Wednesday, October 6, 2010


Many have been wondering what is happening with the Recall. I can assure you we are still alive and well. The NJ Supreme Court heard Menendez's appeal against the Recall on May 25th. September 25th marked the beginning of the 5th month since the court heard the case. Historically, they have gone as long as 6 months before rendering a decision. Should this decision be stalled beyond the 6 months, I'm sure the good citizens of NJ will start making our voices heard.
In the meantime, every interested party should to go to our new website: and signup under the "Contact Us" tab and click on the "add me to your email list" option. As soon as the court renders its decision, you will be immediately notified and as soon as the petition drive is allowed to begin, you will also be notified and the petitions will be posted on the website along with instructions.
I want to encourage everyone to stay the course. There is too much at stake to give up and become frustrated. I am convinced that we can take our country back - one misguided senator at a time!

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Right 2 Recall NJ Questions the Disclosure Act

People may be cheering that Harry Reid did not have enough votes for cloture, but we caution everyone that only means that the Bill isn't fillibuster-proof. This may not be the last we see of this atrocity. Therefore, I have decided to publish the Press Release I had written regarding this issue, as I believe it is still relevant. Be sure to read the very last sentence to understand why.

JULY 27,2010, BRANCHVILLE, NJ – Right 2 Recall NJ (formerly Recall NJ), an organization formed to facilitate the recall of Senator Robert Menendez has many questions about the statements Senator Menendez makes in his response to his constituents regarding S.3295, known as The DISCLOSE Act. Spokesman for Right 2 Recall NJ, RoseAnn Salanitri, would like Senator Menendez to explain how indemnifying one segment of the population against stifling campaign finance regulations while encumbering others promotes democracy. She asked, “Doesn’t free speech apply to all citizens- whether they are part of small corporations or large ones?
In his form letter response regarding DISCLOSE, Menendez states: “It would require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads.” However, Democratic Rep. Chris VanHollen, (who first introduced the Bill along with others, including Senator Menendez), defined who would be regulated this way, “…groups that pop up overnight with shadowy names…and don’t have to disclose who their donors are. We are less worried about groups with dues-paying members.”
Since the Bill exempts reporting donations of $600 or less to the Federal Election Commission, Right 2 Recall NJ would like Senator Menendez to explain if this means that union dues under $600 are exempt – are these the “dues-paying members” that Rep. VanHollen is referring to or is there another type of “dues-paying members”?
Salanitri has other questions regarding Section 324 (a-2) which regulates: “any communication that republishes, disseminates, or distributes, in whole or in part, any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign material prepared by a candidate, an authorized committee of a candidate, or their agents.” She would like the Senator to explain if this applies to censoring internet communications and bloggers, who frequently redistribute information, and excludes traditional media sources (such as newspapers and television stations) - and more specifically, how is democracy promoted by allowing the Federal Elections Commission to regulate free speech and the sharing of information?”
Salanitri also thought it was a bit odd that the introductory language of the Bill states that it would “prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections,” since that is already the case. Therefore, she would like Senator Menendez to explain why the bill reasserts a prohibition already in existence in the Federal Election Laws if those introducing the Bill had objectives other than garnering support from the public for a protection already in existence?
In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, whereby the Supreme Court protected Citizens United’s first amendment right to exercise political speech, Salanitri would also like to know if Senator Menendez agrees with the Court, and if he does, why he is supporting this Bill. If not, she would like him to logically explain to his constituents why he believes the Supreme Court erred in its decision.
On a more personal level, Salanitri would also like Senator Menendez to explain publicly and for the record how the Bill would impact a grassroots campaign such as the one launched to recall the Senator. Would Right 2 Recall NJ be scrutinized, regulated, and audited until it can no longer exist, or would their First Amendment Rights be protected, as designed in the Constitution?

Don't forget to visit our new website:

Friday, July 16, 2010

Liar, Liar - Time to Fire!

By RoseAnn Salanitri

A deceased Nevada woman made the news as a result of an obituary her family wrote on her behalf. The woman, Charlotte McCourt, worked for Harry Reid’s campaign in the past and came to regret that effort after Senator Reid not only neglected to make good on his campaign promises but downright betrayed them. Unfortunately, while the obituary may be a unique story, lying politicians are not.

