Received 11/21/2021 4:12:55 PM Supreme Court Middle District

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT
______________________
No. 56 MAP 2021
______________________

ANDREW IOANNIDIS,
Appellant,

v.

TOM WOLF, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Appellees.
______________________________

On Appeal from the July 8, 2021 Order by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania,
No. 635 M.D. 2020, Dismissing Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review as Moot
___________________________

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Andrew Ioannidis (Pa. I.D. No. 326060)

457 Pleasant View Road
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
Phone: (908) 268-7571
E-Mail: [email protected]
Petitioner & Appellant
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………… ii

INTRODUCTION………………………………..…………………... 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………. 5

ORDER IN QUESTION………………………………………….….. 6

STATEMENT OF STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW………. 7

STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED…………………..…... 8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………….. 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………………………………… 12

ARGUMENT………………………………………………………….13

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………..…23

i
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
Bell v. Hood,
327 U.S. 678 (1946)……………………………………………….15, 16

Bradway v. Cohen,
642 A.2d 615 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994)………………………………..….18

Brouillette v. Wolf,
213 A.3d 341 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2019)……………………………………21

Bush v. Gore,
531 U.S. 98 (2000)………………………………………………..…15

Commonwealth v. Colavita,
993 A.2d 874 (Pa.2010)……………………………….…………….18

Commonwealth v. Dorler,
588 A.2d 525 (Pa.Super. 1991)………………………….…………..17

Consol PA Coal Co. v. DEP,

129 A.3d 28 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2015)……………………………………..13

Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386 (1989)…………………………………………………18

Hamilton Contracting Co. v. Department of Environmental Resources,

494 A.2d 516 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1985)……………………………………21

Hassan v. City of New York,

804 F.3d 277 (3rd Cir. 2015)……………………………………...…14

In re: Gross,
382 A.2d 116 (Pa. 1978)…………………………………….……….22

In re Twenty-First Senatorial District Nomination,

126 A. 566 (Pa. 1924)………………………………………………..17

ii
Jahanshahi v. Centura,
816 A.2d 1179 (Pa.Super. 2003)………………………………....…..22

Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)………………………………………..16

Marks v. Stinson,
19 F.3d 873 (3rd Cir. 1994)…………………………………………..15

Metcalfe v. Wolf,
Pa.Cmwlth., No. 636 MD 2020…………………………………..…..19

Pennsylvania Medical Providers Association v. Foster,

613 A.2d 51 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992)…………………………………..….21

Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission,

944 A.2d 62 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004)……………………………………...17

Robinson Twp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n,

83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013)…………………………………………..……7

Schemberg v. Smicherko,
85 A.3d 1071 (Pa. Super. 2014)………………………………………13

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg,
402 U.S. 1 (1971)…………………………………………………..…15

U.S. v. Lanier,
520 U.S. 259 (1997)……………………………………………..……18

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski,
592 U.S. _ (2021)……………………………………………….…….15

Weiley v. Albert Einstein Medical Center,

51 A.3d 202 (Pa.Super. 2012)………………………………….……..21

iii
Wiegand v. Wiegand,
337 A.2d 256 (Pa. 1975)…………………………………….……….22

William Penn School District v. Dept. of Ed.,

170 A.3d 414 (Pa. 2017)……………………………………..…….16, 17

Statutes
42 Pa.C.S. § 723……………………………………………………..…….5

U.S. Const. Article VI, §2……………………………………………..….19

Rules
Pa.R.A.P. 1101(a)(1)………………………………………………...……5

Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) & (b)(1) ………………………………………………..5

iv
 INTRODUCTION

On December 6, 2020, I sued my former boss, Governor Tom Wolf, and the

Secretary at the time, Kathy Boockvar, for violating my civil rights. I was 28 years

old; I’d been an attorney for barely two years; and I had no experience with

election law, or civil rights, or litigating against the government. I’d never been a

party to a lawsuit, let alone represented myself in one, and the highest court I’d

ever been in was common pleas. I knew that if I did this my life would never be the

same, and I did it anyway, because I knew that no one else would.

Last year, on November 25, the day before Thanksgiving, a legislative

hearing was held in Gettysburg. I was working from home; I live about 40 minutes

away. My office was set up at the kitchen table, my wife was in the kitchen

preparing for the following day, and I tuned in to watch the hearing on my phone.

Until that point, no evidence of any election fraud, wrongdoing, or irregularities

had been presented. The media’s position was that there was no evidence, because

there was no fraud, and Team Trump was adamant that the election was fraudulent,

but weren’t willing to present evidence. Even FOX News got tired of hearing

about, but never seeing, “The Kraken”.

