cfbamerica

Grievances filed with Office of Inspector General Florida Department of State by Dr Tolbert (CFA)

April 05, 2016

Florida Department of State
Ken Delzner
Secretary of State
R. A. Gary Building
500 S. Bronough Str
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

Office of Inspector General
Florida Department of State
R.A. Gray BLG Room114A
500 S. Bronough St
Tallahassee Fl. 32399

Office of Inspector General
Melinda M. Miguel
Room 1902
The Capital
Tallahassee Fl. 32399

Florida Election Commission
107 W. Gaines Str, Ste 224
Collins Blg
Tallahassee, Fl. 32399

Division of Elections
Room 316, R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0250

CFABA
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired MSGT/Pastor
Ref: case no.: FEC 14-484; Respondent: Charles Frederick Tolbert
P O Box 740025
Orange City Fl 32774
561-398-9025
cfabamerica@gmail.com

To whom it may concern:

Ref: #1. Complaint form…

I was informed that the greatest number of late filing by the treasurer’s was during the 2014 Florida governor’s race. The Division of Elections and Florida Election Commission has failed to respond to my request to provide the total number of violations from other candidates and allowing me to face my accuser.

Ref: #2. Probable cause…page 10

In addition FOX News had announced several weeks prior to the election that I had approximately 14% of the total votes in the State of Florida for the governor of the State Florida, and yet when I ask for a total count I was continually informed I received only 82 votes.

The host for the debate between Scott and Crist was aware of the fact that I had approximately 14% of the debate requirements of 8%. Florida Leadership changed the debate requirements to 15%. Florida Leadership, the host from Tallahassee, refused to give me an equal opportunity to debate with the Republican or the Democratic candidates.

The average turnout in the 50 states was approximately 36% and yet Florida had approximately 50% voter turnout. I do not believe it’s by coincidence that Florida had 14% more turnout than any of the other 49 states.

At the time of the election I had 500,000 followers on my website. I had met with over 1 million people, made numerous presentations and traveled to all 67 voting districts. In addition I had 100’s of signed petitions.

Even-though I was a write-in candidate and I did not take donations and I asked every voter to donate to their local charity I am still being held accountable. This is against Florida’s own statutes and laws where you cannot be fined or penalized except for 25% of the total expenditures or receipts.

And although I responded in a timely manner to all request upon receipt of letters from FEC they failed to communicate as a multi-million dollar funded organization against one individual who not only, as a pastor did not take donations, but also as an American citizen. The DOE and the FEC are unconstitutionally disregarding the common laws of Florida.

As a retired Master Sergeant, who served 22 years in the military, a doctor of education and a pastor, I have been told that I am a liar. Yet the only documents that they can provide are computer-generated. The voters are clearly aware of voters’ fraud and corruption in the Florida government.

Their corruption is far greater than what is understood by the average American citizen in the State of Florida. Yet the citizens of Florida fail to understand the corruption of the Division Of Election (DOE) and Florida Election Commission (FEC) and the governor of Florida.

Not only is the Florida Secretary of the State, the Attorney General and the Republican and Democratic party continuing to dis-honor the citizens of the State of Florida they refuse to allow the independent and No Party Affiliated, NPA voters equal rights. The United States Constitution clearly states the Citizens of the state of Florida rule over those in political offices.

The attachment outlines the manner of which the division of elections has manipulated the election process in order to preclude No Party Affiliated candidates from being elected.

Ref: #3. Page 9

The Florida Election Commission along with the Division of Election has violated title 18. The intent of these two divisions under the governor and executive branch is to close down the over 3 million voters that are No Party Affiliated.

In this grievance I request that the Inspector General, the Federal Division of Election, and the United States government, intervene and file charges through the Florida Senate for violation of the following US constitutional rights of an American citizen.

In the formal hearing I disputed all current findings by FEC and DOE and they have violated my constitutional rights under Statutes and other regulations (Section 106.07(7)). This hinders the voting rights of the American citizen, which is unconstitutional. The requirements for a candidate to report non-income, and non-acceptance of donations are a violation of my equal rights under amendment 14. (Ref: #4. Page 6)

Citizens For A Better America (CFABA)

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired MSGT/Pastor
Ref: case no.: FEC 14-484; Respondent: Charles Frederick Tolbert
P O Box 740025
Orange City Fl. 32774
561-398-9025
cfabamerica@gmail.com

Cc
Supreme Court of the United States Article III Section 2 (between a States, or a citizen thereof)
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

U.S. Congress
Washington, DC 20515

Morgan & Morgan
20 North Orange Avenue
Suite 1600
Orlando FL 32801
(407) 420-1414

Fox News
7 World Trade Ctr, \
New York, NY 10007

Federal Election Commission,
999 E Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington

Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida
32399-1925

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Sun Sentinel
500 E. Broward Blvd.,

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Phone: (954) 356-4000

The Tallahassee News, LLC
PO Box 3065
Tallahassee, FL 32315
mailto:editor@thetallahasseenews.com

Ref 4

ATTACHMENT ONE

A state, or other federal government Agency, can only pass laws and statutes or set guidelines. If a candidate’s intent is correctly outlined and Tallahassee receives documentations to the fact that the candidate did not receive donations the candidate has not violated any statues or constitutional requirement. Departments that were appointed by the governor cannot oversee, correct or take actions accordingly.

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In the Commonwealth of Nations, the word government is also used more narrowly to refer to the collective group of people that exercises executive authority in a state.[2][3][4] This usage is analogous to what is called an “administration” in American English. Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance.

AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442.

The States can only oversee time, places, and manner Article 1 section 4.

The DOE and the FEC are in violations of Amendment to the United States Constitution.

These are the constitutional violations committed by the Division of Elections and the Florida Election Commission against Charles Frederick Tolbert candidate running for office in Florida.

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case. “Pleading the Fifth” is a colloquial term for invoking the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate him or her, and generally without having to suffer a penalty for asserting the privilege. A defendant cannot be compelled to become a witness at his or her own trial. If, however, he or she should choose to testify, he or she is not entitled to the privilege, and inferences can be drawn from a refusal to answer a question during cross-examination. The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Federal grand juries can force people to take the witness stand, but defendants in those proceedings have Fifth Amendment privilege until they choose to answer any question. To claim the privilege for failure to answer when being interviewed by police, the interviewee must have explicitly invoked their constitutional right when declining to answer questions.

The Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause provides the right to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause(similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.
The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury’s findings of fact.

An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of the Seventh Amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792.

The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment’s provision for jury trials in civil cases has never been incorporated (i.e., applied to the states) almost every state voluntarily complies with this requirement. The prohibition of overturning a jury’s findings of fact applies to federal cases, state cases involving federal law, and to review of state cases by federal courts.[1] United States v. Wonson (1812) established the “historical test”, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of the parties.

The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment’s twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing; that threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century.

The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791[1]) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming

Ref 3

the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore(2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage.

The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

The amendment’s first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education(1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section’s reference to “rebellion and other crime” has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment’s provisions by “appropriate legislation”. However, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the amendment:

In addition:
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 – CIVIL RIGHTS

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

Ref #2
ATTACHMENT TWO

Dear Mr. Tolbert,

The hearing before the Commission on February 18, 2016 was a probable cause determination hearing. The Commission found probable cause thus an Order of Probable Cause was issued and mailed to you on March 3, 2016. Your email comments will be included in the case materials provided to the Commission when hearing your case. Again, a notice of hearing will be mailed to you approximately 14 days prior to the hearing date.

Sincerely,

Donna Ann Malphurs
Agency Clerk

Ms. Malphurs

Please confirm whether the informal hearing with FEC on February 18, 2016, which Mr. Williams was present, was not in fact my informal hearing.

And why is the FEC continually pursuing action when no donations where taken according to:

Section 106.07 (809b) fines cannot exceed 25% of total receipts or expenditures, which ever are greater.

Since the DOE reports show I did not receive any donation there can be no fines.

In addition I provided extenuating circumstances to the FEC.

Furthermore why has
Option one-Consent order not been presented which the FEC should waiver all fines which is available should I agree.

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
March 11, 2016

Mr. Tolbert,

We are in receipt of your email requesting to be heard. You will be afforded an opportunity to speak at the informal hearing. I anticipate your case will be presented to the Commission at its May 18-19, 2016 meeting. A notice of hearing stating the date, time, and location of the meeting will be mailed approximately 14 days prior to the hearing date.