In New Jersey, Jim Florio won the campaign for governor after campaigning on the promise that he would not raise taxes. Barely one week into his administration, Florio boldly raised taxes – without even trying to mask or spin his defiance. The New Jersey voters were angry – angry enough to amend their state constitution to include recall laws. As a result, New Jersey has arguably the best recall laws in the entire country. Florio felt empowered by the well-known complacency of New Jersey voters and their willingness to accept politicians saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing something entirely different once in office. The one-term Florio sadly misjudged his constituency and his arrogance energized New Jersey to stand against hypocrisy – or to be more precise – liars! In 1993, New Jersey recall was added to the ballot as a referendum item, and it passed by a majority of 76.2%! The citizens of New Jersey laid the foundation for themselves and for the rest of the nation to be able to fire the liars.

Jim Florio wasn’t the first to lie about his intentions in order to garner votes. George Bush who won his 2004 presidential campaign by a thin margin was also guilty of campaign lies, which we politely term “rhetoric” now-a-days. If memory serves correctly, you will recall (pardon the pun) that George Bush won the state of Ohio – which sealed the outcome of the election in his favor. The deciding factor in Ohio was Bush’s commitment to defining marriage as between one man and one woman on a federal level. After the election, that commitment was retired to the cemetery of lost campaign promises, along with a myriad of others.

This country would be in a lot better shape if members of Congress crossed party lines as frequently as campaign promises do. Our last presidential election provides a plethora of examples from a man who managed to paint himself as a “centrist” while all the while holding to the most extreme leftist views. One of the most audacious was his pledge of “Transparency.” The voluminous healthcare bill not only was passed by a Congress that admittedly didn’t read it, but the American people, who were promised that all Bills would be posted for the public to read before being voted upon (termed “transparency”), were never given the chance. The Bill was rushed through Congress virtually overnight and history once again has another name to add to its list of disingenuous politicians. BO, aptly named, is perhaps the poster child for campaign “rhetoric” - or should we call it the “say-whatever-people-want-to-hear-to-get-elected-and-then-do-what-you-want-once-in-office” syndrome that we have been conditioned to accept. Well, a rose by any other name may still smell as sweet, but campaign rhetoric smells whether it bears the name McGreevy, Bush, or BO.

New Jersey may have well found the key to unlocking the door of political deception. It’s called recall. In essence recall really reinvents a childhood rant to: Liar, Liar, Time to Fire! This writer, for one, believes it’s time to start calling a spade a spade, to stop calling campaign lies “rhetoric,” and to stop calling self-serving opportunists “representatives.” Perhaps my vocabulary isn’t as flowery as our politicians would like, but a liar is a liar regardless of his or her party affiliation. It’s time we stop accepting the lies of opportunists and start holding them accountable. Join New Jersey in its new chant: Liar, Liar – Time to Fire, and help us get rid of the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Recall may be a new concept for you but it’s one that holds much promise for an electorate who wants to clean house and restore our Constitutional Republic.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Grab Your Buckets - Please!!!

By RoseAnn Salanitri

Lately, I find myself saying to friends, neighbors, and just about anyone who will listen that I feel like I’m in the middle of a forest with brush fires erupting all around me and I only have one bucket of water. When one surveys the political forest fires that have been ignited by this administration, only having one bucket of water can be a frightening thing. Below are a few examples of what I'm talking about:

• Offering jobs to political candidates in exchange for their
dropping out of their races – an impeachable offense
• Dept. of Justice dropping a slam-dunk lawsuit against Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia
• Dept. of Justice suing Arizona for implemening state law patterned after Federal law in an effort to protect its citizens
• Bank bailouts
• Tarp funds
• Automobile bailouts/takeover
• Stimulus money being sent to foreign countries
• Government seeking to control the internet
• The Fairness Doctrine
• Financial Reform Bill that gives government access to your personal bank account and finances
• The Gulf Oil Crisis/debacle
• Health care
• Cap & Trade
• NASA prime directive to reach out to the Muslim people to acknowledge their scientific achievements
• Illegal Alien invasion
• Government compiling illegal lists about citizens against health care
• Government protecting the rights of Al Qaeda terrorists
• Congress passing bills without votes “deeming” them passed
• Congress locking out minority parties from discussions
• Illegal aliens being given monies for college tuition and housing credits
• Parental rights being usurped by public schools (schools arranging for abortions for under-aged students without parental notification or consent)
• Constant assault against second amendment right to bear arms

Had enough? If your head is spinning and wondering how we can possibly put out all of these fires, there is an answer. We cannot fight on all these fronts successfully so let’s fight in a way that counts. As hard as it may be, we have to stop being distracted by the forest fires this administration is setting all around us and concentrate on throwing our buckets of water at a strategic target. We can tie the hands of the administration by replacing Congress. That should be our only goal throughout this summer. If we don’t win this battle, all may be lost. We can clean up the mess later but first we have to concentrate on saving our country and protecting our Constitution.

