On November 7, a California Superior Court Judge heard De La Fuente v Padilla. The hearing lasted an hour. The judge declined to order the state to list Rocky De La Fuente as a declared write-in candidate. California polls include a list of all the declared write-in candidates, which any voter may see if the voter is voting at the polls. The state argued that at this late date it would be impossible to re-issue the list.
Further court action may occur after the election, to order election officials to count write-ins for De La Fuente.
De La Fuente wasn’t put on the write-in list because, two weeks after he submitted his electors, the state informed him that some of the addresses of his presidential elector candidates on the declaration of candidacy forms are different than the addresses at which they are registered to vote. There is no law, regulation, or instruction, saying that the addresses must match.
It is absurd for the state of California to prevent De La Fuente supporters from having their votes counted for such trivial reasons, especially when there is a bigger flaw with the Republican list. One of the Republican candidates for elector is ineligible under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and the Republican Party did not submit any alternates. Also, the Secretary of State accepted nine presidential elector candidates from the American Independent Party who do not live in California. Finally, the Secretary of State accepted 108 presidential elector candidates for Donald Trump, even though California only has 55 electoral votes. So if Trump carried California, no one would know which electors had been elected.
Arun Bhumitra does not hold an office of trust or profit under the United States. He is a private citizen, who represents the interests of his industry sector in giving advice with respect to international trade. The ITAC committees are deliberately insulated from the actual government.
Did the SOS file a brief indicating why they failed to inform the elector candidates why their application of candidacy was deemed insufficient? Or did they just say it was quite impossible to change at this late date?
You may be aware that Charles Dodgson, now ordinarily known by his pseudonym of Lewis Carroll, proposed a method of determining a winner when ranked ballots were used, and California Elections now seem like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
Curioser and Curioser!
Arun Bhumitra does hold a office of trust of the United States. However we can agree that he does not hold
an office of profit of the United States. Under CA laws
the Office of Presidental Elector is a statewide office of
profit of the State of California.
Jim Riley needs to contact the U. S. Department Commerce and asked them about issuing Arun Bhumitra an Official Passport on his travel to Ireland. Arun Bhumitra will hold
his general government status in an office of trust through July 14, 2018.
Jim Riley,
Have you read the Memorandum Opinion For The Deputy Counsel To The President dated: April 29, 1991.
It discusses in great detail the issue of member status
In the ITAC and them holding “Offices of Trust or Profit
of the United States” within the meaning of the
Emoluments Clause of the U. S. Constitution. I believe
the meaning of “Office of Trust” of the United States means the same thing when it does not allow such persons to serve as Presidential Electors in the Electoral
College.
Jim Riley,
Read “Memorandum Opinion For The Deputy Counsel To The President” by Douglas R. Cox, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Office of the Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, at Vol. 15 [1991] pp. 65 – 68. It states that the members of the ITCA do hold an “Office of Trust” of the United States.
18 USC 219(c) defines “public official” for application of Section 219 only.
The memorandum opinion is not conclusive with respect to Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Jim Riley,
Members of the ITCA hold a “Office of Trust” of the United States. It is the same whether one is dealing with running for Presidential Elector or coverage under the
Emoluments Clause.