|
March 29th, 2006 | #21 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
|
advantages of federal lawsuit
If the federal court rules AGAINST Rounder, that's even better than if they rule FOR him. If they say, "It's legal for party officers to ban racists", then every politician who ever said nigger, will panic. The smalltime crooks fighting over the courthouse jobs will be saying, "You said nigger ten years ago! You're a racist! You can't be on the ballot! I get your job!" "No, you said nigger! I have witnesses! YOU can't be on the ballot! I'm not a racist! My daughter is shacked up with a nigger!" Then the party chairman will make a ruling on who's a racist and who gets to be on the ballot. Like throwing in a grenade and letting them fight each other over who has to sit next to it.
If they say, "It's legal for party officers to ban people from primary elections at their discretion", then "the system" will explode even faster. All the politicians all over America will be banning their serious opponents from the ballot. People will wake up more and more to the fact that the only reason they pay taxes is that the government is poking a gun barrel up their nose, that we don't have real elections, and that there's nothing legal about it. If party officers can decide who gets to be on "their" ballot, likewise they can decide who gets to vote in "their" primary. That's what the Libbertoons already believe. In tight local elections both Dem & Repub officers will be "demoncratically" standing at the poll "disqualifying" people they think will vote against their "chosen candidate" in the primary. ("It's our right to decide who gets to vote in OUR primary. The federal judge said so.") |
March 29th, 2006 | #22 |
Smart Ass White Boy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,137
|
As true as your statement is, the media will spin Glen’s loss as ineptitude on his part. Because he has no legal council at this point, this will seem plausible to the sheeple, if they even hear about it.
I wonder if the ACLU would take up his cause <GRIN> |
March 30th, 2006 | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,613
|
Sue all three parties that refused to let Glenn on their ballot
Sue all three parties for conspiracy to deprive you of your civil rights, Glenn.
|
March 30th, 2006 | #24 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: in a gene near you
Posts: 4,982
|
Quote:
|
|
March 30th, 2006 | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
|
Quote:
Regarding the ACLU, I spoke with one ACLU attorney who said he's too busy to take my case. And I left 5 separate phone messages with the Kansas City ACLU's office, describing my case, and asking them to phone me. None ever did.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire Last edited by Rounder; March 30th, 2006 at 07:51 PM. |
|
March 31st, 2006 | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,613
|
No surprise
Quote:
|
|
April 3rd, 2006 | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
|
$200.00 from Steve B. for campaign donation, was received in today's mail (3 Apr 06).
Many thanks, Steve.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire |
April 11th, 2006 | #28 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: in a gene near you
Posts: 4,982
|
Quote:
|
|
April 27th, 2006 | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
|
I received a $100.00 campaign donation from Proud White Guy in yesterday's mail (26 Apr). Many thanks, PWG.
Regarding my lawsuit, the Secretary of State filed a MOTION TO DISMISS coupla days ago. No mention at all as to her legal grounds to deny me ballot access, only vague, judicial bullshit criticising the wording of my lawsuit. For example: "Deficient Pleading as to Entire Complaint". I'll have my legal expert look over her 12-page Motion to Dismiss, then I'll respond with my own motion for the court to deny her's. I have coupla weeks in which to prepare my response. If I lose the case, it'll be due to some technicality, not due to the merits of my complaint. Oh, the Secretary of State also asked the court to make me pay all court costs related to my lawsuit.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire |
April 27th, 2006 | #30 |
coast to coast WN
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Louisville KY area
Posts: 5,775
|
This just proves that there is no such thing as a leagle system. We are on our own. Hal Turner is right.
__________________
nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven Kentckyanna True News "What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch a Jews, spics, niggers, pansies -- and a booger-eatin' moron!" Tanner Boyle - short stop for the Bad News Bears. |
April 28th, 2006 | #31 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 123
|
Rounder's suit is hammerlock on ZOG
The longer Rounder's suit goes on, the more damage it does to ZOG. Federal judges aren't stupid. The judge knows it's nonsense to let party officials decide who gets to be on the primary ballot. This is as obvious as 1+1=2 to a federal judge.
It's also obvious to the political hacks Rounder is suing (who see this as an amoral game - they just have a different perspective on life, like pirates). Only a few pothead Libbertoons really think the elections should be privatized. Party officials are selected mainly through unsupervised voting: caucuses and such. The original reason for having government-run primary elections (this used to be taught in high school civics class) was to supervise the voting, to get away from the cheating in the party-run caucuses and conventions: having meetings without telling everybody, voting to throw out legitimate votes, all the childish shenanigans that almost everybody who's ever been involved in party politics knows go on. Some states, like Missouri, included voting for SOME party officials, in the primary. But even if ALL party officials were elected in primaries, giving those party officials veto power over candidates, amounts to making the public offices appointed, not elected. You might as well just elect party officials, and let them appoint the public officials, if their party got more votes in the primary. No November election necessary. The judge also knows it's nonsense to throw Rounders' suit out for ANY reason, "technical" or otherwise. All the laws and rules and rulings always say that substantive justice controls. If Rounder scribbled, "The state people swiped my wheelbarrow and I told the state people I was suing. - Rounder" on a paper towel and dropped it on the court clerk's desk, that's enough for a civil suit, if the judge is really doing his job. I once filed a federal suit against a state bureaucrat in Iowa. I didn't bother to look up anything. Basically, I wrote a letter to the court saying at the very top of the page, my name and whom I was suing, then further down saying what happened, enclosing a personal check for the filing fee, and stating in a P.S. that I'd sent a copy by certified letter to the state bureaucrat. I didn't even show up for the hearing. The federal judge had a hearing anyway. He ruled against me, but gave semi-logical, written reasons. Rounder's suit is a gigantic lose-lose proposition for ZOG. If the judge rules against Rounder (including any kind of dismissal on any kind of "technicality") it will be a green light for all the local party crooks all over the country to start bypassing the primaries by letting party officer Boss Hogg stop anybody from filing against his brother-in-law for dogcatcher. Effectively primaries will have been abolished, and everybody with the political awareness of a precinct chairwoman will know it. This will accelerate the loss of confidence in "demoncracy" and hasten ZOG's downward spiral. If the judge rules FOR Rounder, the Jews will think it's 1933. "Federal judge rules for Klan in election." |
April 29th, 2006 | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
|
Well now HPD, that's an encouraging and an interesting posting. Makes sense too.
Obviously, the court and the SOS is taking my complaint seriously. I received two court documents on Friday: 1) States: "David A. Johnston, Assistant Attorney General, hereby enters his appearance on behalf of the Missouri Secretary of State. Service of process is waived with respect to this defendant." And. . . 2) An Order signed by judge Richard E. Dorr, which states, in part: "A proposed scheduling order/discovery plan ("Proposed Plan") shall be filed on or before July 11, 2006.. . . The Proposed Plan shall also state whether the case will be tried to the Court or to a jury. . . Plaintiff's counsel shall take the lead in preparing the Proposed Plan. . It is expected that the discovery completion date will not exceed 180 days. . ." What's interesting about all this is that no journalist and no politician has stepped forward and publicly criticised the SOS's refusal to place my name on the primary elections ballot. I'm not optimistic. I believe the judge will throw my case out on some technicality, and not even address the issue of whether or not the SOS has the legal right to refuse to print my name on the ballot. We'll see.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|