Tag Archives: Darrell Castle

LibertyHangout.org Stabs Darrell Castle in the Back

Darrell Castle is No Libertarian

While previously praising Castle as more of a Libertarian than Gary Johnson, LH has appeared to have done a schizophrenic 180.

BUT NO, GARY JOHNSON IS NOT MORE LIBERTARIAN THAN DARRELL CASTLE

And this message from the Castle Campaign will make that ABUNDANTLY self-evident

Advertisements

Write-in Candidates Winners In The Past

9f2de7_077004ef1f8e46b8a1cddedfffa35b78mv2_d_2560_1440_s_2

TIME TO MAKE HISTORY AND CHANGE THE FUTURE!

Pray, everybody please! There is a great chance if America can gain the favor of our Creator! It’s time to show them how it’s done and get the votes in for the ONLY SAFE CANDIDATES:

DARRELL CASTLE/ SCOTT BRADLEY

THE HISTORY OF SUCCESS FOR WRITE IN CANDIDATES:

Presidential Primaries:

In 1928, Herbert Hoover won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary on write-ins, polling 100,279.

In 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt won the Democratic New Jersey presidential primary with 34,278 write-ins.

In 1944, Thomas Dewey won the Republican Pennsylvania presidential primary with 146,706 write-ins.

In 1948, Harold Stassen won the Republican Pennsylvania presidential primary with 81,242 write-ins.

In 1952, Robert A. Taft won the Republican Nebraska presidential primary with 79,357 write-ins.

In 1952, Estes Kefauver won the Democratic Pennsylvania presidential primary with 93,160 write-ins.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary with 254,898 write-ins.

In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary with 51,951 write-ins.

In 1960, Richard Nixon won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary with 53,164 write-ins.

Also in 1960, John F. Kennedy won the Democratic Pennsylvania presidential primary with 183,073 write-ins, and he won the Democratic Massachusetts presidential primary with 91,607 write-ins.

In 1964, a write-in campaign organized by supporters of former U.S. Senator and vice presidential nominee Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. won Republican primaries for President in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, defeating declared candidates Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, and Margaret Chase Smith.

In 1968 in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire, incumbent President Lyndon Johnson did not file, but received write-ins totaling 50% of all Democratic votes cast. Senator Eugene McCarthy, who campaigned actively against Johnson’s Vietnam war policies, was on the ballot. He received an impressive 41% of the vote and gained more delegates than the President. Johnson was so stunned that he did not run for reelection.

In 1992, consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran a write-in campaign during the New Hampshire primary for the presidential nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Declaring himself the “none of the above candidate” and using his Concord Principles as his platform, Nader received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans.

Senate:

Republican William Knowland was elected in 1946 to the U.S. Senate from California.

Democrat Strom Thurmond was elected in 1954 to the United States Senate in South Carolina as a write-in candidate, after state Democratic leaders had blocked him from receiving the party’s nomination.

***In 2010 incumbent Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller. Following her defeat she ran in the general election as a write-in candidate. Murkowski had filed, and won, a lawsuit requiring election officials to have the list of names of write-in candidates distributed at the polls and subsequently won the election with a wide enough margin over both Miller, and Democratic Party candidate Scott T. McAdams, to make moot the write-in ballots that had been challenged by Miller.

House of Representatives:

In 1918, Peter F. Tague was elected to the U.S. House as a write-in independent Democrat, defeating the Democratic nominee, John F. Fitzgerald.

In 1930 Republican Charles F. Curry, Jr. was elected to the House as a write-in from Sacramento, California.

Democrat Charlie Wilson was the endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party for Ohio’s 6th congressional district in Ohio to replace Ted Strickland in 2006.

Democrat Dave Loebsack entered the 2006 Democratic primary in Iowa’s second congressional district as a write-in candidate after failing to get the required number of signatures. He won the primary and in the general election.

State legislatures:

Several members of the Alaska House of Representatives were elected as write-in candidates during the 1960s and 1970s, particularly from rural districts in the northern and western portions of the state.Examples of successful write-in candidates include Kenneth A. Garrison and Father Segundo Llorente (1960), Frank R. Ferguson (1972), James H. “Jimmy” Huntington (1974), Nels A. Anderson, Jr. (1976), Axel C. Johnson, (ran for re-election as a write-in candidate after failing to formally file his candidacy paperwork), Johnson and Llorente, etc…

Carl Hawkinson of Galesburg, Illinois won the Republican primary for the Illinois Senate from Illinois’s 47th District in 1986 as a write-in candidate. He went on to be elected in the general election and served until 2003.

