APS Co. International Bureau   |    Facebook Page   |   International Marketplace    |   Investor Relations

Los Angeles County Mini-state (ss11-9)
"Building united inter-party coalitions to get things done collaboratively, not unilaterally."

Federal Elections Commission Complaint Ogle vs Brin (11/5/2020)
http://www.allpartysystem.com/Appeal-to-FEC.php
http://www.allpartysystem.com/Appeal-response-to-FEC.php (11/9/2020)
http://www.allpartysystem.com/Appeal1-response-to-FEC.php (11/11/2020)
http://www.allpartysystem.com/Appeal1a-response-to-FEC.php (11/21/2020)
http://www.allpartysystem.com/Appeal2-response-to-FEC.php US Government Laws

To: Federal Elections Commission (FEC) (EnfComplaint@fec.gov)
Office of General Counsel, Attn. Jeff S. Jordan,Assistant General Counsel
Office of General Counsel/Complaints Examination and Legal Administration
1050 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20463

To: James O. Ogle [One] for President 2020 ID# C00708008
1213 C Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 236-3825
jamesoogle@gmail.com
Subject: Ogle vs Brin and Google Company PAC

Click here to see FEC Form 2 1996, FEC-2-7-1996-(4).pdf
Click here to see Attached FEC-2-7-1996-(4).pdf from 1993 to 1996 filings.
11/12/2020



Dear Sirs,

The Commission (FEC) is being asked to help enforce the following Code Violations:

1) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act"), and Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26, United States Code.
2) The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356)
3) The Sherman Antitrust Act, (Sherman Act, July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. 1–7)
* * *



1) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act"), and Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26, United States Code.

The allegations of violations include violations of these codes Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26 by Sergey Brin and Google Company PAC, the violations were placed against the new party, and the new party is the pure proportional representation (PPR) Electoral College founded as "US Parliament PAC" FEC ID C00304766 founded in 1995.

The "new party" gives liberty to all US voters to register to vote in their own state while being categorized by their state with any party/category they wish, and the party/category as proclaimed within the new party may be any name/word(s) they wish, with 538 potential variations under the Electoral College.

The Commission has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for federal office -- specifically the office of US President, of which James Ogle had filed Form 2 in his campaigns of 1996, 2012, 2016 and 2020.

The complaint is by the "United Coalition USA" which is the PPR Electoral College of the James Ogle for President and/or Vice President campaign, represented by paper ballots cast and kept as proof.
* * *



2) The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356)

The allegations of violations of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the complaint maintains that the unprecedented amounts of soft money through Google news and Google search, stories and ads on Google.com domain.

The soft money helped pour hard money into party accounts of major parties because free speech had been blocked to independents, minor and new parties, specifically the James Ogle for US President campaigns since 1997.

The new PPR Electoral College is the new party which is bringing an entirely new team psychology into politics, and the new party has been severely affected by the Brin and Google Company PAC's political activities and services.
* * *



3) The Sherman Antitrust Act, (Sherman Act, July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. 1–7)

The allegations of violations maintain that the business and of capital of Google Inc., was organized and directed to control of the market by suppression of competition in the marketing of goods and services, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

It is the USA Justice Department where violations of the The Sherman Antitrust Act which was enacted in 1890 to curtail combinations of power that interfere with trade and which reduce economic competition.
* * *



Respondents of complaint are 1) Sergey Brin, the original registrant of the domain name google.com, and founding incorporator of Google Inc.

Sources of information upon which the complaint is based are as follows:
1) James Ogle
2) FEC for information regarding the "USA Parliament PAC" FEC ID C00304766 founded in 1995 and the James O. Ogle [One] for President 2020 ID# C00708008

Web Page Resources:

James O. Ogle [One] for President 2020 ID# C00708008:
https://www.pprelectoralcollege.com

USA Parliament PAC FEC ID C00304766 founded in 1995:
https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00304766/?cycle=1996
* * *



Additional Commentary on the Violations
By James Ogle
11/11/2020

1) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
2) The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
3) The Sherman Antitrust Act
* * *

1) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
As amended (the "Act"), and Chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26, United States Code.

In violations in this case "Ogle vs Brin", violations began in 1997 with the founding of the company Google Inc.

New Definition "Three-party System" = an election of two seats under limited voting, fewer votes cast by each voter, than there are open seats.

One-party system = Many clicks on names/ads in single-winner election districts or many clicks by one person on search for names/ads.
Two-party system = One click for President and one for Vice President, but no more than one click per open seat, must be American-style plurality voting.
Three-party system = Limited voting.

Proof will be provided here that the violations are linked to that date of the registration of the domain name www.google.com by Sergey Brin around October of 1997 and continued through the election cycle of 2020, specifically the end of Ogle's 2020 Presidential campaign for President 2020 (FEC ID# C00708008).

Once the company Google Inc. was founded around October 1997, the search engine and political advertizer founder began to set up an illegal monopoly built around censorship of the USA Parliament PAC and James Ogle's campaigns, political free speech and election participation for US President.

