CC would have a couple of choices right here in CA to start the show with.......
For SoS GOP Primary..
or
for Senate GOP primary.
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 AG’s office invesitgate Obama’s 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 Obama’s 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 Obama’s 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 California’s electoral votes because of Obama’s 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."
Full article:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/12/new-eligibility-lawsuit-filed-against-ca-secretary-of-state/
New Eligibility Lawsuit filed against CA Secretary of State
See also post #2.
Humor?
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.
Thanks!
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.
/s
" 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, 2009On 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 candidate’s 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 party’s 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 wasn’t 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 party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t 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..
or
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”.
Gracias, amigo.
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.