Here in New Jersey we can start putting out this fire by recalling Senator Menendez. Removing him from office would be a significant step in the right direction for two reasons: 1. NJ can set the precedent for other states to do the same and we can change the makeup of Congress. There are presently nine states that have recall laws written into their state constitutions; 2. It will send a message loud and clear to the rest of our elected officials that we are watching what they are doing, intend to keep them accountable, and will no longer tolerate crimes against our Constitution. It is crucial that we succeed. The future of our country is literally depending upon us.

FYI, New Jersey, along with Louisiana, Colorado, and North Dakota are founding members of a nationwide coalition (Right 2 Recall USA) that intends to lead the charge to restore our system of government as it was originally designed. We are convinced that this initiative can bear the fruit of change this country needs – change that will lead us in the right direction back onto the path of freedom and protected liberties. We can do this because we are still a government by the people, for the people, and of the people – and it is our job to make sure it stays that way!

To find out how to get your bucket of water, look for our new website that will be up and running soon:
or visit our blog:,
or visit our facebook page:

Friday, June 25, 2010

Limited Government - Unlimited Rights by RoseAnn Salanitri

The Tea Party movement in the United States is raising awareness and inspiring conversations regarding that very extraordinary document we call our Constitution. The Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez (the Committee) has been the catalyst for many of these conversations as arguments both for and against recall can be read all over the internet and in many media venues across the nation.

The Committee’s explanation that they have elected to initiate the recall against Senator Menendez due to his unconstitutional votes on healthcare and illegal immigration is often met with confusion. Additionally, many also believe that the recall itself is unconstitutional. Therefore, it has become apparent that a more detailed explanation is in order.

Our Founding Fathers wrote two extraordinary documents which serve as the basis of our system of government. The first was our Declaration of Independence, which acts as our mission statement and the second is our Constitution, which acts as our by-laws. Our mission statement describes our heart and what makes us unique, while our by-laws describe the do’s and don’ts of how our federal government operates.

The Declaration of Independence clearly asserts that our rights come from God and not government. It states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

It goes on to say that the purpose of government is secure our God-given rights:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among them…”

And that government receives its rights from the consent of the governed:

“… deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

This unique perspective established the basis of designing a system where the powers of government are limited and defined but the rights of citizens are unlimited and not necessarily defined. Therefore, it is important to realize that any argument from silence concerning the Constitution should support the rights of the citizens or the states and does not support undefined powers of the federal government. The only rights given to the federal government are defined and cannot exceed those written within the Constitution. These government powers are referred to as “enumerated (or specified) powers,” and apply only to the federal government. The states, however, are free to adopt laws and establish powers as they see fit. In other words, restrictions were put on the federal government.

Understanding these principles is paramount to understanding the constitutional argument of the Committee. If our rights come from God and our Constitution limits the powers of the government, then it is reasonable to argue that since the right to recall is not mentioned in the Constitution (one way or another), it’s absence should support the Committee’s right to recall. Again, recall is not mentioned in the Constitution, which only defines how the federal government functions and limits its power. In the State of New Jersey the citizens voted by 76.2% to amend their state constitution to include recall in 1993, after Governor Jim Florio angered the citizens of New Jersey by raising taxes, which he vowed not to do while campaigning. The citizens of New Jersey understood that elections gave them the right to choose their representatives but recalls gave them the tool to keep their representatives accountable. According to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, the citizens of New Jersey were clearly exercising their constitutional right to state sovereignty.

When the Constitution was submitted for ratification in 1787, the states were fearful that certain rights were so important that they had to be specifically spelled out. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton thought it was unnecessary to spell these rights out because the federal government’s powers were limited. They further feared that if any rights were specified that it could be argued that those that were not specified were not protected. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were suggested as the solution to the problem.

The Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, this Amendment clearly states that just because certain rights are not specifically defined in the Constitution, does not mean that they don’t exist.

The Tenth Amendment reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Once again, our founders went through great pains to be sure it was understood that the people of this country and their respective states retained all sovereignty in matters not specifically belonging to the federal government and defined within the Constitution. All restrictions were placed on the federal government and not the states. The citizens and the states retained all other rights. This is a foundational principle of our Constitutional Republic.

