Home General Opening Brief Filed in California Case over One-Year Duration of Residency for State Legislative Candidates
formats

Opening Brief Filed in California Case over One-Year Duration of Residency for State Legislative Candidates

Published on February 28, 2011, by in General.

On February 24, Heidi Fuller filed her opening brief in Fuller v Bowen in the State Court of Appeals, case number C065237. This is the case that challenges the California Secretary of State’s refusal to enforce the State Constitutional requirement that candidates for the legislature must have lived in their district for one year before filing to run.

6 Responses

  1. natural born citizens party

    see also the CA candidate residency cases/ status of active trial/appeal cases:
    Taitz v Bowen
    and Taitz v Dunn
    and Barnett v Dunn
    in both state and federal district and appellate courts.

  2. Jim Riley

    Neither the executive branch (secretary of state) nor the judicial branch have the authority under the California Constitution to pass judgment of the qualifications of members of the legislature.

    What Heidi Fuller is asking for is that the Secretary of State should determine whether or not a candidate will be qualified to serve if elected, so that she doesn’t print misleading information on the ballot or in the voter’s pamphlet. But if the Secretary of State would exclude a candidate on the basis that she believes the candidate to not be qualified, then the legislator is precluded from ever making that judgment because the would-be candidate could not be elected.

    It is pretense to suggest that there is somehow a difference between a primary election and a general election, and the secretary of state would just be determining that a candidate was not qualified to be the nominee of a party, rather than not qualified to be elected and serve.

    The last time the issue of durational residency requirements with respect to the legislature came before the California Supreme Court, they thrashed the lower court for even considering the issue.

  3. Is it sane anymore for the robot party hacks in ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander legislatures to have ANY judicial powers ???

  4. Also — how many party hack robots in executive offices are being negligent tyrants in NOT enforcing laws that they do not like ???

  5. Mark Seidenberg

    Jim Riley

    Please give more information. The name of parties etc.
    so others can read that case. I know in Robinson v.
    Bowen issues like a dead persons got picket for the
    November, 2008 election to the Electorial College with
    no one at the Office of the California Secretary of
    State checking to see if there was a person registered
    to vote in Los Angeles County by that name. Then after
    I passed on to Secretary Bowen Dean Logan’s information
    that there was no one in Los Angeles County registered
    to vote by the named Democrat in Los Angeles County.
    AIP’s did a search and found the elected elector was
    dead (prior to the date of appointment to the slate)
    and died in Humboult County.

    Then after being informed by Dean Logan, Bowen than gets
    a replacement person to file the empty spot from Art Torres (Chairman of the California Democratic Party).

    However, the California Elections Code requires an election by the remaining Presidential Electors to fill
    the short fall of an elector. Bowen just ignores the law and does certifies a replacement presidential
    elector that was not voted in by the California voters in the 2008 General election.

    This also goes to the question of lack of U.S. Citizenship of both John S. McCain III and Barack H. Obama II.

    In John S. McCain III the issues was his mother ever married to his putative father by the time of his birth and also where was he born and was his unwed mother employed by either the United States Government or the
    Panama Railroad Company or its successors at the time of his birth. This is because of the terms of the Collective Panama Nationalization Act of August 4, 1937
    and the Hague Convention of Nationality 1930.

    In Barack H. Obama II case the issue was his father,
    viz., Barack H. Obama Sr. at the time of his birth a
    subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar (who required multi-
    generational loyalty of his Subjects, based on the treaties between the United States and Muscat of 1833
    and the United States and Zanzibar of 1886. Also the
    place of his birth and the age of his mother at his birth , since it was reported Obama’s mama was 18 years
    old at his birth and therefore she could not have been a
    resident of the United States for five years after the
    age of 14.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
    Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

  6. Jim Riley

    #5 In re Mcgee 36 Cal. 2d 592 (1951)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus