How the hell did you run for governor? What was the basic process? How many signatures did you have to collect? What gov. office did you have to go to for the proper paperwork? Politics seems so damn complicated to get into but it's probably not.

I hope you win. I used to think you were a bit of a kook but since learning more and seeing some videos, I've become a big admirer. Thanks for the paper, too.

Best of luck and hail victory.

Here's my latest court motion, in part. Defendant MO Secretary of State is obviously stalling in order to prevent my name from appearing on the 8th August primary elections ballot, as a candidate for US Congress.

BTW, I phoned and spoke several times with the state's assistant Attorney General David A. Johnston (tel: 573-751-3321). Nice fellow and fair sounding. He cannot however, cite any legal authority to back up the SOS's decision to exclude my name from the ballot. Which, in my opinion, means they have no case.

"MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE COURT RULING" (filed 18 May 06)

"Now comes plaintiff FRAZIER GLENN MILLER, and respectfully requests this court make a ruling on my request for injunctive relief and to order defendant to include my name on the primary elections ballot on the democratic ticket, for the following reasons:

1) Time is running out. The Missouri primary elections are held on August 8, 2006 - less than 3 months away. With all due respects to defendant, I honestly believe she's stalling in ordor to insure ballots are printed prior to a ruling by this court, thus denying me equal opportunity to that of other candidates, whose names have been accepted by defendant for ballot includion.

2) Plaintiff has paid the required fee of $100.00 which was accepted by personnel at the Missouri Elections Office in Jefferson City, MO, and a receipt issued. (See exhibit 1). And there are no lawful disqualifications preventing plaintiff from being accepted as a candidate.

3) Defendant has stated that she will not include my name on the primary elections ballot unless ordered to do so by this court.. . . . .

"Your honor, defendant stated the following in her most recent motion:

"Officially established political parties have a right to reject applicants who may seek to exploit a party's structure to promote their own personal political agendas."

"Your honor, if that is true, and if defendant will simply cite to me and to this court, the law which gives the established parties that "right", then I'll request cancellation of my complaint and not bother this court or defendant Carnahan again with this matter. I've not asked for monetary damages, nor that defendant be punished. All I've asked is that my name be placed on the August 8th primary elections ballot. And that this honorable court protect and enforce my constitutional and democratic rights which enable me to run for political office on equal terms with other qualified citizens."

If established parties can, in fact, legally deny ballot access to those with whom they disagree on some issues, then there is no difference between those established parties and the established communist party that ruled the USSR for 70 years.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this Court take one of the following two actions immediately:

1) Order defendant to insure that my name is included as a candidate for US Congress on the elections ballot for Missouri's primary elections to be held on August 8th, 2006, 7th Congressional District, or

2) Schedule a hearing to be held prior to June 10th, 2006, that will hear both sides in this case, and that will make judgment as to whether or not my name will appear on said elections ballot, as I've requested. To delay judgment further than June 10th, will make it impossible for me to campaign equally with other candidates."

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ FRAZIER GLENN MILLER
Plaintiff, pro se

Do we live in the Soviet Union of America? This is a pretty good test of that. You have my vote.

Rounder - thanks for posting this update on your campaign. I was wondering how your lawsuit was progressing.

I've also cross-posted this information over on Phxnews.com, at the following link:

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=36042

The thread was designed to be a roundup of all the major pro-white candidates running for office, to include Jim Giles, James Hart, and Shawn Stuart. Larry Darby has posted extensively over there.

Rounder - thanks for posting this update on your campaign. I was wondering how your lawsuit was progressing.

I, too, was beginning to wonder what the status was re your name being placed on the ballot. Your alluding to the Soviet Union was spot on, and if that doesn't get the judge's attention, what pray tell will?

I wish you all the best in your efforts! Give 'em Hell!

How the hell did you run for governor? What was the basic process? How many signatures did you have to collect? What gov. office did you have to go to for the proper paperwork? Politics seems so damn complicated to get into but it's probably not.

I hope you win. I used to think you were a bit of a kook but since learning more and seeing some videos, I've become a big admirer. Thanks for the paper, too.

Best of luck and hail victory.

I ran as a republican for the NC legislature in 82, as a democrat for governor in 84, and as a republican for US Senate in 86, but it never occurred to me that either party had the legal right to prevent my name from appearing on the ballot. And obviously they didn't, or else they would have.

I campaigned publicly and very extensively during all 3 races btw, rubbing elbows with US Congressmen, former governors, etc., and giving revolutionary speeches before dozens of special interest groups, all over North Carolina. Usually accompanied by uniformed, redneck body guards, who passed out WN newspapers while I ran my mouth on stage - TV cameras a rolling. Dem were da days !!!

I, too, was beginning to wonder what the status was re your name being placed on the ballot. Your alluding to the Soviet Union was spot on, and if that doesn't get the judge's attention, what pray tell will?

I wish you all the best in your efforts! Give 'em Hell!

Thanks, TCR. I don't believe the Secretary of State has a case. She's just stalling for time in hopes ballots will be printed that exclude my name, before the judge makes a ruling. In which case, even if I win the court case, my name won't be on the ballot.

Rounder - thanks for posting this update on your campaign. I was wondering how your lawsuit was progressing.

I've also cross-posted this information over on Phxnews.com, at the following link:

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=36042

The thread was designed to be a roundup of all the major pro-white candidates running for office, to include Jim Giles, James Hart, and Shawn Stuart. Larry Darby has posted extensively over there.

I'm much appreciative of all you do to advance our cause via the internet, A.A. Even though there's no personal glory or even recognition, you do it anyway - proof of your unselfish dedication and commitment. Unlike the hobbyists who wouldn't dream of doing anything which does not entertain them, personally.

Keep up the great patriotic work. And I'm confident you will.

Hopefully, I'll hear something positive from the court this week.

Here's my latest court motion, in part. Defendant MO Secretary of State is obviously stalling in order to prevent my name from appearing on the 8th August primary elections ballot, as a candidate for US Congress.

BTW, I phoned and spoke several times with the state's assistant Attorney General David A. Johnston (tel: 573-751-3321). Nice fellow and fair sounding. He cannot however, cite any legal authority to back up the SOS's decision to exclude my name from the ballot. Which, in my opinion, means they have no case.

"MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE COURT RULING" (filed 18 May 06)

"Now comes plaintiff FRAZIER GLENN MILLER, and respectfully requests this court make a ruling on my request for injunctive relief and to order defendant to include my name on the primary elections ballot on the democratic ticket, for the following reasons:

1) Time is running out. The Missouri primary elections are held on August 8, 2006 - less than 3 months away. With all due respects to defendant, I honestly believe she's stalling in ordor to insure ballots are printed prior to a ruling by this court, thus denying me equal opportunity to that of other candidates, whose names have been accepted by defendant for ballot includion.

2) Plaintiff has paid the required fee of $100.00 which was accepted by personnel at the Missouri Elections Office in Jefferson City, MO, and a receipt issued. (See exhibit 1). And there are no lawful disqualifications preventing plaintiff from being accepted as a candidate.

3) Defendant has stated that she will not include my name on the primary elections ballot unless ordered to do so by this court.. . . . .

"Your honor, defendant stated the following in her most recent motion:

"Officially established political parties have a right to reject applicants who may seek to exploit a party's structure to promote their own personal political agendas."

"Your honor, if that is true, and if defendant will simply cite to me and to this court, the law which gives the established parties that "right", then I'll request cancellation of my complaint and not bother this court or defendant Carnahan again with this matter. I've not asked for monetary damages, nor that defendant be punished. All I've asked is that my name be placed on the August 8th primary elections ballot. And that this honorable court protect and enforce my constitutional and democratic rights which enable me to run for political office on equal terms with other qualified citizens."

If established parties can, in fact, legally deny ballot access to those with whom they disagree on some issues, then there is no difference between those established parties and the established communist party that ruled the USSR for 70 years.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this Court take one of the following two actions immediately:

1) Order defendant to insure that my name is included as a candidate for US Congress on the elections ballot for Missouri's primary elections to be held on August 8th, 2006, 7th Congressional District, or

2) Schedule a hearing to be held prior to June 10th, 2006, that will hear both sides in this case, and that will make judgment as to whether or not my name will appear on said elections ballot, as I've requested. To delay judgment further than June 10th, will make it impossible for me to campaign equally with other candidates."

