SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

U.S. | Government & Elections

The Rich Politicians Get Richer, and the poor political candidates stay unkown and poor.
by Cris Ericson ( usmjp [at] aceweb.com )
Friday Dec 21st, 2012 9:59 PM
The Rich Politicians Get Re-Elected and Richer, and the poor political candidates stay unkonwn and poor. But wait a minute - is there a "conspiracy" here?
cris_ericson_2014_waving_smiling.jpg
cris_ericson_2014_waving_...

Non-Major party candidates in Vermont
were excluded from 2012 political debates
and are now fighting back in Court!

2012 candidate for Governor of Vermont, Emily Peyton,
was excluded from candidate debates and forums.

She filed an action in Court against Burlington Free Press,
WCAX television and WPTZ television.

Cris Ericson was also a 2012 candidate for Governor of Vermont,
but she was also on the ballot for U.S. Senate.

In Emily Peyton's Court pleadings, she states that because
she is a pro-se litigant representing herself without an attorney,
that she believes she can not file her Case as a Class Action Lawsuit.

Cris Ericson is trying to find the laws about Class Actions,
because she was equally excluded from the Governor candidate forums
as was Emily Peyton.

Cris Ericson thinks that if she can find a way to make Emily Peyton's
lawsuit a Class Action, then she could subpoena
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who she ran against in 2012,
and also U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy,
who she ran against in 2010
because she believes there is a continuing cause of action
and a civil conspiracy based on the fact that
Burlington Free Press and WCAX television and WPTZ television
claim in their Court responses to Emily Peyton,
that they excluded her because she did not receive 5% of the vote
in the previous election in 2010.

Therefore, Cris Ericson believes that to show all of the element
of the alleged conspiracy to keep non-major party candidates
from participating in debates, that all candidates from 2010
and 2012 that she ran against should be included
as elements to prove civil conspiracy.

Cris Ericson believes that the civil conspiracy is based on
non-profit organizations and organizations filed under 26 USCS Section 501(3)(c
non-profits which have denied her participation in General Election
candidate debates every two years from 2002 through and including 2012.

So, because the non-profits and entitities such as Vermont Public Radio,
AARP, Vermont League of Cities & Towns and League of Women Voters,
all excluded Cris Ericson, she could not get 5% of the vote,
and because she could not get 5% of the vote,
then the privately owned Corporations including Burlington Free Press,
WCAX television and WPTZ television ALSO exluded her from debates
on the argument that she had not previously received 5% of the vote.

Therefore, Cris Ericson feels that there is a conspiracy
including the taxpayer funded non-profits
and the privately held corporations.

The privately held corporations believe that they have a right
to choose to exclude candidates who did not previously receive 5%
of the vote in the previous election.

The non-profits which are taxpayer funded,
according to Cris Ericson,
should have no legal right what-so-ever
to exclude any candidate from their debates and forums,
and BUT FOR THE FACT that University of Vermont (UVM),
League of Women Voters, AARP and Vermont Public Radio (VPR)
all excluded Cris Ericson and did so in previous election years,
she WOULD HAVE received 5% of the vote
and she WOULD HAVE met the qualifications imposed by the privately
held corporations Burlington Free Press, WCAX television and WPTZ television.

E-mail below is regarding
Emily Peyton's ongoing lawsuit against
Burlington Free Press, WCAX and WPTZ;
and Cris Ericson's campaign finance statement.

Cris Ericson received 2% of the vote
for U.S. Senate 2012 and also 1.9% of the vote
for Governor of Vermont 2012.
___________________________________________________
From: usmjp [at] aceweb.com [usmjp [at] aceweb.com]
Sent: 12/20/2012 9:41:21 AM
To: jim.condos [at] sec.state.vt.us [jim.condos [at] sec.state.vt.us];
kscheele [at] sec.state.vt.us [kscheele [at] sec.state.vt.us];
will.senning [at] sec.state.vt.us [will.senning [at] sec.state.vt.us]
Cc: GovernorVT [at] state.vt.us [GovernorVT [at] state.vt.us]
Subject: Filing Statement: Less than $500. spent on campaign

To: Vermont Secretary of State
Elections Division:
Jim Condos;
Kathy Scheele;
Will Senning

Good Morning:

I did not receive any final forms in the mail
after the election,
but I think it is time to electronically file
this by e-mail,
my Filing Statement:

I did not spend over $500. for my campaign
for Governor of Vermont 2012.

