Fred Catchpole Files Lawsuit in Federal Court Against Supervisor of Elections & Secretary of State

Marsha,

You may, or may not, know that I ran for a seat in the Greeen Cove Springs City City Council this year. When I decided that I was gong to run for the seat I went to the S.O.E. web site and found the "hand book" for candidates. In the hand book it stated that I had to have a campaign bank account and that I was to pay for the Filing fees out of the campaign account.

I find it disturbing to know that the individuals that work in the S.O.E. office do not know the rules governing elections /candidates.

Even if there were nothing "fishy" going on I believe that those that work in the S.O.E. office should know the rules.

(just my opinion)

jr  

Marsha:  This is SO outrageous I don't even know what to say.  No wonder my 'sample ballot' has the August primary open to me, an NPA in District 5. Please let me know of ANYTHING I can do to help - I can only afford moral support at this time, but Fred and you have all of that support I can muster.

It's a good thing Mrs. Kirkman is not running again for this office, and this situation along with the CTLAC debacle only proves how powerful the office of Supervisor of Elections is.  Folks, we better chose the next SOE very, very carefully.  Do your homework and let's share any helpful information (in a manner of civility) about the candidates - there's not much time.  

I thought my NY county was bad but I have NEVER seen anything like this.  I've read a story of a Clay County precinct and voter fraud in 2004.  I now believe it was probable, but of course no proof, no investigation.

Marsha and Fred - you have my deepest admiration and respect for following up on this with the courts.  I think the powers that be in this county are getting downright nasty and perhaps illegal because they are feeling threatened (which I think a small victory in an odd way).  Thanks to both of you for your sacrifices on behalf of all of us. Again, let me know of anything we can do to help in the fight for our rights here in good ol' Clay County and perhaps beyond.

Judy Bristol
District 5 voter who's mad as he!!.

Support the CTLAC: www.CTLAC.com

I'm no expert on the process, but I don't see why a fee has to be filed from a special account.  Why would it need to be so?  Yes, the fee would have to be disclosed as a campaign expense, but it is your money, they are requiring that you pay it, and you are using legal tender, so what is the problem?  The SOE has the duty of overseeing the process

I hope that any of you with political aspirations are taking notes.  The pattern that I am seeing is that anyone who operates at a low-budget, grass-roots level is disqualified by technicalities, and lately these technical errors have been the fault of government officials.  It is not enough that you have to be elected, you have to play by their rules and suffer the consequences for their errors to even get on the ballot!

On the opposite side, those who do have the money and the power file lawsuits whenever the grass-roots do start to get ahead!

Good luck with your case.

I hope Mr. Heemers paperwork is in order.  At this point nothing will surprise me.   

Yes, Joe, I remember you telling me that in emails we exchanged.  I understand about the "handbook" but the handbook is not a Statute, it's a guide.  If you look at the statues regarding requirements 99.061 there are three parts to it.  Candidates are treated with and dealt with differently under each one.  Go read paragraph 3.  In fact read them all and you'll see what I am talking about.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees that all citizens are treated equally and this is obviously not the case with regards to the statutes and what they are enforcing.

Consider this, until that check was cashed Fred was not a Candidate, he was trying to become one.  How can you require someone to have a campaign account before they are declared a bonafide Candidate?  They disqualified him on a technicality and technically even that was incorrect because it was not written on a "personal checking account", it was a DBA. 

Fred is not part of the two party system, there is no official "Independent" Party that is recognized in election law.  Why should ANY of HIS money go to support either of the two parties?  Doesn't that rather fly in the face of your being allowed to be free of the two party system?

Did you know there is even a section where if we'd wanted to poor mouth we could have gotten a waiver from even paying the fee.  But we didn't.

I know there are some who cannot see the forest for the trees but I want to try and stress that public officials misguided Fred, and they have admitted it and now they're saying they have no obligation of any sort whatsoever.  When you take money from someone under false pretenses/false representation........that is fraud in most cases,  and when you're talking this much money you're talking about a felony. 

Neither statutes nor the Charter covers this particular situation and it was Freds position that Barbara Kirkman had the discretion to make this right and she refused.  They admitted they did something wrong but told us they wouldn't change anything unless ordered by the court.  So....now we're going to court. 

