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.

Damn if that's not a great idea. You hardly ever think about Section 1985, but that doesn't appear to require "state actors." Instead, it just requires "two or more people" which clearly would apply to the Dems. As I think about it, you probably do need some action against the Democrats too, if they're going to be bound by any judgment. I'd be concerned about prevailing against the SOS but being unable to enforce any Order against a non-party who didn't have an opportunity to object and who claims some interest in keeping Glenn off of their ticket. Good thinking. :cheers:

Damn if that's not a great idea. You hardly ever think about Section 1985, but that doesn't appear to require "state actors." Instead, it just requires "two or more people" which clearly would apply to the Dems. As I think about it, you probably do need some action against the Democrats too, if they're going to be bound by any judgment. I'd be concerned about prevailing against the SOS but being unable to enforce any Order against a non-party who didn't have an opportunity to object and who claims some interest in keeping Glenn off of their ticket. Good thinking. :cheers:

I'm perfectly willing to sue the state democratic party. But it seems to me that since the Secretary of State is in charge of printing ballots, including the names that appear on them, then she's the one who must be compelled to include my name.

I'm being deprived of equal protection under the laws solely on the basis of being a pro-White spokesman. And truth be known, the SOS and the Missouri democratic heads, have conspired to deprive me of said equal protection, as well as preventing me from exercising civil and constitutional rights which enable me to seek political office.

I contacted the media (including Associated Press) and notified them of lawsuit. We'll at least get this shit out in the open and rub Whitey's nose in it.

BTW, the lawsuit filing fee is $250.00 a whack.

I'm perfectly willing to sue the state democratic party. But it seems to me that since the Secretary of State is in charge of printing ballots, including the names that appear on them, then she's the one who must be compelled to include my name.

That's correct. She is the one whom you would get equitable relief from, however, AE pointed out a statute, 42 USC 1985, which prohibits people from conspiring to deny someone the right to political office, etc. I think it would include whatever the Democrats did here, and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to get them involved in this.

I'm being deprived of equal protection under the laws solely on the basis of being a pro-White spokesman. And truth be known, the SOS and the Missouri democratic heads, have conspired to deprive me of said equal protection, as well as preventing me from exercising civil and constitutional rights which enable me to seek political office.

I contacted the media (including Associated Press) and notified them of lawsuit. We'll at least get this shit out in the open and rub Whitey's nose in it.

BTW, the lawsuit filing fee is $250.00 a whack.

That only applies to the initial complaint, opening the case. No one is suggesting that you file a new case, but you might be able to file an Amended Complaint and add this claim against the Dems. It wouldnt cost any more money.

That's correct. She is the one whom you would get equitable relief from, however, AE pointed out a statute, 42 USC 1985, which prohibits people from conspiring to deny someone the right to political office, etc. I think it would include whatever the Democrats did here, and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to get them involved in this.

That only applies to the initial complaint, opening the case. No one is suggesting that you file a new case, but you might be able to file an Amended Complaint and add this claim against the Dems. It wouldnt cost any more money.

Roger. I'll check with my local advisor and see if he/she agrees enough to write up the amended lawsuit, adding the democrats as defendants. BTW, I have the denial letter from the democrats, signed by their Executive Director, Correy Dillon. (State treasurer is Rod Anderson). Their HQ is in Jefferson City. Here's what Mr Dillon's letter says, in part:

"The Missouri Democratic Party will not accept a filing fee from this individual because his beliefs as a White Supremacist disqualify him from being any part of the Missouri Democratic Party. In addition, he was a founding member of the White Patriot Party."

I find it amazing that they think that a socalled White supremacist can't be a southern democrat. I wonder if they've ever heard of "dixiecrats" before. Take a look at these distinguished and well known names from THIS CENTURY, most of which have been called White supremacists aplenty. Oh! And there's Robert Byrd, former klansman, my favorite current democratic congressman hands down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
Notable members
[edit]
Senators
(D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
(D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
(D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-Present
(D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
(D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978
(D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
(D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
(D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974
(D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973
(R)NC Jesse Helms, 1973-2003
(D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921,1931-1937
(D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
(D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
(D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
(D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
(D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
(D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956,1956-2003
(D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
(D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
(D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
(D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964
[edit]
State governors
Benjamin Travis Laney, Arkansas Governor
Fielding Wright, Mississippi Governor
Frank M. Dixon, Former Alabama Governor
William H. Murray, Former Oklahoma Governor
Mills E. Godwin Jr. governor of Virginia
[edit]
Others
Floyd Spence state representative from South Carolina
Albert Watson while U.S. Representative from South Carolina
Walter Sillers JR, Mississippi Speaker of the House
Harvey T. Ross, Mississippi State Legislature
Thomas P. Brady, Associate Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court
Gessner T. McCorvey, Alabama state Democratic Executive Committee Chairman
Orval Faubus candidate for president.
Leander Perez, Louisiana political "leader"
Horace C. Wilkinson, Birmingham attorney defender of the Klan and political "leader"
Ross Lillard
John Kasper
Mrs. Anna B. Korn
Mrs. Ruth Lackey
Clark Hurd
William E. Jenner
Francis Haskell
John Oliver Emmerich, Speech writer
Hugh Roy Cullen
T. Coleman Andrews
John Steel Baston
Dr. Frazier
O. L. Penny
Clifton Ratlift
M. F. Ray
Thomas Jefferson Tubb
J.K. Wells
Barney Wolverton
Governor White
Thomas H. Werdel
[edit]
See also
Blue Dog Democrats
Boll weevil (politics)
Conservative Democrat
List of political parties in the United States
Southern Democrat
George Wallace
Politics of the Southern United States
Republican Party (United States)
Zell Miller

Now let's turn the clock back a century. Ever heard of the pro-slavery Democrats "Thomas Jefferson" or "Andrew Jackson?" How about "John C. Calhoun? Or how about this important fact for Missouri History:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h511.html

The 1819 application for statehood by the Missouri Territory sparked a bitter debate in Congress over the issue of slavery in the new territories that had been created as a result of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Concerned that the South would have a representational advantage, Congressman James Tallmadge of New York introduced an amendment that would prohibit any further growth of slavery in Missouri, and would eventually set the children of Missouri's slaves free. ........The issue was resolved with a two-part compromise. The northern part of Massachusetts became Maine and was admitted to the Union as a free state at the same time that Missouri was admitted as a slave state, thereby maintaining a balance of 12 slave and 12 free states.

So although the current "democratic" party of Missouri wants to blot out the history of the former democratic party of Missouri which put the interests of White citizens first, I guess you might say that some people havent forgotten history. The question is, does the US constitution allow the Missouri Secretary of State to exclude candidates from the ballot in a primary election because the people in charge of the Democratic party call him names? If so then I guess if nothing else, Glenn Miller's experience shows how completely bankrupt and fraudulent the socalled election process really is and that in fact it's manipulated from above to deliberately exclude Whites with White interests at heart from the political process.

The court order states, as follows: "It is ordered and adjudged granting defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. All pending motions are hereby denied as moot".

Here's the pertinent parts to the 5-page federal court order:

"To the extent Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, i.e. for his name to be placed on the primary ballot as a Democratic candidate, he has failed to state a claim against Defendant as the Defendant is immune from Plaintiff's claims under the qualified immunity doctrine.. . . .

"Under the statute and facts as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant had no role other than forwarding the money to the correct political party. Defendant was not the one to whom the fee was to be paid or who could accept the fee as paid. The Democratic party did not accept the fee, and thus the fee was never paid as required by statute. Plaintiff's allegation is simply that he tendered the filing fee to Defendant and therefore should be on the ballot for the Democratic Primary. He claims Defendant's return of the fee because the Democratic Party would not accept it is just a pretext to exclude people who express pro-White racial viewpoints. Clearly, these allegations do not support that Defendant violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, of which a reasonable person would have know. Defendant's role as described by statute and Plaintiff's pleadings, clearly entitles her to qualified immunity from suit.

"The Constitution contains no express provisions that guarantees the right to become a candidate. . . . . Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint appears not to be alleging that any right to the ballot has been denied (as it appears he could become listed as an independent candidate), but that a right to the ballot for a specific political party, the Democratic Party, has been violated. The Court can not find and Plaintiff does not cite any authority that a political party can not refuse membership to persons who do not share it's ideology. If Plaintiff is asserting such a claim, he clearly has named the wrong party in this suit.

"Moreover, the provision of the state statute Plaintiff cites, Mo. Stat. Ann 115.357(5), only requires that "no candidate's name shall be printed on any official ballot until the required fee has been paid." It does not appear to, nor has it been interpreted as, creating a requirement that once the filing fee has been paid, a candidate's name must appear on the ballot. In fact, there are other requirements for candidacy that must be met beyond mere filing of the fee. Thus, on the merits of Plaintiff's allegations there appears to be no claim on which relief can be granted."

Well, that's not such good news. But, losing a skirmish does not mean that the battle has been lost. Better times for all are ahead, and I'm sure you will be somewhere on the front lines!

Good try, Glenn. Are you still going to run as an Independent?

RE: Glenn

The Democratic party did not accept the fee, and thus the fee was never paid as required by statute.

They gave you a receipt, therefore their agent acting on their behalf, accepted and acknowledged with consideration your filing fee. There is a pile of law to support this.

Yeah I know. The jew-bot judge ruling was essentially saying “fuck you Whitey”!

It’s the repeated insults like this that will remind me in the future, just how merciless I must be toward the jew when their execution time is nigh.

I phoned TV channels 3 and 10 news reporters, and an "investigative" reporter, Rick Janowitz, with the Springfield (MO) News-Leader this afternoon and insisted they report this outrage to the public. I said the court ruling proves White Americans now have taxation without representation - That White men who speak out for the interests of White people are not allowed by the jewish controlled government and by the jewish controlled Democratic and Republican partys, to seek political office on equal terms with jewish approved candidates. And I asked each if they'd ever, in their entire lives, heard one single politician, even utter the words, "White rights". None could name one.

All 3 stated they were aware of my lawsuit, took down my phone number, and said they'd phone me after reviewing the federal court order which dismissed my complaint against the MO Secretary of State. Since it's Friday, I don't expect any news reports til next week, if then.

I'll appeal if I can get some legal assistance.

The fat gal ain't sang yet. By filing as an official write-in candidate, I believe I'll qualify for reduced campaign ad rates (TV, radio, and newspapers), and that it's illegal for them to refuse my paid ads, no matter what I say in them.

Running as an independent would require 6,000 registered signatures on a petition. So that's out, at least for this election.

"That which does not kill us only makes us stronger."

Sieg Heil !!!