That hearing changed my life. I saw regular citizens from across the

Commonwealth step forward and testify to obscene election fraud and

irregularities. I’ve been a civil litigator my entire career. In law school I worked for

1
a free clinic, and when I graduated, I joined a non-profit and continued

representing needy people in domestic violence and family law cases. Then, I

joined the Wolf administration and litigated condemnation cases. I knew credible

evidence when I saw it, and I was sure that the conversation would change after

Gettysburg.1

I learned how wrong I was in the days that followed. It was essentially a

media blackout. It was like the evidence didn’t exist. It felt like I was in the

twilight zone. Things got worse the following week when, on December 1, a truck

driver came forward and testified that he had transported hundreds-of-thousands of

completed mail-in ballots, in bulk, from New York to central Pennsylvania. I

realized how serious all of this was; I saw how pathetic the Republicans were; and,

I understood that no one was coming to save me.

So, I hatched a plan, and on December 6, I sued my boss. My original

petition was far from perfect, but time was of the essence, and I had to learn how to

walk and chew gum at the same time. In the weeks that followed, I refined my

legal arguments, gathered additional evidence, and filed a series of emergency

1
It took me about a month to prove that the election was stolen. The evidence is damning. See Petitioner’s
January 19, 2021 Emergency Application, which is hereby incorporated by reference. If a PDF link has a hyphen at
the end of a line, then the hyphen tends not to copy when the link is pasted into a web-browser. If a link still does
not work, or its contents appear modified, please let me know, for I have archived most, if not all, of the
information offline. Finally, please note that this was the state of the evidence as of January 19, which was 10
months ago. Much more has come out since then.

2
applications that sought to decertify the election. Meanwhile, I got fired, was

repeatedly threatened by the Attorney General, and after January 6, everyone who

dared question the election was framed as an insurrectionist. That was a scary time.

I had been using the Constitution to negate the Electoral Count Act in an attempt to

decertify the election.2 Nevertheless, on January 8, I asserted that the Act was

unconstitutional, meaning that the congressional vote count is null, and in early-

February, I asserted that the Biden Administration is illegitimate.3 Sometimes, I

wonder why law firms won’t hire me.

After the inauguration things slowed down. Respondents continued to ignore

the substance of my claims and doubled-down on inapplicable procedural

technicalities. Anything to avoid accountability. They filed preliminary objections,

and a motion to dismiss in mid-February. I responded to their motion in early-

March. The Court established a schedule, and Respondents filed their brief in

April. I filed mine in May. Oral argument occurred in June. The Court dismissed

my petition as moot in early-July. I applied for reconsideration later in July, and

the Court denied my application in early-August. I appealed the next day, the Court

took forever to transmit the record, and here we are.

2
Despite the propaganda, none of the January 6 defendants have been charged with insurrection. Straight from
Merrick Garland: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2021/10/21/ag-garland-debunks-democrat-
insurrection-claims-about-january-6th-n2597813
3
I hereby incorporate my February 3, 2021 Reply by reference.

3
 This isn’t about any political ideology or policy. It isn’t about money, and it

isn’t about disenfranchising anyone. It’s about civil rights and whether they

actually exist. It’s about whether the Constitution matters, and whether we will

ever have a free and fair election ever again. I brought ten discrete constitutional

claims. Each one prays for any relief provided by law. By dismissing my petition,

the Court held that the most important constitutional right is meaningless. That

simply can’t be the case – for obvious reasons.

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This is an appeal by right from the Commonwealth Court’s July 8, 2021

order pursuant to Rule 1101(a)(1) and 341(a) & (b)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate Procedure. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 723.

5
 ORDER IN QUESTION

The text of the order from which Petitioner appeals states in pertinent part:

“AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2021,

Respondents’ Application for Summary Relief in the

Form of a Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition for

Review as Moot is GRANTED; Petitioner’s Amended

Petition for Review in the Nature of a Petition and

Complaint in Equity is DISMISSED as moot; and

Respondents’ Preliminary Objections to Amended

Petition for Review are OVERRULED as moot.”

See Opinion at p. 13.

6
 STATEMENT OF STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW

“In contrast to the federal approach, notions of case or controversy and

justiciability in Pennsylvania have no constitutional predicate, do not involve a

court’s jurisdiction, and are regarded instead as prudential concerns implicating

courts’ self-imposed limitations. Justiciability questions are issues of law, over

which our standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.”

