Could a jury find that a denial of my opportunity to gather my 1000 5's beginning in February 2006 is an "aggravated theft"?

The prohibition, under the guise of enhancing or facilitating my free speech rights, is no less significant than if accomplished by way of a private threat not to file or run for the Auditor's slot. I wouldn't buy the defense (ORS 164.035) that the Auditor was entitled to deny me a potential claim for 145,000 dollars.

ORS 164.075(1)(g)-(h) is of particular interest to me.

Viewing VOE as giving rise to a property crime yields interesting possibilities, particularly when coupled with arbitrary government action to support another and to support the very person charged with the duty of running the election impartially.

Perhaps it is time to make a Public Records request and force both the City Attorney and the Auditor to assert an exemption from disclosure as to their private research into the legality of my claim to an equal right to that of our city-level Certified Internal Auditor (mandatory membership in a non-government-affiliated association) was valid.

I don't think Jack is yet ready to vocalize support for my standing right to sue Gary Blackmer AND the City Attorney. He still goes after the fringe folks who are not yet INCUMBANTS. "What's up with Vladimir?"

UPDATE: I have always contended that on free speech grounds that to isolate out the public funding angle we would have to have uniform conditions for placement of ANY name on the ballot. That is, that everyone must get 1000 signatures. The reasoning would be much the same as that in US Supreme Court cases that rejected state imposed monetary burdens such as a 10,000 dollar filing fee -- where this was substituted with a signature petition gathering alternative. Here in Portland where I could save a few bucks on the filing fee by gathering a small number of signatures -- but this cannot be squared with an alternative number of signatures to get public funding. There is just too much wiggle room for a judge to be partisan but claim non-partisan resolution.

Ah, but I could insist upon application of the equitable unclean hands doctrine to defeat a rebuttal that I do not have my 1000 5's and thus have not asserted facts sufficient to state a claim for my 145,000 dollars. Weird, but no weirder than the government inverting individual liberty notions that are designed specifically to arm individual citizens against government.