|
For a more detailed explanation, though not followed by the en banc court but still maintained by me, here is the information I submitted in my petition for rehearing en banc to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [CAFC] about the Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB} and the Office of Special Counsel [OSC].
On page 7 of its opinion the CAFC panel states:
“We agree. The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. The record establishes that the 2014 and
2016 Washington state primary elections do not meet the
requirements for a nonpartisan election, i.e., that “none of
the candidates is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party any of whose candidates for Presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at
which Presidential electors were selected.” See 5 C.F.R.
§ 734.101.”
This statement is false because the 2014 and 2016 Washington state primary elections do meet the requirements for a nonpartisan election, i.e., that “none of the candidates is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party”.
My filings make it clear that the 2014 and 2016 Washington state elections were nonpartisan. This point was especially and simply clarified by my informal reply brief question 3 response which states:
By Rule of Law the only question here is were the elections nonpartisan. Per §
734.101, “Nonpartisan election means—(1) An election in which none of the
candidates is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party”. Also, §
734.101 defines an election as “Election includes a primary, special, runoff, or general
election.” [Doc 11, p 83]. Political party activities do not meet this definition of
elections; therefore, their activities can not be an election; therefore, their activities
can not nominate or elect a candidate; therefore, their activities can not nominate or
elect a candidate as representing a political party; therefore, their activities can not
prevent an election from being nonpartisan. Even though the elections allowed
candidates to state a party preference for information only, none of the elections
nominated or elected any candidate as representing a political party. Therefore,
running in these elections was allowed per Ҥ 734.207 An employee may: (b) Run as a
candidate in a non-partisan election”.
Also, the CAFC panel states on page 7:
“Therefore, despite the
electoral scheme that exists in Washington state, the
Board correctly concluded that Mr. Reichert was a candidate that when in office represented “a political party
whose candidates for Presidential elector received votes in
the last preceding election at which Presidential electors
were selected” in the 2014 and 2016 primary and general
elections. S.A. 37 & n.11. Therefore, the 2014 and 2016 primary elections were not nonpartisan.”
Here the CAFC panel admits that the only way to claim the elections were not nonpartisan is “despite the electoral scheme that exists in Washington state”, so the CAFC panel has to ignore the statutory law to reach the conclusion it wants.
The U.S. Constitution makes Congress the lawmakers, not CAFC.
Therefore, the only lawful way to interpret elections in Washington State is by following statute. By statute it is clear By Rule of Law the only question here is were the elections nonpartisan. Per §734.101, “Nonpartisan election means—(1) An election in which none of the candidates is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party”. Also, §734.101 defines an election as “Election includes a primary, special, runoff, or general election.” [Doc 11, p 83].
Political party activities and candidate activities (anytime before or after they win or lose or even take office) are not elections because they are not “a primary, special, runoff, or general election”; therefore their activities never meet the statutory definition of an election; therefore, their activities can not be an election; therefore, their activities can not nominate or elect a candidate; therefore, their activities can not nominate or elect a candidate as representing a political party; therefore, their activities can not
prevent an election from being nonpartisan.
Political party activities and candidate activities (anytime before or after they win or lose or even take office) can not prevent an election from being nonpartisan. Even though the elections allowed candidates to state a party preference for information only, none of the elections nominated or elected any candidate as representing a political party.
Therefore, running in these elections was allowed per “§ 734.207 An employee may: (b) Run as a candidate in a non-partisan election”.
Therefore, the CAFC panel opinion, like the MSPB, OSC, and their attorneys filings before them are against the law because they do not agree with nor follow the statutory law.
|