In 1990, Conservative New York State Senator Serphin Maltese won the party’s nomination as a write-in candidate.

Charlotte Burks won as a Democratic write-in candidate for the Tennessee Senate seat left vacant when the incumbent, her husband Tommy, was assassinated by his opponent, Byron Looper, two weeks before the elections of November 2, 1998. The assassin was the only name on the ballot, so Charlotte ran as a write-in candidate.

Winnie Brinks was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2012 after a series of unusual events. Brinks ran as a write-in to be the Democratic nominee. She won the primary and was listed on the ballot in the general election, which she also won.

Scott Wagner was elected as an anti-establishment Republican write-in candidate to the Pennsylvania Senate in a March 2014.

Local government:

Julia Allen of Readington, New Jersey won a write-in campaign in the November 2005 elections for the Township Committee.

Mike Duggan filed petition to run for mayor of Detroit in 2013; however, following a court challenge, Duggan’s name was removed from the ballot. Duggan then campaigned as a write-in in the August 2013 primary, with the intent of being one of the top two vote-getters and thus advancing to the general election in November. Duggan received the highest number of votes in the primary, and advanced to the runoff in November. He eventually defeated challenger Sheriff Benny Napoleon and became the Mayor of Detroit.

Michael Jarjura was re-elected Mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut in 2005 as a write-in candidate after losing the Democratic party primary to Karen Mulcahy.

James Maher won the mayorship of Baxter Estates, New York on March 15, 2005 as a write-in candidate.

Beverly O’Neil won a third term as Mayor of Long Beach, California as a write-in candidate in 2002.

Michael Sessions, an 18-year-old high school senior, won as a write-in candidate for Mayor of Hillsdale, Michigan in 2005. He was too young to qualify for the ballot.

Anthony A. Williams, then incumbent Mayor of Washington, D.C. was forced to run as a write-in candidate in the 2002 Democratic primary, because he had too many invalid signatures for his petition. He won the Democratic primary, and went on to win re-election.

In the November 8, 2011, election for Commonwealth’s Attorney of Richmond County, Virginia, 16-year incumbent Wayne Emery has been certified the winner as a write-in candidate over challenger James Monroe by a margin of 53 votes (2.4%) out of 2,230 votes cast.

Others-

Aaron Schock was elected to the District 150 School Board in Peoria, Illinois in 2001 by a write-in vote. He defeated the incumbent by over 2,000 votes, approximately 6,400 to 4,300 votes.

John Adams became an Orange County, California judge in November 2002 after running along with 10 other write-in candidates in the primaries on March 5, 2002 against incumbent Judge Ronald Kline.

3rd Party Center to Right Guide

9f2de7_077004ef1f8e46b8a1cddedfffa35b78mv2_d_2560_1440_s_2

3rd Party Center to Right Presidential Guide-From a Constitutional Conservative Viewpoint

The intent of this guide is to assist Constitutional conservatives with their choice for President. Ample research was conducted and an effort was made to use the candidates’ actual interviews, platforms, videos, etc. Any omission of facts was not intentional. Some views had to be surmised due to not finding previously expressed stances or utilizing context historically provided. A pet peeve of mine is when politicians dodge questions or deliberately avoid certain topics in an attempt to avoid giving an inflammatory response.

There are 30 categories that the candidates were graded on order to derive the total points Candidate Viability / Number of State Ballots – 1-20 points

Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 50 States. 20 pts

Jill Stein is on the ballot in 44 States: 11 points
Darrell Castle is on the ballot in 24 States. 10 pts
Evan McMullin is on the ballot in 10 States. 4 pts 
Chris Keniston is on the ballot in 3 States. 1 pt
Tom Hoefling is on the ballot in 2 States. 1 pt

Forecasts/Predictions

odds

DONALD TRUMP SEALS FATE WITH SUBPAR DEBATE

GI has concluded that, after his poor recent debate performance, Donald Trump will lose. We predict an overwhelming Clinton victory in the electoral college and popular vote. A certain betting site had Trump as a 1.8:1 underdog one week ago. That same site has now made him a 2.2:1 underdog the night after the debate.

