On August 4, the Chuck Baldwin faction of the American Independent Party of California sued the California Secretary of State, over her decision last month to list Alan Keyes as the American Independent Party presidential nominee. The case was filed in Superior Court in Sacramento, and is called James King v Debra Bowen, with Ed Noonan as the Real Party in Interest (that means it is a 3-cornered lawsuit).
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Prediction, the ballots will be printed and any court action will be ‘too little, too late’ for Baldwin verses Keyes, the Bible Thumper verses the John Birch Neocon.
While I feel for the main line AIP, and feel that it was a high jacking of the party line based upon personality and personal hurt feelings I am duly conflicted.
Main line Donald Grunnmann is aware and vocal about veterans abuse, but so is pirate king Ed Noonan. So called main line AIP/ CP party chair Jim King? If it does not involve the invasion of a woman’s body, he could care less, even with the world’s worst veterans home just up the road from his ramshakle San Bernardino home site.
It is ultimately the fault of the old guard of the Calfiornia AIP. They just were not ‘on top of things’! Ya gotta play the game with the hand you are dealt and it is your fault if you leave YOUR cards face down on the table.
Same with Rodney Martin and new boys of the Reform Reform movement. The Old Line [John Blare], having killed the print house organ and national blog of the Reform Party USA in 2005 to protect all things Israeli, are keeping the court monitored updated party slate and official party address off of the State of California page and web site.
Well played Ed Noonan and John Blare, you Kkkreeps!
Don,
There is no such thing as a John Birch-neocon. Birchers, by their very nature, are anti-war. Neocons are the opposite.
What are the requirements for running write-in in California? Can the Constitution Party fight Keyes in court and still keep a write-in candidacy as a contingency?
Birchers [hello Ohio so called reform party state chair Virginia Brooks] may say that they are anti war, but all neo cons are pro empire.
Who ya gonna believe? The official boiler plating or the public stance of WAY OVER half of their supporters? They are very pro occupation, oil extraction, world cop orientated.
Communists talk, talk, talk ‘socialism’ but their behavior [think twin brothers Stalin and Hitler] is that of ‘Red Star Fascists’.
Who are ya gonna believe, their official PR or yer own lying two eyes?
It might be interesting to note the UK rules here. Since party registration came in a few years ago each party has a Nominations Officer whose identity is sent to the Registrar every year that they register. If there’s any dispute as to a candidate’s status then the Registrar just has to ask the Nominations Officer for a ruling.
Its not perfect – but it seems better than the situation you have with the AIP in California right now.
PRESIDENTIAL write in votes in any state much have federal electors on file in that state or NONE OF THE write in votes will count. It does not matter how many or few write in votes, every viable candidate [ballot and write in] must have a full slate of federal electors.
In 2004, after the East Coast Naders’ Raiders honchoes completely blew the ballot access in California , the vacationing law students MERELY ASSUMED that the ballot access electors could be instantly, informally, and completely transfered to the ‘write in’ accountablity.
Not so. With out ‘out side’ efforts from local dummies like Citizens For A Better Veterans Home, experienced in the SUCCESSFUL 2003 Dump Davis effort, even Uncle Ralph’s embarrassing 20K [in the nation’s most populated state —and Nader crazy community] would have gone completely uncounted!
As a contingency, only in the event of failure of this lawsuit, Chuck Baldwin will be a certified write in candidate for California, complete with notarized electors.
Why would the Constitution Party even want to bother with a write-in campaign in California? It is not going to go anywhere if they do and the people of California already have plenty of choices. My suggestion: Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez! I am going to do my very best every day until the election to make sure that that the Nader-Gonzalez ticket carries the Golden State!
Phil Sawyer:
Why would the Constitution Party even want to bother with a write-in campaign in California?
They would bother so that they can support he candidate of their choice.
It is not going to go anywhere if they do and the people of California already have plenty of choices.
What does the number of choices have to do with anything? What we care about is having choices that reflect our values, not having seventeen varieties of liberal.
My suggestion: Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez!
Do you even know what the Constitution Party stands for? If you think a significant number of them would support Nader, you’re.. not entirely in touch with reality. We’re not voting for someone just because they are third party/independent.
Unfortunately for him, I think some of the stuff Ed Noonan has said online will be used as evidence against him.
I would think that all is not lost. I see that Messer Don Lake is concerned with the state of Reform affairs in California. Given that Messer Blare and his brownshirts have de facto franchised with Big MacKay and an entire separate National Political Party, Indpendence Party of America, and recognizes this Fuhrer as National Chair, there is room for consideration as such that Messer Blare has goose stepped to New York and left the California Reform Party as the legitimate Party of Reform.