Sincerely,

Donna Ann Malphurs
Agency Clerk

fec@myfloridalegal.com

Florida Election Commission (FEC)
107 W. Gaines Str, Ste 224
Collins Blg
Tallahassee, Fl. 32399

Citizens For A Better America INC. Party of Florida

Address change
From
Cfaba Inc
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
PO Box 23935
Ft Lauderdale Fl 33307

To
Cfaba Inc
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
PO box 740025
Orange City Florida 32774

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD NPA
March 08, 2016
561-398-9025
Cfabamerica@gmail.com

I received a notice of “Probable Cause” on March 05, 2016, and I request I be allowed to present my side.

CFABA
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired MSGT/Pastor
Ref: case no.: FEC 14-494; Respondent: Charles Frederick Tolbert
P O Box 740025
Orange City Fl. 32774
561-398-9025
cfabamerica@gmail.com

Florida Election Commission (FEC)
107 W. Gaines Str, Ste 224
Collins Blg
Tallahassee, Fl. 32399

CFABA
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired MSGT/Pastor
Ref: case no.: FEC 14-484; Respondent: Charles Frederick Tolbert
P O Box 740025
Orange City Fl. 32774
561-398-9025
cfabamerica@gmail.com

To whom it may concern:

In reference to letters dated March 03, 2016 from FEC.

On March 8, 2016 I Charles Frederick Tolbert spoke with Jaakan A. Williams concerning reference letter and asked if there were other options as presented in cover letter dated March 8, 2016 paragraph two.

I was informed that I was required to fill out Affidavit of financial support (see attachment 1).

I also informed him that I had sent both by email and priority mail of extenuating circumstances and that in addition my mother was ill in 2014 and passed October 14, 2015. (Attachment 2)

Furthermore I mention that DOE has failed to respond to why in 2014 there was an increase of late filings.

In the notice of rights there are three options:

Option one-Consent order which the DEC should waiver all fines which is available should I agree.

I again presented
Section 106.07 (809b) fines cannot exceed 25% of total receipts or expenditures, which ever are greater.

Since the DOE reports show I did not receive any donation there can be no fines.

Option two-Whereas I agree that an informal hearing which was done on February 18, 2016

Option three-Formal hearing whereas I dispute all current findings by FEC. DOE has violated my constitutional rights under Statutes and other regulations (Section 106.07(7)) which hinder the voting rights of the American people are unconstitutional and the requirements for a candidate to report non income, non-acceptance of donations are a violation of my equal rights under amendment 14.

A state, or other federal government Agency, can only pass laws and statutes or set guidelines. If a candidate’s intent is correctly outlined and Tallahassee receives documentations to the fact that the candidate did not receive donations that said candidate has not violated any statues or constitutional requirement departments that were appointed by the governor cannot oversee, correct or take actions accordingly.

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In the Commonwealth of Nations, the word government is also used more narrowly to refer to the collective group of people that exercises executive authority in a state.[2][3][4] This usage is analogous to what is called an “administration” in American English. Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance.

AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall

not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442.

The States can only oversee time, places, and manner Article 1 section 4.

The DOE and the FEC are in violations of Amendment to the United States Constitution.

These are the constitutional violations committed by the division of elections and the Florida Election Commission against Charles Frederick Tolbert candidate running for office in Florida.

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case. “Pleading the Fifth” is a colloquial term for invoking the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate him or her, and generally without having to suffer a penalty for asserting the privilege. A defendant cannot be compelled to become a witness at his or her own trial. If, however, he or she should choose to testify, he or she is not entitled to the privilege, and inferences can be drawn from a refusal to answer a question during cross-examination. The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Federal grand juries can force people to take the witness stand, but defendants in those proceedings have Fifth Amendment privilege until they choose to answer any question. To claim the privilege for failure to answer when being interviewed by police, the interviewee must have explicitly invoked their constitutional right when declining to answer questions.

The Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause provides the right to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause(similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the

Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.
The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury’s findings of fact.

An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of the Seventh Amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792.

The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment’s provision for jury trials in civil cases has never been incorporated (i.e., applied to the states) almost every state voluntarily complies with this requirement. The prohibition of overturning a jury’s findings of fact applies to federal cases, state cases involving federal law, and to review of state cases by federal courts.[1] United States v. Wonson (1812) established the “historical test”, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of the parties.

The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment’s twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing; that threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century.

The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791[1]) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that

this amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause also applies to the states. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore(2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

The amendment’s first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section’s reference to “rebellion and other crime” has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment’s provisions by “appropriate legislation”. However, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the amendment:

In addition:
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 – CIVIL RIGHTS

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –

They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Summary:

I have requested the total number of individuals from all political parties and non-party affiliation that missed filing deadline this information was not provided to me it is my contention that the computers failed to register the proper data.

I have requested a recount of the election votes for 2014 governor raced based on FOX News had me at 14% that we received 82 votes. In addition I was not allowed to debate Scott or Chris because I was a NPA per Leadership Florida.

I request that I confront my accuser as per the US Constitution, as such the computer is not able to present itself to the court that all information received there-of is invalid as is, and has been documented by the red light camera system.

If the state presents their information through a lawyer I request that the state also provides a lawyer on my behalf and should there be any penalties or fines that this Be tried in a court of my peers as per the United States Constitution.

In addition the division of elections and the Florida election commission falls under the executive branch therefore they have no authority to create laws or establish fines.

I request a complete review of the candidate handbook and that the Florida State Congress gets involved and assigns a court to oversee the election procedures in the state of Florida as per the Florida Constitution and its requirements to follow the U.S. Constitution.

In closing, and in addition, I have provided documents and an affidavit from the treasure Ms. Hagandorf who states she did file all reports in a timely manner. DOE found an error on one filing report for myself and I know that I absolutely did file the report on time.

Cfaba Inc

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
PO box 740025
Orange City Florida 32774

Www.cfabamerica.com

Please respond within 14 days of receipt of this message.

Citizens for a better America

Article Two of the United States Constitutionestablishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. It includes the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees.

The constitution establishes the powers and duties of The Florida Senate. The Legislative Branch, as defined in the Constitution, has exclusive lawmaking power. In a simplified version, legislators propose bills which, if passed favorably by both houses and approved by the Governor, become law. Learn more about how an idea becomes a law.

Title IX

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2015/Chapter106

http://m.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2015/106.25

2015 Florida Statutes
< Back to Statute Search Title IX ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS Chapter 106 CAMPAIGN FINANCING SECTION 25 Reports of alleged violations to Florida Elections Commission; disposition of findings. 106.25 Reports of alleged violations to Florida Elections Commission; disposition of findings.— (1) Jurisdiction to investigate and determine violations of this chapter and chapter 104 is vested in the Florida Elections Commission; however, nothing in this section limits the jurisdiction of any other officers or agencies of government empowered by law to investigate, act upon, or dispose of alleged violations of this code. (2) The commission shall investigate all violations of this chapter and chapter 104, but only after having received either a sworn complaint or information reported to it under this subsection by the Division of Elections. Such sworn complaint must be based upon personal information or information other than hearsay. Any person, other than the division, having information of any violation of this chapter or chapter 104 shall file a sworn complaint with the commission. The commission shall investigate only those alleged violations specifically contained within the sworn complaint. If any complainant fails to allege all violations that arise from the facts or allegations alleged in a complaint, the commission shall be barred from investigating a subsequent complaint from such complainant that is based upon such facts or allegations that were raised or could have been raised in the first complaint. If the complaint includes allegations of violations relating to expense items reimbursed by a candidate, committee, or organization to the campaign account before a sworn complaint is filed, the commission shall be barred from investigating such allegations. Such sworn complaint shall state whether a complaint of the same violation has been made to any state attorney. Within 5 days after receipt of a sworn complaint, the commission shall transmit a copy of the complaint to the alleged violator. The respondent shall have 14 days after receipt of the complaint to file an initial response, and the executive director may not determine the legal sufficiency of the complaint during that time period. If the executive director finds that the complaint is legally sufficient, the respondent shall be notified of such finding by letter, which sets forth the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated and the alleged factual basis that supports the finding. All sworn complaints alleging violations of the Florida Election Code over which the commission has jurisdiction shall be filed with the commission within 2 years after the alleged violations. The period of limitations is tolled on the day a sworn complaint is filed with the commission. The complainant may withdraw the sworn complaint at any time prior to a probable cause hearing if good cause is shown. Withdrawal shall be requested in writing, signed by the complainant, and witnessed by a notary public, stating the facts and circumstances constituting good cause. The executive director shall prepare a written recommendation regarding disposition of the request which shall be given to the commission together with the request. “Good cause” shall be determined based upon the legal sufficiency or insufficiency of the complaint to allege a violation and the reasons given by the complainant for wishing to withdraw the complaint. If withdrawal is permitted, the commission must close the investigation and the case. No further action may be taken. The complaint will become a public record at the time of withdrawal. (3) For the purposes of commission jurisdiction, a violation shall mean the willful performance of an act prohibited by this chapter or chapter 104 or the willful failure to perform an act required by this chapter or chapter 104. The commission may not by rule determine what constitutes willfulness or further define the term “willful” for purposes of this chapter or chapter 104. Willfulness is a determination of fact; however, at the request of the respondent at any time after probable cause is found, willfulness may be considered and determined in an informal hearing before the commission. (4) The commission shall undertake a preliminary investigation to determine if the facts alleged in a sworn complaint or a matter initiated by the division constitute probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. (a) When the investigator’s report is completed, the executive director shall notify the respondent that the report is completed and shall send to the respondent a copy of the investigator’s report. The investigatory file and main complaint file shall be open for inspection by the respondent and the respondent’s counsel at that time, and copies may be obtained at no more than cost. (b) The respondent shall be given not less than 14 days from the date of mailing of the investigator’s report to file with the commission a written response to the investigator’s report. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the commission so long as reasonable notice under the circumstances is given. (c) Counsel for the commission shall review the investigator’s report and shall make a written recommendation to the commission for the disposition of the complaint. If the counsel for the commission recommends that the commission find probable cause, the recommendation shall include a statement of what charges shall be at issue. A copy of the recommendation shall be furnished to the respondent. The respondent shall be given not less than 14 days from the date of mailing of the recommendation of counsel for the commission to file with the commission a written response to the recommendation. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the commission, so long as the recommendation is furnished to the respondent within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances. (d) The respondent and each complainant, their counsel, and the counsel for the commission shall be permitted to attend the hearing at which the probable cause determination is made. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to the respondent, each complainant, and counsel for the commission at least 14 days before the hearing. This time period may be shortened with the consent of the respondent, or without the consent of the respondent when the passage of time could reasonably be expected to render moot the ultimate disposition of the matter by the commission, so long as the notice is furnished within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances. (e) The probable cause determination is the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. The respondent and the counsel for the commission shall be permitted to make brief oral statements in the nature of oral argument to the commission, based on the investigator’s report, before the probable cause determination. The commission’s determination shall be based upon the investigator’s report, the recommendation of counsel for the commission, the complaint, and staff recommendations, as well as any written statements submitted by the respondent and any oral statements made at the hearing. No testimony or other evidence will be accepted at the hearing. (f) At its meeting to determine probable cause, the commission may continue its determination to allow further investigation; may order the issuance of a public report of its investigation if it finds no probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of this chapter or chapter 104, concluding the matter before it; may order a final, public hearing of the complaint if it finds probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of this chapter or chapter 104; or may take such other action as it deems necessary to resolve the complaint, consistent with due process of law. In making its determination, the commission may consider: 1. The sufficiency of the evidence against the respondent, as contained in the investigator’s report; 2. The admissions and other stipulations of the respondent, if any; 3. The nature and circumstances of the respondent’s actions; 4. The expense of further proceedings; and 5. Such other factors as it deems material to its decision. If the commission finds probable cause, the commission shall determine what charges shall be at issue. (g) If no probable cause is found, the commission shall dismiss the case and the case shall become a matter of public record, except as otherwise provided in this section, together with a written statement of the findings of the preliminary investigation and a summary of the facts which the commission shall send to the complainant and the alleged violator. A finding of no probable cause by the commission is a full adjudication of all such matters. The commission may not charge a respondent in a subsequent complaint alleging violations based upon the same actions, nonactions, or circumstances wherein the commission found no probable cause. (h) If probable cause is found, the commission shall so notify the complainant and the alleged violator in writing. All documents made or received in the disposition of the complaint shall become public records upon a finding by the commission. (i)1. Upon a commission finding of probable cause, the counsel for the commission shall attempt to reach a consent agreement with the respondent. At any time, the commission may enter into a consent order with a respondent without requiring the respondent to admit to a violation of law within the jurisdiction of the commission. 2. A consent agreement is not binding upon either party unless and until it is signed by the respondent and by counsel for the commission upon approval by the commission. 3. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the commission from entering into a consent agreement with a respondent prior to a commission finding of probable cause if a respondent indicates in writing a desire to enter into negotiations directed towards reaching such a consent agreement. Any consent agreement reached under this subparagraph is subject to the provisions of subparagraph 2. and shall have the same force and effect as a consent agreement reached after the commission finding of probable cause. (j) If a consent agreement is reached between the commission and the respondent, counsel for the commission shall send a copy of the signed agreement to both complainant and respondent. In a case where probable cause is found, the commission shall make a preliminary determination to consider the matter or to refer the matter to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the commission may, at its discretion, dismiss any complaint at any stage of disposition if it determines that the public interest would not be served by proceeding further, in which case the commission shall issue a public report stating with particularity its reasons for the dismissal. (5) A person alleged by the Elections Commission to have committed a violation of this chapter or chapter 104 may elect, as a matter of right, within 30 days after the date of the filing of the commission’s allegations, to have a formal administrative hearing conducted by an administrative law judge in the Division of Administrative Hearings. The administrative law judge in such proceedings shall enter a final order, which may include the imposition of civil penalties, subject to appeal as provided in s. 120.68. If the person does not elect to have a hearing by an administrative law judge and does not elect to resolve the complaint by a consent order, the person is entitled to a formal or informal hearing conducted before the commission. (6) It is the duty of a state attorney receiving a complaint referred by the commission to investigate the complaint promptly and thoroughly; to undertake such criminal or civil actions as are justified by law; and to report to the commission the results of such investigation, the action taken, and the disposition thereof. The failure or refusal of a state attorney to prosecute or to initiate action upon a complaint or a referral by the commission shall not bar further action by the commission under this chapter. (7) Every sworn complaint filed pursuant to this chapter with the commission, every investigation and investigative report or other paper of the commission with respect to a violation of this chapter or chapter 104, and every proceeding of the commission with respect to a violation of this chapter or chapter 104 is confidential, is exempt from the provisions of ss. 119.07(1) and 286.011, and is exempt from publication in the Florida Administrative Register of any notice or agenda with respect to any proceeding relating to such violation, except under the following circumstances: (a) As provided in subsection (6); (b) Upon a determination of probable cause or no probable cause by the commission; or (c) For proceedings conducted with respect to appeals of fines levied by filing officers for the late filing of reports required by this chapter. However, a complainant is not bound by the confidentiality provisions of this section. In addition, confidentiality may be waived in writing by the person against whom the complaint has been filed or the investigation has been initiated. If a finding of probable cause in a case is entered within 30 days prior to the date of the election with respect to which the alleged violation occurred, such finding and the proceedings and records relating to such case shall not become public until noon of the day following such election. When two or more persons are being investigated by the commission with respect to an alleged violation of this chapter or chapter 104, the commission may not publicly enter a finding of probable cause or no probable cause in the case until a finding of probable cause or no probable cause for the entire case has been determined. However, once the confidentiality of any case has been breached, the person or persons under investigation have the right to waive the confidentiality of the case, thereby opening up the proceedings and records to the public. Any person who discloses any information or matter made confidential by the provisions of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (8) Any person who files a complaint pursuant to this section while knowing that the allegations contained in such complaint are false or without merit commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (9) The commission shall maintain a database of all final orders and agency actions. Such database shall be available to the public and shall be maintained in such a manner as to be searchable, at a minimum, by issue, statutes, individuals, or entities referenced. History.—s. 25, ch. 73-128; s. 11, ch. 74-200; s. 60, ch. 77-175; s. 3, ch. 78-403; s. 1, ch. 82-46; s. 2, ch. 83-265; s. 39, ch. 84-302; s. 20, ch. 89-256; ss. 5, 14, 15, ch. 90-338; s. 21, ch. 90-360; s. 18, ch. 91-107; s. 5, ch. 91-429; s. 26, ch. 96-406; s. 49, ch. 97-13; s. 34, ch. 98-129; s. 21, ch. 2004-252; s. 48, ch. 2007-30; s. 16, ch. 2010-167; s. 70, ch. 2011-40; s. 1, ch. 2013-14.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.