The establishment will stop at nothing to keep Hilary from obtaining office, and Donald Trump has neither the intellectual or financial capabilities to overpower them.

On a side note, you can see the odds of third party candidates as well. Apologies, Libertarians ; you will not like what Gary Johnson’s odds are #MUH5%

We anticipate 1.7% for Gary Johnson (L)

We anticipate .6% for Jill Stein (G)

We anticipate .13% For Darrell Castle (C)

~GI~

Dear Unhappy Libertarians : Give the CP a Shot!

 
BY : CLINT BISHOP

 

Hey you! Yes you, the libertarian or conservative with libertarian leanings that doesn’t feel quite at home in the Libertarian Facebook groups. You aren’t alone. Most people aren’t comfortable with, nor find amusement in picking fights for fun. Sensible people, regardless of ideology, don’t typically revel in the type of chaos that we witness on a daily basis – the squabble with one goal in mind, to drive each other closer to anarchical views. Who wants to end every discussion being called a ‘statist’ simply because your views aren’t the most radical on the thread, or sacrificing your principles in order to be the one that gets to say it? Of those of us who are Christian or religious, what fun is it to fear literal persecution in groups intended to beget the opposite effect? I suspect that many endure the nonsense because we don’t necessarily mesh with the warmonger neo-conservatives that comprise the Conservative Groups or their hypocrisy of claiming to be for small government while promoting everything that keeps central government strong. On the same token, there’s never really been anywhere else to go that’s remotely viable, particularly as the Libertarian Party has finally garnered long awaited national recognition, despite squandering it away by nominating a moderate Presidential Candidate and a gun-hating, CFR loving VP Candidate, as well as having the Convention tarnished by images of a naked fat guy running across the stage for the world to see. Despite all of this, the LP and the libertarian groups still seem to be where all the ‘cool kids’ hang out.
That being said, I recently interviewed seven individuals from various liberty-minded, closely related philosophies in an attempt to determine a few things:
  1. Has the LP moved too far to the left?
  2. Has the Republican Party moved too far center, becoming too authoritarian foe either paleo-conservatives or libertarians?
  3. Is there room between between those two parties for a another party to become a viable option for the future?
First, neo-cons have altered the path of the Republican Party to an irreconcilable place in terms of interventionism and globalism. Despite their professed views regarding government, they embrace the state and its power structure and propensity for corruption. “Constitutional conservative” is probably one of the most misused terms among the political right. I can vouch for this because just months ago I , myself, was a neo-con who erroneously touted the term to describe myself. After a few months of studying the Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers, I can honestly say that very few who claim the term for themselves today are deserving of it, rendering it practically useless. They can be educated and guided, but were not practical for the purpose of this article.
 
These dimensions of libertarianism seem to understand, even acknowledge important aspects of our society that their libertarian counterparts discount, or even disregard as views perilous and incompatible with liberty. Common sense and morality guide their reasoning. As Paleo-libertarian Tony Cansoneri, writer for Liberty Hangout, defined it, a Paleo-libertarian is “a libertarian who believes that culture and tradition are key components of freedom and that a free and voluntary society can uphold these and defend these better than state. [Paleo-libertarians] also believe in radical decentralization of government and many, if not most of us, are skeptical of multiculturalism and believe that to the extent it exists today, it is a nasty byproduct of government largess that leads to much turmoil….Paleo-libertarians also believe in radical decentralization of government and many, if not most of us, are skeptical of multiculturalism.” That sounds refreshing for levelheaded libertarians, doesn’t it? He continues, “I would say that a paleo-libertarian is essentially a far right conservative at heart and typically believes in traditional values and western culture as necessary components, seeing social and cultural conservatism as a byproduct of a free society. The more free a society is, the more virtuous it can be. . we hold that the individual is supreme and the extension of the individual (private property) is what all rights truly stem from.”
 

 

Traditionalism (even patriotism) isn’t highly regarded among libertarian circles. They’re believed to be incongruous with individual liberty, yet these are important American ideals, from which liberty itself is derived. One of the most surprising discoveries in my interviews was the fact that ALL SEVEN value patriotism and traditionalism. Likewise, five of seven were religious and only one was agnostic. While I’ve never found solid, scientific polling on the religious makeup of the Libertarian Party, I’ve personally found it to be very unwelcoming to the religious, particularly Christians. The informal polling I have found suggest that a very high percentage of libertarians consider themselves agnostic or atheist – to, the tune  of 40% agnostic within the Partycompared to 7-20% of the national population. Classical liberal Clay Hesketh, one of the Rand Paul supporters interviewed and the only agnostic of the seven, states “I believe that tradition and culture are important on an individual or community level, but not on a state or national level. I’m skeptical about multiculturalism because it can become a veiled form of segregation.”
 
