10 28 2014
Affidavit that Neither Scott Walker or Mary Burke are qualified electors per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2)
Neither Scott Walker or Mary Burke are qualified electors per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2)
Sent to:
Municipal Court Clerk Linda Small of Whitefish Bay Wisconsin small@wfbvillage.org
and
http://gab.wi.gov/about/staff
kevin.kennedy@wi.gov
Affidavit that Scott Walker and Mary Burk should not be registered to vote! And are disqualified electors that cannot be on the Wisconsin Ballot for Governor.
Upon receipt of this challenge you are to mail a copy to both Scott Walker and Mary Burke that they have been challenged as an elector; and therefore challenged to be on the election ballot!
Neither Scott Walker or Mary Burke are qualified electors per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2)
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/I/03
(2) No person shall be allowed to vote in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.
My interpretation of this statute is that all the money that pours in to back these candidates amounts to them being participant either directly or indirectly in a bet or wager depending upon the result of the election!
What is the spirit of that law? so that you cannot buy a candidate into office? They didn't want one to take a dive? It looked like Tom Barrett took a dive in the race for Governor against Walker. It also looks like Walker is taking a dive in this election as he answered the question about whether he would be able to fulfill the four years; he answered that in the vein that his wife had had enough of it!
That law is there to prevent special interests from buying their way into public policy!
At $10,000.oo a Commercial that is in effect indirect participation in a bet or wager! Walker might have even used the terminology my constituents are betting on me to....
*****'
On the news the other night I believe it was Kahy MyKlby that stated a person had to register to be on the ballot to be a valid write in candidate. That completely violates the spirit of that law. The spirit of a law is the reason it was written! The reason for a law being in place. Neither Scott Walker nor Mary Burke are legally allowed to be on the ballot because of that very law; however a write in candidate isn't recognized unless they register to be on the ballot? That is not why their is a write in space on the ballot! In effect it is putting a write in space on the ballot to make it seem like you are maintaining elections in compliance with election law when the exact opposite is true! The spirit of the write in candidate election law is that if both candidates are revealed to be corrupt the citizen can write in a candidate he/she knows without a shadow of a doubt isn't corrupt, the one who exposed them. This mornings newspaper revealed that both candidates Mary Burke and Scott Walker accepted close to $10,000,0000.oo each of what can only be defined as special interest money because of the size of it, that invalidates them to be on the election ballot per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2).
So again if they can be on the ballot and are not supposed to then I will again write my own name in on the ballot! I will also do so for Attorney General, and all the other write in spots on the ballot. I "Thomas Paul Murphy" am in compliance with U.S. Statute 6.03 whereas Scott Walker and Mary Burke are not! Those who accept Special Interest money, in the absence of donor information defined by the size of the contribution cannot be on the ballot! It is the equivalent of placing a bet on them! They were registered to be on the ballot whereas they cannot be! Election laws are being willfully violated in the United States!
Here is the procedure for disqualifying them to be on that ballot!
6.03 Disqualification of electors.
Affidavit that Neither Scott Walker or Mary Burke are qualified electors per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2)
Neither Scott Walker or Mary Burke are qualified electors per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2)
Sent to:
Municipal Court Clerk Linda Small of Whitefish Bay Wisconsin small@wfbvillage.org
and
| Kevin J. Kennedy | Director and General Counsel |
http://gab.wi.gov/about/staff
kevin.kennedy@wi.gov
Affidavit that Scott Walker and Mary Burk should not be registered to vote! And are disqualified electors that cannot be on the Wisconsin Ballot for Governor.
Upon receipt of this challenge you are to mail a copy to both Scott Walker and Mary Burke that they have been challenged as an elector; and therefore challenged to be on the election ballot!
Neither Scott Walker or Mary Burke are qualified electors per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2)
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/I/03
(2) No person shall be allowed to vote in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.
My interpretation of this statute is that all the money that pours in to back these candidates amounts to them being participant either directly or indirectly in a bet or wager depending upon the result of the election!
What is the spirit of that law? so that you cannot buy a candidate into office? They didn't want one to take a dive? It looked like Tom Barrett took a dive in the race for Governor against Walker. It also looks like Walker is taking a dive in this election as he answered the question about whether he would be able to fulfill the four years; he answered that in the vein that his wife had had enough of it!
That law is there to prevent special interests from buying their way into public policy!
At $10,000.oo a Commercial that is in effect indirect participation in a bet or wager! Walker might have even used the terminology my constituents are betting on me to....
*****'
On the news the other night I believe it was Kahy MyKlby that stated a person had to register to be on the ballot to be a valid write in candidate. That completely violates the spirit of that law. The spirit of a law is the reason it was written! The reason for a law being in place. Neither Scott Walker nor Mary Burke are legally allowed to be on the ballot because of that very law; however a write in candidate isn't recognized unless they register to be on the ballot? That is not why their is a write in space on the ballot! In effect it is putting a write in space on the ballot to make it seem like you are maintaining elections in compliance with election law when the exact opposite is true! The spirit of the write in candidate election law is that if both candidates are revealed to be corrupt the citizen can write in a candidate he/she knows without a shadow of a doubt isn't corrupt, the one who exposed them. This mornings newspaper revealed that both candidates Mary Burke and Scott Walker accepted close to $10,000,0000.oo each of what can only be defined as special interest money because of the size of it, that invalidates them to be on the election ballot per U.S. Statute 6.03 (2).
