“Truth fears no questions.”
Richard Gilbert, the attorney that has sued all 50 states in an effort to force write- in votes to be counted, has asked the court to remove several states as defendants from his suit.
Gilbert and his followers have claimed “settlement” with these states on Facebook and Twitter, taking credit for write- in votes being counted in the upcoming election. Here is that document, which was filed in the U.S. Central District Court of CA. You can click on the photo to see the original:
However, here’s the rub: These states are those in which write- in votes are ALREADY counted, either without conditions, or by registration within a certain time period. Here are those laws, state by state:
Rhode Island: There is no declaration requirement to run as a “Write-In” candidate for any office, including President. You are able to view state code, an FAQ, and other
Richard Gilbert Oct. 22, 2012
Breaking News –
The State of RHODE ISLAND has just completed a Resolution with Plaintiffs to Count All Write In Votes (via Facebook)
information pertaining to elections at the State of Rhode Island‘s Board of Elections website.
Maryland: Voters follow special instructions for electronic voting to vote for someone who is not on the ballot. While Maryland requires candidates who intend to run as a write- in candidate to file a Certificate of Candidacy ,(which is due the Wed. before the election) a voter may write in a name on the ballot and that is sufficient enough to be counted. You can view that information here.
Oregon: There is no procedure for write -ins in Oregon in order for votes to be counted. From the Oregon code on elections:
254.548 Individual nominated or elected by write-in votes; form; rules.(1) An individual nominated or elected to a public office by write-in votes shall sign and file a form indicating that the individual accepts the nomination or office before the filing officer may issue a certificate of nomination or election. The Secretary of State by rule shall prescribe the form to be used under this section.
(2) In the case of an individual nominated or elected by write-in votes to a public office:
(a) Not later than the 30th day after the election, the filing officer shall prepare and deliver the form described in subsection (1) of this section to the individual;
(b) Not later than the 45th day after the election, if the individual accepts the nomination or office, the individual shall sign and file the form with the filing officer; and
(c) Not later than the 50th day after the election, if the individual files the form by the deadline specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the filing officer shall prepare and deliver a certificate of nomination or election to the individual and, if applicable, issue a proclamation declaring the election of the candidate to the office. [1991 c.719 §56; 2005 c.157 §1]
Wisconsin: Initially, WI law states that a write- in candidate must file a Declaration of Candidacy along with a list of 10 electors by October 23rd, (yesterday), however, there is a clause that allows for getting around that date:
Compliance with this subsection may be waived by the board but only if the results of the general election indicate that a write-in candidate for the office of president is eligible to receive the electoral votes of this state except for noncompliance with this subsection. In such event, the write-in candidate shall have until 4:30 p.m. on the Friday following the general election to comply with the filing requirements of this subsection.
In effect, those votes would be counted as well. For more information, you can visit Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board website.
New Hampshire: There is no procedure for write- in votes in New Hampshire. There is a space included on the ballot for write- ins for President. Those votes are counted.
Washington DC: DC is not actually a state, so their laws are a bit different, and they are limited to three electors. They allow write- in votes for all offices.
Maine: Congressman Ron Paul is officially on the ballot as a write- in candidate in Maine. Maine registered for him to be a write in candidate in September.
Oct. 17, 2012
Breaking News – Exclusive
The State of Washington has reached a full Agreement just now with Plaintiffs to the Write In Case.
Washington Agrees to permit Unconditionally any Write In Vote and will declare the Write In the winner of the State if the Write In gets the most votes without any restrictions.
Spread the word! (via Facebook)
Washington: In this state, write- ins are allowed, and you can file to be declared as a candidate. However, even if you have not filed, the votes will be counted if they are sufficient enough to determine a change in the outcome of the race. You can view that information here, as well as on the Secretary of State’s website.
Wyoming: According to the Voter’s Guide for Wyoming, if you want to vote for someone whose name does not appear on the ballot, you can simply write the name of the individual in the space provided and blacken the oval next to the name.
Iowa: Iowa counts write -in votes as long as they are cast for a real person. I confirmed this with my county auditor, as well as the Secretary of State’s office and the Office of the Attorney General. In fact, Iowa specifically asked to be removed from this lawsuit; a fact that Gilbert has not advertised. Here is a copy of the correspondence that Gilbert received from the Iowa Attorney General‘s office:
What is disconcerting is that Gilbert’s claims of a “successful settlement” with Iowa is an outright fabrication. Iowa has always counted write- in votes unconditionally and that has not changed with this legislative session. Gilbert was asked to remove our state, which he is doing, but any claims of settlement or resolution are entirely false.
Gilbert posted on Facebook:
“The purpose of our Write In Case is to promote the strength of the Liberty Movement and make the nation witness the Liberty Movement’s power in bringing down a Presidential candidate, in this case Romney.
This will blast open the door for a Liberty Candidate to win the nomination in 2016.
The Two States of importance to deny Romney a path to victory will be Wisconsin and Iowa.
We have Settlement/Resolution Agreements with both to permit our Write In Candidate of choice and have the votes counted.
Romney is leading in the Gallup poll by 6 points. Even if Romney wins the popular vote with our case plan of defeating Romney in Iowa and Wisconsin the Electoral College will defeat Romney with these votes roughly:
277 — 206″
Another post from the previous day:
Friday, October 19 at 11:36pm
“Analysts Consulting with US Intelligence Agencies have predicted that the States of Iowa and Wisconsin will play a pivotal role in the Presidential Election.
Plaintiffs for the Write In case have successfully resolved with both Wisconsin and Iowa that All Write In Ballots will be counted.
In the months leading up to the Organized Crime Convention in Tampa I stated many times:
“No one, and I mean No one, pushes around a Ron Paul Delegate and politically survives.
1. No Party Unity
2 No Unanymous Nomination
3. No Romney Presidency”
These statements, in my opinion, are outright lies. You can reach the Attorney General offices of both of these states to confirm at the links below.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen
It is also important to note that it is the offices of the Secretary of State, NOT the Attorney General’s office, that handles elections.
Here are links for those offices:
Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Iowa
Wisconsin Secretary of State, Doug La Follete
All ten of these states that Gilbert and his team are claiming that they have reached settlement or resolution with to count write- in votes already do so, or have Ron Paul listed as a write in candidate.
Therefore, any claims of settlement or resolution by Gilbert with Maine, Rhode Island, Iowa, New Hampshire, Washington D.C., Maryland, Oregon, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Washington are fabrications.
Note: Content published on Facebook through a public setting can be used by anyone as long as it is attributed to the source.
Note: Some folks have been told that the court documents that have been included in these blogs have been stolen from Richard Gilbert or his private groups. I am not a member of any of their groups; nor have I “stolen” information. Court documents are public record, and for a fee, may be accessed through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER system:
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service.
You may sign up for an account with PACER at this link: Public Access to Court Electronic Records
“Let a man’s zeal, profession, or even principles as to political measures be what they will, if he is without personal integrity and private virtue, as a man he is not to be trusted.”