To: Federal Elections Commission (FEC) (EnfComplaint@fec.gov)
Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
1050 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20463
From: James O. Ogle [One] for President 2020 ID# C00708008
1213 C Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 236-3825
jamesoogle@gmail.com
Subject: Complaint Libertarian-Environmentalist-Green-One-Tea vs FEC and Google Inc.
7-24-2021
Dear Sirs,
In my filing earlier this year, my complaint was rejected, and I still want to make the FEC aware of
civil rights violations that are concerning everyone on our team.
While my complaint against Google was being considered by the FEC earlier this year in 2021, the new President of Google Inc.
was testifying before Congress, he had stated publicly that no alterations to any political campaigns ever took place.
We heard this in the national news.
The statement by the new Google President was not true.
What the founder did was harmful to our work. The founder Sergie Brin deleted all my work when he created Google Groups
from Dejaview News in Usenet, and then he targeted all my posts for removal from searches
(except for
one old post he missed from 1995) and this was done around early October of 1997.
The "click the search", "click the ad", "click thumbs up", "click the like", those are all "one-party systems math".
To understand how to use the correct math of two new mathematical equations, the new pure proportional representation (PPR) for electing names
and the 1Ogle Method for approving decision-items, imagine if Congress used them for your department.
All of Congress would get two paper ballots, one vote each for the five at-large FEC seats and one vote for the bottom
line on the budget, then all the names attaining 1/6th of the votes (plus one vote) under the Droop Quota and
items attaining more than 50% of the rankings under the 1Ogle Method, would be considered elected and approved quickly.
As quickly as Congress can write in the numerals 1,2,3,4,5, ect. (not "click the box"), with free speech time to discuss all
the items and names being ranked, these are approved and averaged within FEC's budget.
Electing names and decision-items both
use ranked choice voting but the only pure proportional representation (PPR) for names uses one-man-one-vote because
of the single transferable vote (STV). The 1Ogle Method for decision-items doesn't use the single transferable vote and
each numeral for every item is like one vote using numerals (1,2,3,4,5,etc.). If deviation from consecutively ranked numerals is used
then that ballot is marked "SPOILED". Only correct math for purity and no other way is acceptable.
New parties such as the scores of new parties by individuals on my team, including the Libertarian GOO and the One Party, both of which are registered
with the FEC could start having a chance to win 1/539ths of Congressional vote with such low thresholds at 1/539th (plus one vote).
New parties filed with FEC would be very excited to collaborate with our team under PPR.
The founders of Google Inc. tried to copy our program and they wrongly implemented "click the search".
The "click" is a form of plurality voting that discriminates against minority interest groups such as women, third parties, independent candidates,
ethnic groups and people of color.
The founders of Google Inc. did indeed monitor our team, inquired about the USA Parliament PAC and my name,
and then launched his new company name in my campaign's conversation after registering it while thousands of computer programmers
in Usenet watched in late 1997.
The military, CIA or Justice Department might be interested in knowing that their math is incorrect and
that the original moment of founding of Google, the text is still located somewhere in old records of Usenet.
Many people might be interested in knowing about the falsifying testimony to Congress, those in the Justice Department's Antitrust case
against Google Inc., too.
While Google's President was making false testimony to Congress, my complaint earlier this
year was rejected, at the very same time that Google's new President was testifying that their work never censored
political candidates.
But our names from the Green, Libertarian, Environmentalist and other "New" parties in the USA may want the truth about how we were
targeted and deleted from the data used by Google's data banks in Google Groups.
This is affecting everyone in the world because the "click the search", "click the ad", etc., that Google Inc.
launched, is like using a write-in vote, the click is like a plurality vote, and all plurality votes are not good enough.
Corporate America and the US Government's FEC use Google Inc. too, and so they all use the mathematics of the US-style one-party voting systems.
In the Supreme Court opinion Batson v. Kentucky (1986), this decision holds that when a state denies an African
American defendant equal protection, when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded.
That's how Google search treats minority search results because they are using the "winner-takes-all" algorithm.