If the Supervisor of Elections has no responsibility, no liability and no requirement to keep their people in line or see that they are properly trained and behave ethically then what are we paying for?

http://www.ctlac.com/

This is outrageous, but unsurprising to me. I have been "suffering" from a severe case of Diminshed Expectations when it comes to anything dealing with government. This should be brought up for comment August 4th at the Clay Hill forum. Ask all three candidates how this could have happened and are they willing to go to court and waste taxpayer dollars for their own negligence.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

The Candidates who get on the ballot by getting petitions still have to pay a small fee.  Although I am not going to name names there are those that wrote checks for those smaller fees out of a non campaign account.  Fred was told "oh the rules are different for them"......now perhaps the allegation of discrimination is a little more clear.

http://www.ctlac.com/ If you don't want to continue to lose your rights support the cause.

Marsha,

I agree that all candidates should be treated the same, IN EVERY RESPECT.

I cannot even fathom why the rules are written the way they are. These, and other reasons, are why most people tend to stay out of politics. I know that when I started the process it was a pain. I can't tell you how many times I read the hand book and had to scrutinize it against the statutes.

 As for the way the rules and statutes are written, It was easier for me to program tomahawk missiles when I was in the Navy. (no I am not a rocket scientist) At least that was straight forward. (if you can imagine that)

God bless you and Fred. Good luck and I know you will keep us up to date on the issue.

jr

Marsha,

I was quite concerned about the confusion surrounding Fred's qualifying check so I ventured into the Florida Statutes to see what it said.  I have to say, I have reviewed Chapter 99.061 and am not sure why you feel such confusion exists.

Florida Statutes, 99.061 (7)(a) states that:

 In order for a candidate to be qualified, the following items must be received by the filing officer by the end of the qualifying period:

1.  A properly executed check drawn upon the candidate's campaign account in an amount not less than the fee required by s. 99.092 or, . . .  Failure to pay the fee as provided in this subparagraph shall disqualify the candidate.

Also, as JoeRiley08 pointed out, the candidate handbook states that candidates qualifying for the ballot by filing fee must pay such fee from a campaign account. 

This appears to be a simple case of the fact that the statute requires a check drawn on the campaign account.  I fail to see some sinister conspiracy against grassroots candidates or independents.  Are you saying that other well-financed candidates paid their fee from personal accounts but were allowed to remain candidates?  Is that your discrimination claim?  Yes, there are two ways to get on the ballot, petitions or filing fee.  Fred chose the filing fee.  The rules were not followed.  And since he filed on the last possible day, there was no time to advise of the error before qualifying ended.

I am truly sorry for the situation that exists.  I will not however assault your character for attempting to seek your justice in court.  That is the tactic that continues to be employed by those regarding the CTLAC lawsuit and I think its wrong.  The legal system is an important check on the process of government.  I'm glad that you are exercising your rights.  From what you say, Fred has never had a problem taking issues to court in the past.  Hopefully, you will find the justice you seek.

Where you are concerned I view you as a wolf in sheeps clothing, to be perfectly blunt I consider you to be an AH.

You and people like you are part of the problem, my agenda is clear and yours isn't. In fact I will go so far to say that it would not surprise me if you are Roy Lyons, Karen Lake or some other of that type.

In all of your blogs you prove yourself to be not one bit concerned with the rights of ordinary citizens, everything you say is nothing but manipulating BS.

The first blog you wrote to me you pretended to be a voter trying to get a grip, as time has gone on you appear otherwise.

I don't give a ratz behind what you think and I have nothing to say to you.

Without knowing the full extent that was gone to comply with the law anyone who renders any judgement against us is just running off at the mouth. If we win we win, if we lose we appeal.

As for people like you, I refer you to my first paragraph, I have nothing more to say to you. Please feel free to pretend I don't exist.

http://www.ctlac.com/

Gotcha.  Only blog if you agree without question, otherwise expect name calling.  Classy. 

Marsha

I attended a forum last week where candidate for SOE Chambless was asked about how the SOE office makes sure the election process is "fair to all candidates". My ears perked up at this, because I am usually used to hearing "fluff and stuff" questions asked of the candidates, or else I've heard their answers at so many forums that I'm not paying close attention. Candidate Chambless seemed "really prepared" for that question and gave one example of how the SOE makes sure the election process is"fair to all candidates". 

He replied that he would give an example, and he cited that the office disqualified Fred Catchpole for the reasons you stated. 

What concerned me is this... Why did Chambless have anything to do with this...surely he is not still working in the SOE office?? Since he is not working at the SOE's office, why was he privy to this information? Who submitted the question to the forum moderater ? ( Questions were submitted earlier in the week by email by a person unknown to me.) Why would anyone want to make this a campaign issue?  Why announce to an audience before a press release ( I think it was Fred's place, not a candidates place, to make this announcement.)?