Robinson Twp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 83 A.3d 901, 917 (Pa. 2013) (internal

citations omitted).

7
 STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED

Did the Commonwealth Court err by holding that Petitioner’s claims are

moot and granting Respondents’ Application for Summary Relief in the Form of a

Motion to Dismiss as Moot?

Suggested answer – Yes

Did the Commonwealth Court err by holding that Pennsylvania’s

Declaratory Relief Act and Election Code apply to Constitutional Equal Protection,

Substantive Due Process, and First Amendment claims?

Suggested answer – Yes

Did the Commonwealth Court err by holding that Pennsylvania’s Election

Code applies to Mootness Exception doctrines?

Suggested answer – Yes

Did the Commonwealth Court err by holding that Petitioner’s challenges to

the Electoral Count Act of 1887, as amended, are waived?

Suggested Answer – Yes

Did the Commonwealth Court err by holding that Petitioner’s Constitutional

rights are effectively meaningless?

Suggested Answer – Yes

8
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Form of Action

This is a civil rights case brough by the Appellant, Petitioner below, an

unaffiliated voter from York County, to enforce his Fourteenth Amendment rights

to equal protection and due process, as well as his First Amendment right to

freedom of association. The Appellees, Respondents below, are the Governor and

Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Review on January 19, 2021.

Respondents filed an Application for Summary Relief in the Form of a Motion to

Dismiss as Moot, as well as a Memorandum of Law, on February 19, 2021.

Petitioner filed his brief on May 2, 2021. The Commonwealth Court granted

Respondents’ Application and Dismissed Petitioner’s Amended Petition for

Review on July 8, 2021. Petitioner applied for reconsideration on July 18, 2021.

Respondents replied to Petitioner’s application on July 22, 2021. The Court denied

Petitioner’s application on August 5, 2021. Petitioner appealed on August 6, 2021.

9
Judges Whose Decision is to be Reviewed

The trial court Judges are the Honorable Renee Cohn Jubelirer, the

Honorable Michael H. Wojcik, and the Honorable Ellen Ceisler. The opinion is not

published, but can be found attached hereto as Appendix A.

Statement of Facts

Respondents intentionally violated the law and purposely subjected

Petitioner to disfavored treatment because he is not a Democrat or Democrat voter.

RR 005a. They intentionally discriminated against Petitioner, failed to uphold and

enforce the law, and certified false election results. RR 004a. They issued

discriminatory guidance to county boards of election, and argued for

discriminatory policies in litigation. RR 008a. They facilitated the granting of

funds to county boards of election from non-government organization(s) associated

with Google and Facebook Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to benefit Democrat

voters. RR 010a-011a. They provided access to Pennsylvania’s SURE system to

non-government organizations to benefit Democrat voters. RR 011a. They illegally

certified voting systems that changed, weighted, falsely recorded, and manipulated

votes to benefit Democrat voters. RR 012a. They facilitated the counting of illegal

votes to benefit Democrat voters. RR 018a. They removed all meaningful

safeguards from the election. RR 024a.

10
 Petitioner prayed for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and any other relief

provided by law. RR 016a-029a.

Statement of the Determination Under Review

The Commonwealth Court determined that:

1. “[b]ecause this Court may not grant Petitioner the injunctive or

mandamus relief that he requests, the instant matter is deemed to be
moot.” Opinion at p. 9;

2. “[a]n action seeking declaratory judgment is not an optional substitute for

established or available remedies and should not be granted where a more
appropriate remedy is available.” Opinion at p. 9-10;

3. “Petitioner utterly failed to avail himself of the foregoing appropriate

statutory remedy thereby precluding the grant of the requested
declaratory relief.” Opinion at p. 11;

4. “we are not inclined to apply any of the foregoing exceptions to the
mootness doctrine in this case because Petitioner failed to avail himself
of the statutory remedies provided in the Election Code prior to filing the
instant Amended Petition for Review.” Opinion at p. 9; and,

5. “Petitioner first raised the issue regarding the constitutionality of the

Electoral Count Act of 1887, 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15, in his January 8, 2021
Reply and Application for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc relating to one of his
emergency applications; therefore, as it was not originally raised in his
Amended Petition for Review, it is waived.” Opinion at P.7 n.5.