While it was exceedingly important to our founders to limit the federal government, they also understood that in order to operate effectively, the federal government had to possess certain rights in order to carry out functions of a national nature. Article One, Section Eight lists these powers. They are to be uniform throughout the United States and are for the purposes of providing for the “general welfare” and “common defense.” They are as follows:

1. To regulate interstate and international commerce;
2. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization;
3. To establish uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies;
4. To coin money and establish its value;
5. To fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting
7. To establish post offices and post roads;
8. To promote the progress of science & useful arts by supplying copyrights & patents;
9. To establish Federal Courts;
10. To govern the District of Columbia;
11. To purchase real estate for needful buildings;
12. To make laws necessary to carry out the execution of the defined powers;
13. To define and punish Maritime and international crimes;
14. To declare war;
15. To make rules for and to fund the Military Services.

When the Committee refers to Senator Menendez’s votes for things like healthcare being “unconstitutional”, they are referring to the enumerated powers listed above and claim that these powers do not provide for government-run healthcare or a host of other usurpations that have developed over the past several years.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” The Committee believes that the out-of-control government we are now experiencing has assumed undelegated powers, and is therefore unauthoritative and should be void and of no force. It is the underlying principle behind the recall movement and the Committee’s desire to restore government limits and state sovereignty.

To further make the point, below are listed just a few of Senator Menendez’s votes that the Committee doesn’t believe are authorized under the Constitution:

• Voted not to notify parents of minors who get out of state abortions
• Voted for partial birth abortion
• Voted for human cloning
• Voted that tax money should pay for contraception
• Voted for healthcare to pay for abortions
• Voted to send federal funds to “sanctuary cities”
• Voted not to declare English as the official US language
• Voted not to build the fence along the Mexican border
• Voted not to send the National Guard to protect our southern border
• Voted to give illegal aliens social security
• Voted to give permanent residence to “undocumented workers”
• Voted not to enforce immigration laws
• Voted to confiscate firearms
• Voted to give the children of illegal aliens college tuition money
• Voted to keep the marriage penalty tax
• Voted to continue TARP funds
• Voted to increase national public debt
• Voted to develop a “global” strategy to eliminate poverty
• Voted to protect the rights of terrorists
• Voted to apply the Geneva Convention to terrorists
• Voted for government-run healthcare

It is a bit ironic that Senator Menendez would try to protect his career by hiding behind the Constitution when it is apparent from his voting record that the Constitution is of little value to him. Make no mistake about it, we are in a battle whose outcome will determine whether or not a nation of the people, by the people and for the people can survive upon this earth. It is our hope that this article has answered some of your questions and that you will join us in this historic battle to preserve our liberties and freedoms for ourselves and for generations to come.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Score One for the Good Guys

Court Gives Recall Green Light

March 16, 2010

SANDYSTON, NJ—The Recall NJ movement to unseat tax-and-spend liberal Senator Robert Menendez officially hit the highway today.

A three-judge panel in Trenton ordered the New Jersey Secretary of State her marching orders to accept and file the petition for recall. Judges Edwin Stern, Robert Graves of Morristown, and Jack Sabatino of Trenton, ruled 3-0 to allow the 1993 amendment to the New Jersey Constitution stand as written.

“This is a great day in America,” said Recall NJ Chairman RoseAnn Salanitri. “Today is the day that We the People are taking back our country.”

With the ruling, the petition certification can begin but the campaign process has been stayed in order to give Menendez’s attorneys a chance to appeal. will need 1.3 millions signatures to force the recall of the Jersey City Senator. The petitions will be available on the website:, as soon as permitted. Salanitri was confident that the organization could reach its goal, for the climate of disappointment with Washington's escalating debt and bankrupt policies that have left one in five Americans jobless.

“Millions of us in New Jersey are distraught with the runaway bureaucracy and taxes in New Jersey. A hundred million of us, nationally, are outraged at the runaway Senate and House of Representatives in Washington. We want to hold Senator Robert Menendez accountable for his role in the theft of American liberty, and in spending our nation into joblessness and ruin. We want him to answer for his many tax-and-spend votes right now - not in a few years. Today we are sending a strong message to Washington that they are accountable to us after all.” she said.

“Make no mistake about it, this is not a movement by one woman or by one group, it is a movement that began with the American people and it is fueled by their desire to save this nation from bankruptcy and from socialism. I, along with other Americans, owe the success of this day to our Founding Fathers who had the foresight to design a government that is accountable to its citizens. We are the Fifth Branch of government – the branch that is known as We the People, and we intend to hold the legislative, judicial, executive branches and the press accountable for their negligence and abuses.”