Just some things I've been wondering about as I try to connect some dots...

Okay, let's take a step back for a moment and see if we have a clear picture of what's going on here.

- Fred Catchpole is upset because he broke the law and attempted to qualify for a county commission seat with an illegal check. Even though, like all other candidates who are personally responsible for their actions and to know campaign law requirements BEFORE they file qualifying papers (and, not at the very last moment for filing deadlines), Mr. Catchpole found an employee in the Supervisor of Elections office who had a very bad moment and didn't catch the discrepancy of qualifications filing with a personal check instead of a campaign check.

- All the other dozens of candidates - no matter how green they are at campaigning - managed to follow the law, open an exploratory campaign checking account and paid the filing fees with a legal campaign check.

- The hapless elections office employee who made this colossal error has left the elections office in disgrace, paying for her sins by not now having a job or income.

- Mr. Catchpole isn't satisfied with the explanation that he must follow the law the same as every other candidate -- even though he is the victim of an error that never should have happened -- and refuses to accept any personal responsibility for his own actions.

- Florida campaign law -- which is made in Tallahassee, not in Clay County -- is very specific and demanding for a reason: so everyone has a level playing field. Those who are unable to follow the law or choose not to follow the law out of ignorance all pay a price, which is disqualification from a race.

- Supervisor of Elections Barbara Kirkman, who has been serving since 1996, acted within 24 hours of when she learned of the error. Her employee paid the ultimate price -- loss of her job. Apparently, Mrs. Kirkman has little discretion in what can be done in such a situation, or, why would she not refund Mr. Catchpole's money? What is to gain by keeping his money, in addition to him not being able to be a candidate? While everyone has some discretion, does anyone on this blog have any idea how much or little discretion is available? Or, is it more fun just to sit and be pious and throw rocks because someone refuses to take personal responsibility for their own illegal actions?

- The Florida Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook, all 70 or so pages of it, has lots of legal and technical requirements that seem difficult to follow, but also does not require the services of an attorney to read and understand - if you take the time to do so.

- Since Mr. Catchpole and his supporters seem to be baffled by this simple task of reading and understanding a handbook (which is produced by law), one cannot help but question how effective Mr. Catchpole would be as an elected public official. Would he be able to read and understand the issues that may be brought before him as a county commissioner? If he was not on the majority side of a vote, would he run to court and claim his civil rights were violated because he didn't follow the law?

 - While every dog and every citizen has a right to his day in court, most likely, when a judge reads the particulars of this case, he or she is quickly going to dispose of this case and write it off as a nuisance. If you can't follow the law, don't expect good results.  If you depend on the expertise of an employee (even the IRS won't guarantee information provided by its own employees is correct and taxpayers are liable if they follow bad advice without seeking other opinions) instead of being sure on your own what you are doing, then you have to expect errors and problems.

Mr. Catchpole and his admirers need to take a deep breath, stand down, and realize mistakes were made, and not every mistake can be solved by a trip to court.

Somewhere, sometime, personal responsibility has to kick in and be more prevalent than whining and the inability to say "I was wrong, and I'm sorry for causing a problem."

Thank you for picking up on and providing an original thought to the issue unlike dipwad copying and pasting what had already been brought up and discussed. 

Thats a very good question and one I brought up in my original blog. The information was leaked to a Republican Candidate before Fred was ever notified. I believe the statutes required Chris Chambless to resign in order to run, so just how did he get this information that we were told he was so well prepared for.  How did the moderator get this information so far ahead of the fact?  If he was going to talk about it why not have all the facts first?

Fred heard about the disqualification through phone calls from people we know who were at that forum.

While we're at it did anyone notice that the Election Circular that was done by Clay Today didn't have Fred in it?  We were told it was an oversight, why would you not check to see after the deadline if anyone else had filed for election?  Was it an oversight or had it already been leaked that they were going to disqualifiy him before we ever left town.  Again, they had the check for three weeks before they cashed it.

It is obvious there was a leak, where a leak exists it is not a long jump to willful deception and corruption.  I think it's obvious who won't get my vote for SOE.

http://www.ctlac.com/ Support your rights to have a say in your own goverment.

How do you explain the fact that an employee was fired if this was nothing but a mistake on Freds part? 

Let me also caution you against saying my Husband did anything illegal again.

The SOE staff said if Fred had written "campaign fund" on the check this would all be hunky dorie so again, don't accuse my Husband of having broken the law again.

How do you explain the acknowledement of something done wrong by the Sec of States Attorney and the SOE if it is all on Freds shoulders?

We won't have to debate this for long because there will be an emergency hearing in Federal Court.

I guess you're like Byron, it's ok with you that a Public Official can tell you something that isn't true and that's just okie dokie.

http://www.ctlac.com/

You're real knowledgable for a blogger who is rarely heard from.  In fact since you went so far as to question Freds fitness to serve when he is no longer in the race I'm calling you another player incognito.

If MCS required bloggers to say who they really are alot of people would dissapear. Why don't you identify yourself Gulfwind and take some personal responsibility for what you're saying.....I have.

You sure seem to know alot for an average reader, I can't recall ever hearing from you before although I was out of town for a week so it's always possible.

This county hasn't even begun to see the nuisance we're going to be and the freedom loving fair minded citizens who live in this county will love it.

http://www.ctlac.com/

Mrs. Catchpole,

Are you trying to bully someone and hope your husband can win his point in a verbal contest instead of a legal contest?

If the law clearly states (and, it does) that candidate MUST pay campaign filing fees with an authorized campaing check, and those fees are paid otherwise -- no matter who is at fault for accepting this illegal check -- then an illegal act has been committed, even if it is done in ignorance or innocently.

Campaign laws are very precise, even to the point of being annoying. However, apparently, just for cases such as that of you and your husband, who wish to have special favors granted by courts because you fail to follow the law in the first place, we all must follow these laws, even those who are victims of bad advice.

You're mad because you made the initial error, based on either non-existant research or sloppy research. You won't acknowledge that an illegal act took place, which is defined as breaking the law by doing something that is not proscribed in the law.

I can easily explain the acknowledgement by the Florida Secretary of State's office and the local Supervisor of Elections office that all of this is on your husband's shoulders. The law clearly states what must be done, and how it must be done. Your husband, instead of explicitly finding out for himself, or requesting answers to his questions in writing, relied on bad verbal advice from a government employee. Your husband did not verify this verbal advice with anyone else, even though the law is explicitly written about what procedures must be followed, and, if you don't explicitly follow those proceducres and regulations, you have unwittingly broken the law, as has occurred here.

Again, it's a matter of personal responsibility. The Secretary of State's office and the Supervisor of Elections office do not have a specific duty to hold the hands of each and every untrained candidate and walk them completely through the process. They do explicitly have a duty to follow the law to the letter of the law, and not allow those who have broken the law to have special privileges, no matter how innocuous the matter seems.

The law was written in Tallahassee. The Florida Legislature voted on and approved the law. The Governor of Florida signed the law into being. Fred Catchpole apparently inadvertantly did not follow this law as designated, and got disqualified from his race, which is a shame. However, it had to be done so everyone in the race plays under the same rules. That always doesn't seem fair, but when you step back and look at the big picture, it is ultimately fair for everyone, beyond having a remedy for having broken the law and done something illegal.

It's entirely possible between now and election day some audit could have occurred at the local elections office, and the mistake was found. At that point, according to the law, Mr. Catchpole would have been disqualified. How about if this error had occurred AFTER election day, was discovered by a losing candidate, and the losing candidates sued to have the election invalidated because a candidate illegally qualified to be on the ballot? All sorts of scenarios are possible.

Quit whining, and quit trying to blame someone else. The mistake was sloppy reserach and sloppy exeutions of filing papers, and not bothering to know the law in advance.

Mrs. Catchpole,

Why are you concerned about who I am? I don't live in Clay County, but I follow this blog occasionally. I wasn't aware I was required to personally let you know who I am. Why are you so concerned about whether or not someone is a "player?" Do you enjoy being a conspiracy theorist?

If you are unable to make valid or lucid arguments in the face of indisputable reason, well, too bad. I see you frequently in this space, and can only surmise you are more worried about being a star than the cause of good government.

However, if you yearn to be a star and have a following, that seems to be what these blogs are for. Keep writing if that makes you happy! It's a free country, and, thank goodness, we can say what we like (within the bounds of good taste, of course) in these forums without fear of retribution.

Unless, of course, you would rather everyone just automatically agree with you, no matter how wrong you may be at any given moment.

Why do I have the feeling that Barbara Kirkman is going to feel the wrath of the CTLAC?  This is the same woman who went out of her way to help this group after their error on the petitions.  Now that the group can't use her anymore, they'll try and paint her entire office as incompetent.  Loyalty doesn't run too deep. My condolences go out to Chris Chambless who is a a qualified candidate and may get hit in the crossfire.

