Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal has ruled against the Republican Party of Florida in a case brought by Dade county Republican Executive Committee members against the local and state Party.
The 3rd DCA ruled that the RPOF loyalty oaths could not be used to disqualify duly elected members from voting. The ruling upholds a Restraining Order issued by a Miami Circuit Judge that allowed eight members of the Dade County REC to vote in that REC race for Chairman.
This is a dramatic set-back for RPOF and the so-called “loyalty oath.”
“The really great news is that with his ruling, the pending lawsuit in Orange County is exactly the same. When the seventeen (17) members (illegally disqualified by embattled Orange County REC Chairman Lew Oliver in last year’s election) cast their ballots, Oliver will be out of office. The only remedy the court has is to let those individuals choice by heard,” stated Doug Guetzloe, one of the leaders in the effort to get those duly elected REC members seated.
“The beginning of the end for Oliver and gang and the ongoing Republican Party Purge,” Guetzloe concluded.
Orlando Attorney Fred O’Neal will be taking over the case against the Orange County REC and RPOF and filing additional pleadings to conform with the 3rd DCA opinion.
DCA RULING: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3126.pdf
Loading ...
October 15th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Jesus Sermon on the Mount prohibits taking oaths.
33″Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37 Translation from New International Version)
Here is an interesting treatise on oaths and how the history of freedom is bound to Jesus command.
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurisdiction.htm
September 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Beth –
Those responding to you in this message (Kimberly, Erik, Savannah, and now me) comprise the core leadership team of the RLC of Northeast Florida. As you can probably tell by our responses we are not all that “kooky”. We are passionate and we are determined – but we are not crazy.
We have differing opinions on many political issues but we have all rallied around a central message/philosophy that we believe needs to be spread and embraced by as many people as possible. We have chosen to focus our efforts on the Republican Party.
I can accept the fact that some within the Party will reject a portion or maybe even all of our message, but I would like to see such people at least be willing to give us a fair hearing. I don’t mean second hand rumors or quotes or e-mails taken out of context. I mean speaking directly to the RLC leadership, or attending a meeting or allowing for an open and honest public exchange.
Beth – you are always welcome to attend our general membership meetings and I know our leadership team would be happy to meet with you directly.
Hope I have the opportunity to speak with you.
John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman
September 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Hi, Beth…
I had decided to refrain from responding to some of your earlier postings… but I think it’s time I throw my two cents in.
The fact that you are at all surprised by some of my friends’ civility shows me that you are quite removed from our group. I think that if you got more involved and if you approached learning about us with an open mind and heart, you would be overwhelmed by how welcoming and accepting we all are. Sure, we have some very passionate and very vocal members… and sometimes they shout things that could be damaging to the kind of message and image we want to portray… but, Beth, that’s America. That’s what is so beautiful about the rights we are given as citizens of this great nation.
You know, sometimes folks get a little out of hand… sometimes they are so upset about something that they get a bit carried away… but we understand that not everyone is going to be perfect all the time. Politics get people excited. Politics has the potential to awaken emotions within us some of us never knew we had. It’s just the nature of the beast. Rather than trying to oust these folks, as long as they are passionate about fighting for some of the same issues we are fighting for, we try to embrace them for who and what they are. We can’t always control how everyone acts or the words they choose to use. If we tried to control everyone associated with our group, we would be practicing the exact opposite of what we are fighting for: the right to our individual liberty.
Beth, look, a lot of us have been hurt by your choice of words… but we understand that you just don’t know us very well… so we take it with a grain of salt. We know that if you truly knew us as people, as individuals fighting our fight, you would never say the things you have. You mentioned that some of us RLC folks have targeted you and have been rude or hateful… and I am really sorry to hear that. I don’t wish that kind of treatment on anyone and personal attacks are never acceptable.
I just want you to know that these “kooks” are real people. Real people who probably have a lot more in common with you than you would ever imagine. We love our families, we are hard workers, we want to see our kids grow up to be successful, well-adjusted adults, we want our parents to be taken good care of as they age, we want to establish and nurture life-long friendships, we LOVE this country, we are grateful for our service men and women, we have a variety of hobbies, we are members of various churches… and the list of commonalities goes on and on….
I encourage you to open your mind… open your heart… and get to know us. Again, I am sorry if you have been offended by any of our members… but I ask you to work with us to break that cycle. Let’s take what we have in common and run with it… forget the stuff we don’t agree on. If we join hands to pursue the issues that we agree on, we stand to make great strides.
Join us, Beth. There’s plenty of room at our table.
-Savannah
September 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I am actually quite surprised by the civility of some of you. Maybe I am painting with too broad a brush? I will consider your offers with caution optimism.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Well, if anyone wants to try to remove me from the party for disagreeing with a position, then by all means, go ahead and try it. I’m prepared for anything like that, and by trying to do so, you’ll only hurt the party further.
