Skip to comments.New Eligibility Lawsuit filed against CA Secretary of State
Posted on 05/12/2010 2:04:51 PM PDT by rxsid
"New Eligibility Lawsuit filed against CA Secretary of State
IS DEBRA BOWEN REFUSING TO UPHOLD THE LAW?
On May 10, 2010, Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.) filed a lawsuit against Debra Bowen, current California Secretary of State, on the grounds that Bowen has allowed an ineligible candidate to have his name placed on the ballot for the November 2010 election.
MRS. RONDEAU: When did you first consider filing a lawsuit against the named parties, and are they aware of the suit at this point?
CAPT. BARNETT: I decided to sue last week when I realized that Debra Bowen would allow unqualified (according to California election law) Damon Dunn to remain on the ballot after multiple complaints from me and others. I do not know if they are aware yet, but I plan on having them serviced tomorrow.
MRS. RONDEAU: Why is Dunn ineligible to run for Secretary of State?
CAPT. BARNETT: Dunn broke Federal Election law on his voter registration form when he excluded previous addresses where he was registered to vote, thereby rendering it an illegitimate registration. Because of that and when he received his nomination paperwork, he does not meet California election codes to legally be on the ballot."
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
CAPT. BARNETT: I am seeking to have Damon Dunn, Republican Candidate for CA Secretary of State; Debra Bowen, current CA Secretary of State; and Edmund G. Brown taken off both the primary and general election ballots. I am also seeking to have the AGs office invesitgate Obamas online forged certifications of live birth. Hopefully this would lead to criminal prosecution. MRS. RONDEAU: Does the lawsuit get to the heart of the eligibility of Damon Dunn?
CAPTAIN BARNETT: Yes, the lawsuit clearly points out that Dunn is not legally qualified to be on the Republican ballot for Secretary of State. The evidence is overwhelming at this point, but there is even more to come at trial. The evidence will prove him to be ineligible and the Secretary of State would be breaking the law to allow Dunn to stay on the ballot. By supporting fraud she would be committing fraud and would also be liable for damages to Orly Taitz for causing her to deplete her campaign contributions to run against an ineligible candidate. My goal is to have Dunn removed from the primary ballot.
MRS. RONDEAU: How does the eligibility or lack thereof of Obama figure into your case?
CAPTAIN BARNETT: I am demanding that the AG investigate the who, what, where, when, why and how of Obamas forged online birth certificates. By having the forgeries confirmed by the CA AG office, I would believe they would be entitled to see a real certification of live birth if it exists. Of course I would love to have the CA AG office thoroughly investigate Obamas ineligibility and the fraud around it by filing a RICO lawsuit to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. In a just United States of America, the RICO case would be done and the AG would file a lawsuit to to rescind Californias electoral votes because of Obamas fraud.
MRS. RONDEAU: In which district was the case filed, and who is the judge (or do you know yet)?
CAPT. BARNETT: California Superior Court. No judge has been assigned yet."
New Eligibility Lawsuit filed against CA Secretary of State
See also post #2.
How is Obamugabe’s statsu relelvant in anyway to the CA SOS election?
Reading the lawsuit, the plaintiff appears to be asserting a pattern of willful neglect on the part of the SoS's job description. In other words, she allowed an un vetted/un qualified candidate on the ballot in 2008...and she's doing it yet again in 2010 by allowing Dunn to be placed on the ballot. A pattern of corruption.
Okay. Well, we know this will go nowhere.
I got turned off Orly after Inspector Smith described his dealings with her and described her character defects. Up to that point, I admired her for her tenacity of not for the quality of her court filings. When I read that she was running for office in California, I just wasn’t interested in even discovering what office she was seeking. Therefore, I have just learned that she is running for Secretary of State of CA. I don’t have to ask why SoS is the office she chose.
I don’t see the plaintiff in this case being given standing on the BO eligibility case just because it is tacked on to one that is legitimate. The court can address one issue and toss the other out I would guess. Of course, I’d like to be wrong.
More interesting is the question, “Can Orly win this election?” And most interesting is will she then have a basis for an eligibility suit that could get to the discovery stage? Does anyone know - is this the reason for her plunge into politics, ie. a method to her madness?
For the life of me I can’t figure out why Comedy Central does not give this woman her own reality show.
It would be like printing money.
" California Judge Ruling in Keyes Lawsuit on Obama Qualificationshttp://www.ballot-access.org/2009/03/13/california-judge-ruling-in-keyes-lawsuit-on-obama-qualifications/
March 13th, 2009
On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidates qualifications.
The decision says, Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the partys selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.
In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasnt able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a partys choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesnt meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.
Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old. "
For SoS GOP Primary..
for Senate GOP primary.
Like I said, would like to be wrong - glad I am and thanks.
Watching and waiting...
What has Dunn done to make him ineligible?