My name isn't Catchpole, it's Willoughby.  I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Unidentified users are unidentified until records are subponeaed. You are obviously a candidate, incumbant or in the SOE's office.  Scott Miller, Barbara Kirkman, who are you?

I'm not attempting to bully anyone I am telling you flat out this is a fight that Clay County hasn't seen up to this point.  The political patronage and corruption that is going on in this county has gone too far and there is not one single stone that we will leave unturned.  Read the Florida Supreme Court decision on activity similar to what is going on in this situation.  Due process has been violated.  Now for those of you who feel Fred has problems with comprehension read the following and twist it if you can.

The lawsuit is on rights, not technical issues.

Relator takes the position that "anything less than total compliance with the absolute statutory language of Fla.Stat. § 105.031(4)(b) [F.S.A.] renders Candidate Klein's oath of office legally defective as a matter of law so as to preclude his proper qualification and the respondent's subsequent certification of his candidacy." We cannot agree.

[20]    Literal and "total compliance" with statutory language which reaches hypersensitive levels and which strains the quality of justice is not required to fairly and substantially meet the statutory requirements to qualify as a candidate for public office. The principal area of alleged deficiency in the oath filed here is its failure to state the full "title of the office" as stated in (b) of said statute. Of course, it would be preferable to write out the full title and thus eliminate any doubt in the matter, instead of simply "Judge (group) 3" but the particular judgeship sought was determined by the administrator to be "county judge" and the qualifying oath (on forms provided by the Secretary) was accepted by him as sufficient. Perhaps it was clarified orally for the official when presented; the check for the fee may have recited "county judge"; in any event, the Secretary of State could and did readily ascertain which judgeship in Dade County was involved by a simple process of elimination in the acceptance of the qualifying fee of $1,400.00. This amount could only apply to a county judgeship (with which respondent agrees). It only fits that office. Such amount was not enough for the circuit, district or supreme court judgeships which were open.

[21]    So long as basic requirements have been met, the time for other changes or corrections such as in the handwritten group "3", or an insertion (if the administrator thought necessary) of "county" in front of "judge" was at the qualification desk in these circumstances, in order that the changes could very simply have been added.*fn3 To reject or challenge the candidacy on these grounds now (when the period for qualifying has closed) comes too late. It would be a denial of due process and unfair treatment of the candidate who has justifiably acted upon the Respondent Secretary of State's acceptance and certification, to remove him from the ballot. It is better in such factual situations to let the people decide the ultimate qualifications of candidates unless they appear clearly contrary to law.

[22]    The basic principle of our constitutional and democratic system is set forth as the very first words of our Florida Constitution:

[23]    "Declaration of Rights

[24]    "Section 1. Political power. - All political power is inherent in the people."

[25]    After reciting these words in State ex rel. Ayres v. Gray et al., 69 So.2d 187, at page 193, (Fla.1953) we stated:

[26]    "The tendency has been, and still is, to extend further the privilege of the people to participate in their government and to elect officers originally appointed, rather than to curtail such participation by the people."

[27]    Summarily to remove Mr. Klein from the people's consideration, and his name from the election ballot, would be irremediable.

[28]    Our Fourth District in McClung v. McCauley, 238 So.2d 667, 670 (Fla.App.4th 1970) concluded its opinion in such a matter by commenting in like manner:

[29]    "It would afford the electorate the largest opportunity to select, at election, the candidate of their choice."

[30]    In his brief, Mr. Klein challenges the constitutionality of the loyalty oath as required by Fla.Stat. §§ 876.05-876.10, F.S.A. Since our ruling rests on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to decide this issue.

[31]    In view of the necessity for expediency in this matter, privilege of filing rehearing is dispensed with and this opinion shall be effective immediately.

http://www.ctlac.com/

Marsha, do I understand that they cashed the check, disqualified Fred and kept the money? So they had to know before they cashed the check they were going to disqualify him, correct? I would say that it does not look good for the SOE.
I hadn’t made my mind up completely on who I would vote for in Nov. I was going to wait till after the primaries and hope for some good debates.
As your husband was going to be a long shot, have you given any consideration to Fred being a write-in . I know this would be an even bigger long shot, but because of this mess maybe not.
Good luck in what ever you two decide to do.
 

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their part.