Of additional interest, are the significant public records in New York regarding Messer MacKay. I did a little search and made some calls on the telly and this bloke has serious issues.
People who belive he is the second coming should look in on him, they will find he has crowns on all of his multiple heads and he speaks with forked tongue and has lost a large number of litigations in New York. It also appears that he has issues with people of color as he has engaged in a campaign to kick out large numbers of people of color from the State NY Independence Party, does this not classify his so called “party” as a Hate Group?
And the other ‘Independence Party’ arm? Check out the ‘Independent [Independence ???] Green Parties’ —often in states with well established, long established Green Party USA affiliations.
The Independent Green Party of Virginia officially enjoined with Frank MacKay in January 2008, a month after his visit to John Bambey’s Sacramento apartment.
This affiliation has been quiet, quiet, quiet.
This is what you get when you have a collection of parties and claim to be one party. I am sorry I have no sympathy for the constitution party. They ridiculed Libertarians and told me over and over again how much better they were and how much more organized and much larger and on and on. Well now constitution pary prove it. I hope they collapse. They are an anti Mormon party. This is un-American.
If worse comes to worse, the CP can always start their own branch in California if they lose the court case. But not having the ballot access for this election will hurt. Getting 100,000 write-in vote would be very impressive.
Regardless what happens, the CP will carry on. Alan Keyes is going to die someday and then where will supporters and his vanity party be then?
To get approved as a write-in candidate in California, you have to fill out 55 separate notorized forms, one for each elector, submitted by Oct. 21. There is no filing fee and you don’t need to have one from each congressional district.
The rules and the form is at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/qualifications/wi_pres_nov2008.pdf
I am in the process of combining the write-in procedures for the various states. The blog entry is at http://activerepublican.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!D217B7F4329BD56D!161.entry
Any suggestions on improving it would be helpful.
Keyes is a malignant narcissist who runs for office as a career. He’ll never get elected for anything. He’s just trying to ram his version of his religion down the throats of government. He is playing with his few supporters nickels and dimes. It’s his job! His website has deteriorated to where he has very few stallwarts
Religion, schmigion, it is his blatant worse than Bush neocon, world policeman, American Empire vision which is the continuation of the worst of Dems and GOP!
I do believe there are some valid reasons why Constitution Party supporters could support Nader over McCain or Obama. Nader is against the war, for a more balanced middle east policy, and at times seems to suggest, correct me if I’m wrong Nader people, that we should have less immigration (witness his opposition to HB1 visas, and his calling for better wages for Americans which would lessen the demand for illegal workers). These are solid issues which could resonate with homeless Baldwin voters.
Actually Rob, paying better wages to Americans would result in more demand for illegal workers since thy can now be paid even less than what is mandated for the American worker. Further, Constitution Party members would never support Nader. You mention his opposition to the war as to why they should. They would fire back with his acceptance of abortion, gay rights, gun control, appointment of liberal judges to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, and increased intrusiveness on the part of the federal government. Those five major issues alone trump any more reasons you can come up with for them to support him.
I take no joy in saying this:
CP [ole line AIP] will not get
a court ordered ballot access
for Chuck Baldwin. The ballots
will be printed with Kayes!
Ed Noonan [and agent provacateur
so called reform official John Blare]
have pulled an end run in the last
seconds of the fourth quarter.
The pre-election game is over!
If the courts over turn the SoS
decision [Jurisdiction? Logic?]
the Reform Party of California
will literally hand deliver a
similar demand per the new slate
of bona fide officers, organizational
address, web site high jacking,
and Nader/ Gonzales endorsement
issues.
The courts have no real world
reason to ‘wake up sleeping dogs’!
Tristan, there are LDS Chairman of the Nevada, Utah, Idaho and California affiliates of the CP.
Look on Third Party Watch and see all the anti-CP rhetoric there is from Libertarians.
The anti-Mormons you are thinking of left the CP back in 2006.
Glaivester Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
…[snip] …
Do you even know what the Constitution Party stands for? If you think a significant number of them [sic] would support Nader, you’re.. [sic] not entirely in touch with reality. We’re [sic] not voting for someone just because they [sic] are third party/independent.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Actually, it is my opinion that “a significant number” of California AIP voters have not even heard about the Baldwin-Keyes struggle and would vote for the Nader-Gonzalez ticket whether they have or have not. As a matter of fact, I think that if Ralph Nader had been on the AIP primary ballot on June 3rd, he would have won the contest. It certainly is my intention to reach as many AIP voters as possible as I do everything in my power, every single day, to help the Nader-Gonzalez ticket carry the Golden State on November 4th.