“The people of New Jersey deserve a chance to vote this man out of Washington. He has broken his oath of office. We, the people, are coming to take our country back, and recalling Senator Menendez is our first step in doing so.”


Committee Spokeswoman:
RoseAnn Salanitri

Legal Spokesman:
Richard Luzzi

Media Chairman:
J. Bridge
908 403 2496

Wednesday, March 3, 2010


On Tuesday, March 2nd, we finally had our day in court. Our lawyers did an excellent job and received Kudos from the court. Contrary to some of the negative press we have been receiving, the hearing went very well and we are anticipating a decision in our favor. So all who are on board, it's time to rev up your engines and get ready to race to the finish line

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Court Adjournment

The Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez
Will Finally Have Their Day in Court

The day many of us have been waiting for, Friday, February 26th, has been postponed to Tuesday, March 2nd due to inclement weather. Dan Silberstein and Richard Luzzi, attorneys representing the Recall Committee, will be appearing in Mercer County’s Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton at 10:30 AM. They will be joined by Peter Ferrara, the Attorney for the American Civil Rights Union, who has filed an amicus brief in defense of the Committee’s civil rights.

Since this is a matter of great concern to the citizens of New Jersey and has recently received media attention, we are anticipating that many of our supporters and opposing protesters are planning to demonstrate outside of the courthouse. We respectfully ask those intending to go to Trenton on our behalf , behave in a manner that respects the court and the system – the same system of law we are working so hard to preserve. While those who oppose our intitiative may seek to disturb the peace, we believe our citizens are protectors of the peace and therefore should act accordingly. To all wishing to attend, please dress conservatively, and if you plan on carrying signs, we ask that they be handmade and not controversial. We are sure that the media will also be attending and will be looking to capitalize on any behavior that can be interpreted as radical in any way, shape or form.

Thanks to all who have been supportive of this initiative and we are counting on your cooperation. Without it, we will not succeed and the consequences for our country can be dire.

ALSO...On Thursday, February 25th, 5:00 PM, Channel WMBC will be broadcasting Howard Monroe-Gray's interviews with Senator Menendez and RoseAnn Salanitri regarding the Recall.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010


Terry Hurlbut of the Essex County Conservative Examiner ( has done a series of articles on the controversial Senator Menedez. The article published today (2/9/10) delves into the Senator's recently exposed and questionable association with a minority bank. Hurlbut's series of articles have been honest and forthright, two virtues in short supply now a days. I encourage anyone who may be interested in Menendez' career to follow this series. You can read them on line at the following link:

Monday, February 8, 2010

Press Release

Judge Approves Appeal of Menendez Recall Decision to Move Forward
Will Hear Oral Arguments February 26th, American Civil Rights Union to Join Appeal

Mercer County, New Jersey – February 6, 2010.
A NJ Superior Court Appellate Judge has granted an emergency motion to fast-track the appeal of a committee seeking to recall a United States Senator.

In a two-part order issued late afternoon on Thursday, February 4th, Judge Edwin Stern granted the committee's motion to accelerate their appeal and scheduled oral arguments for Friday, February 26th. In the same order, the Judge also granted approval for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) to participate in the appeal as amicus curiae (friend of the court), in response to an emergent application filed by the ACRU.

The case stems from a January 11th final agency determination by NJ state election officials, in which the Secretary of State denied a Notice of Intention and proposed petition filed by the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez. Former Secretary of State Nina Wells wrote in the letter,
“It has been determined that the qualifications and election of a Member of the United States Senate is a matter of exclusive jurisdiction of federal authority and that neither the United States Constitution nor federal statute provide for a recall proceeding for a federally-elected official…Therefore, in my capacity as the Chief Election Official of the State of NJ, I hereby determine that neither the Notice of Intention to Recall nor the proposed Petition can be accepted for filing or review.”
Members of the Sussex County Tea Party formed the recall committee and had filed the Notice back in September, 2009, hoping to move onto the phase of petitioning the public for signatures in support of requesting a recall election.

Dan Silberstein and Richard Luzzi, attorneys for the committee, have challenged the state's decision, contending that the issue at hand is not one of whether the State has the power to issue a judicially enforceable recall order of a U.S. Senator, as the respondents maintain, but it is a question of first amendment rights. Their brief reads in part,
"Can the State [of NJ], after amending its Constitution and passing legislation to guarantee its citizens access to a formal, State-endorsed mechanism to foster collective “core political speech”, deny its citizens access to that mechanism because of the content of their political message?"