You just wrote exactly what we needed to justify a request for discovery. By espousing all the inside information you have in these blogs (which have already been printed out) and suggesting you do not live in this county has revealed that there may be further violations of Freds rights.  Remember, one of the things he has alledged is Conspiracy and what you have said may cause him to use the powers of discovery from the Federal Court to name you as a defendent.  Inside information to people outside the community may suggest and support the Conspiracy to interfere with Constutional Rights.

Now you may become part of the action.

Please, by all means, tell us more, we're printing it all out.

http://www.ctlac.com/

Thanks for the good wishes, it won't take long for this to be decided. It is too late for anyone to get on the ballot as anything without a Court Order.  They said "sue us", so we are.

They held the check for three weeks, cashed it, Fred was a candidate for 36 days before they disqualified him. There are several allegations in the lawsuit. Just like Roys Attorney, we threw everything we could against it.

Thanks to Gulfwind, we just got more.

http://www.ctlac.com/

LOL

Forgive me for addressing you incorrectly. Married women often take their husband's names, so you must understand I thought you were Mrs. Catchpole, not Willoughby.

Please, discover away with you conspiracy theory. Since I am guessing there is no conspiracy beyond that in your mind, I don't think anyone has anything to worry about. The rest of us all know how to act legally, and don't take flying leaps based on unsubstantiated information.

That's all for tonight; it's getting late. Enjoy your conspiracy and your evening.

Marsha,

It must be disapointing to find out your husband can't run for office, however; I seem to remember you blogging about some impressive accomplishments of his.  Running an airline?  Some pretty large government study?  I do not think that in his many sucessful endeavors, he would have taken the excuse  "so and so told me so...or I did not read the manual.

I have skimmed the election manual, (It is available on line)  It doesn't read like a Grisham novel, but it is the CANDIDATE who is ultimately responsible for his or her actions.  It is unfortunate that it happened to your husband, especially because he was a snowball independant but it does not give him a pass on personal responsibilty.

As far as the check cashing delay--that is not uncommon. It took over 2 weeks for my traffic fine to be cashed. The wheels of goverment move slow.

Now politics are really getting up to Clay County standards. Beseler controlling the media, the S.O.E. right where they can do the most damage even if they are correct. If Fred was given poor info. who will pay the piper?

Sue away Fred, file discovery Marsha, get the records Mike, may all the people who are manipulating the system be discovered. Probably will happen 2 years from now, too late to do anyone any good.

 In the meantime I hope everyone is paying attention.

This goat ropin' gets better every day.

Fight the fight. I think you have as good a chance as she did to win in court.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/073008/met_311170193.shtml

If you and everyone else wants to fixate on that one thing then be my guest.  I am not going to keep repeating the same thing.  You are basically requiring more of a citizen then you are of your elected Officials and their employees.

If the law said your first born was to be sacrificed upon an altar unless you spit into the east wind on wednesday would you call it good because it's a law?

I don't know how many more times I have to say this, this isn't all about the check, the lawsuit, it's just part of it. Have you read all of the blogs or just pieces of it. There are several allegations going before the Judge.

We're talking about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the fact that people are not supposed to be barred from participating over nit picky crap. 

If we weren't willing to accept the reality in the end that maybe we just did something wrong do you honestly think I would have written about it in the blogs?  I've known about this for several days now and have said nothing.  I didn't complain, I didn't whine.  I came in here after the lawsuit was filed and blogged about it.

I came here to tell people there is another fight being waged against the Political Patronage in this County.  If you have no appreciation for that then I don't know what to say to you.

It's no wonder things have gotten as bad as they are around here. 

http://www.ctlac.com/

I am confused

1) Are candidates given a 70 page manual explaining the legal requirements?

2) Did Mr. Catchpole have a copy and read and understand it?

3) Does the manual require candidates have a campaign account ?

4) Does the manual state the filing fee be paid from the campaign account ?

5) Did Mr. Catchpole open a campaign account ?

6) Did Mr. Catchpole deposit campaign monies into the campaign account?

7) Is the purpose of the campaign account partially to track campaign contributions ?

If the answers to the above questions is “Yes”.

And the candidate failed to follow the legal requirements.

What exactly is the problem ?

If the campaign money was in the campaign account why not write the check against the campaign account to begin with ? Just seems like a no brainer to me (no disrespect intended). I just don’t get.

TRUTHHURTS Please go to http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer and sign the petition for the Fair Tax Bill. Tell Congress to pass this Bill.

Ah Marsha, you have not met my first born, there are days where I might have sacrificed that child BEFORE I was asked to spit!  But I digress. 