A Baldwin-Castle write-in effort, if it comes to pass, will be an exercise in futility.
Actually, it is my opinion that “a significant number†of California AIP voters have not even heard about the Baldwin-Keyes struggle and would vote for the Nader-Gonzalez ticket whether they have or have not.
That could be true if most AIP voters have no idea what the party stands for (which is quite possibly the case). In any case, my point is not what people who are technically members of the AIP would do (I suppose I phrased things poorly in my earlier post). It is what people who were inending to vote for Baldwin would do. Assuming that Baldwin loses the case or that it is not resolved in time for the election, we need a write-in campaign so that those people who want to vote for Baldwin have the opportunity to do so. I do not think that most of the people who the write-in campaign would target have much interest in voting for Nader. He is diametrically opposed to us on economic and social issues, and is only in agreement with us on some foreign policy issues and on some parts of the immigration debate.
A Baldwin-Castle write-in effort, if it comes to pass, will be an exercise in futility.
So would voting for someone who opposes us on most issues.
“Glaivester”: Who are the people who comprise this “us” that you keep referring to?
During the 2004 primary season in California, I was a registered member of the American Independent Party and even became a State and Sacramento County Central Committee member. I voted for Michael Peroutka in the primary election; he was the only person on the ballot and I figured that he would make a good “adopted favorite son” candidate. I attended the State Convention and Presidential Nominating Convention for AIP that year – which was held here in Sacramento. I enjoyed myself very much and even nominated Ms. Ezola Foster for Vice Chairperson of the Party. The woman who had nominated her for Chairperson did not even second my nomination (she had decided by then that there was no point to it). Before the Convention had even begun, I had a feeling that I was on my way out of the Party; I had started moving further back toward the Left quite some time before that. (I am a Left Conservative, a la the late Norman Mailer.) The Nader-Camejo ticket did not qualify for the ballot in California that year and when the general election came around in November, my choice came down to Senator John Kerry or Mr. Michael Peroutka. I decided for the Kerry-Edwards ticket rather than the Peroutka-Baldwin ticket. One of my main reasons for doing so is because I believe that Senator Kerry has a much better grasp of the need for the separation of church and state than does Mr. Peroutka.
Part of my reason for going into all of that is to demonstrate that there are probably many members of the American Independent Party who are more open minded that perhaps most of the Constitution Party members in the rest of the country.
Vote Nader-Gonzalez in November! Take back our country from the giant monopoly corporations! Send some real indpendents to the White House!
Philippe Sawyer
Peace and Freedom Party of California
State and Sac. County Central Committees.
Former Member, State and Sac. County Central Committees; American Independent Party of California.
Veteran Volunteer Activist and Member of the Electoral College in California for the Committee for a Constitutional Presidency/McCarthy ’76.
Former Treasurer, McCarthy ’76-CA, Third Congressional District.
“Glaivesterâ€: Who are the people who comprise this “us†that you keep referring to?
Those who support and want to vote for Chuck Baldwin. (While I am a Mainer, not a Californian, I tend to refer to Baldwin-supporters in any state as “we” or “us”).
Part of my reason for going into all of that is to demonstrate that there are probably many members of the American Independent Party who are more open minded that perhaps most of the Constitution Party members in the rest of the country.
I doubt the people who were explicitly supporting Baldwin over Keyes would fall into your definition of “open-minded.”
Besides, you essentially admit that you are not a really a “Constitution Party” kind of guy when you say that you voted for Kerry over Peroutka and are a “left-conservative.” There may be plenty of AIP members who would vote for Nader. However, I doubt that these are the type of people who were planning on bvoting for Baldwin or who took a side in the Keyes-Baldwin fight. In any case, those are not the people who the write-in campaign is targetting.
There are people who really want Baldwin on the ballot. If he cannot get on due to the Keyes fiasco, then those who support Baldwin have, as their next best option, to vote for him as a write-in. For those people who are Baldwin supporters, voting for Nader as an alternative is really not much of an option.
Do not get me wrong – I am not against people who support Nader trying to get support from AIP members (or other CP affiliates) who might be so inclined.
What I do resent however, is the statement:
It is not going to go anywhere if they do and the people of California already have plenty of choices. My suggestion: Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez!
