# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: Lawyers for Ron Paul Lawsuit NOTE: Having the lawsuit not up 4 debate

## Bryan

There has been a lot of discussion and concern here recently about negativity towards other peoples ideas and projects. It should be noted however that the forum guidelines allow for simple ways to advert issues- the easy way is to take advantage of this forum guideline:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22



> + Off-topic posts - Posts that do not relate to the threads intent are subject to being deleted.


Thus all that is needed is in your original post to add a comment such as "This is a Q&A and planning thread, the idea is not open for debate". It then makes it clear that any debating or criticism of the idea is off-topic and subject to being deleted (as flagged by the topic starter).

This isn't to say that someone else couldn't start another thread providing constructive criticism of the idea, but this should likely be done in "Hot Topics" and should not violate the guideline:




> + If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner. It is possible to discuss your points as to why you feel the way you do, ideally you should include alternate suggestions or acknowledge you have none.


The starter of the critical thread can post a link to their thread in the original but the overall net effect is that the people working on the project don't have to wade though a mess of other peoples criticism. 

Please bare in mind the following guideline however:



> + No promoting of campaign tactics or other activity that grossly counter the morals or ethics of Dr. Paul.


Ideas that violate this will be deleted, so this isn't an open, free rein of craziness either.


Thanks, hope this pointer helps out. It pays to read the forum guidelines!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

----------


## RDM

There was a conference call Thursday evening @ 10pm EST. This call was recorded and I have the link below. Two major announcements were disclosed, one being a update on the lawsuit and the other one I'll let you be surprised by listening.
Here is the link: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=635553&cmd=apop

---------------------------
Link to post 212 with 3 piece conference call with graphics by RDM:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4497950

Link to post 158 with more detailed info by Barrax:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4495638

Link to post 214 with cliffs notes on what this is all about by presence:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4498011

----------


## specsaregood

come on, sum it up for us, don't make us listen to a conference call in order to get the info.    did you actually listen to it?

----------


## RDM

> come on, sum it up for us, don't make us listen to a conference call in order to get the info.    did you actually listen to it?


Not only did I listen, but participated with a question. I'm identified as Ron from PA. I'm sure one of your NON lazy ass friends will sum it up for you.

----------


## Eric39

> Not only did I listen, but participated with a question. I'm identified as Ron from PA. I'm sure one of your NON lazy ass friends will sum it up for you.



Not everyone has time, the internet connection, etc. so it would be awfully polite/convenient to put it at the top of the thread for those who are on the fly.

----------


## The Northbreather

bout gadam time

----------


## specsaregood

> Not only did I listen, but participated with a question. I'm identified as Ron from PA. I'm sure one of your NON lazy ass friends will sum it up for you.


oh well, if you want the information to go unheard.  nobody is gonna listen to that.  hell, I can't stand listening to the ones I get paid to listen to.

----------


## RDM

> oh well, if you want the information to go unheard.  nobody is gonna listen to that.  hell, I can't stand listening to the ones I get paid to listen to.


Well, you're not alone. Lot of you lazy ass "fake" Ron Paul supporters are slowly coming out of the closet on this forum.

----------


## tsai3904

> Well, you're not alone. Lot of you lazy ass "fake" Ron Paul supporters are slowly coming out of the closet on this forum.


You're basing someone's level of support of Ron Paul by whether or not they're willing to listen to a one hour conference call?

----------


## specsaregood

..

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Well, you're not alone. Lot of you lazy ass "fake" Ron Paul supporters are slowly coming out of the closet on this forum.


Are you really calling someone with 23,000 posts and who registered in 2007 a "fake" supporter? Just because of that comment, I'm not going to give the slightest damn about your link.

----------


## Eric39

> Well, you're not alone. Lot of you lazy ass "fake" Ron Paul supporters are slowly coming out of the closet on this forum.


BULL$#@!! Now you're just being an $#@! to everyone. Just because you don't want to/have the time to listen to the whole thing says absolutely nothing about whether you're a fake/real liberty supporter... because it's not about Ron Paul. Why do you have to be one of those guys that makes the inside of the movement hostile? It's BS, stop it.

I'm listening to it now, looks like it's a good hour, I'll sum it up for everyone else.

----------


## RDM

> You're basing someone's level of support of Ron Paul by whether or not they're willing to listen to a one hour conference call?


Just one of many bases.

----------


## LostNFoundNTx

Hopefully RDM's participation in this thread is not a reflection on the seriousness/quality of the lawsuit(s).

----------


## Britannia

I was hoping for a summary as I can't listen to it 'til later

----------


## Eric39

I want to remind everyone here there is a reputation button for people like this.

----------


## Ender

Good grief.

On most all forums I visit, it is not only considered good manners to sum up, it is required.

----------


## Legend1104

The major announcement is that the lawyers for Ron Paul are claiming they are going to unofficially take over the Ron Paul campaign with the intention to strip Romney of his delegates and nominate Ron Paul. There now stop fighting.

----------


## Nubraskan

> I want to remind everyone here there is a reputation button for people like this.


Noted. 

The movement operates more effectively when we don't commit 10,000 man-hours to listening to a call that can be summed up in a few sentences.

----------


## blocks

> The movement operates more effectively when we don't commit 10,000 man-hours to listening to a call that can be summed up in a few sentences.


This...SMH.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Just one of many bases.


Basis ?

----------


## ChristopherShelley

Ok, so can anyone provide some insight into this announcement? How viable is this? 

And while I appreciate the op's passion, we need to help forward info. Expediency = productivity. 

And thank you for the post. Still listening.

----------


## jay_dub

> The major announcement is that the lawyers for Ron Paul are claiming they are going to unofficially take over the Ron Paul campaign with the intention to strip Romney of his delegates and nominate Ron Paul. There now stop fighting.


I just heard this, too. Apparently they are saying the campaign has no standing to negotiate on behalf of their clients (delegates) and they are forming an Executive Committee to deal with just that outside of the lawsuit itself.

 Edit: Now going into Benton signing the letter giving the RNC permission to violate Rule 11 and Wead's doubts about Ron's success. I think the argument is the campaign is acting in bad faith on the delegates' behalf. They seem to be attempting to empower the delegates outside the campaign's directives. Interesting tack to take.

Edit: Now accusing the Romney campaign of election fraud & committing criminal acts; giving a laundry list of abuses.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

This is amazing stuff. Only 20 min in.

----------


## economics102

> I'm sure one of your NON lazy ass friends will sum it up for you.


What the heck is wrong with you?

-rep

----------


## CPUd

They just accused the Romney campaign of being a criminal organization, and said Mitt is not the lesser of 2 evils, he_ is_ evil.  He also says when the judge renders a positive decision, mitt will have 0 delegates.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Is this for real?  Are Ron's delegates getting on board this?

----------


## jay_dub

> Is this for real?  Are Ron's delegates getting on board this?


They are claiming to have affidavits from over 100 delegates.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> The major announcement is that the lawyers for Ron Paul are claiming they are going to unofficially take over the Ron Paul campaign with the intention to strip Romney of his delegates and nominate Ron Paul. There now stop fighting.


Thank you!

----------


## CPUd

By the time they go into court, the evidence will be 'insurmountable'.

He also made clear that they will fight on behalf of any delegate, even a santorum-bound one who wants to vote for romney.

----------


## jay_dub

They're giving addresses to 3 websites they're setting up "as we open up the new campaign". They say they'll be up and running in a few days.

ronpaulgrassrootsrevolution.com

weareallronpaul.com

realgrassrootsrevolution.com

Also, electionfraudremedy.com to join in the lawsuit.

I have to say it wasn't a waste of time to listen to this. These guys seem very serious and very confident.

Edit: To sum it up, their goal is to have every delegate unbound, which will effectively mean no candidate can claim any delegates going in to the convention.

----------


## CPUd

Does Ron know he has a new campaign staff ?

----------


## ChristopherShelley

That was awesome!

----------


## jay_dub

> Does Ron know he has a new campaign staff ?


  

At least these guys work for free!!

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Anyone know any of these "Lawyers for Ron Paul" people?
I know there is a thread researching the website and affiliations, but what is the standing of the lawyers, Richard and David, with grassroots?

----------


## RDM

> At least these guys work for free!!


Do you think this time, we'll get our money's worth?

----------


## RonRules

> ronpaulgrassrootsrevolution.com
> 
> weareallronpaul.com
> 
> realgrassrootsrevolution.com


All three links give me errors like:
Error 403 - Forbidden
You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges.

Anybody else got this?

----------


## jay_dub

> Anyone know any of these "Lawyers for Ron Paul" people?
> I know there is a thread researching the website and affiliations, but what is the standing of the lawyers, Richard and David, with grassroots?


I haven't seen where they've been independently vetted, but it does seem like the lawsuit has been filed. That's as much as I know at this point. It seems like if they weren't legit, they have already done enough to open themselves up to all kinds of charges.

----------


## jay_dub

> Do you think this time, we'll get our money's worth?


We couldn't do any worse. What's Jesse gonna do now....fetch Ron's laundry?

----------


## RDM

> All three links give me errors like:
> Error 403 - Forbidden
> You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges.
> 
> Anybody else got this?


They're not online yet. They said in a few days the sites will be up and running. Patience.

----------


## jay_dub

> All three links give me errors like:
> Error 403 - Forbidden
> You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges.
> 
> Anybody else got this?


I didn't try them as they said they would be up and running in a few days. I think the only one up now is the election fraud remedy site.

----------


## RDM

> We couldn't do any worse. What's Jesse gonna do now....fetch Ron's laundry?


Hopefully he'll be picking up his teeth after Ron "accidently" swings his favorite baseball bat.

----------


## Kregisen

> Not only did I listen, but participated with a question. I'm identified as Ron from PA. I'm sure one of your NON lazy ass friends will sum it up for you.


Maybe some of us are too busy with a real life instead of insulting people on internet forums?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I have seen other cases where someone was going to do something for us, and then it not happen.  Does that cause some of us who would have done their own deep research to stop and let these people do it?  What if it doesn't happen?

I remember a certain group that was going to produce a super bowl type professional video for Ron Paul, it didn't happen, at least not before all the primaries were over (I did hear it is yet comming out).  Remember them asking everyone to like their proposal video and if they got 2,000 likes it would happen?  Didn't.

----------


## RDM

> I have seen other cases where someone was going to do something for us, and then it not happen.  Does that cause some of us who would have done their own deep research to stop and let these people do it?  What if it doesn't happen?
> 
> I remember a certain group that was going to produce a super bowl type professional video for Ron Paul, it didn't happen, at least not before all the primaries were over (I did hear it is yet comming out).  Remember them asking everyone to like their proposal video and if they got 2,000 likes it would happen?  Didn't.


I take it you haven't seen the filed court documents yet?

----------


## CPUd

> I have seen other cases where someone was going to do something for us, and then it not happen.  Does that cause some of us who would have done their own deep research to stop and let these people do it?  What if it doesn't happen?
> 
> I remember a certain group that was going to produce a super bowl type professional video for Ron Paul, it didn't happen, at least not before all the primaries were over (I did hear it is yet comming out).  Remember them asking everyone to like their proposal video and if they got 2,000 likes it would happen?  Didn't.


At the very least , they are going to have to go in and present a case.  Some of the things he said on this interview put him on the hook for defamation.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

IMO this is the most important story right now. If these guys can do what they hope to, it would bring the Liberty movement to where it should be, in control. This needs to go viral, like wildfire. F the parties in Tampa, f the rand Benton blah blah blah. F Alex jones and Kokesh and webster tarpley. This is real $#@!. 

What can we do to help?!?!?!?!?

----------


## eleganz

> IMO this is the most important story right now. If these guys can do what they hope to, it would bring the Liberty movement to where it should be, in control. This needs to go viral, like wildfire. F the parties in Tampa, f the rand Benton blah blah blah. F Alex jones and Kokesh and webster tarpley. This is real $#@!. 
> 
> What can we do to help?!?!?!?!?


I've already volunteered myself to help.  Just talk to them.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> I've already volunteered myself to help.  Just talk to them.


Awesome. Contact them through their website?

----------


## jay_dub

> I have seen other cases where someone was going to do something for us, and then it not happen.  Does that cause some of us who would have done their own deep research to stop and let these people do it?  What if it doesn't happen?
> 
> I remember a certain group that was going to produce a super bowl type professional video for Ron Paul, it didn't happen, at least not before all the primaries were over (I did hear it is yet comming out).  Remember them asking everyone to like their proposal video and if they got 2,000 likes it would happen?  Didn't.


I don't think anything they're doing prevents us from doing what we need to do, which is amassing more delegates and supporting Dr. Paul through Tampa.

Time is short and I don't see anyone else pursuing a legal remedy. The lawsuit is filed, so let's see what happens. It certainly feels better to think someone is fighting, rather than the defeatism running rampant these days.

----------


## RDM

> IMO this is the most important story right now. If these guys can do what they hope to, it would bring the Liberty movement to where it should be, in control. This needs to go viral, like wildfire. F the parties in Tampa, f the rand Benton blah blah blah. F Alex jones and Kokesh and webster tarpley. This is real $#@!. 
> *
> What can we do to help?!?!?!?!?*


I say, once the websites go live and when or if possible promotions come into play, get involved as if your life depends on it. After all, it does.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

I contacted them through the site that is up right now, electionfraudremedy.com, and told them I will do anything I can to help. 

This magnifies the importance of following through with the remainder of the delegate process! 

IMO, THIS IS OUR LAST REAL SHOT. WE NEED TO PULL OUR HEADS OUT OF OUR *COLLECTIVE* ASSES!!!

WE NEED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!!

----------


## PHONETOOL



----------


## eleganz

> Awesome. Contact them through their website?


I'm already talking to the leadership about what I can do to help.

Contact them through facebook, the response seem to be fastest there.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/LawyersforRonPaul/

To RPF'ers...you can sit there and wait for the fireworks to burst or you can be on the forefront and make sure this comes to fruition.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE THIS MOVEMENT.

WE THE PEOPLE, ARE RON PAUL.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

I cross posted on dp. 

http://www.dailypaul.com/240404/ever...listen-to-this

I'll contact them via fb.

----------


## RonRules

I think that's our judge!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Carter

Carter is a "Double Bruin," having received both his bachelor's degree (B.A. cum laude 1967) and his law degree (J.D. 1972) from the University of California, Los Angeles.

After graduating from college, Carter accepted a commission in the *United States Marine Corps*. He was promptly dispatched into service in Vietnam during the Vietnam War where he fought in the Battle of Khe Sahn in 1968. Carter was released as a First Lieutenant following his service in Vietnam. His military awards and decorations include a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

Carter began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney with the Orange County District Attorney's Office in 1972 where he became the senior deputy district attorney in charge of the office's homicide division. Carter filed charges and was the initial prosecutor in the case of serial killer William Bonin, also known as "The Freeway Killer," who became the first person executed by lethal injection in California in 1996.

In addition to his judicial functions, Carter has lectured fellow judges at the California Judges College, the Judicial Criminal Law Institute, and the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He also speaks frequently with judges abroad, including engagements in Brazil, Bosnia, China, the Philippines, and Malawi. Carter also teaches an undergraduate course on international narcotics trade at the University of California, Irvine, where he has received the school's Distinguished Professors Award three times, and has taught at Whittier Law School's Summer Abroad Program.


I'll do everything to attend these court hearings!

----------


## RonRules

He was appointed by Bill Clinton. In this situation I'd say that's a great thing:

Carter was nominated by President Bill Clinton on June 25, 1998 to fill a seat vacated by William J. Rea. Carter was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission the following day.[1] He now sits in the Southern Division of the Central District of California in Santa Ana, California.[2]

As a jurist, Carter is known for his intellect, courteous judicial demeanor, work ethic, and expertise in complex criminal cases.[3] Although he is assigned to the Central District of California, Carter also regularly sits by designation in the District of Idaho and on occasion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the District of Guam.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

My DP post:

Everyone Needs To Listen To This
Submitted by ChristopherShelley on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 02:57
in
Ron Paul 2012
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...0736-MAJOR-ANN...

MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: Lawyers for Ron Paul Lawsuit

There was a conference call Thursday evening @ 10pm EST. This call was recorded and I have the link below. Two major announcements were disclosed, one being a update on the lawsuit and the other one I'll let you be surprised by listening.
Here is the link: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...35553&cmd=apop

---------- end RPF post

IMO this is the shot we have been waiting for, to take over the movement through legal, non-violent means. To fight for the liberty of the delegates to be able to, by law, vote by their conscience, for whomever they want.

This is what it's all about. If we can't vote for whom we truly feel is the best candidate then we might as well have a monarchy.

These people are fighting for the legal rights of ALL delegates, not just Paul supporters, which is what Ron Paul is all about.

They say, " We are all Ron Paul."

Everyone please listen to the clip. IMO, this is where we take control. We the PEOPLE. This is our movement now. Ron planted the seeds. We need to take control of this NOW!!!!

----------


## RonRules

We want Romney in handcuffs BEFORE the convention. That's my goal with the vote flipping stuff.

Do everything you can to make that goal happen.

----------


## eleganz

> I think that's our judge!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Carter
> 
> Carter is a "Double Bruin," having received both his bachelor's degree (B.A. cum laude 1967) and his law degree (J.D. 1972) from the University of California, Los Angeles.
> 
> After graduating from college, Carter accepted a commission in the *United States Marine Corps*. He was promptly dispatched into service in Vietnam during the Vietnam War where he fought in the Battle of Khe Sahn in 1968. Carter was released as a First Lieutenant following his service in Vietnam. His military awards and decorations include a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.
> 
> Carter began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney with the Orange County District Attorney's Office in 1972 where he became the senior deputy district attorney in charge of the office's homicide division. Carter filed charges and was the initial prosecutor in the case of serial killer William Bonin, also known as "The Freeway Killer," who became the first person executed by lethal injection in California in 1996.
> ...



I think I'm going to visit this guy...after all, near me.  We just really don't need the crazies approaching him...

----------


## ChristopherShelley

We need to keep this TOTALLY LEGIT. This is no longer a battle of opinion. This is a legitimate legal battle. Let the lawyers do their job. Do what supports them. Nothing else. This is a battle for the rights of ALL OF THE DELEGATES. Not just ours. This is not about Ron Paul supporters. But if we stay true, and not make it about us, but make it about EVERYONE, then people will see we're for real. We are for real, aren't we?

IMO, contact the people in charge and do what they need. We CANNOT turn this into a circus. 

IMO, it's either this or nothing. If we screw this up we might not have a paddle to row with anytime soon. 

It's either this or hope. And I'm not big on hope. 

Hope for Rand, or Alex, or Adam, or whoever. 

If this is what it could be, then this is the moment we've been waiting for.

We have to make this happen.

----------


## parocks

> Noted. 
> 
> The movement operates more effectively when we don't commit 10,000 man-hours to listening to a call that can be summed up in a few sentences.


yes, operates more effectively.

what a good word "effective".  much better than "enjoy".

----------


## parocks

> They just accused the Romney campaign of being a criminal organization, and said Mitt is not the lesser of 2 evils, he_ is_ evil.  He also says when the judge renders a positive decision, mitt will have 0 delegates.


The lesser of 2 evils means that both are evil, but the amount of evil in one is less than the amount of evil in the other.

----------


## LibertyEagle

It would be exciting if they could pull this off.  Godspeed.

----------


## No1butPaul

> WE THE PEOPLE, ARE RON PAUL.


I AM RON PAUL

----------


## economics102

These lawyers are our last hope to ever see a President Ron Paul. If they can succeed, 2,400 Americans will have the chance to vote their conscience, and we will see who the real fringe candidates are.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> These lawyers are our last hope to ever see a President Ron Paul. If they can succeed, 2,400 Americans will have the chance to vote their conscience, and we will see who the real fringe candidates are.


Bingo.

----------


## soulcyon

Did we just have a 7-page argument about whether to listen to a conference call or not?

This forum is just getting ridiculous T_T

@RDM:  Why can't you be a bit more understanding and just post a summary?

@anyone else who actually listened:  If anyone bothered to listen, could you just please post a summary, as to pick up RDM's lack of thoughtfulness.

edit: 5 minutes, I hear that the Lawyers for Ron Paul are creating an "executive committee" so that they can take over Ron Paul Campaign.  "We are going to strip Romney of all his delegates... and that is our goal."   

They go over the details and other business, but I didn't have time to listen to it all.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Did we just have a 7-page argument about whether to listen to a conference call or not?
> 
> This forum is just getting ridiculous T_T
> 
> @RDM:  Why can't you be a bit more understanding and just post a summary?
> 
> @anyone else who actually listened:  If anyone bothered to listen, could you just please post a summary, as to pick up RDM's lack of thoughtfulness.
> 
> edit: 5 minutes, I hear that the Lawyers for Ron Paul are creating an "executive committee" so that they can take over Ron Paul Campaign.  "We are going to strip Romney of all his delegates... and that is our goal."   
> ...


We're working on it. It's a lot of f ing info. This is or could be the deal-breaker. I suggest everyone actually listen to it. It would probably take about as long for me to summarize it as for you to listen to it.

----------


## soulcyon

I'm going to download the whole audio file and put it through my company's Speech Recognition software - *evil laughter*

----------


## John F Kennedy III

So awesome

----------


## Just Another Genius

I've seen plenty of proof the RNC and Romney broke RNC Rule 11, I have yet to see any proof in regards to any letter Jesse Benton might have signed or when it was signed, why aren't these lawyers filing a case in regards to this and requesting proof that such a letter actually exist. Because I personally believe the RNC and Benton didn't even think of or even considered Rule 11 until posters on sites like this one pointed it out to them, only then did we hear this alleged story from Benton having this agreement with the RNC. If this paper can't be verified between Benton and the RNC then Romney deserves to be disqualified and these delegates shouldn't be required to be bound to Romney based on this reason alone. So why aren't these lawyers pursuing the case from this angle as well if they are serious about protecting these delegates rights and may have an way of getting Romney disqualified and out of the picture all together, imagine being able to take that court order with you to the convention. Jesse Benton says he signed a paper? I want proof. Delegates should be demanding that proof from these lawyers.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> I've seen plenty of proof the RNC and Romney broke RNC Rule 11, I have yet to see any proof in regards to any letter Jesse Benton might have signed or when it was signed, why aren't these lawyers filing a case in regards to this and requesting proof that such a letter actually exist. Because I personally believe the RNC and Benton didn't even think of or even considered Rule 11 until posters on sites like this one pointed it out to them, only then did we hear this alleged story from Benton having this agreement with the RNC. If this paper can't be verified between Benton and the RNC then Romney deserves to be disqualified and these delegates shouldn't be required to be bound to Romney based on this reason alone. So why aren't these lawyers pursuing the case from this angle as well if they are serious about protecting these delegates rights and may have an way of getting Romney disqualified and out of the picture all together, imagine being able to take that court order with you to the convention. Jesse Benton says he signed a paper? I want proof. Delegates should be demanding that proof from these lawyers.


You should pursue any questions you have, but please don't demand anything from these guys. You don't know them and they are working really f ing hard it seems so don't talk like they owe you proof or like you know their strategies. Did you listen to the audio? If you like what they're doing, support them. If you have suggestions, contact them. Otherwise, stfu and go do something productive besides bitching about how they're not doing it right. Is no one here happy with anything? 

It amazes me to see what's in front of us and people piss all over it. If you have something to contribute then do it. Otherwise get out of the way, ok?

----------


## freedomordeath

RONULANS having been roaming the streets LIKE LIONS NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO AFTER SPENDING MILLIONS..... we have been scattered. NOT ANY MORE  RALLY THE TROOPS, LETS HEAD FOR THE TRENCHES. EVEN IF THIS DOESN'T COME THROUGH, WE NEED A RALLY CRY TO REGROUP, REGAIN OUR MOMENNTUM AND BOOST MORALE. LETS MARCH TOGETHER LIKE BROTHERS FACING DEATH ITSELF. LETS FINISH THIS MARATHON LIKE THE GOOD DR TOLD US TO.

spread the news, matlarson10 (youtube) ronpaulflix (youtube), rp4409 (youtube)




thanks to the OP for this post, lets put the nastiness of the first couple pages of this thread behind this, I haven't been this happy for a long time, I've been depressed over the last couple days esp getting flak from all my friends for my delusions and I'm not even American lol, really awesome news.

----------


## shane77m

> Not only did I listen, but participated with a question. I'm identified as Ron from PA. I'm sure one of your NON lazy ass friends will sum it up for you.


-rep for sounding like a d-bag

----------


## Paulatized

How could we hope to have an resolution on this in a few short weeks, don't things like this usually take years to play out in the courts?

----------


## LarryC213

> oh well, if you want the information to go unheard.  nobody is gonna listen to that.  hell, I can't stand listening to the ones I get paid to listen to.


I listened to it. I am so glad that this is being done. That no-good prick, mitt romney, should be in a federal prison, not being worshipped by the brain dead neocons and faux news watchers!

----------


## jhk07

> How could we hope to have an resolution on this in a few short weeks, don't things like this usually take years to play out in the courts?




   It only took 8 pages for someone to say what I thought to be the obvious......

----------


## PHONETOOL



----------


## cajuncocoa

> The major announcement is that the lawyers for Ron Paul are claiming they are going to unofficially take over the Ron Paul campaign with the intention to strip Romney of his delegates and nominate Ron Paul. There now stop fighting.


Thank you, and +1 rep for taking one for the team. LOL

----------


## JSaindon

A for effort, but the courts move at a snails pace. Good luck trying to get anything done in court by November.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Wow, this is the most exciting thing I've heard in a very long time!!

----------


## CPUd

> It only took 8 pages for someone to say what I thought to be the obvious......


It is mentioned briefly in the complaint.  Since they are not seeking damages in $$ amounts(as is the overwhelming majority of civil suits), some of the more time-consuming phases of the case can be bypassed.  Add to that, the time-sensitive nature of the case, it meets the criteria of a case that can be fast-tracked.

----------


## Dianne

> How could we hope to have an resolution on this in a few short weeks, don't things like this usually take years to play out in the courts?


http://www.californiality.com/2012/0...s-lawsuit.html

'Lawyers for Ron Paul' has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in California against the Republican National Committee and state GOP chapters for alleged voting rights violations, election fraud and other misconduct at GOP primaries and caucuses in 2012.

In the bombshell lawsuit, the group claims "overwhelming evidence" that the voting rights of Ron Paul Republican delegates and other voters were violated by "nearly every state GOP party and the RNC during the 2012 primary election phase, with utter and blatant disregard for any rule of law."

Other groups are reportedly lining up to join the coalition of lawyers, paralegals, and concerned citizens who filed the civil lawsuit against the GOP.

*Case Number SACV 12-00927* was filed at the Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, California, Ninth Federal Circuit.  Judge Carter is said to be assigned to the case.

The plaintiff group wants court action to protect delegates attending the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa this August, regardless of which presidential candidate each delegate intends to vote for.




*Immediately, the petitioning group seeks a federal injunction clarifying that all GOP delegates can vote their conscience at the national convention, unbound.*"The pattern of abuse is guaranteed to get worse, to the extent that the delegates who attend the national convention will be subjecting themselves to legal and/or physical peril," said the group of attorneys who filed the lawsuit citing actions by the GOP as having "devolved into those of an organized criminal enterprise."

In addition to the civil rights lawsuit, the group also intends to file a RICO lawsuit to expose widespread election fraud and abuse across the nation.

Great numbers of Ron Paul supporters are quickly uniting behind the unprecedented federal lawsuit, as they believe that Congressman Ron Paul has been blatantly cheated out of a potential victory.

All legal services provided for all plaintiffs in the suit are pro bono, provided by Lawyers for Ron Paul.  The following lawsuit FAQ video explains the federal civil rights lawsuit against the GOP in extended detail, including instructions on how to participate in the legal action.

----------


## Just Another Genius

> You should pursue any questions you have, but please don't demand anything from these guys. You don't know them and they are working really f ing hard it seems so don't talk like they owe you proof or like you know their strategies. Did you listen to the audio? If you like what they're doing, support them. If you have suggestions, contact them. Otherwise, stfu and go do something productive besides bitching about how they're not doing it right. Is no one here happy with anything? 
> 
> It amazes me to see what's in front of us and people piss all over it. If you have something to contribute then do it. Otherwise get out of the way, ok?


I didn't demand anything from these lawyers, so why don't you STFU pal, since you don't know what the F your talking about. I'm just offering suggestions to help their cause in case someone finds these suggestions worthy of consideration. They are known to read these comments so why not discuss ideas which I haven't seen discussed EVER on this site, the Daily Paul site, or the lawyers site. The only person I see bitching around here is you, who seems to want everyone to be sheep followers instead of contributors. The more minds and more opinions are more apt to get you the best answers to a solution instead of just depending upon a handful of opinions. The only opinion you brought to this table is to complain, bitch, and moan about others like me who offered constructive opinions. Perhaps you need to take your own advice and stop pissing on the hard work other people are trying to do to help this cause. If you have nothing valuable to add to the conversation than your bitching then perhaps you need to get out of the way, ok?

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

Case Number SACV 12-00927

This is the only legal document I could find at the moment.

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/3_CER...-DOC(JPRx).pdf

----------


## jay_dub

> I think I'm going to visit this guy...after all, near me.  We just really don't need the crazies approaching him...


That seems very improper. Only the attorneys involved should have direct contact with the judge hearing this matter. If, by visit, you mean sit in on a hearing he's conducting in another case, that's different.

----------


## kahless

If this case succeeds does that mean the delegates can vote for anyone or just whom is still in the race?  For example does this mean they can vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Cain?   

We may still have an uphill battle in that regard since you would not want to be replacing Romney with the likes of Santorum.

----------


## jay_dub

The most immediate relief they are seeking is an injunction that would allow EVERY delegate to be unbound. Essentially, no candidate would go into Tampa with ANY delegates, including Ron Paul. The convention would then be like sudden-death overtime, to use a football analogy.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> If this case succeeds does that mean the delegates can vote for anyone or just whom is still in the race?  For example does this mean they can vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Cain?   
> 
> We may still have an uphill battle in that regard since you would not want to be replacing Romney with the likes of Santorum.


I would interpret voting for anyone as the choice to vote for anyone.  I do not remember reading anything in the RNC by-laws to the effects of a potential nominee's campaign status.  And let us remember, all of the contenders never ended their campaigns, they just "suspended" them.

----------


## kahless

> The most immediate relief they are seeking is an injunction that would allow EVERY delegate to be unbound. Essentially, no candidate would go into Tampa with ANY delegates, including Ron Paul. The convention would then be like sudden-death overtime, to use a football analogy.


With candidates only being Romney and Ron Paul, correct?  It does not open the door for them to vote for Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, etc?

----------


## jay_dub

> With candidates only being Romney and Ron Paul, correct?  It does not open the door for them to vote for Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, etc?


I would suppose other rules would still apply, such as having 5 states to place a candidate's name in nomination. That would leave out some, but Santorum would still be eligible, it would seem.

----------


## KingNothing

If they're attacking state/local Republican parties who completely ignored accepted rules of order and state laws, this is an excellent move.  That pretty much happened everywhere.

Local parties did everything in their power to disregard the process that everyone had agreed to.  That shouldn't go unpunished, or, atleast, unacknowledged.

----------


## pcosmar

10 pages,,and not posted yet.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...n_paul_rnc.php

----------


## Endthefednow

We The People are for Ron Paul

----------


## Elwar

So...if Ron Paul's delegates are unbound. Do we have the 1144 delegates to get him elected?

I have seen a few states go toward Ron Paul and a few states send a few RP delegates, but it is a stretch to believe that Ron Paul supporters got into the Romney machine early enough to get nominated as their delegates in order to be stealth candidates.

I could see the announcement by Ron Paul of 200-500 delegates being fairly accurate. Even if it was 600-800 it would still not be enough.

And Gingrich and Santorum supporters would likely make a deal with the "presumed" candidate, Mitt Romney, as opposed to putting themselves out there as being against their party in order to support Dr. Paul.

As a former Libertarian Party member I am used to the party filing lawsuits at the last minute to either stop the ballots from being printed without our candidate's name on it or for defamation or libel as well as many other legitimate lawsuits. What tends to happen is, late November/December the lawsuit wraps up with "ya, you were right but it wouldn't have mattered anyway".

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

Judge Carter from a post on Daily Paul in 2009:

*Ethics or Intimidation: Birther Judge Carter Stands To Be Recused*

David O. Carter (born 1944 in Providence, Rhode Island) is a United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California. Assumed office October 22, 1998, Nominated by Bill Clinton. Carter is hearing the case Barnett vs Obama, questioning the legitimacy of the President's office.

On October 1, just four days before the Motion To Dismiss hearing, Carter hired Siddharth Velamoor to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010. Velamoor is a lawyer who works for a law firm where Robert F. Bauer, one of Obama’s top lawyers is a partner. Bauer’s wife is none other than Anita Dunn, the White House Communication’s Director.

The unethical placement of Velamoor on Judge Carter's staff means the case is extremely flexible, and a waste of time. It does not matter either way the case would go, the whole case is invalid. If the case goes against the plaintiff, Orly Taitz will file motion for Judge Carter's recusal. If it is in favor of the plaintiff, the Judge will have himself recused.

Was this a conspiracy (theory?) right out of the Clinton style politics? Obama/Chicago style strategy? Or, is this how Judge Carter saves face by agreeing to hear the case, but, the outcome is worthless? I guess we'll have to wait for the movie. I'm sure it will baffle even the most dedicated John Grisham fan.

more
http://mossinterest.blogspot.com/200...her-judge.html

I'm not sure if I like what I'm seeing:

Appointed by Clinton
Rule in favor of Lehman Bros vs First Alliance Corp
Barett vs Obama - In 2009, Carter dismissed a lawsuit, Barnett v. Obama, challenging President Barack Obama's election and assumption of office because of the claims that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, commenting that the power to remove a sitting president from office resides with Congress, not the judiciary.

----------


## zachrbroussard

> So...if Ron Paul's delegates are unbound. Do we have the 1144 delegates to get him elected?


But if we can broker the convention you can change people's minds in the pursuing debates. 

Regarding voting for others: wouldn't it be a "all for romney, yay or nay, all for paul yay or nay"? So if they wanted to vote for someone else a move would have to be made from the floor? Not that that's out of the question I guess, but it would be more involved for someone to get that done.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> We couldn't do any worse. What's Jesse gonna do now....fetch Ron's laundry?


Is it really necessary for you to act like this?

----------


## tod evans

> 10 pages,,and not posted yet.
> 
> http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...n_paul_rnc.php


Worth the read!

----------


## pcosmar

> Judge Carter from a post on Daily Paul in 2009:


That has what to do with this?



> Brought by lawyers from Richard Gilbert & Marlowe, which represents the Texas congressman, the suit seeks to "unbound" Paul delegates "to vote their conscience free from any intimidation from any person or entity."





> "Plaintiffs come to Federal Court," states the complaint, "to seek the guidance of the court regarding the federal question as to whether plaintiffs are free to vote their conscience on the first and all ballots at the federal election known as the Republican National Convention, or whether plaintiffs are bound to vote for a particular candidate as instructed by defendants' state party bylaws, or state laws, or the preference of political operatives seeking affidavits of loyalty to a particular candidate under penalty of perjury."
> 
> The Paul delegates cite federal law that reads: "No person, whether acting under the color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of president."

----------


## jbauer

Unless they undo the 5 state rule you'd have to get that wouldn't you?  That would at a minimum knock out grinch.  Maybe Santorum?

----------


## jay_dub

> Is it really necessary for you to act like this?


It was a joke. If it wasn't funny to you, move on. 

Was it necessary? No. Was your post necessary? No.

----------


## sailingaway

> Anyone know any of these "Lawyers for Ron Paul" people?
> I know there is a thread researching the website and affiliations, but what is the standing of the lawyers, Richard and David, with grassroots?


I did check Gilbert with the bar, he is clean, in terms of no noted ethical violations, but his background isn't election law. My only question is whether it can backfire, but, heck, someone has to bring all the cheating that was done out, imho.

I wish them well.

----------


## sailingaway

> Unless they undo the 5 state rule you'd have to get that wouldn't you?  That would at a minimum knock out grinch.  Maybe Santorum?


Ron should get Iowa.  Ron SHOULD have five states.  But Romney's folks are threatening credentials challenges basically across the board simply because they don't like that outcome, and they are expected to have most representation on the credentials committee so....

On the other hand, shining the light on WHY our credentials are pure AND THEIRS ARE NOT is precisely what this law suit should do.

----------


## jay_dub

Isn't Oklahoma being challenged? We won the rump convention hands down. That should be a state in our column.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Judge Carter from a post on Daily Paul in 2009:





> That has what to do with this?


Case Number SACV 12-00927 was filed at the Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, California, Ninth Federal Circuit. *Judge Carter* is said to be assigned to the case.

----------


## Carlybee

The question is, will it all be resolved before the convention?

----------


## jay_dub

> The question is, will it all be resolved before the convention?


I don't think it will 'all' be resolved before the convention. The important thing to have an immediate ruling on is the injunction allowing all delegates to vote their conscience. The RICO pursuit will take longer.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

News of this should bring some of the softies back to life and strengthen the funding for delegate chipins.

----------


## TheGrinch

The thing that pisses me off is that they can't do anything about those who didn't make it to the state conventions and now national, because of their shenanigans. We very nearly had a majority in GA, and might have if not for the Athens slate getting thrown out instead of being ours (best we could have hoped for), as well as in Cobb county and maybe other places... That's what really irks me, is that we might well have the numbers needed otherwise.

Can't complain for the chance to let everyone vote their conscience and see if they maybe can't convince them to do the right thing, but I wouldn't get my hopes up too much and be set up for dissapointment. Not to be a downer, but expectations need to be tempered. If they know they have the numbers to push Mitt through, then expect them to just be more private about their "unity slate".

Not saying it's not worth trying, it certainly is when this will be our best shot, but at this point, I'd probably be just as happy to see real legal action and ousting of all those who did the disenfranchising (though that's just what I'd like to see. It sounds as if it's unlikely from what Doug says, and with what route they've decided to go here).

----------


## moonshine5757

meh. good luck with this

----------


## libertygrl

I don't have much time and I'm stuggling with major allergies today, but this is just a brief excerpt from what I could transcribe in the beginning so you can get a general idea:

Topic: A civil suit against the RNC

Guests: David Callahan operations director for Lawyers for Ron Paul
Richard Gilbert: Attorney for the delegates to the Republican National Convention, and a member of Lawyers for Ron Paul

On the phone:  
"This is Richard Gilbert. I can tell you that a decision has been made by Lawyers for Ron Paul to take over the Ron Paul campaign, without the permission of the Ron Paul Campaign. It is the people's mutiny. We are forming an executive committee, within the Lawyers for Ron Paul group, and we will no longer tolerate negotiations for the surrender of the campaign in exchange for some consession on one or more planks that we find to be meaningless in a platform.  And so, we are going to go around the nation and publically announce that the L.F.R.P. and its executive committee, on behalf on the volunteers, ARE FROM NOW ON FORMALLY RUNNING THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN. WE ARE IN IT TO WIN IT AND NOTHING LESS. *WE ARE GOING TO STRIP MITT ROMNEY OF ALL OF HIS DELEGATES AND RON PAUL WILL BE PUT IN NOMINATION AND WIN THE NOMINATION, AND THAT IS OUR GOAL.. AND NOTHING LESS THAN THAT AND THAT'S WHAT OUR MISSION IS.*  

Whoa! This is HUGE!  Sorry, I can't write more but I'm going to listen to the rest now.

----------


## hipposelect

Thank you. Jeez, I've had teeth pulled that came out easier than this.

----------


## shishka

I would love to see Ron Paul be the nominee, and I'm not typically pessimistic, but the very-near time will tell whether or not this legel end-around has any chance of succeeding.  If it did, I would think the MSM would be all over it in the days to come. But like I said, we'll see very soon.

----------


## jay_dub

> The thing that pisses me off is that they can't do anything about those who didn't make it to the state conventions and now national, because of their shenanigans. We very nearly had a majority in GA, and might have if not for the Athens slate getting thrown out instead of being ours (best we could have hoped for), as well as in Cobb county and maybe other places... That's what really irks me, is that we might well have the numbers needed otherwise.
> 
> Can't complain for the chance to let everyone vote their conscience and see if they maybe can't convince them to do the right thing, but I wouldn't get my hopes up too much and be set up for dissapointment. Not to be a downer, but expectations need to be tempered. If they know they have the numbers to push Mitt through, then expect them to just be more private about their "unity slate".
> 
> Not saying it's not worth trying, it certainly is when this will be our best shot, but at this point, I'd probably be just as happy to see real legal action and ousting of all those who did the disenfranchising (though that's just what I'd like to see. It sounds as if it's unlikely from what Doug says, and with what route they've decided to go here).


Some things just can't be undone. We don't get a do-over. This does give us the chance to maximize the hand we've been dealt, though. It might also put the brakes on shenanigans by the Old Guard for the few upcoming state conventions and at Tampa.

I agree....this doesn't give us a lock on anything. What it does is level the playing field. Success in this gives us a fighting chance. 

No matter the outcome at Tampa, maybe this case will lead to a more fair process in future elections and that can only be a good thing.

----------


## Cowlesy

Why do I foresee this ending badly, with Ron really despising a lot of his own supporters...

----------


## shishka

> Why do I foresee this ending badly, with Ron really despising a lot of his own supporters...


Yeah, I kinda thought this, too.  What if Ron doesn't agree with this approach, and it somehow succeeds.  How does he accept the nomination in good faith then?

----------


## RDM

> Why do I foresee this ending badly, with Ron really despising a lot of his own supporters...


It seems like the NEW meme on these forums as of late is: This movement is bigger and much more important than Ron Paul

Are those "pushing" this NEW meme gonna backtrack now?

----------


## Tudo

Hey maybe an online protest will get some support! ( LOL )

----------


## jay_dub

> Why do I foresee this ending badly, with Ron really despising a lot of his own supporters...


How can this end any worse than the likely outcome we were facing? Nature abhors a vacuum. The campaign, in many ways, brought this on itself. It is not fair to the delegates to ask them to go through the time, expense and effort just to have a campaign that insists on going belly-up.

How can Ron despise the base he built when it decides to to stand its ground, much as he has for the last 30 years? The legal route is certainly preferable to having frustrations vented at Tampa.

I would remind you that injuries have been sustained, arrests have been made, rules have been violated, votes have gone uncounted and myriad shenanigans have been documented on video. In Nevada the Old Guard has formed a shadow party, apparently with the RNC's blessing. Just how much do you think we should be dumped on and remain silent? These lawyers are providing an avenue for redress that the campaign has been unwilling to undertake. I think Ron knows this. He may be surprised, but I don't see him despising anyone for it.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Why do I foresee this ending badly, with Ron really despising a lot of his own supporters...


I disagree. As much as I've been a staunch defender of Ron and the campaign, they've really put their heads in the sand about all of this disenfranchisement.

When I emailed Wead some time ago about the possibilities for a 3rd party run, one of things he said was that we were going to "expose their corruption". I was even under the impression that some of our donations would be going to support the legal battles, but I've not seen anything come of it, other than Doug paying lip service to it on his blog. I mean, when Rachel Maddow has done more to expose the corruption then they have (just to bash republicans of course), that's not good...

So I think they've pretty much necessitated this by keeping their heads in the sand about it. People have been disenfranchised and should demand justice... And who knows, maybe there are some consciences in all of those other delegates who've seen the scummy lengths that they've gone....

But regardless, if they're successful, this will make headlines, and I'll take whatever bad press we might get on the convention floor to show that they're the ones who've been playing dirty all along.

----------


## TheGrinch

> How can this end any worse than the likely outcome we were facing? Nature abhors a vacuum. The campaign, in many ways, brought this on itself. It is not fair to the delegates to ask them to go through the time, expense and effort just to have a campaign that insists on going belly-up.
> 
> How can Ron despise the base he built when it decides to to stand its ground, much as he has for the last 30 years? The legal route is certainly preferable to having frustrations vented at Tampa.
> 
> I would remind you that injuries have been sustained, arrests have been made, rules have been violated, votes have gone uncounted and myriad shenanigans have been documented on video. In Nevada the Old Guard has formed a shadow party, apparently with the RNC's blessing. Just how much do you think we should be dumped on and remain silent? These lawyers are providing an avenue for redress that the campaign has been unwilling to undertake. I think Ron knows this. He may be surprised, but I don't see him despising anyone for it.


You beat me to it. I agree completely.

Also, Ron has said all along that anyone with evidence of disenfranchisement or shenanigans should pursue it.

----------


## leslymill

I have listened to it twice.

----------


## acptulsa

> Basis ?


=singular.  Bases=plural, as in more than one basis.

And the fat lady ain't sung yet, folks.  Our job is to sell this action as the right thing for both the G.O.P. and the nation.  Which shouldn't be all that hard as this happens to be the case.

----------


## TrishW

> Why do I foresee this ending badly, with Ron really despising a lot of his own supporters...


I think you are wrong. Why would Ron Paul despise people for standing up to injustices? Where has Ron Paul ever chosen his battles on the prospect of winning or losing?  You must do what is right, and what is needed to keep America free. Even if in the end there is no justice, you will know that at least you kept fighting. Perhaps, I am wrong, but this is the Ron Paul that I have come to know.

 Granted they likely will lose, but more delegates have already shown a interest in signing on to the complaint. They expect many more.  Of course its about ousting Romney, but there is also a much bigger picture. Why should the American election not be honest and fair? I am tired of hearing the Republicans are a club. The hell with that! This so called club as a 50% or better chance of producing the next President of the United States! Surely they must be held to a high standard of open and fair elections?  If nothing else we need to get that cleared up, not only for now, but for all future elections!  Don't you agree?

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> I disagree. As much as I've been a staunch defender of Ron and the campaign, they've really put their heads in the sand about all of this disenfranchisement.
> 
> When I emailed Wead some time ago about the possibilities for a 3rd party run, one of things he said was that we were going to "expose their corruption". I was even under the impression that some of our donations would be going to support the legal battles, but I've not seen anything come of it, other than Doug paying lip service to it on his blog. I mean, when Rachel Maddow has done more to expose the corruption then they have (just to bash republicans of course), that's not good...
> 
> So I think they've pretty much necessitated this by keeping their heads in the sand about it. People have been disenfranchised and should demand justice... And who knows, maybe there are some consciences in all of those other delegates who've seen the scummy lengths that they've gone....
> 
> But regardless, if they're successful, this will make headlines, and I'll take whatever bad press we might get on the convention floor to show that they're the ones who've been playing dirty all along.


Did they keep their heads in the sand or was it just bait.  The more the GOP "got away" with, the more blatant they became.  It's been a while, but the last time I went fishing, I didn't catch anything just using a shiny hook.

Do you think that Dr. Paul can talk about an upcoming war years before it happens (Iraq, 1998) and predict a housing downturn (2002) but yet failed to comprehend the possible actions the GOP would take, especially after the negative 16,000 votes in FL in 2008? 




I am in no way implying Dr. Paul is psychic by any stretch of the imagination, but he simply reads the writing on the wall.  And if the information is foreshadowing a certain outcome, then why not strategize against it?

----------


## KingNothing

> Why do I foresee this ending badly, with Ron really despising a lot of his own supporters...


I doubt this will be effective, but I see no reason not to venture down this path.  That said, I predict plenty of complaining mixed with bombastic, overly dramatic rhetoric from our fellow supporters.  And I don't think that will offend Paul.  Its our MO.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> "If the judge rules in our favor, I won't be surprised if three or four new candidates, say Sarah Palin, jump in and say they want to be considered," Gilbert said.


If so, what will Tampa look like?

----------


## TrishW

> Did they keep their heads in the sand or was it just bait.  The more the GOP "got away" with, the more blatant they became.  It's been a while, but the last time I went fishing, I didn't catch anything just using a shiny hook.
> 
> Do you think that Dr. Paul can talk about an upcoming war years before it happens (Iraq, 1998) and predict a housing downturn (2002) but yet failed to comprehend the possible actions the GOP would take, especially after the negative 16,000 votes in FL in 2008? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way implying Dr. Paul is psychic by any stretch of the imagination, but he simply reads the writing on the wall.  And if the information is foreshadowing a certain outcome, then why not strategize against it?


Then perhaps he knows what we would do too...

Ron Paul is not destined to quietly ride his white horse into the sunset... He has torched the hills with his ideas. The fire burns, and I think Ron Paul is the last one wanting to put it out.

----------


## KingNothing

> Why should the American election not be honest and fair? I am tired of hearing the Republicans are a club. The hell with that! This so called club as a 50% or better chance of producing the next President of the United States! Surely they must be held to a high standard of open and fair elections?  If nothing else we need to get that cleared up, not only for now, but for all future elections!  Don't you agree?



The biggest concern with the Party is that they abide by any contracts they might have.  If they found a legal way to nominate a goat or a block of cheese, without violating any contracts, as a private organization why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

The problems arise when they say "hey, if you give us money and follow these rules, we will do X, Y and Z."  In many instances, we've played by the agreed-upon rules but they changed them when they didn't like the results.  That's not exactly appropriate, and I think it is entirely reasonable to take legal action against any entity that didn't follow through with their end of the bargain.

----------


## RDM

> If so, what will Tampa look like?


Good question. But if this lawsuit were to open the door for that scenario, one thing for certain, there should and could be a lot of appreciation for the Ron Paul movement and THAT could create a scenario where WE get rewarded with a special thanks.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

So, now we are for the government telling a private club/organization how they should be run?

----------


## RDM

> So, now we are for the government telling a private club/organization how they should be run?


Glad to see you value your right to vote and have it mean something.

----------


## TheGrinch

> So, now we are for the government telling a private club/organization how they should be run?


No, its called contract enforcementwhich is a legitimate government function.

Its one thing for them to make up their own rules, but another thing entirely to not follow the rules they set forth to disenfranchised paying members.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

> Glad to see you value your right to vote and have it mean something.


So, that's a yes?




> No, its called contract enforcementwhich is a legitimate government function.
> 
> Its one thing for them to make up their own rules, but another thing entirely to not follow the rules they set forth to disenfranchised paying members.


Do they have signed contracts? I don't know.

----------


## TheGrinch

> So, that's a yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have signed contracts? I don't know.


Contract enforcement in the loose sense, kind of like false advertising... I do not think that an actual contract is required for the participant, it has to do with the written rules that have been laid out by those in charge... Particularly when you have people pay to join, then just like advertising, sales, anything, you're bound to not misrepresent your product or service, under penalty of law... I mean, companies can't sell soda as fruit juice can they? Same thing in my view.

Moreover, when it comes to something having to do with the election process, you should expect that they should be bound to doing what they say they're going to do. Not to say the courts will agree, but they should...

----------


## torchbearer

> The biggest concern with the Party is that they abide by any contracts they might have.  If they found a legal way to nominate a goat or a block of cheese, without violating any contracts, as a private organization why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
> 
> The problems arise when they say "hey, if you give us money and follow these rules, we will do X, Y and Z."  In many instances, we've played by the agreed-upon rules but they changed them when they didn't like the results.  That's not exactly appropriate, and I think it is entirely reasonable to take legal action against any entity that didn't follow through with their end of the bargain.



good point

----------


## TrishW

> So, now we are for the government telling a private club/organization how they should be run?


YES! When the private club/organization is a willing participate of fraud... yes.  When the private club/organization is utilizing  monies from our taxes to finance their primaries... Hell Yes!

----------


## Cowlesy

> How can this end any worse than the likely outcome we were facing? Nature abhors a vacuum. The campaign, in many ways, brought this on itself. It is not fair to the delegates to ask them to go through the time, expense and effort just to have a campaign that insists on going belly-up.
> 
> How can Ron despise the base he built when it decides to to stand its ground, much as he has for the last 30 years? The legal route is certainly preferable to having frustrations vented at Tampa.
> 
> I would remind you that injuries have been sustained, arrests have been made, rules have been violated, votes have gone uncounted and myriad shenanigans have been documented on video. In Nevada the Old Guard has formed a shadow party, apparently with the RNC's blessing. Just how much do you think we should be dumped on and remain silent? These lawyers are providing an avenue for redress that the campaign has been unwilling to undertake. I think Ron knows this. He may be surprised, but I don't see him despising anyone for it.


It presupposes that Ron was being disingenuous to us in that he is winding down his campaign, realizing he can't win the nomination.  I don't believe he was being disingenuous, so I kind of see all these actions as an attempt to co-opt what he thinks is being wound down, without his knowledge, for some righteous purpose about which Ron is unaware.

I'm not saying don't do it.  Go nuts and have fun if you think it's going to make you feel better or somehow, against astronomical odds, make Ron become POTUS.

The thing is, having been around these forums and the campaigns since 2007 for a variety of campaigns, it seems like these types of exercises usually lead to relationship issues between otherwise congenial supporters, and somehow leads to people making pointless donations.  I am not saying anyone anywhere in any of this has asked for one red cent, just how things have gone in the past.

Like I said, if it makes you feel good, go for it.

----------


## matt0611

Is there a summary of whats going on in this thread? Some of us are at work and can't spend an hour to listen to something. (I don't even have audio)

----------


## torchbearer

I just read an article on the suit. I think they can win it by this fact alone, the RNC recieves federal funds to hold its elections/convention, thus making it bound to federal election laws.
In the same way that the private university, Louisiana College, is bound to federal discrimination laws because it recieves federal funding through pell grants and student loans.

summary, an organization is no longer considered private once it recieves federal funding.

if anyone has contact info for the attorneys, i'd love to give them some ideas.

----------


## torchbearer

> So, now we are for the government telling a private club/organization how they should be run?



see my post above.

----------


## RDM

> I just read an article on the suit. I think they can win it by this fact alone, the RNC recieves federal funds to hold its elections/convention, thus making it bound to federal election laws.
> In the same way that the private university, Louisiana College, is bound to federal discrimination laws because it recieves federal funding through pell grants and student loans.
> 
> summary, an organization is no longer considered private once it recieves federal funding.
> 
> if anyone has contact info for the attorneys, i'd love to give them some ideas.


- Address: Richard Gilbert & Associates, 950 W 17th St Ste C D & E, Santa Ana, CA 92706
                  - Law School: Western State Univ
                  - Date of State Bar Admission: 5/31/1979
                  - Telephone: (714) 667-1038

----------


## Zarn Solen

I mentioned this in another thread. I wasn't sure if it applied or not. Glad I wasn't the only one thinking it.

Edit: @Torchbearer

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm not saying don't do it.  Go nuts and have fun if you think it's going to make you feel better or somehow, against astronomical odds, make Ron become POTUS.


While I'm with him on not taking fraud and disenfranchisement lightly, I'm with you on this about tempering expectations that this might somehow magically put us over the top. I don't think that's at all likely, so I hope that most people here view this as serving and publicizing justice (and maybe making the Tampa convention a little more interesting), but not an invitation to cause a most likely futile and damaging ruckus that goes against Ron's wishes.

I really don't like that they're stating getting Dr. Paul the nomination as a primary goal. If that were the result of unbounding delegates and exposing the corruption, then fine, but they should not be getting people's hopes up for another big letdown (and subsequent $#@!storm here).

----------


## torchbearer

> - Address: Richard Gilbert & Associates, 950 W 17th St Ste C D & E, Santa Ana, CA 92706
>                   - Law School: Western State Univ
>                   - Date of State Bar Admission: 5/31/1979
>                   - Telephone: (714) 667-1038


email?


do they have a number for the suit so i can include it for reference?

----------


## torchbearer

> I mentioned this in another thread. I wasn't sure if it applied or not. Glad I wasn't the only one thinking it.
> 
> Edit: @Torchbearer


well the Louisiana College example actually has a previous case attached to it which it makes it very important for this case.
they can show how courts have ruled in the past on this topic.

Louisiana College, many years ago, had a campus rule prohibiting interracial dating/relationships. this rule was overturned by the courts as they sited that since L.C. recieved federal funding it had to abide by federal rules regarding discrimination.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Contract enforcement in the loose sense, kind of like false advertising... I do not think that an actual contract is required for the participant, it has to do with the written rules that have been laid out by those in charge... Particularly when you have people pay to join, then just like advertising, sales, anything, you're bound to not misrepresent your product or service, under penalty of law... I mean, companies can't sell soda as fruit juice can they? Same thing in my view.
> 
> Moreover, when it comes to something having to do with the election process, you should expect that they should be bound to doing what they say they're going to do. Not to say the courts will agree, but they should...


In short, a contract, *whether verbal or in writing*, is a *legally binding agreement enforceable in a court of law*. However, not all agreements between two parties are legally binding contracts. For it to be *considered a valid contract, certain elements must exist.*

- An Offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration

Subfactors - competence (may be an issue ), consent and legality

----------


## Elwar

> Is there a summary of whats going on in this thread? Some of us are at work and can't spend an hour to listen to something. (I don't even have audio)


In summary. You are lazy.

Not my opinion. Just the messenger.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...publicizing justice (and maybe making the Tampa convention a little more interesting)...
> 
> I really don't like that they're stating getting Dr. Paul the nomination as a primary goal. *If that were the result of unbounding delegates and exposing the corruption, then fine, but* they should not be getting people's hopes up for another big letdown (and subsequent $#@!storm here).



Ron Paul Supporters SHOULD be able to moderate their OWN expectations by now...or they have learned NOTHING.

Recovery Circuit Wisdom: Expectations are disappointments waiting to happen.

The principled AND the practical reason not to attach this to Ron Paul's candidacy is because, gee whiz, it gives the impression that Justice only becomes an issue whereas it serves Ron Paul and his emotionally/financially invested support.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> So, now we are for the government telling a private club/organization how they should be run?


No we're telling a private club that is the government that we run it.

----------


## Elwar

> So, now we are for the government telling a private club/organization how they should be run?


That private organization has already set up contractual rules and agreements with its members.

When that private organization violates those agreements, it is the right of those members to seek justice through the court system.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> That private organization has already set up contractual rules and agreements with its members.
> 
> When that private organization violates those agreements, it is the right of those members to seek justice through the court system.


Bam!

----------


## jay_dub

> While I'm with him on not taking fraud and disenfranchisement lightly, I'm with you on this about tempering expectations that this might somehow magically put us over the top. I don't think that's at all likely, so I hope that most people here view this as serving and publicizing justice (and maybe making the Tampa convention a little more interesting), but not an invitation to cause a most likely futile and damaging ruckus that goes against Ron's wishes.
> 
> I really don't like that they're stating getting Dr. Paul the nomination as a primary goal. If that were the result of unbounding delegates and exposing the corruption, then fine, but they should not be getting people's hopes up for another big letdown (and subsequent $#@!storm here).


I think you have to take some of what the attorney said as bluster. Nothing wrong with it....it shows confidence, but we shouldn't see that outcome as inevitable. We still have work to do and it's still a long shot. The work ahead does seem a little less futile, though.

I don't think this will lead to a convention ruckus. In fact, it may serve to prevent one as this will be seen as well....having our day in court. 

The benefit I see to this is that we all...and I mean all Americans, may see a more fair process in the future from all this. It does no good to wake people up if the process is rigged.

Kind of OT, but I just finished watching "The Last Samurai" for the second time. Very inspiring...the parallels to our struggle are obvious.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

Take your opportunities as far as they will go. If it doesn't work, on to the next. There's no point in standing around picking scabs.

----------


## jay_dub

> well the Louisiana College example actually has a previous case attached to it which it makes it very important for this case.
> they can show how courts have ruled in the past on this topic.
> 
> Louisiana College, many years ago, had a campus rule prohibiting interracial dating/relationships. this rule was overturned by the courts as they sited that since L.C. recieved federal funding it had to abide by federal rules regarding discrimination.


Prior rulings must be given weight in decisions. The same basis (Federal funding) is why schools must comply with No Child Left Behind, though it has largely been a failure.

Really, on just a common sense basis, it's absurd to think a wholly private entity could conduct a public election.

----------


## freedomordeath

TO ALL THE NAYSAYERS AND DOOMSAYERS... this is important not from simply making sure cheating bastards are brought to justice, but also for the future to make sure they don't try this rubbish again. Also Ron and family might be held at gun point for all we know and powerless to do anything, so we DOING THE RIGHT THING, always prosecute the fraud, its like watching someone steal a grannies handbag and sitting back and saying, I don't think Ron Paul would aprove of us running after robber... yeah whatever dude.

ALSO WE NEED A RALLY CRY TO GATHER THE TROOPS, THIS IS IT, THIS IS CALLED NOT GIVING UP FIGHT TIL THE END, WAIT TILL THE PRESS PICK THIS UP THEN POEPLE WILL START GETTING INVOLVED AGAIN.