I was just talking about personal accountability.  I get it, there seems to have been some real errors at the SOE's office, but utimately I believe the responsibility rests on candidates, Fred included.  

As far as nit-picking--who determines what is nit picking and what is too far?  I would hope anyone who runs for office understands and abides by the letter of the law.  Once elected, the official can go about effecting changes to the laws if indeed they find them to be nit-picking. 

IMHO, Fred stopped being "just a citizen" when he filed for office.  I think "things have gotten as bad here" because we don't have people (candidates and elected officals alike) that have not been held to the HIGHEST of standards.

Again, it is unfortunate for Fred but my opinion is NOBODY gets a "my bad" It is all about persoanl responsibility, there has been precious little of it lately.

Marsha,I commend you and Fred for standing up for what you believe.  As someone once said, "The Clay County Courthouse is the hellmouth of this world".  So many people are in bed with one another that lawsuits take too many years and cost too much money.  The power brokers try to wear you down with motions and extensions and briefs.  The federal lawsuit against the Clerk of Court is still going on, I believe it is on appeal right now.  Unfortunately the lawyers are the ones who prosper and we the citizens and victims are abused and victimized even more.  The public loses interest and thinks that the lawsuits should be abandoned.  If it doesn't affect them personally they tend to weaken.

You know, no matter what anyone says, they do not know what they would do until something happens to them that they least expect, especially when they have done all that they could to try to prevent the unthinkable!  You and Fred have to do what you feel is right.  I know that you thought about it and prayed about it and came to the conclusion to file the lawsuit.  I am just thankful that you filed it in Federal Court and not here in Clay County!  I also hope that you have an attorney that does not have anything to lose by going against these local power brokers.

Lilyslore is my kind of person, apparently she or he has had some occasion to see firsthand what the legal system in Clay County and elsewhere is like.  Corrupt!  Good 'Ole Boys are still around in Clay County folks, so don't kid yourselves.

Kudos to you Fred & Marsha and Gods Speed.  I wish you well and hope that you will be successful.

Yes, the Clerk's lawsuit is on appeal.  You can get all the information at www. PACER.com and the recent information is that the Clerk's motion for the Plaintiff to pay his attorney fees has been denied!  I just wonder now if the taxpayers will have to cover for them or if the Clerk will have to pay them personally.  Good question to ask him for his video Jonathan.

Let me introduce a new word into the English language.

Scribocracy: a government ruled by paper pushers.

I'm not going to try and wade through all the rules regarding what kind of checking account must be used or how to define a "campaign account."  Money is money as far as I'm concerned.  All this hackling about rules misses the point.

Mr. Catchpole, a taxpayer, voter, and resident, decided to exercise his right to run for public office.  That is democracy, that is what was established by the Founding Fathers.

The purpose of the Supervisor of Election's office is to serve the county.  In this particular instance their purpose would be to facilitate Mr. Catchpole in exercising his democratic right to run for office.  They examined his checking account, if it really was unacceptable then they should not have accepted it. 

A legal, democratic effort was stiffled by a technicality, an error on the part of those whose purpose is to faciliatate the democratic process.  Yet, the SOE feels no consequence.

This is democracy being overruled by scribocracy.  America was not founded to be ruled by scribes, to be a place where your fundamental rights depend upon turning in the right form.

Why would you care if Catchpole ran or not?  Did you write the Florida statutes, that you have so much invested in their being followed to the letter?  The statutes are for the people, not the other way around.  Why are you such defenders of the SOE, and office which twice, so far, in one election cycle committed grave errors that derailed legal, democratic participation of citizens in their government?

Not only are you defending scribocracy, you are defending imcompetence by public officials. 

And now you gloat.  What do you gloat over?  That an acceptable candidate was deprived of a legal right because of paperwork.  You gloat over the misfortune of a candidate and of his wife who was obviously very much devoted to his campaign.  In anothe issue you advocate that democratic rights be overruled by a lawsuit, and that once again a few esoteric rules and minor tecnicalities be elevated to overrule the simple concept that citizens can participate in their government.

You need to get your values straightened out.  I'm hoping that this rant will make you shut up and go do something more constructive than tormenting someone who has just been robbed of their rights.      

But America will abide by the laws that have been scribed will it not?

And is there not legal protocals to be abided by?

The law is the law, and no one should be above the law.

The incident as unfortunate as it may be, does not dictate that the current laws and rules for candidates be ignored.

For this as I stated before, I don't get it.

These laws are in place for a reason.

Maybe a better question to help in all of our understanding, is to ask ourselves why are these laws in place to begin with?