Why do I resent it? Because it shows contempt for the Constitution Party’s platform. The idea seems to be that all we should care about is having lots of choices; as long as there are a lot of choices, we shouldnot be so greedy as to expect that we have one that shares our values. Secondly, the sudden suggestion of Nader as an acceptable alternative seems to me to say that the CP platform should not really be that important to CP members, and that any third party candidate should be an acceptable substitute, merely because both stand up to the two-party system and have similar complaints about the two-party nature of the system.
Boy Phil [Sawyer], you and I have had heated voice mail for years, and I do consider you a tangential person! But boy, Glaivester makes you look sane and logical. [I had no idea! In the non logic compartment, look out for Cody Quirk, G. E. [Independent Political Report] and ‘Sivarticus’.
Loss of logic, loss of logic, loss of logic.
Post Script: You are aware that the Dems have grabbed ALL the federal electors in California in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 —–often by over 1M votes?
You are aware that John F. Kerry never, ever, ever clarified his third Viet Nam [Million Dollar, Go back to the USA] Purple Heart? You do know that JFK II, like Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, and John ‘I did not have sex with that woman’ Edwards, has been caught in one lie after another!
You are aware that Kerry was born into wealth in the North East, coasted through Yale, was a member of super secret Skull and [Cross] Bones [not ONE WINDOW in their club house and not a second [fire] door!], with questionable military service in SEA ——in a near duplication of George W!
You are aware that Kerry won with over 1M vote cushion?
You seem to have such a personal, emotional, almost girlish take on facts. Your friends are usually right and grand ole fellas AND DO NOT DARE CONFUSE YOU WITH THE FACTS –including first hand, well documented truths]! Your not friends are wrong, even when the evidence mounts up in their support! Emotions seem to be the prime factor in your gaging truth and valor.
You just can not seem to visualize others, including narrow minded, human at conception, Creationism as Science, knuckle dragging, Bible Thumpers not voting as you [r eradict ping ponging]!
Any way, Glaivester makes you look like a logics professor!
Pray tell, Mr. Lake, how do I seem illogical or insane to you? I resent the idea that people who support the principles of limited government and economic freedom would readily give up our beliefs and support someone like Nader, who has a very pro-government intervention philosophy. I explained it very clearly.
Would I seem more logical to you if msot of my posts were stream-of-consciousness rants, if I referred to people by using insulting alliterations with their names, and if my name at the top of my posts linked to a sngle-post blog that has not been updated for four years?
“Glaivester” wrote:
… [snip] …
Besides, you essentially admit that you are not a really a “Constitution Party†kind of guy when you say that you voted for Kerry over Peroutka and are a “left-conservative.†There may be plenty of AIP members who would vote for Nader. However, I doubt that these are the type of people who were planning on bvoting for Baldwin or who took a side in the Keyes-Baldwin fight. In any case, those are not the people who the write-in campaign is targetting.
… [snip] …
Phil Sawyer responds:
Well, by the time that November of 2004 had rolled around, I was no longer a member of the American Independent Party (the state affiliate, then, of the Constitution Party; and now, it seems, the state affiliate of America’s Independent Party). I had changed my registration to the Natural Law Party of California. I did not want to give my support to either the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom Party because they both had refused to put the Nader-Camejo ticket on the California ballot. Now I am back with the Peace and Freedom Party again (I changed my registration to PFP on the day after the general election in November of 2004; was with that Party for awhile, and then was with the Green Party for awhile, and then came back to PFP again). So you are correct: I am not “really a ‘Constitution Party’ kind of guy.” However, I do believe very, very strongly in the Constitution of the United States of America.
You all (Baldwin-Castle supporters) certainly have the right to attempt to qualify your ticket as an official write-in slate in California. I still think, though, that it is a waste of time and energy. The Peroutka-Baldwin ticket did not do all that well in California in 2004 – and it was on the ballot! Why not go for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, if you do not like the other options?
The Peroutka-Baldwin ticket did not do all that well in California in 2004 – and it was on the ballot! Why not go for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, if you do not like the other options?
That is a reasonable suggestion. I do not entirely like Barr, but I could see him as a reasonable substitute for Baldwin. Unfortunately, I live in Maine, and it is likely that Barr will also be a write-in candidate in Maine, so I might have to vote write-in even if I did defect to Barr.
That would, indeed, be a problem for you. I can see what you mean.
In California, however, the Libertarian Party is on the ballot – as well as the American Independent Party.
