Forum
- Home
- Forum
Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
I'd appreciate any and all constructive comments. Speak now or forever hold your piece, because I'm filing this "sucker" this afternoon in Springfield (MO), federal court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______DIVISION
CIVIL COMPLAINT
Frazier Glenn Miller,
v
Missouri Secretary of State; Robin Carnahan, in her official capacity as
Missouri Secretary of State.
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Frazier Glenn Miller, pro se, and for his complaint against the defendant above named, states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
That the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
That venue is proper in this court.
That all claims for relief set forth in this complaint arise from the common nucleus of operative facts.
That this entire action constitutes a single case which should be heard in a single judicial proceeding.
NOTICE OF SUIT
That notice of suit against a public entity has been given to the defendant in a timely fashion.
That the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Missouri.
That the defendant, Missouri Secretary of State, is a public entity with its principal offices located in the City and County of Jefferson City, State of Missouri.
That the individual defendant, Robin Carnahan, is the Missouri Secretary of State, who was, at all times relevant herein, acting within the course and scope of her employment and under color of state law.
1
That on or about 3 March 2006, the Plaintiff personally appeared at the Offices of Missouri Secretary of State, and stated his intent to participate in the Missouri Democratic primary and stand for election as a candidate for the office of 7th District United States Congressman.
That on or about 3 March 2006, the Defendant Robin Carnahan accepted the filing fee of $100.00 from the Plaintiff. A copy of the receipt for this fee is attached hereto, made part hereof, and designated Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.
That Plaintiff complied with applicable state law and procedures for filing pursuant to 115.357 RSMo, which states in pertinent part: “1. Except as provided in the subsections 3 and 4 of this section, each candidate for federal, state or county office shall, before filing his or her declaration of candidacy, pay to the treasurer of the state or county committee of the political party upon whose ticket he seeks nomination a certain sum of money as follows: (1) To the treasurer of the state central committee, two hundred dollars if he or she is a candidate for the statewide office or for the United States senator, one hundred dollars if her or she is a candidate for representative in Congress, circuit judge, or state senator, and fifty dollars if he or she is a candidate for state representative;…… 5. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4 of this section, no candidate’s name shall be printed on any official ballot until the required fee has been paid.”
(Note: Statute above states “until the required fee has been paid.” It does not state “until the required fee has been paid AND ACCEPTED”. And since the Plaintiff paid the required fee as required by the statute, the Missouri Secretary of State has no lawful authorization to exclude the Plaintiff’s name from the Missouri Primary Elections, due to be held on 8 August 2006).
That shortly thereafter, the Defendant Robin Carnahan wrongfully refused to list Plaintiff on the ballot and sent back Plaintiff’s filing with a letter stating her refusal, which letter is attached hereto, made part hereof, and labeled Exhibit B.
That at all times relevant hereto, the individual defendant acted in accordance with an established policy, practice, custom, and/or procedure which violated the Plaintiff’s known constitutional rights. Upon information and belief, the defendant acted in accordance with the unconstitutional policy, which is an unwritten but authorized policy to prevent White persons who publicly espouse pro-White racial viewpoints as part of their political views, are prevented from fully exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and equal access to and full participation in the electoral process as persons who do not. The plaintiff herein fit the unconstitutional profile.
That, any explanation by the Defendant is pretextual ruse to conceal her unconstitutional policy to exclude people who espouse pro-White racial viewpoints as part of their political views from exercising their rights to free speech and equal access to and full participation in the electoral process as persons who do not.
2
That at all times relevant hereto, the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, which a reasonable public servant knew or should have known.
That the above-referenced actions of the individual defendant constituted police harassment based upon Plaintiff’s race in violation of his known constitutional rights.
That as a result of the false and wrongful, malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff and other willful and wanton acts referenced above, the Plaintiff incurred loss of self-esteem; humiliation; emotional injuries, damages and losses; pain and suffering; past, present and future economic and non-economic damages; and loss of enjoyment of life.
That the injuries, damages, and losses suffered by the Plaintiff were suffered in the past will continue into the future.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 USC, SECTION 1983)
That the Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs above as fully set forth herein.