While the constitutionality of a 1995 amendment to NJ's state Constitution that granted citizens the power to recall federal officials may be open to debate, there has never been any federal court decision holding that the States do not have the power to recall their Senators. Some might contend that it is premature to determine the enforceability of a State’s recall order before a ruling on it has ever been issued.
Due to its potential broader constitutional implications, the case also attracted the attention of the American Civil Rights Union. Peter Ferrara, General Counsel for the ACRU, recently sought approval from Silberstein and Luzzi to participate in the appeal as amicus curiae, and they were happy to oblige.

The ACRU was founded in 1998 by Robert B. Carleson, long time policy advisor to President Reagan, as a non-partisan, non-profit 501(C)(3), legal/educational policy organization dedicated to defending constitutional rights. Its policy board includes former US Attorney General Edwin Meese III; Pepperdine Law School Dean, Kenneth Starr; and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, William Bradford Reynolds, among many others. In addition to the public interest in this matter regarding the functioning of our democracy and the constitutional rights of the citizens of NJ, the ACRU also maintains that the recall of US Senators is a matter of broad, national public interest across the entire country. It plans to file a brief addressing the right of recall in NJ under the law of the state of NJ, the Constitution of NJ, and the US Constitution. For more information on the state’s provisions for recall, visit

Oral arguments will be heard by Judges Stern, Graves, and Sabatino at 10:00am on Friday, February 26th in the Appellate Division courtroom in Trenton, NJ.

Follow, Sussex County Tea Party at:, or NJ Tea Parties United at: for more on this case.

Legal Contact:
Rich Luzzi, Esq. Co-Council, President of The Morristown Tea Party, a NJ Non-profit corporation.

Sussex County Tea Party Contact:
RoseAnn Salanitri, Founder (Branchville, NJ)
Phone: (973)948-8553, Email:

Attorneys for Respondents:
Paula Dow, Acting Attorney General of NJ, on behalf of respondents [former] Secretary of State and the Director of the Division of Elections
Angelo Genova, of Genova Burns and Marc Elias, of Perkins Coie, LLP, attorneys for Senator Robert Menendez

The Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Esq., Secretary of State, and Robert F. Giles, Director of the Division of Elections; Appellate Docket No. is A-2254-09 T1.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Game On!

On January 22nd lawyers representing The Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez filed their brief supporting the Recall initiative. The court requested that the same brief be served to Senator Menace--Menendez. In an article dated January 26th that was posted on and Politico, Senator Menendez, on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he heads, revealed his strategy to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-type conservatives. See:

Since the recall effort was initiated by “tea-party-type conservatives” (myself included), it is probably logical to assume that we finally got the Senator’s attention-something we couldn’t do in a summer filled with faxes, petitions, rallies, phone calls, and letters. While his Democratic Party constituents may view his strategy as a way to preserve their party and their careers, others may see it as a transparent effort to preserve his own career by dividing the movement that seeks to unseat him. It’s the old “divide and conquer” philosophy that has worked well in historical battles, and it reveals the heart of a man who is more interested in political preservation than listening to the will of the people he represents. The question remains whether or not this strategy will work here in NJ.

One thing we can be certain of, an alliance between TEA Party patriots and the Republican Party would be a force that most likely would defeat Menendez at the ballot box. While many within the TEA Party movement are just as disappointed with the Republican Party as they are with the Democratic Party, I’ll refer to another old philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Libertarian, or any other affiliation, we need to keep our focus on the challenge before us. We need to unite against a common enemy elitist who has undermined our prosperity and trampled over our Constitution. We can sort out our differences later.

On behalf of the Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez, I ask all NJ patriots to join forces to defeat our common enemy and restore the principles of government that prospered us and protected our liberties. Massachusetts (and America by extension) may have claimed a victory with the election of Senator Scott Brown – now it’s our turn to send the elitists packing – and victory is within our grasp!

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Senator Menendez' Voting Record

Many have been asking why we elected to launch a recall movement against Senator Menendez. Besides his non-responsiveness to NJ citizens on a variety of issues brought before him (including Cap and Trade and Healthcare) and his partisan conduct in the Senate (including votes on cloture), his voting record tells us a lot about the man. We thought it would be a good idea for our viewers to read it for themselves and then they can decide if this is a man they would like to represent the good people of NJ. Therefore, I've listed it below (in its totality so as not to spin anything. Please note that we don't disagree with everything the Senator has done, but we probably disagree with about 95% of it.) So, if you consider yourself a conservative, read it an weep.