To Philippe Sawyer:
My name is Mark Seidenberg, I am Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party. I am also a National Committeeman and was elected Chairman on
July 14, 2008 the Chairman of the Orange County Central Committee at a meeting called by the Registrar of Voters of Orange County.
You state that you are a member of the Peace & Freedom Party since, the day after the 2004 General
Election, that prior to that you were a member of
the American Indendent Party State Central Committee.
How did you become a member of the 2004 – 2006 AIP
State Central Committee? Did you attended the Sacramento convention and organizational meeting
in July, 2004 of AIP? I know that Jim King in
2004 got his wife (Rayna Mike-King) a then registered Republican (who was name Republican Busineess Woman of the Year) elected (sic.) to
the Office of Chaplin (an office she could no have
really held, because of her Republican Party registration) of the American Independent Party.
Now I learned if your statement are correct that
Jim King got you seated as a member of the State
Central Committee for the 2004 to 2006 term.
Did you notice any one, such as Ann E. Thomas that
from November 2004 you were no longer registered in
AIP? Where you on the list of delegates to the
AIP convention for 2006 that took place in Sacramento County on September 2, 2006? I further
noted that you placed Mrs. Ezola Foster name in nomination for Vice Chairman of the AIP. So if I
understand it anyone who showed up at the Convention Hotel in 2004 in Sacramento, Jim King let them be seated as both a delegate and a member
of the State Central Committee, even though they
did not meet membership requirements on the State
Central Committee or the requirements to be a Delegate to the State Convention. Thank you for
a quick reply posting. If any one else have information on how the 2002 – 2004 State Party was
managed please post also.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, AIP
Literacy does not appear to be a requirement to hold office in Ed Noonan’s AIP.
To Phil Landsberg:
I am Mark Seidenberg, I am the Vice Chairman and
National Committeeman of the American Independent
Party. The problem is not with Edward Noonan, but
with Jim King and how he managed the AIP during the
2002 – 2004 term of office. As you can see from Mr. Sawyer asseveration that King group did not care who was acting as a delegate or member of the
party. However, Ed Noonan wants only delegates and
central committee members in control of this party.
Next, the State Party has no record that Mrs. Ann E. Thomas was ever a member of the State Central Committee or a delegate to any convention of our party.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, AIP
Mark Seidenberg Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
To Philippe Sawyer:
My name is Mark Seidenberg, I am Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party. I am also a National Committeeman and was elected Chairman on
July 14, 2008 the Chairman of the Orange County Central Committee at a meeting called by the Registrar of Voters of Orange County.
You state that you are a member of the Peace & Freedom Party since, the day after the 2004 General
Election, that prior to that you were a member of
the American Indendent Party State Central Committee.
… [snip] …
Phil Sawyer responds:
Actually, that is not what I wrote. I was a member of the Natural Law Party of California until the day after General Election Day of 2004. That was when I chose to give the Peace and Freedom Party of California another chance.
Mark Seidenberg Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
To Philippe Sawyer:
… [snip] …
How did you become a member of the 2004 – 2006 AIP
State Central Committee? Did you attended the Sacramento convention and organizational meeting
in July, 2004 of AIP? I know that Jim King in
2004 got his wife (Rayna Mike-King) a then registered Republican (who was name Republican Busineess Woman of the Year) elected (sic.) to
the Office of Chaplin (an office she could no have
really held, because of her Republican Party registration) of the American Independent Party.
… [snip] …
Phil Sawyer replies:
The way that I became a State Central Committee Member of the American Independent Party of California was by appointment. On June 17, 2004, I received a letter (dated 6-14-04 and postmarked 6-15-04) from (the late) William K. Shearer informing me that I had been appointed as a delegate to the State Convention (and, therefore, a member of the State Central Committee) at the prior State Central Committee that was held on 4-25-04.
Mark Seidenberg Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
To Philippe Sawyer:
… [snip] …
Did you notice [sic] any one, such as Ann E. Thomas that
from November 2004 you were no longer registered in
AIP?
… [snip] …
Phil Sawyer responds:
Yes. On August 2, 2004 (at 10:19 a.m.), I wrote an e-mail message to Nancy Shearer Spirkoff (the Chairperson of AIP) that I had that morning changed my political registration to the Natural Law Party of California and that consequently, I was tendering my resignation from the State Central Committee of AIP. In addition, I cc’d the message to Charles Deemer, Leslie Gulke, Reid Heustis, and Jim King. After that time, I was no longer involved in the politics of the American Independent Party except, of course, to read the news about the Party. As a person who is interested in all political parties (on an academic level); and, as a native Californian; I follow the news of AIP closely. The American Independent Party of California was born on 7-8-67 and – along with the Peace and Freedom Party of California (born on 6-23-67) – is the third oldest party currently on the ballot in the Golden State. Most likely, the Party will still be around and going strong long after the Constitution Party shrivels up on the vine (if it does not change its ways).