That the Plaintiff’s denial of access to the Missouri primary ballot as a Democratic candidate was a violation of his civil rights under the United State Constitution and also a violation of Missouri state statute 115.357, which states in pertinent part: “No candidate’s name shall be printed on any official ballot until the required fee has been paid.” It is a violation because the statute does not say: “until the required fee has been paid AND ACCEPTED.”
That the defendant’s actions constitute a willful and knowing violation and depravation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United State in violation of 42 USC, Section 1983, specifically, the right to free speech and association; the full access to and participation in the electoral process not being deprived without due process of law; the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right to equal protection of the laws.
That the acts of the defendant in violation of the United States Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff justify an award of reasonable fees under 42 USC, Section 1988; and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover against the defendant for injuries, damages, and losses proximately cause by her conduct as set forth in this complaint.
3
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(EXEMPLARY DAMAGES)
That the Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
That the aforementioned acts, omissions and violation by the defendant were attended by wanton and willful disregard for the rights and feelings of the Plaintiff, thus entitling the Plaintiff to the recovery of exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court
(a) Enter an Order of Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor against the defendant for compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to fully compensate the Plaintiff for his injuries, damages, or losses;
(b) Enter an Order of Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendant for exemplary damages in an amount which will adequately punish the defendant for her actions and omissions;
(c) Enter an Order of Judgment in Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 USC, Sections 1983 and 1988, including costs of this lawsuit, expert witness fees, witness fees, deposition costs and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
(d) For an injunction ordering Missouri Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, to name plaintiff as a candidate in the Missouri Democratic primary ballot,
(e) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT REQUEST A TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES TO A JURY.
(Certificate of service)
4
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 27/03/2006 8:17 am
That's a great Complaint, Glenn. I couldn't find anything wrong with it, in terms of form. Good luck.
Jews Did 9/11
Posted : 27/03/2006 9:15 am
Topic starter
That's a great Complaint, Glenn. I couldn't find anything wrong with it, in terms of form. Good luck.
I'm relieved to hear you say that, John. Thanks. I had help from a fellow more competent than myself, obviously.
Mailed it to the Secretary of State this afternoon (27 March), certified mail, return receipt requested, after filing the actual lawsuit at Springfield's federal courthouse around noon. They checked it over, rubber stamped coupla pages, assigned a case number, and said everything looked OK.
The cover sheet required that I enter the dollar amount I'm asking for damages. I put down $25,000.00. A would-be Congressman shouldn't appear too greedy with taxpayers money, ya know. But, of course if the judge thinks I deserve more, then. . . . . . (har har).
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 27/03/2006 12:42 pm
You need to add the Democratic party as a defendant and the specific person with them who rejected you.
Plantiffs don't decide on jury trails, defendants do.
I know you hate the guy but learn why Martin Lindstedt lost his federal lawsuits for nearly the same reasons you are filing.
Posted : 27/03/2006 1:11 pm
The issue is the interpretation of Missouri state statute 115.357, so I don't see what gets you into federal court. Merely stating that your Constitutional rights have been violated is not enough, since there is no Constitutional right to appear on a particular party's ballot line. My guess is that you lose initially on jurisdictional grounds.
Posted : 27/03/2006 4:21 pm
Plantiffs don't decide on jury trails, defendants do.
Depends on your state.
Posted : 27/03/2006 5:34 pm
RE: Rounder
I did strongly advise for legal representation. However, a man with your determination may be able to bulldoze the worms out of the way when they try to stop you.
Being right will be the gas in your tank.
Good luck!
The ink of the learned is as precious as the blood of the martyr. For one drop of ink may make millions think.
Posted : 27/03/2006 11:07 pm
The issue is the interpretation of Missouri state statute 115.357, so I don't see what gets you into federal court. Merely stating that your Constitutional rights have been violated is not enough, since there is no Constitutional right to appear on a particular party's ballot line. My guess is that you lose initially on jurisdictional grounds.