I think if we find the answer to that question the rest will become clear.

TRUTHHURTS

Please go to

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

and sign the petition for the Fair Tax Bill. Tell Congress to pass this Bill.

I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air you have turned out to be.....you're intelligent enough to "get it".

I guess I was just expecting too much from some.

Thank you for your contribution.

http://www.ctlac.com/ How many of your rights have to disappear before you wake up and smell the coffee?

Marsha,

I've been following this thread & have also read the story in the TU this morning.  Not knowing the intracacies of local politics, just using some commons sense, I smell a big stink here.

Either there were some unclear, unstated motives or there is some very real incompetence in the registration process.  I hope that Fred is successful, not only on a personal level, but bringing this condition into the sunlight.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see & smell that there is something wrong here.  Good luck to you & Fred.

Rich K

If you don't know the answer, put away your ego and say you don't know. Then get the CORRECT answer. Don't try to bluff your way through with answers that you don't know for a fact are true.

The SOE obviously gave incorrect information and allowed a check to be written to them from an account other than a campaign account. The fact that they accepted that check, in my opinion, now puts the responsibility for that error on their desk.

They don't want to accept that responsibility nor the responsibility for their error in the case of the CTLAC. They may admit their mistake but they refuse to take actions to correct their errors. That is not accepting responsibility. That is just saying we made a fatal error but you are the one that has to pay the price for it.

If you fire an employee for doing something wrong it is pretty obvious that the error was on your side of the counter. You broke it, now fix it. Don't give me this mumbo jumbo about how the person on the other side is 100% wrong and now they can't be on the ballot.

We pay people to know their job. This includes the SOE herself. I don't care if it is a year ahead of time or an hour ahead of time. The answers to the questions should be the same. And they should be correct answers. 

Mike Heemer

The SOE is an elected position. The employees are not and should be qualified to do their jobs. Evidently they were not and gave out erroneous information.

This is like the petition and now the issue with Fred. Everyone else should be responsible when they go to the SOE for the very things that are their responsibility.

If I'm understanding some of these comments. Only the people in line should be responsible. The people getting elected and working there getting paid with taxdollars have no responsibility.

In my opinion this is just more waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers money.

Well......Reading all of the comments you bloggers have responded to about poor ole Fred. Now you can imagine just how Don feels. This is the same county government cover-up and not taking responsibility for your employees mistakes and lies that Don has tried to get all of you to see at CCAC (which by the way is another Clay County agency). He is just as frustrated as Marsha and Fred.

I agree and I thought the one about the misplaced pig was of interest. I am glad the people got the animal back.

Belle,Rich & Mike, Angela and everyone who has sent their best wishes I thank you.  This is one lawsuit that will not drag out for years because it's a timely manner even if it goes to the Appeals Court which we are prepared for it will be under emergency conditions. 

One thing I have learned from being with Fred is that when it comes to lawsuits there is always case law to use on either side.  The Courts for the most part when it comes to the peoples right to participate in their goverment decide for the right of the people.  Political Patronage is not as common in the Federal Courts as it is in the local arena so we are cautiously optomistic.

It will not surprise me if the CTLAC has to go to the Appeals Court but in the meantime all three amendments should go forward. 

The article about the lawsuit filed by Roy Lyons in Clay today has me really curious. It said something to the effect that Roy ceased his efforts to get his petitions signed because he was expecting something else to stop the three amendments.  Now, was this his own lawsuit, or did Roy have information the rest of us didn't?  That 5+2 amendment that is still on Scrubys desk, is our County Attorney making great efforts to find a reason no matter how small to keep it from putting it on the ballot?  Is he stalling because he's going to try to use the reasoning that because it is in litigation it shouldn't go on the ballot? 

The language in the statutes says that "once certified by the SOE it SHALL be put on the ballot"  There are no "ifs" or "unless", it just says that "they shall". 

It could be in the end we lose and in that event you value the knowledge that you tried, and you didn't play dirty to achieve it and you move on.  If I placed no value in the fact that at the end of the day, or the end of my life my conscience is clear that the journey(of life) was taken with integrity it might be a hard pill to swallow to lose. 

There is so much of life that is fleeting, success, money, youth, material objects etc. The only things that last are those things that people or circumstance cannot take away and that is who you are and what you stand for.  It's a daily struggle where the reward isn't flashy but it stays with you.

http://www.ctlac.com/

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080208/met_312610337.shtml

Sorry to hear that the people in District 5 have fewer choices now.