Thank you for your questions, Mr. Seidenberg. You have given me an opportunity to relive, in further detail, some fond, old memories.
Please overlook the “[sic]” three paragraphs up. What I had first considered to be an error in grammar by Mark Seidenberg is, in fact, not. However, he made plenty of other ones in his writings above.
I am old school; This country needs a major change… I am a mountain man, a farmer, a father of 11 children and 8 grandchildren. A land owner. This country needs to get back to grass roots…….! WE send all our money over seas!@? And we have our people surviving from tornandoes in the midwest…
If you would let me run for president of this great nation: 1) Young people would be held accountable!
2) There would be no moneies going overseas….! WE WOULD TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN FIRST!!!!
3) Crime would fit the punishment!
appeal process would be look at very closely…, why should we have to pay for a inmate who has killed someone. (death penalty!!!!)
4) Let’s get back to ABE LINCOLN, THOMAS JEFFERSON, GEORGE WASHINGTON AND VOTE FOR YOURS TRULLY ARTHUR ROBERT ALLEGRI LET’S GET BACK TO HEART LAND AMERICA AND GET RID OF POLLITICIAN’S
PLEASE HELP ME GET ON THE BALLOT! WE NEED TO TURN THIS COUNTRY BACK TO THE PEOPLE
Sincerely,
Arthur Robert Allegri
Your next President of the United States of America
Minuteman Project Patriots win 3X against Jim Gilchrist in Orange County Court Today!
News from the MINUTEMAN PROJECT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
http://www.MinutemenForTruth.com
Contact: Marvin L. Stewart, President
(562) 221-1820
Daniel F. Lula, Esq.
(949) 851-1100
Jim Gilchrist Ordered to Pay Over $18,000 in Attorneys’ Fees to
the Patriots He Sued, Bringing Total to Over $27,000;
Main Case Against Gilchrist Will Proceed in Superior Court
Santa Ana, Calif. – August 27, 2008 – Judge Randell Wilkinson of the Orange
County Superior Court today handed down double blows against Minuteman founder
Jim Gilchrist.
On the heels of the dismissal of his defamation suit against Minutemen Deborah
Courtney, Marvin Stewart and Paul Sielski last month, the Court ordered Gilchrist to
pay the Patriots he sued $18,888.13 in attorneys’ fees.
“We are elated,” said their attorney, Daniel F. Lula of Payne & Fears LLP in Irvine.
“Recently Gilchrist has claimed that his defamation suit is only ‘in abeyance’ and he
‘can bring it back.’ The Court’s ruling today puts the lie to Gilchrist’s wishful
thinking,” Lula added.
Barbara Coe of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, who is represented
by attorney David Klehm of Santa Ana, was previously awarded $9,100 in attorneys’
fees. This brings the total awards against Gilchrist to over $27,000.
Chelene Nightingale of Save Our State and Brook Young of Immigration Watchdog,
who were also sued by Gilchrist, currently have motions to strike set for hearing later
in September. If successful, Nightingale and Young will also be awarded attorneys’
fees.
Judge Wilkinson also rejected Gilchrist’s motion to dismiss the main case against
him, Minuteman Project, Inc. v. Gilchrist. That suit alleges that Gilchrist breached
his fiduciary duty by transferring Minuteman Project funds and property to his new
corporation, “Jim Gilchrist’s Minuteman Project, Inc.” without board approval. This
case will now proceed against Gilchrist in Superior Court, where he will finally be
forced to disclose how much the Minuteman Project received and where the money
went.
Gilchrist’s vindictive and retributive behavior against fellow patriots has deeply
disturbed many in the anti-illegal immigration movement. The recent rulings against
Gilchrist and his associate Stephen Eichler should be heeded as a warning to engage
others on the issues, not attempt to use litigation to squelch dissent.
The Minuteman Project was founded in early 2005 to secure America’s borders by
means of civilian volunteer observers. Incorporated in mid-2005 as a Delaware
nonprofit corporation, the Minuteman Project is governed by a board of directors
under applicable law.
###