By merely alleging 42 USC 1983 he gets in on Federal Question jurisdiction. The real question I think is whether he can get beyond a 12(b)(6) motion, and then survive a summary judgment motion, in light of the Lindstedt case that was decided by the 8th Circuit. I read the Lindstedt case, and it seemed to turn on the right of the parties, as private organizations, to determine who may be on their ballot. That political parties are not "State actors." Be that as it may, I think Glenn is doing the right thing suing the SOS, as the SOS is a "State actor" and is the government agent responsible for determining who will be on the ballot and for overseeing the conduct of elections. Essentially, it is the Secretary of State telling Glenn that he can't be on the ballot, using the fee refusal of the party as an excuse. Glenn can and should argue that 115.357 is unconstitutional as it discriminates amongst classes of people based upon political viewpoint and First Amendment speech, making it very easy for some people to get on the ballot, and virtually impossible for others to do so, based solely upon whether the prospective candidate can get a seal of approval from one of these non-State actor "private parties." And there is no compelling state interest in this scheme. Therefore, if the judicial system were fair and not corrupted by Jews, Glenn would win this hands down. The statute clearly says that you have to get the imprimatur of one of these "approved" parties, or you can't run. Either the political parties are truly "private" organizations, in which case the Missouri government has given them, unfairly and unconstitutionally, an oligopoly on political power, or they have been delegated certain governmental functions, in which case they should be held accountable as de facto State actors. The government can't have it both ways.
Jews Did 9/11
Posted : 28/03/2006 7:26 am
Topic starter
RE: Rounder
I did strongly advise for legal representation. However, a man with your determination may be able to bulldoze the worms out of the way when they try to stop you.
Being right will be the gas in your tank.
Good luck!
I contacted coupla dozen attorneys, Brutus. Only a handful in this area are "federal civil case" lawyers, though. All turned me down. However, I did include a request for a court-appointed attorney, in the paperwork I filed, along with my lawsuit. And I listed the names of lawyers who refused to take my case.
Two "friendly" attorneys recommended I file in federal court vice state, but I'm not sure they're right. We'll see.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 28/03/2006 9:33 am
Topic starter
By merely alleging 42 USC 1983 he gets in on Federal Question jurisdiction. The real question I think is whether he can get beyond a 12(b)(6) motion, and then survive a summary judgment motion, in light of the Lindstedt case that was decided by the 8th Circuit. I read the Lindstedt case, and it seemed to turn on the right of the parties, as private organizations, to determine who may be on their ballot. That political parties are not "State actors." Be that as it may, I think Glenn is doing the right thing suing the SOS, as the SOS is a "State actor" and is the government agent responsible for determining who will be on the ballot and for overseeing the conduct of elections. Essentially, it is the Secretary of State telling Glenn that he can't be on the ballot, using the fee refusal of the party as an excuse. Glenn can and should argue that 115.357 is unconstitutional as it discriminates amongst classes of people based upon political viewpoint and First Amendment speech, making it very easy for some people to get on the ballot, and virtually impossible for others to do so, based solely upon whether the prospective candidate can get a seal of approval from one of these non-State actor "private parties." And there is no compelling state interest in this scheme. Therefore, if the judicial system were fair and not corrupted by Jews, Glenn would win this hands down. The statute clearly says that you have to get the imprimatur of one of these "approved" parties, or you can't run. Either the political parties are truly "private" organizations, in which case the Missouri government has given them, unfairly and unconstitutionally, an oligopoly on political power, or they have been delegated certain governmental functions, in which case they should be held accountable as de facto State actors. The government can't have it both ways.
Thanks for the added insights, John. And I'm glad you agree the SOS is the proper defendant.
Would you kindly quote the state statute that says a candidate "has to get the imprimatur of one of these approved parties or he/she can't run ?" I musta missed it. Or perhaps, it's in a court ruling.
Here's what state statute 115.357 says: "No candidate's name shall be printed on any official b allot until the required fee has been paid."
I figure that since I did, in fact, "pay the required fee", then I've satisfied that statute requirement. It does not say "until the required fee has been paid AND ACCEPTED."
So, where's the legal authority (state statute) that gives the SOS the grounds for denying me ballot access ??
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire
Posted : 28/03/2006 9:46 am
I contacted coupla dozen attorneys, Brutus. Only a handful in this area are "federal civil case" lawyers, though. All turned me down. However, I did include a request for a court-appointed attorney, in the paperwork I filed, along with my lawsuit. And I listed the names of lawyers who refused to take my case.
Two "friendly" attorneys recommended I file in federal court vice state, but I'm not sure they're right. We'll see.