The Ogle campaign consists of the 2020 Presidential campaign (FEC ID# C00708008) and the 538 Electors being signed up by James Ogle in all the years of his campaigns of 1996 (started in 1995 with mergers of the USA Green Party PAC and the USA Environmentalist Party PAC which merged into the USA Parliament PAC and all three PACs founded by James Ogle as the legal treasurer and reporting secretary), 2012, 2016 and 2020.

Normally the statute of limitations apply but there are exceptions in cases of fraud against the US Government. The violations in 2016 and 2020 are the ones not affected here by the statute of limitations.

Both the business and the political sectors of James Ogle have been affected for the past 23 years, and those years are being scrutinized by the USA Justice Department where violations of the The Sherman Antitrust Act which was enacted in 1890 to curtail combinations of power that interfere with trade and which reduce economic competition.

The IRS categorizes business and political sectors separately and so this complaint is addressing the political entity of James Ogle's US Presidential campaign and the 538-member Electoral College.

Should the Commission find violations in the political sector, then James Ogle's US Presidential campaign will then take the issues to the US Justice Department, with regard to the US C Corp "All Party System Co." which is managed by the company's secretary James Ogle.

The actions and violations by Sergey Brin, which are a prerequisite to Commission action, are detailed below.

The actions by Sergey Brin and Google, Inc. have affected the first political and business who had direct experience with them in 1997.

James Ogle for US President 2020 and the All Party System Co. are seeking punitive damages and corrections for both political and business repercussions caused by Google Company and this is a crisis situation in all elections that use one-party and two-party voting systems.

Our intent is to help improve all elections with a real democratically legit voting system but unfortunately Sergie Brin brought one-party system of "click the go", and small political parties and businesses cannot get started when the search is geared to insiders, and new ideas and new people cannot get started in the "winner-takes-all" environment created around our team by Google search.

Search engine was designed to eliminate any and all political and business competition in 1997 during the ten-year US Government's privatization of Usenet between 1995 and 2005, after which the process was completed and the internet was privatized.

Our team started with the Environmentalist Party which began around 1983 in Carmel California where we were running candidates for local offices and the free speech posts by James Ogle's campaign began on June 11th 1994 as shown by the non-deleted post in Usenet and now accessible through Google Groups:

June 11th 1994

The conversation was still going on with the following essay post:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.reform/c/P1LliQ2oeTA/m/_PLiYuOq3DcJ

Back-up copy of date on the US Parliament site:
http://www.usparliament.org/case4pr.php

March 22nd, 1995

Data from the period starting in 1994 through the creation of the election of the names of James Ogle's Electoral College was being deleted as proven by one post in Google Groups:

The proof here shows 1) James Ogle's use of the correct math for pure proportional representation elections and competitive elections for third parties and independents started in Usenet as early as June 11th, 1994.

In around late September or early October of 1997, Sergie Brin who was the founder and registrar of Google, had a search engine program that he was trying to sell with no luck named "backrub.com".

Brin knew he knew he needed a spark and he got;
a) new domain name
b) eyeballs on his search engine.
c) the new blood of "voting online", which eventually evolved into "click the ad"
d) artistic flavor of Ogle's logo and career
e) politcal debate where Ogle was a "ghost" identity on google dot com's rise to one-party and monopoly status

Google was founded about one week after Sergey Brin had asked James Ogle "What is a joogle?" and one week later he announced "I just created the search engine google.com, come check it out." around October 5th, 1997.

See Sergey Brin's search engine using "click the go":
http://www.google.com

See James Ogle's search engine using "click the 1":
http://www.1ogle.com

The two links above show the separation between "one-party system dictatorship psychology" and the unifying math of pure proportional representation (PPR).

For semi-proportional representation the one click (or "X") is used, and for pure proportional representation consecutive numerals (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,etc.) must be used, and the math is very strict.

The direction for the illegal monopoly's search and ad business Google, began on an uncensored free speech platform was started here. From the that the Google company registered the domain google.com, the behind-the-scenes search engine touch-up work, directed traffic away from James Ogle's name, so spending by Google went towards eliminating search data for the three-party system.

James Ogle's campaign for competition of third parties and independents and specifically the unity coalition of small third parties "The US Parliament PAC", was filed with the FEC Attached: FEC-2-7-1996-(4).pdf.

The notice of a united coalition between two minor political parties was made to the FEC before Google was founded.

Instead the one-party system was used by Google and many viewers began finding the monopoly and the one-party voting system of ranked choice voting in single-winner election districts as acceptable:

The list of states incorrectly using the incorrect math of the one-party system of ranked choice voting (RCV) in single-winner election districts likely includes;
Basalt Colorado, Berkeley California, Eastpointe Michigan, Las Cruces New Mexico, Minneapolis Minnesota, Oakland California, Payson Utah, Portland Maine, San Francisco California, San Leandro California, Santa Fe New Mexico, St. Louis Park Minnesota, St. Paul Minnesota, Takoma Park Maryland, Telluride Colorado, Vineyard Utah, Alaska Presidential elections, and more upcoming implementations.
Source: (Click to see:) FairVote.com advocates using single-winner one-party system RCV.