----------


## Barrex

Since I am from Croatia and some people remind me on that when I get involved, in effort to avoid any "bad feelings" can someone else  start "OFFICIAL THREAD" and update OP from time to time so that discussion is concentrated and all information can be found on 1 place? Here are all relevant informations so far:

Twitter feed:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

All legal documents that have been filed with the Ninth Circuit Court are now available for perusal.

Here's the links:

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/3_CER...(JPRx).pdf

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/1_COM...(JPRx).pdf

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/3_CER...(JPRx).pdf

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/4_NOT...(JPRx).pdf

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/5_NOT...(JPRx).pdf
Latest letter to Reince Priebus:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1P4jA...wtT/edit?pli=1


Case Number SACV 12-00927

- Address: Richard Gilbert & Associates, 950 W 17th St Ste C D & E, Santa Ana, CA 92706
                   - Law School: Western State Univ
                   - Date of State Bar Admission: 5/31/1979
                   - Telephone: (714) 667-1038                         

http://www.gilbertandmarlowe.com/dynamicattorneys.htm

Laws tied with this case:

Title 42 USC Section 1971:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1971

    Title 42 USC Section 1983:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

    11 CFR 100.2 - Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1))
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/100.2

    47 CFR 64.803 – Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/64.803

    Morse v. Republican Party of Va. - 517 U.S. 186 (1995)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/186


Here's what PACER is showing so far (pertinent text):
8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR Delegates to the Republican National Convention et al v. Republican National Committee et al
David O. Carter, presiding
Jean P Rosenbluth, referral
Date filed: 06/11/2012
Date of last filing: 06/11/2012

Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Docket report:
Date Filed # Docket Text 
06/11/2012 1  COMPLAINT against all Defendants. Case assigned to Judge  David O. Carter for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to  Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth.(Filing fee $350 Paid). Filed by all  Plaintiffs.(lwag) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/12/2012: # 1  Part 2) (lwag). (Entered: 06/12/2012) 
06/11/2012 2  CERTIFICATION and Notice of Interested Parties filed by all Plaintiffs. (lwag) (lwag). (Entered: 06/12/2012) 
06/11/2012 3  NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed.(lwag) (Entered: 06/12/2012) 
06/11/2012    21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery) 1 as to all Defendants. (lwag) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

ElectionFraudRemedy.com                         
http://wtpnetwork.com/

A group of attorneys have come together – “LAWYERS FOR RON PAUL” (https://www.facebook.com/groups/188334154612254/)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1883...12254/members/
(WELCOME NEW MEMBERS! This group is STRICTLY FOR vote/delegate/election fraud reporting and remedies and related discussions. Off-topic posts will be deleted.)


Interview with people who are in charge:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...35553&cmd=apop

http://player.vimeo.com/video/44236240
(it wouldnt be bad if someone would download it so we can have backup. That goes for documents too.)




> Quote from that interview :
>   I wanna be very clear that I am accusing the Romney  campaign of organized criminal acts. That includes: altering ballots,  rigging voting machines etc.


FAQ:




FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW WHAT RON THINKS ABOUT THIS:
(listen to 0:43 )


When Ron Paul was asked about election fraud:"I think they have but i dont have the proof:Nevada there is pretty good evidence. I have heard so many stories about how the votes get manipulated but as far as evidence goes and as far as try to prove anything I am having another things to worry about. I am trying to stop another war with Iran now than pursuing that. I WISH SOME PEOPLE WOULD. THE ONES THAT KNOW ABOUT IT. THEY OUGHT TO PURSUE THIS AND THEN SEE IF THEY CAN, WHATEVER THEY CAN DOCUMENT"


_
Injustice and corruption anywhere harms everyone and everywhere._




> I think I'm going to visit this guy...after all,  near me.  We just really don't need the crazies approaching him...This  man is not lesser of 2 evil. This man is evil.


You mean "our" lawyer and not judge? Right?

Maybe it would be better to collect some questions from this forum and then go to them and ask them how people here can help.


*Can someone point out my grammar mistakes in my unusually long first sentence(question)?

----------


## ScrambleLight

-1 for being obnoxious.

----------


## jemuf

> Noted. 
> 
> The movement operates more effectively when we don't commit 10,000 man-hours to listening to a call that can be summed up in a few sentences.


Amen!  What the hell is wrong with RDM?


I'm listening to the audio.  So far the announcement to take over the campaign occured between the 5:35 and 6:50 minute marks.

Yep I found the conference call hard to listen to; I made it 1/2 way.  The most common phrases are "uh..", "and..", "and, and...", "Oh, thank you for listening to our show.  This is WTPN Network...."

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Since I am from Croatia and some people remind me on that when I get involved, in effort to avoid any "bad feelings" can someone else  start "OFFICIAL THREAD" and update OP from time to time so that discussion is concentrated and all information can be found on 1 place? Here are all relevant informations so far:
> 
> 
> 
> All legal documents that have been filed with the Ninth Circuit Court are now available for perusal.
> 
> Here's the links:
> 
> http://www.toolsforjustice.com/3_CER...(JPRx).pdf
> ...


Thank you, Barrex.

----------


## KingNothing

> No we're telling a private club that is the government that we run it.


No.  This is not true. We are telling them to abide by contracts.

----------


## KingNothing

> TO ALL THE NAYSAYERS AND DOOMSAYERS... this is important not from simply making sure cheating bastards are brought to justice, but also for the future to make sure they don't try this rubbish again. Also Ron and family might be held at gun point for all we know and powerless to do anything, so we DOING THE RIGHT THING, always prosecute the fraud, its like watching someone steal a grannies handbag and sitting back and saying, I don't think Ron Paul would aprove of us running after robber... yeah whatever dude.
> 
> ALSO WE NEED A RALLY CRY TO GATHER THE TROOPS, THIS IS IT, THIS IS CALLED NOT GIVING UP FIGHT TIL THE END, WAIT TILL THE PRESS PICK THIS UP THEN POEPLE WILL START GETTING INVOLVED AGAIN.


I mostly disagree with this entire premise.  We don't need a rally cry.  And there is no "end" to fight up to.  

This is constant.  We have to patiently preach liberty, push politicians who will work on our behalf and do our best to unseat those who won't.  There is no climactic final battle. There's just the next opportunity and the next obstacle.  Leave the drama, bombast, and unseemly emotion out of this.  Proceed thoughtfully, optimistically and methodically.  That's how win --- intelligence and persistence.

----------


## No1butPaul

It seems the MSM isn't going to pick this up and how can they really since they would be opening a can of worms for themselves because of their failure to report on a single allegation of fraud.  Their lightening quick responses to certain campaign announcements prove they are aware, but just failing to report. To the extent it is possible, I hope there is an indictment of the media for collusion with the criminal deeds of the RNC and others during the RICO phase of litigation.

----------


## freedomordeath

> This is constant. We have to patiently preach liberty, push politicians who will work on our behalf and do our best to unseat those who won't. There is no climactic final battle. There's just the next opportunity and the next obstacle. Leave the drama, bombast, and unseemly emotion out of this. Proceed thoughtfully, optimistically and methodically. That's how win --- intelligence and persistence.


yes everything you say is true, BUT TAMPA CONVENTIONS DON'T COME AROUND ALL THAT OFTEN, we still in a race remember and when runers are getting tired, fatigued we need that kick up the backside to getting poeple running again. I even heard of delgates that have siad they not going anymore THATS HOW HOW FCKED UP THIS SITUATION IS, your argument goes out the window if delgates we worked so hard for don't even pitch for the convention. We need good news to get morale up ahead of TAMPA, we NEED TO FINISH THE RACE LIKE THE GOOD DOCTOR TOLD US TO. We'll do all the slow patient team building after the convention, but TAMPA IS WHERE ITS AT THE MOMENT.. we need to start running towards the end, MANY RUN TO WIN not matter how unlikely the win is.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> No.  This is not true. We are telling them to abide by contracts.


Yeah, ok. Sorry, I was just shooting my mouth off. Too much coffee.

The point is we need to defend the rights of the delegates. If it is their legal right to vote for whom they choose then that is the f ing law, as well as just common gd sense.

So define it however you want. Stick to the point. We need to take this $#@! over. I'm tired of this bull$#@!.

----------


## Carlybee

So are Lawyers for Ron Paul employed by Ron Paul? The name is throwing me and I havent had time to read all of this.

----------


## soulcyon

> So are Lawyers for Ron Paul employed by Ron Paul? The name is throwing me and I havent had time to read all of this.


Just like this Forum, they are supporters of Ron Paul but they are not paid by Ron Paul or employed by him.

I'm also sure they are trying to 'take over' the official Ron Paul Campaign.

----------


## RDM

A message from Attorney Richard Gilbert as posted on the Lawyers for Ron Paul FB page:

I  have received hundreds of e mails of support. Thank you. For those of  you who wish to keep up with the lawsuit and my views you are welcome to  join me at my twitter account  @USA_Free_Press  I and my twitter  followers who are more than 300,000 Ron Paul supporters started  preparing the strategy for the lawsuit last November. We believed the  Campaign would file the case. When it became obvious the Campaign was  not going to help the Delegates who were being systematically attacked,  beaten, and subjected to fraud, State after State, we made the decision  to file the case on our own. By fate I met the team at  ToolsForJustice.com who have been an enormous and indispensible help.  Together we formed a legal team to go forward. Jerry, David, and Hope  are true Ron Paul volunteers taking real action to seek victory in Tampa. 
 Bonnie, Nicky and others have done a beautiful job creating this facebook room and maintaining it.
 Yesterday some people, just a few, started behaving like the anonymous people on Daily Paul.
 As you can see from my tweets to my 300,000 Ron Paul readers on Twitter  below, those few from yesterday have a serious comprehension problem.  @USA_Free_Press  is where you can find me. 

 USA_Patriot_Press@USA_Free_Press

 We will make every effort to convince Doug Wead to join the new campaign

----------


## Indy Vidual

> ...
> 
> Edit: To sum it up, their goal is to have every delegate unbound, which will effectively mean no candidate can claim any delegates going in to the convention.


Freedom!

----------


## zachrbroussard

Can we get an updated OP with the summation and other important information?

----------


## Indy Vidual

> http://www.californiality.com/2012/0...s-lawsuit.html
> 
> 'Lawyers for Ron Paul' has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in California against the Republican National Committee and state GOP chapters for alleged voting rights violations, election fraud and other misconduct at GOP primaries and caucuses in 2012.
> 
> In the bombshell lawsuit, the group claims "overwhelming evidence" that the voting rights of Ron Paul Republican delegates and other voters were violated by "nearly every state GOP party and the RNC during the 2012 primary election phase, with utter and blatant disregard for any rule of law."
> 
> Other groups are reportedly lining up to join the coalition of lawyers, paralegals, and concerned citizens who filed the civil lawsuit against the GOP.
> 
> *Case Number SACV 12-00927* was filed at the Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, California, Ninth Federal Circuit.  Judge Carter is said to be assigned to the case.
> ...


Hope for America.

----------


## devil21

Sure wish people would notate the case number correctly.  Searching PACER with case number "SACV 12-00927" will not return any case information, because it's wrong.  The actual case number is "8:12-CV-00927".

----------


## tlw

I am listening to it right now (still have 4 min left) and in a nutshell, lawyers for Ron Paul want to make sure every delegate at the National Convention can vote for whoever they want on the first vote. They also have over 100 criminal cases built up against Romney campaign/RNC.

----------


## KerriAnn

//

----------


## No1butPaul

OK by me...we will defeat Obama if given the chance.

Excuse me ... _when_ given the chance.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> It seems like the NEW meme on these forums as of late is: This movement is bigger and much more important than Ron Paul


Ron is responsible for that one anyway, circa 2007.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Is there a summary of whats going on in this thread? Some of us are at work and can't spend an hour to listen to something. (I don't even have audio)


lol.  The first 7 pages were fighting about whether every person must listen to a one hour conference call to see what was said and decide inportance. It gets fuzzy after that.  But someone in there, did provide a mini-summary finally.

----------


## RDM

> Thought this was interesting:
> While digging around the internet about the lawyers who started this lawsuit, I found some info about David Callahan.
> According to wikipedia, he is the co-founder of a US think tank named "Demos", and guess who was a board member of that same small group? Obama!
> 
> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demos_(U.S._think_tank):
> 
> In the late 1990s, Demos was conceptualized by Charles Halpern, President of the Nathan Cummings Foundation (1989–2000). Halpern wanted to create a counter-argument to the growing influence of the many right-wing think tanks and establish a multi-issue organization that would focus on progressive policy development and advocacy. *David Callahan*, a Fellow at the Century Foundation, and Stephen Heintz, Vice-President of the EastWest Institute, joined Halpern in helping to found Demos. Founding Board members included Arnie Miller, of Isaccson Miller, an executive search firm; David Skaggs, a Colorado Congressman; and *Barack Obama*, an Illinois State Senator.
> 
> 
> ...


It would be interesting if the *David Calihan* that is working with the Lawyers for Ron Paul were the *David Callahan* you are referencing.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> So are Lawyers for Ron Paul employed by Ron Paul? The name is throwing me and I havent had time to read all of this.


It does not appear that way.  I'm naturally suspicious of who they are, but I'll say that about anyone I see in a grocery store parking lot.  It's gonna take awhile to figure this all out.

----------


## No1butPaul

> It would be interesting if the *David Calihan* that is working with the Lawyers for Ron Paul were the *David Callahan* you are referencing.


Ha...nice catch

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> No.  This is not true. We are telling them to abide by contracts.


The breaking of those contracts had economic consequences to many GOP voters who paid to finance their candidate.  I smell another lawsuit.

----------


## TheGrinch

The fact that I just upvoted this thread with 5 stars and it didn't budge from 3 stars should show how many trolls counter-productive of our efforts are among us.

It's one thing to be skeptical about this doing more harm than good (though I'm coming around to the "give 'em hell' side), but sorry, only a troll would dispute that what these lawyers are trying to accomplish isn't admirable after the nasty tactics they've resorted to.

As someone who personally knows some of those in Athens and Cobb, GA who were disenfranchised, I maybe have too personal of a stake in this, but if this can at least draw publicity to how corrupt they all are to try to maintain their power, then it's totally worth it.

The "campaign" might have to be against it for obvious PR reasons, but just like Ron understood that Rand had to do what he had to do, I'm sure he understands that we have to do what we have to do... Let's just do it the right way...

----------


## muzzled dogg

Is this major news?

----------


## zachrbroussard

> Is this major news?


Is a lawsuit against the GOP to unbind delegates a big deal? Are the allegations of large scale voter fraud a big deal? Is it a big deal that this is evidence of large scale voter fraud? 

YES

----------


## jcannon98188

> Is this major news?


A challenge in the 9th district court that could potentially alter the very course of this election, and could result in hundreds of criminal charges being filed against our enemies? Yes, this could be considered major.

----------


## muzzled dogg

I did not consider the lawsuits challenging an incumbent president's eligibility to be major news because I knew how they'd turn out

----------


## Eisenhower

> I did not consider the lawsuits challenging an incumbent president's eligibility to be major news because I knew how they'd turn out


Who are you, Doug Wead?

----------


## CPUd

There is also the mutiny takeover of the Ron Paul Campaign.

----------


## Eisenhower

> There is also the mutiny takeover of the Ron Paul Campaign.


lol

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Who are you, Doug Wead?


Apparently, he's a realist with a track record of 1-0.  

As far as this being something "taking over the Paul Campaign," that statement itself makes me suspicious.  Why can't they do their thing without claiming they're taking over something that doesn't belong to them?  Or why wouldn't they say they are supporting the Paul Campaign or say they are supporting delegates?

Also, they are "taking over the Paul Campaign" and fighting for everyone's delegates?  I understand that latter is the right thing to do, but there's no reason to make the former statement if that is your intent.

----------


## CPUd

> Apparently, he's a realist with a track record of 1-0.  
> 
> As far as this being something "taking over the Paul Campaign," that statement itself makes me suspicious.  Why can't they do their thing without claiming they're taking over something that doesn't belong to them?  Or why wouldn't they say they are supporting the Paul Campaign or say they are supporting delegates?
> 
> Also, they are "taking over the Paul Campaign" and fighting for everyone's delegates?  I understand that latter is the right thing to do, but there's no reason to make the former statement if that is your intent.


I'm still unclear on this at the moment and hoping when they form an executive committee, they will do more to separate campaign efforts from the lawsuit.  Their justification for taking over the campaign has to do with recent events that indicated a Presidential Campaign is working detrimental to its purpose - running for President, and disenfranchising delegates in the process.

----------


## Barrex

> The fact that I just upvoted this thread with 5 stars and it didn't budge from 3 stars should show how many trolls counter-productive of our efforts are among us.
> 
> It's one thing to be skeptical about this doing more harm than good (though I'm coming around to the "give 'em hell' side), but sorry, only a troll would dispute that what these lawyers are trying to accomplish isn't admirable after the nasty tactics they've resorted to.
> 
> As someone who personally knows some of those in Athens and Cobb, GA who were disenfranchised, I maybe have too personal of a stake in this, but if this can at least draw publicity to how corrupt they all are to try to maintain their power, then it's totally worth it.
> 
> The "campaign" might have to be against it for obvious PR reasons, but just like Ron understood that Rand had to do what he had to do, I'm sure he understands that we have to do what we have to do... Let's just do it the right way...


4 stars now  and I agree about "counter productive" people...Had major disagreement with one of them in another thread...

For those asking what Ron thinks about this I allready answered in this post there is a video with Ron Paul speaking about fraud and what he wishes people would do:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4495638

(post is too long to repost it...)

This is grassroots project and not campaigns or Ron Pauls.... but both campaign and Ron Paul and Mitt (it is not both it is____? throuth? seriously what is it?) know that this lawsuit was coming (in non sexual way).

----------


## muzzled dogg

> Who are you, Doug Wead?


Not last time I checked.  He worked for bush.  I despise bush

----------


## jemuf

I think there's a major problem with all this "takeover" talk.  What if Ron Paul doesn't want to be president?  He doesn't have to be sworn in.

And this logic applies to a write-in campaign.  I wish Ron Paul would come out with a statement regarding Lawyers for Ron Paul or a write-in campaign.

----------


## eleganz

> I think there's a major problem with all this "takeover" talk.  What if Ron Paul doesn't want to be president?  He doesn't have to be sworn in.
> 
> And this logic applies to a write-in campaign.  I wish Ron Paul would come out with a statement regarding Lawyers for Ron Paul or a write-in campaign.



Are you kidding?  Being President is the best way for him to get his message out.  He could have a freakin daily liberty class if he wanted to.

Since when was he ever selfish about the development of the movement?  He will do anything for this movement, saving this country is something that he'll never back down from.

----------


## davidt!

> They just accused the Romney campaign of being a criminal organization, and said Mitt is not the lesser of 2 evils, he_ is_ evil.  He also says when the judge renders a positive decision, mitt will have 0 delegates.


Not according to Rand Paul...

----------


## jay_dub

> I think there's a major problem with all this "takeover" talk.  What if Ron Paul doesn't want to be president?  He doesn't have to be sworn in.
> 
> And this logic applies to a write-in campaign.  I wish Ron Paul would come out with a statement regarding Lawyers for Ron Paul or a write-in campaign.


Well, after 3 tries, he better be ready!!

----------


## opinionatedfool

> Not last time I checked.  He worked for bush.  I despise bush


He's definitely a pro liberty person now though.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Apparently, he's a realist with a track record of 1-0.  
> 
> As far as this being something "taking over the Paul Campaign," that statement itself makes me suspicious.  Why can't they do their thing without claiming they're taking over something that doesn't belong to them?  Or why wouldn't they say they are supporting the Paul Campaign or say they are supporting delegates?
> 
> Also, they are "taking over the Paul Campaign" and fighting for everyone's delegates?  I understand that latter is the right thing to do, but there's no reason to make the former statement if that is your intent.


I agree.  That part bothered me too.

----------


## liberty2897

Sorry if this was already posted.  I didn't read through every single page of this thread.




http://electionfraudremedy.com/

I don't know anything more about this other than watching / listening to the video.  Sounds interesting.

----------


## opinionatedfool

> Does Ron know he has a new campaign staff ?


I don't get the whole "taking over the campaign thing. What do they mean? Are they taking over the actual campaign or just metaphorically?

----------


## CPUd

> I don't get the whole "taking over the campaign thing. What do they mean? Are they taking over the actual campaign or just metaphorically?


They claim they are forming an Executive Committee

----------


## opinionatedfool

> They claim they are forming an Executive Committee


Lol, whatever that means

----------


## No1butPaul

Less than 24 hrs. and more than 14,000 views, yet the msm is silent...it is deafening...we can't report this because we have covered up everything else and couldn't explain it to our viewers/readers. Keeping them honest doesn't apply to us or the RNC.

----------


## muh_roads

They said they are taking over the campaign "unofficially" and something to the effect of "whether they like it or not".  They firmly believe the Paul campaign was hijacked to make it fall apart.

Tonight's special edition folks is called "Lawyers who love Alex Jones".  I'm not going to put too much faith in this really going anywhere.

----------


## Ivash

> Less than 24 hrs. and more than 14,000 views, yet the msm is silent...it is deafening...we can't report this because we have covered up everything else and couldn't explain it to our viewers/readers. Keeping them honest doesn't apply to us or the RNC.


In today's day and age 14,000 views is nothing. Videos with many, many times that get no notice by the media. I'm sure the media would think this is the act of a group of sore losers rather than anything significant, anyways.

----------


## JK/SEA

> In today's day and age 14,000 views is nothing. Videos with many, many times that get no notice by the media. I'm sure the media would think this is the act of a group of sore losers rather than anything significant, anyways.


who cares what the media thinks at this point...the main question is, what do you think?

----------


## No1butPaul

> who cares what the media thinks at this point...the main question is, what do you think?


I know what I know...like miss daisy

b/t/w - why has everything become a matter of confrontation lately on this forum...
aren't we on the same team? I support Ron Paul and liberty, you?

----------


## No1butPaul

> In today's day and age 14,000 views is nothing. Videos with many, many times that get no notice by the media. I'm sure the media would think this is the act of a group of sore losers rather than anything significant, anyways.


for THIS forum, in 24 hrs, that's a lot and my point wasn't that its viral, but we gots us lookers plenty, including media. But this story, as huge as it is, they can't touch it because they have failed to report on a single incident. I guess they are just going to play dumb, like they did with the crash of 08.

----------


## devil21

> 4 stars now  and I agree about "counter productive" people...Had major disagreement with one of them in another thread...


I must have really gotten under your skin.

----------


## RDM

*UPDATE:*

There are now videos available in 3 parts of the conference call that you can share on your websites, blogs or Facebook, etc. Here they are.





Part 3's my favorite because I'm mentioned as Ron from PA.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I know what I know...like miss daisy
> 
> b/t/w - why has everything become a matter of confrontation lately on this forum...
> aren't we on the same team? I support Ron Paul and liberty, you?


uh..who rattled your cage?...is your name Ivash?...gtfo..

----------


## presence

*Cliff's Notes:*




> A decision has been made to take over the RP campaign without permission:  A people's mutiny.  We are forming a lawyers committee and we will no longer tolerate injustice.
> 
> There was foul play, significant fraud, and misconduct.
> Romney will be stripped of all delegates.
> Ron paul will get the nomination.
> The GOP "club" has violated Title 42 US Section 1971-1974 Voting Rights Law.
> 100's of lawyers have signed up.
> We are accusing the Romney campaign of organized criminal acts including: altering ballots, rigging voting machines, etc. 
> Binding delegates is illegal.
> ...




Richard Gilbert & Associates, 950 W 17th St Ste C D & E, Santa Ana, CA 92706
Telephone: (714) 667-1038 
The actual case number is "8:12-CV-00927"
9th Circuit Court in California

106 page PDF of case as filed:  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...T0U/edit?pli=1

Short and skinny pages 16-18 and 25-29



Check this link to post 158 by Barrex for more info:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4495638

3 piece audio with graphics at post 212:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4497950

More info at:

www.ronpaulgrassrootsrevolution.com
www.weareronpaul.com
www.realgrassrootsrevolution.com


RDM can we get an updated op with some of this pertinant info?

----------


## Badger Paul

Bump...I love mutinies.

----------


## No1butPaul

> ...gtfo..


??? I haven't a clue what is your problem...isn't there another place, outside this thread, where you can direct your hostilities. Thank you.

----------


## TrishW

*The case will be heard before the convention.* 

That is very good news!


So are we sure the case will be heard and not simply dismissed?

----------


## RDM

> *The case will be heard before the convention.* 
> 
> That is very good news!
> 
> 
> So are we sure the case will be heard and not simply dismissed?


I am not a lawyer, but maybe someone with legal experience wants to weigh in on this they could. IMO, the overwhelming evidence, over 150 sworn testimonies and affidavits and more coming in daily, already precidented case law pertaining to this case and statutes and laws in our favor, I believe there is less than 1% chance this case gets dismissed.

----------


## tod evans

> *The case will be heard before the convention.* 
> 
> So are we sure the case will be heard and not simply dismissed?


This is entirely up to the judge.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> In today's day and age 14,000 views is nothing. Videos with many, many times that get no notice by the media. I'm sure the media would think this is the act of a group of sore losers rather than anything significant, anyways.


True.  I have over 800,000 combined views on my YouTube whistling videos and the MSM hasn't covered me or made me famous yet.

I'm sure they're aware of the lawsuit by now, but I think the bigger issue here, as others have pointed out, is that if all this stuff has been happening all along, and nobody has been reporting any of it (except Ben Swann and Rachel Maddow to some degree), then they all have some serious explaining to do.  I wonder how many media outlets are sweating bullets right now figuring out how they are going to deal with this story since it is not going away.  Their little plan to rig this primary is about to fall flat on its face and they are going to be exposed for the liars and cheats they are, along with Romney's "unity" folks.

Personally I'd like to see some of the MSM outlets indicted on criminal charges in the RICO trial when that part happens, because I have no doubt there was an organized effort by some of them to keep Ron Paul as invisible as possible, and collusion with the GOP to report the facts incorrectly in order to manipulate the outcome of this primary in favor of Romney.  I wish some whistleblowers from inside the MSM would come forward with e-mails from Murdoch, Moonvies, et. al....  It would probably be hard to prove without something like that.

----------


## WhistlinDave

Duplicate post...  (deleted)

----------


## No1butPaul

> True.  I have over 800,000 combined views on my YouTube whistling videos and the MSM hasn't covered me or made me famous yet.
> 
> I'm sure they're aware of the lawsuit by now, but I think the bigger issue here, as others have pointed out, is that if all this stuff has been happening all along, and nobody has been reporting any of it (except Ben Swann and Rachel Maddow to some degree), then they all have some serious explaining to do.  I wonder how many media outlets are sweating bullets right now figuring out how they are going to deal with this story since it is not going away.  Their little plan to rig this primary is about to fall flat on its face and they are going to be exposed for the liars and cheats they are, along with Romney's "unity" folks.
> 
> Personally I'd like to see some of the MSM outlets indicted on criminal charges in the RICO trial when that part happens, because I have no doubt there was an organized effort by some of them to keep Ron Paul as invisible as possible, and collusion with the GOP to report the facts incorrectly in order to manipulate the outcome of this primary in favor of Romney.  I wish some whistleblowers from inside the MSM would come forward with e-mails from Murdoch, Moonvies, et. al....  It would probably be hard to prove without something like that.


 yeah, I'm pretty sure it was I who brought that up, in a few threads actually.

----------


## No1butPaul

> It seems the MSM isn't going to pick this up and how can they really since they would be opening a can of worms for themselves because of their failure to report on a single allegation of fraud.  Their lightening quick responses to certain campaign announcements prove they are aware, but just failing to report. To the extent it is possible, I hope there is an indictment of the media for collusion with the criminal deeds of the RNC and others during the RICO phase of litigation.


my earlier point

----------


## bcreps85

> my earlier point


Well said.

----------


## Barrex

It seems the MSM isn't going to pick this up and how can they really  since they would be opening a can of worms for themselves because of  their failure to report on a single allegation of fraud.  Their  lightening quick responses to certain campaign announcements prove they  are aware, but just failing to report. To the extent it is possible, I  hope there is an indictment of the media for collusion with the criminal  deeds of the RNC and others during the RICO phase of litigation.

Barrex

----------


## Diashi

Apologies if this was already provided, but will there be a twitter feed for the progression of this case?

----------


## ChristopherShelley

CORRECTED:

@usa_free_press

----------


## ChristopherShelley

CORRECTED:

I listed the wrong handle.




> CORRECTED:
> 
> @usa_free_press

----------


## WhistlinDave

> CORRECTED:
> 
> @usa_free_press


It's worth noting, when you search on Twitter for @usa_free_press their account comes up and their name is USA_Patriot_Press.  Then when you look at it you see their actual Twitter handle is @usa_free_press .

Took me about a minute to figure out it was the right one.  (I haven't used Twitter all that much.)

----------


## presence

> True.  I have over 800,000 combined views on my YouTube whistling videos and the MSM hasn't covered me or made me famous yet.
> 
> I'm sure they're aware of the lawsuit by now, but I think the bigger issue here, as others have pointed out, is that if all this stuff has been happening all along, and nobody has been reporting any of it[]


Well... in the same way our grassroots have created the legal case.  We need a grassroots press release to our liberty-online force, this site lists the top libertarian sites by page hits:

http://toplibertarian.com/

We are the legal team.
We are the PR team.
etc.

----------


## WhistlinDave

MSM is going to have to cover this at some point.

They're probably hoping the lawsuit is unsuccessful so then they can report on it in a negative way, like "Well look what those crazy Ron Paul people tried this time.  They're a bunch of losers and they keep trying to steal this election any way they can."  That's what they're wishing for.

But what they're going to have to say is, "Well no one saw this coming, but apparently there was massive fraud and cheating going on by the Romney folks, and an army of lawyers teamed up to fight on behalf of Ron Paul, and... All of this was kept so secret for so long, it's with great surprise that we tell you today, Romney is NOT the GOP Nominee!  You heard right, we just said:  Romney is NOT the GOP Nominee!  In an unprecedented turn of events, Ron Paul has taken the GOP Nomination and will be facing President Obama in November...  And in other news, Michelle Obama reported that she's picked out a nice little house in the suburbs and the Obamas have begun packing their things."

----------


## presence

You know... you put this side by side with the whole Obama birth certificate issue and that whole prophecy/conspiracy theory of suspended elections in the US for 2012 becomes easy to write political fiction.

presence

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Well... in the same way our grassroots have created the legal case.  We need a grassroots press release to our liberty-online force, this site lists the top libertarian sites by page hits:
> 
> http://toplibertarian.com/
> 
> We are the legal team.
> We are the PR team.
> etc.


I'm with you on that.

I wonder what it would take to get a massive amount of people to participate in a Twitter bomb all on one day at a preplanned time, to make something in the top trending stuff like #RomneyElectionFraudLawsuit  or something like that.  If we have tens of thousands of people posting on Twitter all at once, each person Tweeting repeatedly over and over, I wonder if it would be enough to get into the top trending results so everybody would say "Wow what's that about?"

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> It's worth noting, when you search on Twitter for @usa_free_press their account comes up and their name is USA_Patriot_Press.  Then when you look at it you see their actual Twitter handle is @usa_free_press .
> 
> Took me about a minute to figure out it was the right one.  (I haven't used Twitter all that much.)


me neither! yay! more technology!!1! ;-)

----------


## Lindsey

> #RomneyElectionFraudLawsuit


OK. I tweeted it.

----------


## jay_dub

It seems like the few media outlets that have reported on this are all using Courthouse News as their source. The initial news of the case being filed has largely been ignored. There likely won't be any significant developments until the case comes up on the court calendar.

Ben Swann may report on this, but that's probably as far as it will get at this time.

----------


## Barrex

> I'm with you on that.
> 
> I wonder what it would take to get a massive amount of people to participate in a Twitter bomb all on one day at a preplanned time, to make something in the top trending stuff like #RomneyElectionFraudLawsuit  or something like that.  If we have tens of thousands of people posting on Twitter all at once, each person Tweeting repeatedly over and over, I wonder if it would be enough to get into the top trending results so everybody would say "Wow what's that about?"


You dont need tens of thousands of people. You need about 5000 people re-tweeting from just 1 account. That is all what it takes to dominate hashtags and trends.... There were few attempts to do this but they were unsuccessful.

----------


## 40oz

> You dont need tens of thousands of people. You need about 5000 people re-tweeting from just 1 account. That is all what it takes to dominate hashtags and trends.... There were few attempts to do this but they were unsuccessful.


^^^THIS. We have the numbers to make it a reality. We just need a small amount of coordination.

----------


## RDM

Please copy and paste this into your groups and share it far and wide! Thank you!
 Please join the lawsuit against the RNC and the GOP. It is necessary to  have as many Delegates join the Case as possible. The more delegates,  the stronger the case. All Delegates are public record. There is a myth  on the Daily Paul that delegates have a secret identity. Every delegate  knows that is false. We represent  delegates for ALL candidates no matter who they are intending to vote  for. If you are a "stealth" delegate we do not need to know that. We  never ask that question. You just become a Plaintiff and that's it. If  you are bound to Santorum you just say that. It is already a public  record. Every delegate has a duty to protect the sanctity of voting your  conscience by asking a Federal Judge to order it. No one needs to know  if you are stealth.

 In addition, all plaintiffs are fully  protected by the "Litigation Privilege". This means the Judge will not  permit any Plaintiff to be harassed or intimidated in any way. There can  be no fine or penalty of any kind and the Judge will protect you. It is  my understanding that it is mathematically impossible for Dr. Paul to  win without this Case. As of now, Dr. Paul is not having his name in  nomination and is not being permitted to speak. If anybody has  information otherwise, please let us know. This case can fix that.  Please go to www.electionfraudremedy.com and join us in our effort to make ALL delegates UNBOUND prior to the convention in Tampa! THANK YOU!

----------


## devil21

Im trying to help but man I get a fishy feeling about this thing.  Just my .02.

----------


## row333au

*SERIOUSLY*

THIS 


(Mr Romney spoke from a podium on the 30-yard line of the football field in Detroit, Michigan, as the crowd, mostly men in suits, sat in chairs set up on the artificial turf.)

WILL BEATS THIS


( http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/05/ron...edia-coverage/ )

CONSENSUS WINS OVER ANYTHING.... PUBLIC NUMBERS NOT PARTY INFLUENCE.... NEVER AGAIN

Use the law as they have use the law against us..... public demand is the way to go

----------


## presence

Much thanks for the updated OP RDM

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

I hate to throw cold water, or maybe ice, on this lawsuit, but as far as this being a FEDERAL issue, there is no case.

See, the RNC cannot bind any delegate to any candidate.  The party itself cannot bind a delegate to a candidate.  That's already been established.

The problem is that STATE LAW can bind delegates to candidates.  The election of the President is not a national election, it is 50+ state elections.  Primaries/caucuses are different in every state.

If you are a delegate from a state which had a primary which binds delegates based upon that primary result, your case is with your state.  A Federal ruling as no jurisdiction on your state election law.  The PARTY isn't forcing you to vote for Romney, your STATE is.  Your STATE has delcared that delegates represent the "will of the voters".  The PARTY cannot stop you from voting for someone else at the Convention, but you are in violation of STATE LAWS, and depending on state, you can be facing fines of $2,500 - $10,000 as well as jail time.  Also, the party then is in violation of STATE law and they have penalties as well...ballot status issues and the like.  Hence the reason for PARTY discipline for not voting your forced "pledge".

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Im trying to help but man I get a fishy feeling about this thing.  Just my .02.


I know, it's like, every time you go to put food into your mouth it gets slapped away, then someone says, hey there's a feast going on and no hand slappers are around, you just kinda...

But let's hope there really aren't hand slappers here with this and don't forget to keep vetting as we go

----------


## CPUd



----------


## RDM

> I hate to throw cold water, or maybe ice, on this lawsuit, but as far as this being a FEDERAL issue, there is no case.
> 
> See, the RNC cannot bind any delegate to any candidate.  The party itself cannot bind a delegate to a candidate.  That's already been established.
> 
> The problem is that STATE LAW can bind delegates to candidates.  The election of the President is not a national election, it is 50+ state elections.  Primaries/caucuses are different in every state.
> 
> If you are a delegate from a state which had a primary which binds delegates based upon that primary result, your case is with your state.  A Federal ruling as no jurisdiction on your state election law.  The PARTY isn't forcing you to vote for Romney, your STATE is.  Your STATE has delcared that delegates represent the "will of the voters".  The PARTY cannot stop you from voting for someone else at the Convention, but you are in violation of STATE LAWS, and depending on state, you can be facing fines of $2,500 - $10,000 as well as jail time.  Also, the party then is in violation of STATE law and they have penalties as well...ballot status issues and the like.  Hence the reason for PARTY discipline for not voting your forced "pledge".


Well, the RNC would argue your statement as false:

Evidence of the RNC’s interpretation of its own  rule was presented in 2008 when a delegate from Utah refused to vote for  John McCain, the winner of the Utah popular vote. The delegate wanted  to cast a vote for Mitt Romney. When the matter was referred to the  RNC’s general counsel, the response is illuminating and likely relevant  to the present Ron Paul controversy. The RNC attorney wrote:
 [The] RNC does not  recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each  delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose. The national  convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice,  regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into  nomination or not.
 That is about as clear and definitive a restatement of the RNC position as can be expected. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...eir-conscience

----------


## bcreps85

> I hate to throw cold water, or maybe ice, on this lawsuit, but as far as this being a FEDERAL issue, there is no case.
> 
> See, the RNC cannot bind any delegate to any candidate.  The party itself cannot bind a delegate to a candidate.  That's already been established.
> 
> The problem is that STATE LAW can bind delegates to candidates.  The election of the President is not a national election, it is 50+ state elections.  Primaries/caucuses are different in every state.
> 
> If you are a delegate from a state which had a primary which binds delegates based upon that primary result, your case is with your state.  A Federal ruling as no jurisdiction on your state election law.  The PARTY isn't forcing you to vote for Romney, your STATE is.  Your STATE has delcared that delegates represent the "will of the voters".  The PARTY cannot stop you from voting for someone else at the Convention, but you are in violation of STATE LAWS, and depending on state, you can be facing fines of $2,500 - $10,000 as well as jail time.  Also, the party then is in violation of STATE law and they have penalties as well...ballot status issues and the like.  Hence the reason for PARTY discipline for not voting your forced "pledge".


Well, a few problems with this analysis.

1.  As mentioned above, the GOP would seem to disagree with your assertion.

2.  The federal government routinely argues that federal law supersedes state law.  Constitutionally, I disagree, but if they chose to actually admit that the state law supersedes federal law in this case, it will be clear cut selective application of the law.

3.  If something so simple was going to derail this lawsuit, don't you think that one of the hundred lawyers or thousands of volunteers would have caught it before filing and embarrassing themselves?

Not trying to disrespect you or anything, just saying.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> Well, the RNC would argue your statement as false:
> 
> Evidence of the RNC’s interpretation of its own  rule was presented in 2008 when a delegate from Utah refused to vote for  John McCain, the winner of the Utah popular vote. The delegate wanted  to cast a vote for Mitt Romney. When the matter was referred to the  RNC’s general counsel, the response is illuminating and likely relevant  to the present Ron Paul controversy. The RNC attorney wrote:
>  [The] RNC does not  recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each  delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose. The national  convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice,  regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into  nomination or not.
>  That is about as clear and definitive a restatement of the RNC position as can be expected. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...eir-conscience


That is EXACTLY what I said.

The RNC CANNOT tell a delegate how to vote.  Delegates are NOT bound by the Republican Party, but a delegate can be bound by their State.  Does the delegate HAVE to vote the way s/he is bound by their state?  NO.  BUT, they are subject to criminal and civil penalties, and the PARTY is subject to violations of election law.  

The 2008 case becomes an issue between that delegate and the State of Utah.

Is it possible that Ron Paul COULD get the delegates and win the nomination at Convention?  YES.  However, states where delegates went against the binding LAWS could deny the Republican candidate (Paul) ballot access BECAUSE the delegates at the convention did not represent the will of the people of said state and that state's elections board decrees that (Paul) is a fraudlent candidate.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> Well, a few problems with this analysis.
> 
> 1.  As mentioned above, the GOP would seem to disagree with your assertion.
> 
> 2.  The federal government routinely argues that federal law supersedes state law.  Constitutionally, I disagree, but if they chose to actually admit that the state law supersedes federal law in this case, it will be clear cut selective application of the law.
> 
> 3.  If something so simple was going to derail this lawsuit, don't you think that one of the hundred lawyers or thousands of volunteers would have caught it before filing and embarrassing themselves?
> 
> Not trying to disrespect you or anything, just saying.


1. The GOP wants an orderly convention.  90% of the people in the GOP will go along with whatever they say, right or wrong.

2. Federal law supersedes state law only in cases where a case has been tried.  Not every state has to go along with everything the Feds do.  That's established.  Some states have elected Lt. Governors, other states don't have them.  Heck, County Cororner is an elected office in Pennsylvania.  Judges are appointed in New Jersey.  Every state has different election laws.  The ONLY way Federal law applies here is if each and every state followed the same process for electing delegates.  If every state had a caucus run by the PARTY, the lawsuit would be against the RNC, because the RNC controls the state parties.  If every state ran a primary where the results of the primary were applied the same nationwide, then the lawsuit is valid.  As long as each state elects delegates in a different way, there can be not overreaching Federal decision.  What is being asked is if Federal law can trump the decisions made by States to elect their own delegates.  If that is to be the case, then the whole parade of caucuses and primaries are basically for naught.  Do you want the Feds saying to all States, you will elect delegates THIS WAY?

3. The ramifications of a decision are great.  Even a loss can redefine the whole way we do primaries and caucuses.  That's why so many lawyers have hopped on board.  This could force a National Primary Day, and eliminate National Nominating Conventions.

----------


## RDM

Our man Ben Swann just posted on his FB page:

Ben Swann WXIX shared a link.
 33 minutes ago
 Taking a week off to chill with my family. But this is a story I just  have to put up. Lawyers For Ron Paul taking over Paul campaign?
 This would have to be a first...
 Trying to get more info on this and I will share with you as it comes in.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> 1. The GOP wants an orderly convention.  90% of the people in the GOP will go along with whatever they say, right or wrong.
> 
> 2. Federal law supersedes state law only in cases where a case has been tried.  Not every state has to go along with everything the Feds do.  That's established.  Some states have elected Lt. Governors, other states don't have them.  Heck, County Cororner is an elected office in Pennsylvania.  Judges are appointed in New Jersey.  Every state has different election laws.  The ONLY way Federal law applies here is if each and every state followed the same process for electing delegates.  If every state had a caucus run by the PARTY, the lawsuit would be against the RNC, because the RNC controls the state parties.  If every state ran a primary where the results of the primary were applied the same nationwide, then the lawsuit is valid.  As long as each state elects delegates in a different way, there can be not overreaching Federal decision.  What is being asked is if Federal law can trump the decisions made by States to elect their own delegates.  If that is to be the case, then the whole parade of caucuses and primaries are basically for naught.  Do you want the Feds saying to all States, you will elect delegates THIS WAY?
> 
> 3. The ramifications of a decision are great.  Even a loss can redefine the whole way we do primaries and caucuses.  That's why so many lawyers have hopped on board.  This could force a National Primary Day, and eliminate National Nominating Conventions.


I agree, this will not only change the outcome of this Primary if successful, but it will also probably force both parties to change the way the Primaries are run.  If they want a popular vote to determine the nominee, for example, or any type of vote, then they might have to eliminate the delegate process entirely.

Judges are not supposed to consider the impact on society when making a decision.  They are supposed to decide a case based on the facts and based on how the law applies to those facts.  (They often do note the impact to society in their rulings, and sometimes it does influence things to a degree, but if you have a good judge they are going to decide based on the law and let everyone else pick up the pieces later.)

This Federal law applies to the allegations in the case.  I could be wrong but I don't believe they need to try anything in any state courts first.  There probably aren't any statutes at the State level regarding coercing someone's vote for a Federal election!  (Why would there be?)  Assuming that's the case, why would Federal law not apply?  That's ridiculous.  That would be like saying you need to try someone in their state first for counterfeiting before you can try them for a Federal offense, when counterfeiting is only a Federal offense to begin with.

The RNC is attempting to manipulate the outcome of this Primary for an election to a Federal office (President), and has been from the beginning, in multiple states all at once.  In addition, there is a RICO allegation that will be tried later, and RICO is a Federal statute.  Just the fact that the lawsuit alleges an organized effort in multiple states that crosses so many state lines in these violations of the Federal statute, I would think would make this case a Federal issue.

Sorry to throw a towel on your cold water, but I don't think it will be so easy to get this case dismissed on any technicality.  GOP and Romney have f*cked themselves good here, imo.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> 1. The GOP wants an orderly convention.  90% of the people in the GOP will go along with whatever they say, right or wrong.


I think far more than 10% of the delegates are Ron Paul supporters, and I sure as hell hope they are NOT more interested in an "orderly convention" than in electing the nominee of their choice.

If it was true that people are going to do what the GOP tells them to, then they are not doing their jobs as delegates.  The delegates select the nominee, not the party.  That is exactly what this lawsuit is all about.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> I agree, this will not only change the outcome of this Primary if successful, but it will also probably force both parties to change the way the Primaries are run.  If they want a popular vote to determine the nominee, for example, or any type of vote, then they might have to eliminate the delegate process entirely.
> 
> Judges are not supposed to consider the impact on society when making a decision.  They are supposed to decide a case based on the facts and based on how the law applies to those facts.  (They often do note the impact to society in their rulings, and sometimes it does influence things to a degree, but if you have a good judge they are going to decide based on the law and let everyone else pick up the pieces later.)
> 
> This Federal law applies to the allegations in the case.  I could be wrong but I don't believe they need to try anything in any state courts first.  There probably aren't any statutes at the State level regarding coercing someone's vote for a Federal election!  (Why would there be?)  Assuming that's the case, why would Federal law not apply?  That's ridiculous.  That would be like saying you need to try someone in their state first for counterfeiting before you can try them for a Federal offense, when counterfeiting is only a Federal offense to begin with.
> 
> The RNC is attempting to manipulate the outcome of this Primary for an election to a Federal office (President), and has been from the beginning, in multiple states all at once.  In addition, there is a RICO allegation that will be tried later, and RICO is a Federal statute.  Just the fact that the lawsuit alleges an organized effort in multiple states that crosses so many state lines in these violations of the Federal statute, I would think would make this case a Federal issue.
> 
> Sorry to throw a towel on your cold water, but I don't think it will be so easy to get this case dismissed on any technicality.  GOP and Romney have f*cked themselves good here, imo.


You raise some interesting points.

However, the Presidential election is NOT a National election.  It is 50+ seperate state elections.

I think people are getting things confused.  Did the RNC and state parties violate RNC Rule #11 as it related to endorsing Romney prior to the Convention?  Yes, that's pretty obvious.  What's the penalty though?  Especially if all delegates are officially unbound at the Convention.  The question would be if there is actual proof of State Parties acting in conjuction with the RNC to force State Conventions to vote for Romney delegates in States that are not bound by State binding laws.  Or, did the RNC work with the Romney campaign in primaries in states prior to him "clinching" the nomination.  

RNC Rule #38 (I think) applies to delegates being "free agents" at the Convention.  Again, a delegate is FREE AT THE CONVENTION TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER S/HE CHOOSES.  This rule though, DOES NOT COVER A DELEGATE'S STATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WHO HAS BEEN BOUND BY STATE LAW.  That delegate can do anything at the Convention, but is subject to penalties by his or her state.  The "block rule" applies to the State Party forcing delegates to vote a certain way.  

The court can very easily rule that a delegate is free to do whatever s/he chooses at the convention, but state law applies to bounding, and a private organization (the Republican Party) cannot tell a state (elections board) how to conduct a state-run primary election, ESPECIALLY if the taxpayers are funding it.  That's the most likely outcome...which is the status quo.

The court COULD find state law binding of delegates unconsititutional.  North Carolina's binding law IS unconstitutional, as we have our Congressional district conventions PRIOR TO the PRIMARY which binds delegates proportionally.  However, no candidate has ever had standing to challenge it.  This COULD eliminate primaries, and make everything party-run caucuses, which is the way things used to be done, which led to the "smoke-filled rooms" complaints.

The court could also rule that such and such day in April is Presidential Primary Day and every state is winner take all (like the electoral college).

I'm not saying this lawsuit doesn't have some merit.  I'm not sure if the entities being sued are the correct ones, and even if the delegates have standing.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> You raise some interesting points.
> 
> However, the Presidential election is NOT a National election.  It is 50+ seperate state elections....
> 
> The court can very easily rule that a delegate is free to do whatever s/he chooses at the convention, but state law applies to bounding, and a private organization (the Republican Party) cannot tell a state (elections board) how to conduct a state-run primary election, ESPECIALLY if the taxpayers are funding it.  That's the most likely outcome...which is the status quo.


I disagree.  If you read the actual statutes cited in the complaint (lawsuit), I think the Federal law pretty clearly defines that if you are selecting a nominee to a Federal office such as President, then that qualifies as a Federal election, and this includes the primaries regardless of how or where they are carried out.  See below.

And again, regarding state laws, state party rules, and/or state penalties, if any of those violate the Federal law, then they become nullified because Federal law supercedes state law.

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/1_COM...%28JPRx%29.pdf




> § 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)).
> 
>     (a) Election means the process by which individuals, whether opposed or unopposed, seek nomination for election, or election, to Federal office. The specific types of elections, as set forth at 11 CFR 100.2 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are included in this definition.
> 
>     (b) General election. A general election is an election which meets either of the following conditions:
> 
>     (1) An election held in even numbered years on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November is a general election.
> 
>     (2) An election which is held to fill a vacancy in a Federal office ( i.e. , a special election) and which is intended to result in the final selection of a single individual to the office at stake is a general election. See 11 CFR 100.2(f).
> ...

----------


## torchbearer

> You raise some interesting points.
> 
> However, the Presidential election is NOT a National election.  It is 50+ seperate state elections.
> 
> I think people are getting things confused.  Did the RNC and state parties violate RNC Rule #11 as it related to endorsing Romney prior to the Convention?  Yes, that's pretty obvious.  What's the penalty though?  Especially if all delegates are officially unbound at the Convention.  The question would be if there is actual proof of State Parties acting in conjuction with the RNC to force State Conventions to vote for Romney delegates in States that are not bound by State binding laws.  Or, did the RNC work with the Romney campaign in primaries in states prior to him "clinching" the nomination.  
> 
> RNC Rule #38 (I think) applies to delegates being "free agents" at the Convention.  Again, a delegate is FREE AT THE CONVENTION TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER S/HE CHOOSES.  This rule though, DOES NOT COVER A DELEGATE'S STATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WHO HAS BEEN BOUND BY STATE LAW.  That delegate can do anything at the Convention, but is subject to penalties by his or her state.  The "block rule" applies to the State Party forcing delegates to vote a certain way.  
> 
> The court can very easily rule that a delegate is free to do whatever s/he chooses at the convention, but state law applies to bounding, and a private organization (the Republican Party) cannot tell a state (elections board) how to conduct a state-run primary election, ESPECIALLY if the taxpayers are funding it.  That's the most likely outcome...which is the status quo.
> ...



i dont think the focus is on internal rules as much as the RNC being a federally funded event and the delegates going there can't be compelled to vote a certain way because it would be a violation of federal law.

----------


## chris41336

I'm confused about this. This needs to happen ASAP if it is going to impact the convention, or else it will have already happened and the trial will still be going on.

----------


## RDM

> I'm confused about this. This needs to happen ASAP if it is going to impact the convention, or else it will have already happened and the trial will still be going on.


Process servers are delivering lawsuit documents to defendants as we speak. The Lawyers for Ron Paul team are fairly confident that the case will heard within a month.

----------


## chris41336

> Process servers are delivering lawsuit documents to defendants as we speak. The Lawyers for Ron Paul team are fairly confident that the case will heard within a month.


Eh...I won't get my hopes up. I've done that way too many times this race, just to be severely disappointed.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Eh...I won't get my hopes up. I've done that way too many times this race, just to be severely disappointed.


Poor you.

----------


## RDM

*Just Posted:*

Allan Colmes said he wants the lawyers on his show.

----------


## chris41336

> Poor you.


I'm not asking for a pity party. I just am going to wait this out and hope for the best, the legality of it seems sound, but they always find a way to screw us over. At least they do for now. After this election we have so many liberty candidates in power it won't be this easy anymore. This is their last hurrah.

----------


## PatriotOne

> *Just Posted:*
> 
> Allan Colmes said he wants the lawyers on his show.


Posted where?

----------


## RDM

> Posted where?


He mentioned it on his radio show yesterday. I don't have a link for it. Someone posted about it on the Lawyers for Ron Paul FB page.

----------


## PatriotOne

> He mentioned it on his radio show yesterday. I don't have a link for it. Someone posted about it on the Lawyers for Ron Paul FB page.


Thxs.  I listened to the Power Hour interview.  The laywer sounded like he could handle himself quite well so I hope he does it.  Though he should be aware that Clear Channel Communications (Mitt Romney owned) and  Fox News have a distribution deal.  Basically he may be going on a show distributed by Mitt Romney's company.

----------


## RDM

> Thxs.  I listened to the Power Hour interview.  The laywer sounded like he could handle himself quite well so I hope he does it.  Though he should be aware that Clear Channel Communications (Mitt Romney owned) and  Fox News have a distribution deal.  Basically he may be going on a show distributed by Mitt Romney's company.


Would that be something Allan Colmes would have to worry about. You know...fired?

----------


## PatriotOne

> Would that be something Allan Colmes would have to worry about. You know...fired?


It certainly would give Allan pause as to how he covered the story at best scenario.  Can't imagine he would become a "Go Ron Paul Lawyers" cheerleader knowing his show could get cancelled "for some other reason".  Worst case scenario is Allan attempts to ridicule the whole lawsuit...being an employee of Fox News and all.  I don't know why Allan is interested in the story, but just think the lawyer needs to know the links between Mitt's company (Clear Channel) and Fox Radio so he can be prepared for the worst.

----------


## KingNothing

> Clear Channel Communications (Mitt Romney owned)



Yeah, that isn't true.

It's very important for our movement that we maintain a high level of credibility.  Repeating incorrect statements wins us no friends, favors or trust.

----------


## RDM

> It certainly would give Allan pause as to how he covered the story at best scenario.  Can't imagine he would become a "Go Ron Paul Lawyers" cheerleader knowing his show could get cancelled "for some other reason".  Worst case scenario is Allan attempts to ridicule the whole lawsuit...being an employee of Fox News and all.  I don't know why Allan is interested in the story, but just think *the lawyer needs to know the links between Mitt's company (Clear Channel) and Fox Radio so he can be prepared for the worst.*



They are aware, it's been posted.

----------


## tod evans

Not much preparation required for honest integrity...

It's those who have something to hide or spin who need to prepare.

----------


## Carlybee

Mitt Romney owns Clear Channel? Clarify please.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

This is going to go over as well, and as fast as the Obama Birther lawsuits.

----------


## zachrbroussard

> This is going to go over as well, and as fast as the Obama Birther lawsuits.


That is my fear.

----------


## kathy88

> Mitt Romney owns Clear Channel? Clarify please.


It's been posted here before, I'll look around. One of the companies Mitt is involved with owns them...

----------


## PatriotOne

> Yeah, that isn't true.
> 
> It's very important for our movement that we maintain a high level of credibility.  Repeating incorrect statements wins us no friends, favors or trust.


Clear Channel Communications is owned by Bain Capital, Bain Capital is owned by Mitt Romney.  There are other partners involved but that is not necessary for this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_C...Communications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital

You have some better info than feel free to share it.

----------


## PatriotOne

> They are aware, it's been posted.


Thanks.  I'm not a facebooker so....

----------


## Carlybee

I thought Romney was no longer affiliated with Bain Capital. If so thats a huge conflict of interest because all the CC talk shows are pro Romney 24/7. Unless they own some liberal ones too...I dont know.

----------


## No1butPaul

Funny thing about Clear Channel ... I was researching local billboards (for Ron Paul) and discovered Clear Channel owns a lot of billboards!  Wonder if anyone was turned down for a lease for a Ron Paul billboard by Clear Channel.  I personally did not pursue it that far being in SoCal and not really competing in the primary here.  I suspect all CC cares about is the money from leasing, but it would be interesting to find out, and I would not be shocked if that were the case.

----------


## Barrex

> I thought Romney was no longer affiliated with Bain Capital. If so thats a huge conflict of interest because all the CC talk shows are pro Romney 24/7. Unless they own some liberal ones too...I dont know.


Word "affiliated" is wrong to use in this instance. Law required Mitt to name his "trustee" (person who will manage all  Mitts business to avoid conflict of interest /in law theory.... reality is completely another story/)...(sorry if I choose wrong words too my English is not perfect)

----------


## tod evans

> Word "affiliated" is wrong to use in this instance. Law required Mitt to name his "trustee" (person who will manage all  Mitts business to avoid conflict of interest /in law theory.... reality is completely another story/)...(sorry if I choose wrong words too my English is not perfect)



Yup!

Trustee/Straw-Man/Shell Company...........all synonymous.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Word "affiliated" is wrong to use in this instance. Law required Mitt to name his "trustee" (person who will manage all  Mitts business to avoid conflict of interest /in law theory.... reality is completely another story/)...(sorry if I choose wrong words too my English is not perfect)


Reminds me of when Cheney disengaged from Halliburton when he became vice but went on to make a 3000% + stock profit because they were given huge no-bid contracts during Bush's reign of tyranny .

----------


## Barrex

> Reminds me of when Cheney disengaged from Halliburton when he became vice but went on to make a 3000% + stock profit because they were given huge no-bid contracts during Bush's reign of tyranny .


Taht is why I wrote "person who will manage all  Mitts business to avoid conflict of interest /in law theory.... *reality is completely another story*"
This crap is happening in every corner of our planet (and why are there corners when earth is sphere.... but I digress)

----------


## Freedom Patriot

Why can members no longer quote posts? (The reply with quote button isn't working.)

----------


## JK/SEA

> Why can members no longer quote posts? (The reply with quote button isn't working.)


what?

----------


## PatriotOne

> Taht is why I wrote "person who will manage all  Mitts business to avoid conflict of interest /in law theory.... *reality is completely another story*"
> This crap is happening in every corner of our planet (and why are there corners when earth is sphere.... but I digress)


I see it ALL THE TIME because I do alot of research on many of these companies.  It's Standard Operating Procedure for these people.

----------


## Barrex

> I see it ALL THE TIME because I do alot of research on many of these companies.  It's Standard Operating Procedure for these people.


Ha ha ha that makes 2 of us 
In BiH they dont even try to hide it anymore 




> Why can members no longer quote posts? (The reply with quote button isn't working.)


And I thought I had Gremlins in my PC (and Trolls on forums ).
There is still "Reply With Quote" button under every post . Bottom  right... maybe you should try another web browser... If that doesnt work  I got another "ingenious" way around your problem...

----------


## Barrex

Once upon time....

----------


## Freedom Patriot

This lawsuit seems very interesting. At least you have to admire the lawyers for not wanting to quit and just give up. 





Richard Gilbert & Associates, 950 W 17th St Ste C D & E, Santa Ana, CA 92706
Telephone: (714) 667-1038 
The actual case number is "8:12-CV-00927"
9th Circuit Court in California



Check this link to post 158 by Barrex for more info:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4495638

3 piece audio with graphics at post 212:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4497950

More info at:

www.ronpaulgrassrootsrevolution.com
www.weareronpaul.com
www.realgrassrootsrevolution.com


RDM can we get an updated op with some of this pertinant info?[/QUOTE]




> Since I am from Croatia and some people remind me on that when I get involved, in effort to avoid any "bad feelings" can someone else  start "OFFICIAL THREAD" and update OP from time to time so that discussion is concentrated and all information can be found on 1 place? Here are all relevant informations so far:
> 
> 
> 
> All legal documents that have been filed with the Ninth Circuit Court are now available for perusal.
> 
> Here's the links:
> 
> http://www.toolsforjustice.com/3_CER...(JPRx).pdf
> ...

----------


## RonRules

The tweets are getting interesting:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
*Jesse Benton's sellout included job discussions with Romney*

----------


## rockandrollsouls

And just like that, everything I've ever suspected about Jesse Benton rings true.




> The tweets are getting interesting:
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> *Jesse Benton's sellout included job discussions with Romney*

----------


## Lindsey

To be honest, I really wish that whoever is tweeting as @USA_Free_Press would be a bit more dignified, since that's the account that is representing the lawsuit - not just an individual's thoughts, feelings, opinions.  I feel that it is amazing the efforts that they are undertaking, in doing so they are representing a whole lot and I don't want their efforts to be undermined by several juvenile tweets.