So again if they can be on the ballot and are not supposed to then I will again write my own name in on the ballot! I will also do so for Attorney General, and all the other write in spots on the ballot. I "Thomas Paul Murphy" am in compliance with U.S. Statute 6.03 whereas Scott Walker and Mary Burke are not! Those who accept Special Interest money, in the absence of donor information defined by the size of the contribution cannot be on the ballot! It is the equivalent of placing a bet on them! They were registered to be on the ballot whereas they cannot be! Election laws are being willfully violated in the United States!
Here is the procedure for disqualifying them to be on that ballot!
6.03 Disqualification of electors.
(1) The following persons shall not be allowed to vote in any election and any attempt to vote shall be rejected:
(a) Any person who is incapable of understanding the objective of the elective process or who is under guardianship, unless the court has determined that the person is competent to exercise the right to vote.
(b) Any person convicted of treason, felony or bribery, unless the person's right to vote is restored through a pardon or under s. 304.078 (3).
(2) No person shall be allowed to vote in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.
6.03(3) (3) No person may be denied the right to register to vote or the right to vote by reason that the person is alleged to be incapable of understanding the objective of the elective process unless the person has been adjudicated incompetent in this state. If a determination of incompetency of the person has already been made, or if a determination of limited incompetency has been made that does not include a specific finding that the subject is competent to exercise the right to vote, and a guardian has been appointed as a result of any such determination, then no determination of incapacity of understanding the objective of the elective process is required unless the guardianship is terminated or modified under s. 54.64.
History: 1973 c. 284; 1977 c. 26, 394; 1979 c. 110; 1991 a. 316; 2003 a. 121; 2005 a. 149, 387; 2007 a. 97; s. 35.17 correction in (1) (a).
Disenfranchisement of felons does not deny them equal protection. Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24.
6.48 Challenging registration.
Copyright 2014 Thomas Paul Murphy
(1) General procedure.
6.48(1)(a)(a) Any registered elector of a municipality may challenge the registration of any other registered elector by submitting to the municipal clerk or executive director of the board of election commissioners in cities of more than 500,000 population an affidavit stating that the elector is not qualified to vote and the reasons therefor. The clerk or director, upon receipt of the affidavit, shall mail a notification of the challenge to the challenged elector, at his or her registered address.
(b) The challenged and challenging electors shall appear before the municipal clerk within one week of notification or arrange under sub. (2) to appear before the board of election commissioners. The challenging elector shall make an affidavit answering any questions necessary to determine the challenged elector's qualifications. Judgment rests with the municipal clerk and decisions shall be rendered as soon as heard. If the clerk cannot resolve the issue or has reservations as to the answers, the clerk may require the challenging elector to take the oath under s. 6.925. If the challenged elector appears and contests any answer of the challenging elector, the clerk may require the challenged elector to take the oath under s. 6.94 and to answer any question necessary to determine the challenged elector's qualifications. If the challenging elector appears before the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners but the challenged elector fails to appear, such clerk or board may make the decision without consulting the challenged elector. If the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners does not sustain the challenge, the challenged elector's registration remains valid.
(c) If the challenging elector fails to appear before the municipal clerk within one week or in cities of more than 500,000 population fails to appear before the board of election commissioners under sub. (2) to answer questions and take the oath under s. 6.925, such clerk or board shall cancel the challenge.
(d) If the clerk determines that the challenged elector is not qualified, the clerk shall change the challenged elector's registration from eligible to ineligible status on the registration list and notify the inspectors for the ward or election district where the elector was registered.
(2) Special procedure in populous cities.
(a) In cities of more than 500,000 population, objections may be made before the board of election commissioners which shall sit on the last Wednesday before each election from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. to hear objections then made or deferred under sub. (1). If all the objections cannot then be determined, the commissioners shall sit during the same hours the next day.
(b) Upon appearing in person, objectors shall be examined, under oath, by the commissioners and testimony taken. Judgment rests with the board of election commissioners and decisions shall be rendered as soon as heard. All cases are heard and decided summarily. The commissioners shall determine whether the person objected to is qualified. If they determine that a person is not qualified, the executive director of the board of election commissioners shall change the elector from eligible to ineligible status on the registration list and shall notify the proper ward officials of the change immediately.
(3) Challenge based on incompetency. Section 6.03 (3) applies to any challenge which is made to registration based on an allegation that an elector is incapable of understanding the objective of the elective process and thereby ineligible for registration.
(4) Disqualification. The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners may not disqualify an elector under this section except upon the grounds and in accordance with the procedure specified in s. 6.325.
History: 1971 c. 304 s. 29 (2); 1973 c. 334; 1975 c. 85, 199; 1977 c. 394; 1979 c. 110; 1983 a. 484; 1985 a. 304; 1987 a. 391; 2003 a. 265.
The spirit of the law is more important that the procedure for compliance with those who seek to thwart the spirit of the law.
Challenged by:
Thomas Paul Murphy
4964 N. Marlborough Dr.
Whitefish Bay WI 53217
Copyright 2014 Thomas Paul Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment