Nazis hired by CREEP to remove Wallace's AIP from ballot

[John Bevilaqua]

Maybe our resident CREEP expert could chime in on this one for us all?

The actual newspaper article can be found in the George Lincoln Rockwell posting.

Sorry about that.

Signed,

Froggy the Investigator

Edited November 2, 2007 by John Bevilaqua

[John Bevilaqua]

Any CREEPs out there who can give us some inside info

on this issue? Still waiting... still waiting... still waiting...

Hey, he said, I resemble that!

[Tim Gratz]

I am not exactly sure what the issue is.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about one candidate attempting to invalidate names on a petition of another candidate seeking ballot access. Names can be invalidated if they are duplicates, if the person signing is not a registered voter, etc., etc. Both parties do this. In fact, it helps to maintain the honesty of the process. There are policy reasons why a candidate must secure a certain number of signatures.

If "bad" signatures are found, that does not necessarily implicate the opppsing campaign in improper tactics. Honest mistakes can be made.

These ballot access fights are rather routine at various levels from a local election up. There was one in Key West two years ago that went to court.

John B., are you with me so far?

Nor, do I believe, is there anything wrong for a campaign to pay someone to research names on a nominating petition, assuming the expenditure is properly recorded.

So as I understand what happened here is that this fellow Robert Walterrs approached Lyn Nozfiger from the Nixon campaign and volunteered to perform such a project for $10,000 and he was given the money to do that.

So the problem arises when Walteres hires some Nazis to help work on the project for him.

A public relations nightmare for the Nixon campaign. Nothing in the article suggests Nofziger knew he intended to employ Nazis in this project. But clearly the man was not properly "vetted" or given sufficient controls. So while Nofziger clearly erred in giving Walterrs the $10,000, unless I am missing something I see nothing illegal or improper in and of itself.

The Nixon campaign commited many excessives and illegalities (as we all know). I do not think this was one of them, unless I missed something.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Bevilaqua]

Very lame response. And it took a long time to even come up with ANY response.

All the time you were logged into the system. Hmmmm.... very suspicious.

I am not exactly sure what the issue is.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about one candidate attempting to invalidate names on a petition of another candidate seeking ballot access. Names can be invalidated if they are duplicates, if the person signing is not a registered voter, etc., etc. Both parties do this. In fact, it helps to maintain the honesty of the process. There are policy reasons why a candidate must secure a certain number of signatures.

If "bad" signatures are found, that does not necessarily implicate the opppsing campaign in improper tactics. Honest mistakes can be made.

These ballot access fights are rather routine at various levels from a local election up. There was one in Key West two years ago that went to court.

John B., are you with me so far?

Nor, do I believe, is there anything wrong for a campaign to pay someone to research names on a nominating petition, assuming the expenditure is properly recorded.

So as I understand what happened here is that this fellow Robert Walterrs approached Lyn Nozfiger from the Nixon campaign and volunteered to perform such a project for $10,000 and he was given the money to do that.

So the problem arises when Walteres hires some Nazis to help work on the project for him.

A public relations nightmare for the Nixon campaign. Nothing in the article suggests Nofziger knew he intended to employ Nazis in this project. But clearly the man was not properly "vetted" or given sufficient controls. So while Nofziger clearly erred in giving Walterrs the $10,000, unless I am missing something I see nothing illegal or improper in and of itself.

The Nixon campaign commited many excessives and illegalities (as we all know). I do not think this was one of them, unless I missed something.

(1) Where does it say that anyone was just planning: "...to pay someone to research names"? Can not see that.

(2) Why is it that the person seen holding the checks was shot to death shortly after this controversy arose?

(3) Why did it take you so long to come up with this feeble response? I saw your login name poking around

the article twice without responding. Then I challenged you to chime in and it still took over 2.5 hours to reply?

That is NOT like you. Did you have to first consult with someone else regarding what to say and how?

Sounds very suspicious to me, it does.

Edited November 2, 2007 by John Bevilaqua

[John Bevilaqua]

Do you think anyone is going to fall for this lame response?

Doubt it.