----------


## eleganz

> The tweets are getting interesting:
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> *Jesse Benton's sellout included job discussions with Romney*



Family dinners at the Paul household must be awkward...

----------


## asurfaholic

> To be honest, I really wish that whoever is tweeting as @USA_Free_Press would be a bit more dignified, since that's the account that is representing the lawsuit - not just an individual's thoughts, feelings, opinions.  I feel that it is amazing the efforts that they are undertaking, in doing so they are representing a whole lot and I don't want their efforts to be undermined by several juvenile tweets.


I agree.

Hope it doesn't turn into a Tom Woods type tweet thing. I thought I'd keep up with his tweets in addition to Ron Pauls, and add them to text notification.. Now I get texts at all hours of the night for stupid stuff. I don't use twitter enough so that I don't even remember my log in info to go back and change the settings.

But juvenile tweets that are not backed up with real hard evidence could easily destroy credibility. This is serious business...

----------


## eleganz

*As of 06/18/2012, we need process servers in: American Samoa, Delaware,  Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Marianas Islands, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode  Island, South Dakota, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming*

----------


## RDM

> *As of 06/18/2012, we need process servers in: American Samoa, Delaware,  Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Marianas Islands, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode  Island, South Dakota, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming*


Puerto Rico and Wisconsin are filled. PA and possible DE are pending.

----------


## eleganz

> Puerto Rico and Wisconsin are filled. PA and possible DE are pending.


Hmmmm...I wonder if it was the person I asked to do it in Puerto Rico!

----------


## Lindsey

> PA pending.


I am curious what the case is here.  Aren't all PA delegates unbound?

----------


## Diashi

Did we ever hear anything further about Bain Capitol making voting machines that were used in some states?

----------


## tuggy24g

> *As of 06/18/2012, we need process servers in: American Samoa, Delaware,  Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Marianas Islands, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode  Island, South Dakota, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming*


I live in PA. If you need or want me to join the lawsuit let me know what to do.

----------


## RDM

> I live in PA. If you need or want me to join the lawsuit let me know what to do.


They still may need a process server to serve the GOP State Chairman and asst with the lawsuit documents. *Please e-mail support@toolsforjustice.com  and include a phone number to contact you back and wait  for further instructions.*

----------


## ptruthp34

Can someone please tell me if there is a money bomb being organized to support this legal effort?  If there really is as much evidence as they claim, shouldn't this be a priority of the grassroots?  Thanks in advance.

----------


## RDM

> Can someone please tell me if there is a money bomb being organized to support this legal effort?  If there really is as much evidence as they claim, shouldn't this be a priority of the grassroots?  Thanks in advance.


The Lawyers for Ron Paul team are doing all this work pro-bono and are not asking for money. They do encourage everyone to donate to help delegates get to Tampa since all this legal work is being done to help them. To donate to help delegates go here: http://delegatesponsor.eventbrite.com/

----------


## tod evans

> The Lawyers for Ron Paul team are doing all this work pro-bono and are not asking for money. They do encourage everyone to donate to help delegates get to Tampa since all this legal work is being done to help them. To donate to help delegates go here: http://delegatesponsor.eventbrite.com/


Kudos to every one of them!

----------


## Barrex

For all the geeks out there:

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf#page=139

word!

----------


## Sentinelrv

Check this out. If this is true, that's a lot of delegates. I wonder how many of them used to be Romney people.

_"The Federal Delegates Case is up to about 450 delegate plaintiffs courageously challenging the old guard GOP on the federal statutes regarding the delegate's unbound status. The Liberty Movement is alive and well and we are still in it to win it!"_

*http://www.dailypaul.com/242936/hope...-450-delegates*

----------


## rp08orbust

> Check this out. If this is true, that's a lot of delegates. I wonder how many of them used to be Romney people.


I wonder how many of them are alternates though.

----------


## Barrex

> Check this out. If this is true, that's a lot of delegates. I wonder how many of them used to be Romney people.
> 
> _"The Federal Delegates Case is up to about 450 delegate plaintiffs courageously challenging the old guard GOP on the federal statutes regarding the delegate's unbound status. The Liberty Movement is alive and well and we are still in it to win it!"_
> 
> *http://www.dailypaul.com/242936/hope...-450-delegates*


Before someone starts screaming they are lying scumbags, kill them etc:
Those delegates that they are talking about are not necessarily those who are elected to go to Tampa. Some of them were cheated of their spots etc. There is a good chance that some of them will be dismissed as plaintiffs but all this doesnt mean that lawsuit is wrong or it is failure.
DONT PANIC (someone will have a towel in that large group)

*People make assumptions and go on a tangent .

----------


## devil21

PACER has updated the case information.  It now lists the attorneys for the defendants:

Charles H Bell 
Bell McAndrews and Hiltachk 
455 Capitol Mall, Ste 600 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
916-442-7757 
Fax: 916-442-7759 
Email: cbell@bmhlaw.com 
LEAD ATTORNEY 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian T Hildreth 
Bell McAndrews and Hiltachk LLP 
455 Capitol Mall Suite 600 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
916-442-7757 
Fax: 916-442-7759 
Email: bhildreth@bmhlaw.com 
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

They are listed as defense for all defendants.  Also, a motion to Intervene has been filed by the Plaintiffs.  Opposition to that motion has been filed by Defendants.  Description of Motion to Intervene:  http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa.../intervene.htm

Also, Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the case.  That's going to be big.  Hearing on Dismissal set for August 6 at 8:30am at the Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana CA.

Points of defendant's motion to dismiss:
-Plaintiffs do not state a plausible claim for relief
-Plaintiffs do not allege the fraud with enough particularity - (Rule 9b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally. 
-Suit should be dismissed because it's an internal party issue
- Plaintiffs are not entitled to be "unbound" and ignore results of primary elections

That's the GOP's basis for their motion to dismiss.  Flimsy arguments but standard.

----------


## tod evans

Can you cut-n-paste or screen shot from pacer?

Thanks for the update!

----------


## CPUd

Here's a bit about the attys for the defendants :




> Our experienced attorneys provide legal services to several Fortune 500 companies and national  and state trade associations representing a broad cross-section of businesses and professions.  In addition to our work on over 100 state and local initiative campaigns over the last two decades, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP has also represented three California Governors, several Constitutional officers, and Members of Congress.  Our litigation practice is highlighted by an extensive appellate practice, including cases argued before the California Supreme Court by two of our partners.


http://bmhlaw.com/practice-areas.php...atedlitigation

----------


## devil21

> Can you cut-n-paste or screen shot from pacer?
> 
> Thanks for the update!


No point in doing that.  Im paraphrasing what Im reading.  More info on the dismissal motion shortly.

Eta:  It's a pretty scathing Motion and the lawyers that wrote it clearly don't think too highly of Mr. Gilbert and his Plaintiffs.  Many veiled insults throughout the motion.  Defendant's attorneys are trying to get it dismissed based on the complaint itself not being sufficient according to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, not on any factual basis.  Unfortunately, I think they may be right.  The complaint is very vague in parts and federal complaints require a specificity as to "who, what, when, where, why, how", not just broad conclusary statements.  We shall see.

----------


## torchbearer

> No point in doing that.  Im paraphrasing what Im reading.  More info on the dismissal motion shortly.
> 
> Eta:  It's a pretty scathing Motion and the lawyers that wrote it clearly don't think too highly of Mr. Gilbert and his Plaintiffs.  Many veiled insults throughout the motion.  Defendant's attorneys are trying to get it dismissed based on the complaint itself not being sufficient according to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, not on any factual basis.  Unfortunately, I think they may be right.  The complaint is very vague in parts and federal complaints require a specificity as to "who, what, when, where, why, how", not just broad conclusary statements.  We shall see.


up to the judge.

----------


## jay_dub

> No point in doing that.  Im paraphrasing what Im reading.  More info on the dismissal motion shortly.
> 
> Eta:  It's a pretty scathing Motion and the lawyers that wrote it clearly don't think too highly of Mr. Gilbert and his Plaintiffs.  Many veiled insults throughout the motion.  Defendant's attorneys are trying to get it dismissed based on the complaint itself not being sufficient according to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, not on any factual basis.  Unfortunately, I think they may be right.  The complaint is very vague in parts and federal complaints require a specificity as to "who, what, when, where, why, how", not just broad conclusary statements.  We shall see.


I would think the specificity would be found in the plaintiffs affidavits. With over 100 plaintiffs, the complaint is too big to be specific on every point. At least that would be my layman's take on it.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I would think the specificity would be found in the plaintiffs affidavits. With over 100 plaintiffs, the complaint is too big to be specific on every point. At least that would be my layman's take on it.


I agree and I think that may be a valid argument for Gilbert in explaining why he did not go into too many specifics in the complaint.  If he were to go into detail regarding every allegation, the complaint itself could be the size of a phone book, or at least a novel.

----------


## tod evans

> No point in doing that.  Im paraphrasing what Im reading.  More info on the dismissal motion shortly.



If you could, I for one would sure like to read what's been filed?

Thanks!

----------


## devil21

> If you could, I for one would sure like to read what's been filed?
> 
> Thanks!


If you wish to pay me then Im happy to give you a Paypal address.  PACER access is free but pulling down pages and documents is not.  I spent $10 just reading these docs earlier.  Every filed pleading is in pdf format and I am charged by the page and capturing and downloading and all that gets expensive.  You and anyone else can sign up for PACER.  Actually, the Lawyers should already have this stuff posted.  I shoudn't be the one providing updates on this thing.  The Lawyers pages should already have this stuff up and spread around.  They get it before I do!

----------


## eleganz

the lawsuit is already online in pdf for free...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...T0U/edit?pli=1

----------


## sailingaway

> up to the judge.


Regardless, they'll be given time amend the complaint to cure it, or it would be astonishing.  However complaints don't need to be that specific.




> *Under Bell Atlantic, however, merely pleading a possibility of recovery is not enough.
> The duty is to furnish factual “allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” an
> “entitlement to relief.” 127 S. Ct. at 1966 (internal quotations omitted). Bell Atlantic calls this
> the “Rule 8 entitlement requirement” — the “threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) that the
> ‘plain statement’ possess enough heft to ‘show that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id.
> 3
> 
> The Second Circuit in Bell Atlantic had taken the view that: “The factual predicate that is
> pleaded does need to include conspiracy among the realm of plausible possibilities” (425 F.3d at
> ...


http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...ng%20Rules.pdf

this was a tightening of the pleading rules, but it doesn't mean list all the factual allegations.

----------


## devil21

New case info is up on PACER now.

7-6-12 - Notice of E-filing deficiencies.
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION to Dismiss Case 7 , Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,,,,, 6 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1-1 No Certification of Interested Parties and or no copies. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (db) (Entered: 07/06/2012)

7-9-12
07/09/2012 9  CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants All Defendants, identifying None. (Bell, Charles) (Entered: 07/09/2012) 
07/09/2012 10  ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE 4 : (See document for details.) Thus, if Plaintiff wishes to file an Amended Complaint containing the changes outlined in the Ex Parte, Plaintiff is free to do so under Rule 15. If Plaintiff fails to timely file such an Amended Complaint, this Court will analyze Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) based only on the Complaint filed on June 11, 2012. (rla) (Entered: 07/09/2012) 
(devil21: Judge basically saying Plaintiffs can file a new complaint adding in whatever was left out previously if done quickly.)

7-10-12
07/10/2012 12  FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Delegates to the Republican National Convention amending Complaint - 1 ; filed by plaintiffs Delegates to the Republican National Convention (rla) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/12/2012: # 1 SUMMONS ISSUED) (rla). (Entered: 07/12/2012) 
07/10/2012    21 DAY Summons Issued re FIRST Amended Complaint 12 as to All Defendants. (rla) (Entered: 07/12/2012) 
(devil21: Yep, new complaint filed next day with additional allegations and probably additional Plaintiffs.  I havent reviewed new complaint but we all know what the new shenanigans pulled were.)

7-11-12
NOTICE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Defendants, et al
(devil21: Defendants attorneys accepting service of amended complaint)

7-12-12
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: Order Reinstating Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Setting Briefing Schedule. Plaintiff shall file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) on or before noon on July 20, 2012. Defendants shall file a Reply, if at all, on or before noon on July 27, 2012. The Court does not alter the hearing date of 8:30 a.m. on August 6, 2012. (mt) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
(devil21:  Judge ordering a response in opposition to Motion to Dismiss by 7-20-12.  Gilbert needs to file a counter to the motion to dismiss by then.)

---------------
The legal wrangling is about to start.  I still think parts of the complaint are overly vague and a judge is free to throw out sections of a complaint instead of dismissing the entire case.  SCOTUS has ruled many times that federal civil suits are not to be a contest between lawyers to see who can write the best pleadings and win based on that, but rather are to be decided on the case merits and a deficient side given every opportunity to present their case.  Hopefully Gilbert has tightened up his complaint with the newly amended complaint.

----------


## TrishW

I don't understand lawyer talk. Is it good or bad for us?

----------


## CPUd

Seems to be standard back-and-forth for the most part.  Looks like in the amended complaint he made it clear which plaintiffs are RNC delegates and which were state and district delegates :
http://electionfraudremedy.com/07-10..._COMPLAINT.pdf

----------


## tod evans

> I don't understand lawyer talk. Is it good or bad for us?


My impressions in English; (worth what they cost you)

Judge; Hey Gilbert, you're not clear in your filings so I'm going to let you re-file....Until I read your new complaint I'm not going to issue an ex-parte order.

Gilbert re-files..

RNC say's ;"We did nothing wrong"

Judge schedules motions hearing and gives filing deadlines. 

Hearing still set for 6 August 8:30am

----------


## TrishW

So its good. The judge is going to hear the case. I was afraid it would just be thrown out.

----------


## devil21

> So its good. The judge is going to hear the case. I was afraid it would just be thrown out.


Not necessarily.  The Motion to Dismiss is still pending and the judge is free to rule on that however he decides.  He can dismiss the Motion completely, he can grant it in part and deny it in part (throw out some parts of the complaint while leaving other parts intact), or dismiss the case entirely.  It appears that the August 6 hearing is for oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss.  The judge will have to rule pretty quickly after that if there's to be any progress on the merits of the case prior to the RNC.  It gets a little sticky at that point since the judge has many options but the system runs slowly....

----------


## eleganz

If the judge is allowing a re-file then that means he wishes to take this case seriously otherwise he could've dismissed it already on the merit that the 'complaint' wasn't 'complaint-y' enough.

----------


## devil21

> If the judge is allowing a re-file then that means he wishes to take this case seriously otherwise he could've dismissed it already on the merit that the 'complaint' wasn't 'complaint-y' enough.


My experience says that's not accurate.  He would have to rule on the Motion to Dismiss first.  Federal judges are, by SCOTUS ruling, supposed to give the Plaintiff fair opportunity to fix a defective complaint (or at least opportunity to argue that it's not defective) prior to dismissing it.  A judge can't pre-emptively throw out a civil suit.  It's generally not within a judge's discretion to simply decide whether a complaint is "good enough" as filed without giving each side an opportunity to present motions.  After a Motion to Dismiss is filed and the Plaintiff given the chance to argue against it, the judge can then do whatever he/she feels is within the law.  In other words, a judge can't sit down and read a complaint then dismiss it out-of-hand because he doesn't like what's in it with no input from the parties to the suit.

eta:  In this case, the judge gave leave (opportunity) to Plaintiff to amend the complaint after the Motion to Intervene was denied.  The court has that discretion.  The court does not have discretion to throw out a case without proper motions being filed, particularly in Federal court where rules are strict and judges are anal.

----------


## romancito

> I hate to throw cold water, or maybe ice, on this lawsuit, but as far as this being a FEDERAL issue, there is no case.
> 
> See, the RNC cannot bind any delegate to any candidate.  The party itself cannot bind a delegate to a candidate.  That's already been established.
> 
> The problem is that STATE LAW can bind delegates to candidates.  The election of the President is not a national election, it is 50+ state elections.  Primaries/caucuses are different in every state.
> 
> If you are a delegate from a state which had a primary which binds delegates based upon that primary result, your case is with your state.  A Federal ruling as no jurisdiction on your state election law.  The PARTY isn't forcing you to vote for Romney, your STATE is.  Your STATE has delcared that delegates represent the "will of the voters".  The PARTY cannot stop you from voting for someone else at the Convention, but you are in violation of STATE LAWS, and depending on state, you can be facing fines of $2,500 - $10,000 as well as jail time.  Also, the party then is in violation of STATE law and they have penalties as well...ballot status issues and the like.  Hence the reason for PARTY discipline for not voting your forced "pledge".


I get this and understand it perfectly. And trying to be clever I think there is a way around it but the delegates would face consequences that are unpredictable. I believe that any deviation of the candidate, that is, Romney from the platform/policy that he ran during the primary of that state to the present policy can and should require that the delegation and delegates review and revise their agency. So just my 2 cents, if Romney now is saying REPLACE OBAMACARE then I say that is not the Romney that won the primaries and delegation and delegates should or could motion their delegations to REPLACE him. Just saying.

----------


## romancito

> That is EXACTLY what I said.
> 
> The RNC CANNOT tell a delegate how to vote.  Delegates are NOT bound by the Republican Party, but a delegate can be bound by their State.  Does the delegate HAVE to vote the way s/he is bound by their state?  NO.  BUT, they are subject to criminal and civil penalties, and the PARTY is subject to violations of election law.  
> 
> The 2008 case becomes an issue between that delegate and the State of Utah.
> 
> Is it possible that Ron Paul COULD get the delegates and win the nomination at Convention?  YES.  However, states where delegates went against the binding LAWS could deny the Republican candidate (Paul) ballot access BECAUSE the delegates at the convention did not represent the will of the people of said state and that state's elections board decrees that (Paul) is a fraudlent candidate.


Extremely interesting

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I get this and understand it perfectly. And trying to be clever I think there is a way around it but the delegates would face consequences that are unpredictable. I believe that any deviation of the candidate, that is, Romney from the platform/policy that he ran during the primary of that state to the present policy can and should require that the delegation and delegates review and revise their agency. So just my 2 cents, * if Romney now is saying REPLACE OBAMACARE then I say that is not the Romney that won the primaries and delegation and delegates should or could motion their delegations to REPLACE him.* Just saying.


Exactly why the forced signing of pledges under the pain and penalty of perjury is invalid.  Now the flipper flips, and the votes may well flip.

----------


## eleganz

If any delegates face FINES for breaking state law and voting out of their binding on the first ballot and nominating Ron Paul, I will be one of the first fellow supporters to DONATE to help alleviate those fines.  IMO, going to jail is worth it if Ron Paul is the nominee...it may not be the same for others though.



Also if all of a sudden a state wants to enforce penalties for breaking a delegate binding, it is incredibly petty especially when Utah let it slide in 2008.

----------


## romancito

This is the beauty of Ron Paul that people don't understand versus the ugliness of Romney that people want to tolerate. Ron Paul does not change his message from month to month. Romney changes his message after every shower he takes. If the Romney that goes to Convention in August 27 is significantly different from the one that ran in an specific state primary, then imo, the delegates must take a second look and they are responsible to take a second look. The new lesser and diminished  Romney would not be the Romney that people voted for. Delegates must feel free to motion their delegation and chairman for a vote of no-confidence and request their chairman to unbind them based on the differences ascribed to the candidate. That way delegations such as Nevada and Massachusetts can be unbind and vote as they think responsible to their constituents that they represent back in their states. 

I just think that state can bind delegates but only Ron Paul could pass the scrutiny of being the same in January as in August. Romney not so much.

One Ron Paul delegate in a state delegation filled with Romney supporters should be able to convince them that Romney is for REPLACING OBAMACARE and ask them to vote within the delegation to REPLACE Romney. Romney ran on repealing obamacare to counter Backman's strength. Now with no Backman in sight, Romney changed to REPLACE OBAMACARE. Romney needs to be chopped.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> If any delegates face FINES for breaking state law and voting out of their binding on the first ballot and nominating Ron Paul, I will be one of the first fellow supporters to DONATE to help alleviate those fines.  IMO, going to jail is worth it if Ron Paul is the nominee...it may not be the same for others though.
> 
> Also if all of a sudden a state wants to enforce penalties for breaking a delegate binding, it is incredibly petty especially when Utah let it slide in 2008.


I agree.  But more importantly, if this lawsuit is successful then it will mean a Federal judge has ruled ANY SUCH FINES OR PENALTIES ARE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW and states who try to impose such penalties will be BREAKING FEDERAL LAW.  Now, they may still do it, but any delegate who finds him or herself in that position would have a pretty easy remedy I would think, to get such penalties nullified by any Federal court.  State law and/or state party rules do NOT supersede Federal Law.

----------


## Barrex

Apparently RNC lawyer acused Richard (LFRP) that he was contacting RNC and not RNC lawyer... Richards response:
"I represent the Plaintiffs in this case. I do not represent the figments of your imaginations."(demanding that RNC lawyer gives proof of his allegations...HE DIDNT.)

Also it looks like RNC is still trying to "communicate" (apparently about things not related to this lawsuit) directly with plaintiffs (Ron delegates in this lawsuit) and go around Richard...Why would they do something so stupid?



Another quote:
If you wish to avoid exposure to a possible criminal prosecution avoid acting like a criminal.




> "....the RNC may take jurisdiction thereof and resolve contest._ Id._
> All contests affecting at large delegates must be resolved by the RNC._Id_"


REALLY? RNC beats you and then RNC should decide how RNC should deal with it...They keep claiming that it is internal "thing" and that law, constitution and courts should stay out of it (paraphrasing)....I dont get where are they going with this. Yes parties have some rights but they are subjected to laws too.

about affidavits, broken bones, threats and other claims:


> ...is supported by little more than sweeping conclusory allegations masquerading as factual allegations...



It is interesting read if you got the time. They (RNC lawyers) raise some interesting arguments.
Interesting.

----------


## CPUd

All the case filings are posted together in this document:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...hEclBiejQ/edit

Around page 140 the correspondences start.

Their main argument for the motion to dismiss is that they have W number of named defendants, X number of listed plaintiffs, and Z things done to the plaintiffs, but the original complaint does not state "w (from W) did z (from Z) to x (from X)".  I think if his response does not include such statements, this portion of the complaint may be dismissed.

Their other argument is that they can choose whomever they want to represent their party under 1st and 14th amendments, and have cited US Supreme Court cases to justify it.

----------


## sailingaway

> All the case filings are posted together in this document:
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...hEclBiejQ/edit
> 
> Around page 140 the correspondences start.
> 
> Their main argument for the motion to dismiss is that they have W number of named defendants, X number of listed plaintiffs, and Z things done to the plaintiffs, but the original complaint does not state "w (from W) did z (from Z) to x (from X)".  I think if his response does not include such statements, this portion of the complaint may be dismissed.
> 
> Their other argument is that they can choose whomever they want to represent their party under 1st and 14th amendments, and have cited US Supreme Court cases to justify it.


the rebuttal to the latter argument imho is that the states give preferences to the parties creating huge monopoly barriers to entry so in light of those barriers this is disenfranchisement if they don't follow their own rules -- alternatively their rules are a contract with party members.

I want the first, since I want the alternate remedy of destroying ballot access restrictions on presidential races, and maybe to ask that Ron be put on the ballot for all 50 states.... 

but that is me.....

and it would likely mean the 50 states would have to be named as defendants, I should think, since it is their access rules being addressed, if we were trying to strike them down.

----------


## The Northbreather

Meanwhile this judge sits at home at night on his computer and slowly starts to understand Ron Paul's plight and the ideas of freedom behind our movement (I am manifesting it) .

----------


## Scott_in_PA

> Meanwhile this judge *sits at home at night on his computer* and slowly starts to understand Ron Paul's plight and the ideas of freedom behind our movement (I am manifesting it) .


I would hope he would at least be up on current political events.....I'm wondering how he feels about the "Nebraska Last Stand" and "It's over" headlines.

The press isn't the rnc but the facts should be set straight.

----------


## devil21

> If any delegates face FINES for breaking state law and voting out of their binding on the first ballot and nominating Ron Paul, I will be one of the first fellow supporters to DONATE to help alleviate those fines.  IMO, going to jail is worth it if Ron Paul is the nominee...it may not be the same for others though.
> 
> 
> 
> Also if all of a sudden a state wants to enforce penalties for breaking a delegate binding, it is incredibly petty especially when Utah let it slide in 2008.


Im still wondering how the state of Iowa (example) is able to enforce state law against Iowa delegates for something that happens in _Florida_.  I don't think that works in this country legally.  If you break an Iowa state law in Florida, Iowa can't charge, arrest, or fine you since the conduct didn't happen there.  Florida can arrest you for violating Florida law, however, and Iowa can have a reciprocity agreement with Florida for stuff like traffic laws, which is written into law as a compact already.  The way I see it, only Florida law would apply to delegate "conduct" in Tampa.  Iowa state law is irrelevant anywhere except Iowa.   

(caveat: unless an express private contract was set up to guarantee future conduct between the state GOP and the delegate, then the state GOP could sue a delegate for the fine as plain breach of contract.  Otherwise, they have no legal standing to enforce any jail or fine or whatever through the criminal or civil system.  This seems like a scare tactic to me that has no teeth.)

----------


## TrishW

> Im still wondering how the state of Iowa (example) is able to enforce state law against Iowa delegates for something that happens in _Florida_.  I don't think that works in this country legally.  If you break an Iowa state law in Florida, Iowa can't charge, arrest, or fine you since the conduct didn't happen there.  Florida can arrest you for violating Florida law, however, and Iowa can have a reciprocity agreement with Florida for stuff like traffic laws, which is written into law as a compact already.  The way I see it, only Florida law would apply to delegate "conduct" in Tampa.  Iowa state law is irrelevant anywhere except Iowa.   
> 
> (caveat: unless an express private contract was set up to guarantee future conduct between the state GOP and the delegate, then the state GOP could sue a delegate for the fine as plain breach of contract.  Otherwise, they have no legal standing to enforce any jail or fine or whatever through the criminal or civil system.  This seems like a scare tactic to me that has no teeth.)


I like how you think!  You most certainly could be right!

----------


## CPUd

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:
http://electionfraudremedy.com/OPPOS...TO_DISMISS.pdf

He's trying to catch them on a technicality that since some of the named defendants are RP delegates, the defense must file paperwork on them waiving conflict of interest.

Reading the 'merits' section now.

He's got a shot at getting the case heard, but the reasoning he used to oppose the motion to dismiss limits the scope on what the judge would actually be able to do.  My opinion, the judge will deny the motion to dismiss, and when the case is heard, tell them to follow their respective state laws for those bound by statute and send them on their way.

----------


## Barrex

What are you basing your opinion about "following their respective state laws"?


Things are getting interesting.... thats for sure.

----------


## CPUd

> What are you basing your opinion about "following their respective state laws"?
> 
> 
> Things are getting interesting.... thats for sure.


Meaning, if they are bound by statute, they should comply with that statute.

----------


## romancito

> Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:
> http://electionfraudremedy.com/OPPOS...TO_DISMISS.pdf
> 
> He's trying to catch them on a technicality that since some of the named defendants are RP delegates, the defense must file paperwork on them waiving conflict of interest.
> 
> Reading the 'merits' section now.
> 
> He's got a shot at getting the case heard, but the reasoning he used to oppose the motion to dismiss limits the scope on what the judge would actually be able to do.  My opinion, the judge will deny the motion to dismiss, and when the case is heard, tell them to follow their respective state laws for those bound by statute and send them on their way.


You got it.

----------


## Barrex

I understand. Not sure of the outcome tho. I am more interested in request to have federal marshals in Tampa protecting delegates.

----------


## Cinderella

I haven't yet seen this answered, but what is their plan B?  This attorney is sooo sure that they will win....but what if they don't?  Or what if the case IS dismissed?  They will have essentially given the Romeny campaign "just cause" to decertify hundreds of liberty delegates who were bound to vote for Romney.  Has this even been brought up?

----------


## romancito

> I"just cause" to decertify hundreds


they are only seeking guidance. where there is no guidance then plan b would be to go on an abstain on first ballot. a whole lot of abstentions will not get romeny 1144. no? then sarah palin could team up with rand paul and chop romney.

----------


## Cinderella

> they are only seeking guidance. where there is no guidance then plan b would be to go on an abstain on first ballot. a whole lot of abstentions will not get romeny 1144. no? then sarah palin could team up with rand paul and chop romney.


Seeking guidance by signing on as plaintiffs to participate in a lawsuit that is seeking to unbind them from voting for the candidate they are bound to?  Looks like just the type of "just cause" they are looking for to decertify these delegates.  Your plan B would not even see the light of day if these delegates are replaced.

----------


## RonRules

What's actually hilarious is that clearly the RNC lawyers did not read the original complaint.

In short, as clearly stated by Lawer for Ron Paul Gilbert: *"The issue of fraud has no relevance
whatsoever".*  (See page 13,  line 24 of document OPPOSITION_TO_MOTION_TO_DISMISS.pdf)

The RNC lawyers responded in panic thinking the complaint alleged fraud. They should have just read the complaint and responded to only the argument of law regarding the ability for a delegate to vote his/her conscience.

You can see how totally confident Gilbert is in writing the Opposition to motion, by quoting the complaint and not wavering a bit. I like what I'm seeing. 

If Gilbert gets the expected right answer from the judge (the filing was just a question, not a claim of fraud), I bet the next step will be to file a huge fraud lawsuit, preferably before Aug. 26. Three days before the convention would be ideal. I know he's got a lot of data to do it with.

----------


## romancito

> Seeking guidance by signing on as plaintiffs to participate in a lawsuit that is seeking to unbind them from voting for the candidate they are bound to?  Looks like just the type of "just cause" they are looking for to decertify these delegates.  Your plan B would not even see the light of day if these delegates are replaced.


Well, then use plan c. The economy just tanked, really, I just finished listening to Bernanke, and the prospects are grim really, we are slipping quite quickly towards a major depression. That's because new entrants into the job market will find nothing, nothing, nothing. 

Plan c would seek to disenfranchise Romney of his delegates since he won his primaries based on the rosy pictures Bernanke painted in December and January. Clearly everything Romney promised as the entrepreneur guru in chief is hogwash right now. All his policies in the debates are now clearly invalid. There is no truthful information right now on how Romney would do if he inherits this Bush/Obama debacle. The Romney that ran in the primaries is a ghost for the new economic reality for our country. Any delegate that does not considers that reality before voting would be a fool. Freedom to vote their conscience.

----------


## Cinderella

> Plan c would seek to disenfranchise Romney of his delegates since he won his primaries based on the rosy pictures Bernanke painted in December and January. Clearly everything Romney promised as the entrepreneur guru in chief is hogwash right now. All his policies in the debates are now clearly invalid. There is no truthful information right now on how Romney would do if he inherits this Bush/Obama debacle. The Romney that ran in the primaries is a ghost for the new economic reality for our country. Any delegate that does not considers that reality before voting would be a fool. Freedom to vote their conscience.


Lol, whatever youre smoking, pass some of that over here!!

----------


## TheGrinch

> I haven't yet seen this answered, but what is their plan B?  This attorney is sooo sure that they will win....but what if they don't?  Or what if the case IS dismissed?  They will have essentially given the Romeny campaign "just cause" to decertify hundreds of liberty delegates who were bound to vote for Romney.  Has this even been brought up?


Then we're no better or worse off then we are today....

Just like the nomination, people do need to realize that in this corrupt system, things might not work out like we want for them to, even if we're completely right. 

Most of us here have realized what kind of long odds we're working against in this campaign. But the stakes are too big not to try, and you'll never know until you try. That's really all you can do...

----------


## devil21

> Meaning, if they are bound by statute, they should comply with that statute.


Yeah but they can't enforce state law in another state.  Simple legal principle regarding how states work in this country.  See my previous post.  I really think this line of stuff is intimidation that can't be enforced.  Scare tactic.  How is Wyoming going to enforce WY law for conduct in Florida???

----------


## CPUd

> Yeah but they can't enforce state law in another state.  Simple legal principle regarding how states work in this country.  See my previous post.  I really think this line of stuff is intimidation that can't be enforced.  Scare tactic.  How is Wyoming going to enforce WY law for conduct in Florida???


I'm interested in seeing whether or not the states would go after them for breach of contract.  I doubt the judge would, or even could, order them to comply with state laws, but probably would recommend that they do, and leave it up to each delegate to decide for his/herself.  

He did jump on the fact that they tried to offer a defense against the fraud by saying this is a federal question case, but if the fraud is irrelevant, how can he argue that the remedies are needed?

Defense cites this case : N.Y. State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 201 (2008)

I think it's their strongest argument.  And if the judge doesn't rule in favor of the plaintiffs, or otherwise deems the above cited case relevant, the RNC can then use it to justify the unseating of any RNC delegate.

----------


## romancito

> Yeah but they can't enforce state law in another state.  Simple legal principle regarding how states work in this country.  See my previous post.  I really think this line of stuff is intimidation that can't be enforced.  Scare tactic.  How is Wyoming going to enforce WY law for conduct in Florida???


You keep repeating this and now I am convinced. Courage and valor they will need. They need to buy a bottle of it at Walgreens. A whole lot of abstentions and Romney will get to 1143 and not one more. People will begin the celebration and the day will be called a holiday.

----------


## romancito

> I'm interested in seeing whether or not the states would go after them for breach of contract.


Although states have unlimited resources to waste, the case would unravel rather quickly since Romney changes his views every four hours. Now he buried his income tax return with Obama's birth certificate and college transcripts. When Romney ran in the primaries he promised to disclose his income tax return. Voters who voted for Romney then voted for a ghost. Primary results are no longer valid.

----------


## Barrex

Does anyone knows anything about this:
*USA_Patriot_Press*             ‏@*USA_Free_Press*  @*tweetAmiracle* A Plaintiff was beaten last night by one of Romney's people. Medical casre is required,. I will dm .                   

???

----------


## sailingaway

> Does anyone knows anything about this:
> *USA_Patriot_Press*             ‏@*USA_Free_Press*  @*tweetAmiracle* A Plaintiff was beaten last night by one of Romney's people. Medical casre is required,. I will dm .                   
> 
> ???





> Aaron Saucedo ‏@iworkiron
> @USA_Free_Press Is everything ok my friend?
> Expand
>  Reply  Retweet  Favorite
> 39m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @iworkiron Aaron what do you mean? I am fine. Do you mean the beaten delegate ? He is recovering


//

----------


## Barrex

Yea....I meant that... Does anyone got any details?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

What?  Any news on how they are?

----------


## kathy88

WTF? More info!!!!!!

----------


## eleganz

> Does anyone knows anything about this:
> *USA_Patriot_Press*             ‏@*USA_Free_Press*  @*tweetAmiracle* A Plaintiff was beaten last night by one of Romney's people. Medical casre is required,. I will dm .                   
> 
> ???


what the...F!?

this stuff is getting out of control, why are they beating our plaintiffs?  wish we knew more...

----------


## CPUd

By 'beaten', do they mean physically or verbally?

IMO, police report, or it didn't happen.

----------


## sailingaway

I tweeted the lawyer an inquiry but he hasn't tweeted in an hour and may be off twitter right now.  He's answered before but 140 characters is limiting.

----------


## Barrex

> By 'beaten', do they mean physically or verbally?
> 
> IMO, police report, or it didn't happen.


I guess verbal injuries dont require medical care...so I guess physically

----------


## sailingaway

> By 'beaten', do they mean physically or verbally?
> 
> IMO, police report, or it didn't happen.


I heard people were beaten in at least one of the states, but I don't want to say which because I'm not sure I am remembering correctly which one.

This was not through the lawyers, but before they came onto the scene.

----------


## RDM

> What?  Any news on how they are?


This was posted earlier today on L4RP FB page:

*Look at what happened tonight to one of our plaintiffs:

 Cassie McSasserson
 My friend and fellow liberty defender was assaulted tonight this is the event in his words:

  I'm really surprised at how the Executive Committee went down tonight,  that's for sure! The meeting had already been seconded to be closed for  the night when Mike Ebert started ranting about folks in the Republican  party that he disagrees with. He specifically labeled fellow Republicans  as Libertarians, saying that they weren't even Republicans... just  because he disagrees with them. He specifically targeted a fine  Republican that is currently running for a position in the party that I  know for a fact has always been a Republican, just like myself. He then  wildly accused me of being the same! I couldn't take the attack anymore  and straightened out the facts. He then got incredibly angry and  reiterated his lies. Since he wasn't willing to cease his tirade of lies  I declared to all in the room that he was lying. That didn't sit too  well with Mike.

 He yelled, "F@ck YOU!" as loud as he could, but  I did not use any swearing language back at him. I pointed out to the  crowd that this was the type of division within the Republican party  that we were all trying to put a stop to. That made him even more angry  and then he said that he wanted to 'take me outside'! I told him that  wasn't a good idea, then I tried to walk past him and leave the meeting  like others were doing. Mike Ebert blocked my path with his shoulder  which resulted in a minor push against me, shoulder to shoulder, then as  he ASSAULTED ME FROM BEHIND!

 Mike Ebert hit me on the back  multiple times, I think 3-4 times, then I tried to protect myself by  covering my face and others grabbed Mike from behind, stopping the  assault as he continued to yell obscenities at me! After they pulled him  to the back of the office, I raised my hands in the air which held my  phone in one hand and my meeting papers in the other. I said, "You all  saw that I did not lay a hand on Mike Ebert, RIGHT?! You all saw that he  punched me and assaulted me, RIGHT?!" The entire room was in shock over  having just seen Mike Ebert assault me. A few came with me to make sure  that I was OK, and to ask why in the world Mike would get so angry and  assault me like that. My back stung a little bit but I'm sure that I'll  be OK. I have had back injuries caused by having been run over by a  truck in 1996 and I don't think that they were aggravated. I think that I  made a couple of new friends tonight that are beginning to understand  that I have been the victim of being ostracized for so long, since I am  new to having a leadership position within the Pima GOP.

 I  never thought that getting more involved in politics and taking a stand  for integrity would result in being assaulted by such an angry person.  It is quite frustrating and I'm not sure about what to do.

 Jeff Bales
 Pima County GOP Executive Committee
 Member-at-Large*

----------


## sailingaway

Thanks.

I can't believe they do that.  Like that old man and that little old lady punching Ron Paul delegates in OK.  It is some sense of entitlement that if they are outvoted (or out argued, apparently) they have some RIGHT to punch people.

----------


## devil21

The assaulted committeeman should file a lawsuit for assault.  Get pictures of bruises and names of witnesses.  Don't talk to cops about stuff like this.  It's proven which team they work for.  But make them pay for their conduct because if we don't make people like that pay then it becomes clear to others that we can be pushed around without consequence.  Bad precedent to start if we're serious about taking over the internal party structure.  A lawsuit against the assailant is warranted.

----------


## RonRules

I'm off to the Federal courthouse in Orange county. I'd do updates from inside if I can, but I don't think they allow it.

On the docket today, we will find out if the judge approves the motion to dismiss.

----------


## tod evans

> I'm off to the Federal courthouse in Orange county. I'd do updates from inside if I can, but I don't think they allow it.
> 
> On the docket today, we will find out if the judge approves the motion to dismiss.


Thank you!

----------


## Margo37

> Thank you!


Same here.   Will be waiting!

----------


## sailingaway

> Thank you!


this.

----------


## kathy88

Go good guys!!!

----------


## tod evans

Bump for an update?

----------


## sailingaway

> Bump for an update?


it is not 10 yet in California.

It will depend on thier order on the calendar.

----------


## tod evans

> it is not 10 yet in California.


Drats!

----------


## sailingaway

I've seen nothing yet on twitter, though.

----------


## sailingaway

By the way, after a big twitter discussion about him with some thinking the atty is horrid for speaking against the Mass delegates who put out a video saying they'd vote for Romney (as their state rules require), I tweeted him asking him to stop calling delegates traitors because it divided supporters of the suit, and I think he also saw a bunch of our comments about thinking his twitter acct didn't convey the most professional image.  His account is now blocked to people who aren't confirmed followers (I follow people who retweet his stuff so I can still see it but I think he made me not a confirmed follower, too...  even though I was pretty much on his side.  I probably did agree I didn't think the tweets put up a professional image, though.)

In any event, I think it was a good move by him to restrict his twitter account.

----------


## RonRules

The case will start in a few minutes. We're on break now. I absolutely love that judge. Only Charles Bell for the defendants. Two Ron Paul supporters here. I won't text from inside.

----------


## sailingaway

Thank you for the update!

----------


## robertwerden

are you tweeting? if so whats twiitter to follow?

----------


## sailingaway

> are you tweeting? if so whats twiitter to follow?


he doesn't want to tweet in the court room so we will just have to wait.

----------


## robertwerden

Posted a link to here from the LFRP Facebook group

----------


## Barrex

> By the way, after a big twitter discussion about him with some thinking the atty is horrid for speaking against the Mass delegates who put out a video saying they'd vote for Romney (as their state rules require), I tweeted him asking him to stop calling delegates traitors because it divided supporters of the suit, and I think he also saw a bunch of our comments about thinking his twitter acct didn't convey the most professional image.  His account is now blocked to people who aren't confirmed followers (I follow people who retweet his stuff so I can still see it but I think he made me not a confirmed follower, too...  even though I was pretty much on his side.  I probably did agree I didn't think the tweets put up a professional image, though.)
> In any event, I think it was a good move by him to restrict his twitter account.


Yea I told him that too.... unfortunatley my twitter acc password is on my pc back home and I am visiting my hometown so I can not access tweets... I started following him at the very begining and he gets "emotional" about some things .

Cant wait to hear how it went...


EDIT:
When did he restricted access to his account? I have his recent tweets visible. _(couldnt wait too curious reseted password )_

----------


## RonRules

Judge wrote a tentative ruling. I dont have it. Wants both side to read it and reconvene at 5 pm. May go on till 9 pm. Wants resubmittal by Gilbert in time for final ruling before Aug 27 convention. Wants defense to get approval from Democratic party for such a mater interpretation of the civil rights laws. LOL
Judge also commented of the fact that Ron Paul voted against the civil rights voting act.

Come down to the court house at 5:00. Sparks will fly. Room 9d.

----------


## tuggy24g

Are these lawyers getting anyway? I have not heard anything about this going anywhere.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Judge wrote a tentative ruling. I dont have it. Wants both side to read it and reconvene at 5 pm. May go on till 9 pm. Wants resubmittal by Gilbert in time for final ruling before Aug 27 convention. Wants defense to get approval from Democratic party for such a mater interpretation of the civil rights laws. LOL
> Judge also commented of the fact that Ron Paul voted against the civil rights voting act.
> 
> Come down to the court house at 5:00. Sparks will fly. Room 9d.


It was nice meeting you, RonRules!  I was disappointed you aren't a naked lady with a dolphin though.

Very interesting stuff in that courtroom....  I'm going to go into more detail later when I have more time (I took plenty of notes), but for now, I'll say this:

I think the judge seems very fair, and no-nonsense.  Richard Gilbert seems competent, even if his complaint wasn't quite sufficiently written the first time around.  Luckily today it seems he was able to convince the judge there is enough there to warrant letting him amend his complaint in order to include enough plausible allegation of wrongdoing with enough specificity as to warrant the injunction he's asking for.  Gilbert stated the facts and presented himself very logically, and while the judge is still unclear as to some of the basics of the case, he did seem to agree there is something going on here that warrants letting this case go further.  Gilbert brought up Massachusetts, and that seemed to be the clincher that gave the judge enough to say "I can't dismiss this entirely because there is something here."

So it appears he is going to let Gilbert amend his complaint so that it conforms more with the legal standard required in order to have a valid case.

Looks to me like the motion to dismiss is failing.  But I'm not sure if that's 100% sure until we re-convene at 5PM today.  I plan on going back to observe that as well.  Very surprised that there were only two of us Ron Paul supporters there to observe.  Not surprised at all there was no media there whatsoever.

----------


## robertwerden

> Are these lawyers getting anyway? I have not heard anything about this going anywhere.


What?

----------


## TheGrinch

> Judge wrote a tentative ruling. I dont have it. Wants both side to read it and reconvene at 5 pm. May go on till 9 pm. Wants resubmittal by Gilbert in time for final ruling before Aug 27 convention. Wants defense to get approval from Democratic party for such a mater interpretation of the civil rights laws. LOL
> *Judge also commented of the fact that Ron Paul voted against the civil rights voting act.*
> 
> Come down to the court house at 5:00. Sparks will fly. Room 9d.


That pisses me off to no end that he would even bring that up, to the point that one does not even need to argue Dr. Paul's rationale on another matter, as it has absolutely nothing to with the disenfranchisment and other shenanigans against the delegates... However, I hate to say it, but I've seen this coming since they decided to call it "Lawyers for Ron Paul" instead of Lawyers for Election Justice or something like that, as it makes it much easier for them to dismiss this as a group with a clear agenda, rather than simply seeking justice as any citizen for any candidate should demand.

However, glad to hear that the judge is at least being somewhat fair here to not completely dismiss it.

----------


## robertwerden

Keep the updates coming.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> That pisses me off to no end that he would even bring that up, to the point that one does not even need to argue Dr. Paul's rationale on another matter, as it has absolutely nothing to with the disenfranchisment and other shenanigans against the delegates... However, I hate to say it, but I've seen this coming since they decided to call it "Lawyers for Ron Paul" instead of Lawyers for Election Justice or something like that, as it makes it much easier for them to dismiss this as a group with a clear agenda, rather than simply seeking justice as any citizen for any candidate should demand.
> 
> However, glad to hear that the judge is at least being somewhat fair here to not completely dismiss it.


He said it as sort of just an incidental comment; it definitely wasn't intended as a part of his reasoning in considering the case.  It was during a part where he was questioning Gilbert about the Federal statutes in the complaint, and at one point the judge just said "You know, it's a little ironic that the Fair Voting Act you're referencing here was actually something Mr. Paul voted against."  (The judge said Mr. Paul, not me, I know it's "Dr. Paul" guys.)

Anyway it didn't seem important in the matter of the actual case, it was just sort of an observation the judge was making.

But he did note that law says something about disenfranchising voters based on race, and all the applicable case law had to do with cases involving race as an issue.  This one doesn't.  But that's just one of the Federal statutes involved; the other one (can't influence votes by threat of coercion, intimidation, etc.) we seem solid on and the judge seemed to agree that it appears to apply to the case.  Not saying he agreed these things happened, just saying he seemed to feel that was an appropriate statute under which to bring the Federal question being asked in the complaint.

----------


## Tiso0770

Hmmmm, no news coverage, interesting.

----------


## TheGrinch

> He said it as sort of just an incidental comment; it definitely wasn't intended as a part of his reasoning in considering the case.  It was during a part where he was questioning Gilbert about the Federal statutes in the complaint, and at one point the judge just said "You know, it's a little ironic that the Fair Voting Act you're referencing here was actually something Mr. Paul voted against."  (The judge said Mr. Paul, not me, I know it's "Dr. Paul" guys.)
> 
> Anyway it didn't seem important in the matter of the actual case, it was just sort of an observation the judge was making.
> 
> But he did note that law says something about disenfranchising voters based on race, and all the applicable case law had to do with cases involving race as an issue.  This one doesn't.  But that's just one of the Federal statutes involved; the other one (can't influence votes by threat of coercion, intimidation, etc.) we seem solid on and the judge seemed to agree that it appears to apply to the case.  Not saying he agreed these things happened, just saying he seemed to feel that was an appropriate statute under which to bring the Federal question being asked in the complaint.


Oh the irony that he went on to say that it was only cases involving race in question.... Wasn't that precisely Dr. Paul's argument against the CRA, that it only defined protection for some, and not everyone equally?

That one's pretty easy to lawyer though, as race is merely an arbitrary reason for discriminating against someone. If someone's political preference is known just the same as their skin color, and then used as a means to discriminate them, then how is that any less relevant?

Seriously, truly ironic that his argument is precisely what Dr. Paul is against. One's race doesn't give one their rights, one's humanity gives them their natural rights.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Oh the irony that he went on to say that it was only cases involving race in question.... Wasn't that precisely Dr. Paul's argument against the CRA, that it only defined protection for some, and not everyone equally?
> 
> That one's pretty easy to lawyer though, as race is merely an arbitrary reason for discriminating against someone. If someone's political preference is known just the same as their skin color, and then used as a means to discriminate them, then how is that any less relevant?
> 
> Seriously, truly ironic that his argument is precisely what Dr. Paul is against. One's race doesn't give one their rights, one's humanity gives them their natural rights.


I agree.  The judge wasn't debating the merits of the Fair Voting Act or discussing the principles behind it though; he simply was saying that it doesn't seem to apply to this case because this case isn't about race, and that particular law is.  He was basically stripping the complaint down to just dealing with the other Federal law, the one about coercing, intimidating, threatening, etc.

----------


## robertwerden

Thats a good sign. Sounds like the judge is logical and is not falling for obfuscation from the RNC counsel.

----------


## robertwerden

Dave are you a member of the LFRP facebook group?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/LawyersforRonPaul/

----------


## TheGrinch

> I agree.  The judge wasn't debating the merits of the Fair Voting Act or discussing the principles behind it though; he simply was saying that it doesn't seem to apply to this case because this case isn't about race, and that particular law is.  He was basically stripping the complaint down to just dealing with the other Federal law, the one about coercing, intimidating, threatening, etc.


Oh no, I understand now that the CRA wasn't part of his rationale, jsut pointing out the irony that his rationale is what Dr. Paul was voting against. It shouldn't be any less relevant what reason they're disenfranchising people for. Disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement.

----------


## devil21

thx for updates today, please keep them coming.

----------


## Endthefednow

LOL, we are done

----------


## Suzu

> Richard Gilbert seems competent, even if his complaint wasn't quite sufficiently written the first time around.... So it appears [the judge] is going to let Gilbert amend his complaint so that it conforms more with the legal standard required in order to have a valid case.


Competent lawyers write complaints that conform to the legal standard required to have a valid case. Even I, with no law degree and very little legal background, have been able to write complaints that could not be dismissed nor require amending to be sufficient on the first go. If you have any questions as to Gilbert's competence, just look at the recent video he posted on vimeo.com and you will see that he's beyond nuts.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree.  The judge wasn't debating the merits of the Fair Voting Act or discussing the principles behind it though; he simply was saying that it doesn't seem to apply to this case because this case isn't about race, and that particular law is.  He was basically stripping the complaint down to just dealing with the other Federal law, the one about coercing, intimidating, threatening, etc.


thank you for the updates.

The federal law on how specific a complaint has to be changed relatively recently.  Also I think the atty was working initially off twitter statements and only when he actually got the 300 affidavits a couple of weeks back, to amend his complaint, did he actually see the facts involved.  This is not the typical attorney client relationship.

----------


## RonRules

I'm not near the courthouse now. I'd like to see the tentative ruling. Can anybody pull that up from Pacer or similar service?

Based on the fact the judge said that he was allowing another quick ammendement of the complaint, the ruling may agreed with the dismissal, but he's giving all possible chances to Gilbert to improve his argument. 

Gilbert is a fine attorney and he argued his side solidly. It's just that this case is HUGE, it has implications for all future elections, including the election of Democrates of course. The judge wants to see clear, well substantiatied arguments.

From what I saw, it looked like the judge was trying to help Gilbert as much as possible, hinting at where the holes were. Hope we can get backing form some of the Massachucetts delegates to jump in the case here.

Seeing that the RNC won't let Ron Paul speak, it's about time they wake up and join this case.

For peole form Orange, San-Diego, LA and Riverside. You still have to time to attend the case starting at 5. Get there a little early, or course.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Dave are you a member of the LFRP facebook group?
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/LawyersforRonPaul/


Yep.

----------


## sailingaway

Delegates in LA had fingers broken... or one did...the RULES CHAIR.  Gilbert should mention that.

And that it was private security -- OFF DUTY police, don't say 'police' without that.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Competent lawyers write complaints that conform to the legal standard required to have a valid case. Even I, with no law degree and very little legal background, have been able to write complaints that could not be dismissed nor require amending to be sufficient on the first go. If you have any questions as to Gilbert's competence, *just look at the recent video he posted on vimeo.com* and you will see that he's beyond nuts.


Do you have a link? Thanks.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> Do you have a link? Thanks.


He gets deeply into side issues that particularly concern him such as relocation camps in the US.  IMHO this does not mean he can't function as an atty, he has three offices as I recall, and has been practicing for some time. I do wish he'd keep his personal urgent concerns separate from his lawsuit briefings, but he's doing all this pro bono, and no one else is doing it at all.

----------


## Suzu

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK5cqAoYwTU
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jngor81CRE0


The first of these is not bad. But in the 2nd clip, he goes way over the top. Some of it doesn't even make sense.

----------


## tod evans

Thanks to Dave and RPR for the updates, they're appreciated!

----------


## CPUd

> The first of these is not bad. But in the 2nd clip, he goes way over the top. Some of it doesn't even make sense.


I recommend downloading it, then watching it in VLC at 2x speed.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Delegates in LA had fingers broken... or one did...the RULES CHAIR.  Gilbert should mention that.
> 
> And that it was private security -- OFF DUTY police, don't say 'police' without that.


He did mention there were "bones broken."

After the defense attorney went through his big long speech about why the case should be dismissed, then it was Gilbert's turn.

Mr. Gilbert laid out the situation very logically, and led it up to the point where he was talking about the various ways in which Ron Paul delegates were disenfranchised in various states.  He mentioned voting machines being rigged, votes not being counted, votes being stolen and placed into the trunks of cars, delegates being harassed and intimidated, rules being broken and ignored, duly elected delegates (I think he said delegates) having their bones broken, and the situation in Massachusetts, where the GOP demanded that delegates sign an affidavit promising to vote for Mitt Romney, and then refusing to certify those delegates and stating they will not be seated at the National Convention.  (He didn't mention the fact that even delegates who DID sign the affidavits were also unseated.)

I may be leaving one or two out, but it was the usual laundry list we are all quite familiar with by now...  Gilbert ran down the laundry list with ease and confidence, I thought he did a good job.  His whole argument as to why the question clearly needs to be answered by the court, and why he is asking for Federal Marshalls to protect the delgates at the RNC, it all made a lot of sense the way he presented it.  I think it's this reason the judge is giving him one more chance to amend the complaint and re-file, because he did a good enough job explaining to the judge that there is PLENTY of reason why the GOP has been breaking Federal law in this primary so far.  (He did not say this, but the obvious implication is that based everything that's occurred so far, the GOP will likely railroad the nomination process and coerce delegates at the RNC if we don't have protection there in Tampa.)

It was good that Gilbert brought up Massachusetts, because the judge seemed familiar with that situation, and seemed at least concerned that it warrants looking into whether Federal law was broken there when these delegates were kicked off.  It's ironic that the delegates from Massachusetts don't want to join the suit and yet their situation may end up being the one that saved this case from being thrown out entirely on these technical procedural issues.  Also ironic if it is the one thing that saved the case today from dismissal, because the GOP just screwed themselves.  In their effort to deny Ron the nomination they may have just screwed up one too many times, in too big of a way, for their lawyer to get this judge to throw the whole thing out simply on a technicality, which he potentially could've done.  LOL!!

----------


## robertwerden

Every Ron Paul supporter has issues. Pot, 9-11, FEME camps, Illuminati. 
To start picking on Richard because he has a hot button issue is the pot calling the kettle black. Why don't you look back over posts from everyone in this thread and see what their hot button issue is that brought them to RP.

Enough with the bad mouthing the only attorney who is fighting the legal battle for us. If you are a lawyer, then why don't you file a suit and do it for free like Richard is.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Really, what kinds of "holes" did he hint at? Gilbert always acted like this case was a slam dunk.
> 
> I wouldn't count on any more MA delegates getting involved. Attorney Gilbert didn't exactly do himself any favors when he tried to sweet-talk them by calling them "traitors," their leader a "coward," and making other threats at them. Oh, and then there's the fact that he's generally unprofessional in manner & appearance, has a track record of losing high-profile cases, and has a losing legal argument.
> 
> Seriously, does anyone really believe he is going to get a judge to send armed federal marshals to escort delegates into the convention? Anyone?


The issue is, the complaint needs to present a plausible claim of a violation of law with specificity.  Who, what, when, where, how, and why.  Apparently the complaint states the basics, but does not go into enough detail of exactly what happened to whom, and when, and where, and all that.  This is why the defense is asking for it to be thrown out.  

Gilbert nailed him to the wall on the issue of "plausibility" especially when it came to the Mass. delegation, and that one was mentioned in the amended complaint too, and the judge seemed to agree.

Basically, it needs to be re-written with more specifics included in the actual complaint.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> Every Ron Paul supporter has issues. Pot, 9-11, FEME camps, Illuminati. 
> To start picking on Richard because he has a hot button issue is the pot calling the kettle black. Why don't you look back over posts from everyone in this thread and see what their hot button issue is that brought them to RP.
> 
> Enough with the bad mouthing the only attorney who is fighting the legal battle for us. If you are a lawyer, then why don't you file a suit and do it for free like Richard is.


I wasn't bad mouthing him, I just DO pitch my discussion of hot button issues in a way they can be easier heard.   I agree that he is doing a lot of work on our behalf, and I hope it turns out great.

----------


## sailingaway

> I second. It's hard to find realtime information on this.


I third.

----------


## Suzu

> Every Ron Paul supporter has issues. Pot, 9-11, FEME camps, Illuminati. 
> To start picking on Richard because he has a hot button issue is the pot calling the kettle black. Why don't you look back over posts from everyone in this thread and see what their hot button issue is that brought them to RP.
> 
> Enough with the bad mouthing the only attorney who is fighting the legal battle for us. If you are a lawyer, then why don't you file a suit and do it for free like Richard is.


In the 2nd video, he carefully builds this whole case about how Romney endorses internment camps, it's his stated policy, we should just trust him. Then he inserts a long segment of Romney discussing his health care agenda, and then goes on as if he had just shown a clip of Romney talking about internment camps! Then he launches into an interminable tirade wherein he repeatedly refers to the camps as if Romney thought them up and is eagerly waiting to fill them up!

----------


## CPUd

> Every Ron Paul supporter has issues. Pot, 9-11, FEME camps, Illuminati. 
> To start picking on Richard because he has a hot button issue is the pot calling the kettle black. Why don't you look back over posts from everyone in this thread and see what their hot button issue is that brought them to RP.
> 
> Enough with the bad mouthing the only attorney who is fighting the legal battle for us. If you are a lawyer, then why don't you file a suit and do it for free like Richard is.


Those with the means to take on such a task do not believe this is the proper route to go.  Such is the case with the delegates from Oklahoma and several other states.  

The issues with Gilbert are ones he has brought on himself, by making outrageous claims that he is 'taking over the campaign,' how he is going to instruct 'our delegates' to turn their backs when romney speaks at the RNC and more recently, by launching verbal assaults on 18-year-old kids and young mothers, calling them traitors and vowing that they will never hold positions in the party again, simply because they do not want to be associated with Gilbert's cause.

----------


## sailingaway

> The issue is, the complaint needs to present a plausible claim of a violation of law with specificity.  Who, what, when, where, how, and why.  Apparently the complaint states the basics, but does not go into enough detail of exactly what happened to whom, and when, and where, and all that.  This is why the defense is asking for it to be thrown out.  
> 
> Gilbert nailed him to the wall on the issue of "plausibility" especially when it came to the Mass. delegation, and that one was mentioned in the amended complaint too, and the judge seemed to agree.
> 
> Basically, it needs to be re-written with more specifics included in the actual complaint.


Who what when where and how (can't possibly need why)

Private security (off duty police) in Louisiana State GOP convention at the specific bidding of Villiers, the self appointed temporarty chair of the convention manhandled the rightful rules chair duly elected the night before by the majority of the rules committee to force him from his elected office at the convention, breaking his fingers in the process.  This even though during the process the self appointed temporary chair was removed from his seat by a majority of the state convention.  Thereafter, at the bidding of Villiers, other private security manhandled Herford, the newly elected chair of the convention, knocking him to the floor and injuring his newly implanted prosthetic hip, requiring that he be removed from the convention by ambulence, and preventing him from contiuing with his duly elected position at the state convetion, requiring the election of a new chair.  

Gilbert is FREE TO USE THAT in the complaint.

supporting video:

----------


## robertwerden

> I wasn't bad mouthing him, I just DO pitch my discussion of hot button issues in a way they can be easier heard.   I agree that he is doing a lot of work on our behalf, and I hope it turns out great.


Was not directed at you, sorry for the confusion.

----------


## robertwerden

> Those with the means to take on such a task do not believe this is the proper route to go.  Such is the case with the delegates from Oklahoma and several other states.  
> 
> The issues with Gilbert are ones he has brought on himself, by making outrageous claims that he is 'taking over the campaign,' how he is going to instruct 'our delegates' to turn their backs when romney speaks at the RNC and more recently, by launching verbal assaults on 18-year-old kids and young mothers, calling them traitors and vowing that they will never hold positions in the party again, simply because they do not want to be associated with Gilbert's cause.