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ FRAZIER GLENN MILLER
Plaintiff, pro se

Glenn:

What you want to do here is call the Judge's office:

RICHARD E. DORR, District Judge, Springfield, Suite 3100 417/865-3741
KERRY SCHROEPPEL, Judicial Assistant 417/865-3741
KAREN RILLING, Courtroom Deputy 417/865-3869
JEANNINE RANKIN, Court Reporter 417/865-3853

Try the Courtroom Deputy first, and try to schedule a hearing for 30 minutes to 1 hour on your motion for injunctive relief. You have pretty well alleged the necessary facts for injunctive relief. You have a clearly ascertainable right (to run for office) which is under threat of immediate and irreparable harm (not being placed on the ballot) and there is no adequate remedy at law (monetary damages can't cover this). No matter how many motions you file, until you call the judge's office and ASK for a hearing, they probably won't even know you're filing these motions. I guarantee the SOS isn't on the phone demanding a hearing. They're running out the clock, and they figure you don't know you have to actually call and ask for a hearing setting.

Glenn:

What you want to do here is call the Judge's office:

Try the Courtroom Deputy first, and try to schedule a hearing for 30 minutes to 1 hour on your motion for injunctive relief. You have pretty well alleged the necessary facts for injunctive relief. You have a clearly ascertainable right (to run for office) which is under threat of immediate and irreparable harm (not being placed on the ballot) and there is no adequate remedy at law (monetary damages can't cover this). No matter how many motions you file, until you call the judge's office and ASK for a hearing, they probably won't even know you're filing these motions. I guarantee the SOS isn't on the phone demanding a hearing. They're running out the clock, and they figure you don't know you have to actually call and ask for a hearing setting.

Per your advice, I just phoned and spoke with the Courtroom Deputy. She said she can't schedule a hearing until after defendant has had a chance the respond to my Motion for Hearing. Defendant has until June 2nd to respond. And so, I'll phone the deputy again immediately after the defendant's response and request the hearing.

Many thanks for the "heads-up".

Per your advice, I just phoned and spoke with the Courtroom Deputy. She said she can't schedule a hearing until after defendant has had a chance the respond to my Motion for Hearing. Defendant has until June 2nd to respond. And so, I'll phone the deputy again immediately after the defendant's response and request the hearing.

Many thanks for the "heads-up".

Another thing:

When you get the hearing set, make sure you clarify what the purpose of the hearing is. (Example: You might call up June 2nd, and get a 30 minute hearing for June 9th, only to show up June 9th and find that the hearing is for the purpose of adjudicating your "Motion for Hearing" and determining whether or not you'll get a hearing on your underlying complaint, maybe 2 months later) You need to make sure that the hearing you set, probably for 1 hour, is a final hearing on your underlying complaint for injunctive relief. You want to make sure that the hearing is to determine whether the Court will grant you the injunction you seek. When I first started out I got caught up in that trap myself, showing up for a hearing seeking to argue the underlying merits of the case, only to find out that the hearing was set for the purpose of determining some narrow procedural issue. The SOS attorney won't help you here, and while the judge might be sympathetic with pro se litigants, the judge's staff generally isn't, and they run his calendar and determine how he spends his time. Essentially what you're wanting here, is the Trial. Because time is of the essence, and the evidence is fairly simple, you want a trial soon, and you probably don't need more than an hour, but you are asking for the court to set you an expedited Trial. In fact, when you speak to the courtroom deputy next, you might just ask for an expedited one hour trial on your complaint, which is essentially what you need.

Another thing:

When you get the hearing set, make sure you clarify what the purpose of the hearing is. (Example: You might call up June 2nd, and get a 30 minute hearing for June 9th, only to show up June 9th and find that the hearing is for the purpose of adjudicating your "Motion for Hearing" and determining whether or not you'll get a hearing on your underlying complaint, maybe 2 months later) You need to make sure that the hearing you set, probably for 1 hour, is a final hearing on your underlying complaint for injunctive relief. You want to make sure that the hearing is to determine whether the Court will grant you the injunction you seek. When I first started out I got caught up in that trap myself, showing up for a hearing seeking to argue the underlying merits of the case, only to find out that the hearing was set for the purpose of determining some narrow procedural issue. The SOS attorney won't help you here, and while the judge might be sympathetic with pro se litigants, the judge's staff generally isn't, and they run his calendar and determine how he spends his time. Essentially what you're wanting here, is the Trial. Because time is of the essence, and the evidence is fairly simple, you want a trial soon, and you probably don't need more than an hour, but you are asking for the court to set you an expedited Trial. In fact, when you speak to the courtroom deputy next, you might just ask for an expedited one hour trial on your complaint, which is essentially what you need.

Roger. I made a note of it - "an expedited one hour trial" is what I need.

The gals at the courthouse are very friendly and helpful btw, including the Courtroom deputy I spoke with yesterday.