Although possibly not the majority, many agreed with these views of mine. Staunch Rand Paul supporter and a minarchist libertarian, Paul Maurone, says in regards to traditionalism and patriotism, “They are positive. Patriotism should be defined as a vigilant allegiance to our nation and Constitution – NOT to our politicians who are running the show.” Unprovoked invocation of the Constitution is something you’ll rarely see among the libertarian left or anarchists, of whom usually hold our founding document in contempt. 2: Long time Ron and Rand Paul supporter, and libertarian/constitutionalist Susie Clark declares, “I no longer call myself a Libertarian. They have gone liberal. I am pro-life and not for open borders. I am a little ‘L’ libertarian, but I like Constitutional Conservative. The Libertarian (Party) no longer upholds the Constitution, they worry more about drug policies, they mock Christianity, and stand with the Globalists traitors to humanity.” When asked to what esteem she holds the Constitution, Susie  answered, “(It’s) 2nd below the Word of God. The Constitution was written by men who fought against a King. They gave us the Constitution to make sure it does not happen again.” This is a complaint I hear often relevant to the libertarian left and anarchists. They have no respect for the Constitution and consider the parchment barrier a failure, rather than grasping the concept that it can never serve its purpose without us doing our part.
 
An interesting and informative interview was one conducted with Michael Stevens, a fusionist. Fusionism is a philosophy popularized by Frank Meyer in the mid to late 1900’s. Many say that it has faded out of existence, while others claim that politicians such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are modern day, prominent fusionists. The most distinguished fusionists of all were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Describing fusionism, Michael states that “Fusionism is an idea that combines the ideas of libertarianism and conservatism into a pro-liberty and pro-morality philosophy. We are for limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility, and no gun restrictions. We value federalism on issues like drug legalization or decriminalization. . . Fusionists see that one has to have morality to have liberty. You also cannot have liberty without life. Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that ‘…the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.’ I believe fusionism is true conservatism. Its roots date back to our founding as a Republic where our roots have both a conservative and libertarian foundation. The individual is the highest form in this philosophy. We believe in reducing the role of government (per) the Constitution. The government’s job is to protect individual rights in the Bill of Rights and (as) outlined in the Declaration of Independence. We believe in a Christian founding but believe in the separation of church and state, as Jefferson intended, not as it is interpreted today. We believe in one where the Federal government is on one side of the divide and the State and local governments, as well as the Churches, are on the other. . . On issues of the economy, leave the government out but enforce a moral compass in the economy. In terms of ideology, between libertarianism and conservatism the thin line on the political ideological scale is where fusionism or libertarian-conservatism lies. It’s more of a balanced philosophy that believes in the idea of liberty that coexists with the rule of law.”
 
Along with other differences I have discussed, I believe that the “balanced philosophy that believes in the idea of liberty that coexists with the rule of law” is an important distinction. The libertarian left and the anarchist purists seem to believe that the ideology of libertarianism, as an absolute, is the only ideology worth advocating. The problem is that the experience that is taken into account by the conservative ideologies and paleo-libertarianism can’t be ignored, especially when compared to an ideology of concept only. When asked whether or not there was room for another party outside of the three largest, I received a wide array of answers. Some were disgusted with partisan politics altogether; one thinks there isn’t room outside the top two, much less three; and a few think there is definitely room for more parties. None seemed privately content with the leftward move of the Libertarian mainstream. From the outside looking in, I’m not sure how the Libertarian Party is amassing so much support since the right side of their base seems so disenfranchised. It’s quite analogous to the Republican Party, to be honest. It, too, has maneuvered leftward, yet misrepresented right-wingers continue to stick around. The contrast with the Republican Party supporters, I suppose, is that they are stationary due to fear or apathy. The Libertarian Party, contrarily, has garnered its latest wave of support due to momentum it has obtained over the past two to four years due to an excited base. It simply seems, now, to be suffering growing pains as its rapid leftward shift is alienating Christian supporters, the right side of the movement, and those who have evolved from their previously neo-conservative views to a more libertarian perspective.
 
Irreconcilable Differences?
The acrimony that many libertarians have with regards to Christianity, traditionalism, patriotism, and even the Constitution, is tough to swallow for many. I’m very fond of the Constitution. To my pleasant surprise, all seven of those interviewed hold the Constitution in high esteem. My personal disdain for the libertarian left is its disregard for the Constitution, in spite of the document’s quintessence of our great core philosophies, such as classical liberalism, paleo-libertarianism, and paleo-conservatism. This unique combination, coupled with our Judeo-Christian founding and principles, has created the greatest nation in human history. These differences don’t include others that many of the aforementioned philosophies hold in direct conflict with the Libertarian Party and it’s platform, such as the damaging consequences of weak border security, the adverse effects that the platform’s (figurative) open border policy would precipitate, the perceived obsession with drug legalization, the perpetual evolution towards the outright promotion of anarchy by the purists, and the widely embraced dogma of the NAP – which along with anarchy, places far too much confidence in and grossly overestimates the goodness of man. We are not benevolent beings by nature. We are very much opportunistic and that leads to greed, violence, etc. What virtue we possess seems to not be ascribed to the proper places by the libertarian left; those consisting of our founding of Christianity, our culture, God’s natural law, etc. These reflect our morals, not humanism or progressivism.
 
So we have a group of mostly Christian, patriotic libertarians and conservatives with no party to closely represent their values. Both no longer acknowledge God (for the religious ones), one wants perpetual war and loves big government, and one doesn’t value traditionalism, patriotism, pragmatism, or the Constitution (in many cases). Many that do value the Constitution in both parties aren’t originalists when referencing it, several only use it where it is deemed beneficial in context to their current argument. One has shared power for far too long, only to become the epitome of corruption from localities and states up to Congress and the Executive Branch. The other, after 45 years has finally reached relevancy nationwide, but seems to only have space for those willing to be stifled in their religious and traditionalist beliefs in exchange for humanism and multiculturalist activism. I have news. There is another choice. It isn’t cool to say I’m a member of the Constitution Party. Your libertarian friends who reside on the left side of the spectrum or who don’t understand the meaning of the word will likely call you a theocrat. You aren’t going to find many college friends rushing to join their campus YAConstitution instead of YAL or YAFJulie Borowski isn’t likely to be caught binge tweeting pro-Darrell Castle tweets. There probably won’t be any Constitution Party hotties featured in Babes for Liberty and it’s doubtful that you’ll find a notification on your Facebook account informing you that Liberty Laura has spontaneously stopped in her car to orchestrate a pro-Constitution Party live stream (as much as we’d all love that!). One thing you will see is people toeing the party line over principle for the Libertarian Party this cycle. 
 
Final Pitch
Finally, for those on the libertarian right, the liberty leaning conservatives, and everything between, you CAN bake your own cake and eat it too! There is a party that holds the founding fathers’ principles, teachings, intent, and vision for our posterity dear. There’s a party that believes in ending the Fed, staying out of other countries’ affairs, ending perpetual war, repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, leaving the UN and other organizations and treaties that surrender our sovereignty to foreign and international courts and organizations, dissolving the unconstitutional conglomerate of acronym Alphabet Soup federal agencies, that is anti-Agenda 21, and is for small government—and it’s no longer the Libertarian Party. This same party holds our foundation (not establishment of religion) of Christian morals and principles, traditionalism, patriotism, and the importance of the 10th Amendment in high esteem. It holds our Constitution as its namesake and focal point, unlike any other party.Become a Constitutionist, join the Constitution Party @ http://constitutionparty.com

Was Paul Stanton Eligible to run as a Libertarian in Florida Senate Race?

(ANON FLORIDA VOTER)

 

Dear members of the FEC

I am a resident of the state of Florida where the Libertarian Party has brought forward a candidate for the Florida Senate election on November 8, 2016.

As with all candidates for general election, I conducted research and found disturbing facts that have not been answered by the candidate, neither by the Libertarian Party of Florida regarding the validity of the candidate in the following areas: Contribution and eligibility violations

US Federal Law

Contribution violation: (*1)

Code of Federal Regulations Title 11, § 110.4

52 U.S.C. 30122, 30123, 30102(c)(2)

Federal Election Campaign Laws 86 § 30122.