“What has Dunn done” is a pun -— I guess you just didn’t get it.
However, the article/interview rambles all over the place, changing topics, and doesn’t really make a case for a grievance. It alludes to a failure to report all addresses where he was registered to vote. Then it claims that he is ineligible to be on the ballot, but it really doesn’t say why. Is there another reason besides the missing addresses? The interview hints that there may be, without stating the reason. Then it suddenly jumps into a discussion of Obama’s BC.
As much as I would like to see Obama proved ineligible, I don’t think this case is going to do it.
Have I missed something?
I see you responded “in kind”.
Ahhh!!!... now THAT is smart!
Go after the co-conspirators!
An ace in the whole.
“What has Dunn done to make him ineligible?”
Multiple violations of California Election Laws. Here is part of the complaint.
- - - - - - - - - -
III - BACKGROUND FACTS
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant Dunn Maliciously Violated CEC § 8001 (a) 2 / NVRA / HAVA Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs 1 through 5 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length omits it for brevity.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dunns actions constituted a violation of California Civil Code § 8001(a) 2 national Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and Help America to Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) in that defendant had at all times mentioned herein with explicit knowledge of the law acts with malice.
CAL. ELEC. CODE § 316: California Code - Section 316. “Direct primary” is the primary election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in each even-numbered year, to nominate candidates to be voted for at the ensuing general election or to elect members of a party central committee.
CA. CCP Code § 44, California Code - Section 44. Appeals in probate proceedings, in contested election cases, and in actions for libel or slander by a person who holds any elective public office or a candidate for any such office alleged to have occurred during the course of an election campaign shall be given preference in hearing in the courts of appeal, and in the Supreme Court when transferred thereto. All these cases shall be placed on the calendar in the order of their date of issue, next after cases in which the people of the state are parties.
Complaint Page 4 of 18
The California Election Code (CEC) requires that to be eligible to be a qualified candidate for Secretary of State a declared and a nominated candidate shall under §201 of the California Elections Code be a registered voter and otherwise qualified to vote for that office at the time nomination papers are issued to the person; and
On March 13, 2009, Defendant Dunn filed a registration to vote in California and to affiliate with the California Republican Party (see Exhibit A).
Defendant Dunn filed his voter card registration in CA on March 13 2009, less then 8 months prior to his declaration of candidacy on November 5, 2009; Further, CEC and related law requires with CEC § 8001: California Code -
Section 8001. (a) No declaration of candidacy for a partisan office shall be filed, by a candidate unless (1) at the time of presentation of the declaration and continuously for not less than three months immediately prior to that time, or for as long as he has been eligible to register to vote in the state, the candidate is shown by his affidavit of registration to be affiliated with the political party the nomination of which he seeks, and
(2) the candidate has not been registered as affiliated with a qualified political party other than that political party the nomination of which he seeks within 12 months, or, in the case of an election governed by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 6 of Division 10, within three months immediately prior to the filing of the declaration.
(b)The elections official shall attach a certificate to the declaration of candidacy showing the date on which the candidate registered as intending to affiliate with the political party the nomination of which he seeks, and indicating that the candidate has not been affiliated with any other qualified political party for the period specified in subdivision (a)immediately preceding the filing of the declaration. This section shall not apply to
Complaint Page 5 of 18
declarations of candidacy filed by a candidate of a political party participating in its first direct primary election subsequent to its qualification as a political party pursuant to Section 5100. (Emphasis added by Plaintiff)
Defendant Dunn had not been registered and enrolled / affiliated with the Republican Party of California, any State, and or National Republican Party affiliation for
12 months as of November 13, 2010.
On or about November 5, 2009, Defendant Dunn, who had been registered and enrolled / affiliated with the Florida Democratic Party within 12 months, filed the
declaration for his candidacy (See Exhibit B) for the California Republican Party nomination Direct Primary with Defendant Bowen. That according to CAL. ELEC. CODE § 305: California Code - Section 305. (a)”Candidate,” for purposes of Section 2184, includes any person who declares in writing, under penalty of perjury that he or she is a candidate, naming the office.
(b)”Candidate,” as used in Article 1 (commencing with Section 20200) of Chapter 3 of Division 20, means an individual listed on the ballot, or who has qualified to have write in votes on his or her behalf counted by election officials, for nomination or for election
to any elective state or local office, or who receives a contribution or makes an expenditure or gives his or her consent for any other person to receive a contribution or
makes an expenditure with a view to bringing about his or her nomination or election to any elective state or local office, whether or not the specific elective office for which he or she will seek nomination or election is known at the time the contribution is received or the expenditure is made. The term “candidate” includes any officeholder who is subject to a recall election. CEC Section 305 9c)”Candidate for public office,” as used in
Complaint Page 6 of 18
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 20400) of Division 20, means an individual who has qualified to have his or her name listed on the ballot of any election, or who has
qualified to have written votes on his or her behalf counted by election officials, for nomination for, or election to, any state, regional, county, municipal, or district office which is filled at an election.