I was invited to two television debates,
the one on CCTV in Burlington, all candidates
except for myself and Emily Peyton
refused to show up
in person and participate.

The other was a debate on
VPT and all candidates were there including me.

I was not invited to any other debates for
Governor.

Each debate cost about $20. round trip in gas.
I also went to Burlington on Nov. 5
to hand out campaign cards.

That's a total of
$60. on gas.

The campaign cards
were less than $20. because they don't
say "for Governor" so I can use half of
them for other purposes.

Then there were three hotel bills for
going to Burlington because I am not
young anymore and not willing to drive
up and back in one day,
one visit to
the Ho Hum Motel (half the cost for my
campaign for U.S. Senate)
and two visits to
Motel North,
at about an average of
$65. each or less for my campaign for
Governor.

There was also a day trip to WNYT Albany,
and from my place in southern VT that's
about $15. gas divided by two campaigns
because I was also on the ballot for
U.S. Senate.

My appearances on WNYT did
not get put on streaming video because
of Hurricane Sandy.

Please accept this as a late
electronic filing statement.

Summary: Less than $500. spent
on my campaign 2012 for Governor of Vermont.

Also, please note that apparently
2012 Governor candidate
Emily Peyton has filed a Court action against
Burlington Free Press, WCAX and WPTZ for
refusal to include her in debates and forums.

She apparently named me
[December 11, 2012 Plaintiff's Additional
Memorandum of Law]]
in one of her Court
papers filed in Chittenden Unit Superior Court
Civil Division Docket No. 1115-10-12 Cncv

She sent me a couple of the Court papers,
one has an Entry Regarding Motion
Filed Oct. 18, 2012
and somewhere in one of the papers she
apparently expresses that she is only
representing herself;
therefore,
I looked up in a Vermont Statutes Annotated
2008 General Index (which is what I have
available here)
and on page 926 it says
"Class actions, VRCP 23(c),(d)"
and I can't find anywhere on the
internet the
"Appendix of Forms: Rules of Civil Procedure"
Rule 23

Apparently Emily Peyton thinks she can not
represent a Class Action Pro Se,
and I think that if she loses this case,
that it will negatively affect all
future candidates who are not members
of major parties.

Please let me know if you receive this
and can electronically file it as my
"Filing statement affirming $500. was not
raised or spent".

Please also send me a copy of
"Class Actions, VRCP,
Vermont Court Rules Annotated,
Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure
by e-mail
if possible.

The defendants, in their papers, are
apparently claiming that Emily Peyton did
not meet their requirement of 5% vote
in the previous election.

I think that because she was excluded from
debates and forums run by non-profits
that should have included her because
they are taxpayer funded,
that she (and I)
would have met the
media's creation of a 5% previous
vote requirement.

I think that certain entities that have
excluded candidates may be in violation
of 26 USCS Section 501(c)(3)(h)
and EEOC laws when you look at the fact
that EEOC covers job applicants,
and EEOC laws protect against
sexual and religious discrimination,
so they protect against discrimination
based on choices,
because you can chose to have a sex
change and you can chose to change
your religion,
so I think the Chittenden Superior Court
should have a discussion about choices,
because if sex and religious choices are
protected, then shouldn't your
choice of political affiliation also
be protected
in a situation whereby it is a taxpayer funded
non-profit
excluding you from a debate or forum
because you are not representing a Major
Party?

Also, because
the non-profits exclude candidates like
me and Emily Peyton
because we
are not members of a major party,
then we do not achieve (accrue) the 5% vote
requirement which was created
not by
statute,
but by the media's own created
requirement that they will not include
any candiate in a debate who did not
previously receive 5% of the vote in the
previous election.

In other words, do we have a "civil conspiracy"
under some law I came across and have to find
again for "civil conspiracy"
where by the media knows that the taxpayer funded
non-profits exlude non major party candidates
and because the non-profits which
are taxpayer funded are excluding
non-major party candidates,
therefore,
the excluded candidates
can never reach (accrue) the 5% vote requirement
in the previous election cycle
that is not a requirement by law, code
or statute, but invented by the media
to exclude candidates from debates
in the current election cycle, so,
is that what you would call a
civil conspiracy?

At any rate, now I want to
know what the Class Action laws
are because apparently I am being named in
this lawsuit but left out of
any opportunity to argue my point.

Thank you,
Cris Ericson
879 Church Street
Chester, Vermont 05143-9375
(802)875-4038
http://usmjp.com
usmjp [at] aceweb.com