Kelly v. Harris (2003).
Throughout their written responses and motions including their
motion for $9000 in attorney's
fees, the attorneys for all five Chairmen of the
Florida Democratic Party insisted in
Kelly v. Harris that political parties have a First
Amendment right to select their nominee in any manner that they may choose.
This legal reasoning directly contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in
Smith v. Allwright a case which Thurgood Marshall won in 1944 and in
retirement called his greatest civil rights case.
When I appealed Kelly v. Harris, I was fortunate to
have the federal appellate court in Atlanta agree to hear oral argument.
Despite the trial court's finding that the Democrat's party
loyalty oath constituted state action, the Democrat's attorney restated
before the three appellate justices their First Amendment argument that
political parties through their state executive committees
have a First Amendment freedom of association right
to select their party nominee in any manner they may choose. Then
Justice Roney asked if this First Amendment freedom of
association right which they were claiming
would allow them to prevent
Black Democrats from voting in their primary or allow them to prevent
Black Democrats from running for party nominee in their primary to which
the Democratic Party Chairmen's attorney answered by
repeating his position, that the
First Amendment allows political parties through their state executive
committee to govern their primary in any manner they choose, free from
governmental or judicial intervention.
In all four of the Texas White Primary cases this First Amendment view
by the Florida Democratic Party was precisely the same as
the Texas Democratic Party was claiming in the 20's, 30's and 40's
to deny Black Democrats the right to vote in their primary.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Allwright,
the last Texas White Primary case, ruled in the
Black Democrats favor, as they had in the first two cases,
stating that political parties are not
private, volumtary associations but rather are extensions of the state.
I hired a private investigator up in Tallahassee to verify
that this Democratic party loyalty oath is still in effect and on file
with the Secretary or State which she confirmed.
Civil rights are not something that we won once and for
all in the 1960's, but rather with more rights comes a
necessity to persistently defend those rights.
Here is the list of the Defendants in Kelly v. Harris:
Katherine Harris - Florida Secretary of State (1999-2002), currently
U.S. Congresswoman from Florida, a Republican.
Sandra Mortham - Florida Secretary of State (1995-1999), a Republican.
Jim Smith - Florida Attorney General (1979-1987), Florida Secretary of
State (1987-1995), a Democrat while Attorney General, a Republican while
Secretary of State. Smith actually was Secretary of State once again from
the summer of 2002 until Harris's term expired in January 2003 which
prompted me to believe that he might step in and challenge the Democrat's
party loyalty oath since this case Kelly v. Harris
was still active at
that time. Once again, he did nothing. Remember Smith was the Attorney
General who in 1983 issued AGO 83-74 which concluded that the Democrats
lacked the statutory power to enforce their party loyalty oath, but were
allowed to anyway.
George Firestone - Florida Secretary of State (1979-1987), Florida's
last Democratic Secretary of State.
Bob Graham - Florida Governor (1979-1987), U.S. Senator (1987-2005), a
Democrat. Bob Graham was the only defendant who avoided being served. See
footnote 2 from the case Kelly v. Harris which was reported at
331 F.3d 817. I first tried a waiver of service then tried to serve him at
his office in Tallahassee, then his
homesteaded condominium in Miami Lakes then finally his Senate office in
Washington D.C. but all to no avail. I first sent a copy of the lawsuit and
a waiver of service to all nine Defendants which only the Secretaries of
State accepted. Thus all the other Defendants, the Chairmen of the
Democratic Party and U.S. Senator Bob Graham,
were able to read through my lawsuit outside of the jurisdiction of the
court. After service was attempted several times at his Tallahassee office,
I next tried his homesteaded property which by law you may effect service at
if anyone 18 years or older answers the door for the process server. The
process server spoke to Bob Graham's daughter who answered the door and
is a middle-aged adult
but somehow or other the process server walked away and did not serve
Graham's daughter with the lawsuit. When notified of this I insisted
that the process server go back which he did but no one ever answered the
door again for him. It is safe to say that after mailing Mr. Graham the
complaint with a waiver of service, then trying to serve him at his
Tallahassee office, then trying to serve his daughter at his homesteaded
condominium, that Mr. Graham was avoiding me. I used the same process
serving company each time and they assured me that they could serve Mr.
Graham at his office in Washington D.C, since their affiliate up there
served Congressmen and Senators on a regular basis.
Well guess what helped Mr. Graham get out of this one. The
heightened Anthrax security around the Senate buildings meant restricted
access for process servers and
I was told that the farthest
the process server in Washington D.C. got was to
meet with one of Graham's staff at a perimeter location who
then told the process server
that he was not going to help him serve his boss
with a lawsuit and
the only advice Graham's staff member would give the process server was to
serve Graham through some Senate committee.
This is the same Bob Graham who blames
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for twisting the Patriot Act and the
war on terror to
destroy our civil liberties under the premise of personal security
and safety.
and Graham also criticized Ashcroft for staying in his
cozy confines in Washington [D.C.]
Yet Mr. Graham doesn't mind having this heightened security to insulate
himself in his cozy Senate office confines and avoid having to appear
in civil court to answer my complaint.
The other Defendants were Bob Poe, Charles Whitehead, Mitch Ceasar,
Terry Brady and Simon Ferro all former Chairmen of the Florida Democratic
Party, (1985-2002).
One final political personality involved in this case was attorney Karen
Gievers who represented the Chairmen of the Florida Democratic Party.
Karen Gievers, a Democrat, ran against Katherine Harris for
Secretary of State back in 1998 and was probably boiling when she saw how
Katherine Harris was handling the 2000 presidential recount in Florida. If
Gievers had won that election (Harris 54%, Gievers 46%), Al Gore may very
well have been the president,
yet as circumstances would have it, it was Gievers' legal defense in
Kelly v. Harris, not the
defense from Harris' attorney that the
federal court latched onto and thus allowed her formal rival Katherine Harris
to prevail. Gievers was also one of the many attorneys representing
Al Gore during the 2000 Florida presidential recount.
Paid Political Advertisement
Paid For And Approved By British Reformed Sectarian Party.
3108 Moss Drive, Cocoa, FL 32922
(321) 638-8960