I'm Mad About No Invitation to the Debate
October 10, 2006 California Broadcasters Association
915 "L" Street, Suite 1150
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Stan Statham,
I am considering suing you and your organization in a court of law. I believe you are guilty of felony acts by violating the laws of California. I wish to give you time to respond to my allegations and charges first.
I am preparing to sue all the parties of the California Broadcaster's Association debate. The CBA represents 962 radio and TV Stations. The radio and TV Stations conspired with Stan Statham, President and CEO of the CBA to sponsor the Schwarzenegger/Angelides debate on Oct 7th and deceived the viewers/voters into believing there were no other candidates. All of the parties involved in the debate have purposely damaged me and my party to get the voters to refrain from voting for me and the other American Independent Party candidates. This will be the only Governor's debate that will happen this campaign season with Arnold and Phil. So the damage is done and cannot be undone.
Here in California the Business and Professions Code states:
17000. This chapter may be cited as the Unfair Practices Act.
17001. The Legislature declares that the purpose of this chapter is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.
17002. This chapter shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.
It is my charge that the Unfair Practices Act can be applied to the parties of the California Broadcaster's Association debate which sponsored Saturday's debate at a PUBLIC COLLEGE thus all parties became liable to be held accountable to any of the other four candidates that were prevented from FAIR AND HONEST COMPETITON. I am prepared to take legal action against the California Broadcasters Association, the California State University at Sacramento, the various news media that covered the event and especially the Governor's office (Arnold Swarzenegger) and the State Controllers office (Phil Angelise), and the Secretary of State and the Fair Political Practices Office. The other three Governor Candidates may also join me in this suit.
The typical news story of ALL 962 news organization claimed only two candidates were on the ballot. This was fraud and deceit. They all knew they were spreading lies. See the California Chronicle:
In addition to the above, I charge the parties (to the unfair and deceitful debate) with violating the California Elections Code. See Sections 18520-18524:
18522. Neither a person nor a controlled committee shall directly or through any other person or controlled committee pay, lend, or contribute, or offer or promise to pay, lend, or contribute, any money or other valuable consideration to or for any voter or to or for any other person to:
(a) Induce any voter to:
(1) Refrain from voting at any election.
(2) Vote or refrain from voting at an election for any particular person or measure.
(3) Remain away from the polls at an election.
(b) Reward any voter for having:
(1) Refrained from voting.
(2) Voted for any particular person or measure.
(3) Refrained from voting for any particular person or measure.
(4) Remained away from the polls at an election.
Any person or candidate violating this section is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
The California Broadcasters Association (962 affiliated news organizations) paid to beam the debate to every home in California via satellite in an attempt to persuade voters that there were only two candidate qualified for the ballot (and not six) which made it a felony by causing the voters to refrain from voting for me.
The parties to the debate of the Broadcasters Association are also guilty of forming an unfair antitrust and using predatory pricing (they give the two main parties FREE ADVERTISING but shut out the minor parties and make 3rd parties pay dearly for an mention on the airwaves, or print.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust talks about predatory pricing (which was used during the debates):
"Predatory pricing is the practice of a firm selling a product at very low price with the intent of driving competitors out of the market, or create a barrier to entry into the market for potential new competitors. If the other firms cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business. The predatory pricer then has fewer competitors or even a monopoly, allowing it to raise prices above what the market would otherwise bear."
This sort of racketeering is mentioned at: http://www.ricoact.com/news/commentary.asp
Here it mentions that violations of Civil liabilities violations of the RICO ACT 1964 (c) are civil damages equal triple amount of damages. The salary of the Governor is $175,000. Four years salary is $700,000. Triple damages is $2,100,000.
The parties to the debates have damaged me by preventing me from possibly ever becoming governor.
First of all I am officially requesting a hearing from the Fair Political Practices Commission. I am asking for a response to all parties involved in the debate to address the question why they are have not committed a felony. Please explain why you feel you have not violated the laws and Acts as stated. Please state what remedy you offer to remedy the felonies I claim you have committed.
(s) Edward C. Noonan
State Party Chairman - American Independent Party
2006 Candidate/Governor - State of California