I think Federal Court is the only way to go with this one. The State judges won't whack their own fellow state employees over the head as quickly. Article III judges (slang for U.S. District Court Judges and Federal Appellate judges) consider themselves gods among men (and they nearly are, power-wise), and generally have no compunction about putting State officials in their place if they find it necessary to do so. If you're going to get a fair shake on this deal, it will be in a Fed court.
Jews Did 9/11
Posted : 28/03/2006 11:37 am
Thanks for the added insights, John. And I'm glad you agree the SOS is the proper defendant.
Would you kindly quote the state statute that says a candidate "has to get the imprimatur of one of these approved parties or he/she can't run ?" I musta missed it. Or perhaps, it's in a court ruling.
Here's what state statute 115.357 says: "No candidate's name shall be printed on any official b allot until the required fee has been paid."
I figure that since I did, in fact, "pay the required fee", then I've satisfied that statute requirement. It does not say "until the required fee has been paid AND ACCEPTED."
So, where's the legal authority (state statute) that gives the SOS the grounds for denying me ballot access ??
What I meant by that was simply shorthand for how it appears Missouri is enforcing 115.357. Based upon the Lindstedt case, the approved parties can decline to accept the fees from anyone they don't want running under their banner. This is essentially my interpretation of the U.S. 8th circuit opinion in Lindstedt's case.
Jews Did 9/11
Posted : 28/03/2006 11:39 am
By merely alleging 42 USC 1983 he gets in on Federal Question jurisdiction. The real question I think is whether he can get beyond a 12(b)(6) motion, and then survive a summary judgment motion, in light of the Lindstedt case that was decided by the 8th Circuit. I read the Lindstedt case, and it seemed to turn on the right of the parties, as private organizations, to determine who may be on their ballot. That political parties are not "State actors." Be that as it may, I think Glenn is doing the right thing suing the SOS, as the SOS is a "State actor" and is the government agent responsible for determining who will be on the ballot and for overseeing the conduct of elections. Essentially, it is the Secretary of State telling Glenn that he can't be on the ballot, using the fee refusal of the party as an excuse. Glenn can and should argue that 115.357 is unconstitutional as it discriminates amongst classes of people based upon political viewpoint and First Amendment speech, making it very easy for some people to get on the ballot, and virtually impossible for others to do so, based solely upon whether the prospective candidate can get a seal of approval from one of these non-State actor "private parties." And there is no compelling state interest in this scheme. Therefore, if the judicial system were fair and not corrupted by Jews, Glenn would win this hands down. The statute clearly says that you have to get the imprimatur of one of these "approved" parties, or you can't run. Either the political parties are truly "private" organizations, in which case the Missouri government has given them, unfairly and unconstitutionally, an oligopoly on political power, or they have been delegated certain governmental functions, in which case they should be held accountable as de facto State actors. The government can't have it both ways.
Damn if that aint the theory behind the case right there. Glenn is a vertiable genius for thinking that up John and I think that you should go down there and help him argue the inevitable MSJ/12b6 hearing if he can't get a G-paid lawyer to help.
You put your finger on one of the issues that has screwed Whites trying to make hay out of civil rights cases before, namely, that we are not a socalled suspect category or class or whatever. But, if we're talking about Secretary of State denying "racists" ballot access because of the content of their ideas -- that's a whole other ball of wax!
Posted : 28/03/2006 11:44 am
Could an amended complaint bring the Dem party in under this? They're a private party but I dont think that they need to be state actors to be named under this.
Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to
prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from
accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence
under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or
to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave
any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are
required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or
property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his
office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to
injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede
him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to
deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
any court of the United States from attending such court, or from
testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and
truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or
property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to
influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or
petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his
person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or
indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having
been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose
of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner,
the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to
deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure
him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to
enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal
protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go
in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the
purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or
class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of
preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or
Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State
or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more
persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any
citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support
or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election
of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or
Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or
to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such
support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this
section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be
done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy,
whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived
of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the
United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action
for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or
deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Posted : 28/03/2006 11:46 am
Also-- I dont know if there are any specific Missouri statutes about special notice for claims against the state. Got to figure that out. If you get a lawyer down there Glenn be sure and ask about that.
Posted : 28/03/2006 11:47 am
Page 1 / 2
Next