In the meantime, my aim is not to remove anyone from the party, but rather to grow the party, return it to relevance, and restore both the Republican Party and America. I work with a number of people I don’t agree 100% with, but I do so because I believe the end goal is more important than any disagreements I may have. If your goal is to restore the party and this nation, then I would welcome working with you, not against you, whether you’re in the RLC or not.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Hi Beth,
“My feelings are very personal because of how some of your members have verbally attacked me. You do not come across as confrontational, so maybe you should not be the target of my feelings.”
I am not attacking you at all. I would, rather, build bridges.
Would you be willing to meet for dinner? If so, please email me at . I’ll reply with my phone number and would love to sit down and try to mend the fence.
We would be far better working together and I’d wager that we are not that different.
What do you think?
-Kimberly
September 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
If those elected officials are also REC members, yes we can remove them from the REC.
National security is one of those issues that many believe cannot be compromised on. So this ruling states that if you disagree with the platform publicly,and you are a REC member, then you are subject for removal.
So here is the GOP platform positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, just as an fyi.
You can thank the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal!
GOP platform
Iraq
A stable, unified, and democratic Iraqi nation is within reach. Our success in Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven, limit Iranian influence in the Middle East, strengthen moderate forces there, and give us a strategic ally in the struggle against extremism. To those who have sacrificed so much, we owe the commitment that American forces will leave that country in victory and with honor. That outcome is too critical to our own national security to be jeopardized by artificial or politically inspired timetables that neither reflect conditions on the ground nor respect the essential advice of our military commanders. As the people of Iraq assume their rightful place in the ranks of free and open societies, we offer them a continuing partnership.
Afghanistan
In the seven years since U.S. troops helped topple the Taliban, there has been great progress – but much remains to be done. We must prevail in Afghanistan to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban or an al Qaeda sanctuary in that country. A nationwide counterinsurgency strategy led by a unified commander is an essential prerequisite to success. Additional forces are also necessary, both from NATO countries and through a doubling in size of the Afghan army. The international community must work with the Afghan government to better address the problems of illegal drugs, governance, and corruption. We flatly reject the Democratic Party’s idea that America can succeed in Afghanistan only by failure in Iraq.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Hmm… Perhaps I have “attacked” people because they have come after my friends – and myself – with false accusations without first checking their facts? Hmm?
As for the platform issue, I suppose if we hold an “all-or-nothing” attitude then we can start with a good number of Republican elected officials who have worked against the platform? Also, can the party really afford to take an attitude of “You’re either with us 100% or against us” while it finds its numbers dwindling and the Democrat numbers increasing? No, of course it can’t. Especially as the platform changes every few years, so we’d be kicking out a new group of Republicans every 2-4 years, until there wasn’t anyone left.
And, for the record, the RLC has no such test of 100% “with or against us.”
September 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
This ruling is devastating to those who claim to have been “purged.” This ruling states clearly the party has every right to “not to associate with those who do not share their platforms or rules . . . .”
Have y’all read the party’s platform on Iraq? This ruling basically says if you don’t share the party’s platform on Iraq, or any other issue, you can be removed.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
My feelings are very personal because of how some of your members have verbally attacked me. You do not come across as confrontational, so maybe you should not be the target of my feelings.
I think your conclusion is from the concurring opinion, not the majority opinion. This is what the majority wrote, notice the words “If that were so, and it is not” towards the end. The majority stated that if the state interfered “with the parties’ well-established rights of self-governance” it would be “unconstitutional.”
here it is word for word
The concurring opinion concludes that, when a party chooses under section 103.091(4) to allow the state’s electoral apparatus to conduct the election of executive committee members, the political party surrenders its own rights to impose additional qualifications (beyond those imposed by the statutory oath, but not inconsistent with them) for the positions. If that were so, and it is not, the state would thereby unconstitutionally interfere with the parties’ well-established rights of self-governance.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Beth,
When reading it, no one was arguing the Party’s right to use a loyalty oath. However, it is interesting to note that the state election rules supersede the party election rules if the election happens to be run say, at the same time a presidential election is held.
The RLC does value the Constitution. Sounds like you do, too. So, how about jumping on board and helping to promote Constitutional liberty and freedom?! The RLC and the DCREC statement of principles read almost verbatim. Why keep fighting???
September 24th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Actually, you are incorrect. If you read this in its entirety, it clearly gives the RPOF the right to set its own rules, “not associate” with those it feels don’t share its values or rules (meaning the removal of members will stand)and it states it has the right to add to, but not take away from the rules set by Florida law. This means, the oaths can be used! However, the party failed on two accounts 1) they didn’t feel enough notice was given to the rule changes 2) they didn’t challenge it prior to the election. The 2nd reason was referred to as the “fatal” error.
What does this mean? Constitutionally, the RPOF can choose to “not associate” with all of you. According to this ruling this is its “constitutional right.” I thought y’all praise the constitution daily? Next time praise it a little more for giving the RPOF the right to “not associate” with RLC!!!!!!
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Ah, well, John, I meant new for the party. I know they’re just old techniques.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I thought this was interesting: >>>>>
In 1983, the Florida Attorney General issued an opinion which, although not binding on us, is persuasive. Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 83-74 (1983). The Florida Democratic Party asked the Attorney General whether it could “require an oath of party loyalty on the part of a candidate for party nomination for election to public office as a prerequisite to qualification by said candidate for such nomination and election?” Id. at 199. The proposed loyalty oath was similar to the Republican Party oath now before us.
The Attorney General’s answer was no: the party could not impose this additional requirement on qualifying for office. The Attorney General explained that section 99.021, Florida Statutes, sets forth the required oath. The Attorney General said:
The proposed loyalty oath said:
I, , having been duly sworn, say that I am a member of the Democratic Party; that I am a qualified elector of County, Florida; that during my term of office, I will not support the election of the opponent of any Democratic nominee nor will I oppose the election of any Democratic nominee; that I am qualified under the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida and the charter and Bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party to hold the office I am seeking, or to which I have been elected; that I have not violated any of the laws of the State of Florida relating to elections or the Charter and Bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party. (e.s.)
Section 99.021, F.S., does not provide for or authorize the proposed party loyalty oath which is described above. Our office . . . cannot legislate, and cannot by interpretation add something to s 99.021 which it does not contain. See, Platt v. Lanier, [127 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961).] While such a loyalty oath might well further the goals of party loyalty, it is up to the Legislature to add authorization for such an oath to the statute, and it is not within the power of our office to do so.
It is fundamental to our system of government that the right to be a candidate for public office is a valuable one and no one shall be denied the right unless the State Constitution or an applicable valid law expressly declares him to be ineligible. Treiman v. Malmquist, 342 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977); see also, Hurt v. Naples, 299 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1974) (holding that denial of candidacy should be based on an express legislative provision for ineligibility and further that ineligibility for office cannot be judicially prescribed by implication).
Id. at 201-02 (footnotes omitted; emphasis added). The Attorney General’s opinion is on point and entirely correct.
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Beth really needs the entire order and not cut and snip.
The order UPHELD the lower court injunction against the RPOF and the Miami-Dade REC.
It also held that the individuals running on the ballot in an election by the Supervisor of Elections ARE elected regardless of the party oath.
And yes, “political parties have a right ‘not to associate’ BUT they must give due process and advance notice.
The RPOF “Nazi” rule was never promulgated and never distributed.
This will overturn numerous PARTY PURGE activities and within the next week or so, Lew Oliver (who cheated to declare himself the winner by one vote after throwing out 17 anti-Oliver votes) will be thrown out of office.
A new day is dawning – kudos to those RLC members who are fighting this outreagous breach of the First Amendment!
The legal defense fund is at: https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=AxTheTaxLegal
Contribute today! Party Purge Money Bomb. Fight them in the streets; on the beaches and on the ground!
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Eric Says:
“Loyalty oaths of this sort are just new ways to hold back freedom of speech and keep people from speaking against a corrupt establishment.”
Actually they are OLD ways. The Nazi party used them back in the 30s.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Golly Gee willikers, this statement : “[p]olitical parties have a constitutional right ‘not to associate’ with those who do not share their platforms or rules . . . .” seems like it addresses most of our RPOF leadership, after all, The Republican party that I joined when I was 18 stood for small, constitutional government, low taxation, liberty, freedom, protection of our Bill of Rights, non interventionist foreign policy. That is what made me proud to be a Republican. “Most” of our current leaders in the Republican Party no longer hold these Republican values and would rather ensure that they have a nice cozy seat at the “Big Government” table! Their values now seem to represent those of a big government democrats. I say we make sure only true conservatives are elected, and only support those candidates who are willing to FIGHT big government corruption, not try to work within.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
So the original election is shown to be a sham, and Oliver should be forced to do another. Of course, he’ll avoid it, since by now he’ll have lost even more votes thanks to his actions.
“Loyalty oaths” of this sort are just new ways to hold back freedom of speech and keep people from speaking against a corrupt establishment.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Someone forgot to read this before posting it. It says the opposite.
“The majority opinion states that “[p]olitical parties have a constitutional right ‘not to associate’ with those who do not share their platforms or rules . . . .”