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Commonwealth Court can grant injunctive relief, including

decertification of the election, in addition to declaratory relief, and nominal

damages. It went out of its way to flout decades of unequivocal Supreme Court

precedent to deny Petitioner relief. It held that Pennsylvania’s Declaratory Relief

Act and Election Code abridges and ultimately abrogates the United States

Constitution. It developed, sua sponte, new and erroneous elements to

Pennsylvania’s mootness exception doctrine. And finally, the Commonwealth

Court of Pennsylvania shirked its own precedent, Pennsylvania Supreme Court

precedent, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the very foundation of its own

opinion, by holding that Petitioner’s challenge to the Electoral Count Act was

waived.

12
 ARGUMENT

Petitioner’s claims are redressable and cannot reasonably be found moot.

Petitioner hereby incorporates his May 2, 2021 brief by reference. RR 051a – 114a,

and more specifically, RR 099a – 113a. The Order in question implicates

fundamental questions of justiciability in the nature of a demurrer, and thus, all

material facts set forth in Petitioner’s amended Petition for Review should be

admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.

Schemberg v. Smicherko, 85 A.3d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Super. 2014).

I. The Court Held that Petitioner’s Claims are Moot

“Because this Court may not grant Petitioner the injunctive or mandamus

relief that he requests, the instant matter is deemed to be moot.” Opinion at p. 9.

Petitioner prayed for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,

declaratory relief, non-discriminatory investigation and enforcement of violations,

an Order requiring Respondents to effectuate a full forensic audit of the 2020

General Election, and any other relief provided by law. RR 016a-029a. “The key

inquiry in determining whether a case is moot is whether the Court or agency will

be able to grant effective relief and whether he has been deprived of the necessary

stake in the outcome of the litigation.” Consol PA Coal Co. v. DEP, 129 A.3d 28,

39 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2015).

13
 “Redressability is ‘easily established in a case where, as here, the alleged

injury arises from an identifiable discriminatory policy.’ While we cannot

predict ‘the exact nature of the possible relief . . . without a full development of the

facts, an order enjoining the policy and requiring non-discriminatory

investigation and enforcement would redress the injury.’” Hassan v. City of

New York, 804 F.3d 277, 290 (3rd Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis

added). Respondents issued discriminatory guidance to county boards of election,

and argued for discriminatory policies in litigation. RR 008a. “Petitioner prayed for

declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to remedy

past harms. Petitioner prayed for any other relief provided by law, which includes

nominal damages. Petitioner’s prayer for declaratory, injunctive, and any other

relief will also serve to remedy ongoing and future harm, e.g., discriminatory

guidance, unconstitutional laws, or illegal certification of voting systems.” RR

070a – 071a.

“[T]he major purpose of the suit may be to obtain a public declaration

that they ‘are right and were improperly treated,’ along with nominal

damages that serve as ‘symbolic vindication of their constitutional rights.’ Given

the range of available remedies, redressability is easily satisfied.” Hassan, 804

F.3d at 293 (emphasis added). “When a right is violated, the violation ‘imports

14
damage in the nature of it’ and ‘the party injured is entitled to a verdict for nominal

damages.’” Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. _ (2021) (slip op., at 9).

An injunction compelling the decertification of an election after a candidate

has been sworn-in is an appropriate remedy. It has been granted in similar, but less

egregious, circumstances, explicitly on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Marks v.

Stinson, 19 F.3d 873 (3rd Cir. 1994), RR 071a. Admittedly, Marks was a down-

ticket race. Nevertheless, the proposition stands and is supported by law, “[t]he

President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of his

election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare

and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated.” Bush v. Gore, 531

U.S. 98, 112 (2000) (Rehnquist, J., concurring), RR 138a.

“Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s

equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are

inherent in equitable remedies.” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1, 15

(1971). “[I]t is established practice for this Court to sustain the jurisdiction of

federal courts to issue injunctions to protect rights safeguarded by the Constitution,

and to restrain individual state officers from doing what the 14 th Amendment

forbids the state to do. Moreover, where federally protected rights have been

invaded, it has been the rule from the beginning that courts will be alert to adjust

their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief.” Bell v. Hood, 237 U.S. 678, 684
15
(1946), RR 139a-140a. “It is settled beyond peradventure that constitutional

promises must be kept. Since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803),

it has been well-established that the separation of powers in our tripartite system of

government typically depends upon judicial review to check acts or omissions by

other branches in derogation of constitutional requirements.” William Penn School

District v. Dept. of Ed., 170 A.3d 414, 418 (Pa. 2017), RR 139a.

The Commonwealth Court’s determination that Petitioner’s claims are moot

is clearly erroneous.