Google was founded as a one-party voting system which shuts out competition and new ideas, specifically from from the three-party system and since their founding third parties and independent candidates, those who are actually working together to be part of the elected US government.

That's how google got their name. They used the name Ogle and deleted the thousands of key posts by Ogle. That's like a one-party system with censorship. The insiders control where the search traffic goes and they can link that to advertising sales and other interests who are competing with their advertisers such as James Ogle and the 538-member Electoral College elected under pure proportional representation.

Limited voting is where fewer votes are cast than the number of open at-large seats to be elected and that brings the three-party system.

The information provided here is applicable to both business and political elections. The political movement was begun by James Ogle as a free speech and political effort. From that, two businesses were formed, Google Groups in 1997 and All Party System Co. in 2012.

By 2012 when James Ogle had built the unity to run for US President on the Roseanne Barr ticket, few or no voters could find the information in Google search, and despite that Ogle won the only state primary of Missouri in 2012.

1993

USA Parliament PAC
https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00304766/?cycle=1996

Also (CA CD#17 in 1993):,
https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H4CA17245/

2012

United Coalition May 2012
Read About 2012 When The California Libertarian Won the Missouri Primary With 52.8%!

Independent Political Report
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/02/james-ogle-edges-uncommitted-to-win-missouri-libertarian-presidential-primary/

The Missourian Newspaper
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/145021/libertarian-primary-choice-describes-himself-as-outsider-in-own-party/
Click here for version of Missourian which doesn't require poll prior to reading article
http://www.usparliament.org/missourian.php

* * *



2) The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
https://ballotpedia.org/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
"a term of art referring to funds generally perceived to influence elections but not regulated by campaign finance law."

There may be overwhelming justification for restrictions, against those using one-party voting systems such as search engines and corporations, because America is a melting pot and one-party and two-party voting systems are unacceptable.

Unprecedented amounts of so-called soft money though news stories and ads on Google.com domain, pouring into party accounts of major parties because free speech had been blocked to independents, minor and new parties.

Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.

The pre-Watergate ban on corporate and union contributions by banning the solicitation or spending of soft money by the national political parties. The bill also supplied a new definition of "express advocacy" designed to allow corporations and unions to engage in legitimate discussion of issues while keeping them out of campaign-related advertising.
In addition, McCain-Feingold barred corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to finance issue advertisements (sometimes called electioneering communications), which are defined as "broadcast ads referring to clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election or caucus." In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that this provision was unconstitutional.[1][2]

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002"prohibits federal candidates and officeholders from raising or using soft money for federal election activities"

The law also raised aggregate individual contribution limits from $25,000 per year to $95,000 every two years. This aggregate limit was indexed to inflation. Aggregate individual contribution limits were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2014 (see below for further details).[9]

Although the First Amendment provides that "Congress Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech", §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.

The court upheld requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by the sponsors of political advertisements. The court also sustained the prohibition against direct contributions by corporations to candidates.

"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
—John Roberts

Supreme Court precedent, such discussion may not be restricted without violating the First Amendment, unless there is some overwhelming justification for that restriction.

As a result, unprecedented amounts of so-called soft money began pouring into party accounts. The parties used these funds disproportionately to fund negative attack advertisements on television and radio. This phenomenon reached epidemic proportions in the 1990s. To avoid the ban on using these corporate and union funds to electioneers, the ads carefully avoided use of words such as "vote for" or "support." Still, it was often clear that their purpose was to help elect or defeat particular candidates. The prevalence of these funds grew exponentially through the last part of the twentieth century. More than a half-billion dollars in soft money was spent in the 2000 federal elections.

Once again, public outrage over this evasion of basic campaign finance principles became powerful enough to prompt legislative action. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 with campaign finance reform at the center of his platform, helped contribute to the public appetite for reform legislation.

In March 2002 Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, popularly know as "McCain-Feingold" after its two main sponsors, Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin. The act's primary effect was to reinstate the pre-Watergate ban on corporate and union contributions by banning the solicitation or spending of soft money by the national political parties. The bill also supplied a new definition of "express advocacy" designed to allow corporations and unions to engage in legitimate discussion of issues while keeping them out of campaign-related advertising.

Under the act's terms, corporate or union funds could not be used to pay for broadcast ads against a clearly identified national candidate, targeted at that candidate's electorate, within thirty days of a primary or sixty days of a general election.

The work of search and ad business by Google Inc. is a violation of the spirit and government codes of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
* * *



3) The Sherman Antitrust Act

The allegations of violations maintain that the business and of capital of Google Inc., was organized and directed to control of the market by suppression of competition in the marketing of goods and services, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

It is the USA Justice Department where violations of the The Sherman Antitrust Act which was enacted in 1890 to curtail combinations of power that interfere with trade and which reduce economic competition.

Both the business and the political sectors of James Ogle have been affected for the past 23 years, and those years are being scrutinized by the USA Justice Department where violations of the The Sherman Antitrust Act which was enacted in 1890 to curtail combinations of power that interfere with trade and which reduce economic competition.

A person who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist...(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition."
* * *

Respectfully,
James O. Ogle [One]