So you don't agree with the idea of what Richard is doing?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## robertwerden

> In the 2nd video, he carefully builds this whole case about how Romney endorses internment camps, it's his stated policy, we should just trust him. Then he inserts a long segment of Romney discussing his health care agenda, and then goes on as if he had just shown a clip of Romney talking about internment camps! Then he launches into an interminable tirade wherein he repeatedly refers to the camps as if Romney thought them up and is eagerly waiting to fill them up!


Same question to you. You dont agree with the case?

----------


## CPUd

> The issue is, the complaint needs to present a plausible claim of a violation of law with specificity.  Who, what, when, where, how, and why.  Apparently the complaint states the basics, but does not go into enough detail of exactly what happened to whom, and when, and where, and all that.  This is why the defense is asking for it to be thrown out.  
> 
> Gilbert nailed him to the wall on the issue of "plausibility" especially when it came to the Mass. delegation, and that one was mentioned in the amended complaint too, and the judge seemed to agree.
> 
> Basically, it needs to be re-written with more specifics included in the actual complaint.


This is where it gets dicey, because there are 50 state chairmen as defendants, and what happens if he rewrites the complaint with specifics that maybe implicates 2 or 3 of them?  I doubt he is going to have time to add more than a handful of incidents to the complaint, unless he knew this was coming, and has already written them up.  Does it mean that the number of defendants will be stripped down to only those who are implicated?  Would it also mean the same for the plaintiffs?  Then for those states not named in the amended complaint, would the RNC be allowed to continue 'business as usual' by unseating them all?

I doubt all that would happen, but the point is that the defense will do whatever they can to stall this thing out.

----------


## sailingaway

> In the 2nd video, he carefully builds this whole case about how Romney endorses internment camps, it's his stated policy, we should just trust him. Then he inserts a long segment of Romney discussing his health care agenda, and then goes on as if he had just shown a clip of Romney talking about internment camps! Then he launches into an interminable tirade wherein he repeatedly refers to the camps as if Romney thought them up and is eagerly waiting to fill them up!


He is referring to the fact that Romney said he would have signed NDAA, and to a report about relocation camps plans for which in fact do exist, it is just that there are reasons you might need them besides interrment, for example in the event of a Katrina type event.  He puts those together. I'm pretty furious about NDAA as well, but I also wish he had chosen to not raise it but it is like some 9/11 people who see Ron's larger audience as a terrific place to get everyone's attention about their beliefs about 9/11.  

BUT it doesn't mean he isn't trying to serve our interests in the suit imho.  Any more than it means that people here who have specific beliefs about 9/11 aren't really supporting Ron.  Of course they are.

----------


## Michigan11

hmmmm.....sounds familiar

----------


## sailingaway

> This is where it gets dicey, because there are 50 state chairmen as defendants, and what happens if he rewrites the complaint with specifics that maybe implicates 2 or 3 of them?  I doubt he is going to have time to add more than a handful of incidents to the complaint, unless he knew this was coming, and has already written them up.  Does it mean that the number of defendants will be stripped down to only those who are implicated?  Would it also mean the same for the plaintiffs?  Then for those states not named in the amended complaint, would the RNC be allowed to continue 'business as usual' by unseating them all?
> 
> I doubt all that would happen, but the point is that the defense will do whatever they can to stall this thing out.


He has to say 'many events including but not limited to'. 

I am concerned about bad law being created, but he is doing something and no one else is.  It isn't as if, if he didn't do it, some other attorney was going to prosecute the fraud at conventions.  I consider it a Hail Mary, and might have framed the remedy differently (or he can add new remedies later) but he is the one doing the work.

*Since it is happening ANYHOW, I wish the suit well.*

----------


## CPUd

> So you don't agree with the idea of what Richard is doing?


I was willing to accept that he is performing theatrics, until he got personal and turned it towards the delegates in an effort to intimidate them into joining his cause.

The lawsuit itself, I think could have taken on a different strategy, and the remedy he is seeking, I don't see it being beneficial in the long term.  No matter how it turns out, there will be a significant number of states in the general election that will not provide Ron Paul ballot access.

----------


## sailingaway

I also think he shouldn't have turned on delegates who simply didn't want to join his suit.  I told him so by tweet (and now I seem to be blocked, but whatever).

----------


## torchbearer

> He is referring to the fact that Romney said he would have signed NDAA, and to a report about relocation camps plans for which in fact do exist, it is just that there are reasons you might need them besides interrment, for example in the event of a Katrina type event.  He puts those together. I'm pretty furious about NDAA as well, but I also wish he had chosen to not raise it but it is like some 9/11 people who see Ron's larger audience as a terrific place to get everyone's attention about their beliefs about 9/11.  
> 
> BUT it doesn't mean he isn't trying to serve our interests in the suit imho.  Any more than it means that people here who have specific beliefs about 9/11 aren't really supporting Ron.  Of course they are.


one of those FEMA camps is built at the LSU in Alexandria Campus. They call it a "super-shelter".

----------


## Suzu

These "professionals" can't even spell the word "FRAUD" correctly.... see the box about halfway down the page @ electionfraudremedy.com - under the word "ATTENTION" - it's been that way for weeks....

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> These "professionals" can't even spell the word "FRAUD" correctly.... see the box about halfway down the page @ electionfraudremedy.com - under the word "ATTENTION" - it's been that way for weeks....


I have a ton of typos in my posts, and remember how we used to complain about typos on Ron's facebook page?  It is better if they aren't there, but they didn't mean Ron wasn't the best candidate.

----------


## sailingaway

> They call statutes "case law."


the question here isn't whether we would select a different attorney from a dozen qualified attorneys all vying for the job, but whether we support our delegates who chose to join the suit with the only attorney who was jumping on the issue.  AT least that is how I see it.  I support ALL our delegates, those who joined and those who did not.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> And I think that's great. Seriously, I do. I don't doubt for a minute that they've been cheated and abused. However, I see Gilbert as a different kind of abuse. It's not that he's well intentioned but not very good. It's that he's inflicting a different kind of abuse on them and the movement in general. There's no doubt in my mind that he's taking advantage of them and anyone else who buys in. Even if he wasn't, he's still doing harm.
> 
> But I want to reiterate, I thought it was great that you stood up for those MA delegates. Many of Gilbert's other followers joined in but you had sense enough to know it was wrong and the courage to say something.


I don't really consider myself one of his 'followers' (which is likely why he blocked me).  I was getting information.  And I thought he was clearly in the wrong on that point (the way he referred to MA delegates).  I also thought it was counterproductive according to his own goals since it pissed people off at him who would otherwise support his suit.  I just know others with that personality type and I don't think it necessarily means he isn't doing his best to further his client's interests.  I can't vouch for him, but since he is doing this and has 300 state and national delegates apparently filing affidavits in support of his suit, I hope it turns out well.

----------


## CPUd

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
It is highly unusual for a Federal Court to stay open until 9 pm for argument


1h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Returning to Court at 4 pm. I anticipate filing an Appellate Writ as to some issues which I talked about previously


4h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Argument set at 5 pm Pacific by Court

----------


## kathy88

> I also think he shouldn't have turned on delegates who simply didn't want to join his suit.  I told him so by tweet (and now I seem to be blocked, but whatever).


How utterly grown up of you, Sailing. He blocked you and you aren't on here calling him names and dissing every word that comes out of his mouth? Huh.

----------


## WhistlinDave

Those who are complaining, do you have a better plan to give Ron Paul a snowball's chance in hell to still have a shot at the nomination? 

I didn't see anyone rushing out to pay better lawyers, if you think Gilbert isn't up to the task.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.  I am reserving judgement until this whole thing is over...  This guy is a godsend as far as I'm concerned, quirks and all.

I think even if he can't get all 50 states in the complaint, he can put enough of them in the complaint to illustrate the merits of the case and justify why he is asking for the injunctive relief of the Federal Marshalls and to have the binding/unbinding question answered.

Proving all the details would come later in the actual court case, this is just the structuring of the complaint itself at this point.

I'm off to court now, re-convening at 5PM...  More to come later.

----------


## sailingaway

> How utterly grown up of you, Sailing. He blocked you and you aren't on here calling him names and dissing every word that comes out of his mouth? Huh.


Not really, it isn't HIM per se that I support, it is our delegates.  HIM I don't know.

But, I wish him success.

----------


## Lucille

I've lived in a libertarian bubble for about six months now (with a few exceptions).  Are any right wing blogs talking about this?

----------


## sailingaway

> I've lived in a libertarian bubble for about six months now (with a few exceptions).  Are any right wing blogs talking about this?


not really.  there were articles at first, but lately only a few about the Louisiana, Maine and Oregon delegates in all three places where Ron won the majority and the RNC is fighting it.

----------


## Lucille

Thanks, SA.  Interesting.  I find it hard to believe they don't know about it.  Doherty has mentioned it, and I know the clowns at hotair read _reason_.  I suspect a lot of them lurk here also.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## robertwerden

> Do I have a better plan? Maybe or maybe not. I see this Gilbert talking point a lot. Do you realize that no plan is better than a plan that causes more damage than if you did nothing? Gilbert's plan is a net negative. But, for the sake of argument, here's a better plan (also known as Ron Paul's plan):
> 
> Get as many liberty-minded delegates to the convention as possible by:
> 
> 1. not doing anything that will get delegates disqualified; 
> 2. exposing misconduct through various press and media; 
> 3. bringing challenges to the RNC; and 
> 4. filing complaints in state court when/where appropriate.


Pie in the sky dreams. The only thing these criminals understand is legal action. Step up or step aside.

----------


## eleganz

> Do I have a better plan? Maybe or maybe not. I see this Gilbert talking point a lot. Do you realize that no plan is better than a plan that causes more damage than if you did nothing? Gilbert's plan is a net negative. But, for the sake of argument, here's a better plan (also known as Ron Paul's plan):
> 
> Get as many liberty-minded delegates to the convention as possible by:
> 
> 1. not doing anything that will get delegates disqualified; 
> 2. exposing misconduct through various press and media; 
> 3. bringing challenges to the RNC; and 
> 4. filing complaints in state court when/where appropriate.


What complaints? oh you mean the ones that Gilbert has already taken initiative to bring up in court.

One thing I remember strongly in my time volunteering between December and June are all of those who 'talk' and all of those who 'act'.  The ones that complain most spend their time 'talking'.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## robertwerden

> Now that's funny. My list of very practical, Paul-supported action items is "pie in the sky." 
> 
> Armed federal marshal escorts on the other hand...


We exposed misconduct to the media it did nothing = pie in the sky
we brought challenges to the RNC, they laughed at us = pie in the sky
file complaints, did nothing = pie in the sky

Richard Gilbert is in court fighting for us right now. Not $#@!ing pie in the sky, he is taking action while you are a keyboard cowboy.

----------


## torchbearer

i'd like the evidence to be heard in court. i'm willing to testify if needed.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> i'd like the evidence to be heard in court. i'm willing to testify if needed.


I wish he had a more succinct understanding of what happened in LA, imho it is  more compelling even  than MASS.

----------


## torchbearer

> I wish he had a more succinct understanding of what happened in LA, imho it is  more compelling even  than MASS.


Louisiana convention is often misunderstood and explained. there is a lot going on and i sometimes find it hard to explain.
i can easily correct the facts and could answer specific questions about what happened.

your write-up is great.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## devil21

All this arguing over the lawsuit is pretty pointless now since it's underway and appears to picking up some steam with the judge.  Mods, can we split the pissing contests off into HT or something?

Im pretty sure I called it earlier in this thread that Gilbert's complaint was missing the necessary level of specificity that federal complaints usually require.  The judge could have easily thrown the entire thing out if he wanted to today but it seems this is a good judge and a judge that's willing to follow prior SCOTUS rulings regarding ample opportunity to amend.  Also a judge that's up on the specifics of the case is a good thing.  If RonRules and WhistlinDave are reporting accurately then the judge definitely sees something wrong here and wants to flesh it out as much as possible without becoming an advocate himself.

Gilbert probably just needs to amend with a scaled back complaint that removes much of the stuff that can't be proven with specifics and instead focus on all the particular actions by the Party that can be argued specifically with evidence and witness testimony and those specifics have to be directly linked to the relief that Gilbert is requesting (injunctions mainly).  Now that the judge has presumably read the original complaints he's aware of all the nonsense that's been going on so it's not like he will forget all of it.  Mass delegates need to get on board IMHO, particularly the 18yo guy.  He's the best spokesman for this mess available if his appearance on Maddow was any indication!

----------


## torchbearer

> All this arguing over the lawsuit is pretty pointless now since it's underway and appears to picking up some steam with the judge.  Mods, can we split the pissing contests off into HT or something?
> 
> Im pretty sure I called it earlier in this thread that Gilbert's complaint was missing the necessary level of specificity that federal complaints usually require.  The judge could have easily thrown the entire thing out if we wanted to today but it seems this is a good judge and a judge that's willing to follow prior SCOTUS rulings regarding ample opportunity to amend.  Also a judge that's up on the specifics of the case is a good thing.  If RonRules and WhistlinDave are reporting accurately then the judge definitely sees something wrong here and wants to flesh it out as much as possible without becoming an advocate himself.
> 
> Gilbert probably just needs to amend with a scaled back complaint that removes much of the stuff that can't be proven with specifics and instead focus on all the particular actions by the Party that can be argued specifically with evidence and witness testimony and those specifics have to be directly linked to the relief that Gilbert is requesting (injunctions mainly).  Now that the judge has presumably read the original complaints he's aware of all the nonsense that's been going on so it's not like he will forget all of it.  Mass delegates need to get on board IMHO, particularly the 18yo guy.  He's the best spokesman for this mess available if his appearance on Maddow was any indication!


can you assist on the trial?

----------


## affa

> Richard Gilbert is in court fighting for us right now. Not $#@!ing pie in the sky, he is taking action while you are a keyboard cowboy.


QTF.  This, a thousand times this.

----------


## sailingaway

> All this arguing over the lawsuit is pretty pointless now since it's underway and appears to picking up some steam with the judge.  Mods, can we split the pissing contests off into HT or something?
> 
> Im pretty sure I called it earlier in this thread that Gilbert's complaint was missing the necessary level of specificity that federal complaints usually require.  The judge could have easily thrown the entire thing out if we wanted to today but it seems this is a good judge and a judge that's willing to follow prior SCOTUS rulings regarding ample opportunity to amend.  Also a judge that's up on the specifics of the case is a good thing.  If RonRules and WhistlinDave are reporting accurately then the judge definitely sees something wrong here and wants to flesh it out as much as possible without becoming an advocate himself.
> 
> Gilbert probably just needs to amend with a scaled back complaint that removes much of the stuff that can't be proven with specifics and instead focus on all the particular actions by the Party that can be argued specifically with evidence and witness testimony and those specifics have to be directly linked to the relief that Gilbert is requesting (injunctions mainly).  Now that the judge has presumably read the original complaints he's aware of all the nonsense that's been going on so it's not like he will forget all of it.  Mass delegates need to get on board IMHO, particularly the 18yo guy.  He's the best spokesman for this mess available if his appearance on Maddow was any indication!


the problem is  he only had hours to do it and hasn't had discovery yet, obviously.  Hopefully it will be sufficient.

----------


## devil21

> can you assist on the trial?


Not sure what you mean specifically but I can help however needed.

----------


## Agorism

REpost the write up. i forgot

----------


## affa

> True, it doesn't help to merely whine and complain. People should take action. However, that action should be strategic. Gilbert's action is a waste of resources and a potential threat to the momentum, growth, and reputation of the liberty movement.


And you know what, lawdida?  No matter what 'action' occurs, there will be someone, just like you, calling it a misguided waste of resources.   There are the few that say that about every damn commercial.  There are the few that cry foul at every interview.  There are the few that bemoan every debate response.   There are people that criticize the delegate strategy.   The campaign strategy.  The youtube video makers.  People spending dozens of hours researching voting statistics. The sign wavers.   Always, always, someone will be there, at the ready to be critical of Ron Paul and his supporters.

And here? You're that person, or, at least, a member of that group of neverending naysayers.  The one bemoaning and belittling and dismissing the ONLY action on the floor right now.

----------


## devil21

> the problem is  he only had hours to do it and hasn't had discovery yet, obviously.  Hopefully it will be sufficient.


I guess I missed something in today's updates.  Is the judge requiring the new amended complaint be filed today?  If so then yeah he needs to cut it way back to the meat and bone of the allegations and give the judge something specific to rule on.  I assume Gilbert knows what the judge was trying to tell him needs to be fixed.

----------


## CPUd

> I guess I missed something in today's updates.  Is the judge requiring the new amended complaint be filed today?  If so then yeah he needs to cut it way back to the meat and bone of the allegations and give the judge something specific to rule on.  I assume Gilbert knows what the judge was trying to tell him needs to be fixed.


edit: see below for much better explanation

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## RonRules

> I guess I missed something in today's updates.  Is the judge requiring the new amended complaint be filed today?


No. The judge produced a Tentative Ruling, which was based on his initial understanding that Gilbert only used the Voting Rights act as the basis for his complaint. Gilbert explained that he used several more laws than the VR act. 

The judge provided the lawyers this ruling will is being discussed right now.  In addition the judge recommended more specificity from Gilbert. He has the stuff, so he needs to refile in a few days so the judge has time to make a final ruling before Aug 27.

BTW, unfortunately I'm not at the court house, I had to go back to Riverside.

Here's a minor gripe of mine: 20,628 people votes for Ron Paul in Orange County CA. This morning only 2 Ron Paul supporters were at the court house.

So please, let's get this together!

----------


## eleganz

> No. The judge produced a Tentative Ruling, which was based on his initial understanding that Gilbert only used the Voting Rights act as the basis for his complaint. Gilbert explained that he used several more laws than the VR act. 
> 
> The judge provided the lawyers this ruling will is being discussed right now.  In addition the judge recommended more specificity from Gilbert. He has the stuff, so he needs to refile in a few days so the judge has time to make a final ruling before Aug 27.
> 
> BTW, unfortunately I'm not at the court house, I had to go back to Riverside.
> 
> Here's a minor gripe of mine: 20,628 people votes for Ron Paul in Orange County CA. This morning only 2 Ron Paul supporters were at the court house.
> 
> So please, let's get this together!


Well, I didn't get an invite and I'm one of the 'announcers' of events in the greater LA area...

I was going to contact Gilbert to see if he needed ground support but I knew he would say it in an interview if that was what he wanted.

----------


## sailingaway

> No. The judge produced a Tentative Ruling, which was based on his initial understanding that Gilbert only used the Voting Rights act as the basis for his complaint. Gilbert explained that he used several more laws than the VR act. 
> 
> The judge provided the lawyers this ruling will is being discussed right now.  In addition the judge recommended more specificity from Gilbert. He has the stuff, so he needs to refile in a few days so the judge has time to make a final ruling before Aug 27.
> 
> BTW, unfortunately I'm not at the court house, I had to go back to Riverside.
> 
> Here's a minor gripe of mine: 20,628 people votes for Ron Paul in Orange County CA. This morning only 2 Ron Paul supporters were at the court house.
> 
> So please, let's get this together!


Please please please please get my post earlier in this thread about the LA convention with videos and statement of a cause of action to him. He will do with it what he will but I think he isn't clear on the facts.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, I didn't get an invite and I'm one of the 'announcers' of events in the greater LA area...
> 
> I was going to contact Gilbert to see if he needed ground support but I knew he would say it in an interview if that was what he wanted.


he wouldn't want to tell the judge he had asked people to be there.  Better to show up, but be excrutiatingly polite.

----------


## eleganz

> he wouldn't want to tell the judge he had asked people to be there.  Better to show up, but be excrutiatingly polite.


Well thats what I don't get.  What kind of support should we be there for.  I can't really read minds 

A) All dress professionaly with Ron Paul buttons and participate in the hearing?
B) Ron Paul swag it out with signs blazing?

and I need to know when the next hearing is so we can get more people there to support.

----------


## torchbearer

> Well thats what I don't get.  What kind of support should we be there for.  I can't really read minds 
> 
> A) All dress professionaly with Ron Paul buttons and participate in the hearing?
> B) Ron Paul swag it out with signs blazing?
> 
> and I need to know when the next hearing is so we can get more people there to support.



80/20 mix between A and B?

----------


## sailingaway

> Well thats what I don't get.  What kind of support should we be there for.  I can't really read minds 
> 
> A) All dress professionaly with Ron Paul buttons and participate in the hearing?
> B) Ron Paul swag it out with signs blazing?
> 
> and I need to know when the next hearing is so we can get more people there to support.


I don't think you need to look coordinated, no signs though. (not inside the building, at least.  They'd piss off the judge)  Just showing community interest, so to speak. And dressed according to courtroom dress.  Not necessarily a suit, but put together.  RESPECT is the key concept.  Although, I will say our conventions full of young people in suits were striking for being something you don't see every day.  It would definitely show respect.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## torchbearer

> I think that's being generous. I'd bet anything he told the judge today that 17 delegates in Massachusetts were not certified (like he's constantly repeating). Wrong. He doesn't know the basic facts about the MA situation. He thinks they could have been the 5th state.
> 
> This guy puts a lot of pressure on that group (and others, no doubt), tells everyone that they're traitors and yet he doesn't know what's going on there.
> 
> People are getting upset because I'm criticizing him. Why don't you get upset at him for getting his facts wrong (even after I've corrected him) and attacking the MA people.


when it goes to trial, this attorney won't be the one giving the facts. the evidence and witnesses will speak for themselves.

----------


## RonRules

I was there to explain my affidavit during the break and also to thank him for his work. He was real happy to see people there to support him. That's mostly it.

It's also to collect data, discuss it, see where we can help him, etc.

He needs help FAST. Compiling a list of ALL documented disenfranchisement in all 50 states would be a good start.

----------


## sailingaway

> I was there to explain my affidavit during the break and also to thank him for his work. He was real happy to see people there to support him. That's mostly it.
> 
> It's also to collect data, discuss it, see where we can help him, etc.
> 
> He needs help FAST. Compiling a list of ALL documented disenfranchisement in all 50 states would be a good start.


can you give him my post?  torchbearer (who was there) confirmed that it is accurate.

and lawdida, I did get mad at him for trashing the MA delegates but I think the thing to do about his not having the facts is to get them to him, not to get mad, that isn't useful.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Who what when where and how (can't possibly need why)
> 
> Private security (off duty police) in Louisiana State GOP convention at the specific bidding of Villiers, the self appointed temporarty chair of the convention manhandled the rightful rules chair duly elected the night before by the majority of the rules committee to force him from his elected office at the convention, breaking his fingers in the process.  This even though during the process the self appointed temporary chair was removed from his seat by a majority of the state convention.  Thereafter, at the bidding of Villiers, other private security manhandled Herford, the newly elected chair of the convention, knocking him to the floor and injuring his newly implanted prosthetic hip, requiring that he be removed from the convention by ambulence, and preventing him from contiuing with his duly elected position at the state convetion, requiring the election of a new chair.  
> 
> Gilbert is FREE TO USE THAT in the complaint.
> 
> supporting video:


^^^ THIS NEEDS TO GO TO Gilbert ^^^

----------


## sailingaway

> ^^^ THIS NEEDS TO GO TO Gilbert ^^^


Yeah, and he blocked me on twitter so I can't even tweet him the link.

If someone else would get it to him that would be great.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## eleganz

> I was there to explain my affidavit during the break and also to thank him for his work. He was real happy to see people there to support him. That's mostly it.
> 
> It's also to collect data, discuss it, see where we can help him, etc.
> 
> He needs help FAST. Compiling a list of ALL documented disenfranchisement in all 50 states would be a good start.


Sent you a PM.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> So, you're telling me it's not an issue that he's got the facts wrong right now? The false claims in his complaint and that he tells the judge aren't a problem?
> 
> We're OK with getting the facts wrong as long as we can get a federal judge to send armed federal agents into a political organization to force them to do what we want?
> 
> This is one heck of a joke Gilbert is playing on the liberty movement.


at the complaint stage it is frequently the case that the atty doesn't have all the facts, that is why there are depositions and things.  He only just 'met' some of his new 'clients'.  I'm not saying it is ideal, only that one choice is to help get the facts straight for him, which might be more likely to get a sustainable complaint then just saying what he has is bad.

----------


## RonRules

Instead of sending him piecemeal YouTube and various personal testimonies, I think it would be best to collect them all together. A Wiki would be a great way to collect that data and ensure it's correctness.

If someone here has done a Wiki, can you start up a skeleton structure with all 50 states and proper sup headings?

----------


## sailingaway

> I _have_ sent him the facts _multiple_ times. I know he's seen them. He _chooses_ to ignore them because they don't fit his preferred narrative as well as the misinformation he's been repeating.



ah.  Yeah, he does tend to put people into an enemy role and ignore them.  Not the easiest personality to work with.  But since he is what we have, maybe we could get that to him through someone else he doesn't see as an enemy.

----------


## sailingaway

> Instead of sending him piecemeal YouTube and various personal testimonies, I think it would be best to collect them all together. A Wiki would be a great way to collect that data and ensure it's correctness.
> 
> If someone here has done a Wiki, can you start up a skeleton structure with all 50 states and proper sup headings?


No offense but he needs the info to put together into a complaint, It would take days to get the wiki together and he needs the info before that.  No one person has it all.

Are you saying you wont send him my post? Because in that case I want to ask someone else. He already has me on the 'bad guy list' it seems.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@Sailingaway,

https://twitter.com/TheLoneCoyote/st...66997773721600

----------


## sailingaway

> @Sailingaway,
> 
> https://twitter.com/TheLoneCoyote/st...66997773721600


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ClydeCoulter again.

but thank you!

Retweeted (not sure if he sees my tweets though.)

----------


## RonRules

> Are you saying you wont send him my post? Because in that case I want to ask someone else. He already has me on the 'bad guy list' it seems.


I don't mind sending him your post, but I really think that we need to do something like your post for each state. In a Wiki or Word document or whatever.

I don't mind being the messenger, but I don't really want to send him 50 disparate emails. I'd like to see a consistent format.

I'll call him tomorrow to find it if he has specific requests.

BTW, I just got a Pacer account and the Tentative Ruling is not there yet:

That's the last 2 items:

07/30/2012	32 
OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFF Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen, re Motion Related Document, 27 , Motion Related Document 28VIDEO EVIDENCE served on ON DEFENDANTS. (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 07/30/2012)

08/03/2012	33 
NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Dismiss Case 7 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT)(Bell, Charles) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't mind sending him your post, but I really think that we need to do something like your post for each state. In a Wiki or Word document or whatever.
> 
> I don't mind being the messenger, but I don't really want to send him 50 disparate emails. I'd like to see a consistent format.
> 
> I'll call him tomorrow to find it if he has specific requests.
> 
> BTW, I just got a Pacer account and the Tentative Ruling is not there yet:
> 
> That's the last 2 items:
> ...


I think we simply do not have the time to make them consistent first.  We can do that AFTER we send them, get them, send them, compile them, but I wouldn't hold them back or he will get it all at once with no time to go through it and pull points for his complaint.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm talking about something as basic as how many delegates MA sends to convention. That's basic due diligence and the information is easily accessible.


Yeah, but he is scrambling with fifty states and election law isn't his area, typically. He is jumping into this because he feels strongly (putting the good interpretation on it, and remembering that no one else has jumped in.)  But cutting down his work isn't going to help, filling any holes we are aware of might help.  AT least that is my approach.

----------


## CPUd

What lawdida is referring to is the constant and repeated statements of:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @deanrobot The Massachusetts traitors cost us our 5th State plurality & cost us a nomination of Dr Paul, They cost us 17 votes


Even after he has been made aware that this is not true.

----------


## sailingaway

> What lawdida is referring to is the constant and repeated statements of:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after he has been made aware that this is not true.


Yeah, but he doesn't believe a word you say, right?  Someone told him differently.  Believe me, all sorts of not at all factual reports are swirling on twitter, he has many versions to pick from.  I think LA is a better focus anyhow because it is shocking and a high profile should help our delegates get seated, imho.  The media isn't picking up on it.

----------


## RonRules

Here is an example of a list of what happened in 2012:

http://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012...paul/#comments

Can we start from that and build this up in a day or two?

If you follow mainstream election coverage, you might think Mitt Romney has coasted to an honest, easy, well-deserved Republican nomination. Unfortunately for Republican voters, nothing could be further from the truth. The primary process has been an all-out slugfest and many of the delegates Romney has won may be the result of dirty tricks and even election fraud. The following narrative includes links to reports, first-hand testimonials, and video evidence highlighting actions taken by the GOP to ensure a Romney victory, at the expense of fracturing the party just prior to the general election. Party leaders at the county and state level have changed or violated party rules, cancelled caucuses, changed vote counts, thrown out entire counties of votes, counted public votes privately, called-in the SWAT team, and inexplicably replaced Paul delegates with Romney delegates to block Ron Paul from winning the nomination.

Iowa: Days before the caucuses, Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa’s Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul’s campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. Even though the Iowa GOP platform reads like a Ron Paul speech, shortly before the caucuses, Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , “[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire”. The message from the Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.

Huffington Post reported that Paul was ahead by one point over Romney and Rick Santorum in entrance polls conducted by Edison Media Research for the AP before the caucuses. For the first time ever, the Iowa GOP changed the final vote count to a secret location . After the caucus, results from 8 precincts (including those with colleges, in a state where Paul won 48% of the youth vote) went missing. Interestingly, these were all precincts Romney lost in 2008. In addition, GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts. Though polling in a comfortable first place, Paul finished third in this non-binding straw poll, behind Romney and Santorum.

Iowa originally reported Romney in first, Santorum in a close second, and Paul third. After the recount, Santorum was named the winner with Romney in second. No mention was given to how the recount affected Paul’s vote count. Iowa GOP chairman, Matt Strawn, later resigned and was replaced by Paul supporter, A.J. Spiker and Paul went on to win the majority of delegates.

Florida: The Florida GOP broke party rules by switching to a winner-take-all state before the date allowed, which favors the candidate with the most money for advertising and attack ads.  Senior Advisor to the Ron Paul campaign, Doug Wead, claims this was done specifically to favor Romney.

Nevada: There is bad blood between Paul’s supporters and establishment Republicans in Nevada. This dates back to 2008, when Convention Chair, Sue Lowden and her enlisted delegates got up and walked out of the convention when it became apparent Paul’s supporters would claim a majority of the delegates. She claimed she would reconvene at a later time, but instead approved the McCain slate of delegates. This year, Paul supporters expected shenanigans; so his State Chairman, Carl Bunce, planned to win by outworking Romney. Just before the caucuses, he claimed to have “more IDs than Romney had votes in ’08″. This means through canvassing door-to-door and phoning voters, he had identified about 25,000 voters committed to show up and vote for Paul.

On caucus day, the media was denied access to most caucus sites and the few that were permitted were not allowed to take photos. Others were even ejected from sites. This CNN clip shows GOP staff preventing a Paul supporter from entering the premises to vote at a special caucus that was set up at the last minute for Newt Gingrich backer, Sheldon Adelson. Here, participants were asked to sign an affidavit (under penalty of perjury) stating they were Jewish and couldn’t vote earlier in the day due to “religious reasons”. CNN showed live coverage of votes being counted at this event, with Paul amassing nearly 60% of the votes. In some precincts in Clark County, the largest in Nevada, the number of ballots did not match the number of voters signed in at the caucus. Though votes were to be counted publicly, they were largely counted in private. The vote count was also inexplicably dragged out for several days, leading to a victory for Romney. Nevada State GOP Chairwoman, Amy Tarkanian resigned the day after the caucuses.

Another interesting note is that Paul’s 2012 votes had doubled, tripled, and more than quadrupled his 2008 votes in every state leading up to the Nevada caucuses, yet Paul received only 88 more votes there. Of all the places for this to occur, Nevada, the country’s most libertarian state; is the last in which anyone would expect this.

In spite of these irregularities , Paul won 22 of 25 state delegates and replaced state party officials with Paul supporters. Romney supporters then formed their own state party, called “Team Nevada”. The RNC then bypassed the official state party in order to organize for Romney and send all funds to Team Nevada.

Colorado: Romney supporters were caught passing out fake Ron Paul slates at the state convention. The RNC has not investigated or even commented on the matter.

Minnesota: Doug Wead, claims the state party instructed members not to vote for any delegates under age fifty because most young delegates support Paul.

Missouri: WXIX Cincinnati’s Ben Swann covered the fiasco in St. Charles County. Temporary Chairman, Eugene Dokes, started the meeting by banning video recording devices, a first for this event. Robert’s Rules of Order require the temporary chairman to accept nominations and elect a convention chairman to run the event. Instead, he appointed a chair of his choice. The crowd immediately erupted with booing. Shortly after, Dokes adjourned the meeting without the required two-thirds majority, called the police on attendees, and left. In adherence to state rules, Paul supporter, Brent Stafford, along with one of the top parliamentarians in the state, reconvened in the parking lot and attempted to resume the event. Shortly after, the SWAT team arrived and arrested Stafford, who was following state party rules. Dokes later admitted on talk radio that he and other state party officials deliberately broke the rules to prevent Paul from winning.

Maine: Ben Swann reported on shenanigans in Maine . Even though only 84% of votes had been counted; State GOP Chairman, Charlie Webster, declared Romney the winner over Paul by less than 200 votes. Hancock and Washington Counties hadn’t voted yet because Webster cancelled the caucuses due to an impending snowstorm, promising they could vote later and their votes would be counted. The snowstorm never occurred and he later reneged on his promise, telling voters in those counties their votes would not be counted after all. Washington County was Paul’s strongest in the state in 2008. Though other states with close outcomes held recounts, this was never a consideration for Maine.

At least one of the counties that did vote claims the state party recorded its tallies incorrectly. Matt McDonald, pastor of a small community church in Belfast, was nominated as the chairman of his caucus. He says the state instructed the caucus chairmen not to read any of the vote totals aloud, but rather to send the results straight to Augusta without a public reading. McDonald made a motion to change this rule, and it was approved unanimously. McDonald says 22 voters showed up, resulting in 8 votes for Paul, 7 for Santorum, 5 for Romney, and 2 undecided. When he called the votes into Augusta, he was told they already had the results and the totals read 9 for Romney, 5 or Santorum, and 2 for Paul. When McDonald told her the tally had been counted publicly, he says “her voice changed and she said…we’ll record this”. Doug Wead claims, “On every occasion, the votes that were lost were Ron Paul votes and the person responsible for reporting them were Mitt Romney supporters…in one case the votes were actually transferred from paper to…a computer and the lady doing the transfer was a Mitt Romney person”. To date, these tallies have not been corrected and Romney is still credited with the straw vote win while the media continues to report that Paul never won a state contest.

Arizona: The Examiner’s Kevin Kervick reports “ballot stuffing, rule violations, and improper vote counting that occurred behind closed doors” at the convention. In addition, Paul supporters allege threats of physical violence from Romney supporters.

Michigan: Doug Wead reports, ” Michigan, unlike any other state…had a special party rule forbidding any precinct delegate vacancies from being filled at county conventions until after the state delegates and alternates were chosen. In other words, countless Ron Paul supporters attending county convention were forcibly blocked…because they weren’t elected precinct delegates in 2010-long before the Ron Paul 2012 campaign began”. Wead also claims “documented instances in multiple counties where county party officials “edited” the state delegation lists after the county conventions adjourned”.

Wyoming: A commenter on Paul supporter website, DailyPaul.com, explains how members of the Republican Executive Committee (all Romney supporters) illegally cast votes in the delegate selection vote.

Washington: At the state convention , a Ron Paul delegate claimed bubble ballot sheets were withheld in King County’s district 36. He also claims the 37 th district caucus was forced to conduct the meeting outside because Chairwoman, Lori Sotelo, was irritated when a Ron Paul supporter was elected to run the caucus, instead of her choice.

Ben Swann interviewed a voter in Pierce County, Washington; who claims the local Republican leadership passed out what they called a “unity slate” to voters and said it represented an equal distribution of delegates committed to Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. The plan was to organize to block Ron Paul supporters, who outnumbered the other candidates’ supporters, from receiving the lion’s share of the delegates. The Republican leadership prevailed.

Alaska: In spite of last-minute rule changes and violations of party rules, Paul supporters ousted longtime state chairman, Randy Ruedrich, and voted-in Paul supporter, Russ Millette.  Ruedrich then tried to sabotage the state convention and transferred all of the state party’s $100,000 to the local Capital City Republicans in Juneau, effectively bankrupting the party now controlled by Paul supporters.

Georgia: This video shows GOP Chairwoman, Sue Everhart, at the Athens Clarke County GOP meeting admitting “shoddy treatment of the Ron Paul people at that [2008] convention” and publicly apologizing. She presents the rule book that she helped to write and claims it won’t happen again. The video then shows the actual convention and party leaders breaking those rules to force their pre-selected slate of delegates and prevent Paul’s supporters from electing their own. Party leaders then adjourned the meeting illegally and ran out of the meeting.

Massachusetts: Paul won 16 of the 27 delegates selected so far in Romney’s home state. In addition, he swept all 6 from Romney’s home county. As a result (for the first time ever in the state), delegates were asked to sign an affidavit stating ” I certify under the pain and penalty of perjury, that on the first ballot at the 2012 Republican National Convention, I will affirmatively Vote for Mitt Romney, the winner of the 2012 Massachusetts Presidential Primary.” The state GOP then covered up Romney’s embarrassing loss by invalidating ballots and ousting the Paul delegates.

North Dakota: Ben Swann reports the selection of delegates was unfair: the GOP handed out pre-printed ballots with a slate of delegates with 60% of them being Mitt Romney supporters in a state where he won only 26% of the vote.

Oklahoma: Kevin Kervick of The Examiner reports that the Oklahoma convention had to be moved to the parking lot because Robert’s Rules were ignored, delegate credentials were not verified, a convention chair was never appointed, motions made from the floor were ignored, the Chairman illegally elected a slate of Romney delegates, and the convention was closed without a two-thirds majority vote. Consistent with Robert’s Rules, Paul supporters reconvened in the parking lot to elect delegates. Paul supporters have now filed a law suit to ensure their delegates will be seated.

Virginia: Doug Wead claims “at a district convention, they coaxed the Ron Paul delegation outside and then locked the door. The pastor of the church that was hosting the event was, himself, locked out”.

U.S. Virgin Islands: Ron Paul won his first caucus, only to have the GOP take down the straw vote results from their website showing Paul the victor with 29% over Romney’s 26% and replaced with a note from the party claiming Romney won because he won more delegates. Paul’s Official Campaign Blogger, Jack Hunter, explains how every other contest determined the victor by the straw vote, except the one straw vote Paul won.

Alabama: An inexplicable gap exists between Paul’s popular vote count and his delegate vote count. This is odd because voters choose both on the same day and on the same ballot. Alabama Republican Party rules state that voters can only vote for one candidate and then must choose between his delegates. Statewide, Paul received only about one-third as many votes as his delegates. This means voters chose another candidate, but selected Paul’s delegates. No other candidate’s totals showed a similar pattern.

Louisiana: Ben Swann reports a clash between the old Louisiana State GOP leadership and newly-elected leaders who support Paul. Old Chairman, Roger Villere, angered attendees with last-minute rule changes the night before the convention. At the start of the convention, Villere attempted to recognize the former Chair of the Rules Committee, who had been voted out the night before. When new Chair, Alex Helwig, rose to address the delegation; Villere instructed security (comprised of off-duty Shreveport Police) to remove him . They arrested him for trespassing and broke several of his fingers. Next, an overwhelming majority elected a new Convention Chair, Paul supporter Alex Helwig. Members then turned their chairs to face Helwig, with their backs to Villere. In desperation, Villere instructed the police officers to remove the duly-elected Herford. They did so and dislocated his hip in the process, sending him to the emergency room.  The reconvened group followed state party rules and went on to elect a majority of Paul delegates, which the state party later replaced with its own slate of Romney delegates.  The Paul campaign has appealed to the RNC, but it is unlikely that the RNC will reinstate the Paul delegates.

Oregon:  This YouTube video shows establishment Republicans in Congressional District 4 attempting to steal the ballot box and leave the premises when it became apparent the Ron Paul supporters were in the majority.  A Paul supporter is chased away from the ballots and claims he was accosted by an establishment party member.

Wisconsin: MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell reports Romney violated state campaign laws by bribing voters with free subs.

In other states, Paul supporters claim vote-flipping occurred with electronic voting machines. Once about 40% of votes are reported, there is typically little variation in the final numbers. However on several occasions, at about 40% Romney’s trajectory “flipped” with the leader, which was often Paul.  Austin Election Judge, Anne Beckett, has come forth publicly to claim she witnessed this firsthand.

Baseless allegations or a few isolated incidents may not be cause for concern, but there is enough video evidence in this report to disturb anyone who cares about fair elections.  Rule changes, disregard for existing rules, cancelling elections, running off with ballots, secret vote counts, throwing out votes, threats, physical violence, and arbitrary replacement of delegates are activities unbecoming of a democratic society.  Whether you’re a Ron Paul supporter, or even a Republican, is irrelevant.  That the Republican Party will seemingly stop at nothing to ensure their selected candidate is the nominee should be deeply troubling for all Americans.

----------


## CPUd

Here's some video from Illinois where they ram a slate through with a deaf chair (vote is around the 3 minute mark):




About the convention:

There were numerous calls made and deadline extensions by the IL GOP to fill empty delegate seats, but this is because many were rejected for not scoring a certain score on a 'test'.  

There were rules put in place where a competing slate cannot be submitted without 50 signatures by township chairs.  The township chairs were told by the IL GOP not to sign anything.

The delegates on the floor were almost exclusively from Chicago.

----------


## Suzu

> He is referring to the fact that Romney said he would have signed NDAA, and to a report about relocation camps plans for which in fact do exist, it is just that there are reasons you might need them besides interrment, for example in the event of a Katrina type event.  He puts those together.


My point was, if he wanted to show that Romney agrees with NDAA, why didn't he include *that* video clip? He's so distracted that he doesn't even know what video clip he inserted into his rant. Then he goes way overboard at the end, acting as if the camps are already in use and Romney has sent millions of people into detention already.

----------


## CPUd

Latest from twitter:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Legal arguments went from 8:30 am to 7:00 pm with one 2 hour break. Case is under submission Judge asked a plethora of questions

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## devil21

> Here is an example of a list of what happened in 2012:
> 
> http://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012...paul/#comments
> 
> Can we start from that and build this up in a day or two?


This list is a perfect example of an overview of the rule breaking but it's also an example of why Gilbert's complaint lacks specificity overall.  Each one of those listings needs NAMES of people and SPECIFIC allegations of conduct.  I know a lot of Paul folks are big picture/overview thinkers but this sort of information doesn't stand up in court.  Saying "Paul supporters did this" and "Party officials claimed that" aren't good enough for federal court.  Everyone that knows specifics about these incidents, mainly proper names and those who can supply first hand witness accounts (like Torchbearer) need to get that info to Gilbert.  If he's got a ton of affidavits attesting to these incidents, complete with names and exact allegations then that's the stuff that should be in his complaint.  We simply don't have time for discovery and depositions and all that.  In a case where there's no time limit, all this info could be obtained through standard discovery routes but that's just not possible before the RNC.




> Latest from twitter:


That's a good sign.  Oral arguments are usually pretty short so sounds like the judge definitely wants to give us every opportunity to make a case.

----------


## sailingaway

> Here's a good example. It's true that, on April 28th, 16 of the 27 congressional district delegate spots went to liberty-minded individuals (Ron Paul did not win them because they are still allocated to Romney). However, Massachusetts sends a total of 41 delegates to the convention:
> 
> 27 CD delegates
> 11 appointed (by the state committee) at-large delegates (the state committee only appointed Romney loyalists to these spots)
> 3   super delegates (State party chair, national committeeman, and national committee woman - all are Romney loyalists)
> 
> So, before any delegates were kicked out, the MA liberty caucus had 16/41 delegates. If they had counted the provisional ballots, the liberty caucus would have picked up two more spots at best. 18/41 is not a majority and, in this case, it's not a plurality either.
> 
> http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MA-R
> ...


It is a federal election.

but I am aware we don't have a plurality in MA, bound or not.  That is one reason I want to get vetted facts such as those I posted on LA to the attorneys  I wrote it based on reports here from people who attended and based on the videos and torchbearer who was a state delegate to the state convention confirmed my account.


He said he would be willing to testify, so I assume he would be willing to sign an affidavit.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> The federal election hasn't happened yet. The MA primary was funded by the state but the caucus to select delegates was completely private. The rules were created by the MassGOP, the caucus was funded by the MassGOP, and they were run by the MassGOP.


He has a statute he believes applies, a FEDERAL statute and the judge appears to agree it would at least need to be looked into.

My own opinion is that collusion by the states and parties through ballot access laws creates sufficient monopoly barriers to entry to consider it disenfranchisement in an federal election to cheat at the state primary level and were I bringing the case I would be arguing that, to get rid of the ballot access requirements and to put Ron on the ballot in 50 states.  Assuming he didn't turn that down if we won.

But Gilbert is bringing the suit.  The judge did not say there was no federal question but that the facts were not plead with sufficient specificity -- YET.

----------


## WhistlinDave

I have to keep this short for now but will go into more detail later tonight or tomorrow.  Went back to court at 5.

VERY IMPORTANT:  Now it is NOT going to be a tentative ruling.  Judge said he is going to rule tonight on the motion to dismiss.  Not a tentative ruling, a yes or no ruling on the motion!!!!  He said probably very late tonight after a LOT of deliberation.

Keep in mind, this is not a ruling on the case or the request for injunctive relief.  THE DEFENSE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE.  This is the only thing the judge is ruling on right now.  Throw the case out?  Or let it proceed.

So first, Defendants' counsel Charles Bell went through a lengthy explanation of why the GOP thinks the court has no jurisdiction over a party's primary process, why the Federal law does NOT apply, and why the complaint was not written with enough specificity.

Judge asked some questions.  One of these was a shocker.  I can't go into detail now, it's a little lengthy to explain properly, so you're going to have to wait for that... Wife is pissed, I'm spending too much time on Ron Paul stuff.  She loves RP too but I need a job and she's not happy I'm spending so much time on the forum (and in court!) these days.  My job hunting has been diligent, but not diligent enough because I'm still unemployed!!

But when I tell you this one thing that the GOP lawyer said, you are going to $#@! bricks!!!!  Whoa.  (I actually think it helped our side though.  More on this shocker later, I promise.)

OK... So at the end of Bell's big schpiel, it seemed like it looked bad for us.  Bell laid out what sounded like plenty of SCOTUS precedents in their favor, saying the SCOTUS has ruled the courts stay out of party business.  He made what seemed like some very reasonable arguments why the court shouldn't get involved in the primary process.  1st Amendment right of free Association was key among these.  And he was saying the primary, and the convention(s) are NOT a federal election under the law.

It was looking grim by the time he was done.  Judge seemed to be right on the same page with the GOP at that point as he started asking Gilbert some questions.

Then Gilbert began.  I have to tell you, this morning I did not get a full glimpse of how this guy is able to lawyer.  Tonight he impressed the hell out of me.  He was brilliant.

He de-constructed the defense's arguments piece by piece like a skilled surgeon amputating rotten limbs.  Sometimes with a scalpel, and sometimes it was so quick & easy it was like he used a razor sharp machete.  He debunked all of the defense's major points beautifully.  Especially, he showed the judge where defense was DEAD WRONG about conventions, and delegates, not being covered under the Federal law.  "It's right there in plain English Your Honor, it even says in subsection B, the word "DELEGATES"!!!

Anyone with doubts about Gilbert's sincerity, or competency to argue a good case, I can only say I wish you had seen him in action.  He absolutely kicked ass.

They also discussed the fact that, while case law so far has always been about race in applying this law, the law is not restricted to only dealing with race.  It says, "any person."  It applies to everyone.  The judge agreed with Gilbert, and warned the defense counsel, that a very narrow reading of the Voting Rights Act may disenfranchise voters and that it was written in a very broad way, with broad implications.  The judge almost sounded like he had read our earlier discussion today about how you cannot give minorities EXTRA rights!!  Gilbert was very good in pointing this out to the judge and the judge picked it up and ran with it.  It is for ALL people, the right to vote one's conscience free from coercion.

The judge left me, at the end of the evening, with the distinct feeling he is leaning toward tossing out the motion to dismiss, allowing Gilbert to amend and re-file the complaint with more specificity in it, and that he is at least going to allow this to proceed until he hears more details.

I have a LOT more to tell you all, with literally several pages of notes.  I might just do a video instead of trying to put it all into coherent writing, because it will take me much less time to explain that way.  I hope to get you the full rundown of the court proceedings by some time tomorrow.  The most important points are here in this summary though.

In the meantime, we are awaiting the judge's decision tonight.  WATCH YOUR TWITTER FEEDS FROM GILBERT tonight.  He is going to Tweet as soon as he finds out.

I don't know if I can answer any questions right now, have to keep this very brief to keep the wife happy here.

Bottom line is, any doubters should have seen Gilbert in action in that courtroom.  He was confident, and got right to the heart of the matter and de-constructed the defense's motion with skill, logic, and THE FACTS OF WHAT THE LAW SAYS.  I have watched plenty of court type dramas on TV and this was better than any of that!  Gilbert said all the right things as far as I'm concerned, and I am really optimistic the motion to dismiss will fail.  Keep your fingers crossed.  I think he actually won the judge over... So hard to say though....

Stay tuned!!!!!

----------


## CPUd

Is it true the defense lawyer admitted that the GOP breaks its own rules regarding delegate binding?

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Is it true the defense lawyer admitted that the GOP breaks its own rules regarding delegate binding?


Yes and no, I think he basically admitted that the state rules on delegate binding seem to be in conflict with the (national) RNC's position that says delegates are not bound.  I can't remember all the details of this particular piece of the proceedings, so I can't remember if he agreed with that for sure, but I think he did.

----------


## Justinfrom1776

What is Gilbert's Twitter handle?

----------


## eleganz

WhistlinDave, thanks for YOUR sacrifices.  I will see you at the next hearing and I'm bringing an army with me.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> What is Gilbert's Twitter handle?


@USA_Free_Press

https://twitter.com/USA_Free_Press

----------


## WhistlinDave

> WhistlinDave, thanks for YOUR sacrifices.  I will see you at the next hearing and I'm bringing an army with me.


Thanks!!  No big thing, I wouldn't have missed it for anything.  I truly believe this is history in the making...

----------


## sailingaway

> @USA_Free_Press
> 
> https://twitter.com/USA_Free_Press


I'm blocked I guess. All I see is that his 'account is protected'.

and I agree, thank you very much for your updates.

----------


## eleganz

> I'm blocked I guess. All I see is that his 'account is protected'.
> 
> and I agree, thank you very much for your updates.


I'm not a big twitter user, hell I still don't even know how it all works but I can say I definitely will be on twitter much more now to see what RG has to say.

Maybe you can create another account since you are really good with updating RPF with important tweets, at least I think you are and truly appreciate when you do so.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not a big twitter user, hell I still don't even know how it all works but I can say I definitely will be on twitter much more now to see what RG has to say.
> 
> Maybe you can create another account since you are really good with updating RPF with important tweets, at least I think you are and truly appreciate when you do so.


MAYBE he'll figure out I'm not one of the ones spreading enmity towards him and will unblock me...  

In any event, I follow people who follow him and retweet. I can see their tweets, just not his twitter stream page.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Here's a good example. It's true that, on April 28th, 16 of the 27 congressional district delegate spots went to liberty-minded individuals (Ron Paul did not win them because they are still allocated to Romney). However, Massachusetts sends a total of 41 delegates to the convention:
> 
> 27 CD delegates
> 11 appointed (by the state committee) at-large delegates (the state committee only appointed Romney loyalists to these spots)
> 3   super delegates (State party chair, national committeeman, and national committee woman - all are Romney loyalists)
> 
> So, before any delegates were kicked out, the MA liberty caucus had 16/41 delegates. If they had counted the provisional ballots, the liberty caucus would have picked up two more spots at best. 18/41 is not a majority and, in this case, it's not a plurality either.
> 
> http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MA-R
> ...


The Federal statute cited in the case says you cannot by means of threats, intimidation, or any other method, coerce someone to vote for, or not vote for, any particular candidate in any Federal election.  The law then goes on to state that "Federal election" is defined as any contest to elect, or nominate anyone to run for, a Federal office, or to elect delegates who nominate someone to run for a Federal office.  I am not quoting it verbatim, but this is approximately what it says.  The way the law is worded it clearly DOES apply to the Massachusetts situation, and it applies to every other instance of delegates being disenfranchised because they were resistant to attempts to coerce them into voting for a particular nominee (Romney).  The law even uses the word "delegates" in describing the various processes that qualify as a Federal election under the law.

When the day ended, one of the very last things the judge said was, "If in fact I do find that the Voting Rights Act applies to your party conventions, then I will be ruling that the plaintiff has an opportunity to quickly file an amended complaint."

So basically, this issue is so important the judge is giving Gilbert a chance to get his ducks in a row, and provide more detail in the complaint, IF the judge ends up agreeing that YES the Federal law DOES apply because the delegate selection process is clearly defined as a Federal Election in the Federal Law referenced in the case.

The way the law reads, I don't see how the judge can draw any other conclusion, personally, but then I'm not a lawyer either... Still waiting for the outcome...

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I'm blocked I guess. All I see is that his 'account is protected'.
> 
> and I agree, thank you very much for your updates.


You're welcome!  I'll ask if he'll unblock you...  Can't promise anything, only just met him today but he seems like a reasonable enough guy.

----------


## sailingaway

> You're welcome!  I'll ask if he'll unblock you...  Can't promise anything, only just met him today but he seems like a reasonable enough guy.


thanks.  He will or he won't, either way it isn't your fault, but I appreciate it.

----------


## WhistlinDave

OK guys I don't think I'll be back on here until tomorrow...  I hope we have an answer from the judge by then!!  He said he was going to try to render a decision on the motion to dismiss tonight, very late.

----------


## RickyJ

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> @CorinaKernan the folks in the audience seemed to think I did very well. I hope it pursaudes the Judge to do what has never been done before


I am kind of surprised he doesn't also think he did very well. I sure hope this is an honest Judge.

----------


## RonRules

Sailing, what's your Twitter account name? I'll also talk to Richard tomorrow.

Speaking of Twitter, check this out!

http://arstechnica.com/security/2012...ter-followers/

----------


## sailingaway

> Sailing, what's your Twitter account name? I'll also talk to Richard tomorrow.
> 
> Speaking of Twitter, check this out!
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2012...ter-followers/


thanks: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse

LOL! (re your link) Grinch's were, too.  Man, padding their virtual realities.

----------


## CPUd

> Sailing, what's your Twitter account name? I'll also talk to Richard tomorrow.
> 
> Speaking of Twitter, check this out!
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2012...ter-followers/


What's sad is that whoever did it probably outsourced the account creation to someone in India or the Philippines.

----------


## devil21

I hope he's as good as you make him sound WhistlinDave.  I was pretty sure earlier based on your earlier reports that the judge already allowed an amended complaint but now it's not even known what the judge will do.  Could be my reading comprehension or whatever but that's what I got from your earlier posts.  

Why not tell us the bombshell?  You typed a bunch of stuff after that so it wasn't a time thing.  Don't get into the secret billioniare sort of mystery.  Just tell us.

----------


## eleganz

> I hope he's as good as you make him sound WhistlinDave.  I was pretty sure earlier based on your earlier reports that the judge already allowed an amended complaint but now it's not even known what the judge will do.  Could be my reading comprehension or whatever but that's what I got from your earlier posts.  
> 
> Why not tell us the bombshell?  You typed a bunch of stuff after that so it wasn't a time thing.  Don't get into the secret billioniare sort of mystery.  Just tell us.


I think the shocking thing was that the RNC defense lawyer more or less admitted that they break their own party rules but thats just how I interpreted it after reading posts and twitter feeds.

----------


## RickyJ

> Liberty Lovin' Lady ‏@CorinaKernan
> 
> @USA_Free_Press when do you find out his decision? Did the opposing side have any kind of a convincing argument? Or was it pathetic?






> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> @CorinaKernan I estimate 2 days. We are asking the Court to do what has never been done so RNC did have an argument. Ours was better, I hope


It won't be tonight I guess, Gilbert estimates two days.

----------


## devil21

> I think the shocking thing was that the RNC defense lawyer more or less admitted that they break their own party rules but thats just how I interpreted it after reading posts and twitter feeds.


Naa that's not what WhistlinDave said.  He was replying to another poster that asked that question specifically.




> Judge asked some questions. One of these was a shocker. I can't go into detail now, it's a little lengthy to explain properly, so you're going to have to wait for that... Wife is pissed, I'm spending too much time on Ron Paul stuff. She loves RP too but I need a job and she's not happy I'm spending so much time on the forum (and in court!) these days. My job hunting has been diligent, but not diligent enough because I'm still unemployed!!
> 
> But when I tell you this one thing that the GOP lawyer said, you are going to $#@! bricks!!!! Whoa. (I actually think it helped our side though. More on this shocker later, I promise.)
> 
> then goes on to type a bunch more stuff


Man just tell us what was said.  It was open court so there are no secrets.  You lose credibility with stuff like that.

----------


## Barrex

> *You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to WhistlinDave again.*


Thank you for your reports.... Were there any reporters?What ? When? Who? WAKE UP! You cant sleep now you must stay awake and report all and any news....Dave you are our only hope 

Well this is getting interesting. After initial "Lawsuit is fraud to collect our delegates names", "case is not/will not be filed" "not legit", "data mining operation" etc, people screaming pretty stupid things in hysteria and panic I am glad this case is moving forward.

I agree that he shuoldnt attack Mass delegates like that but no one is perfect. 

P.s.

Sailing you are unblocked

----------


## devil21

> P.s.
> 
> Sailing you are unblocked


With 5000 followers Im wondering how you know that.

----------


## soulcyon

Is there anyone that can verify these hearings?

----------


## devil21

> Is there anyone that can verify these hearings?


Still nothing new on PACER but I don't know when it processes updates.  It's not real time.

----------


## jay_dub

I think one of the best resources for GOP shenanigans is Ben Swann's Reality Check. They are all archived. If Gilbert is trying to get a crash course on what happened that is fact -based, that would seem like the place to start. Any omissions or errors can be corrected by those more familiar with each instance, but it is the best one-stop place to get up to speed on the issue. 

http://www.fox19.com/category/208878...xix-cincinnati

----------


## RonRules

> Is there anyone that can verify these hearings?


There was a court reporter there all day. Can someone purchase the court transcript? (I can't) Then you'll have everything 100% correctly reported.

----------


## kathy88

> There was a court reporter there all day. Can someone purchase the court transcript? (I can't) Then you'll have everything 100% correctly reported.


How would someone do that?

----------


## RonRules

> How would someone do that?


In state superior courts, you just have to know the name of the reporter who sells it to you directly. I've done it a couple of times and it was fairly cheap. Like $30 for a 40 minute session in court.

In this case, because it's a federal court it could be free, except for the duplication costs. I would say call the Federal Court house in Santa Ana, ask to speak to the court reporters for Judge Carter.

This will get you started:
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division
Ronald Reagan Federal Building & Courthouse (Orange County)
411 West Fourth St, Room 1053, Santa Ana 92701; (714) 338-4750

Carter is in room 9D.

----------


## RonRules

http://www.uscourts.gov/federalcourt...ngProgram.aspx

The court reporters and transcribers may charge and collect fees for transcripts requested by the parties, including the United States. The fee schedule should be posted prominently in the district court clerk’s office or available on a court’s web site. *When a transcript is ordered, the first party to order it pays the original transcript rate, and subsequent requesters pay a copy rate.* When a court reporter or transcriber delivers the original transcript to the ordering party, the court reporter or transcriber is also required to file a certified electronic copy to the clerk of court.

The Judicial Conference has made it explicit that *official court reporters may charge only copy fees for transcripts provided to parties* when the original transcript was produced at the request of a judge.


I presume both sides will request a transcript. Then you only need to pay for duplication fees.

----------


## sailingaway

> http://www.uscourts.gov/federalcourt...ngProgram.aspx
> 
> The court reporters and transcribers may charge and collect fees for transcripts requested by the parties, including the United States. The fee schedule should be posted prominently in the district court clerk’s office or available on a court’s web site. *When a transcript is ordered, the first party to order it pays the original transcript rate, and subsequent requesters pay a copy rate.* When a court reporter or transcriber delivers the original transcript to the ordering party, the court reporter or transcriber is also required to file a certified electronic copy to the clerk of court.
> 
> The Judicial Conference has made it explicit that *official court reporters may charge only copy fees for transcripts provided to parties* when the original transcript was produced at the request of a judge.
> 
> 
> I presume both sides will request a transcript. Then you only need to pay for duplication fees.


If it was a twenty minute hearing we are talking about under $200, likely, for the transcript.  I also hope they ordered it but since he is working pro bono I can't rule out the possibility he was trying to work off good notes.  You'd need rush transcription (an additional fee) to get it in time, though.  That would need to be requested.  They won't do rush automatically.  I would think the RNC would have asked for it, however.

----------


## LibertyEagle

No news yet, eh?

----------


## RonRules

> No news yet, eh?


While the news is coming, send a nice bouquet to Richard. Guys like that haven't gotten flowers for years!

Richard C Gilbert 
Gilbert & Marlowe 
950 West 17th Street Suite D & E 
Santa Ana, CA 92706-3573 
714-667-1038 
Fax: 714-667-2388 
Email: richardattorney@gmail.com

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I think the shocking thing was that the RNC defense lawyer more or less admitted that they break their own party rules but thats just how I interpreted it after reading posts and twitter feeds.


Well there were two different aspects to this question.  And you're right, one of them was my big shocker.  I didn't want to boil it down too much last night because I need to present it in the proper context of the arguments being made, etc.... 

One aspect of it was the question of whether state party rules are in conflict with RNC rules.  State party rules bind delegates, but the 2008 internal ruling by the RNC clearly indicates the RNC wants delegates to vote their conscience.  So on that, if I recall correctly, he did acknowledge the two are in conflict.  Gilbert put it in terms of "they are breaking their own rules" but I don't remember Bell ever responding to say for sure "yes we break our own rules" or anything.

The other aspect of it, my big shocker, I will have to go into more detail later because I've got to go to an appointment here in a little bit.  But I won't keep you in suspense.

Basically, the judge got the GOP lawyer to admit that the GOP believes it is FREE TO BREAK ITS OWN RULES, OR CHANGE ITS OWN RULES AT THE LAST MINUTE, any time it wants, even if that disenfranchises party members involved in the process, and the GOP thinks they have the right to do it, without the courts intervening!!!  My jaw dropped.  I mean my jaw literally dropped wide open (and I think the judge saw it too--there were only two people in the courtroom besides the lawyers, judge, and court transcriber).  I couldn't believe he said that!!!  THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!

I will have to explain this in more detail later so you can understand the context in which this occurred, how it was said, the line of questioning that led up to it, and the way the GOP lawyer repeatedly tried to dodge the question!  It was an amazing moment and I want to get the word out about this because it's $#@!ING BULL$#@!!!!!!

Corruption at its finest, and this GOP lawyer just admitted it to this Federal judge on the record in court.  $#@!ing amazing.  Pardon my French.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Naa that's not what WhistlinDave said.  He was replying to another poster that asked that question specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> Man just tell us what was said.  It was open court so there are no secrets.  You lose credibility with stuff like that.


LOL  Sorry for the wait... I wanted to explain it as it happened, because it was amazing how the judge went back & forth with the GOP lawyer.  It was like pulling teeth.  But see my post just above this one.  I still didn't go into any detail but the basic shocker of what it was, well...  amazing.

----------


## torchbearer

a link to the woody jenkins letter from louisiana: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...hlight=jenkins

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Well there were two different aspects to this question.  And you're right, one of them was my big shocker.  I didn't want to boil it down too much last night because I need to present it in the proper context of the arguments being made, etc.... 
> 
> One aspect of it was the question of whether state party rules are in conflict with RNC rules.  State party rules bind delegates, but the 2008 internal ruling by the RNC clearly indicates the RNC wants delegates to vote their conscience.  So on that, if I recall correctly, he did acknowledge the two are in conflict.  Gilbert put it in terms of "they are breaking their own rules" but I don't remember Bell ever responding to say for sure "yes we break our own rules" or anything.
> 
> The other aspect of it, my big shocker, I will have to go into more detail later because I've got to go to an appointment here in a little bit.  But I won't keep you in suspense.
> 
> Basically, the judge got the GOP lawyer to admit that the GOP believes it is FREE TO BREAK ITS OWN RULES, OR CHANGE ITS OWN RULES AT THE LAST MINUTE, any time it wants, even if that disenfranchises party members involved in the process, and the GOP thinks they have the right to do it, without the courts intervening!!!  My jaw dropped.  I mean my jaw literally dropped wide open (and I think the judge saw it too--there were only two people in the courtroom besides the lawyers, judge, and court transcriber).  I couldn't believe he said that!!!  THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!
> 
> I will have to explain this in more detail later so you can understand the context in which this occurred, how it was said, the line of questioning that led up to it, and the way the GOP lawyer repeatedly tried to dodge the question!  It was an amazing moment and I want to get the word out about this because it's $#@!ING BULL$#@!!!!!!
> ...


Dang, can't rep you again, so I'm reposting you  ^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

----------


## Tiso0770

Lolz, unbelievable.....

So the GOP could actually 'turn down' a candidate even if he got 99% of the votes at the RNC. This is starting to sound like the Federal reserve nightmare scenario of 'above the law'.

----------


## sailingaway

> a link to the woody jenkins letter from louisiana: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...hlight=jenkins


I tweeted it to LFRP but they are getting so MUCH material, much of it false, I am concerned they may not read the important stuff.

by the way, thanks for getting me unblocked, Whistlin Dave.

----------


## Tiso0770

I +Rep'd him

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I tweeted it to LFRP but they are getting so MUCH material, much of it false, I am concerned they may not read the important stuff.
> 
> by the way, thanks for getting me unblocked, Whistlin Dave.


If enough people insert enough falsehood, they may be able to affect his reply to the judge.  We/he have to find a way to get the false stuff filtered out, quick !

----------


## MelissaCato

> Really, what kinds of "holes" did he hint at? Gilbert always acted like this case was a slam dunk.I wouldn't count on any more MA delegates getting involved. Attorney Gilbert didn't exactly do himself any favors when he tried to sweet-talk them by calling them "traitors," their leader a "coward," and making other threats at them. Oh, and then there's the fact that he's generally unprofessional in manner & appearance, has a track record of losing high-profile cases, and has a losing legal argument.Seriously, does anyone really believe he is going to get a judge to send armed federal marshals to escort delegates into the convention? Anyone?


Hey, anything can happen. I hope he wins his case.

----------


## kathy88

Sailing can you post the tweet, if we send numerous tweets chances are it will get picked up on.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sailing can you post the tweet, if we send numerous tweets chances are it will get picked up on.


I realized afterwards that it had a typo, but: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse/sta...79501221167104

----------


## Elwar

> Basically, the judge got the GOP lawyer to admit that the GOP believes it is FREE TO BREAK ITS OWN RULES, OR CHANGE ITS OWN RULES AT THE LAST MINUTE, any time it wants, even if that disenfranchises party members involved in the process, and the GOP thinks they have the right to do it, without the courts intervening!!!  My jaw dropped.  I mean my jaw literally dropped wide open (and I think the judge saw it too--there were only two people in the courtroom besides the lawyers, judge, and court transcriber).  I couldn't believe he said that!!!  THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!


They are likely, like many of us do, under the false assumption that because the Republican Party is a private entity, they can do whatever they want.

But they have spent so much time intertwining their party apparatus with the government laws that they have screwed themselves. They also need to take into account the fact that their own rules are a sort of contract with its members. Breaking such a contract is illegal.

I much prefer the Libertarian Party way of not holding their primary elections with government run voting, but keeping it all within the confines of their party.

----------


## RonRules

Richard Gilbert wrote me back, when I offered hivemind help for providing various forms of evidence in all 50 states:

Richard:
Thank you for your e mail RR. We will know better what we need going forward once we receive the Judge's Ruling.
Regards,
Richard

So standby for the ruling and be ready to collect all the data he needs.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## eleganz

Isn't breaking party rules in accordance to delegates or elections directly betraying ALL of the votes received?  Votes that were cast in good faith that they were voting for their delegate/candidate?

----------


## sailingaway

I do think we should be culling information. Wasted effort is a lot better than regrets if he needs it and we don't have something simple and compelling to give him.

But to the lawdida, we don't have a choice of attorneys, there is this one, and he is doing something.  I personally would prefer to try to make it successful.

----------


## freedomordeath

> He doesn't want to work on gathering evidence of abuses. He want's to wait to see if the judge asks for it first. Doesn't he want to fight this all the way? Nothing is wasted by gathering that information. If time is so short, why is he waiting to be asked?


DUDE... its too late, the ball is rolling, if the top notch lawyers stepped up in the first place then this would not be an issue. Lets make the best of this, afterall the only other solution is the 2nd amendment, I would hope like hell this guys wins.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> I do think we should be culling information. Wasted effort is a lot better than regrets if he needs it and we don't have something simple and compelling to give him.
> 
> But to the lawdida, we don't have a choice of attorneys, there is this one, and he is doing something.  I personally would prefer to try to make it successful.


"Better to have and not need than to need and not have"

----------


## freedomordeath

> I couldn't believe he said that!!! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!


we sould quote the RNC laywer directly, and phone bomb the RNC and ask them does this mean they can vote flip in the voting machines, if what the lawyer said was true, doe sthis not mean they can literally change the results in the primaries.

----------


## tod evans

My understanding from what I've read is this is a MOTIONS hearing...

If in fact it is/was then "evidence" per-se won't likely be required to prove the validity of the motion.

It's likely that if the motions are decided in our favor that the case will move to an actual "HEARING"(trial) on the issues......

This will require "evidence". 

Again, it is my understanding that yesterdays hearing was only about the defenses motion to dismiss...

----------


## sailingaway

> My understanding from what I've read is this is a MOTIONS hearing...
> 
> If in fact it is/was then "evidence" per-se won't likely be required to prove the validity of the motion.
> 
> It's likely that if the motions are decided in our favor that the case will move to an actual "HEARING"(trial) on the issues......
> 
> This will require "evidence". 
> 
> Again, it is my understanding that yesterdays hearing was only about the defenses motion to dismiss...


Yeah, but we are talking about stating ACCURATE facts with sufficient specificity in a to be amended complaint.  He's being fed a bunch of myths with facts mixed in.  The facts are compelling, but he needs to be clear on which are in fact facts.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## eleganz

> Yeah, but we are talking about stating ACCURATE facts with sufficient specificity in a to be amended complaint.  He's being fed a bunch of myths with facts mixed in.  The facts are compelling, but he needs to be clear on which are in fact facts.


Let's just create a new sticky thread where we can compile information where one poster handles the main post for final factual accurate evidence.  When we're finished, we can link to Gilbert...another grassroots victory?

----------


## sailingaway

> He is the only one willing to do it for *free*. With all the attorneys out there, and this being a high profile issue, it is a bad sign for the success of the case that Gilbert’s the only volunteer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since everyone here knows other attorneys could have worked on the case if someone would was willing to pay them, we know that Gilbert wasn’t the only choice. Yet, he’s granted a lot of latitude considering his shoddy work product and unprofessional deportment.
> 
> Why isn’t this latitude given to Jesse, Rand, and others? Why just Gilbert? It is because he’s crazy and you feel bad? Or is it because he acts out your legal rage fantasies and promises to storm the convention with armed federal marshals?
> ...


are you kidding? It is because we want all the fraud and strong arming  against Ron's delegates exposed, and he is the one working to do that.  Rand and Jesse aren't.

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah, but we are talking about stating ACCURATE facts with sufficient specificity in a to be amended complaint.  He's being fed a bunch of myths with facts mixed in.  The facts are compelling, but he needs to be clear on which are in fact facts.


Facts in court are only fact with documentation.......Testimony is just that.

Broken bones and affidavits will carry much more weight than speculative analysis of vote tally's.

Video that isn't subject to interpretation is good as gold.

If the lawyer is getting his "facts" as I've read them on the forum it's going to be a hard row to hoe..

(I think that's what you're talking about with myths?)

----------


## ClydeCoulter

WOW, Can we start a new thread for negativity?  The "LFRP SUCKS" Thread so some can bitch there?
The lawyer got a hearing in front of the judge, let's HELP him.  He's got the judges ear, let put facts into it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Facts in court are only fact with documentation.......Testimony is just that.
> 
> Broken bones and affidavits will carry much more weight than speculative analysis of vote tally's.
> 
> Video that isn't subject to interpretation is good as gold.
> 
> If the lawyer is getting his "facts" as I've read them on the forum it's going to be a hard row to hoe..
> 
> (I think that's what you're talking about with myths?)


that and tweets.

They are an equally mixed bag.

hence the suggestion we try to pull together verifiable facts.

----------


## kathy88

> Let's just create a new sticky thread where we can compile information where one poster handles the main post for final factual accurate evidence.  When we're finished, we can link to Gilbert...another grassroots victory?



GREAT idea. Informational only. Anything else should be deleted so as not to clog up the thread with whiny bull$#@!

----------


## sailingaway

> GREAT idea. Informational only. Anything else should be deleted so as not to clog up the thread with whiny bull$#@!


good idea. I'll make my post on LA into a thread for other threads and circumstances to be added, and add the name of forum members we think can substantiate it, so we can double check our details.  I'll just put the post up now as is and refine it later.  Torchbearer did say it was accurate and he was willing to testify (so presumably would have no problem signing an affidavit).

----------


## tod evans

> that and tweets.
> 
> They are an equally mixed bag.
> 
> hence the suggestion we try to pull together verifiable facts.



I can't be of any help, I'm preparing for a custody hearing of my own right now.

I'd be happy to chime in on what I find confusing if you'd like...

(If I can "get-it" a judge probably can too.)

----------


## RonRules

> WOW, Can we start a new thread for negativity?  The "LFRP SUCKS" Thread so some can bitch there?
> The lawyer got a hearing in front of the judge, let's HELP him.  He's got the judges ear, let put facts into it.


Yes I second that. Just like the Vote Flipping threads were split up in to Fraud/No Fraud versions, we should do the same here. That was very effective and productive.

Need 2 threads: 

1) How to help Lawyers for Ron Paul win the case and help Ron win the nomination.

2) How to make fun of and ridicule LFRP.

----------


## eleganz

> good idea. I'll make my post on LA into a thread for other threads and circumstances to be added, and add the name of forum members we think can substantiate it, so we can double check our details.  I'll just put the post up now as is and refine it later.  Torchbearer did say it was accurate and he was willing to testify (so presumably would have no problem signing an affidavit).


Great!  let's do it!  we can then link it to grassroots of other states and have them come up with their official story.  I highly doubt we're going to be able to produce the evidence needed for all 50 states..correct?

By the way, lawdida, here is your chance to get the truth out about MA.  You have your remedy now.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Hey, it's not like I'm merely calling him a traitor or nut and call it a day. I even try to avoid speculation. 
> 
> You may not like my criticism of him but I try to stick with reason and evidence that can be verified.


But it's just so much smoke at the moment that everyone is trying to clear the way for getting facts to the man

----------


## sailingaway

> I can't be of any help, I'm preparing for a custody hearing of my own right now.
> 
> I'd be happy to chime in on what I find confusing if you'd like...
> 
> (If I can "get-it" a judge probably can too.)


please monitor the new thread as you can: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuit

also the RNC has apparently just said if the Maine delegates don't sign to a laundry list of requirements they will not get to go.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## RonRules

> Why do you want to close your eyes to his problems?


Because I saw him work with my own eyes.

Where were you?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ladies and Gentlemen, there are millions of freedom-liberty minded people in Europe and elsewhere, but we cann”t intervine in your battle, not yet, maybe later, only God knows, y hope we”ll have the opportunity, till then you have to fight on your own. You”ll lose or winn this war on one battlefield; REP.Party. The only thing that matters is THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE AND CAN BRING INTO. DON”T GIVE UP; THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE YOU ARE WATCHING FROM OUTSIDE; YOU ARE NOT ALONE; STAY BEHIND RON PAUL AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD BE THE NOMENEE IN TAMPA.
> 
> Sincerly yours
> aurel barber


welcome to the forums!

----------


## tod evans

> the RNC has apparently just said if the Maine delegates don't sign to a laundry list of requirements they will not get to go.



If this is written on an official letterhead it's possible it could be used.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> He is the only one willing to do it for *free*. With all the attorneys out there, and this being a high profile issue, it is a bad sign for the success of the case that Gilberts the only volunteer.
> 
> Since everyone here knows other attorneys could have worked on the case if someone would was willing to pay them, we know that Gilbert wasnt the only choice. Yet, hes granted a lot of latitude considering his shoddy work product and unprofessional deportment.
> 
> Why isnt this latitude given to Jesse, Rand, and others? Why just Gilbert? It is because hes crazy and you feel bad? Or is it because he acts out your legal rage fantasies and promises to storm the convention with armed federal marshals?
> 
> In all honesty, I try to criticize him at every point when hes taken seriously. However, as a performance artist, I think hes really funny.


You are miscontruing how this lawsuit happened.  It's not like people went out looking for a lawyer and nobody wanted to take the case.

The Ron Paul campaign should have initiated legal action long ago because of all the cheating in primaries, and didn't.

This lawyer stepped forward and said "Damn it, if nobody is going to do anything, I'm going to do something."

He took initiative, and he is working for free, because he believes in this cause, and he believes in Liberty.

He may tend to be very dramatic, and say dramatic things, and he may not be the most prim and proper in his comportment, but who the hell are you to criticize him?  I watched him in court with my own eyes and I can tell you his performance was neither shoddy, nor unprofessional.  This guy kicked the polished GOP attorney's butt in court as far as I'm concerned.  I will be surprised if the judge grants the motion to dismiss.

Now, does the complaint need more specificity?  Yes.  Why didn't it to begin with?  I don't know.  Maybe because this guy had hundreds of affidavits to sort through in a matter of a few weeks, and had very little time, and therefore it just wasn't humanly possible to boil everything down into specifics for over 50 states and US territories with multiple stories (affidavits) from each one?  Gee.  

If you happen to know Superman, and he has a law degree, and you can get him to take this case pro bono, then go get him.  Otherwise, don't criticize when you have zero knowledge of what kind of lawyer Gilbert is.  I saw him in court and he argued a good case.  He dismantled the GOP lawyer's arguments very skillfully.  You can say whatever you want, but just be aware you are making stuff up and making assumptions, not speaking from direct experience.

By the way, how much is Romney's campaign paying you to spread this negativity?

----------


## sailingaway

> If this is written on an official letterhead it's possible it could be used.


I posted what we have including their letter in that new thread, I am hoping Chris Dixon who is a delegate who posted it here will give more details to clean it up.  




> his weekend, the RNC, via Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster offered a "compromise"... take a look: 
> 
> 1.  A majority of the delegates sign a statement agreeing that, if Ron Paul is not on the ballot, they will vote at the Convention for Mitt Romney. 
> 
> 2.  Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president. That spokesperson would also handle all media on behalf of the Maine delegation.
> 
> 3.  There will be nothing negative said about Mitt Romney or positive said about Obama (especially to media).
> 
> 4.  The Delegation will be admitted to the Convention, and to all committee assignments, without barrier. 
> ...



Note that their agreement to vote for Romney if Ron isnt on the ballot gives INCENTIVE to the credentials committee to bar Ron's delegates elsewhere.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If this is written on an official letterhead it's possible it could be used.


Against the maine establishment/RNC, right?

----------


## tod evans

> I posted what we have including their letter in that new thread, I am hoping Chris Dixon who is a delegate who posted it here will give more details to clean it up.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that their agreement to vote for Romney if Ron isnt on the ballot gives INCENTIVE to the credentials committee to bar Ron's delegates elsewhere.



After quick perusal of the google doc. this appears to be a succinct state court complaint.

----------


## sailingaway

> After quick perusal of the google doc. this appears to be a succinct state court complaint.


yeah, I was reading it at the same time. I posted it from the description.  the 'offer of compromise' is apparently separate, by the state GOP chair:




> his weekend, the RNC, via Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster offered a "compromise"... take a look: 
> 
> 1.  A majority of the delegates sign a statement agreeing that, if Ron Paul is not on the ballot, they will vote at the Convention for Mitt Romney. 
> 
> 2.  Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president. That spokesperson would also handle all media on behalf of the Maine delegation.
> 
> 3.  There will be nothing negative said about Mitt Romney or positive said about Obama (especially to media).
> 
> 4.  The Delegation will be admitted to the Convention, and to all committee assignments, without barrier. 
> ...

----------


## tod evans

> Against the maine establishment/RNC, right?


Even if the documents have not been filed in state court they appear complete enough to proffer as evidence in the federal hearing.

(I ain't a lawyer!)

----------


## Barrex

> Richard Gilbert wrote me back, when I offered hivemind help for providing various forms of evidence in all 50 states:
> Richard:
> Thank you for your e mail RR. We will know better what we need going forward once we receive the Judge's Ruling.
> Regards,
> Richard
> So standby for the ruling and be ready to collect all the data he needs.





> Let's just create a new sticky thread where we can compile information where one poster handles the main post for final factual accurate evidence.  When we're finished, we can link to Gilbert...another grassroots victory?





> good idea. I'll make my post on LA into a thread for other threads and circumstances to be added, and add the name of forum members we think can substantiate it, so we can double check our details.  I'll just put the post up now as is and refine it later.  Torchbearer did say it was accurate and he was willing to testify (so presumably would have no problem signing an affidavit).


 


> please monitor the new thread as you can: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuit
> also the RNC has apparently just said if the Maine delegates don't sign to a laundry list of requirements they will not get to go.


This is good idea.... but ( dont kill me): For court data should be presented in certain (universal if possible) manner:
Who,where, when to whom etc.

A lot of names and dates and accusations. I advise CAUTION and due diligence. Before people start to collect information maybe there should be some things clarified: who has access? Data is public? What info will be required? How will data be collected? et cetera... Make clear rules and hierarchy (like it or not it is effective).
*I am all for it but this needs to be done proffesionally and not "ad hoc" bar debate style.  

*_Good preparation makes half of success (this doesnt sounds right on english).
_

----------


## kathy88

> Ladies and Gentlemen, there are millions of freedom-liberty minded people in Europe and elsewhere, but we cann”t intervine in your battle, not yet, maybe later, only God knows, y hope we”ll have the opportunity, till then you have to fight on your own. You”ll lose or winn this war on one battlefield; REP.Party. The only thing that matters is THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE AND CAN BRING INTO. DON”T GIVE UP; THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE YOU ARE WATCHING FROM OUTSIDE; YOU ARE NOT ALONE; STAY BEHIND RON PAUL AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD BE THE NOMENEE IN TAMPA.
> 
> Sincerly yours
> aurel barber


Welcome to the forums. Thank you for your kind words.

----------


## tod evans

> [/B]_Good preparation makes half of success (this doesnt sounds right on english).
> _


Sure it does!

Somebody please cover me on rep, I'm out..

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Sure it does!
> 
> Somebody please cover me on rep, I'm out..


done

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Ladies and Gentlemen, there are millions of freedom-liberty minded people in Europe and elsewhere, but we cann”t intervine in your battle, not yet, maybe later, only God knows, y hope we”ll have the opportunity, till then you have to fight on your own. You”ll lose or winn this war on one battlefield; REP.Party. The only thing that matters is THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE AND CAN BRING INTO. DON”T GIVE UP; THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE YOU ARE WATCHING FROM OUTSIDE; *YOU ARE NOT ALONE*; STAY BEHIND RON PAUL AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD BE THE NOMENEE IN TAMPA.
> 
> Sincerly yours
> aurel barber


The emotional support means a lot, a whole lot, thank you

----------


## sailingaway

> This is good idea.... but ( dont kill me): For court data should be presented in certain (universal if possible) manner:
> Who,where, when to whom etc.
> 
> A lot of names and dates and accusations. I advise CAUTION and due diligence. Before people start to collect information maybe there should be some things clarified: who has access? Data is public? What info will be required? How will data be collected? et cetera... Make clear rules and hierarchy (like it or not it is effective).
> *I am all for it but this needs to be done proffesionally and not "ad hoc" bar debate style.  
> 
> *_Good preparation makes half of success (this doesnt sounds right on english).
> _


first we need to make sure we have the correct facts then one person can write them up in a uniform style, then others can fact check.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## eleganz

pull up AZ delegate letter

----------


## RonRules

"Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president."

It's like Brent Tweed can't read results?!! 

Charlie Webster has experience reading results I guess.

----------


## sailingaway

> There is a letter written from one of the AZ delegates as well, I can pull that up into the thread when its created.


the thread exists, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuit

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> *first we need to make sure we have the correct facts then one person can write them up in a uniform style, then others can fact check.*
> ...
> the thread exists, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuit


^^^ THIS ^^^

----------


## sailingaway

> "Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president."
> 
> It's like Brent Tweed can't read results?!! 
> 
> Charlie Webster has experience reading results I guess.


the delegate chair speaks to media AND REPORTS VOTES at RNC for the state. They don't ask every individual.  Last time it was reported from RNC that our guys' votes were not acknowledged by most delegation chairs.  So they didn't exist as far as the rest of the world knew.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I just read the response of the Maine delegation to the RNC in your new thread, sailingaway, MAINE freakin' ROCKS !

----------


## RonRules

Breaking:

"ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: (See document for details.) Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but d*ismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE*. Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16). (See document for details.) The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial 16 . *Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint*, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012. (rla) (Entered: 08/07/2012)"

----------


## bcreps85

> the delegate chair speaks to media AND REPORTS VOTES at RNC for the state. They don't ask every individual.  Last time it was reported from RNC that our guys' votes were not acknowledged by most delegation chairs.  So they didn't exist as far as the rest of the world knew.


Exactly.  They'll let our delegates go to the convention, if we allow the guy who will misrepresent the votes be the delegate chair.  Either way, we'd essentially have 0 delegates.  This needs to be fought.

----------


## RonRules

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DELEGATES TO THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL CONVENTION ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No.: SACV 12-00927 DOC(JPRx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

Section 1971 of Title 42 of the United States Code is part of a landmark civil rights
statutory scheme, commonly referred to as the “Voting Rights Act,” which Congress enacted to end the violence and discrimination that plagued minority voters in Congressman Ron Paul’s home state of Texas and other parts of this country. See McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U.S. 236, 243, 243 n.11 (1984); Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 213 (1996) (“Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1964 because it concluded that case-by-case enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment, as exemplified by the history of the white primary in Texas, had proved ineffective to stop discriminatory voting practices in certain areas of the country.”); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966) (“The Voting Rights Act was designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.”); Elections, 13D Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. §
3576 (3d ed.) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1971 as part of comprehensive legislation “to provide effective remedies against discrimination in the conduct of elections” that began “with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and with broadening amendments in 1960, 1964, 1965, and 1970”). “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.” Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 201 (2009). “When it was first passed, unconstitutional discrimination was rampant and the ‘registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead’ of black registration in many covered States.” Id.; see also Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 541 (1927) (lawsuit challenging Texas statute “forbid[ding] negroes to take part in a primary election”).
Six years ago, Congressman Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.1 Ironically, his supporters now bring this lawsuit under the very statutory scheme he tried to end.
After reviewing the moving papers and oral argument, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16).

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Breaking:
> 
> "ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: (See document for details.) Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, *the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial* (Dkt. 16). (See document for details.) The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, *the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial 16* . Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012. (rla) (Entered: 08/07/2012)"


What does this mean? "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial"

----------


## RonRules

I. Background
The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is that Defendants have engaged in various acts—often too vaguely described to be intelligible—that have disadvantaged Ron Paul in his quest to be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for President at the Republican National Convention commencing on August 27, 2012.
a. Parties
1 See Final Vote Results For Roll Call 374, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll374.xml
(reflecting vote on July 13, 2006).
Case 8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR Document 35 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:474
The FAC describes the Plaintiffs as: (1) “National Delegates”; (2) “Alternate National Delegates”; and (3) “State Delegates who elected National Delegates.” FAC at 24:4-19. The National and Alternate National Delegates include “Delegates duly elected but having their Certification [sic] withdrawn.” Id. at 24:15.
The FAC describes the Defendants as: (1) the Republican National Committee (“RNC”);
(2) RNC’s Chairman, Reince Priebus; (3) “every State Republican Party and party Chairman within the Jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit”; and (4) “State Republican Party Organizations participating in a Federal Election for the purpose of nominating a candidate for President of the United States and a candidate for Vice President of the United States.” Id. at 24:15.

b. Allegations
While the FAC’s allegations are often duplicative and unclear, they appear to be as follows:
• “Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws.” Id. at 27:5-6.
• “Defendants have refused to Certify [sic] Delegates who were properly elected.” Id. at 27:7-8.
• “[I]n almost every state in the United States[,] Defendants engaged in a scheme to intimidate and harass Delegates who were supporting a Candidate that Defendants did not approve of. This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that Delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the Delegate fails to vote as instructed by Defendants.” Id. at 26:21-26.
• “Defendants have further harassed and intimidated Plaintiffs with untimely Rule changes designed to deny a quorum or to manipulate Delegates supporting a particular Candidate to be deprived of a fair election in furtherance of a scheme to deny Plaintiffs the right to vote their conscience on all ballots.” Id. at 26:27-28, 27:1-2.
• “Defendants have altered the voting ballot results to fraudulently reflect an outcome that is inconsistent with the actual voting ballot results for the purpose of certifying a fraudulently selected slate of Delegates to support the Candidate of Defendants [sic] choice rather than the Delegates properly elected all to prevent Plaintiffs from voting their conscience.” Id. at 27:9-12.
• “[T]here is a systematic campaign of election fraud at State Conventions including programming a voting machine in Arizona to count Ron Paul votes as Governor Romney votes; ballot stuffing, meaning the same person casting several ballots in several State Conventions; altering procedural rules to prevent votes being cast for Ron Paul, all as acts of intimidation to prevent National Delegates from voting their conscience.” Id. at 33:10-15.
• “Bones have been broken. A gun has been used to threaten a Plaintiff to vote as ordered while inside of a school. Plaintiffs have been followed. Plaintiffs have been threatened with future life-time harassment if Plaintiffs do not vote as directed. Plaintiffs have been threatened to remove their names from this lawsuit or face adverse consequences.” Id. at 34:12-16.
The sole allegation that references a specific Defendant and specific Plaintiff appears on page 32. There, the FAC alleges that “Plaintiff Renato D’Amico is a duly elected National Delegate from the State of Massachusetts who was unlawfully removed from the State Delegation when he refused to sign” an affidavit “presented by Defendant Republican Party of Massachusetts” requiring him to “swear[] under penalty of perjury that he would vote for Governor Romney.” Id. at 32. The FAC alleges that, “[i]n Massachusetts[,] at least 17 Delegates duly elected were ordered to sign” the same affidavit even though “no Party Rule . . . permits such an [a]ffidavit nor such an ultimatum, nor has said Defendant ever required such an [a]ffidavit in the past.” Id. Plaintiffs “request an order of this Court reinstating Plaintiff Renado D’Amico to his duly elected position as a Certified National Delegate and further requests that all Massachusetts Delegates be reinstated who were removed solely for refusing to sign the
unlawful [a]ffidavit.” Id.

----------


## CPUd

> What does this mean? "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial"


If he files an amended complaint, he will also have to file another application to expedite.

----------


## RonRules

> What does this mean? "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial"


I think it's all good. The judge want a rock solid case and he's allowing a third submittal. That's where we can help provide good data. 

As far as the Expedite Trial, This will be a LONG and tortuous trial. That's good.

----------


## RonRules

c. Procedural history
On July 5, 2012, Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss. Mot. (Dkt. 7). Four days later, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ ex parte application but explained that, if Plaintiffs Case 8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR Document 35 Filed 08/07/12 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:476 wished to file an amended complaint containing the changes outlined in the ex parte application, Plaintiffs were free to do so. See July 9, 2012, Order (Dkt. 10). Plaintiffs filed the FAC, with is the operative pleading in this case, on July 11, 2012. FAC (Dkt. 12). The Court then granted
Defendants’ request to reinstate their Motion to Dismiss because the FAC added no new factual allegations or legal theories and instead only added new Plaintiffs. See July 12, 2012, Order (Dkt. 13).

II. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts which, if true, would entitle the complainant to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss). The pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). On a motion to dismiss, this court accepts as true a plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations and construes all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The court is not required to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, review is ordinarily limited to the contents of the complaint and material properly submitted with the complaint. Clegg v. *Cult Awareness Network* (LOL), 18 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). Under the incorporation by reference doctrine, the court may also consider documents “whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading.” Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by 307 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) can not be granted based upon an affirmative defense unless that “defense raises no disputed issues of fact.” Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984). For example, a motion to dismiss may be granted based on an affirmative defense where the allegations in a complaint are contradicted by matters properly subject to judicial notice. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, a motion to dismiss may be granted based upon an affirmative defense where the complaint’s allegations, with all inferences drawn in Plaintiff’s favor, nonetheless show that the affirmative defense “is apparent on the face of the complaint.” See Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
Additionally, Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows the court to take judicial notice of certain items without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994). The court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they are either: “(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the court may take judicial notice of undisputed “matters of public record”), overruled on other grounds by 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). The court may disregard allegations in a complaint that are contradicted by matters properly subject to judicial notice. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).

Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate only when the court is satisfied that the deficiencies in the complaint could not possibly be cured by amendment. Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made). Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” This policy is applied with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990).

----------


## losinglife

stupid legal speak..... someone describe wtf he response was and were to go further in plain english.

----------


## RonRules

III. Discussion

Defendants argue that: (1) the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is too vague and conclusory to satisfy the pleading standard; and (2) to the extent that the FAC is intelligible, this Court should not adopt Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act because it would violate Defendants’ First Amendment right of association. Plaintiffs do not substantively respond to these arguments and instead raise two procedural objections. The Court first addresses Plaintiffs’ objections and then turns to Defendants’ arguments.

a. Plaintiffs’ procedural objections do not address the merits of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Opposition opens with two arguments that this Court addresses briefly because they do not go to the merits of this case. First, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to meet and confer with Plaintiffs prior to filing this Motion and in violation of Local Rule 7-3. Opp’n at 1-3. Even assuming this is true, Plaintiffs can hardly fault Defendants for failing to follow this Local Rule given that Plaintiffs repeatedly filed ex parte applications seeking orders from this Court without providing Defendants an opportunity to respond and in violation of Local
Rule 7-19. See e.g., July 9, 2012, Order (Dkt. 10) (denying Plaintiffs ex parte relief for, among
other things, failure to follow Local Rule 7-19).

Second, Plaintiffs accuse Defendants’ attorneys of having a conflict of interest with their clients because “[s]everal Defendants in this case are duly elected party chairmen who are open supporters of Dr. Ron Paul.” Opp’n at 4. This argument fails for so many reasons, one of which is that a plaintiff can not defeat a motion to dismiss by simply casting aspersions on the defendant’s attorney. Rather, a plaintiff must engage the merits of the motion to show that the defendant has not actually met its burden.

b. With one exception, Plaintiffs’ allegations are not sufficiently intelligible for this Court to even analyze whether they can state a claim A court considering a motion to dismiss “can choose to begin by identifying pleadings [within the complaint] that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). In this section, the Court first explains why it will not consider at this late date the DVDs recently filed by Plaintiffs. The Court next identifies those pleadings in the FAC that are conclusory or not sufficiently plausible.
Finally, the Court concludes that only one page in the FAC contains allegations that are sufficiently intelligible for this Court to even analyze whether they can state a claim. At the outset, the Court notes that it is profoundly difficult to discern Plaintiffs’ legal theory because Plaintiffs’ Opposition does not cite a single case regarding the Voting Rights Act, much less any case regarding election law or the First Amendment. However, the FAC itself suggests2 and at oral argument Plaintiffs confirmed that Plaintiffs bring this action under
Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. Section 1971(b) provides in relevant part that “[n]o person . . . shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to . . . vote as he may choose . . . for the office of President . . . [or] Delegates . . . at any general . . . or primary election held . . . for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.” 42 U.S.C. § 1971(b).3

----------


## RonRules

i. The Court can not consider Plaintiffs’ late-filed DVDs

On a motion to dismiss, a district court may only consider additional material if it is judicially noticeable or “properly submitted as part of the complaint.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court reviews the Motion to Dismiss without considering the contents of several DVDs that Plaintiffs recently filed because these DVDs do not fall into either of these categories.
First, the contents of Plaintiffs’ DVDs—which appear to be testimony by various Plaintiffs—are not judicially noticeable because they are neither “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court” nor “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001).
Second, these DVDs were not properly submitted as part of the complaint because Plaintiffs filed them after Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC. Plaintiffs cannot defend against a motion to dismiss by relying on new allegations in their Opposition that are absent from the operative pleading. See Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1107 (7th Cir. 1984); Nguyen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. SACV 11-01908 DOC (ANx), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12070, ay *9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2012). The policy reason for this rule is twofold.
First, a court construes well-pled pleadings liberally on a motion to dismiss because the plaintiff’s attorney must certify that “factual contentions have evidentiary support,” and the attorney can be severely punished if this statement is later revealed to be false. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3). In contrast, allegations in material not attached to the complaint do not necessarily come with these enforceable promises by an attorney. Second, the purpose of a motion to dismiss is to provide the defendant with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him; a defendant is denied this opportunity if a plaintiff can defeat a motion to dismiss by perpetually filing additional material not included in the complaint.

----------


## RonRules

ii. The FAC is riddled with conclusory allegations lacking plausibility

As previously noted, a court accepts as true a plaintiffs well-pled factual allegations and construes all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Manzarek v. St. Paul reading a complaints allegations liberally is that a plaintiff often must sue before she has had the benefit of discovery and that defendants are frequently in a better position to know the details of how their acts caused the plaintiffs harm. However, this policy justification vanishes where the harm to the plaintiff is unclear. Thus, pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide more than labels and conclusions. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.
The following allegations use mere labels and conclusions from which the Court can not discern what Plaintiffs harm is, much less who has done what to whom.
 Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws. FAC 27:5-6.
 Defendants have refused to Certify [sic] Delegates who were properly elected. Id. at 27:7-8.
 [I]n almost every state in the United States[,] Defendants engaged in a scheme to intimidate and harass Delegates who were supporting a Candidate that Defendants did not approve of. This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that Delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the Delegate fails to vote as instructed by Defendants. Id. at 26:21-26.
 Defendants have further harassed and intimidated Plaintiffs with untimely Rule changes designed to deny a quorum or to manipulate Delegates supporting a particular Candidate to be deprived of a fair election in furtherance of a scheme to deny Plaintiffs the right to vote their conscience on all ballots. FAC 26:27-28, 27:1-2.
 Defendants have altered the voting ballot results to fraudulently reflect an outcome that is inconsistent with the actual voting ballot results for the purpose of certifying a fraudulently selected slate of Delegates to support the Candidate of Defendants [sic] choice rather than the Delegates properly elected all to prevent Plaintiffs from voting their conscience. Id. at 27:9-12.
 [T]here is a systematic campaign of election fraud at State Conventions including programming a voting machine in Arizona to count Ron Paul votes as Governor Romney votes; ballot stuffing, meaning the same person casting several ballots in several State Conventions; altering procedural rules to prevent votes being cast for Ron Paul, all as acts of intimidation to prevent National Delegates from voting their conscience. Id. at 33:10-15.
 Bones have been broken. A gun has been used to threaten a Plaintiff to vote as ordered while inside of a school. Plaintiffs have been followed. Plaintiffs have been threatened with future life-time harassment if Plaintiffs do not vote as directed. Plaintiffs have been threatened to remove their names from this lawsuit or face adverse consequences. Id. at 34:12-16.
These allegations are all riddled with the same error. For example, Plaintiffs vague reference to State Bylaws gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs use of the passive voice renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and whether any of the more than 100 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs vague allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed simultaneously by all Defendants lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation.
Thus, *this Court does not accept these allegations as true*. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where lower court reasoned that complaint failed to clearly and concisely explain[] which allegations are relevant to which defendants and noted that the purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes).

----------


## RonRules

iii. The sole intelligible allegation is that a specific Defendant removed elected delegates who refused to vote for a particular nominee at the convention

The sole allegation that is pled with some clarity is that the Defendant Republican Party of Massachusetts removed at least 17 elected delegates from the state delegation for the national convention because those delegates refused to sign an affidavit promising to vote for a particular nominee. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that “Plaintiff Renato D’Amico is a duly elected National Delegate from the State of Massachusetts who was unlawfully removed from the State Delegation when he refused to sign” an affidavit “presented by Defendant Republican Party of Massachusetts” requiring him to “swear[] under penalty of perjury that he would vote for Governor Romney.” FAC at 32. Plaintiffs also allege that, “[i]n Massachusetts[,] at least 17 Delegates duly elected were ordered to sign” the same affidavit even though “no Party Rule . . .permits such an [a]ffidavit nor such an ultimatum, nor has said Defendant ever required such an [a]ffidavit in the past.” Id. Plaintiffs “request an order of this Court reinstating Plaintiff Renado D’Amico to his duly elected position as a Certified National Delegate and further requests that all Massachusetts Delegates be reinstated who were removed solely for refusing to sign the unlawful [a]ffidavit.” Id. 
This pleading is the sole intelligible pleading in the FAC because the Court can at least discern who did what to whom. Thus, the Court will construe the FAC as making only this allegation and analyze only this allegation in the next section to determine whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim.

----------


## libertylastchance

Isn't it wonderful.. that Ron Paul's name has been attached to this lawsuit is such a fashion... 
DO YOU THINK THEY COULD OF BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER ANOTHER NAME...
DO  YOU THINK THEY COULD OF NOT HUNG ON THE COAT TAILS OF RON PAUL AND AVOIDED DRAGGING HIS NAME THROUGH THE MUD!!!!!!!... 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third
and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the
Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,
1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
Because the Court grants Defendants Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES
Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial [16].
Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
DATED: August 7, 2012
__________________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

----------


## RonRules

c. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights
Act 

Defendants argue that a court order reinstating delegates would violate Defendants’ First Amendment right to exclude certain people from leadership positions in their party. Mot. 12-15. Defendants’ argument appears to be that Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Voting Rights Act would violate Defendants’ First Amendment right to exclude, and thus this Court should not adopt Plaintiffs’ interpretation because it would render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

4 The First Amendment limits federal encroachment on political parties’ right to exclude. This First Amendment right also limits states’ encroachment on political parties’ nominee selection process because the First Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment against the Recently, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, the United States Supreme Court was confronted with a constitutional challenge to a different section of the Voting Rights Act not at issue here. See 557 U.S. 193, 205 (2009) (discussing challenge to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973b, 1973c). The Supreme Court chose to avoid addressing the constitutional issue
and instead resolved the dispute through statutory interpretation. Id. The Court did so by invoking the canon of constitutional avoidance, which instructs courts to “not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.” Id.; see also Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24, 42 (1st Cir. 2009) (following Northwest Austin to avoid reaching “the serious constitutional questions which . . . would be raised were we to adopt plaintiffs’ construction of the statute” because “courts, particularly in [Voting Rights Act] cases, should avoid deciding constitutional issues where statutory interpretation obviates the issue”).
This Court follows the United States Supreme Court’s direction in Northwest Austin and thus does not address the merits of Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act would be unconstitutional. As detailed below, the Court first describes the contours of Defendants’ First Amendment right to exclude. Second, the Court describes Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, the Court concludes that no authority supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 1971(b), but that that there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971(b). Because
Plaintiffs’ allegations do not state a claim under these alternative interpretations, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

----------


## RonRules

*Political parties have a limited right to exclude people from membership and leadership roles*

Although Defendants’ right-to-exclude argument references both the First and the Fourteenth Amendment, the latter’s incorporation of the former against the states does not appear to be a relevant defense where, as here, Defendants appear to argue that a federal court’s order based on Plaintiffs’ interpretation of a federal law would violate Defendants’ right to exclude.

Political parties and their members have a First Amendment right to association free from federal encroachment; this right includes the “right to exclude” people from membership or leadership roles in the party in certain circumstances. California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574, 120 S. Ct. 2402, 2408, 147 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2000) (“[A] corollary of the right to associate is the right not to associate.”); New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008); Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 121 (1981). This right to exclude includes the right to “choose a candidate-selection process that will in [the party’s] view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 202. It also “encompasses a political party’s decisions about the identity of, and the process for electing, its leaders.” Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 224, 229 (1989) (“Freedom of association means . . . that a political party has a right to identify the people who constitute the association . . . and to select a standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and preferences.”) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
“In no area is the political [party’s] right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.” Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 568 (2000). “That process often determines the party’s positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day, and even when those positions are predetermined it is the nominee who becomes the party’s ambassador to the general electorate in winning it over to the party’s views.” Id. “[B]eing saddled with an unwanted, and possibly antithetical, nominee would . . . severely transform” the party. Id. at579; see also Eu, 489 U.S. at 231 n.21.
Of course, “[n]either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute.” Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 124 (1981). For example, a political party’s right to exclude does not protect a party’s demand of ideological fealty from its members where such a demand violates other constitutional rights, such as the Fifteenth Amendment. See Baskin v. Brown, 174 F.2d 391, 392 (4th Cir. 1949) (holding that political party’s rules, including rule in which “voting in the primaries was conditioned upon the voter[] taking an oath that he believed in social and educational separation of the races,” violated the Fifteenth Amendment); Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 200 n.17, 228-29 (1996) (citing Baskin v. Brown favorably as “in accord with the commands of the Fifteenth Amendment and the laws passed pursuant to it”); Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at 203 (“These [associational] rights are circumscribed, however, when . . . , for example, the party’s racially discriminatory action may become state action that violates the Fifteenth Amendment.”).
The Voting Rights Act as enacted under Congress’ “power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 518, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 2163, 138 L. Ed. 2d 624 (1997); Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 864 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
(“[W]hen reauthorizing the [Voting Rights] Act in 2006, Congress expressly invoked its enforcement authority under both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.”). “[W]hen Congress seeks to combat racial discrimination in voting—protecting both the right to be free from discrimination based on race and the right to be free from discrimination in voting, two rights subject to heightened scrutiny—it acts at the apex of its power.” Shelby County, 679 F.3d at 860; see also City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 518 (1997) (“Legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional.”). Thus, a political parties’ First Amendment right to exclude does not per se render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. See Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 214-15, 228 (1996)
(rejecting political party’s argument that its First Amendment right to exclude trumped 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, a different section of the Voting Rights Act not at issue in this case.).
Furthermore, election laws often impose “some burden” on a First Amendment right to associate. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992). The level of scrutiny with which a court reviews the challenged law depends on its effect upon the First Amendment right. See id. at 434. Currently, the standard of review applied in challenges to the Voting Rights Act “remains unsettled.” Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 859 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (noting that Supreme Court’s decision in Northwest Austin could be perceived as a “powerful signal”
that the Supreme Court would depart from the “rationality” review it previously applied in Katzenbach); see also Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 204 (2009) (declining to resolve parties’ disagreement “on the standard to apply in deciding whether .
Congress exceeded its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power in extending the preclearance requirements” of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973b and 1973c, Voting Rights Act sections not at issue here).
However, courts attempting to determine the standard of review that applies have resolved this question “by using traditional principles of deferential review” to federal laws, including the canon of construction that such laws are entitled to a “presumption of validity.” Shelby County, 679 F.3d at 861-62.5
Plaintiffs make literally no argument and cite no case law to explain what government interest their interpretation of Section 1971(b) serves. Because the American court system is an adversarial one, this Court may not make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf. But this is not to say that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest. Indeed, in Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate
selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2008). Justice Scalia—hardly a champion of campaign finance reform—has even conjectured that a governmental interest may exist in crafting a nominee selection process that avoids “plac[ing] a high premium upon the ability to raise money.” See id. In addition, the Supreme Court has rejected a political party’s argument that its First Amendment right to exclude allowed
it to condition delegate status on payment of a $45 fee in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, which is a section of the Voting Rights Act not at issue in this case. See Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 214-15, 228 (1996).
The Court included the foregoing section to explain Defendant’s First Amendment right to exclude and some of its limitations. However, the Court need not reach “the serious constitutional questions” raised if the Court were to adopt Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Voting Rights Act because “courts, particularly in [Voting Rights Act] cases, should avoid deciding constitutional issues where statutory interpretation obviates the issue.” Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24, 42 (1st Cir. 2009).

----------


## sailingaway

> *the Court concludes that no authority supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 1971(b), but that that there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971(b). Because
> Plaintiffs’ allegations do not state a claim under these alternative interpretations, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE.*


So now he needs to state a c/a under those alternate interpretations asap and we need to get the facts to him so he can.

Did the judge give any clue during the argument what 'alternative interpretations' he had in mind?  This is key.

violation of contract because the rules party members vote and participate under should govern maybe?  What arguments did the judge seem receptive to?

----------


## RonRules

*Plaintiffs interpret the phrase “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” in Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act to include a political party’s conditioning of delegate status on a promise to vote for a particular nominee*

Plaintiffs appear to sue under Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See FAC at 26:3-7 (quoting language from Section 1971(b)). This section provides in relevant part that “[n]o person . . . shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to . . . vote as he may choose . . . for the office of President . . . [or] Delegates . . . at any general . . . or primary
election held . . . for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.” 42 U.S.C. § 1971(b).
Plaintiffs make no argument in their Opposition. However, the facts they allege suggest that Plaintiffs believe they can state a claim under Section 1971(b) because the phrase “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” encompasses Defendant Republican Party of Massachusetts’ conditioning of delegate status upon the putative delegate signing an affidavit promising to vote for a particular nominee where no state law or party rule expressly authorizes said Defendant’s act.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Because the American court system is an
>  adversarial one, this Court may not make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf.


Bull$#@!, they just did it for the defendants on Obamacare !  Where's the redress?

----------


## RonRules

*iii. No authority supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act*

The Court has found only four dozen cases discussing Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. None of these cases interpret the phrase “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” as broadly as Plaintiffs urge. The Court reviews one such case, U.S. by Katzenbach v. Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan (“Ku Klux Klan”), to provide an example of an indisputably constitutional definition of the phrase “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” and to illustrate the kind of evils the Voting Rights Act was designed to encompass. In Ku Klux Klan, the court found that
defendants’ “acts of economic coercion, intimidation, and violence directed at Negro citizens . .. for the purpose of deterring their registering to vote” violated Section 1971. 250 F. Supp. 330,355 (E.D. La. 1965). In Ku Klux Klan, defendants’ “coercive tactics” included a “six men . . .wrecking crew” to punish people as young as twelve years old who were “violating Southern traditions” by, for example, patronizing facilities that “allow[ed] Negroes to use White rest rooms.” Id. 338-40. Defendants went to a restaurant where “Negroes [were] seeking service” and entered “brandishing clubs, ordered the Negroes to leave and threatened to kill Sam Barnes,
a member of the Bogalusa Voters League.” Id. at 341. Defendants “entered [a] park and dispersed the Negro citizens with clubs, belts, and other weapons” with “the purpose of interfering with the enjoyment of the park by Negroes and white CORE workers who were . . . using the facilities for the first time on a non-segregated basis.” Id. at 341-42; see also U.S. v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734, 741 (5th Cir. 1967) (holding that defendant county officials’ “pattern of baseless arrests and prosecutions” of participants in black voter registration drive violated Section 1971(b)).
While these examples are not the only definitions of the phrase “intimidate, threaten, or coerce,” they at least demonstrate that there are several constitutional interpretations of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act that do not violate Defendants’ First Amendment right. Plaintiffs do not allege any acts akin to those done by defendants in cases discussing Section 1971(b). Nor do Plaintiffs make any argument or cite any case law or legislative history regarding Section 1971(b) to explain why the phrase “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” should be extended to the act at issue here, namely, a political parties’ conditioning of delegate status upon the putative delegate signing an affidavit promising to vote for a particular nominee where no state law or party rule expressly authorizes that affidavit.
Given that Plaintiffs do not allege any acts akin to the cases discussing section 1971(b), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. In addition, because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial.

----------


## sailingaway

> Plaintiffs make literally no argument and cite no case law to explain what government interest their interpretation of Section 1971(b) serves. Because the American court system is an adversarial one, this Court may not make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf. But this is not to say that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest. Indeed, in Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate
> selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2008). Justice Scalia—hardly a champion of campaign finance reform—has even conjectured that a governmental interest may exist in crafting a nominee selection process that avoids “plac[ing] a high premium upon the ability to raise money.” See id. In addition, the Supreme Court has rejected a political party’s argument that its First Amendment right to exclude allowed
> it to condition delegate status on payment of a $45 fee in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, which is a section of the Voting Rights Act not at issue in this case. See Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 214-15, 228 (1996).
> The Court included the foregoing section to explain Defendant’s First Amendment right to exclude and some of its limitations. However, the Court need not reach “the serious constitutional questions” raised if the Court were to adopt Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Voting Rights Act because “courts, particularly in [Voting Rights Act] cases, should avoid deciding constitutional issues where statutory interpretation obviates the issue.” Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24, 42 (1st Cir. 2009).


ok. your next post was more clear about what they want to see in the complaint.

----------


## RonRules

*d. This holding is extremely narrow*

The Court emphasizes the narrowness of its holding. Defendants advocate a constricted interpretation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. All too frequently, parties that urge a constricted interpretation of the Voting Rights Act do so to accomplish exactly that which the Voting Rights Act is designed to prevent: disenfranchisement of voters who historically have suffered discrimination. See e.g., Ku Klux Klan, 250 F. Supp. 330 (E.D. La. 1965). As numerous courts have recognized, such “discrimination in voting is uniquely harmful in several ways: it cannot be remedied by money damages and . . . lawsuits to enjoin discriminatory voting laws are costly, take years to resolve, and leave those elected under the challenged law with the benefit of incumbency.” Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 861 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

This Court has no desire for its holding—which is reached under the limited facts of this case and without substantive legal argument by Plaintiffs—to be refashioned into a weapon wielded by those who wish to prolong the “blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.” See State of S.C. v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). There is a very real risk that those who employ discriminatory practices will use any legal argument available, including this Court’s decision, to oppose future litigation brought under the Voting Rights Act. As Congress found when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, “between 1982 and 2005, minority plaintiffs obtained favorable outcomes in some 653 . . . suits” brought under a different section of the Voting Rights Act than that at issue here, and these lawsuits provided “relief from discriminatory voting practices in at least 825 counties.” Shelby County, 679 F.3d at 868.

Between 1982 and 2004, an additional “105 successful . . . enforcement actions were brought” under another section of the Voting Rights Act. Id. at 870. Based on this evidence and extensive additional documentation, Congress found that “serious and widespread intentional discrimination persisted” and concluded that the work of the Voting Rights Act “is not yet done.” Id. at 872, 873.

To avoid this decision being misused, the Court emphasizes what this case is not. This is not a case in which Defendants’ conditioning of delegate status is based on a racial motive or has a disparate impact on minority voters. This is not a case alleging abuse of government officials’ authority. This is not a case where Defendants’ acts were accomplished through violence or economic coercion, given that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding broken bones and guns are inadequately pled. Finally, this is not a case alleging a violation of a specific law (other than 42 U.S.C. § 1971(b)) or specific party rule, given that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding unspecified “State Bylaws” are unintelligible. 

Thus, the Court’s extremely narrow holding in this case leaves unscathed both the Voting Rights Act and political parties’ First Amendment right of association.

----------


## sailingaway

> Isn't it wonderful.. that Ron Paul's name has been attached to this lawsuit is such a fashion... 
> DO YOU THINK THEY COULD OF BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER ANOTHER NAME...
> DO  YOU THINK THEY COULD OF NOT HUNG ON THE COAT TAILS OF RON PAUL AND AVOIDED DRAGGING HIS NAME THROUGH THE MUD!!!!!!!... 
> For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
> However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third
> and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the
> Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,
> 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
> Because the Court grants Defendants Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES
> ...


My concern is the FINAL part.  WE have to make sure this is GOOD. How do we do that?

----------


## RonRules

*IV. Disposition*

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial [16].
Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
DATED: August 7, 2012
__________________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

----------


## sailingaway

> *IV. Disposition*
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
> However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will afford Plaintiffs a *third and final opportunity* to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial [16].
> Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
> DATED: August 7, 2012
> __________________________________
> DAVID O. CARTER
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


there is the huge problem.  This next complaint needs to be good we don't want a motion to dismiss WITH prejudice which would mean they couldn't bring suit again .  When I was doing my own 'conspiracy think' on this my concern was that the case wouldn't be thrown away.  I got over that because our delegates ARE doing it, and because no one else seems to be planning to do anything else.

----------


## RonRules

I think this is a great opportunity. The judge basically tells us step by step what needs to be added. A dismissal and leave to amend is a great thing.

The judge clearly sees this is a worthwhile case and must have worked till 1 or 2 AM to prepare this ruling.

We're on!

----------


## rb3b3

Ok,so they dismissed the case we lost fkn wonderful!!!! They are all in on it!!! Judges too!!!! My wife works in a court house very very corrupt!!!! The saying goes its not what you know it's who you know!!! Thats what they go by in the courthouses!!

----------


## sailingaway

> I think this is a great opportunity. The judge basically tells us step by step what needs to be added. A dismissal and leave to amend is a great thing.
> 
> The judge clearly sees this is a worthwhile case and must have worked till 1 or 2 AM to prepare this ruling.
> 
> We're on!


I agree that the judge put a lot of himself into this. I hope we can capitalize on it.

----------


## Barrex

> Ok,so they dismissed the case we lost fkn wonderful!!!! They are all in on it!!! Judges too!!!! My wife works in a court house very very corrupt!!!! The saying goes its not what you know it's who you know!!! Thats what they go by in the courthouses!!


It is not over.




> stupid legal speak..... someone describe wtf he response was and were to go further in plain english.


Plaintiffs (Ron Paul delegates) shall file an amended complaint with specifics (who, what, where, when, how and refile case. It has to be done in less than 13 days.

That is it as short as possible.


Edit: 
Can someone put this in one google document so it is not cut into pieces? I am very interested in this and would like to study it a bit further.

Edit 2:
Dont panic I got the towel. It is not over it, is not done, it is maybe begining of the end but it is not over.

Edit 3:
@sailingaway: Yea but for final and last complaint judge pretty clearly wrote what he needs, where improvements are needed and what to add im final complaint...

Edit 4:
Someone ask R. Gilbert what he needs and what he needs to get all information and ask it fast. There is not much time!

Edit 5:
If people here want to help there needs to be clear plan how and who and when...

----------


## Cody1

> Ok,so they dismissed the case we lost fkn wonderful!!!! They are all in on it!!! Judges too!!!! My wife works in a court house very very corrupt!!!! The saying goes its not what you know it's who you know!!! Thats what they go by in the courthouses!!


Huh?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Plaintiffs (Ron Paul delegates) shall file an amended complaint with specifics (who, what, where, when, how and refile case. It has to be done in less than 13 days.
> 
> That is it as short as possible.


Barrex, can you make heads or tails out of what the judgment reads?  It appears as though he's giving hints of case law that might be used, is that true?

----------


## sailingaway

> It is not over.
> 
> 
> 
> Plaintiffs (Ron Paul delegates) shall file an amended complaint with specifics (who, what, where, when, how and refile case. It has to be done in less than 13 days.
> 
> That is it as short as possible.


where do you see the 13 days? I missed that.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## RonRules

Watch the media with big headlines: Ron Paul lawsuit dismissed!

----------


## tod evans

> I think this is a great opportunity. The judge basically tells us step by step what needs to be added. A dismissal and leave to amend is a great thing.
> 
> The judge clearly sees this is a worthwhile case and must have worked till 1 or 2 AM to prepare this ruling.
> 
> We're on!


My understanding as well..........(only skimmed ruling)

----------


## RonRules

> Can someone put this in one google document so it is not cut into pieces? I am very interested in this and would like to study it a bit further.


https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6409463

----------


## RonRules

> where do you see the 13 days? I missed that.


Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, it's a good thing Gilbert called the Massachusetts folk "traitors" and their leader a "coward." Otherwise he still might have a chance.
> 
> Oh, and the other day Evan Kenney (18-year-old who was removed for not signing the affidavit) tweeted a screenshot of a facebook post that came from Gilbert's account. See here:
> 
> https://twitter.com/EvanKenney/statu...72801098231808
> 
> There's probably a really good chance the Judge is going to see it as well.


and your point is?  

He shouldn't have said that to the MA delegates, but I don't see how that helps write the complaint.

----------


## tod evans

> What does this mean? "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial"


In plain English the judge told Gilbert he needs to file coherent pleadings based on current law by Aug. 20th, he can ASK that the court expedite and potential hearings in the future but THIS motion is denied.

He didn't throw Gilbert out on his ear, however "AS PLEAD" we have no standing.

----------


## CPUd

<edit> see PDF posted above

----------


## RonRules

I suggest again that we do a proper hierarchical document like a Wiki that can be group edited. Not fully public, but with membership such as DP and RPF long time forum members.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## Barrex

> where do you see the 13 days? I missed that.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4570201

"Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
DATED: August 7, 2012"

----------


## RonRules

Download the original document here:

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6409463

----------


## sailingaway

> Download the original document here:
> 
> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6409463


thanks.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## Barrex

> Barrex, can you make heads or tails out of what the judgment reads?  It appears as though he's giving hints of case law that might be used, is that true?


Yes. It could be interpreted that way.
In general I dont like judges. In BiH (where I was born) you can find out a price of certain judge to secure you a favorable ruling.
I would like to hear audio or read transcripts from this.
That being said my opinion about judge (based on all court documents and people who were in that courtroom):
Judge in this case seems really good one. He went out of his way to give fair treatment to Ron Paul delegates. He pretty clearly said you need to do this and this. I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).

----------


## RonRules

For me this part stands out:

"Plaintiffs’ vague reference to “State Bylaws” gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ use of the passive voice renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and whether any of the more than 10 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs’ vague allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed simultaneously by all “Defendants” lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation."

In other words: BE SPECIFIC!

----------


## eleganz

> *IV. Disposition*
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
> However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial [16].
> Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
> DATED: August 7, 2012
> __________________________________
> DAVID O. CARTER
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Just went on twitter to find this:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Court has ruled that the it is possible to state a claim that The Voting Rights Act (vote your conscience) may apply to The Convention





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Court requires an Amended Complaint We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file an Appellate Writ





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> We shall at the same time to seek the guidance of both Courts. Do not be confused by the technical language of granting the motion





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The case survives





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Judge stated on the record that he tentatively believes that the Voting Rights Act does apply to the Convention

----------


## RonRules

> I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).


He's admonishing Gilbert pretty hard in this ruling, but I love this judge.

Saw him put someone away for 30 years and he was just as just can be.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> That's a good one. 
> 
> I know it's a quote, but I liked this one:
> 
> "purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes"


what is your agenda?

----------


## Barrex

> Barrex, can you make heads or tails out of what the judgment reads?  It appears as though he's giving hints of case law that might be used, is that true?


Yes. It could be interpreted that way.
In general I dont like judges. In BiH (where I was born) you can find out a price of certain judge to secure you a favorable ruling.
I would like to hear audio or read transcripts from this.
That being said my opinion about judge (based on all court documents and people who were in that courtroom):
Judge in this case seems really good one. He went out of his way to give fair treatment to Ron Paul delegates. He pretty clearly said you need to do this and this. I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).

I have one question: 
Judge gave our side 13 days to file apeal. In most countries there is time limit of 8 days or 15 or a month depending on case, court and country. I never heard of 13 days. Is it law in US (13 days)?  Or is it coincidence that judge gave himself enough time for our side to file final version and for judge to rule on this before Tampa (august 27th)? Either way this it not bad thing. 

There will be time to talk in detalis with this. Now is time to focus at work that needs to be done and done fast:
-Someone ask R. Gilbert what he needs and what he needs to get all information and ask it fast. 
-There is not much time!
-If people here want to help there needs to be clear plan how and who and when...

----------


## RonRules

"USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Court requires an Amended Complaint We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file an Appellate Writ"

In the first complaint, I clearly remember he was not going to file an appeal. Why file an appeal if you don't know how the final ruling will be. Don't understand.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I think this is a great opportunity. The judge basically tells us step by step what needs to be added. A dismissal and leave to amend is a great thing.
> 
> The judge clearly sees this is a worthwhile case and must have worked till 1 or 2 AM to prepare this ruling.
> 
> We're on!


I agree.

The physical violence in Louisiana (dislocated hip and broken fingers) of the duly elected officials is key in proving "threaten, coerce, intimidate" allegations.

We need a rock solid narrative of the who, what, when, where of these events, and in the complaint any supporting videos must be referenced.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes. It could be interpreted that way.
> In general I dont like judges. In BiH (where I was born) you can find out a price of certain judge to secure you a favorable ruling.
> I would like to hear audio or read transcripts from this.
> That being said my opinion about judge (based on all court documents and people who were in that courtroom):
> Judge in this case seems really good one. He went out of his way to give fair treatment to Ron Paul delegates. He pretty clearly said you need to do this and this. I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).
> 
> I have one question: 
> Judge gave our side 13 days to file apeal. In most countries there is time limit of 8 days or 15 or a month depending on case, court and country. I never heard of 13 days. Is it law in US (13 days)?  Or is it coincidence that judge gave himself enough time for our side to file final version and for judge to rule on this before Tampa (august 27th)? Either way this it not bad thing. 
> 
> ...


there might be a weekend or holiday involved.  The judge can pretty much say what he wants, I believe.

----------


## CPUd

> Their main argument for the motion to dismiss is that they have W number of named defendants, X number of listed plaintiffs, and Z things done to the plaintiffs, but the original complaint does not state "w (from W) did z (from Z) to x (from X)".  I think if his response does not include such statements, this portion of the complaint may be dismissed.


He was made aware that his complaint had problems, the defense went out of their way 2 weeks ago to point them out.  The judge recessed for several hours yesterday so that he could fix them.  I think it is a good idea to get him some good information, but the real challenge will be to get this horse to drink.

----------


## devil21

Not a terrible ruling but not a surprise either.  Broad allegations don't fly in civil suits.  Need names, exact allegations of conduct, etc.

I hope Gilbert has considered that there are legal hurdles to the state of Iowa forcing a delegate to do something in a different state.  Once you cross state lines out of Iowa (example), Iowa law/rules no longer applies to your conduct unless there's a written contract guaranteeing future performance or the states have a reciprocity compact in place already.  IOW, Florida law would apply to people from Iowa while they're in Florida.  Iowa delegate binding law is irrelevant in Tampa, just like every other Iowa law is irrelevant in Florida.  Gilbert needs to make this point!  Seems to me that he's attacking the binding rules/laws in the wrong manner.

@Barrex
It's not an appeal, it's an amended complaint and the judge has discretion to set pretty much any time limit he wants for that.  An appeal would be taking the dismissal to the Federal Court of Appeals (next level and last step before SCOTUS).  That's not what's happening here.  The judge gave Gilbert the chance to refile a new complaint and start over.

----------


## sailingaway

> "USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Court requires an Amended Complaint We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file an Appellate Writ"
> 
> In the first complaint, I clearly remember he was not going to file an appeal. Why file an appeal if you don't know how the final ruling will be. Don't understand.


granting of a motion to dismiss is a final order and appealable but not sure how it works if you were given leave to amend to fix it.  I guess he is still fighting the provision the court doesn't think applies.

----------


## RonRules

> -Someone ask R. Gilbert what he needs and what he needs to get all information and ask it fast. -There is not much time!


Already done. But we can also clearly see in the ruling that the judge want SPECIFIC violations of the Civil Rights law.

I would also add a CLEAR explanation as to why Ron Paul voted against it. I know Ron had good reasons, but the judge does not know that. 

He's clearly annoyed by it and he said it when I was there and he repeats it even more sternly in the ruling:

"Section 1971 of Title 42 of the United States Code is part of a landmark civil rights statutory scheme, commonly referred to as the “Voting Rights Act,” which Congress enacted to end the violence and discrimination that plagued minority voters in Congressman Ron Paul’s home state of Texas and other parts of this country. ...

Six years ago, Congressman Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.1 Ironically, his supporters now bring this lawsuit under the very statutory scheme he tried to end."

So please, for someone here that knows this, write this up nice and pretty.

----------


## WhistlinDave

Also I think a more detailed description of the threats employed when people were told to sign affadavits would make it clear that even though it wasn't quite to the level of the KKK walking in with big clubs in their hands to intimidate people, there were very real threats of criminal (felony?) charges being brought against delegates for perjury, if they did not vote how they were being told to vote.  With more detail, these events probably DO rise to the level of illegal intimidation described in the judge's narrow reading of the statute.

----------


## sailingaway

> Already done. But we can also clearly see in the ruling that the judge want SPECIFIC violations of the Civil Rights law.
> 
> I would also add a CLEAR explanation as to why Ron Paul voted against it. I know Ron had good reasons, but the judge does not know that. 
> 
> He's clearly annoyed by it and he said it when I was there and he repeats it even more sternly in the ruling:
> 
> "Section 1971 of Title 42 of the United States Code is part of a landmark civil rights
> statutory scheme, commonly referred to as the “Voting Rights Act,” which Congress enacted to
> end the violence and discrimination that plagued minority voters in Congressman Ron Paul’s
> ...


I would ignore that.  It has no bearing on the case and is a distraction.

----------


## RonRules

"I never heard of 13 days. Is it law in US (13 days)? Or is it coincidence that judge gave himself enough time for our side to file final version and for judge to rule on this before Tampa (august 27th)?"

He specifically said in court that he wan't to rule before Aug. 27.

Personally, I'm hoping for Monday morning Aug. 27.  Just for the Lulz.

----------


## torchbearer

> Also I think a more detailed description of the threats employed when people were told to sign affadavits would make it clear that even though it wasn't quite to the level of the KKK walking in with big clubs in their hands to intimidate people, there were very real threats of criminal (felony?) charges being brought against delegates for perjury, if they did not vote how they were being told to vote.  With more detail, these events probably DO rise to the level of illegal intimidation described in the judge's narrow reading of the statute.


how does louisiana fit in to all of this?
i mean, hiring thugs to beat up your opponents when they win the chairmanship is kinda hard to ignore.

----------


## Barrex

> there might be a weekend or holiday involved.  The judge can pretty much say what he wants, I believe.


Actually in most cases he is strictly limited to laws about Rules of Civil Procedure (edited I found correct term lol.. I should have known this one). They are diffrernt from country to county but they exist. That is why I was asking "why number 13". Those "time limits" (regarding complaints, apeals, oppositions etc.) in laws and rlues exist to make sure cases dont last for decades and that courts run and not get tangeld in eternity. 


P.s.
Sorry about double posting I am multitasking.

----------


## sailingaway

> how does louisiana fit in to all of this?
> i mean, hiring thugs to beat up your opponents when the win the chairmanship is kinda hard to ignore.


yeah, that is why it is in the thread we are collecting.  I think that is VERY persuasive and stinks to high heaven besides.  Let's make the media we do get on this juicy.

----------


## sailingaway

> Actually in most cases he is strictly limited to laws about court procedures (sorry I dont know to say correct term in english). They are diffrernt from country to county but they exist. That is why I was asking "why number 13".
> 
> 
> P.s.
> Sorry about double posting I am multitasking.


there are set procedures but allowing an amended complaint is highly discretionary, expediting a hearing is also highly discretionary, so he could pull out whatever number he wanted imo.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Already done. But we can also clearly see in the ruling that the judge want SPECIFIC violations of the Civil Rights law.
> 
> I would also add a CLEAR explanation as to why Ron Paul voted against it. I know Ron had good reasons, but the judge does not know that. 
> 
> He's clearly annoyed by it and he said it when I was there and he repeats it even more sternly in the ruling:
> 
> "Section 1971 of Title 42 of the United States Code is part of a landmark civil rights statutory scheme, commonly referred to as the “Voting Rights Act,” which Congress enacted to end the violence and discrimination that plagued minority voters in Congressman Ron Paul’s home state of Texas and other parts of this country. ...
> 
> Six years ago, Congressman Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.1 Ironically, his supporters now bring this lawsuit under the very statutory scheme he tried to end."
> ...


From Wikipedia:




> Voting Rights Act
> 
> In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[297] *Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses,* but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[298] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[299] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, which Paul objected to on the grounds that one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and that as it currently stands it often forces large expenditures to prepare materials that are in some cases never used.[300]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

----------


## RickyJ

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> The Judge stated on the record that he tentatively believes that the Voting Rights Act does apply to the Convention


 The case will go forward!

----------


## WhistlinDave

> how does louisiana fit in to all of this?
> i mean, hiring thugs to beat up your opponents when they win the chairmanship is kinda hard to ignore.


Yes, you must've missed my post just before that one.  Louisiana is KEY to this.

----------


## devil21

> The Judge has denied the motion to dismiss it appears. The case will go forward!


Um no.  Read the last few pages of this thread.

----------


## sailingaway

> The Judge has denied the motion to dismiss it appears. The case will go forward!


well, he granted the motion to dismiss but allowed the complaint to be amended and spent a good deal of time late at night saying exactly how to do that.

----------


## Barrex

> there might be a weekend or holiday involved.  The judge can pretty much say what he wants, I believe.


Possible. Here courts have different form for expressing time limits(again dont know word in english): "...file complaint/appeal/or x within y work days" so there is no confusion... That is why it cought my attention.

----------


## eleganz

> well, he granted the motion to dismiss but allowed the complaint to be amended and spent a good deal of time late at night saying exactly how to do that.


Isn't it beautiful

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## Suzu

I am still finding it difficult to believe that R. Gilbert is really a lawyer! Given sufficient facts to work with, I - a non-lawyer with only minimal paralegal experience - could have written a non-dismissable complaint this first time out.

----------


## sailingaway

> My agenda is to expose Gilbert's many flaws (and, as an aside, the irony of the Liberty movement bringing this case in federal court and the 9th circuit no less!) before Gilbert does further damage to what Paul and his supporters have worked hard to build. 
> 
> I don't doubt that everyone in this thread is well-intentioned but they are helping Gilbert do damage when they support him.


where is the damage? So far you've just said he'd be made fun of and so would we.  Like we aren't all the time.

----------


## sailingaway

> I am still finding it difficult to believe that R. Gilbert is really a lawyer! Given sufficient facts to work with, I - a non-lawyer with only minimal paralegal experience - could have written a non-dismissable complaint this first time out.


please help us.

I agree the complaint needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

----------


## Margo37

> Yes I second that. Just like the Vote Flipping threads were split up in to Fraud/No Fraud versions, we should do the same here. That was very effective and productive.
> 
> Need 2 threads: 
> 
> 1) How to help Lawyers for Ron Paul win the case and help Ron win the nomination.
> 
> 2) How to make fun of and ridicule LFRP.


All of the above.  Good ideas.   Please!

----------


## torchbearer

> I am still finding it difficult to believe that R. Gilbert is really a lawyer! Given sufficient facts to work with, I - a non-lawyer with only minimal paralegal experience - could have written a non-dismissable complaint this first time out.


could you throw in some ideas as to how to make it better? we are getting a lot of stuff together in various threads.

----------


## sailingaway

> All of the above.  Good ideas.   Please!


I see no value in a making fun of the suit thread.

----------


## RonRules

This is the core issue:

"Political parties and their members have a First Amendment right to association free from federal encroachment; this right includes the “right to exclude” people from membership or leadership roles in the party in certain circumstances." ...
"This right to exclude includes the right to “choose a candidate-selection process that will in [the party’s] view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.”
...
“In no area is the political [party’s] right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.”

BUT!

Of course, “[n]either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute.”
"For example, a political party’s right to exclude does not protect a party’s demand of ideological fealty from its members where such a demand violates other constitutional rights, such as the Fifteenth Amendment." (holding that political party’s rules, including rule in which “voting in the primaries was conditioned upon the voter[] taking an oath that he believed in social and educational separation of the races,”

Furthermore, election laws often impose “some burden” on a First Amendment right to associate. The level of scrutiny with which a court reviews the challenged law depends on its effect upon the First Amendment right. See id. at 434. Currently, the standard of review applied in challenges to the Voting Rights Act “remains unsettled.”


Plaintiffs make literally no argument and cite no case law to explain what government interest their interpretation of Section 1971(b) serves. Because the American court system is an adversarial one, this Court may not make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf. *But this is not to say that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest.* Indeed, in Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” *See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2008).*

The judge is basically saying, go read the Lopez case and see what you can find to help yourself in there.

----------


## RonRules

This judge is feeding Gilbert with a silver platter:

"Finally, the Court concludes that no authority supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 1971(b), but that that *there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971*(b). Because Plaintiffs’ allegations do not state a claim under these alternative interpretations, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE."

Basically, he's saying find these alternative interpretations and I won't dispute them!

----------


## Margo37

> I see no value in a making fun of the suit thread.


I'm not making fun.  Splitting them is a good idea as I see it.

----------


## tod evans

This!

outta rep.........again.





> This judge is feeding Gilbert with a silver platter:
> 
> "Finally, the Court concludes that no authority supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 1971(b), but that that *there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971*(b). Because Plaintiffs’ allegations do not state a claim under these alternative interpretations, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE."
> 
> Basically, he's saying find these alternative interpretations and I won't dispute them!

----------


## WhistlinDave

> My agenda is to expose Gilbert's many flaws (and, as an aside, the irony of the Liberty movement bringing this case in federal court and the 9th circuit no less!) before Gilbert does further damage to what Paul and his supporters have worked hard to build. 
> 
> I don't doubt that everyone in this thread is well-intentioned but they are helping Gilbert do damage when they support him.


I don't see any irony.  Being Libertarian doesn't mean you think the court system should be abolished.

I hear Ron Paul say all the time that the purpose of government is supposed to be to protect our Liberty.  So when our Liberty has been trashed by the corruption within the GOP, I'd say a lawsuit is in order.  Any time your Liberty is infringed, if you are unable to resolve the dispute on your own, and you have suffered damages as a result of the illegal conduct, then you have the right to use the court system to protect your liberty.  Weird, huh?  Sometimes government can be a good thing.  Imagine that.

----------


## Barrex

Anyway I am gone for tonight. If this idea about collecting facts to help lawsuit is going to work it needs to be aproached activley (look for people and evidance) and not passivley (make a thread and wait for people to post their story and evidance).

Let me know what I can do to help.

I wish from tooth fairy:
1) Richard specifically telling people what he needs
2) Clear plan to start collecting facts to help lawsuit 
3) beer

I just need a tooth from someone.

----------


## Suzu

> could you throw in some ideas as to how to make it better? we are getting a lot of stuff together in various threads.


Just tell Gilbert to do what the judge told him to do in the ruling. It's all there, for pete's sake. He ought to have known all that stuff right from the start in the first place anyway. I mean, is this guy an ambulance chaser _ala_ Vince Gambini from My Cousin Vinny, or what?!

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> This judge is feeding Gilbert with a silver platter:
> 
> "Finally, the Court concludes that no authority supports Plaintiffs interpretation of Section 1971(b), but that that *there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971*(b). Because Plaintiffs allegations do not state a claim under these alternative interpretations, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE."
> 
> Basically, he's saying find these alternative interpretations and I won't dispute them!


^^^ THIS ^^^

----------


## sailingaway

> Just tell Gilbert to do what the judge told him to do in the ruling. It's all there, for pete's sake. He ought to have known all that stuff right from the start in the first place anyway. I mean, is this guy an ambulance chaser _ala_ Vince Gambini from My Cousin Vinny, or what?!


he has the true facts all mixed up with internet chatter is the problem.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

To Gilbert:

https://twitter.com/TheLoneCoyote/st...91168017874944

----------


## sailingaway

retweeted.  Sounds like a battle cry, to me.

----------


## Suzu

> he has the true facts all mixed up with internet chatter is the problem.


No, the problem is he doesn't know the difference between facts and conclusions. Worse yet, he doesn't seem to know the difference between generality and specificity.

----------


## sailingaway

> No, the problem is he doesn't know the difference between facts and conclusions. Worse yet, he doesn't seem to know the difference between generality and specificity.


I was thinking he didn't have the specificity weeded from the trash.

----------


## kathy88

> "Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president."
> 
> It's like Brent Tweed can't read results?!! 
> 
> Charlie Webster has experience reading results I guess.


Charlie has experience EXCLUDING results. Fixed it for ya.

----------


## libertylastchance

They get a better lawyer.. They get plaintiffs that have proof and they stop telling everyone this will be done before Tampa.. the judge denied the plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Expedite...
These judges are expert chessmen.. this case came in with the board and a pawn.... end of game... The scales of justice tip, with evidence..
The fraud needs to be addressed and should of been done by each and every plaintiff at their local level..

----------


## sailingaway

> They get a better lawyer.. They get plaintiffs that have proof and they stop telling everyone this will be done before Tampa.. the judge denied the plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Expedite...
> These judges are expert chessmen.. this case came in with the board and a pawn.... end of game... The scales of justice tip, with evidence..
> The fraud needs to be addressed and should of been done by each and every plaintiff at their local level..


the judge denied the motion to expedite only because there was nothing to expedite until he had a complaint that could go forward.  He gave 13 days to file a better one.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> No, Suzu's right. Think about it, he could have been very specific about this weed, that weed, and another weed. On it's face, it appears Gilbert is making a claim that, if true, can be granted relief by the court. Now, eventually it would come out that Gilbert got his facts wrong but the motion to dismiss would not have been granted because they didn't yet know if Gilbert's facts were true.
> 
> Now, imagine instead that everything in the complaint Gilbert actually filed with the court was true (which the judge would have assumed when deciding on how to rule on the motion). The judge would still grant the motion to dismiss because he doesn't know what exactly the problem is and how it can be fixed.


I'm aware of that. But if Gilbert ALSO doesn't know which facts are true he'd have been more likely to try to fudge it with vagueness.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> They get a better lawyer.. They get plaintiffs that have proof and they stop telling everyone this will be done before Tampa.. the judge denied the plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Expedite...
> These judges are expert chessmen.. this case came in with the board and a pawn.... end of game... The scales of justice tip, with evidence..
> The fraud needs to be addressed and should of been done by each and every plaintiff at their local level..


Let me clarify this because I was there when the judge stated in court that either way, no matter what the ruling on the motion to dismiss, he is not going to grant a motion to expedite.

The motion to expedite was a motion to expedite a trial.  The judge stated that (if Gilbert can file an amended complaint with enough specificity in it to constitute a proper complaint) there will not be enough time to have such a trial involving so many plaintiffs, defendants, etc., before the convention.

Gilbert stated he did not intend for a full trial to occur, but more of a summary judgement in order to arrive at the judge issuing the injunctive relief Gilbert was requesting.

The judge said that if the plaintiffs could present a claim that meets the minimum burden of plausibility and specificity required by the law, and the judge finds the claim has merit, he could issue an injunction before the convention.  (Of course that's IF he finds in favor of Gilbert.)

The injunction is basically a court order saying "I order *this* to happen, even though this case isn't fully settled and done, but because I feel there is enough concern to warrant protecting the interests of the plaintiffs (or of whatever party is petitioning the court for the injunction), I am going to order these parties to do (or not do) these things."

Another example of an injunction might be a man divorcing a woman is suing, and the woman says she's selling the Ferrari this weekend, and so the husband gets an injunction saying "You are not allowed to sell the car."  It's a court order made in the interest of limited time, when a trial is expected to take too long to prevent something from happening.  (Something happening that could harm someone's interests.)  Maybe the wife is entitled to the Ferrari, maybe not.  Since the judge doesn't know until the case is done, the injunction says, "Don't do anything yet until this is decided."

In the case of this delegates lawsuit, the judge would be saying with an injunction, "No monkey business at the convention, tell all delegates to vote their conscience, no coercion, etc."

So what it boils down to is, if there is an amended complaint filed, the judge said he will be able to make a determination before the convention to say yes or no on the question of injunctive relief (Federal Marshalls, and/or a notice handed to all delegates they may vote their conscience, and/or re-seating delegates removed improperly, etc., or whatever combination the judge feels is appropriate).

Besides that though, the other people here are correct in that the judge can't grant a motion to expedite when a case has been dismissed, and at the moment, this one is dismissed without prejudice and needs to be amended and re-filed.  But I don't think Gilbert will re-file a motion to expedite when he re-files the complaint, only a motion requesting injunctive relief as far as I understood the judge.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## eleganz

Richard Gilbert's FB:




> Throughout the ruling, disguised in legal language, the Judge is clearly saying he thinks we can win. People will not understand because it will confuse them that the motion is granted, but, the Judge went on to say "without prejudice to plaintiffs" which means our case is quite alive.

----------


## tod evans

When names are named, specifically broken bones in LA, it's imperative that the RNC et-al be listed as the defendant due to the fact that the "thugs" were acting as agents of the RNC.




> Let me clarify this because I was there when the judge stated in court that either way, no matter what the ruling on the motion to dismiss, he is not going to grant a motion to expedite.
> 
> The motion to expedite was a motion to expedite a trial.  The judge stated that (if Gilbert can file an amended complaint with enough specificity in it to constitute a proper complaint) there will not be enough time to have such a trial involving so many plaintiffs, defendants, etc., before the convention.
> 
> Gilbert stated he did not intend for a full trial to occur, but more of a summary judgement in order to arrive at the judge issuing the injunctive relief Gilbert was requesting.
> 
> The judge said that if the plaintiffs could present a claim that meets the minimum burden of plausibility and specificity required by the law, and the judge finds the claim has merit, he could issue an injunction before the convention.  (Of course that's IF he finds in favor of Gilbert.)
> 
> The injunction is basically a court order saying "I order *this* to happen, even though this case isn't fully settled and done, but because I feel there is enough concern to warrant protecting the interests of the plaintiffs (or of whatever party is petitioning the court for the injunction), I am going to order these parties to do (or not do) these things."
> ...

----------


## devil21

> When names are named, specifically broken bones in LA, it's imperative that the RNC et-al be listed as the defendant due to the fact that the "thugs" were acting as agents of the RNC.


Could even refer to them as Jane Doe and John Doe (#1, #2, #3, so on) if exact names aren't immediately available.  At least that leaves the door open for discovery of who John Doe, the cop that was ordered to remove the elected chair in LA is(for example), and at least specifies an individual person that CAN be identified, instead of broad statements about "security removed elected chair".  That's the sort of specificity the judge is talking about, even if a proper name isn't immediately available.  It will be at a later date.  People are deposed, not "groups".

I agree that the ruling language does lay out much of what Gilbert needs to provide in the new complaint to get the judge to act.  The defense also realizes this.

----------


## sailingaway

> Let me clarify this because I was there when the judge stated in court that either way, no matter what the ruling on the motion to dismiss, he is not going to grant a motion to expedite.
> 
> The motion to expedite was a motion to expedite a trial.  The judge stated that (if Gilbert can file an amended complaint with enough specificity in it to constitute a proper complaint) there will not be enough time to have such a trial involving so many plaintiffs, defendants, etc., before the convention.
> 
> Gilbert stated he did not intend for a full trial to occur, but more of a summary judgement in order to arrive at the judge issuing the injunctive relief Gilbert was requesting.
> 
> The judge said that if the plaintiffs could present a claim that meets the minimum burden of plausibility and specificity required by the law, and the judge finds the claim has merit, he could issue an injunction before the convention.  (Of course that's IF he finds in favor of Gilbert.)
> 
> The injunction is basically a court order saying "I order *this* to happen, even though this case isn't fully settled and done, but because I feel there is enough concern to warrant protecting the interests of the plaintiffs (or of whatever party is petitioning the court for the injunction), I am going to order these parties to do (or not do) these things."
> ...


I see, a preliminary injunction, based on likelihood of prevailing. Good. then we can add other remedies later.

----------


## sailingaway

> Could even refer to them as Jane Doe and John Doe (#1, #2, #3, so on) if exact names aren't immediately available.  At least that leaves the door open for discovery of who John Doe, the cop that was ordered to remove the elected chair in LA is(for example), and at least specifies an individual person that CAN be identified, instead of broad statements about "security removed elected chair".  That's the sort of specificity the judge is talking about, even if a proper name isn't immediately available.  It will be at a later date.  People are deposed, not "groups".
> 
> I agree that the ruling language does lay out much of what Gilbert needs to provide in the new complaint to get the judge to act.  The defense also realizes this.


Only the privately hired security agents would need to be Does, we have the names of the self appointed temporary chair who asked the security to remove them and have him asking in one instance on video.

----------


## devil21

> Only the privately hired security agents would need to be Does, we have the names of the self appointed temporary chair who asked the security to remove them and have him asking in one instance on video.


Yeah but I meant overall in all states where shenanigans went on.  Just a general strategy statement.  The LA stuff was just an example.  Crap went on elsewhere too.  Using John/Jane Doe indicates ANY individual that you can't immediately identify and that comes closer to the level of specificity that the judge is requiring.

----------


## CPUd

> Only the privately hired security agents would need to be Does, we have the names of the self appointed temporary chair who asked the security to remove them and have him asking in one instance on video.


In the youtube descriptions of one of the videos, I saw their names listed- some of the uploaders made a point of walking by them and getting a shot of their name tags.

----------


## Tiso0770

I wander if Ben Swann has those names on file....

----------


## CPUd

gilbert is on the air talking about it right now:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jeenyus...live-23-8-8-12

says he's filing again tomorrow afternoon, and it will be the 'knockout punch'.

He is aware of the language used by the judge being a 'roadmap' to amend the complaint.

----------


## sailingaway

> gilbert is on the air talking about it right now:
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jeenyus...live-23-8-8-12
> 
> says he's filing again tomorrow afternoon, and it will be the 'knockout punch'.


crap. I hope that is just the writ, not the complaint. I really want him to take TIME with the complaint.

----------


## eleganz

> gilbert is on the air talking about it right now:
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jeenyus...live-23-8-8-12
> 
> says he's filing again tomorrow afternoon, and it will be the 'knockout punch'.


Interesting he is ready to file so fast, was he anticipating this all along?

I'm listening too, he just said he is ready to deliver the 'knock out punch' with this next amended complaint.

----------


## sailingaway

> Interesting he is ready to file so fast, was he anticipating this all along?
> 
> I'm listening too, he just said he is ready to deliver the 'knock out punch' with this next amended complaint.


it is the last one that will be allowed. The court said 'final'.  Man, I hope he takes enough time.

----------


## robertwerden

Richard Gilbert went into the court room with a case type that has never been ruled on. The Judge recognized this and gave Richard all the ammunition he will need for the Judge to make a ruling that will not get over turned by a higher court. 
We are going to win!!!

----------


## CPUd

Gilbert just said the amended complaint has been 90% complete for a while now, and he expected to be filing it tomorrow...

Gilbert : "expect victory"

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Gilbert just said the amended complaint has been 90% complete for a while now, and he expected to be filing it tomorrow...
> 
> Gilbert : "expect victory"


I wish he would give us a chance to review it before he submits it.  Just to make sure everything looks good.  I hope he reads it again in the morning and gets a good nights sleep tonight.

----------


## dillo

Whats the Status of Louisiana and Oregon?

----------


## devil21

> crap. I hope that is just the writ, not the complaint. I really want him to take TIME with the complaint.


If he's a good attorney then he anticipated this outcome and has been preparing accordingly in the meantime instead of resting on his laurels waiting for a court date.  I'm not saying that's what he's been doing but good attorneys can see their own case weaknesses and work to fix them before the judge points them out, which they always do.  All the procedural stuff to date is predictable and the outcomes mostly predictable.  I would expect Gilbert to have worked accordingly so it's no surprise a new complaint would be ready tomorrow.  I remember hearing that up to 100 people were working this case behind Gilbert?  IIRC and that's true (big if, sure) then that's a lot of legal minds ironing this puppy out.  I sure hope that's what is going on.  I can't stop imagining Saul from Breaking Bad whenever I hear the name Gilbert in these threads.

----------


## eleganz

> Gilbert just said the amended complaint has been 90% complete for a while now, and he expected to be filing it tomorrow...
> 
> Gilbert : "expect victory"


Gilbert claims to have worked with this judge for over 20 years so I'm not surprised he knew what to expect and is ready for the amended complaint.

----------


## Barrex

> I wish he would give us a chance to review it before he submits it.  Just to make sure everything looks good.  I hope he reads it again in the morning and gets a good nights sleep tonight.


UMMMMM REVIEW OF COMPLAINT BEFORE COURT.


Not likely and not standard practice but lets dream  I would really like to see it too.

He had the time to amend it with all the details. Question is in such a big case involving so many plaintifs and defendants in all states  how many of them did he get in and in what detalis?

----------


## freedomordeath

GOOD LUCK GUYS.... This is the case of the century and no MSM. Next time there is elections in South Africa, American election monitors please stay at home, we don't wan't you giving our corrupt goverment any tips           (only joking)

----------


## MelissaCato

Yes, good luck Gilbert.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## tod evans

> This case is not going to win. I, or anyone else, can't help it win. The only thing I can do to help is to try to persuade everyone to stop promoting it.


To what end?

You keep interjecting negativity in this thread claiming to be both informed and realistic yet your comments are contradictory to to folks who took the time to attend the hearing.

How about coming clean with a little background about yourself and why you feel it's necessary to keep up your attacks?

----------


## jcannon98188

Then what is your excellent idea moving forward Lawdida? Atleast Gilbert is TRYING to do something. You seem to just be sitting here pissing about how horrible an idea this is.

Also, I think this is going to work. I don't think RP will get elected from it, but they have a very serious case, that will destroy the GOP and will actually layout some groundwork for a semi-fair election in 2016. The GOP has gone too long unchecked, it is time somebody sit them down and break them.

----------


## libertylastchance

Why not promote and donate to the delegates that are going to Tampa, who are struggling with the cost. Ron Paul has put out the request for donations, and the campaign is helping with costs to ensure that ALL the delegates are in attendance.. why not promote that we stand with Ron Paul and stop dividing.. Why not support the lawsuits that are in motion by the campaign lawyers.. who are working hard and within the system to get our delegates seated..
If you have hung all your hope on this lawsuit, it is time to dust yourself off and jump back in, this is NOT the last hope.. Let Richard Gilbert and his crew continue on, but the rest of us need to focus and it is not on this case.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

My gut instinct tells me lawdida is/will be correct, but I am hopeful otherwise.

----------


## sailingaway

> Then what is your excellent idea moving forward Lawdida? Atleast Gilbert is TRYING to do something. You seem to just be sitting here pissing about how horrible an idea this is.
> 
> Also, I think this is going to work. I don't think RP will get elected from it, but they have a very serious case, that will destroy the GOP and will actually layout some groundwork for a semi-fair election in 2016. The GOP has gone too long unchecked, it is time somebody sit them down and break them.


It isn't just the GOP, my mother said there were a bunch of tricks pulled on the Dem side in 2008 as well.  

I agree we need fair elections.

----------


## libertylastchance

Ron Paul's lawyers are working with OR, MA, LA & ME.. briefs from the delegates were due 8/6..
The lawyers are working within the system, and following procedure..
The Texas delegates and other state delegates are meeting and discussing what steps they can take , as this could reach the floor of the convention where there will be a final determination..

----------


## sailingaway

> Why not promote and donate to the delegates that are going to Tampa, who are struggling with the cost. Ron Paul has put out the request for donations, and the campaign is helping with costs to ensure that ALL the delegates are in attendance.. why not promote that we stand with Ron Paul and stop dividing.. Why not support the lawsuits that are in motion by the campaign lawyers.. who are working hard and within the system to get our delegates seated..
> If you have hung all your hope on this lawsuit, it is time to dust yourself off and jump back in, this is NOT the last hope.. Let Richard Gilbert and his crew continue on, but the rest of us need to focus and it is not on this case.


that doesn't address our concerns with exposing fraud and bone breaking against our delegates. To be honest it seems really peculiar for anyone to NOT want this fraud/strong arming exposed.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul's lawyers are working with OR, MA, LA & ME.. briefs from the delegates were due 8/6..
> The lawyers are working within the system, and following procedure..
> The Texas delegates and other state delegates are meeting and discussing what steps they can take , as this could reach the floor of the convention where there will be a final determination..


Within  the party system while the party lawyers said in court they don't have to follow their own rules and can disenfranchise party members working within the system any time they want.

Even assuming this fails, what is the down side?

----------


## tod evans

> that doesn't address our concerns with exposing fraud and bone breaking against our delegates. To be honest it seems really peculiar for anyone to NOT want this fraud/strong arming exposed.


I tend to think that having the dude in St.Charles Mo. arrested can be used to prove intimidation especially since a local judge threw the case out..

Court records are always admissible evidence.

----------


## sailingaway

> Guys, I love your passion and dedication to the cause, but some of this talk is getting boarderline delusional.
> 
> A good attorney would not have had this case dismissed for making unintelligible claims. The judge (or more likely his clerk) provided Gilbert with the basics of how to file a complaint.
> 
> Did Gilbert anticipate this? Of course, and so did anyone with any legal training (and many others). I have read the hundreds of pages that have been filed with the court and I can tell you this case has been poorly serviced by Gilbert.
> 
> Typical responses I receive ask what I can do to help. I'm trying to help right now. This case is not going to win. I, or anyone else, can't help it win. The only thing I can do to help is to try to persuade everyone to stop promoting it.


why would it help to not promote it?  How does it HURT?

----------


## sailingaway

> I tend to think that having the dude in St.Charles Mo. arrested can be used to prove intimidation especially since a local judge threw the case out..
> 
> Court records are always admissible evidence.


how about the bones broken in Louisiana?  And the duly elected chair removed by ambulance after private security, at the direction of the self appointed temporary chair, directed them to remove him from the convention hall?  ON VIDEO?

There are tons of facts there.  I just hope they are in the complaint.

----------


## sailingaway

> In today's day and age 14,000 views is nothing. Videos with many, many times that get no notice by the media. I'm sure the media would think this is the act of a group of sore losers rather than anything significant, anyways.


we don't like our guys having their bones broken and being bodily removed from conventions they were elected to attend, when they win.

If that is being a 'sore loser', I guess that is what we are.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I tend to think that having the dude in St.Charles Mo. arrested can be used to prove intimidation especially since a local judge threw the case out..
> 
> Court records are always admissible evidence.


Yes, but is their proof that the GOP had anything to do with the actual arrest in the parkinglot?  But, that case might help the judge in the sense that a judgement has already been handed down elsewhere.

----------


## RonRules

Can we get the hivemind to look into this case? The judge is clearly stating that it relates to the case:
"But this is not to say that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest. Indeed, in Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2008)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...._Lopez_Torres

http://demo.tizra.com/08-205-Citizen...ion-Opinion/45

http://demo.tizra.com/08-205-Citizen...on-Opinion/166

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

I don't think 'hivemind' is the term you want.

The state, and the Federal government has an interest in fair elections of federal candidates and representation of the people. and with ballot access laws in many states, the two main parties have a practical monopoly on actual representation in the highest offices, and so must be accountable.

----------


## libertylastchance

Are you saying that all State Party rules would not be in place, because of what happened in MA? The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove that this rampant throughout all 50 states...

----------


## sailingaway

> What kind of background are you looking for? I'm not going to give my life story here or answer question after question about myself. I've had legal training and I've spent much of my time this year helping liberty-minded delegates get to Tampa through organizing, phone banking, creating media products, talking with reporters, working with attorneys, reviewing legal documents, reviewing rules, assisting with challenges, assisting with legal strategy, etc.
> 
> But why is that important? It shouldn't be. The facts speak for themselves.
> 
> I've been trying to avoid the "take my word for it" approach and focus on the objective evidence (other than when describing my motives).
> 
> The materials filed with the court are objective and verifiable, along with yesterday's opinion and the fact that the case has been dismissed.
> 
> That statutes and case law are objective. Although predictions about how the law will be interpreted are not objective, some guesses are better than others (with the educated guesses having the highest likelihood of being correct).
> ...


but so what if it's a dud? Where is your need to stop it coming from?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> Are you saying that all State Party rules would not be in place, because of what happened in MA? The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove that this rampant throughout all 50 states...


Huh?  No each fact circumstance will stand on its own.  I don't care about the current remedy sought so much as the telling them they have to follow their own rules and no shenanigans in credentials committee with the case still pending and the court still overseeing it.  I have other remedies I'd suggest after the convention.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> I want it exposed.
> 
> Make videos. Spread them. Not only will you get exposure, but you'll get good exposure because you can control the narrative. Right now Gilbert is giving the movement bad exposure.


we have made videos and circulated them and media isn't picking them up. We hope these will force them more into the limelight.

----------


## sailingaway

> The downside is bad PR and a record that can be used against liberty delegates in Tampa.


how can the record be used against Ron Paul delegates in Tampa?  

The pr is irrelevant imho we always have bad pr.  We have whatever pr msm wakes up and decides for us to have.

----------


## libertylastchance

seems peculiar for anyone to NOT want the fraud/strong arm exposed... 
Seems peculiar that anyone would not want to SUPPORT our delegates right now going to Tampa, or support Ron Paul's requests

The fraud should of been the main focus, instead it was a minor issue in the filing.. 
the unbinding issue should of been dropped.. 
Fraud being the main focus of the case, would of detailed filing correctly , with each plaintiff having to provide, when, where, who, ect ect.. not just a statement of "broken bones", threats of violence...

----------


## sailingaway

I support all the delegates, including those who are plaintiffs in the lawsuits.  Who do you think signed the affidavits for the suit?

That the case isn't run as I would best want it is no reason not to have it at all as far as I can see. And RON never 'requested' this suit end, he said if he were ASKED he'd recommend against it, but that 'if they think they have a claim and think it will do any good then they should do it' and Carol said they were glad SOMEONE was going after the fraud, because they didn't have  the facts from their perspective.

----------


## libertylastchance

Apparently you haven't been to your local GOP meeting, where there are non Paul supporters, and who believe in status quo and who's hearts and minds have not been changed.. Do you think there is any resentment on their part towards Paul supporters.. they are not asking if they were part of the lawsuit, it is assumed that ALL Paul supporters are in favor of this.

----------


## libertylastchance

Do you have the court transcripts? I'd like proof of that statement

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> Apparently you haven't been to your local GOP meeting, where there are non Paul supporters, and who believe in status quo and who's hearts and minds have not been changed.. Do you think there is any resentment on their part towards Paul supporters.. they are not asking if they were part of the lawsuit, it is assumed that ALL Paul supporters are in favor of this.


So you say.  And if they resent us already they will continue to resent us in Tampa, imho. Those who don't won't.  And a ton of people think the party should follow its rules or they are disenfranchised as well.

The point as I see it is apparently the RNC has said there will not be five states for Ron.  Obviously he has won more than five states.  Hence they intend to 'make it so'.  I don't see  the suit making that more likely given their determination already, I do see the possibility the suit or media surrounding the suit might make changing the rules and cheating on determinations too risky for them.

----------


## libertylastchance

Have the transcript on that statement?  I'd like proof please

----------


## sailingaway

> You want to expose fraud. However, if you do get the media to pick up this case they will spin it to somehow blame the Paul supporters for what happened.
> 
> Exposing fraud and PR are the same thing. The battle is to show how the bad guys are doing bad and the good guys are being abused.
> 
> You might think this case will get that for you, but it wont. Remember, I didn't say people shouldn't be filing cases. They should when appropriate. But they shouldn't bundle it up into one case with a nutty lawyer in the 9th circuit. They should bring them locally if they can win, and then promote the win on the lower lever. When it's done at the lower level it's easier to control the narrative and you don't have all your eggs in one basket. Plus, it's consistant with the movement's emphasis on a small federal government.
> 
> 
> The record can be used against them as evidence they should be removed. The committee on contests will have no sympathy for delegates who were trying to get a federal judge to unbind all delegates and storm the convention with armed federal marshals. I will have to ask you to trust me on that one.


but the lower level can't address state law frustrating the fairness of federal elections. It isn't improper to bring it where he did, it just is damned confusing. But your point seems to me to go to filing a better one and I don't see it anywhere. This seems to be what we have.

----------


## sailingaway

> Have the transcript on that statement?  I'd like proof please


'that' statement?

which statement?

----------


## arsenius

I have setup a wiki in order to compile information on each state.  I have set it up with the information from http://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012...from-ron-paul/ .

I just set this up today, and there is a lot to do.  Anyone who has information, please post it here, and PM me your post # so that I don't miss it.  If you could also start and title your post with ***WIKI*** that would help me as well.  If you have substantial information, I can make you an editor and you can do it yourself.  However, right now I can only accept 3 more editors.  If there is enough demand the number of editors can be upgraded for a fee.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> 1. Yes it can.
> 2. Not that it matters because there isn't a winning case there.


how helpful.  So it's a bad case, so don't worry about it and quit distracting people here.

----------


## libertylastchance

Interesting that those who have READ all the court documents, know what they are talking about, while others who get their "facts" from L4RP or others promoting the case are mis-informed..
Hanging your hat on "Gilbert has been preparing for this and 90% of amended case is ready to file", has missed the importance of "inform yourself", all case doc's are available to everyone..
His first amended complaint was denied, and he had to receive instruction from the court on how to file Properly..
Although his 2nd amended complaint was accepted, he failed to submit "evidence" in a timely fashion and by law it was not admissable..

----------


## libertylastchance

That the RNC admitted in court that they break their own rules.

----------


## sailingaway

> I have setup a wiki in order to compile information on each state.  I have set it up with the information from http://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012...from-ron-paul/ .
> 
> I just set this up today, and there is a lot to do.  Anyone who has information, please post it here, and PM me your post # so that I don't miss it.  If you could also start your post with ***WIKI*** that would help me.  If you have substantial information, I can make you an editor and you can do it yourself.  However, right now I can only accept 3 more editors.  If there is enough demand the wiki can be upgraded for a fee.


thank you so much but I would recommend we start from scratch. Please go to the thread stickied to the top of the forum where we are trying to get only first hand accounts and compiling of accounts where we can have people vett the facts.  I haven't seen an article this cycle which didn't have false stuff, and we need PROVABLE stuff.  This guy did this and I saw it (or someone did and we can dig up the forum members who did to make sure it is accurate)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuit

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> That the RNC admitted in court that they break their own rules.


libertylastchance, if you use "Reply with Quote" we will know what you are refering to.

----------


## sailingaway

> That the RNC admitted in court that they break their own rules.


the transcript isn't available yet it was just Monday. An observer reported it as the 'big bombshell' in arguments and the atty kept trying to dodge the judge's question on that point. He didn't say they 'break' the rules, but they can change them so they aren't the rules any more any time they want, at any stage, unilaterally.  I forget the precise words but it wasn't a transcript anyhow, it was an eye witness.

----------


## sailingaway

> Interesting that those who have READ all the court documents, know what they are talking about, while others who get their "facts" from L4RP or others promoting the case are mis-informed..
> Hanging your hat on "Gilbert has been preparing for this and 90% of amended case is ready to file", has missed the importance of "inform yourself", all case doc's are available to everyone..
> His first amended complaint was denied, and he had to receive instruction from the court on how to file Properly..
> Although his 2nd amended complaint was accepted, he failed to submit "evidence" in a timely fashion and by law it was not admissable..


yeah, so let's spend this time getting the facts together for him, not saying what he did before was bad.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## kathy88

> Except, you seem to have quickly forgotten that my concern is the *damage* this bad case brings to the delegates and the movement in general.
> 
> Not only is a bad case, it's bad PR and a record that threatens the chances of getting more delegates seated.


That is your opinion. Most of us do not hold that same opinion. Repeating the same negativity over and over is not going to change my mind, or probably anyone else's. Start a new thread in the rant section and have at it. This is for productivity.

----------


## sailingaway

> Except, you seem to have quickly forgotten that my concern is the *damage* this bad case brings to the delegates and the movement in general.
> 
> Not only is a bad case, it's bad PR and a record that threatens the chances of getting more delegates seated.


except you have spent very little time explaining any concrete damage that is likely to stem from this that wouldn't be there anyhow.

The RNC RIGHT NOW doesn't plan to seat his delegates.

----------


## libertylastchance

> So you say.  And if they resent us already they will continue to resent us in Tampa, imho. Those who don't won't.  And a ton of people think the party should follow its rules or they are disenfranchised as well.
> 
> The point as I see it is apparently the RNC has said there will not be five states for Ron.  Obviously he has won more than five states.  Hence they intend to 'make it so'.  I don't see  the suit making that more likely given their determination already, I do see the possibility the suit or media surrounding the suit might make changing the rules and cheating on determinations too risky for them.


NO they were NOT resentful in most cases, but certainly NOW they are.  these are your neighbors in your communities.. Only the fraud should of been address with competence ..

----------


## RonRules

The Lopez case is important and highly relevant. Please look at it instead of bickering with lawdida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...._Lopez_Torres

Margarita Lopez Torres received the Democratic Party nomination and was elected to the civil court for Kings County in 1992, becoming the first Latina to be elected to the court. *However, she allegedly fell out of favor with local party leaders shortly thereafter for refusing to make patronage hires.* As a result, she claimed that *party leaders refused to support her candidacy* for the Supreme Court in 1997, 2002, and 2003. Lopez Torres, along with similarly situated candidates, their supporters, and the public interest group Common Cause, brought suit in federal court against the state Board of Elections, claiming that the nomination system deprived voters and their candidates of their rights to gain access to the ballot and to associate in their parties' primaries.

*The District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Second Circuit held in favor of Lopez Torres*, finding that the voters and candidates possessed a First Amendment right to a "'realistic opportunity to participate in [a political party's] nominating process, and to do so free from burdens that are both severe and unnecessary.' New York's electoral law violated that right because of the quantity of signatures and delegate recruits required to obtain a Supreme Court nomination at a judicial convention..., and because of the apparent reality that party leaders can control delegates...."

A nearly unanimous court in "Lopez Torres" *overruled the Second Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of New York's judicial election system*. The Court explained that although a political party has a First Amendment associational right to choose its candidates, that right is circumscribed when the party is given a role in the state's election process. Parties that are formally involved in the election process, for example, may be required to comply with a primary process and may be prohibited from maintaining racially discriminatory policies (which could become impermissible state action).

However, the Court explained, the political parties' associational rights were not at issue in the case; rather, the "weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party." In refusing to acknowledge the existence of such a right, the Court explained that nothing in the law prohibited the candidates from attending the convention and lobbying the delegates, and nothing in the law compelled the delegates to vote for their parties' preferred candidates. As the Court explained, "Our cases invalidating ballot-access requirements have focused on the requirements themselves, and not on the manner in which political actors function under those requirements. . . . None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination."

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the existence of entrenched "one-party rule" rendered the general election uncompetitive. As the Court noted, candidates could obtain a place on the ballot, without party affiliation, via New York's general petition-signature requirements.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Right now Gilbert is giving the movement bad exposure.


What Mr. Gilbert is exposing is Romney for the criminal he is and the RNC for the criminal organization they are.  I am SO grateful for him taking on this case, pro bono at that!  For me, all the argument against it is meaningless because, plain and simple:  Ron Paul will NEVER run for president again and we have NOTHING to lose.

----------


## jay_dub

> Except, you seem to have quickly forgotten that my concern is the *damage* this bad case brings to the delegates and the movement in general.
> 
> Not only is a bad case, it's bad PR and a record that threatens the chances of getting more delegates seated.


What you're saying is all bull$#@!. 

A movement that is being marginalized at every turn by the GOP will get nowhere by playing nice and hoping for a few meaningless crumbs from the table. We have seen what is being done. The GOP/RNC is determined that there will not be enough Paul delegates seated to make any real difference. The convention is to be a coronation of Mitt Romney and they will let nothing get in the way of it. Lawsuit or not, they are determined to have their way. This case can do no damage they are not already prepared to inflict.

FACT: The case is on. It is not going away. For better or worse, it WILL be played out. 

There comes a time to lead, follow or get out of the way. I would suggest that the time is now.

Now, if we all say you're smarter than everyone and you're oh so right, will you quit pissing on this effort and just go away?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## No1butPaul

> What you're saying is all bull$#@!.


My people -- the ones with their eyes wide open and can see things and call things as they are!

The others -- you can't distract us, we are RON PAUL supporters.  We will never go away and we will never stop fighting.  From here on, we will just have to ignore your "blah, blah, blah" and not let you engage us.

----------


## sailingaway

> NO they were NOT resentful in most cases, but certainly NOW they are.  these are your neighbors in your communities.. Only the fraud should of been address with competence ..


What is past is past and the suit is continuing, how do we improve it NOW?

----------


## sailingaway

> Wait a minute, you're saying I've failed to prove your assumption (that this case will "do no harm").
> 
> I've given enough examples of how it will. You just say, "no it won't" or "the damage would have been done anyway." How can you know that?
> 
> Is this all my opinion? Sure, and it's backed by evidence. I challenge anyone here who thinks this suit is a good idea to run it by a competent attorney (or a few) and ask what they think. I have.


In clarification, your bald assertions it will do harm are less specific than Gilbert's complaint.  I don't find them compelling. I agree with jaydub

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> You drop it and refile, with competent attorneys, in the various states where the abuses occurred.


are you planning to do that? Is anyone? If so show us and we'll shift support if we think they can do it in time.

I think it is nuts to file in multiple states. This kind of case is one reason the federal court system EXISTS, to not have to file everywhere, and one state at a time doesn't show the pattern of fraud across the nation.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> If you genuinely have an open mind, I can give your more details offline if you can keep a confidence. Otherwise, it think a reasonable person could see how a lawsuit (directed at party leaders in every state) attempting to unbind all delegates and storm the convention with federal marhals could create more problems for delegates who face challenges and creates bad blood between liberty republicans and the rest of the party.


if you compare that to the RNC not seating Ron's delegates anyhow, which is what we expect them to try without this lawsuit, how is that worse?

And the fraud would then be being discussed, don't you think?

But I have a open mind to genuine new facts, pm me.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> What is this, the playground? You guys aren't dealing with reality. Did you read yesterday's opinion in its entirety? If so, were you able to pickup on how the court mocked Gilbert?


why should we care? You see, it is irrelevancies like that that make us think you have an agenda and not the same interests as us.

----------


## No1butPaul

> You drop it and refile, with competent attorneys


ha, ha, ha, ha, ha .... please.

NEVER!

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## No1butPaul

> What is this, the playground? You guys aren't dealing with reality. Did you read yesterday's opinion in its entirety? If so, were you able to pickup on how the court mocked Gilbert?


Take a hint, will you?  We weren't born yesterday.

----------


## No1butPaul

> lol, I love it.


This is what a real Ron Paul supporter sounds like:

PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL

Not this: "Drop your case"  LOL

----------


## sailingaway

> Take a hint, will you?  We weren't born yesterday.


this thread isn't for taunting, in either direction.

There is a thread stickied at the top,  in posts separated by state, please anyone put what they saw, or saw reported here by eye witnesses at conventions in each state, and we will work that into state statements and check it with state delegates who are forum members, for accuracy.

The point is to be constructive and not be distracted.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This is what a real Ron Paul supporter sounds like:
> 
> PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL
> 
> Not this: "Drop your case"  LOL


No, a real one faces facts and does what is necessary to win the case.  Not put one's fingers in their ears and hum la la la la or even "PRESIDENT PAUL"....

----------


## No1butPaul

> No, a real one faces facts and does what is necessary to win the case.  Not put one's fingers in their ears and hum la la la la or "PRESIDENT PAUL"....


I've supported this case from day one ... as I recall you did not.  So now your saying I should support this case?  That's funny.

Also, have you been following this case and do you realize the reason Mr. Gilbert is filing this case?  You do understand his goal, right?  He's putting in all his time, energy and passion pro-bono for a reason.  Anyone that questions the goal of this case should go back and review.  I, for one, have not forgotten.  Also, I'm pretty sure Mr. Gilbert has been underestimated ... but that's a good thing.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I've supported this case from day one ... as I recall you did not.


You remember incorrectly.  The only thing I wondered about was Gilbert himself.




> So now your saying I should support this case?  That's funny.


I didn't say anything at all about whether you should support it or not.  My comment to you had to do with what you said to lawdida and how you characterized a RP supporter.  That is what I disagreed with.

----------


## RonRules

> You drop it and refile, with competent attorneys, in the various states where the abuses occurred.


lawdida wants us to conveniently drop the case before Aug. 27, when the coronation will hopefully occur.

----------


## RonRules

So how about that Lopez case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...._Lopez_Torres

----------


## No1butPaul

> You remember incorrectly.  The only thing I wondered about was Gilbert himself.


Gilbert and this case are inextricably linked, but whatever.




> I didn't say anything at all about whether you should support it or not.  My comment to you had to do with what you said to lawdida and how you characterized a RP supporter.  That is what I disagreed with.


  Just to remind you, the goal of this case is to get a ruling that will allow the delegates to vote their conscience.  No, we do not have enough to win with that ruling alone, but there is another component to Mr. Gilbert's strategy with the ultimate goal of Ron Paul becoming the nominee.  If anyone feels that is not realistic, then really no reason to support this part of the case ... the fraud/criminal-related elements/RICO is down the road.

----------


## sailingaway

All our goals are different.  Mine before convention is primarily that the RNC can't change the rules after all the contests are over, and needs to watch out to be fair with a judge looking over their shoulder in the credentials committee determinations.

And to highlight the fraud and abuse which I damned well think SOMEONE should highlight.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> All our goals are different.  Mine before convention is primarily that the RNC can't change the rules after all the contests are over, and needs to watch out to be fair with a judge looking over their shoulder in the credentials committee determinations.
> 
> And to highlight the fraud and abuse which I damned well think SOMEONE should highlight.


Agreed.

----------


## No1butPaul

> All our goals are different.  Mine before convention is primarily that the RNC can't change the rules after all the contests are over, and needs to watch out to be fair with a judge looking over their shoulder in the credentials committee determinations.
> 
> And to highlight the fraud and abuse which I damned well think SOMEONE should highlight.


Gilbert is pursuing HIS goals though through THIS (HIS) case and that is what I'm supporting.  I would think this would be the most appropriate place to support his goals.  If my goals differed materially, I would start a new thread.  But that's just me.

----------


## sailingaway

> Gilbert is pursuing HIS goals though through THIS (HIS) case and that is what I'm supporting.  I would think this would be the most appropriate place to support his goals.  If my goals differed materially, I would start a new thread.  But that's just me.


Yeah, that is just you.

I'm not part of a Gilbert fan club.  I support the suit because it is happening and I hope it does good, and I support our delegates who are plaintiffs.  However, I even asked about choice of remedies and he sighed and said it was what they had time for before RNC and seemed open to adding more later as they suggest themselves.  The complaint does say 'or such further relief as the court in its discretion decides' or words to that effect.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Except, you seem to have quickly forgotten that my concern is the *damage* this bad case brings to the delegates and the movement in general.
> 
> Not only is it a bad case, it's bad PR and a record that threatens the chances of getting more delegates seated.


Don't really care for the counter-productive pissing contest that has developed, but I will challenge the statement that the case is bad PR.  How is it bad PR when no media is covering it?  And I remember a quote that goes something like: "Even bad publicity is good publicity", and to back up that statement, Stanford did a study on it in 2009 and the summary states: 

"In a new study from Stanford Graduate School of Business, researchers say in some cases negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown, simply because it stimulates product awareness."

hmmm.. let me bold this for you:  *in some cases negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown, simply because it stimulates product awareness*

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/res...n_badnews.html

----------


## No1butPaul

> Yeah, that is just you.


Without Ron Paul, I couldn't care less about the RNC.

----------


## sailingaway

> Without Ron Paul, I couldn't care less about the RNC.


I added more to my response.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Yeah, that is just you.
> 
> I'm not part of a Gilbert fan club.  I support the suit because it is happening and I hope it does good, and I support our delegates who are plaintiffs.  However, I even asked about choice of remedies and he sighed and said it was what they had time for before RNC and seemed open to adding more later as they suggest themselves.  The complaint does say 'or such further relief as the court in its discretion decides' or words to that effect.


Question - if my goals differed materially and I didn't start a new thread, wouldn't you, as the moderator, just move my thread?  Tell the truth.

----------


## sailingaway

> Question - if my goals differed materially and I didn't start a new thread, wouldn't you, as the moderator, just move my thread?  Tell the truth.


at this point with all the crap in here? hardly.  I am speaking of my goals of why I am sending info to Gilbert to help his case.  I see side benefits to the ANCILLARY REMEDIES HE HAS IN FACT REQUESTED. That one part of his request is more compelling to me than another doesn't make it outside the topic of the entirety of the case.

----------


## No1butPaul

> at this point with all the crap in here? hardly.  I am speaking of my goals of why I am sending info to Gilbert to help his case.  I see side benefits to the ANCILLARY REMEDIES HE HAS IN FACT REQUESTED. That one part of his request is more compelling to me than another doesn't make it outside the topic of the entirety of the case.


Yet I'm a distraction for supporting Gilbert's case for the exact reasons he has put it forth, i.e., for saying President Paul in the Ron Paul Forum?  I don't know, it just seems hypocritical to attack someone for supporting the case based on the rational behind the filing of the case.  I applaud Mr. Gilbert for what he is doing to help fight for the soul of this country and it doesn't bother me that he's not polished.  If I wanted polished, I'd support Obama or Romney -- they are finely polished.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yet I'm a distraction for supporting Gilbert's case for the exact reasons he has put it forth, i.e., for saying President Paul in the Ron Paul Forum?  I don't know, it just seems hypocritical to attack someone for supporting the case based on the rational behind the filing of the case.  I applaud Mr. Gilbert for what he is doing to help fight for the soul of this country and it doesn't bother me that he's not polished.  If I wanted polished, I'd support Obama or Romney -- they are finely polished.