II. The Court Conflated Pennsylvania’s Declaratory Relief Act and

Election Code with Constitutional Equal Protection, Due Process,
and First Amendment Jurisprudence

“An action seeking declaratory judgment is not an optional substitute for

established or available remedies and should not be granted where a more

appropriate remedy is available.” Opinion at p. 9-10. “Petitioner utterly failed to

avail himself of the foregoing appropriate statutory remedy thereby precluding the

grant of the requested declaratory relief.” Opinion at p. 11.

“[T]he party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely

upon, and . . . does determine whether he will bring a suit arising under the

Constitution or laws of the United States”. Bell, 327 U.S. at 681. As shown in the

previous subsection, the relief requested by Petitioner has been well-established, is

16
available, and is eminently appropriate. Paradoxically, the Court found that a more

appropriate remedy was available, but dismissed the case as moot because there is

no available remedy. In so doing, the Court relied upon case that was decided

under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and not the Constitution. See Pittsburgh

Palisades Park, LLC v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 944 A.2d

62 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004), RR 140a. Moreover, the Commonwealth Court ignored

Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent, which holds that injunctive and

declaratory relief is appropriate in equal protection cases. William Penn School

District, 170 A.3d at 457 & n.3 (also holding that the substance of Pennsylvania’s

equal protection clause is coterminous with the Fourteenth Amendment), RR 138a.

Similarly, the Court relied upon a case brought pursuant to the Election

Code, not the Constitution. See In re Twenty-First Senatorial District Nomination,

126 A. 566 (Pa. 1924). This case was explicitly an election contest brought under

the Commonwealth’s prior election code, which was of course governed by the law

under which it was brought. RR 140a. The Court also relied upon a case about an

appellant failing to invoke procedural rules to support the proposition that the

Election Code abridges and ultimately abrogates the United States Constitution.

Commonwealth v. Dorler, 588 A.2d 525 (Pa.Super. 1991), RR 140a.

17
 The Court applied this logic to each of Petitioner’s claims, even though there

is no support for the proposition that the Election Code provides any remedy, let

alone an appropriate remedy, for Petitioner’s signature verification, third-party

challenge, more-time-to-vote, voter opportunity, and freedom of association

claims. RR 140a. With regard to Petitioner’s dilution claim, the Election Code is

wholly inappropriate. Petitioner can’t petition to open ballot boxes in Philadelphia

or Allegheny County under Section 1701, or voting machines under Section 1702.

These sections only provide for recanvassing and recounting, which would simply

result in reprocessing illegal ballots, not identifying and disqualifying them.

Section 1731 is not practicable for citizens like Petitioner, who is not affiliated

with any political party and not involved in politics. Section 1756 relates only to

claims that the Primary or General Election was illegal. The enforcement and

penalty provisions of Section 1800 were not pursued and enforced. Finally, the

Election Code has been held to be inadequate to address the violation of rights.

Bradway v. Cohen, 642 A.2d 615 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994), RR 140a.

“[I]f a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, .

. . the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific

provision”. U.S. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 272 n.7 (1997); See also, Commonwealth

v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874, 890 (Pa.2010), Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395

(1989). The Election Code does not abridge or abrogate the Constitution. U.S.

18
Const. Article VI, §2. Nor does it provide exclusive remedies for constitutional

violations. RR 140a-141a. The U.S. Supreme Court does not dismiss constitutional

civil rights cases for failure to invoke state Election Code procedures. RR 141a.

The Commonwealth Court’s decision to conflate inapplicable state law with

well-established constitutional jurisprudence is clearly erroneous.

III. The Court Conflated the Election Code with Mootness Exception
Doctrines

“[W]e are not inclined to apply any of the foregoing exceptions to the

mootness doctrine in this case because Petitioner failed to avail himself of the

statutory remedies provided in the Election Code prior to filing the instant

Amended Petition for Review.” Opinion at p. 9.

As demonstrated in previous subsections, this is another example of the

Commonwealth Court abridging the Constitution with state law, and conflating

discrete doctrines in order to deprive Petitioner of remedies. To avoid belaboring

the point, Petitioner incorporates his July 18, 2021 Application for Reconsideration

by reference. RR 136a – 145a.

Again, the Commonwealth Court relied upon an entirely inapplicable case.

Metcalfe v. Wolf, (Pa.Cmwlth., No. 636 MD 2020). The Plaintiffs in Metcalfe were

political and alleged Election Code violations. Petitioner has alleged constitutional

19
violations. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not held that their past cases have

firmly adhered to the principle that proper remedies for violations of the

Constitution are to be found within the comprehensive legislative framework of the

Pennsylvania Election Code. RR 141a.