Contributions received by the candidate’s 3 half-sisters in the maximum allowable amount of $2700, while stated that 2 of the half-sisters are unemployed. (*2) Increased suspicion of unlawful contributions occurred when the FEC disbursement report (*3) shows the high Credit Card Transfer fees related to these contributions. The candidate has stated the financial restrains of his campaign, a personal check would prevent paying over $300 in fees.

Candidate has refused to answer questions relating donations made to his campaign

 

*1: Code of federal regulations:

Title 11 Federal Elections Revised as of January 1, 2016

  • 110.4 Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (52 U.S.C.

30122, 30123, 30102(c)(2)). (a) [Reserved] (b) Contributions in the name of another. (1) No person shall— (i) Make a contribution in the name of another; (ii) Knowingly permit his or her name to be used to effect that contribution; (iii) Knowingly help or assist any person in making a contribution in the name of another; or (iv) Knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another. (2) Examples of contributions in the name of another include— (i) Giving money or anything of value, all or part of which was provided to the contributor by another person (the true contributor) without disclosing the source of money or the thing of value to the recipient candidate

or committee at the time the contribution is made, see 11 CFR 110.6;

Federal Election Campaign Laws 86 § 30122.

Contributions in name of another prohibited No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.

 

title Two Year Summary  
 

description

2016 Itemized Individual Contributions and

Disbursements

 
timestamp Mon Sep 19 13:52:24 GMT 2016  
copyright Copyright 2012, Federal Election Commission.  
 

cand_id

 

S6FL00467

 
cand_nm STANTON PAUL ANTHONY

 

*2: Individual contributions report

 

 

Contributor

Name

 

Employer

 

City

 

S T

 

Receip t Date

 

Amount

 

Image Number

 

HUNG, PE

 

RETIRED

 

NAPLES

F L  

6/8/16

 

$2,700.00

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286919
SUNDQUIST, ANNIKA UNEMPLOY ED MELBOUR NE F L  

6/6/16

 

$2,700.00

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286919
SUNDQUIST, EMERALD UNEMPLOY ED PITTSBUR GH P A  

6/10/16

 

$2,700.00

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286919

 

 

*3: Disbursement report

 

 

 

Payee Name

 

Purpose

 

City

 

ST

Payment

Date

 

Amount

 

Image Number

DEPARTMEN T OF STATE FILLING FEE TALLAHA  

FL

 

6/21/16

 

$10,440.00

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286923
RAISE THE MONEY CREDIT

CARD PROCESSIN G FEE

 

LITTLE

 

 

AR

 

 

6/17/16

 

 

$132.00

 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286924

 

RAISE THE MONEY

CREDIT

CARD PROCESSIN G FEE

 

LITTLE

 

 

AR

 

 

6/13/16

 

 

$279.00

 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi- bin/fecimg/?201607210200286923

 

Florida Statutes:

Candidate Eligibility Violation

99.021.2   Form of candidate oath (*4)

 

The candidate has refused to answer questions regarding his residency or voter registration status prior to November 30, 2015 when he first registered to vote in Florida (*6)

According to Florida statute the 365-day period started June 24, 2015, based on filing dead line of June 24, 2016 for Federal Senate candidates. (*5)

Please see the highlighted item: “The filing officer may not determine whether the contents of the qualifying papers are accurate”

Therefore, the Florida Division of election can not be held accountable for vetting candidates

 

 

 

*4: 99.021   Form of candidate oath.—

(1)(a)1. Each candidate, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to any office other than a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or a federal office, shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A copy of the oath or affirmation shall be made available to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:

  1. 2. That the person has not been a registered member of any other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for which the person seeks to qualify.

 

 

 

99.061 Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.—

(c) The filing officer performs a ministerial function in reviewing qualifying

papers. In determining whether a candidate is qualified, the filing officer shall review the qualifying papers to determine whether all items required by paragraph (a) have been properly filed and whether each item is complete on its face, including whether items that must be verified have been properly verified pursuant to s. 92.525(1)(a). The filing officer may not determine whether the contents of the qualifying papers are accurate.

 

*5: Florida filing deadlines:

 

*6: Florida Voter registration of candidate

 

 

Please ensure that this candidate is eligible to be on the ballot for the state of Florida

ASAP.

 

 

Awaiting your timely response, Respectfully,