Judicial nominees must uphold Roe v. Wade. (Sep 2006)
• Kean voted against stem-cell research six times; I didn’t. (Sep 2006)
• I support stem cell research 100%. (Sep 2006)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
• Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
• Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
• Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
• Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
• Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
• Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
• Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)

• Enforcement-only means largest deportation in history. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
• Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
• Voted NO on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
• Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
• Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
• Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
• Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 0% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

• Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
• Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
• Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
• Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
• Rated 93% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
• Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
• Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)
• Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)
• Voted with Democratic Party 95.7% of 325 votes. (Sep 2007)
• Chosen as Corzine’s successor after long political career. (Dec 2005)
• Appointed by governor-elect Jon Corzine to fill Senate seat. (Dec 2005)
• American Dream is about keeping promise to other generations. (Dec 2005)
• Priorities: affordable health care & college, and fair taxes. (Dec 2005)
• America needs unity to face challenges of globalization. (Dec 2005)
• Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
• Religious affiliation: Catholic. (Nov 2000)
• Member of Congressional Hispanic Caucus. (Jan 2001)
• Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
• At forefront of fighting privatizing our “sacred compact”. (Sep 2006)
On Social Security AND TAX REFORM
• At forefront of fighting privatizing our “sacred compact”. (Sep 2006)
• Opposes privatization and fought Bush’s privatization scheme. (Sep 2006)
• Against privatization; but says Kean has voted for it. (Sep 2006)
• Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
• Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
• Reject proposals for private saving accounts. (May 2002)
• Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Repealing the estate Tax only benefits the wealthiest 1%. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
• Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
• Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
• Voted NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
• Voted NO on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
• Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
• Voted NO on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
• Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
• Rated 24% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)

• Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
• Voted NO on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)
• Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services. (Jan 2007)
• Overturn FCC approval of media consolidation. (Mar 2008)

Robert Menendez on War & Peace
Click here for 14 full quotes on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
• Biggest mistake in Iraq was going there in the first place. (Sep 2006)
• Iraq is a war of choice; based on misleading & false threats. (Sep 2006)
• Opposes the war in Iraq. (Dec 2005)
• Only votes for war that he’d send his own kids to fight. (Dec 2005)
• The administration manipulated justifications for Iraq war. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
• Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
• Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
• Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
• Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program. (Apr 2009)
Robert Menendez on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for 5 full quotes on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.
• Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
• Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
• Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
• Increase the earned income tax credit. (Jan 1993)
• Develop a strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. (Dec 2007)
• Battle terror without sacrificing our ideals. (Oct 2006)
• Combat terrorism within court oversight to protect rights. (Sep 2006)
• Punish terrorists within Geneva Convention. (Sep 2006)
• Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
• Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
• Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
• Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
• Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
• Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
• Voted NO on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
• Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
• Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
• Stopping Vieques bombing range good; sooner is better. (Jun 2001)
• Rated 89% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Sponsored bill giving higher priority to rail security. (Jul 2005)
• Apply habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees. (Jul 2007)
• Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)
• Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. (Feb 2008)

Monday, January 18, 2010

Reply to a Letter to the Editor,

(This is in response to a letter submitted to the Editor of The New Jersey Herald that was printed on January 13, 2010.)

In a recent letter to you dated January 13th, Daniel Palmer stated that I implied that the NJ Constitution trumps the US Constitution. I said no such thing. Mr. Palmer missed the point. The issue before the court concerns the Secretary of State Nina Well’s disregard of New Jersey law. As a member of the Executive branch and not the Judicial branch of government, she has taken it upon herself to declare the NJ Constitution unconstitutional. She is not a judge and does not have the right to make such a determination. Her authority in this regard is strictly clerical in nature.

Mrs. Wells, who is a close friend to Governor Corzine and a key democratic fundraiser, was appointed to her post in January 2006 by Corzine. The broader issue before the people of New Jersey is whether they will continue to permit those in Trenton to nullify the law when politically expedient. Whether or not one agrees with the reasons given to recall Menendez, hopefully all agree that NJ citizens should not be denied their constitutional rights – especially by administrative personnel.