Pennsylvania’s mootness exception doctrine is detailed in Petitioner’s May 2

brief. RR 106a – 111a. The Commonwealth Court created and applied a new

mootness exception doctrine, sua sponte, that is entirely inappropriate.

IV. The Court Deemed Petitioner’s Challenges to the Electoral Count

Act Waived

“Petitioner first raised the issue regarding the constitutionality of the

Electoral Count Act of 1887, 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15, in his January 8, 2021 Reply

and Application for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc relating to one of his emergency

applications; therefore, as it was not originally raised in his Amended Petition for

Review, it is waived.” Opinion at P.7 n.5.

First, Petitioner challenged the Electoral Count Act explicitly in his

December 11, 2020 emergency application, and in every single emergency

application filed thereafter. RR 112a. All of which, he incorporates herein by

reference.

Second, Petitioner may challenge the ECA because it relates to his claims.

The Court can “pronounce any statute, either of a State or of the United States,
20
void, because irreconcilable with the Constitution” when “it is called upon to

adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies.” Brouillette v. Wolf,

213 A.3d 341, 351 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2019). RR 142a.

Third, the case relied upon by the Court is characteristically inapplicable. It

was decided on a motion for summary judgment, not mootness. The issue in that

case concerned a regulation promulgated during the course of litigation that

clarified the statute that Plaintiffs were alleging to be unconstitutionally vague.

When the regulation was issued clarifying the statute, the bottom of the claim fell

out. The Plaintiffs’ claim was predicated upon the statute itself being

unconstitutionally vague. The Court held that Plaintiffs couldn’t then pivot to the

regulation being unconstitutionally vague because the claim itself evaporated.

There were no legal rights for the Court to adjudge. See Pennsylvania Medical

Providers Association v. Foster, 613 A.2d 51 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992), RR 142a.

Fourth, only preliminary objections require the Court to resolve issues solely

on the basis of pleadings. See Weiley v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 51 A.3d

202, 208 (Pa.Super. 2012). Hence, mootness is properly raised via motion. RR

142a.

Fifth, the Commonwealth Court routinely considers matters collateral to the

complaint in deciding mootness. See Hamilton Contracting Co. v. Department of

21
Environmental Resources, 494 A.2d 516 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1985). So does the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Wiegand v. Wiegand, 337 A.2d 256 (Pa. 1975)

(constitutional challenges collateral to divorce complaint may be raised in trial

court).

Sixth, Pa.R.A.P. § 521(a) expressly acknowledges that Petitioner may raise

constitutional challenges in pleadings or in other portions of the record, and this

proposition is further supported by Pa.R.A.P. § 302(a). Indeed, “[o]ur Supreme

Court has frequently stressed the necessity of raising claims at the earliest

opportunity . . .”. Jahanshahi v. Centura, 816 A.2d 1179, 1189 (Pa.Super. 2003),

RR 143a.

And finally, it is well settled that changes in facts or law outside of the

complaint are relevant in determining mootness. In re: Gross, 382 A.2d 116, 119

(Pa. 1978), RR 143a. Perplexingly, the Commonwealth Court held that it was

impermissible to consider material outside of the Amended Petition, and then

decided that the case was moot, because of the inauguration, which isn’t in the

Amended Petition.

22
 CONCLUSION
My case is anything but moot. The Court should reverse the decision of the

Commonwealth Court and remand with explicit instructions to proceed to

discovery without further delay.

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Andrew Ioannidis
457 Pleasant View Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070
908-268-7571
Pa. I.D. No. 326060
Petitioner/Appellant
Dated: November 21, 2021.

23
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case Records

Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania that require

filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential

information and documents.

I hereby certify that this brief contains 4,248 words within the meaning of

Pa.R.A.P. 2135. In making this certificate, I have relied upon the word count of the

word-processing system used to prepare the brief

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Andrew Ioannidis
Petitioner/Appellant
Dated: November 21, 2021.

24
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I am causing a true and correct copy of this Brief of Appellant

to be served upon the following persons by electronic service through the Court’s

PACFile system:

Tom Wolf and Veronica Degraffenreid

c/o Karen Romano, Stephen Moniak, Keli Neary, and Sean Kirkpatrick
Office of the Attorney General
Litigation Section
th
15 Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Andrew Ioannidis
457 Pleasant View Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070
908-268-7571
Pa. I.D. No. 326060
Petitioner/Appellant
Dated: November 21, 2021.

25