I was hoping this could be a constructive tactical thread, neither cheerleading nor complaining about the suit but accepting that it IS going forward and trying to make it better.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## No1butPaul

> I was hoping this could be a constructive tactical thread, neither cheerleading nor complaining about the suit but accepting that it IS going forward and trying to make it better.


It's difficult not to step in and cheerlead after pages of complaining and statements like "drop the case;" however, I can accept the idea of keeping it constructive (for whatever reason).  Let's hope the complainers can keep their end of the bargain too (doubtful).

----------


## Barrex

> ...and creates bad blood between liberty republicans and the rest of the party.



So 1 lawsuit gainst RNC is  creating bad blood but your suggestion for hunderts of lawsuits in every state will not create bad blood???? 1 is bad PR and another is good????????????????????????????????
You made your point. I dont agree with it. Stop stuffing your ideas down my/peoples throat/s. I am not going to stop supporting it, it will only make me not like you. If you start a project regarding this issue I will be glad to help.....

I was for this lawsuit from begining and I did read all documents because I am interested in this. I am aware of flaws in lawsuit and I am aware of Richard Gilberts personality and his flaws(I got 1 too(EVIL); RonRules is ineffective; LibertyEagle doesnt have sense of humor). I told him (them) that openly. All this doesnt change simple fact:* This lawsuit is right thing to do.* We all make mistakes and we cant be best friends with everybody but that doesne mean we must sabotage each others efforts to get Ron Paul elected, promeote liberty etc.

I am also aware of problems on this forum and that current way of gathering information for LFRP is flawed but I stick with it because it is right thing to do (even if we do it with flawed methods).


Should we make a posts about collecting these inforamtion on Twitter, facebook, Dailypaul.com, RonPaul.com etc.?
How will privacy of people giving information be protected?
Who will do a "need to do" list?

----------


## sailingaway

we have a stickied thread at the top of this forum.  I will take private identity info by pm if people want to trust me with it.  So far only LA is clear, and the new actions in Maine.  We need other states where we understand fraud occurred to step up.  Arizona, for one. Oregon, for another, just to name two. We do have Wead's article but he can't attest to those facts it would be nice to get them from someone there.  We had a thread but it got pretty confused by the end.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## freedomordeath

> The downside is bad PR and a record that can be used against liberty delegates in Tampa.


WHAT PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON..... they own the media, they control what goes out on the box... you say you want to control the narrative with video releases..... CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.... ARE YOU SMOKING SOMETHING SERIOUSLY. The west are taking out Syria as we speak and anyone you speak to thinks its a great idea to help the poor oppressed poeple there... and why do you think its such a great idea because THEY CONTROL THE NARRATIVE, NOT YOU.  You say you want to help, but then previoulsy you said you didn't want this court case to go ahead at all. If I come over to America and hit you, are you going to do something about it or make video releases and control the narrative.

No where does Dr Paul say not to take this on... NO WHERE... he said if we find the fraud then he can't control what his supporters do, he didn't seem to be too bothered about us taking it on. If you feel this is so bad why don't you get another lawyer or point us to someone willing to give up their time to really lay it on the table for us, until such time this is all we have.

This is what we up against, traitors willing to kill their own to achieve their selfish objectives

BEFORE



AFTER

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## Barrex

> we have a stickied thread at the top of this forum.  I will take private identity info by pm if people want to trust me with it.  So far only LA is clear, and the new actions in Maine.  We need other states where we understand fraud occurred to step up.  Arizona, for one.  We do have Wead's article but he can't attest to those facts it would be nice to get them from someone there.  We had a thread but it got pretty confused by the end.


Yea I am subscribed to it but I didnt post anything there since only people who have evidance and facts and are witnesses should post there.
My concern is that only creating a topic will not give satisfying results. Only few people will read it and word that we are collecting this will not spread and be heard by people who know, have evidance or witnessed illegal activities, rules breaking etc. My current expectatios are 1-2 people will give some information not more. If this forum ad mampower I am for more proactive course of action: Activley seek delegates and people who can help (via scial media, Ron Paul web sites, meetup groups, youth for Ron Paul, meetups, local groups etc.). I am for this but in my opinion (obviously) we shold make a plan and set a clear goal. I could be wrong.


P.s.
@freedomordeath Ron actuallywent further. He said: I WISH SOME PEOPLE WOULD. THE ONES THAT KNOW ABOUT IT. THEY OUGHT TO PURSUE THIS AND THEN SEE IF THEY CAN, WHATEVER THEY CAN DOCUMENT"

----------


## RonRules

> I am for more proactive course of action: Activley seek delegates and people who can help (via scial media, Ron Paul web sites, meetup groups, youth for Ron Paul, meetups, local groups etc.). I am for this but in my opinion (obviously) we shold make a plan and set a clear goal.


OK great idea. Doit!

Let's see how effective you are.

----------


## Barrex

> OK great idea. Doit!
> 
> Let's see how effective you are.


He he he. I said I am evil not effective ha ha...


Anyway I am willing to help with this if there is decision to do it. I allread got accounts that I got no use from on all of those sites from 2 last moneybombs anyway.

----------


## freedomordeath

> Yea I am subscribed to it but I didnt post anything there since only people who have evidance and facts and are witnesses should post there.
> My concern is that only creating a topic will not give satisfying results. Only few people will read it and word that we are collecting this will not spread and be heard by people who know, have evidance or witnessed illegal activities, rules breaking etc. My current expectatios are 1-2 people will give some information not more. If this forum ad mampower I am for more proactive course of action: Activley seek delegates and people who can help (via scial media, Ron Paul web sites, meetup groups, youth for Ron Paul, meetups, local groups etc.). I am for this but in my opinion (obviously) we shold make a plan and set a clear goal. I could be wrong.


Yeah... its good that there is some discussion, eg with the statement on the sticky (quoted below), didn't poeple say it needed to be rewritten with police officers as jon dow or something, that kinda imput can be invaluable, mabe sailing you can allow discussion but you act as judge jury and excutioner as to what stays and what doesn't (delete posts), becuse otherwise no one contributes, and I tend to fly off the handle smashing my keyboard when reading certain comments and will from now on ignore poeple that make me angry on this particular issue.




> Private security (off duty police) in Louisiana State GOP convention at the specific bidding of Villiers, the self appointed temporarty chair of the convention manhandled the rightful rules chair duly elected the night before by the majority of the rules committee to force him from his elected office at the convention, breaking his fingers in the process. This even though during the process the self appointed temporary chair was removed from his seat by a majority of the state convention. Thereafter, at the bidding of Villiers, other private security manhandled Herford, the newly elected chair of the convention, knocking him to the floor and injuring his newly implanted prosthetic hip, requiring that he be removed from the convention by ambulence, and preventing him from contiuing with his duly elected position at the state convetion, requiring the election of a new chair.

----------


## affa

> It's bad PR because GOP insiders who want us and our ideas to go away will use it against us with other party members or even independents who might otherwise would have been interested in working with/joining us.
> 
> I'm amused by your "bad PR is good" strategy and applaud you for going for such a bold position. I still disagree, but people will have to judge for themselves I suppose.


C'mon. You're being ridiculous.

"Oh, honey, I was considering supporting Ron Paul but then, just last week, I heard some of his delegates were filing a lawsuit because they felt they'd been unfairly treated by the RNC!  Screw them, I'm voting for Romney!"

The media has a field day with misrepresenting Ron Paul, outright lying about Ron Paul, and belittling and ridiculing his supporters.  And you think this lawsuit is somehow going to be the straw that convinces people not to support Ron Paul.   Ridiculous.

----------


## libertylastchance

> So 1 lawsuit gainst RNC is  creating bad blood but your suggestion for hunderts of lawsuits in every state will not create bad blood???? 1 is bad PR and another is good????????????????????????????????
> You made your point. I dont agree with it. Stop stuffing your ideas down my/peoples throat/s. I am not going to stop supporting it, it will only make me not like you. If you start a project regarding this issue I will be glad to help.....
> 
> I was for this lawsuit from begining and I did read all documents because I am interested in this. I am aware of flaws in lawsuit and I am aware of Richard Gilberts personality and his flaws(I got 1 too(EVIL); RonRules is ineffective; LibertyEagle doesnt have sense of humor). I told him (them) that openly. All this doesnt change simple fact:* This lawsuit is right thing to do.* We all make mistakes and we cant be best friends with everybody but that doesne mean we must sabotage each others efforts to get Ron Paul elected, promeote liberty etc.
> 
> I am also aware of problems on this forum and that current way of gathering information for LFRP is flawed but I stick with it because it is right thing to do (even if we do it with flawed methods).
> 
> 
> Should we make a posts about collecting these inforamtion on Twitter, facebook, Dailypaul.com, RonPaul.com etc.?
> ...


Nobel effort, will be interesting to see how much of "who, where, when " you can actually gather.. certainly you can use the plaintiffs listed , as they are the ones who would have to provide the "proof"...
And how will this be of any benefit to RG as he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment?  Certainly he has done "all" of this, as the judge was very clear, anticipating reading the final amendment

----------


## RonRules

> he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment?


Don't assume that. Cooler heads have had a discussion.

----------


## RonRules

Entertainment interlude:

http://aboutmittromney.com/libertarians.htm

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## No1butPaul

> The case proves they're a bunch of liars.


Now that fictional conversation sounds like it took place on a playground.

(Told you they couldn't keep up their end.)

----------


## libertylastchance

> So 1 lawsuit gainst RNC is  creating bad blood but your suggestion for hunderts of lawsuits in every state will not create bad blood???? 1 is bad PR and another is good????????????????????????????????
> You made your point. I dont agree with it. Stop stuffing your ideas down my/peoples throat/s. I am not going to stop supporting it, it will only make me not like you. If you start a project regarding this issue I will be glad to help.....
> 
> I was for this lawsuit from begining and I did read all documents because I am interested in this. I am aware of flaws in lawsuit and I am aware of Richard Gilberts personality and his flaws(I got 1 too(EVIL); RonRules is ineffective; LibertyEagle doesnt have sense of humor). I told him (them) that openly. All this doesnt change simple fact:* This lawsuit is right thing to do.* We all make mistakes and we cant be best friends with everybody but that doesne mean we must sabotage each others efforts to get Ron Paul elected, promeote liberty etc.
> 
> I am also aware of problems on this forum and that current way of gathering information for LFRP is flawed but I stick with it because it is right thing to do (even if we do it with flawed methods).
> 
> 
> Should we make a posts about collecting these inforamtion on Twitter, facebook, Dailypaul.com, RonPaul.com etc.?
> ...


Nobel effort, will be interesting to see how much of "who, where, when " you can actually gather.. certainly you can use the plaintiffs listed , as they are the ones who would have to provide the "proof"...
And how will this be of any benefit to RG as he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment?  Certainly he has done "all" of this, as the judge was very clear, anticipating reading the final amendment

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## tod evans

Lawdida,

I can see the logic of your position to an extent...

Suing the ATF because of a rogue agents actions is obviously futile.

I have no idea, but I would hope that there's proof of a larger conspiracy in the instant case. There have been too many similar incidences from one state to the next to discount the possibility. 

Interstate collusion when combined with corrosion is enough to reach the bar of federal jurisdiction.

As far as alienating the rank-n-file GOP , from my personal perspective they exist in another reality and short of a Ron Paul presidency can serve no useful purpose to me. (I've said time and again that dems/repubs are just a new head for the same monster)

Again only my opinion......I have absolutely nothing for either political party, it's Ron Paul who I've chosen to support and even if this Gilbert fellow is a flake he is making a ruckus to try and get Paul delegates to the convention unmolested...

I'm kind of a fatalist in that I really don't see anything left of the America I grew up in much after this election let alone 2016...Even if RP is elected by some miracle he won't have much to work with to try and get our country back on track...

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## TheGrinch

Holy $#@!, in the 2 days since I last read this thread, it's doubled in size to 42 pages (the reason I set it to 20 posts a page or it's doubled to 82 by now!)

Anyone got a cliffsnotes version of what's happening or did a troll fight just break out?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## robertwerden

finally

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Can we get the hivemind to look into this case? The judge is clearly stating that it relates to the case:
> "But this is not to say that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest. Indeed, in Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2008)."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...._Lopez_Torres
> 
> http://demo.tizra.com/08-205-Citizen...ion-Opinion/45
> 
> http://demo.tizra.com/08-205-Citizen...on-Opinion/166





> The District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Second Circuit held in favor of Lopez Torres, finding that the voters and candidates possessed a First Amendment right to a "'realistic opportunity to participate in [a political party's] nominating process, and to do so free from burdens that are both severe and unnecessary.' *New York's electoral law violated that right* because of the quantity of signatures and delegate recruits required to obtain a Supreme Court nomination at a judicial convention...,* and because of the apparent reality that party leaders can control delegates...."*[4]


Anything there look familiar?
edit: Hang on, have to read more, the Supreme Courty overruled....etc......more to come...

----------


## torchbearer

> finally


would be weird if the guy was posting between 8am-5pm everyday. like it was his job to troll.

----------


## asurfaholic

> Yes, that misrepresentation of my position is ridiculous.
> 
> It would be more like: 
> 
> "Did you hear what happened at the caucus a few months back? A lot of the Ron Paul supporters were trying to cause problems and overturn the will of the voters by forcing their way into delegate positions. Good thing the party didn't let them get away with their shenanigans. They were replaced with delegates who are respectful and follow the rules."
> 
> "Really? I thought I heard that they were just trying to be active and that some of them were even abused in the process."
> 
> "Oh no, they were crying fowl about fraud and abuse and, get this, they even tried to sue the entire party in the liberal 9th circuit. Not only did they try to say they were abused, they tried to get the judge to force the party to let them vote however they wanted at the convention and, you won't believe this, give them armed federal marshal escorts! lol!"
> ...


I don't know where  you've been the entire election, but the media has been nothing but hostile and unfair in its treatment of Ron Paul, and the MEDIA is responsible for the divide in between liberty republicans and the old guard. This lawsuit, or the lack of it, is NOT going to change that.

Edit - you have my permission not to respond to this..

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I don't know where  you've been the entire election, but the media has been nothing but hostile and unfair in its treatment of Ron Paul, and the MEDIA is responsible for the divide in between liberty republicans and the old guard. This lawsuit, or the lack of it, is NOT going to change that.
> 
> Edit - you have my permission not to respond to this..


Well, you did it, you just "compelled" lawdida to repond.

edit: if everyone could quieten down just a minute, and reponspond the my next post please

----------


## torchbearer

> Well, you did it, you just "compelled" lawdida to repond.
> 
> edit: if everyone could quieten down just a minute, and reponspond the my next post please


he only gets paid to troll til 5pm central.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

RonRules posted links earlier to case law that the judge referred to:




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Board_of_Elections_v._Lopez_Torres
> 
> *The Supreme Court's Decision*
> 
> A nearly unanimous court in "Lopez Torres" overruled the Second Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of New York's judicial election system. The Court explained that although a political party has a First Amendment associational right to choose its candidates, that right is circumscribed when the party is given a role in the state's election process. Parties that are formally involved in the election process, for example, may be required to comply with a primary process and may be prohibited from maintaining racially discriminatory policies (which could become impermissible state action).
> 
> However, the Court explained, the political parties' associational rights were not at issue in the case; rather, the "weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party."[5] In refusing to acknowledge the existence of such a right, the Court explained that nothing in the law prohibited the candidates from attending the convention and lobbying the delegates,* and nothing in the law compelled the delegates to vote for their parties' preferred candidates.* As the Court explained, "Our cases invalidating ballot-access requirements have focused on the requirements themselves, and not on the manner in which political actors function under those requirements. . . . None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination."[6]
> 
> The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the existence of entrenched "one-party rule" rendered the general election uncompetitive. As the Court noted, candidates could obtain a place on the ballot, without party affiliation, via New York's general petition-signature requirements.


Any lawyers or law school students to comment on this?

----------


## Veteran Citizen

I'm not seeing a positive angle on this.

----------


## Veteran Citizen

> WhistlinDave, thanks for YOUR sacrifices.  I will see you at the next hearing and I'm bringing an army with me.



Just be sure to scream that you are not armed when the jack boots show up at your door tonight.

----------


## tod evans

> RonRules posted links earlier to case law that the judge referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> Any lawyers or law school students to comment on this?


Not I..........I'm just some dumbass out in the sticks...

----------


## CPUd

> RonRules posted links earlier to case law that the judge referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> Any lawyers or law school students to comment on this?


I'm neither, but I do know this is the exact case that the defense used to build their main argument.  I had also mentioned when they filed their motion to dismiss, that Gilbert would have to address how they use this case to have any chance at not getting dismissed.





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Court has accepted for filing and filed the Amended Complaint
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Amended Complaint, 90 % of which was completed 2 months ago, is being delivered to Court. RNC admits it violates it's own Rules.


Looking for a copy of this...

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## Revolution9

> Yes, that misrepresentation of my position is ridiculous.
> 
> It would be more like: 
> 
> "Did you hear what happened at the caucus a few months back? A lot of the Ron Paul supporters were trying to cause problems and overturn the will of the voters by forcing their way into delegate positions. Good thing the party didn't let them get away with their shenanigans. They were replaced with delegates who are respectful and follow the rules."
> 
> "Really? I thought I heard that they were just trying to be active and that some of them were even abused in the process."
> 
> "Oh no, they were crying fowl about fraud and abuse and, get this, they even tried to sue the entire party in the liberal 9th circuit. Not only did they try to say they were abused, they tried to get the judge to force the party to let them vote however they wanted at the convention and, you won't believe this, give them armed federal marshal escorts! lol!"
> ...


You oughta write sitcoms for one of the failing networks with the effortless way you handle drivel as dialogue.

Rev9

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> Nobel effort, will be interesting to see how much of "who, where, when " you can actually gather.. certainly you can use the plaintiffs listed , as they are the ones who would have to provide the "proof"...
> And how will this be of any benefit to RG as he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment?  Certainly he has done "all" of this, as the judge was very clear, anticipating reading the final amendment


My understanding is the complaint has already been filed. We still want to get the facts to him but the complaint format isn't an issue.

lawdida, we can't stop the suit, it is happening. If you really are concerned it could become the one basket that gets thrown away, help us improve it so it is not thrown away.

----------


## sailingaway

> Lawdida,
> 
> I can see the logic of your position to an extent...
> 
> Suing the ATF because of a rogue agents actions is obviously futile.
> 
> I have no idea, but I would hope that there's proof of a larger conspiracy in the instant case. There have been too many similar incidences from one state to the next to discount the possibility. 
> 
> Interstate collusion when combined with corrosion is enough to reach the bar of federal jurisdiction.
> ...


Ben Swann says the letter with the new non-rules based 'requirements' for Maine delegates came from Boston.  The attorney Romney's campaign sent to the Maine convention was from Boston.  (The one in Nevada was from CA.) the guy called 'Charlie Cheater' who was seen in at least two states and video taped in one with a still photo in another, according to witnesses, who was passing fake slates, was told, according to a witness, by that attorney that he had done a good job and that the attorney would be looking for work for him 'Back in Boston'.

For what it is worth.

tod, if you think this needs to go into the stickied thread, let me know.

----------


## sailingaway

> By the way, I'm giving up on this thread. Please don't address me as I will feel compelled to respond.


sorry, didn't see that. We would love your help but don't feel compelled to respond.

----------


## tod evans

If there is "proof" like pictures and voice recordings not just testimony...

Then I believe that would reach the bar for interstate collusion..

Really though a lawyer needs to make that call.





> Ben Swann says the letter with the new non-rules based 'requirements' for Maine delegates came from Boston.  The attorney Romney's campaign sent to the Maine convention was from Boston.  (The one in Nevada was from CA.) the guy called 'Charlie Cheater' who was seen in at least two states and video taped in one with a still photo in another, according to witnesses, who was passing fake slates, was told, according to a witness, by that attorney that he had done a good job and that the attorney would be looking for work for him 'Back in Boston'.
> 
> For what it is worth.
> 
> tod, if you think this needs to go into the stickied thread, let me know.

----------


## sailingaway

> If there is "proof" like pictures and voice recordings not just testimony...
> 
> Then I believe that would reach the bar for interstate collusion..
> 
> Really though a lawyer needs to make that call.


There is a video put together by someone there where she chases him and confronts him, but you don't see him actually passing the slates I don't think, in Maine, and then there is a still photo in another state, (shown in the video) and there is reporting that he was passing fake slates.    I'll copy these to the sticky thread and clean them up later.  We'll send the info with appropriate headings to Gilbert when we've cleaned it up and he can pick what he wants.

----------


## tod evans

> There is a video put together by someone there where she chases him and confronts him, but you don't see him actually passing the slates I don't think, in Maine, and then there is a still photo in another state, (shown in the video) and there is reporting that he was passing fake slates.    I'll copy these to the sticky thread and clean them up later.  We'll send the info with appropriate headings to Gilbert when we've cleaned it up and he can pick what he wants.


Unfortunately "He said-She said" evidence never gets far, just because some dude is there doesn't give credence to the claim he was employed by an out of state law firm..

----------


## CPUd

> Ben Swann says the letter with the new non-rules based 'requirements' for Maine delegates came from Boston.  The attorney Romney's campaign sent to the Maine convention was from Boston.  (The one in Nevada was from CA.) the guy called 'Charlie Cheater' who was seen in at least two states and video taped in one with a still photo in another, according to witnesses, who was passing fake slates, was told, according to a witness, by that attorney that he had done a good job and that the attorney would be looking for work for him 'Back in Boston'.


For clarification, I know I had mentioned the compromise letters came from Boston- .. after watching it again, I'm not sure if that is true.  He is showing the manila envelope and saying Boston is where the challenge notification letters came from, but nothing about where the compromise letter postmark is from.

----------


## CPUd

> Unfortunately "He said-She said" evidence never gets far, just because some dude is there doesn't give credence to the claim he was employed by an out of state law firm..


The fake slates guy from Maine is confirmed to have been paid by the romney campaign, per the FEC filings (not sure where the link to that is, but someone has it)  Gilbert knows about this, and has tweeted about it, so he should have some of this information.

also:





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @Tina61T @deanrobot The Court has filed the Amended Complaint & we shall now file a Motion To Expedite the case tomorrow
> 
> 
> 4m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @CorinaKernan Our case is well alive and written the way the Judge feels most comfortable making a historic decision in our favor- hopefully

----------


## kathy88

> Unfortunately "He said-She said" evidence never gets far, just because some dude is there doesn't give credence to the claim he was employed by an out of state law firm..


Charlie cheater got paid by romneys campaign. It's in the FEC reports.

----------


## tod evans

> Charlie cheater got paid by romneys campaign. It's in the FEC reports.


This combined with pictures/video and testimony would seem to make a compelling piece of evidence...


[edit] next step is "proving" that this fellow was acting at the direction of the RNC

----------


## CPUd

This is the lady's blog who gathered all the information about the fake slates in Maine :
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c...maine-gop.html




> next step is "proving" that this fellow was acting at the direction of the RNC


Someone had found a digital copy of the fake slate saved online, and in the metadata, it showed its full path as being created on a machine from a GOP policy office either at the state House or US House.

She took down his last name from her blog, probably because he was just a kid taking orders from someone else, and he was getting threats to his email, facebook, etc.

----------


## kathy88

> This combined with pictures/video and testimony would seem to make a compelling piece of evidence...
> 
> 
> [edit] next step is "proving" that this fellow was acting at the direction of the RNC


I'm at a softball game but I can try and find that info from the FEC when I get home. I may have PDFd it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Unfortunately "He said-She said" evidence never gets far, just because some dude is there doesn't give credence to the claim he was employed by an out of state law firm..


well, he was at two different state conventions and actually courts exist to determine fact. It will be one piece in the hopper but if it fits with all the rest, it becomes more compelling imho.

----------


## Revolution9

> Thanks for reading my post and signing your insult. It added a bit of warmth to the whole thing.


I am happy to contribute to Dr. Paul's candidacy and victory on the cultural front. See..yer even good with happy bull$#@! endings. Hollywood would be clamoring for ya if they got a snippet of yer writing.

Rev9

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm at a softball game but I can try and find that info from the FEC when I get home. I may have PDFd it.


thank you, Kathy, please post it in the stickied thread if you have it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Not I..........I'm just some dumbass out in the sticks...


Me too, that's why I asked for input.

----------


## CPUd

He's in here:
(May 2012)
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M...C00431171.html
on the page, search for the amount : 3,041.66

(April 2012)
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M...C00431171.html
on the page, search for the amount : 3,204.09

----------


## sailingaway

> He's in here:
> (May 2012)
> http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M...C00431171.html
> on the page, search for the amount : 3,041.66
> 
> (April 2012)
> http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M...C00431171.html
> on the page, search for the amount : 3,204.09


thanks, I am copying those into the stickied thread.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Holy $#@!, in the 2 days since I last read this thread, it's doubled in size to 42 pages (the reason I set it to 20 posts a page or it's doubled to 82 by now!)
> 
> Anyone got a cliffsnotes version of what's happening or did a troll fight just break out?


Ditto!

What I did see from the last paragraph of the legal decision in the other thread is that the defense's motion to dismiss was granted, however, our side was given the option to re-submit the case and get a third bite at the apple.  It wasn't put together properly, but the judge apparently saw some merit in it.

Now the really, really bad news:  Because the case was botched and as a result dismissed, the request for an expedited trial was thrown out.  ie: it will not be heard before the convention and it a total waste of time.

Did I get that right or is there more?  I'm sure not going to go read 40 pages of posts to find out...

The other thing is that the official campaign hired a legal team to protect our delegates but I haven't heard of anything being filed from them.

thanks,

-t

----------


## sailingaway

> Ditto!
> 
> What I did see from the last paragraph of the legal decision in the other thread is that the defense's motion to dismiss was granted, however, our side was given the option to re-submit the case and get a third bite at the apple.  It wasn't put together properly, but the judge apparently saw some merit in it.
> 
> Now the really, really bad news:  Because the case was botched and as a result dismissed, the request for an expedited trial was thrown out.  ie: it will not be heard before the convention and it a total waste of time.
> 
> Did I get that right or is there more?  I'm sure not going to go read 40 pages of posts to find out...
> 
> The other thing is that the official campaign hired a legal team to protect our delegates but I haven't heard of anything being filed from them.
> ...


I'm not going to summarize it all. It is not expedited because the judge is just going to do the injunction part fast on an evidentiary hearing, not a trial, and let the larger trial continue at a slower pace. I think this is excellent because it allows other remedies to be added later for the fraud.  The new complaint has been filed/ I havent' seen it.  We are gathering verifiable evidence and ONLY verifiable evidence in a stickied thread in the forum -- it is not for discussion purposes, it is for posting facts and vetting them, and posting evidence of those facts, only.

----------


## kathy88

You know you can set preferences to show more posts per page right?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> I'm not going to summarize it all. It is not expedited because the judge is just going to do the injunction part fast on an evidentiary hearing, not a trial, and let the larger trial continue at a slower pace. I think this is excellent because it allows other remedies to be added later for the fraud.  The new complaint has been filed/ I havent' seen it.  We are gathering verifiable evidence and ONLY verifiable evidence in a stickied thread in the forum -- it is not for discussion purposes, it is for posting facts and vetting them, and posting evidence of those facts, only.


Thank you SA! I guess all is not lost!
+rep (er remind me to rep you - I have to spread some around before +reping you again...)




> You know you can set preferences to show more posts per page right?


Yes - it's still the same amount of reading, just a little less "next batch please"...

-t

----------


## BSU kid

Can someone briefly summarize what happend today?

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not going to summarize it all. It is not expedited because the judge is just going to do the injunction part fast on an evidentiary hearing, not a trial, and let the larger trial continue at a slower pace. I think this is excellent because it allows other remedies to be added later for the fraud.  The new complaint has been filed/ I havent' seen it.  We are gathering verifiable evidence and ONLY verifiable evidence in a stickied thread in the forum -- it is not for discussion purposes, it is for posting facts and vetting them, and posting evidence of those facts, only.


//

----------


## BSU kid

> //


Thanks

----------


## BSU kid

Sorry to post two in a row but I am curious. I see the efforts on here with the evidence thread and wiki pages, but even if we compile this evidence will Gilbert use it?

----------


## sailingaway

> Sorry to post two in a row but I am curious. I see the efforts on here with the evidence thread and wiki pages, but even if we compile this evidence will Gilbert use it?


Can't be sure but if we make it brief and easy he'll be more likely to.

----------


## devil21

> This is the lady's blog who gathered all the information about the fake slates in Maine :
> http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c...maine-gop.html
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had found a digital copy of the fake slate saved online, and in the metadata, it showed its full path as being created on a machine from a GOP policy office either at the state House or US House.
> 
> She took down his last name from her blog, probably because he was just a kid taking orders from someone else, and he was getting threats to his email, facebook, etc.


Sorry for "kid", but "kid" needs to take his medicine.  Hope that name gets revealed once again.

Regarding our own compilation of evidence, Im wondering how a "friend of the court" brief could possibly be filed.  Gonna research that since it's common practice in big cases like this for interested third parties (but not direct parties to the case) to file informational briefs.

See here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...he-court+brief




> An amicus curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss. The person is usually, but not necessarily, an attorney, and is usually not paid for her or his expertise. An amicus curiae must not be a party to the case, nor an attorney in the case, but must have some knowledge or perspective that makes her or his views valuable to the court.
> 
> more info at link

----------


## sailingaway

> Sorry for "kid", but "kid" needs to take his medicine.  Hope that name gets revealed once again.
> 
> Regarding our own compilation of evidence, Im wondering how a "friend of the court" brief could possibly be filed.  Gonna research that since it's common practice in big cases like this for interested third parties (but not direct parties to the case) to file informational briefs.
> 
> See here:
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...he-court+brief


I actually think the judge may have asked the RNC to outright invite the Dems to since any ruling would impact them too.  One of the people there said something about that.  I think that is a terrific idea.

----------


## CPUd

Here is some info about the fake slate, docs and their origins:
http://melissakirst.wordpress.com/20...bco-rpf-again/

----------


## devil21

Ive found a few examples of amicus curiae briefs and they're pretty straight-forward.  It's never a quick job to draft up any legal pleading (particularly in federal court) but it's do-able if the pertinent information is readily available.  I'll have to wait and see what Gilbert's new complaint says before thinking about what info should be included.  Also, amicus briefs are rare in district trial courts and require either a motion for leave to file the brief (asking the judge to accept) or the express consent of BOTH parties to be filed.  I could probably handle it but Im on the other side of the country and there's not much time to do it since each side needs 10 days notice of intent to file amicus.  I'd also want Gilbert's express permission to do it.  Not sure I want to get tangled up in that.

----------


## sailingaway

> Here is some info about the fake slate docs and their origins:
> http://melissakirst.wordpress.com/20...bco-rpf-again/


this is the kind of thing that should go in the sticky thread.   I will copy it there but I might miss something in the future. If you put something there and it doesn't belong I'll just move it here, but this thread gets too long to find stuff in.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ive found a few examples of amicus curiae briefs and they're pretty straight-forward.  It's never a quick job to draft up any legal pleading (particularly in federal court) but it's do-able if the pertinent information is readily available.  I'll have to wait and see what Gilbert's new complaint says before thinking about what info should be included.  Also, amicus briefs are rare in district trial courts and require either a motion for leave to file the brief (asking the judge to accept) or the express consent of BOTH parties to be filed.  I could probably handle it but Im on the other side of the country and there's not much time to do it since each side needs 10 days notice of intent to file amicus.  I'd also want Gilbert's express permission to do it.  Not sure I want to get tangled up in that.


I'd still kinda like us to work towards one since if nothing else we could give it in final to Gilbert and he could crib as he pleased.  Also, I think someone will want to file one.  Right now I do think we need to collect facts, and I think an amicus brief is a great idea.  The judge indicated he was going to let the Dems file one, it sounded like, so if one is coming in anyhow....maybe we have a wider window.  I think it is definitely worth looking into further.

----------


## devil21

Yeah, should still work toward at least collecting as much specific evidence/information as possible since this case may go on long after the convention comes and goes.  Appeals are where amicus are much more common place and I would definitely expect an appeal, particularly if the RNC loses.  I just don't think there's enough time to put together anything of substance, get proper notice to the court and the parties and have it filed by the time the judge rules on the new complaint.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yeah, should still work toward at least collecting as much specific evidence/information as possible since this case may go on long after the convention comes and goes.  Appeals are where amicus are much more common place and I would definitely expect an appeal, particularly if the RNC loses.  I just don't think there's enough time to put together anything of substance, get proper notice to the court and the parties and have it filed by the time the judge rules on the new complaint.


I would be willing to put time into writing if that will help.  I have very little experience but I have created my own deposition before and won the case (to get my dauthters body from a different state).  I am a fast learner and if I can get enough input I can do it, I will put in whatever time it takes (I do need to put in 8-10 hrs on a software project in the next couple of days, but other than that I will work 16+ hours/day).

----------


## Scott_in_PA

Does anyone remember the video of Charlie Webster saying the Vote would be close, about 200 votes, before the straw poll?

He was being interviewed in a diner or something.




> BangorDailyNews.com - Feb 14, 2012
> “The Maine GOP Friday announced that a recount found that Mr. Romney had 2,269 votes to Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s 2,030 out of a total 5,814 votes cast. That 239 vote margin is slightly wider than the 194-vote edge the former Massachusetts governor had last Saturday night when the party announced its initial count.”


It just seemed fishy.

I looked yesterday but coudn't locate it.

----------


## Scott_in_PA

> I have setup a wiki in order to compile information on each state.  I have set it up with the information from http://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012...from-ron-paul/ .





> Access is Restricted
> 
> *You do not have permission to view this page*.
> If you need help, please contact us.
> 
> Or you can visit our help area for more information.


Can we look at it?

----------


## sailingaway

> Does anyone remember the video of Charlie Webster saying the Vote would be close, about 200 votes, before the straw poll?
> 
> He was being interviewed in a diner or something.
> 
> 
> 
> It just seemed fishy.
> 
> I looked yesterday but coudn't locate it.


that vote was so fishy anyhow. they changed it because votes were lost in the spam filter and not counted. How that made Ron's votes go DOWN in certain areas, and only Ron's votes, I have no clue.  Unless a vote eating black hole was in the spam filter and when discovered...

----------


## libertylastchance

Where is the new amended complaint that Richard Gilbert filed yesterday? It is not in pacer?

----------


## libertylastchance

> There is a video put together by someone there where she chases him and confronts him, but you don't see him actually passing the slates I don't think, in Maine, and then there is a still photo in another state, (shown in the video) and there is reporting that he was passing fake slates.    I'll copy these to the sticky thread and clean them up later.  We'll send the info with appropriate headings to Gilbert when we've cleaned it up and he can pick what he wants.


Where is the amended complaint that Richard Gilbert said he filed yesterday, it is not in pacer??
You need to know what is in the complaint, so that you can proceed from there on collecting relevant information..

----------


## libertylastchance

Why is the amended complaint not showing up in pacer??????
USA_Patriot_Press @USA_Free_Press
@Tina61T @deanrobot The Court has filed the Amended Complaint & we shall now file a Motion To Expedite the case tomorrow

4m USA_Patriot_Press @USA_Free_Press
@CorinaKernan Our case is well alive and written the way the Judge feels most comfortable making a historic decision in our favor- hopefully

----------


## tod evans

> Where is the new amended complaint that Richard Gilbert filed yesterday? It is not in pacer?


Ask three times in an hour........no answer.

Could be nobody is functioning in Cali. yet........ya' think?

----------


## CPUd

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@deanrobot The Judge did not wish to order US Marshals to be present.


2h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@john_kosanke John, the Judge requested that protection issues be taken out of the case.

----------


## RonRules

> Ask three times in an hour........no answer.
> 
> Could be nobody is functioning in Cali. yet........ya' think?


I wrote to Richard Gilbert personally. Maybe he'll send me a copy.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

What concerns me most is this could set a scary precedent if we lose this case. Personally, if we lose I feel it will be because of the counsel's incompetence. I really hope Richard doesn't lose a case just this one time....

----------


## RonRules

Once the basic complaint is filed, can further affidavits or amicus briefs be filed and how many days before the hearing does this need to be done?

----------


## sailingaway

> What concerns me most is this could set a scary precedent if we lose this case. Personally, if we lose I feel it will be because of the counsel's incompetence. I really hope Richard doesn't lose a case just this one time....


I don't want the complaint thrown out 'with prejudice' so it can't be amended.  However, there is nothing we can do about that except try to help make the case stronger, because it is going forward, regardless.

----------


## sailingaway

> Once the basic complaint is filed, can further affidavits or amicus briefs be filed and how many days before the hearing does this need to be done?


You were at the hearing.  Whistling Dave said the judge said something about letting the Dem party file or having the RNC ASK the Dem party to file because the precedent would be huge.  Can you tell us more about that?

----------


## RonRules

> You were at the hearing.  Whistling Dave said the judge said something about letting the Dem party file or having the RNC ASK the Dem party to file because the precedent would be huge.  Can you tell us more about that?


The judge basically asked the RNC lawyer: If we're dealing with the Civil Rights Voting Act, and your argument is requesting a "narrow reading" of this law, this could affect numerous voters that are not part of this case, such as independent voters, the Democratic party, etc. How will I get additional briefings form these parties that could affect my ruling?

I remember there was a LONG pause before the RNC lawyer could answer. His answer was something to the effect "I undersand your quests mmmm ... mmmm... and some bla bla bla about preclearance and that traditional civil right groups would have no interest in the case". The judge disagreed because of the requested narrow reading.

I thought it was pretty LOL to imagine these RNC lawyers go ask for testimony on a fairly substantial change of the Civil Rights Voting Act.

Clearly, the judge sees the importance of this lawsuit.

----------


## sailingaway

> The judge basically asked the RNC lawyer: If we're dealing with the Civil Rights Voting Act, and your argument is requesting a "narrow reading" of this law, this could affect numerous voters that are not part of this case, such as independent voters, the Democratic party, etc. How will I get additional briefings form these parties that could affect my ruling?
> 
> I remember there was a LONG pause before the RNC lawyer could answer. His answer was something to the effect "I undersand your quests mmmm ... mmmm... and some bla bla bla about preclearance and that traditional civil right groups would have no interest in the case". The judge disagreed because of the requested narrow reading.
> 
> I thought it was pretty LOL to imagine these RNC lawyers go ask for testimony on a fairly substantial change of the Civil Rights Voting Act.
> 
> Clearly, the judge sees the importance of this lawsuit.


OK, that was good. It wasn't what I had thought it was, though.  So WITHOUT that narrow ruling the judge is not just asking the RNC to bring the Dems into it.  Thanks for clarification.

----------


## RonRules

> OK, that was good. It wasn't what I had thought it was, though.  So WITHOUT that narrow ruling the judge is not just asking the RNC to bring the Dems into it.  Thanks for clarification.


Correct. I hope Gilbert understood that as well and that his new complaint will reflect that.

Also I hope he looks into that Lopez case and addresses it. Seemed to me the judge was giving him a strong clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...._Lopez_Torres

----------


## sailingaway

> Correct. I hope Gilbert understood that as well and that his new complaint will reflect that.
> 
> Also I hope he looks into that Lopez case and addresses it. Seemed to me the judge was giving him a strong clue:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...._Lopez_Torres


Did you give him that?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Did you give him that?


That's the case I was looking at yesterday, I posted a couple of excerpts from it for discussion, but there was none.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

There's something about all of this COURT stuff that bothers me.

You make a complaint, the judge says, "Well, you almost have something here and I can't tell outright what you're missing, but here's a hint".  WHAT?  So, IF you don't know everything about case law, etc.. the judge can't just outright provide justice?  WTH?

Yet, in the ObamaCare case they did come up with an alternate way to look at it?

----------


## sailingaway

> There's something about all of this COURT stuff that bothers me.
> You make a complaint, the judge says, "Well, you almost have something here and I can't tell outright what you're missing, but here's a hint".  WHAT?  So, IF you don't know everything about case law, etc.. the judge can't just outright provide justice?  WTH?


he was trying but yeah, people would say he was biased. They do sometimes try but the way our system works is with two WELL BRIEFED and WELL REPRESENTED opposing sides presenting the best case for each side so the judge can pick the most compelling.  The facts do have to be before him.

----------


## RonRules

> Did you give him that?


I try to limit my communications to Gilbert. He's kind of busy. I did not ask him to look into the Lopez case. The judge did that and I didn't want to annoy him about it. He may get testy otherwise. You saw my email to him yesterday.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> I try to limit my communications to Gilbert. He's kind of busy. I did not ask him to look into the Lopez case. The judge did that and I didn't want to annoy him about it. He may get testy otherwise. You saw my email to him yesterday.


probably I did, but I come on here between other stuff when I am working on projects and I didn't remember the details.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

so the best I can follow this thread is that the judge dismissed the original complaint but will "entertain" an amended complaint if Gilbert & Co. can get the proper format and supporting evidence.  Is this correct and has anything else transpired?

----------


## sailingaway

the new complaint was filed.  Gilbert is filing a motion to expedite today, I understand.  Not sure I wouldn't just go with the judge's idea of using a preliminary injunction format, but there it is.  We just have to hope Gilbert's new complaint follows what the judge said he needs to do.

----------


## RonRules

> so the best I can follow this thread is that the judge dismissed the original complaint but will "entertain" an amended complaint if Gilbert & Co. can get the proper format and supporting evidence.  Is this correct and has anything else transpired?


Format was fine. The judge could only see specifics in the case of Massachusetts. He wanted more examples. Also, he'd like the arguments to focus on how this is a violation of the civil rights act, without narrowly defining it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

What is the "commentary" at the start of the ruling the judge gave.  I don't understand how that has anything to do with the case, why mention Ron Paul being against the Voting Rights Act without also having discussion of why?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102312914/...-DISMISS<br />




> 13   Six years ago, Congressman Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights
> 14   Act. Ironically, his supporters now bring this lawsuit under the very statutory scheme he tried
> 15   to end

----------


## sailingaway

He probably didn't know why Ron was against.  He was being snarky and implying it was racially motivated, or at least ironic.  It is irrelevant to the case, but it might impact the judge's view of Ron so if there were a way to let him know why Ron did it (it wasn't for voting provisions) it might be a good thing to do.  But we don't want to make that the focus of attention since it doesn't matter, legally.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> He probably didn't know why Ron was against.  He was being snarky and implying it was racially motivated, or at least ironic.  It is irrelevant to the case, but it might impact the judge's view of Ron so if there were a way to let him know why Ron did it (it wasn't for voting provisions) it might be a good thing to do.  But we don't want to make that the focus of attention since it doesn't matter, legally.


It's just aggravating when people just keep spouting off stuff about stuff they don't have all of the information on, especially in a form that is documented and/or televised.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's just aggravating when people just keep spouting off stuff about stuff they don't have all of the information on, especially in a form that is documented and/or televised.


Oh yeah, it is all of that.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

I just hope they use the good evidence and hard work this community has been gathering and providing them with.




> I don't want the complaint thrown out 'with prejudice' so it can't be amended.  However, there is nothing we can do about that except try to help make the case stronger, because it is going forward, regardless.

----------


## RonRules

> I just hope they use the good evidence and hard work this community has been gathering and providing them with.


The problem is the information is all scattered about. You can't expect Gilbert or anyone else to find all that.

That's why sailing has started a thread to collect the info:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-lawsuit/page2

Please help the project.

We will also collect that in a public Wiki:


Here are some example pages:
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Iowa
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Louisiana
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Maine
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Michigan
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Missouri
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Nevada
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Washington

----------


## sailingaway

> The problem is the information is all scattered about. You can't expect Gilbert or anyone else to find all that.
> 
> That's why sailing has started a thread to collect the info:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-lawsuit/page2
> 
> Please help the project.
> 
> We will also collect that in a public Wiki:
> 
> ...


that is why we have our thread at the top.  It isn't in 'format' yet but some parts are more than others, and it is a working thread so people with facts can contribute.  We can then make it pretty for someone to post on wiki or send to Gilbert. If I were him I'd be checking it periodically though.  I may tweet it periodically.

----------


## libertylastchance

Why doesn't the court have a record of the new filing?

----------


## libertylastchance

> the new complaint was filed.  Gilbert is filing a motion to expedite today, I understand.  Not sure I wouldn't just go with the judge's idea of using a preliminary injunction format, but there it is.  We just have to hope Gilbert's new complaint follows what the judge said he needs to do.


Why isn't the NEW  filing showing up on PACER????

----------


## libertylastchance

Does anybody have the transcript from the hearing???

----------


## libertylastchance

> he was trying but yeah, people would say he was biased. They do sometimes try but the way our system works is with two WELL BRIEFED and WELL REPRESENTED opposing sides presenting the best case for each side so the judge can pick the most compelling.  The facts do have to be before him.


I think the judge was more than helpful , he actually informed Mr. Gilbert when he filed his first amendment and it was denied HOW to file it properly so it would be accepted..

----------


## sailingaway

> Why isn't the NEW  filing showing up on PACER????


it has to be manually entered. There is a delay between filing and when it shows up.

----------


## libertylastchance

> What is the "commentary" at the start of the ruling the judge gave.  I don't understand how that has anything to do with the case, why mention Ron Paul being against the Voting Rights Act without also having discussion of why?
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/102312914/...-DISMISS<br />



Because the complaint filed clearly referenced Ron Paul.. 


The gravamen of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC) is that Defendants have
engaged in various actsoften too vaguely described to be intelligiblethat have
disadvantaged Ron Paul in his quest to be nominated as the Republican Partys candidate for
President at the Republican National Convention commencing on August 27, 2012

The judge IMO is fully aware of why Ron Paul voted NAY.

----------


## RonRules

It's on Pacer now. Will upload to a share service in a few minutes.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> However, the Court explained, the political parties' associational rights were not at issue in the case; rather, the "weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is *their own* claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party


I think I see what he is saying, it's not just the parties right to associate, but the delegates right to associate.  Am I missing something?

_edit: Or is this old or useless news_

----------


## freedomordeath

> Please help the project.
> 
> We will also collect that in a public Wiki:
> 
> 
> Here are some example pages:
> http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Iowa
> http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Louisiana
> http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Maine
> ...


Do I have permission to spread this around the interwebs, get others involved.

----------


## RonRules

Second Amended complaint:
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6414717

----------


## RonRules

> Do I have permission to spread this around the interwebs, get others involved.


Yes but the number of editors is limited. Five for now unless we chip in a few dollars to open it up to more.

It's probably best to fill in the stickied thread that Sailing put up and we'll fill up the Wiki. We could use two more editors right now.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think I see what he is saying, it's not just the parties right to associate, but the delegates right to associate.  Am I missing something?
> 
> _edit: Or is this old or useless news_


I think what he is saying is they have a right of association but once they let people associate as a so called open tent, they can't change and say they can't have influence according to the rules that tempted them in.

It is almost more of a contract idea.  This was THEIR offer, and they didn't have to make it that way, but once they made it and people relied on it, they can't just change it willy nilly.

----------


## NickOdell

> Second Amended complaint:
> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6414717


I like the idea of, if the judge rules in our favor, the RNC giving ALL delegates a copy of the court order. 

Reminding all delegates they don't have to vote for Romney would be a good thing.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

Why hasn't 42 USC 1971(b) been brought up?

 - (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or *coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate* for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, *Delegates* or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, *at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate*.

If (b) is upheld then (c) states:

 - (c) Preventive relief; injunction; rebuttable literacy presumption; liability of United States for costs; State as party defendant
Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other pers*on of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) or (b)* of this section, *the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.*

----------


## RonRules

It's short and sweet. No specifics about broken bones, etc. He's emphasizing the Voting Rights Act as the judge asked for:

On page 24, the core issue:
This second Amended Complaint presents a Federal Question for the Court's consideration

The Federal Question presented is whether the Voting Rights Act (hereafter "VRA") applies to the National Convention of the Defendants to be held in Tampa commencing Aug 27, 2012.

There is no other issue presented. If the Court concludes that the Voting Rights Act is applicable to the National Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief pursuant to 42 USC S1971(c) to order Defendants to apply the law set forth in 41 USC S1971 and its sub parts to the Convention and to provide a copy of the Court's Order to each Delegate participating in the Convention.

It's going to be hard for the judge to say no to that.

----------


## CPUd

> Second Amended complaint:
> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6414717


It's a more focused complaint, he took out the part about the US Marshals, but there is nothing specific.  I'm guessing all those might be added in after the defense files motion to dismiss, because they will do so on the grounds that the complaint is not specific, and they will probably once again cite LopezTorres.

----------


## RonRules

> Why hasn't 42 USC 1971(b) been brought up?


It totally is now. Look at the Second Amended complaint.

----------


## CPUd

42 USC 1971(b) is central to the new complaint, but looks like he's waiting for the defense to ask how is it central.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's short and sweet. No specifics about broken bones, etc. He's emphasizing the Voting Rights Act as the judge asked for:
> 
> On page 24, the core issue:
> This second Amended Complaint presents a Federal Question for the Court's consideration
> 
> The Federal Question presented is whether the Voting Rights Act (hereafter "VRA") applies to the National Convention of the Defendants to be held in Tampa commencing Aug 27, 2012.
> 
> There is no other issue presented. If the Court concludes that the Voting Rights Act is applicable to the National Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief pursuant to 42 USC S1971(c) to order Defendants to apply the law set forth in 41 USC S1971 and its sub parts to the Convention and to provide a copy of the Court's Order to each Delegate participating in the Convention.
> 
> It's going to be hard for the judge to say no to that.


what the judge said before was that the FACTS to apply that law against weren't clearly enough stated.  I hope they are this time.  And that is where the broken bones would have come in.

----------


## RonRules

> what the judge said before was that the FACTS to apply that law against weren't clearly enough stated.  I hope they are this time.  And that is where the broken bones would have come in.


Gilbert was ecstatic (according to WhistlingDave) when the GOP lawyer had to admit that they break their own rules. P25:"Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election..." "Rather Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the law of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants chose" 

I think that's the angle Gilbert is using and that the details are not important at this point.

----------


## sailingaway

> Gilbert was ecstatic (according to WhistlingDave) when the GOP lawyer had to admit that they break their own rules. P25:"Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election..." "Rather Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the law of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants chose" 
> 
> I think that's the angle Gilbert is using and that the details are not important at this point.


I think the court specifically said that details were very important and he couldn't even tell what had happened. Crap. I have to read the complaint to comment, though.

----------


## sailingaway

Well. I would have added fact situations.  I frankly would amend now to add them.  If he amends before the court's date of Aug 20 and before the other side files, I think it will end up not being a big deal.

----------


## RonRules

In the judge's previous ruling:

"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts which, if true, would entitle the complainant to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss). The pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

Now because the GOP lawyer put his foot in his mouth, admitting that they don't follow Federal Election law, and that they even break their own rules, no other facts matter!

"claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss"

It's no longer a he/she said. The GOP lawyer said it right in front of the judge and that's why it was so painful for him to admit it.

Case closed!

----------


## sailingaway

> In the judge's previous ruling:
> 
> "Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts which, if true, would entitle the complainant to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss). The pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
> 
> Now because the GOP lawyer put his foot in his mouth, admitting that they don't follow Federal Election law, and that they even break their own rules, no other facts matter!
> 
> "claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss"
> 
> It's no longer a he/she said. The GOP lawyer said it right in front of the judge and that's why it was so painful for him to admit it.
> ...


I do see what he is doing, given this is a declaratory judgment but it does nothing to bring out the fraud that has happened to date, for one thing, and I would amend to also more obviously pile onto this part of your quote:




> a plaintiff
> must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
> cause of action will not do.”


I just don't like to rely on only one theory and justification when SO MANY exist.

I would supplement the complaint.

----------


## RonRules

> I just don't like to rely on only one theory and justification when SO MANY exist.


I actually agree with you, not being a lawyer, it seems like the prudent thing to do.

But I think Gilbert is totally confident and simply saying:

The GOP is breaking election law, they admitted in front of you. There is no need for testimony or affidavits. Can you please admonish them and remind the GOP about the Civil Rights Voting Act, clearly stating that delegates can vote their conscience. Oh and BTW, get them to serve that ruling to all delegates. Thank you.

BTW, FYI there is more coming, in a few weeks.

Edit: La-di-da, La-di-da.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## CPUd

> a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action


he is very good at this.


I think he is going to see how they respond, but _when_ they respond is beginning to be a bit more important.

----------


## RonRules

> So, it could be more like "case dismissed."


Thought you said you weren't going to post here anymore?

"RNC hasn't prevented delegates from voting about anything"

OhReally?  And what about these arm twisting affidavits to be signed and the recent Maine "compromise" letter, allegedly sent from Romney's headquarters in Boston?

----------


## torchbearer

> Thought you said you weren't going to post here anymore?


Dude has a job to do. he won't recieved full payment if he doesn't shill.
best to just put on ignore.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## RonRules

> The affidavits were sent out by the Massachusetts GOP Allocation Committee.


You seem well informed.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## torchbearer

> You seem well informed.


see my post previous post.
not a random poster, has knowledge of gop inside events and he has a hard-on for huckabee. should tell you all you need to know.
read his post history, notice the $#@! threads that attract the fly.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> I know it's missing the "w' but I thought you might be calling me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh. I don't think it will meet the requirements of an injunction. 
> 
> But you never know with these 9th circuit judges. 
> ...


the question is whether when a GOP chair who previously said all rules are followed sends out a 'compromise' because 'rules have been broken' as 'the way ' to settle a suit and be seated whether that is impliedly a threat.  And why the challenge to delegates was sent to Maine from Mass is interesting too, since I understand that is what happened.  And why the guy who handed out fake Paul slates was paid by the Romney campaign per FEC reports, and how closely the RNC and Romney campaign are coordinating. And fake reasons to not let delegates be seated, or, in Louisiana, directing private security to physically remove them, breaking fingers and sending another guy off by ambulance, does keep them from voting. Those are really pretty clear.

However, I don't see them in the complaint and would add them.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> he is very good at this.
> 
> 
> I think he is going to see how they respond, but _when_ they respond is beginning to be a bit more important.


there is no time to wait for a response. The judge's tentative ruling says 'final amended complaint'.  I would take that to heart.  If the facts are stated in complaint form as an attachment to response papers on a motion to dismiss the judge might still accept it because they are "there", and let another amended complaint be filed, but I got the impression he thought he had spelled it out pretty clearly, and was losing patience.  I would add the facts. Lawdida, please don't just cut down.  If you want to help, constructively, with suggestions of what to add since this suit IS going forward, that would be great.

----------


## SteveT1736

I've been a lurker for the better part of year but I feel compelled to respond to this latest complaint.  This is my first post but I felt someone needed to lay out what is happening from a legal perspective.

First, I'm an attorney and practice almost exclusively in federal court.  I draft complaints regularly and have argued two motions to dismiss in the past few months.  I am not licensed in California but I can give the perspective of someone who regularly is in front of a federal judge.

From the beginning, Gilbert's pleadings have been disastrous.  I don't know if this is a case of deliberate sabotage or plain sloppiness but nothing I've seen (including this version) is in the proper form for a complaint in federal court.

This version, as written, will be dismissed -- presumably with prejudice barring another attempt to amend.

My sense is this judge's patience is at an end.  The Judge repeatedly stated in granting the motion to dismiss that he needed a complaint with facts pleaded, not merely conclusionary statements.  That is the standard for a motion to dismiss as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This version fails to state even one fact.  A fact is a statement of particularity as to who did what when and to whom.  None of that is included.  The previous version that the Judge dismissed at least had one fact (though insufficient).  This has none.

I recently dealt with a motion to dismiss issue that involved a pro se litigant.  The paperwork I saw from them was considerably and measurably superior to Mr. Gilbert's work.

Ask anyone with legal training what they think of this.  I think you'll find that any attorney will have the same take.

This will end poorly.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, they aren't there.
> 
> Hopefully, they will be in challenges brought before the RNC.


and without this case you think they  are not going to just ignore them.  We've seen a lot of facts ignored.  Heck, we've seen bones of rules chairmen broken.  You aren't helping.  If you don't intend to, please stop commenting in this thread.

----------


## torchbearer

> I've been a lurker for the better part of year but I feel compelled to respond to this latest complaint.  This is my first post but I felt someone needed to lay out what is happening from a legal perspective.
> 
> First, I'm an attorney and practice almost exclusively in federal court.  I draft complaints regularly and have argued two motions to dismiss in the past few months.  I am not licensed in California but I can give the perspective of someone who regularly is in front of a federal judge.
> 
> From the beginning, Gilbert's pleadings have been disastrous.  I don't know if this is a case of deliberate sabotage or plain sloppiness but nothing I've seen (including this version) is in the proper form for a complaint in federal court.
> 
> This version, as written, will be dismissed -- presumably with prejudice barring another attempt to amend.
> 
> My sense is this judge's patience is at an end.  The Judge repeatedly stated in granting the motion to dismiss that he needed a complaint with facts pleaded, not merely conclusionary statements.  That is the standard for a motion to dismiss as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This version fails to state even one fact.  A fact is a statement of particularity as to who did what when and to whom.  None of that is included.  The previous version that the Judge dismissed at least had one fact (though insufficient).  This has none.
> ...


would you like to help?

----------


## SteveT1736

I'm in a position where I cannot.

----------


## sailingaway

> I've been a lurker for the better part of year but I feel compelled to respond to this latest complaint.  This is my first post but I felt someone needed to lay out what is happening from a legal perspective.
> 
> First, I'm an attorney and practice almost exclusively in federal court.  I draft complaints regularly and have argued two motions to dismiss in the past few months.  I am not licensed in California but I can give the perspective of someone who regularly is in front of a federal judge.
> 
> From the beginning, Gilbert's pleadings have been disastrous.  I don't know if this is a case of deliberate sabotage or plain sloppiness but nothing I've seen (including this version) is in the proper form for a complaint in federal court.
> 
> This version, as written, will be dismissed -- presumably with prejudice barring another attempt to amend.
> 
> My sense is this judge's patience is at an end.  The Judge repeatedly stated in granting the motion to dismiss that he needed a complaint with facts pleaded, not merely conclusionary statements.  That is the standard for a motion to dismiss as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This version fails to state even one fact.  A fact is a statement of particularity as to who did what when and to whom.  None of that is included.  The previous version that the Judge dismissed at least had one fact (though insufficient).  This has none.
> ...


the one 'conspiracy theory' issue I have entertained about this is the idea that it might be prosecuted so badly OUR delegates were barred from submitting another complaint.  However, there is no way to stop this and the complaint is in.  Since federal pleading rules are the same, are you willing to take a stab at a rough draft of a complaint that would meet them in your view, ignoring local rules and such?  We have floated the idea of an amicus process and have floated the idea of sending a draft to Gilbert and asking him to preemptively file to supplement/amend his complaint.  It could plausibly be either or, he amends or we try to file as amicus at least to let the judge be aware there are people willing to get a more detailed complaint out.

Thoughts?

----------


## sailingaway

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm in a position where I cannot.


geographically, ethically, or physically? 

I mean can you play with a draft if we find someone else to finalize and file it?

----------


## RickyJ

> I've been a lurker for the better part of year but I feel compelled to respond to this latest complaint.  This is my first post but I felt someone needed to lay out what is happening from a legal perspective.
> 
> First, I'm an attorney and practice almost exclusively in federal court.  I draft complaints regularly and have argued two motions to dismiss in the past few months.  I am not licensed in California but I can give the perspective of someone who regularly is in front of a federal judge.
> 
> From the beginning, Gilbert's pleadings have been disastrous.  I don't know if this is a case of deliberate sabotage or plain sloppiness but nothing I've seen (including this version) is in the proper form for a complaint in federal court.
> 
> This version, as written, will be dismissed -- presumably with prejudice barring another attempt to amend.
> 
> My sense is this judge's patience is at an end.  The Judge repeatedly stated in granting the motion to dismiss that he needed a complaint with facts pleaded, not merely conclusionary statements.  That is the standard for a motion to dismiss as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This version fails to state even one fact.  A fact is a statement of particularity as to who did what when and to whom.  None of that is included.  The previous version that the Judge dismissed at least had one fact (though insufficient).  This has none.
> ...


So you think Gilbert is deliberately sabotaging this case? I am not a lawyer and I understand what you are saying here, how could Gilbert who is trained as a lawyer not understand?

----------


## kathy88

> I'm in a position where I cannot.


How convenient.

----------


## torchbearer

> So you think Gilbert is deliberately sabotaging this case? I am not a lawyer and I understand what you are saying here, how could Gilbert who is trained as a lawyer not understand?


I don't think Gilbert is experience in federal filings.

----------


## JK/SEA

> So you think Gilbert is deliberately sabotaging this case? I am not a lawyer and I understand what you are saying here, how could Gilbert who is trained as a lawyer not understand?