The new United Coalition (AKA USA Parliament) has used pure proportional representation (PPR) every year since 1992.
Our studies included the work of Dr. Lani Guinier of Harvard Law School and her work on the systemic racism
of single-winner Congressional Districts which receive funding from the FEC.
Without these correct policies (pure proportional representation or PPR), plurality and approval voting (AppV)
voting brings censorship, systemic racism,
communist-style elections, double-standards and gerrymandering top-to-bottom in the USA, through slate voting or in single-winner election districts.
The USA-style election systems under the US Constitution randomly switches "one-party system dictators" back and forth to bring a two-party system.
The new math (The Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system) is one vote per Elector for
two seats President and Vice President (or any set of two seats). The new math (circa 1900) is limited voting and that's
the only way to bring the three-party system to President and Vice President. No other way but PPR.
Plurality voting ("click the box") is unacceptable. America is a melting pot. The one-party system is no good.
By using limited voting only one vote by each Elector for the two seats US President and Vice President,
limited voting could have brought semi-proportional representation, under the US Constitution.
The new math of limited voting isn't in the US Constitution nor in Google search algorithm, but the USA Parliament PAC
had been using the correct math since 1992, five years ahead of the founding of Google.
The equation* for the Sainte-Lague seat allocation which the Libertarian-Environmentalist-Green-One-Tea Coalition brought in 1992:
a) Divide the election's total number of votes by the number of seats. This is the first quota.
b) Divide this quota into each candidate's votes, and round off to the nearest whole number. That's the candidate's seat allocation.
c) If, due to rounding, this awards a number of seats different from the desired number of seats, then adjust the quota slightly up or down,
until, when paragraph b is carried out, it will award the exact number of names to fill all the seats.
*See attached copies of my 1996 filings, and FEC Form 2 with the same information, about the Sainte-Lague seat allocation.
http://www.allpartysystem.com/FEC-2-7-1996-(4).pdf
In 1986 our team was vied with Clint Eastwood for Mayor, in 1992 our team ran for Santa Cruz city Council and began the
campaign for pure proportional representation (PPR). Google launched off our success in late 1997.
Our original complaint was over the illegal monopolization of the search and ad markets for political candidates and businesses.
James Ogle ID# C00708008 vs respondent Sergey Brin founder of Google Inc. and this is still a dire need for democracy in the world.
One post by Ogle that Google founder Sergie Brin missed and didn't delete was in 1995, a few weeks before the totals were announced
in Usenet by me for the 1996 Presidential run on April 1st, 1995:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics.usa.republican/c/7gLSeKzIXH8/m/unmJ08myobgJ
(Note, you may have to sign in to Google Groups to see)
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 that he knew he needed a spark and with me he got;
1) new domain name
2) eyeballs on his search engine.
3) the new blood of "voting online", which eventually evolved into "click the ad"
4) good artistic talent
5) good political debate
Brin came into my conversation and asked about my personal logo joogle and returned announcing his new domain a week later around October 5th 1997.
That's how google got their name.
What Sergey Brin didn't know was that I, James Ogle,
understand the math of the correct algorithm of the Droop Quota which is required for the three-party system.
One-party system = Many clicks on names/ads, 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.
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.
Limited voting is where fewer votes are cast than the number of open at-large seats to be elected.
I'm a street artist in Monterey drawing for a living and I would love to show your board how the
advanced voting systems using numerals can work to make things more exact and more efficient.
Google founded off my name but I never befitted from it and they don't use the correct math anyway,
so of course I would love an opportunity to get this started.
Respectfully,
--James Ogle
(831) 236-3825
* * *
Links to a few of the evidence of James Ogle's filings:
James Ogle for US Congress as Environmentalist (CA CD#17 in 1993):,
https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H4CA17245/
USA Parliament PAC 1996
https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00304766/?cycle=1996
First reply from FEC Office on 11/9/2020
http://www.allpartysystem.com/Appeal-response-to-FEC.php
* * *