will contend Plaintiffs have no right to ask the Court to
determine the legitimacy of the FECA Law by suing them. Because Plaintiffs have
requested expedited responses and briefing, Plaintiffs will hereby set forth the arguments
that will hopefully defeat Defendants’ anticipated responses before they are filed.

There are two classes of Defendants in this matter. The first are a group of civil
officers who are agents of their campaign committees. These Defendants are also
members of Congress, but they are not being sued in that capacity. The second class of
Defendant is the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which is an agency of the United
States government. Since these two classes of Defendants have different sets of rights
under the law, it is possible for the Court to find that Plaintiffs have standing to sue both
classes, just one class or none of the Defendants. Thus. the Court could determine that

Plaintiffs have standing to sue only Defendant FEC. If the Court then found the FECA

* “Challenging Buckley v. Valeo: A Legal Strategy,” Akron Law Review, 33:1, (1999). Pagination not
online, see http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v33/docs/wright33 |.pdf.

4} ~Agent...: one that acts for or in the place of another by authority from him: as a: a representative,
emissary, or official of a government...” (emphasis added), Webster's Third International Dictionary
(1993), pg 40.

i)