Defendant Dunn filed as early as possible to maximize press coverage to take advantage over not being affiliated as a Republican Party Member with more Campaign exposure.
Defendant Dunn sought out advice from John and Jane Doe(s) to violate CEC § 8001 (a) 2 in order to maximize advantage over any other affiliated California Republican Party candidate if any were to file a declaration by say March 2010 or the minimum available time before the primary election on June 8, 2010.
Defendant Dunn knew that by filing early he was violating CEC § 8001 (a) 2 and was only an affiliated republican for about 8 months and decided not to wait until say March to file the Declaration, instead sought to conceal and expunge his Florida Democratic Party affiliation record.
That based upon information and belief and according to a letter written April 13, 2010 by Jean Marie Atkins Director of Voter Administration the Duval County Board of Election and obtained in person by Dr. Orly Taitz while in Florida (see Exhibit C), on July 10, 2009, Defendant Dunn contacted the Florida Board of Elections to have any record of enrollment or affiliation with the Florida Democratic Party in the Duval County database expunged from the official record.
The Florida Board of Election database in Duval County records that Defendant Dunn registered in Florida (see Exhibit D) is affiliated with the Democratic Party.
Complaint Page 7 of 18
That based upon information and belief the Florida Board of Elections Official with the fiduciary duty to safeguard the records of the Board of Elections including those of Defendant Dunn refused to expunge the records when he asked July 10. 2009, and prove that Defendant Dunn was a Florida Democrat within the 12 month period prior to Defendant Dunn declaring his candidacy in California on November 5, 2009.
For the purpose of adhering to the CEC §8001(a)2 requirement Defendant Dunn in effect was affiliated with the Democratic Party in Florida prior to November 5 2009,
when he filed his declaration of candidacy and intends to file nomination papers with CEC §8040, acted in bad faith to falsify the California Election Record and circumvent
requirements of NVRA and HAVA requiring State to State notification of change.
Defendant Dunn violated NVRA and HAVA with the filings shown as Exhibit A and Exhibit B thereby injuring Plaintiff along with those similarly situated.
Moreover, Defendant Dunn committed voter fraud according to statutes CEC §18203 and §18500 by intentionally not entering in his voter registration card information about the fact that he registered somewhere before and that he registered as a Democrat, maliciously failed to provide at Section 16 of the form shown as Exhibit A that he was previously registered in Florida, and thereby concealed evidence of a crime Defendant Dunn intended to commit to become California SOS.
Plaintiff is a supporter and contributor to the candidacy of Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS J.D. Esq., who is a duly declared candidate on the ballot at the California Republican
Party Primary scheduled for June 8, 2010 for the nomination by the California Republican Party as the Republican Candidate for the California Secretary of State at
the November 2010 General Election; and that Dr. Taitzs only opponent is Defendant
Complaint Page 8 of 18
Dunn at the Republican Nomination at the Primary other than write-in candidates, and were Defendant Dunn removed from the Primary Ballot as demanded herein, Dr. Taitz would be the Republican candidate for California SOS on the General Election Ballot of November 2010.
Defendant Dunn poaching as a Democrat has infringed Plaintiffs First amendment rights to protected speech and association along with those similarly situated as an enrolled affiliated member of the California Republican Party with CEC 8001(a) 2.
Defendant Dunn and the State of California Secretary of State Defendant Bowen whose state action has infringed Republican Party Affiliation rights and success at the elections have infringed Plaintiffs right to a reasonable expectation of participation and success with like-minded Party members at the Elections.
Because of the violation of Law by Defendant Dunn, Plaintiff is damaged financially and will suffer irreparable harm were Defendant Dunn allowed by Defendant
Bowen and or the SOS agents to remain on the primary ballot and that time is off the essence in order to prevent irreparable harm in the primary on June 8, 2010.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant Bowen and Defendant Dunn Maliciously Violated CEC § 8001(a) 2 VRA / HAVA and related law
Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs 1 through 27 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length omits it for
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants actions constitute a violation of California Civil”
Republican Party primaries would be a good place for Republican Party officials to require candidates to present a copy of their long form birth certificates before they would be allowed to put their names on the Republican Party primary ballot.
Thanks for the explanation. IOW, Dunn is a carpetbagger who (lately) was a registered Democrat and the address that was not reported was the MOST RECENT prior address. Now the lawsuit makes sense.
You’ve, furthermore, answered another one of my smoldering questions: apparently CA still requires voters to be registered with a Party to vote in the Primary. I haven’t lived in CA for more than 40 years, but I thought that I’d read a few years ago that they had done away with that requirement and now had open Primaries. Or, perhaps they are open for voters, but not for candidates.
There are many reasons to favor closed Primaries, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.