The Committee to Recall Senator Menendez submitted the Notice of Intention to Recall at the end of September under the procedures set forth in New Jersey’s Uniform Recall Election Law. The law was passed to implement the 1993 Amendment to the NJ Constitution that provides for a recall of US Senators in NJ. The Secretary of State is to review the Notice to check to see if the form is properly filled out. After reviewing the paperwork for conformity, the Secretary of State is required to either approve or reject the Notice within three days. If she rejects the paperwork at that time, she must identify the problems and allow the committee to amend and resubmit the Notice. None of this has been done. In this case, Mrs. Wells has chosen not to obey the laws of NJ and on January 11th, issued a “final determination” stating that the US Constitution does not allow for a recall.

According to the NJ Constitution, once the Notice is approved the Committee circulates the petitions amongst registered voters in the State who support the Recall effort. Only if and when the Committee collects the necessary number of signatures can a recall election be scheduled. All else up until and including the recall election itself could be considered political speech, which is entitled to the most strenuous protection against government suppression.

The Secretary of State, in this case, has set herself up as judge and jury and ruled on matters of constitutionality, which she is not qualified nor authorized to do. This is nothing less than an abuse of power and an attempt to stall the Recall initiative. The people of NJ should be outraged that the Secretary of State has attempted to deny its citizens due process and freedom of speech.

This matter is far from over and our lawyers are prepared to go the distance to ensure that the good people of NJ are not denied their rights. On January 13th, our lawyers filed an application to File Appeal on an Emergent Basis. The Appeal requested a reversal of the Secretary of State’s “final determination” and an order directing the Secretary of State to approve the Notice of Intention to permit the Committee to begin collection signatures. On January 14th, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued an order allowing a motion to accelerate the appeal. On January 15th, our lawyers filed a Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement. The matter is currently waiting to be heard by the court.

RoseAnn Salanitri

Friday, January 8, 2010

America Rising - With Special Kudos to the States of Nebraska and Louisiana

If you have been following the Health Care debacle, you are well aware of the special negotiations and back door deals that have been stricken to impose the liberal ideologically driven health care bill upon the American people. Two state senators in particular exemplify the worst of what has befallen our great nation–elitism and career insurance. While elitism is easy to understand, being the attitude of “I’m superior to you and know better than you; therefore, my opinion should not be questioned”–career insurance is a more subtle character flaw. It pretends to do what’s good for those it represents, when all the while it is really only concerned with getting re-elected and furthering its own career.

Admittedly, I don’t know much about either Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska or Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, but I can tell you something about the patriots that live in their states. Both Senators fell victim to the temptations and pressures the White House and the democratic congress were imposing upon them-or were they merely more adept at making deals? The truth is that we simply don’t know their motivation (or their weakness, as the case may be). It is possible they gave in to pressure; it is also possible they struck a good deal for their state in hopes of bringing home the bacon and thereby securing their subsequent elections with their constituents. However, they didn’t count on the integrity, patriotism, and constitutional understanding of their citizens.

In the good state of Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson’s poll numbers have exponentially declined, rending a death blow to his chances for re-election; and in the good state of Louisiana, the Secretary of State has just approved the petitions to recall Senator Mary Landrieu. These states deserve the admiration of the rest of us, as they rose above personal gratification and special sweetheart deals to support the greater good of our country. In other words, they didn’t sell out! Let this be an example to all of us and to the elitists in Congress. We the People can reclaim and restore the principles of republicanism at its finest if we look beyond our own short term interests. We need good men and women in congress and in all branches of government. Men and women who aren’t afraid to make good decisions based on what is right- and not on what might ingratiate them with their base (like the bridge nowhere in Alaska). The New World Order and the socialistic liberals may have thought America was in their grasp-that we would be willing to surrender our autonomy and sell out our country and our ideals for free healthcare (like we believe that really exists), or any other pot of gold at the end of the illusionary rainbow, but they didn’t count on patriots-the likes of which live in Nebraska, and Louisiana, and I’m happy to say in my home state of New Jersey. The truth is America and our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not dead–we are rediscovering and recommitting ourselves to the principles that made this country great in the past and will prosper it once again in the future – as long as we remain strong. Therefore I say – Long live America!

Monday, January 4, 2010

Questions the Constitutionality of Recalling a US Senator

On behalf of the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, I would like to state that the Committee is aware of the Constitutional questions regarding the recall of a US Senator and we are prepared to address those questions at the appropriate time.

However, the Constitutional question is not to be confused with the problems we are facing with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is neither court nor jury and ruling on legal argument is not within their purview. State law requires that the Secretary of State either approve or deny the submitted petitions based on wether the petitions conform to the clearly defined state statute. At this point, this is not a Constitutional issue - it is a matter of the Secretary of State complying with NJ laws.