This is the internet. Steve could be anybody. Lawdida as well. 

That is all.

----------


## sailingaway

Here are some random examples of the type of factual specificity looked for in federal complaints, that I found.  They are not on this kind of a matter, and he did raise the specific statement that the attorney said his client didn't have to follow the rules and laws -- however, I would ad date, place, person, action type of allegations about the conventions:

http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPoli...ulesForms.aspx

----------


## sailingaway

> This is the internet. Steve could be anybody. Lawdida as well. 
> 
> That is all.


it doesn't matter, we would see the draft if he created one and could vett it ourselves as could Gilbert when we sent it, and we wouldn't file it unless we liked it.  Steve could be Darth Vader, it doesn't matter.

----------


## RickyJ

> This is the internet. Steve could be anybody. Lawdida as well. 
> 
> That is all.


Yeah I know that, but he claims he read the complaint and said that it does not state the facts the Judge is looking for. Do we have any lawyers here that can read this complaint and see if what he is saying is correct? I don't really have time to read it myself and since I am not a lawyer I probably wouldn't know what to look for.

----------


## torchbearer

> it doesn't matter, we would see the draft if he created one and could vett it ourselves as could Gilbert when we sent it, and we wouldn't file it unless we liked it.  Steve could be Darth Vader, it doesn't matter.


i agree, i like opposing views- especially if they come up with a fix for what they are bitchin about.

----------


## sailingaway

> So you think Gilbert is deliberately sabotaging this case? I am not a lawyer and I understand what you are saying here, how could Gilbert who is trained as a lawyer not understand?


I am not saying he is doing that, he has a practice, multiple legal offices and zero ethics claims reported against him in the Bar site (that I did check).  But he also has already had two complaints kicked out and I would like belt and suspenders on this one since the judge said it was the 'final amendment'.

----------


## SteveT1736

I know this will be unsatisfying but my ability to engage on this is highly restricted.  I need to leave it at that.

----------


## SteveT1736

I am trying to post a link to a regularly pleaded complaint.  So, this is comply with the forum's spam rules (3 posts before links).

----------


## SteveT1736

Here is an example of what a Voting Rights Act complaint should look like:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/35198456/J...-Act-Complaint

Notice the way it is organized and the level of specificity.  Then, compare to Gilbert's work.

Unfortunately, I can't stick around any longer this afternoon.  I will check back this evening.

----------


## RickyJ

> I don't think Gilbert is experience in federal filings.


That could be, laws are written up to be so arcane for a reason I guess, to keep lawyers employed. Oh well, if Gilbert isn't really on our side then we might be screwed here.

----------


## kathy88

Am I the only one who thinks it is strange that all these new posters who are privy to either knowledge or are in the legal field only offer opinion or criticism but no solutions or true offers of assistance? Newest excluded. Thanks for the link.

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah I know that, but he claims he read the complaint and said that it does not state the facts the Judge is looking for. Do we have any lawyers here that can read this complaint and see if what he is saying is correct? I don't really have time to read it myself and since I am not a lawyer I probably wouldn't know what to look for.


I'm not a lawyer but I have read and understood way too many legal briefs...

I tried the "download" button RPR linked to and nothing happened...

If I can access the file I'll read it and chime in another laymans opinion...(like there aren't enough already)

----------


## sailingaway

> Here is an example of what a Voting Rights Act complaint should look like:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/35198456/J...-Act-Complaint
> 
> Notice the way it is organized and the level of specificity.  Then, compare to Gilbert's work.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't stick around any longer this afternoon.  I will check back this evening.


thank you

----------


## eleganz

> Here is an example of what a Voting Rights Act complaint should look like:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/35198456/J...-Act-Complaint
> 
> Notice the way it is organized and the level of specificity.  Then, compare to Gilbert's work.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't stick around any longer this afternoon.  I will check back this evening.


are you LFRP?


Did you read the amended complaint?

----------


## devil21

> What concerns me most is this could set a scary precedent if we lose this case. Personally, if we lose I feel it will be because of the counsel's incompetence. I really hope Richard doesn't lose a case just this one time....


It doesn't set any precedent since district court rulings aren't binding on other courts or circuits.  Binding precedents (aka case law) start at the Appeals court level and up to SCOTUS.

----------


## Tiso0770

I don't know if this is helpful....but...

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot...n/caselist.php

----------


## devil21

I think the new complaint is ok because it gets to the heart of the matter, though it could be somewhat better since it doesn't address the delegates that have been disqualified (Mass) or are in the process of being disqualified (Maine) anywhere in the complaint.  I would have liked to see one of the prayers for relief to be an order that all elected delegates at the district and state conventions (and other methods) be allowed to attend.  Telling everyone they are unbound is great, except in the instance that no Paul delegates are even allowed to attend.

Also, this is a Federal Question so it's handled a little differently than if someone was actually suing the Party for damages.  This complaint just wants the judge to clarify how the law applies and force one side to follow it.  No monetary damages or fees requested.  Much of the details of the previous complaints aren't pertinent, such as the broken bones and fake slates.

----------


## sailingaway

But the broken bones and fake slates did keep people from voting if they prevented delegates from reaching national, and are compelling to media in pressuring the Credentials committee to be honest.  He can state more than one cause of action. that one can be clean and he can add the others separately, with the facts and ask to seat the delegates.  I'd like to see that too.  It isn't that the facts don't exist to support that, we just need to set them out.

Also the judge gave him until August 20 to file so it seems to me if he amends quickly it might be permitted.  Worst case it isn't permitted but at least the judge has a better idea of what is going on.

Also, while the facts weren't pertinent to the IMMEDIATE question before the convention, the fact that a case to examine them was pending for damages or relief to be later requested was frankly one of the biggest draws of this case to me, not just 'showing up' the RNC, I would like to see the fraud and abuse that HAS happened addressed.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think the new complaint is ok because it gets to the heart of the matter, though it could be somewhat better since it doesn't address the delegates that have been disqualified (Mass) or are in the process of being disqualified (Maine) anywhere in the complaint.  I would have liked to see one of the prayers for relief to be an order that all elected delegates at the district and state conventions (and other methods) be allowed to attend.  Telling everyone they are unbound is great, except in the instance that no Paul delegates are even allowed to attend.
> 
> Also, this is a Federal Question so it's handled a little differently than if someone was actually suing the Party for damages.  This complaint just wants the judge to clarify how the law applies and force one side to follow it.  No monetary damages or fees requested.  Much of the details of the previous complaints aren't pertinent, such as the broken bones and fake slates.


Do you practice in federal court? Not a challenge, I just am wondering if I should feel more comfortable, since we don't know Steve.  The complaint Steve posted is more like what I expected to see, is all.  I wanted more facts and thought the judge was asking for more facts and wish we had more facts.

Obviously, the complaint Steve attached is much more fact based.  I just don't know the level of that that was REQUIRED.

----------


## SteveT1736

I had a chance to glance at the recent posts.

Let me clarify a point.  A complaint MUST lay out sufficient fact to support the claims.  Judges do not respond to hypothetical harms.  Right now, you have an amended complaint with absolutely no facts.  Remember facts specify who did what to whom when.  There is none of that.  Just legal arguments.  This was the chance to amend.  If already filed, it is over already.  Gilbert has deliberately ignored the clear direction of the Court and the Court will act accordingly. 

Sorry to be so negative.  But, I think I can safely predict the outcome.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Didn't mean it in the legal sense of the word. Meant it in the sense the party will continue to push the degree to which they distort the process, may discourage a similar case in the future, could adversely affect supporters. 




> It doesn't set any precedent since district court rulings aren't binding on other courts or circuits.  Binding precedents (aka case law) start at the Appeals court level and up to SCOTUS.

----------


## SteveT1736

Just checked Pacer.  It is filed.  That's it folks.

----------


## torchbearer

> Just checked Pacer.  It is filed.  That's it folks.


mind giving us a peak at this filing?
and if so- and its over for it- can i file a better suit- using your expertise?

----------


## sailingaway

> I had a chance to glance at the recent posts.
> 
> Let me clarify a point.  A complaint MUST lay out sufficient fact to support the claims.  Judges do not respond to hypothetical harms.  Right now, you have an amended complaint with absolutely no facts.  Remember facts specify who did what to whom when.  There is none of that.  Just legal arguments.  This was the chance to amend.  If already filed, it is over already.  Gilbert has deliberately ignored the clear direction of the Court and the Court will act accordingly. 
> 
> Sorry to be so negative.  But, I think I can safely predict the outcome.


Do you think if someone gave and filed notice of request to intervene in some amicus fashion quickly, say Monday, appending a complaint with facts and at the same time asking Gilbert to add those facts as supplement to his filed complaint, given that the court gave him until August 20 to file, that this would be accepted or possibly persuade the court to allow another amendment, seeing the facts in front of him so he would know what was ABLE to be in the complaint?

I mean, I hope you are wrong about  the bare bones issue he did refile, but in a worst case scenario do you see merit in a firedrill to get an alternate complaint out in some fashion?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Pretty much called it like this from the beginning. Was pleading for an effort to hire a serious lawyer with a record of success to handle this case. I would have paid any amount of money because I think it would be a slam dunk if the individual handling it wasn't an idiot.

What a damned shame.




> I've been a lurker for the better part of year but I feel compelled to respond to this latest complaint.  This is my first post but I felt someone needed to lay out what is happening from a legal perspective.
> 
> First, I'm an attorney and practice almost exclusively in federal court.  I draft complaints regularly and have argued two motions to dismiss in the past few months.  I am not licensed in California but I can give the perspective of someone who regularly is in front of a federal judge.
> 
> From the beginning, Gilbert's pleadings have been disastrous.  I don't know if this is a case of deliberate sabotage or plain sloppiness but nothing I've seen (including this version) is in the proper form for a complaint in federal court.
> 
> This version, as written, will be dismissed -- presumably with prejudice barring another attempt to amend.
> 
> My sense is this judge's patience is at an end.  The Judge repeatedly stated in granting the motion to dismiss that he needed a complaint with facts pleaded, not merely conclusionary statements.  That is the standard for a motion to dismiss as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This version fails to state even one fact.  A fact is a statement of particularity as to who did what when and to whom.  None of that is included.  The previous version that the Judge dismissed at least had one fact (though insufficient).  This has none.
> ...

----------


## sailingaway

> mind giving us a peak at this filing?
> and if so- and its over for it- can i file a better suit- using your expertise?


it is higher in the thread, Ron Rules posted it, it is very short.

----------


## torchbearer

> it is higher in the thread, Ron Rules posted it, it is very short.


must be way back, three 20 post pages back and no see.

----------


## sailingaway

> Pretty much called it like this from the beginning. Was pleading for an effort to hire a serious lawyer with a record of success to handle this case. I would have paid any amount of money because I think it would be a slam dunk if the individual handling it wasn't an idiot.
> 
> What a damned shame.


so file a new suit, then. If you are willing to pay any amount of money, an attorney can be hired immediately.  THAT suit couldn't be stopped because the guy was going ahead, but see my post to steve above, it may still be possible if the court sees in front of him someone is trying to address his points that the court will try to help.  He DID try.

I would rather not wait to see if Gilbert's complaint is found to be sufficient because then a more fact based on won't be in the judge's hands so he knows it wouldn't be a futile effort to just give another chance to amend.

----------


## sailingaway

> must be way back, three 20 post pages back and no see.


https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6414717

----------


## rockandrollsouls

I can donate some more, but reaching the bottom of my wallet and cannot hire the attorney by myself. If someone wants to set up a chip-in as a contingency, I'd be happy to put the little I have left into it and I'd hope others would do the same. 

And while I know a fair bit about many things, the level of detail in this is beyond me. But I could see from the start Gilbert was questionable. If someone has a reputable lawyer in mind, lets get the name, get the info, start the chip in, and see if we can pump enough money into this to get something legitimate in place in the event Gilbert fails.

This would need to be a serious community effort, though. More so than anything we've done in the past.








> so file a new suit, then. If you are willing to pay any amount of money, an attorney can be hired immediately.  THAT suit couldn't be stopped because the guy was going ahead, but see my post to steve above, it may still be possible if the court sees in front of him someone is trying to address his points that the court will try to help.  He DID try.
> 
> I would rather not wait to see if Gilbert's complaint is found to be sufficient because then a more fact based on won't be in the judge's hands so he knows it wouldn't be a futile effort to just give another chance to amend.

----------


## rb3b3

I don't get it, we get this dude in here saying he worked many federal cases, that he read Gilbert's new complaint, said its garbage, posted a link on what it's supposed to look like, and can't help us at all... Wow wtf is going on here???? There should be nothing holding him back from helping with this lawsuit!!!!!! This lawsuit gives some power back to we the people!!!!! What the fuhk can be more important then that!??!??? your fukn full of sht my man!!!!! There is no reason what so ever you can't do good for America!!! This is a lawsuit for America land of the free!!!! And you can't help???? Give me a fuhhkn break you ******!!!

----------


## sailingaway

> I can donate some more, but reaching the bottom of my wallet and cannot hire the attorney by myself. If someone wants to set up a chip-in as a contingency, I'd be happy to put the little I have left into it and I'd hope others would do the same. 
> 
> And while I know a fair bit about many things, the level of detail in this is beyond me. But I could see from the start Gilbert was questionable. If someone has a reputable lawyer in mind, lets get the name, get the info, start the chip in, and see if we can pump enough money into this to get something legitimate in place in the event Gilbert fails.
> 
> This would need to be a serious community effort, though. More so than anything we've done in the past.


What I want to do is have anyone who wants to get into 'oh no, we should have known' go to the Vent and talk about that. I want to keep the threads here constructive.  If there is sufficient support to hire an attorney I think that is something we should at least consider, or putting together a fact based statement and sending it to Gilbert so he has it all set out and can file it as a 'this is what I would like to amend it to say' in response to the next motion to dismiss.  Because the judge MIGHT be willing to allow an amendment if the amendment was in his hands already and he knew it wouldn't be futile.

But I think we should keep both possibilities open.

I re read the complaint and there ARE facts on the single issue now placed before the court. What I don't like is how little is placed before the court, and of course I can always second guess something someone else does.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't get it, we get this dude in here saying he worked many federal cases, that he read Gilbert's new complaint, said its garbage, posted a link on what it's supposed to look like, and can't help us at all... Wow wtf is going on here???? There should be nothing holding him back from helping with this lawsuit!!!!!! This lawsuit gives some power back to we the people!!!!! What the fuhk can be more important then that!??!??? your fukn full of sht my man!!!!! There is no reason what so ever you can't do good for America!!! This is a lawsuit for America land of the free!!!! And you can't help???? Give me a fuhhkn break you ******!!!


there could be any number of reasons.  He might simply work for a firm or company that does not allow even pro bono outside work without special clearances.

And I am not saying he is right as to what Gilbert DID file, I don't know, and we will find out.  But there is a lot that no longer IS in the complaint that I would like to see there if there is a way to get it there.

I also feel like our delegates who are plaintiffs because it was the only suit doing something about the fraud are in the middle of this, and I would like us to support them if there is a way to do it.

I also don't think the time that passed meant that they had a chance to read the new complaint and it is very different from prior ones.  Did they want to say the RNC rules are irrelevant or that once there, and people joined and participated they couldn't be changed after the fact? Because there is a difference.

I really don't understand why he rushed to file today when the court gave him until August 20 to file, but since the court DID give him that long, I wonder if a different complaint filed by him or someone else by that date, would get the court's eyes.  It would be entirely up to whether the judge WANTED to see it, but he put in a lot of work late at night on this, and I think it is a decent shot if we can come up with a way to do it.

----------


## Tiso0770

> I don't get it, we get this dude in here saying he worked many federal cases, that he read Gilbert's new complaint, said its garbage, posted a link on what it's supposed to look like, and can't help us at all... Wow wtf is going on here???? There should be nothing holding him back from helping with this lawsuit!!!!!! This lawsuit gives some power back to we the people!!!!! What the fuhk can be more important then that!??!??? your fukn full of sht my man!!!!! There is no reason what so ever you can't do good for America!!! This is a lawsuit for America land of the free!!!! And you can't help???? Give me a fuhhkn break you ******!!!


Hmmmmm, who is this mystery man......

----------


## RonRules

> Let me clarify a point.  A complaint MUST lay out sufficient fact to support the claims.


Sorry, you may be a big time lawyer nice guy and I'm not, but the way I see it is there is no NEED for facts the way this case is set up.

It's not a complaint, it's just a question: Is the Civil Rights Voting Act pertinent to caucuses and conventions for the purposes of electing someone to a Federal office?

A very important question that may have never been asked from a judge.

In the affirmative, then we can file a slew of Civil Rights violations that will keep lawyers like you busy for the next 5 years.

----------


## sailingaway

I don't see any need to be insulting. From what I see Steve is trying to help. He may be wrong on the way that one cause of action is written, but that would be a separate issue.  

I don't mind belt and suspenders but we have to figure out how to create the suspenders and how to get them attached to the pants, and if that is doable.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

And, so far, from what I'm reading, that's exactly what Gilbert is attempting to do with this amended version.
He appears to be heading where he said he was, using Federal Law to unbind the delegates.
It looks good to me so far, I'm on page 33.

----------


## JK/SEA

I don't see the point in Steve interjecting. I have to assume he's not on our side. Thanks for nothing Steve.

Meanwhile, Rome burns.

----------


## Tiso0770

I will give steve the benefit of a doubt, but he must also understand that we get many trolls on here.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't see the point in Steve interjecting. I have to assume he's not on our side. Thanks for nothing Steve.
> 
> Meanwhile, Rome burns.


I don't look at it that way.  Either he is wrong, and the complaint is fine, and the court says so, or he is right and there are possibilities it can be fixed if we can get something done fast enough. IF he was RIGHT and nothing was done before the judge rendered a verdict on the NEXT motion to dismiss, so the judge does dismiss, the judge at this point might not give leave to amend again.  If he is wrong, again, no issue, the judge won't dismiss. But if he is right, it might be possible, which is what needs to be considered, to write up and get in place one way or another the draft of exactly what a new complaint would look like if the court it its discretion allowed another amendment.  And the judge who already put a lot of work into this would be more likely to allow a THIRD amended complaint if the draft were in front of him and he could see that it satisfied his concerns.  

So the way I look at it, either Steve did no harm, (if he is wrong) or gave us a heads up while it is possible something might be done.

----------


## sailingaway

> There is a big assumption here that this strategy (one suit in federal court) is a good idea, or that it is at least better than nothing.
> 
> I've had legal training. I'm committed to the cause. Why so quick to call me a troll or eve say I'm being unhelpful? Lawyers are often paid good money for looking over a strategy and advising "Don't" or "Stop."
> 
> I have not merely mocked this suit. I've given reasons. What I'm doing is being helpful even if I'm not helping to draft the complaint.


no it isn't because we can't stop what Gilbert is doing.  All we would be able to MAYBE do is influence it or join in.  From YOUR point of view I would think you would like the new complaint less than the last because of the greater rock the boat intent.

----------


## JK/SEA

> There is a big assumption here that this strategy (one suit in federal court) is a good idea, or that it is at least better than nothing.
> 
> I've had legal training. I'm committed to the cause. Why so quick to call me a troll or eve say I'm being unhelpful? Lawyers are often paid good money for looking over a strategy and advising "Don't" or "Stop."
> 
> I have not merely mocked this suit. I've given reasons. What I'm doing is being helpful even if I'm not helping to draft the complaint.


Yeah, George Washington would've loved you in his army, yelling at other soldiers they can't shoot and they're going to lose.

Help out this country or go $#@! yourself. Steve too.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

He's also entered into the record that in 2008 the RNC recognized a delegate to vote his concience (for McCain) per the Voting Rights Act.  And he wants all delegates served with notice that they are free at all times to vote their concience per the VRA (page 34(1-4)).

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

It just doesn't address the fraud and abuse at the conventions and putting that in, just as why we need the question clarified, even might be helpful.  But frankly, I just miss it because to ME that was what the case was mostly about.

----------


## sailingaway

> Plaintiffs can withdraw.


do you know *all* of them? We sure don't and if ONE plaintiff stays on, the case goes forward. [edit, well, ok, two, one from a couple of different states]

Now if we had an ALTERNATE complaint through some amicus or intervening process (and I don't know how to do that) plaintiffs might switch over, but those who are plaintiffs don't understand the law, they just feel abused and want redress and feel nothing is being done.

Frankly, a lot of us feel that way.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

He is just flat out asking the judge whether the Voting Rights Act applies to the Federal Election commonly known as the RNC.  Earlier, he showed how, by law and reciting Federal Law, that the RNC is a Federal Election.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Remember that his purpose all along was to unbind all delegates, therefore giving noone any delegates, therefore anyone could be nominated and get a nomination speach, even new-comers.

----------


## jay_dub

> Yeah, George Washington would've loved you in his army, yelling at other soldiers they can't shoot and their going to lose.
> 
> Help out this country or go $#@! yourself. Steve too.


Careful now. Lawdiddile had had 'legal training'. That certainly trumps a lawyer. 

Steve is much too busy. Don't bother him with our petty struggles.

----------


## sailingaway

> Remember that his purpose all along was to unbind all delegates, therefore giving noone any delegates, therefore anyone could be nominated and get a nomination speach, even new-comers.


but I really liked all the other stuff about broken bones and fraud etc being in front of media as the credentials committee looks at our delegates.  THEY HAVE TO BE SEATED BEFORE THEY CAN VOTE is kinda, my issue.  The new complaint to those who DON'T know the facts could be read as more 'in your face' without giving the very reasonable reason why delegates felt driven to do this.  As a PR and media document it is not as good as it could be, if nothing else.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Yep, he is asking for the court to Declare that the Voting Rights Act applies to binding of delegates (ie, that they cannot be bound, by law).

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> but I really liked all the other stuff about broken bones and fraud etc being in front of media as the credentials committee looks at our delegates.  THEY HAVE TO BE SEATED BEFORE THEY CAN VOTE is kinda, my issue.  The new complaint to those who DON'T know the facts could be read as more 'in your face' without giving the very reasonable reason why delegates felt driven to do this.  As a PR and media document it is not as good as it could be, if nothing else.


Isn't this just an "amendment" to the previous filings?  The others still apply, right?  EDIT: N/M the requested relief is restated in full, so previous ones would not apply.

----------


## jay_dub

> but I really liked all the other stuff about broken bones and fraud etc being in front of media as the credentials committee looks at our delegates.  THEY HAVE TO BE SEATED BEFORE THEY CAN VOTE is kinda, my issue.  The new complaint to those who DON'T know the facts could be read as more 'in your face' without giving the very reasonable reason why delegates felt driven to do this.  As a PR and media document it is not as good as it could be, if nothing else.


I think it's better to have a favorable ruling on a narrow question than an unfavorable one on a scattershot approach. A win is a win. If Gilbert succeeds, then our side can put our own spin on it. The media will take notice then. They won't take notice of a failed lawsuit, no matter what is contained in it.

----------


## sailingaway

On the other hand, institutionally the RNC probably doesn't care as much if one guy broke some bones and a few delegates are seated as they would care about a precedent saying the act applies here.

So it might be a negotiating chip if they knew who to negotiate with. What would satisfy them?  Dropping all challenges and seating our delegates who challenged?  What? 

As a policy matter, this does create new law, and I think I would have said once they created their rules and people joined and THEMSELVES ASSOCIATED in reliance on those rules, they couldn't be changed.  I like that better than saying RNC rules are irrelevant, as a policy matter.  I do believe in free association, but I also believe in fair play and representation within the party according to the rules.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think it's better to have a favorable ruling on a narrow question than an unfavorable one on a scattershot approach. A win is a win. If Gilbert succeeds, then our side can put our own spin on it. The media will take notice then. They won't take notice of a failed lawsuit, no matter what is contained in it.


I hear you.  I don't know the answer, myself.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I have not yet really worked out in my heart and mind what this would mean if Gilberts gets what he is asking for.
I'm not sure it would effect RNC rules other than delegates cannot be bound.  All of the other rules would apply as far as procedures to select/elect delegates.

----------


## LibertyEagle

So, has their been a ruling yet?

From what I'm gathering from reading in this thread, it sounds like he chose not to include details on specific incidences that were requested by the judge. Is that correct?

----------


## torchbearer

> So, has their been a ruling yet?


from what i understand, the case has been dismissed twice, but without prejudice to the plaintiff(us).
we have one more try before judge says give it up.

----------


## sailingaway

> So, has their been a ruling yet?


which time?  Not on the one just filed.  No motion has been filed against it yet.  We are discussing whether we should work up a sort of preemptive amended complaint to have ready so the judge might be tempted to allow one more amendment if he strikes this one.  If he saw the other was ready to go.  We don't know it will be needed, there are varying opinions.  But facts that were in the last complaint are stripped from this one.

Another reason I like the fraud facts in there is it is the reason our delegates are doing this, I think.  And I think Ron and Carol think this is a fraud claim not a claim that RNC can't make its own rules.

However, we can't change Gilbert's complaint unless we get some of the plaintiffs involved.  we could probably do that to ask him to supplement IF that was the way we wanted to go.

argh.  Now I'm going in circles. I'm going to take a break from this and clear my head.  Besides there were things I wanted to get out today that I have to crank out.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Does anyone know if he including the detail that the judge told him was needed?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Does anyone know if he including the detail that the judge told him was needed?


From my reading of the new version, no.  It seems he changed his strategy and is asking the judge to determine if the RNC is bound by the Voting Rights Act and therefore requires that all delegates are free to vote their concience.

That is what he has been saying all along, in the interviews, that he wants from the judge.  See my previous post.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I don't understand why he didn't give himself a little more time before filing. 

*But*, perhaps, the judge mentioning that "...there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971(b)" then allows him to request that the judge reveal those interpretations since he (plantiffs/Gilbert) is "asking" him (the judge) to.

----------


## LibertyEagle

What I don't understand is why he isn't giving the judge what he said he needed.  The judge seems to be giving him all kinds of opportunities.  

Is anyone else frustrated?

----------


## libertylastchance

He said Paul's supporters had also misinterpreted the phrase "'intimidate, threaten, or coerce'" in a section of the Voting Rights Act "to include a political party's conditioning of delegate status on a promise to vote for a particular nominee."
     But Carter cautioned that his dismissal without prejudice should not be misused or "refashioned into a weapon" to suppress voting rights.

----------


## SteveT1736

I greatly appreciate the insults.  My son was standing over my shoulder when I pulled the thread up.  As to some of the other comments, as I've indicated previously, I am limited in what I role I can play. 

Here is where it stands:   1)  Gilbert filed his complaint.  2) The Judge dismissed his complaint as inadequate for failure to provide supportive facts and gave Gilbert one last chance to plead sufficient facts.  3) Gilbert today filed an amended complaint without any facts whatsoever  (who specifically did what, where and when). 

Unfortunately, Gilbert has created a procedural box.  Amendments to a complaint are barred after Defendants answer unless the Court gives leave.  Here, the Court granted leave but stated explicitly this (what was filed today) was the last chance.

A complaint is a critical procedural requirement to proceed with a lawsuit.  Courts don't just pontificate on what the law should be (ie. whether or not the Voting Rights Act applies to the RNC Convention).  They look to specific wrongdoing, supported by specific factual circumstances, that violates the law and which are susceptible to an appropriate remedy.  Gilbert's complaint fails to meet the first threshold (specific wrongdoing) and merely makes an argument for what the law should be (that's for Congress, not a Judge). 

Part of the reason for the requirement of a valid complaint is that every Defendant is entitled to know specifically what the Plaintiff alleges they have done.  For instance, the Republican Party of Kansas is entitled to know what specific wrongs it has committed.   What happened in Arizona or Massachusetts is irrelevant.  There has to be specific acts committed by each Defendant.

The Judge has already stated that no further amendments will be permitted in extremely directly language.  Additional filings will be disregarded, whether by Gilbert or third parties.  The problem is the complaint itself, not attachments to it and there is now no ability to fix the underlying document.

As to the use of an amicus brief, those require either A) Permission from both parties or B) Leave from the Court.  But, a brief is not the complaint itself.  The complaint outlines the nature of the dispute.  A brief merely makes arguments on the law.  An amicus brief is irrelevant because the issue is not legal argument but factual sufficiency.

I'm sorry I'm such a downer.  I've been watching this for a few weeks and thought I'd share my observations.  Apparently some would prefer that I don't.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't understand why he didn't give himself a little more time before filing. 
> 
> *But*, perhaps, the judge mentioning that "...there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971(b)" then allows him to request that the judge reveal those interpretations since he (plantiffs/Gilbert) is "asking" him (the judge) to.


A lexis/nexis search will give every applicable case, there's no need to ask the judge.

Every lawyer in the states pays to access lexis/nexis and any of them who so choose (including those chiming in here) could provide the data.

I'm certain this Gilbert fellow has access too......

Computers have made legal research quite simple, I started using Shepards in hardback...

One of you folks "in the legal profession" should buck-up and help out..

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Too bad you didn't jump in sooner, SteveT1736, rather than just to say "too late".

----------


## tod evans

Sorry man!

Our cyber lines crossed..

In plain English you're saying this Gilbert fellow failed to state a claim that could be adjudicated, right?





> I greatly appreciate the insults.  My son was standing over my shoulder when I pulled the thread up.  As to some of the other comments, as I've indicated previously, I am limited in what I role I can play. 
> 
> Here is where it stands:   1)  Gilbert filed his complaint.  2) The Judge dismissed his complaint as inadequate for failure to provide supportive facts and gave Gilbert one last chance to plead sufficient facts.  3) Gilbert today filed an amended complaint without any facts whatsoever  (who specifically did what, where and when). 
> 
> Unfortunately, Gilbert has created a procedural box.  Amendments to a complaint are barred after Defendants answer unless the Court gives leave.  Here, the Court granted leave but stated explicitly this (what was filed today) was the last chance.
> 
> A complaint is a critical procedural requirement to proceed with a lawsuit.  Courts don't just pontificate on what the law should be (ie. whether or not the Voting Rights Act applies to the RNC Convention).  They look to specific wrongdoing, supported by specific factual circumstances, that violates the law and which are susceptible to an appropriate remedy.  Gilbert's complaint fails to meet the first threshold (specific wrongdoing) and merely makes an argument for what the law should be (that's for Congress, not a Judge). 
> 
> The Judge has already stated that no further amendments will be permitted in extremely directly language.  Additional filings will be disregarded, whether by Gilbert or third parties.  The problem is the complaint itself, not attachments to it and there is now no ability to fix the underlying document.
> ...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What I don't understand is why he isn't giving the judge what he said he needed.  The judge seems to be giving him all kinds of opportunities.  
> 
> Is anyone else frustrated?


Yes, I am.  I think I could have done a better job (of producing the document and evidence) even without the law education, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

----------


## libertylastchance

There has been no motion from the defense to dismiss.. but that is a possibility, unless the defense thinks that a ruling on this would be in their favor... be careful what you wish for..  There was not enough time and thought put into the first 2 filings.. apparently some major considerations were given by RG to how he filed, since he stated he had been working on this for some time now.. He is still using the Utah letter, which is a incomplete presentation of the facts.

----------


## SteveT1736

> Sorry man!
> 
> Our cyber lines crossed..
> 
> In plain English you're saying this Gilbert fellow failed to state a claim that could be adjudicated, right?



That is exactly what I am saying.


Someone above asked why I hadn't posted sooner.  I applied for membership some time ago.  It took awhile to get approved.  Then, I really didn't have a chance to read everything until last night.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I must say, other than your unwillingness to consider cutting losses by dropping the case, I admire your attitude in the way you are trying to see this to the end.
> 
> Will you be in Tampa?


why?...you gonna be there with a ''HAHA Paul Supporters, you lose!'' sign? with Steve next to you with a Mitt sign?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> There has been no motion from the defense to dismiss.. but that is a possibility, unless the defense thinks that a ruling on this would be in their favor... be careful what you wish for..  There was not enough time and thought put into the first 2 filings.. apparently some major considerations were given by RG to how he filed, since he stated he had been working on this for some time now.. He is still using the Utah letter, which is a incomplete presentation of the facts.


Yea, he seems to be going the route of "Rule 38" and the RNC's interpretation of that in 2008 as one of his arguments that Federal Law (VRA) applies to binding.

----------


## tod evans

> Yes, I am.  I think I could have done a better job (of producing the document and evidence) even without the law education, but maybe I'm wrong about that.


A judge has tremendous latitude as to what he lets go on in his courtroom, he CAN choose to let the case proceed...BUT...any ruling would be subject to being overturned on appeal..(to a judge this is worse than tar-n-feathers)

We'll see...

----------


## sailingaway

> I greatly appreciate the insults.  My son was standing over my shoulder when I pulled the thread up.  As to some of the other comments, as I've indicated previously, I am limited in what I role I can play. 
> 
> Here is where it stands:   1)  Gilbert filed his complaint.  2) The Judge dismissed his complaint as inadequate for failure to provide supportive facts and gave Gilbert one last chance to plead sufficient facts.  3) Gilbert today filed an amended complaint without any facts whatsoever  (who specifically did what, where and when). 
> 
> Unfortunately, Gilbert has created a procedural box.  Amendments to a complaint are barred after Defendants answer unless the Court gives leave.  Here, the Court granted leave but stated explicitly this (what was filed today) was the last chance.
> 
> A complaint is a critical procedural requirement to proceed with a lawsuit.  Courts don't just pontificate on what the law should be (ie. whether or not the Voting Rights Act applies to the RNC Convention).  They look to specific wrongdoing, supported by specific factual circumstances, that violates the law and which are susceptible to an appropriate remedy.  Gilbert's complaint fails to meet the first threshold (specific wrongdoing) and merely makes an argument for what the law should be (that's for Congress, not a Judge). 
> Part of the reason for the requirement of a valid complaint is that every Defendant is entitled to know specifically what the Plaintiff alleges they have done.  For instance, the Republican Party of Kansas is entitled to know what specific wrongs it has committed.   What happened in Arizona or Massachusetts is irrelevant.  There has to be specific acts committed by each Defendant.
> 
> ...


No response has been filed to the new complaint.  Further, while the judge did say this was the final amendment he has discretion to change his mind.  He put a lot of work into saying what was needed and if you are right and he strikes what is there (and I'm not sure I'm convinced that would happen since that single thing does allege its facts) It seems to me if Gilbert had in his response to the next motion to strike the actual text of a fact driven complaint and said THIS is what I want to amend to, the judge might feel he wasn't on a futile path and let him.

It seems to me it is worth a shot.

But I think we should probably get a federal practice attorney who can look at it, with whom we are either more familiar, or whom we know, to give us an opinion on what was just filed.  If you could help that would be one thing, but just saying all is lost doesn't help advance the ball, even if it is just your honest opinion.  If we are thinking of trying to help, we need someone who can do that.   Just sitting by isn't really something we do well.

----------


## libertylastchance

Thank you Steve

----------


## SteveT1736

I'm sure what they will do is just renew their motion to dismiss, reference the Judge's previous ruling and point out the lack of compliance on the factual issue.

But, once the issue of sufficiency has been raised, as here, the Judge can dismiss for failure to follow his direction without a filing by the Defendants.

----------


## libertylastchance

> from what i understand, the case has been dismissed twice, but without prejudice to the plaintiff(us).
> we have one more try before judge says give it up.


The case was only dismissed once, Richards first try at amending the case was denied, the court instructed him how to file the amendment.. 
Today's filing makes it the 3rd and final one.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm sure what they will do is just renew their motion to dismiss, reference the Judge's previous ruling and point out the lack of compliance on the factual issue.
> 
> But, once the issue of sufficiency has been raised, as here, the Judge can dismiss for failure to follow his direction without a filing by the Defendants.


He can, but given he was up until midnight trying to give direction on how to file WILL he, if there is a more responsive complaint already before him?

Assuming he doesn't accept the new narrower action.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> It just doesn't address the fraud and abuse at the conventions and putting that in, just as why we need the question clarified, even might be helpful.  But frankly, I just miss it because to ME that was what the case was mostly about.


Maybe it has been boiled down to simplicity. The RNC Attorney asserts that they can change the rules at any time as they see fit and that is in the record and in the mind of the Judge. So, do we need to prove that in St. Charles they changed the rules and announced that no recording devices were allowed, then threatened arrests, then proceeded with a false arrest. No need to even go there.
Again, the RNC Attorney assumes that party rules trumps Federal Law. RNC just needs to know that they are wrong and will follow Federal Law.

This is my own view and is NOT approved of by lawdiddly

----------


## libertylastchance

Steve is just giving his honest opinion.. it doesn't make him a "Romney supporter", it makes him a realistic person... facts are facts.. no time for candy coating.

----------


## sailingaway

> Steve is just giving his honest opinion.. it doesn't make him a "Romney supporter", it makes him a realistic person... facts are facts.. no time for candy coating.


His honest opinion would make it his honest opinion, not a fact.

However if we are going to act on his opinion we need to be fast about it.

----------


## libertylastchance

As much as everyone want this to be considered a "general", "federal" election no where is it stated that a National convention is a federal election.. if so can someone post that

----------


## sailingaway

> As much as everyone want this to be considered a "general", "federal" election no where is it stated that a National convention is a federal election.. if so can someone post that


that is precisely the question the court has been asked to decide, given the term DELEGATES is used in the statute in question.

Where else would a federal election as defined by the statute have delegates?


But my own liking for the case had more to do with the fraud aspects and I would have written the RNC part differently. I think they may have a right to set rules, at least where not expressly forbidden by the statute, but not to change them mid stream.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> As much as everyone want this to be considered a "general", "federal" election no where is it stated that a National convention is a federal election.. if so can someone post that


Read the arguments that Gilbert gave on the subject starting at about page 32 or 33 of the filing.

He tries to show that the RNC IS a federal election and does quite well at it.  It seems that's almost his entire argument.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway --

The reference to "Delegates" is not to party delegates.  It is talking about Delegates from the U.S. Territories being elected to Congress.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway --
> 
> The reference to "Delegates" is not to party delegates.  It is talking about Delegates from the U.S. Territories being elected to Congress.


thanks, I didn't read that part of the statute so I don't know.  I do agree with Clyde that he argues the law on that point, though, right or wrong.

So it boils down to do we want to get something else in in case the court will look at it and in case this isn't enough for the court?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

Quote Originally Posted by libertylastchance
    "As much as everyone want this to be considered a "general", "federal" election no where is it stated that a National convention is a federal election.. if so can someone post that"

With no research, just a guess, could it be a National Convention for the purposes to elect a Nominee to the National General Election for the Federal Offices of the President and Vice President of the United States.

----------


## sailingaway

> With no research, just a guess, could it be a National Convention for the purposes to elect a Nominee to the National General Election for the Federal Offices of the President and Vice President of the United States.


sounds like it fits.  And +rep and welcome to the forums!

By the way, apparently Santorum and Bachmann supporters don't want to be left out in the cold now. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/co...omney-campaign

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Okay, we have people saying "it's all a failure and no good".
Anyone in that crowd want to chime in on what the judge did want, other than non-specific "who did what when to who".
Like actually read his judgement and make specific comments on the things he alluded to in other cases such as Lopez?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> With no research, just a guess, could it be a National Convention for the purposes to elect a Nominee to the National General Election for the Federal Offices of the President and Vice President of the United States.


Yes.

----------


## RonRules

> Quote Originally Posted by libertylastchance
>     "As much as everyone want this to be considered a "general", "federal" election no where is it stated that a National convention is a federal election.. if so can someone post that"


That's the question in front of the judge now. It's never been asked before I guess.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> sounds like it fits.  And +rep and welcome to the forums!
> 
> By the way, apparently Santorum and Bachmann supporters don't want to be left out in the cold now. 
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/co...omney-campaign


Oh, crap, this could get interesting

----------


## RonRules

> I sent you a PM.


La-di-da conspiring with SteveT1736!

The next few posts will be interesting.

----------


## CPUd

> As much as everyone want this to be considered a "general", "federal" election no where is it stated that a National convention is a federal election.. if so can someone post that


I don't really go for gilbert spin, but he said the judge agreed that it was possible that a national convention was a federal election.  Something to that effect may be in the judge's order granting the motion to dismiss.  otherwise, it would be in the transcript from Aug 6.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

You can find Gilberts argument about the RNC being a federal election starting on page 27 (or 25 if using the original page number at the bottom) line 22 of the filing at https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6414717

----------


## JK/SEA

> That's the question in front of the judge now. It's never been asked before I guess.


They are intertwined. No?

----------


## devil21

Nobody here is going to change Gilbert's strategy so I don't see the point in throwing our own monkey wrenches into the process.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> They are intertwined. No?


Intertwined, yep, this stuff looks worse than wad of cords in the game machine controller cabinet.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Nobody here is going to change Gilbert's strategy so I don't see the point in throwing our own monkey wrenches into the process.


Nope, so now it will be interesting to see the judges reaction to this filing.

edit: we still do want to continue getting all the fraud evidence collected, collated and in a good common format, no?

----------


## sailingaway

> Nope, so now it will be interesting to see the judges reaction to this filing.
> 
> *edit: we still do want to continue getting all the fraud evidence collected, collated and in a good common format, no?*


yes.

----------


## CPUd

> Nobody here is going to change Gilbert's strategy so I don't see the point in throwing our own monkey wrenches into the process.


What I'm wondering is why did they go to all the trouble to get affidavits from delegates, then not use them?

He has mentioned filing an Appellate Writ, perhaps the strategy all along was to get it to Appeals Court.

----------


## devil21

Of course.  Continuing with the evidence gathering should continue.  At the very least it's a central repository of information if the RICO side of this miraculously moves forward at a later date.  It also helps future delegates to know what kind of tricks may be pulled on them in the future.  Never fail to record history!




> What I'm wondering is why did they go to all the trouble to get affidavits from delegates, then not use them?
> 
> He has mentioned filing an Appellate Writ, perhaps the strategy all along was to get it to Appeals Court.


Were these affidavits submitted to the court at all?  I don't know.  Don't forget that the judge has already read about much of the misconduct undertaken.  He can't rule on that at this point, legally, but he's not a robot with an erasable ROM that will forget everything he's read so far.  He's just handcuffed on how he can legally rule on it without it being blatantly overturned on appeal.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What I'm wondering is why did they go to all the trouble to get affidavits from delegates, then not use them?
> 
> He has mentioned filing an Appellate Writ, perhaps the strategy all along was to get it to Appeals Court.


Perhaps he saw he didn't have time to fulfill the judges requirements, so he went with a simpler strategy for now, a "throw ourselves at the mercy of the court" with valid arguments on the RNC being a federal election.  And, as I said earlier, he does seem to do a good job of it, to me.

----------


## sailingaway

> Perhaps he saw he didn't have time to fulfill the judges requirements, so he went with a simpler strategy for now, a "throw ourselves at the mercy of the court" with valid arguments on the RNC being a federal election.  And, as I said earlier, he does seem to do a good job of it, to me.


He had until Aug 20.  But it is what it is. We'll continue collecting facts and vetting them and put them into fact statements, then we will at least have a tool to use.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Perhaps he saw he didn't have time to fulfill the judges requirements, so he went with a simpler strategy for now, a "throw ourselves at the mercy of the court" with valid arguments on the RNC being a federal election.  And, as I said earlier, he does seem to do a good job of it, to me.


One reason I say this is that he removed the Federal Marshal protection request, which would have required him to show plausible/reasonable cause for concern of the delegates well being based on evidence.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I don't really go for gilbert spin, but he said the judge agreed that it was possible that a national convention was a federal election.  Something to that effect may be in the judge's order granting the motion to dismiss.  otherwise, it would be in the transcript from Aug 6.


Is not the Offices of the President and Vice President positions in the "Federal Government" ?

----------


## sailingaway

> One reason I say this is that he removed the Federal Marshal protection request, which would have required him to show plausible/reasonable cause for concern of the delegates well being based on evidence.


which we HAVE plenty of facts to support with LA and MO (and OK for that matter but I'm not sure I want to bring in two geezers punching our kids)

----------


## RonRules

> One reason I say this is that he removed the Federal Marshal protection request, which would have required him to show plausible/reasonable cause for concern of the delegates well being based on evidence.


What also puzzled me about this in that it was not in any of the judges's documents or said in the courtroom. It's like the judge called him up and told him he's not an army colonel and call the brigades.

----------


## libertylastchance

because even though he had affidavits, they were not sufficant, they did not contain when where who... , if the affidavits were clear, the RG failed to present each case in his filing of the who, where, when..

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> which we HAVE plenty of facts to support with LA and MO (and OK for that matter but I'm not sure I want to bring in two geezers punching our kids)


He may have read the thread here, and saw some of us saying that some of his "facts" were wrong, and thought he needed more time to make sure they were all correct before proceeding down that road.

Also, I don't know how tired, frustrated, etc.. he is right now.  Aug 20 is 11 days away, but it is also only 7 days from the RNC.  Would be cutting it close, and no time for any further arguments.

----------


## CPUd

> Is not the Offices of the President and Vice President positions in the "Federal Government" ?


Yeah, I think the judge said if it's properly presented, it's possible that he would consider that conventions can be seen as federal elections.

----------


## CPUd

> He may have read the thread here, and saw some of us saying that some of his "facts" were wrong, and thought he needed more time to make sure they were all correct before proceeding.
> 
> Also, I don't know how tired, frustrated, etc.. he is right now.  Aug 20 is 11 days away, but it is also only 7 days from the RNC.  Would be cutting it close, and no time for any further arguments.


If the court unbinds the delegates, it would make sense to do it as close to the convention as possible, since the defense will be scrambling to make an appeal.  Right now, they're probably reading his amended complaint and LOLing, we'll see how much they change their motion to dismiss, if they even file one.

----------


## kathy88

Way back in the beginning of all this he said his purpose was twofold. 1. Unbundle all delegates. 2. Racketeering charges against the RNC. This is only the first lawsuit.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If the court unbinds the delegates, it would make sense to do it as close to the convention as possible, since the defense will be scrambling to make an appeal.


If an appeal were made, would that put a hold on any judgement?  Maybe the appeal needs to happen before Tampa?

----------


## kathy88

Unbind. Damn autocorrect.

----------


## sailingaway

> If the court unbinds the delegates, it would make sense to do it as close to the convention as possible, since the defense will be scrambling to make an appeal.


To be honest, my first concern is to see the delegates seated and I thought the suit would focus attention on the fraud and abuse, pressuring the Credentials committee to play nice.


One good thing is that now Santorum/Bachmann supporters are sending letters to RNC delegates saying they aren't bound and should abstain from voting for Romney, I'm not sure Romney credentials committee will automatically see them as a better bet.

----------


## libertylastchance

the purpose is to get to the Federal election.. but is the nominating process in a Parties National Convention  a federal election... "voting at a convention" to pick a candidate to represent the party in a federal election... ??

----------


## CPUd

> If an appeal were made, would that put a hold on any judgement?  Maybe the appeal needs to happen before Tampa?


I'm guessing, but they may go for an injunction against the judge's order.  Reminds me of death penalty cases, waiting for a call from the red phone...

they can move fast when they need to.

----------


## sailingaway

> If an appeal were made, would that put a hold on any judgement?  Maybe the appeal needs to happen before Tampa?


Possibly.  I'd have to read the court's ruling again. There was something about insufficiency of some things that he might want to challenge as being intimidation in one of the articles, but I don't remember actually seeing it in the court opinion, but I read it on computer, I didn't print it out and examine it closely.

----------


## sailingaway

> the purpose is to get to the Federal election.. but is the nominating process in a Parties National Convention  a federal election... "voting at a convention" to pick a candidate to represent the party in a federal election... ??


actually, that is how I read it originally and that was persuasive to me then, when I was more immersed in the language.

----------


## jay_dub

> That is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> 
> Someone above asked why I hadn't posted sooner.  I applied for membership some time ago.  It took awhile to get approved.  Then, I really didn't have a chance to read everything until last night.


I'm not really buying this. Your join date is June 2012, so you've been a member for at least over a month and you said earlier you had been lurking prior to that. 

Now, the judge didn't hear any of this until Monday so all developments from that are new. However, since you've been lurking for a while and this seems to be the only thread you have an interest in, I'd surmise that you should have known what tack Gilbert was taking and certainly could have commented on it sooner. The initial complaint was filed in mid June and has been a matter of record. There has also been a video outlining the basis for the suit since that time. 

Had this suit been so flawed from the beginning, the obvious question is.....why didn't you comment on it earlier? Why the import now when it's already in motion? The only thing you are doing is much the same as Lawdiddle, only you claim more expertise.

Again...you have been a member for over a month, have been lurking for longer than that, should have been familiar with this case but only chose to comment now to say all is lost. Does that about sum it up?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> To be honest, my first concern is to see the delegates seated and I thought the suit would focus attention on the fraud and abuse, pressuring the Credentials committee to play nice.
> 
> 
> One good thing is that now Santorum/Bachmann supporters are sending letters to RNC delegates saying they aren't bound and should abstain from voting for Romney, I'm not sure Romney credentials committee will automatically see them as a better bet.


I think that right now, Gilbert wants all the delegates unbound, so that Romney can be stopped (no 1144).  He's going for the whole potato from what I have heard in the interviews.
1. Unbind all delegates
2. Get Ron an unedited speach
3. Others get into the fray (Palin, Santorum, etc)
4. Romney does not get 1144
5. Ron Paul gets 1500+

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not really buying this. Your join date is June 2012, so you've been a member for at least over a month and you said earlier you had been lurking prior to that. 
> 
> Now, the judge didn't hear any of this until Monday so all developments from that are new. However, since you've been lurking for a while and this seems to be the only thread you have an interest in, I'd surmise that you should have known what tack Gilbert was taking and certainly could have commented on it sooner. The initial complaint was filed in mid June and has been a matter of record. There has also been a video outlining the basis for the suit since that time. 
> 
> Had this suit been so flawed from the beginning, the obvious question is.....why didn't you comment on it earlier? Why the import now when it's already in motion? The only thing you are doing is much the same as Lawdiddle, only you claim more expertise.
> 
> Again...you have been a member for over a month, have been lurking for longer than that, should have been familiar with this case but only chose to comment now to say all is lost. Does that about sum it up?


Does it really matter? If lawdida knows him he might have asked him to step in.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Does it really matter? If lawdida knows him he might have asked him to step in.


Is lawdida a guy, or are you being male-chauvinistic?  ............................... j/k

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Yeah, I think the judge said if it's properly presented, it's possible that he would consider that conventions can be seen as federal elections.


Since there is no existing case law to use as authority, this will likely be at the mercy of the court. Attny Gilbert admits that this is uncharted territory but I believe they agree the jurisdiction and forum is correct to protect Voter Rights and that is supreme to party rules.
Tongue in cheek view of RNC, Hey Judgie-wudgie, yous guys go ahead, we (RNC) got our own rules, and we decide the ballots, besides Erik Withholder wont enforce your rulings anyways. :P

----------


## CPUd

Regarding people who say things we might not like:

Take it for what it's worth- over on places like dailypaul, it is either for or against.  Over here, there is for, against and all shades in between.

----------


## sailingaway

> Is lawdida a guy, or are you being male-chauvinistic?  ............................... j/k


I believe it is proper English when gender is unknown.

----------


## sailingaway

> Since there is no existing case law to use as authority, this will likely be at the mercy of the court. Attny Gilbert admits that this is uncharted territory but I believe they agree the jurisdiction and forum is correct to protect Voter Rights and that is supreme to party rules.
> Tongue in cheek view of RNC, Hey Judgie-wudgie, yous guys go ahead, we (RNC) got our own rules, and we decide the ballots, besides Erik Withholder wont enforce your rulings anyways. :P


Yeah, I wonder how that would play out, actually, in the next elections?

----------


## jay_dub

> Does it really matter? If lawdida knows him he might have asked him to step in.


In my mind, yes, it matters. I'm seeing nothing helpful from either of them and both have been members long enough to have known what was going forward. The actual complaint has been on record for nearly 2 months now. 

And I would ask you....step in for what??? To further denigrate a suit that he should have known about much earlier? To say, "Gilbert is going about this all wrong, but I'm too busy to get involved"?

Had either one of them spoken up even a couple of weeks ago, I would have a different opinion. However, given the timing of their interest, yes, I question the motivation.

----------


## CPUd

> Yeah, the downside being -- how would that play out, actually, in the next elections?


Probably like they did in PA, direct elections of delegates (or slates) on the primary ballot.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Infighting isn't going to solve anything.  

Is there anything we can do at this point to pick up the pieces?

----------


## sailingaway

a couple of ideas




> Do you think if someone gave and filed notice of request to intervene in some amicus fashion quickly, say Monday, appending a complaint with facts and at the same time asking Gilbert to add those facts as supplement to his filed complaint, given that the court gave him until August 20 to file, that this would be accepted or possibly persuade the court to allow another amendment, seeing the facts in front of him so he would know what was ABLE to be in the complaint?
> 
> I mean, I hope you are wrong about  the bare bones issue he did refile, but in a worst case scenario do you see merit in a firedrill to get an alternate complaint out in some fashion?





> What I want to do is have anyone who wants to get into 'oh no, we should have known' go to the Vent and talk about that. I want to keep the threads here constructive.  If there is sufficient support to hire an attorney I think that is something we should at least consider, or putting together a fact based statement and sending it to Gilbert so he has it all set out and can file it as a 'this is what I would like to amend it to say' in response to the next motion to dismiss.  Because the judge MIGHT be willing to allow an amendment if the amendment was in his hands already and he knew it wouldn't be futile.
> 
> But I think we should keep both possibilities open.
> 
> I re read the complaint and there ARE facts on the single issue now placed before the court. What I don't like is how little is placed before the court, and of course I can always second guess something someone else does.

----------


## CPUd

In this thread:

 - Discussion of case, and whether or not it will work
 - Determination made that there are not a lot of legal experts involved in the discussion
 - Call for more experts to join the discussion
 - Discussion is joined by members who claim legal experience
 - Said legal experts give unfavorable opinion on the validity of the complaint
 - Said legal experts are attacked and called troll workers




_______________

speaking of ballots, does anyone have a copy of the ballots used in the Nebraska and Montana conventions?

It may be of interest to show how some delegates were disenfranchised by the layout of the ballot.

----------


## sailingaway

> In this thread:
> 
>  - Discussion of case, and whether or not it will work
>  - Determination made that there are not a lot of legal experts involved in the discussion
>  - Call for more experts to join the discussion
>  - Discussion is joined by members who claim legal experience
>  - Said legal experts give unfavorable opinion on the validity of the complaint
>  - *Said legal experts are attacked and called troll workers*
> 
> ...


Not everyone called them trolls but they were both new to the forum, and both mysterious.

They might be right or wrong but others with 'legal experience' havent' been so black and white, and lawdida, who knows and possibly brought in the other guy already said he has been over at daily paul for some time trying to argue against this case.  He doesn't like it. So we are asking the opinion of the complaint from someone who really hates the suit and wants plaintiffs to withdraw, if that matters to your analysis.

But I don't know they are wrong. Also, I don't know what the result will be of hearing the case the way it is currently narrowed and framed.  But stopping it isn't a possibility I see in any event, influencing it might be, imho. Or not.  I honestly don't know, but that is what I think is worth discussing.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## CPUd

3D chess:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The 2nd Amended Complaint. If it seems the language is very similar...shhhhh! it is 3 dimensional chess
> 
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Next I shall file an Appellate Court action seeking to require the Judge to complete the case timely.
> 
> 
> 5h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Our Motion to Expedite the Case is now filed with the Court. The law requires the Court to complete the case in 10 days.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Exactly this. Gilbert has shown time and time again he is incompetent. 

I think we can get a lawyer who is well versed in federal court if we have a quick chip in, maybe a plea for help from a couple of the PACs or something. Let's get someone to *do it right.* Doesn't matter if they are "for liberty" or not....they can be paid to switch alliance.




> What I don't understand is why he isn't giving the judge what he said he needed.  The judge seems to be giving him all kinds of opportunities.  
> 
> Is anyone else frustrated?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

I don't think you're a troll, but I don't agree with you entirely. Yes, Gilbert is incompetent and has a pretty awful track record. That being said, his idea is a good one. A competent attorney could do a much better job (IMO.)

Of course, I welcome Gilbert to prove me wrong. I'd love to eat my words in this instance, but his past leaves a lot to be desired.




> For crying out loud! My membership is older than most in this thread. My DP account is nearly 5 years old as well.
> 
> I'm not an expert, but I do have a law degree.
> 
> I'm also very familiar with this case. I've read everything on pacer (over 400 pages IIRC), dozens and dozens of news articles about Gilbert and at least one other case he was involved in.

----------


## sailingaway

> For crying out loud! My membership is older than most in this thread. My DP account is nearly 5 years old as well.
> 
> I'm not an expert, but I do have a law degree.
> 
> I'm also very familiar with this case. I've read everything on pacer (over 400 pages IIRC), dozens and dozens of news articles about Gilbert and at least one other case he was involved in.


that may go to 'mysterious' but not to the fact that before you ever read this specific complaint you were dead set against the entire suit, which is my point.  If you hate a suit, you might be more inclined to one reading than another.  

I don't know you guys aren't accurate, but if you are, that only means we need to consider if we should get more facts into a complaint and in front of the judge, and you don't want to help with that, because you are against the suit.  

Do you think we should find that irrelevant to how we view your input?

----------


## sailingaway

> Exactly this. Gilbert has shown time and time again he is incompetent. 
> 
> I think we can get a lawyer who is well versed in federal court if we have a quick chip in, maybe a plea for help from a couple of the PACs or something. Let's get someone to *do it right.* Doesn't matter if they are "for liberty" or not...*.they can be paid to switch alliance*.


um, I believe that is called 'being retained' -- it isn't necessarily a bad thing, imho.

----------


## sailingaway

> 3D chess:
> 
> *USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Next I shall file an Appellate Court action seeking to require the Judge to complete the case timely.*


Oh, crap. How to piss off the judge who is trying to help you.




> *5h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Our Motion to Expedite the Case is now filed with the Court. The law requires the Court to complete the case in 10 days.*


And we all know the easiest way to do that.  I wish he hadn't done that.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Not everyone called them trolls but they were both new to the forum, and both mysterious.
> 
> They might be right or wrong but others with 'legal experience' havent' been so black and white, and lawdida, who knows and possibly brought in the other guy already said he has been over at daily paul for some time trying to argue against this case.  He doesn't like it. So we are asking the opinion of the complaint from someone who really hates the suit and wants plaintiffs to withdraw, if that matters to your analysis.
> 
> But I don't know they are wrong. Also, I don't know what the result will be of hearing the case the way it is currently narrowed and framed.  *But stopping it isn't a possibility I see in any event, influencing it might be, imho. Or not.  I honestly don't know, but that is what I think is worth discussing.*


And that's why the question; if they want to help, just let us know what can be done, not what they want to do, but what we can do at this point.  As in, can we "file notice of request to intervene in some amicus fashion"?

And some have even offered to help pay for services, perhaps just to point us in the right direction, which should not be terribly expensive.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> I can't speak for Steve, but my motives are to do what's best for the movement and follow Paul's lead.
> 
> Those are my motives. I don't want to see Gilbert's suit fail because I don't like the cut of his jib. I want to do away with a bad strategy.
> 
> And remember, I've tried to give you reasonable arguments instead of saying "take my word for it."


I'm not arguing you are a Romney troll, just that you were predisposed to want the suit to fail before you saw the complaint so it might have bearing on your evaluation of the complaint.

I'd love to have Perry Mason handling this, but he isn't, and the only way I can think of to get the plaintiffs elsewhere is to give them an alternative suit/complaint.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Oh, crap. How to piss off the judge who is trying to help you.
> 
> 
> 
> And we all know the easiest way to do that.  I wish he hadn't done that.


What's the saying, "Cut off your nose to spite your face"?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

My thoughts exactly when I read the first tweet. Please don't piss off the judge. Aye...




> Oh, crap. How to piss off the judge who is trying to help you.
> 
> 
> 
> And we all know the easiest way to do that.  I wish he hadn't done that.

----------


## SteveT1736

I think the critical mistake was suing too broadly.  You have to show wrongdoing by EACH individual plaintiff.  Filing against every state party was doomed to failure.  Even in the states with apparent wrongdoing, you have to show how specifically how the particular state party, not just individuals, was tied to individual acts.

The real flaw in Gilbert's complaint is that there is not even a glimmer that any particular defendant did anything on a specific date in a specific location.  That is deadly.

As I indicated above, the Court said this was the last chance.  Gilbert blew it today. My assumption (evidently flawed) was that he would follow the Judge's prompting and provide detailed factual allegations tied to his claims.  He didn't even try.  I suspect he has just given up.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think the critical mistake was suing too broadly.  You have to show wrongdoing by EACH individual plaintiff.  Filing against every state party was doomed to failure.  Even in the states with apparent wrongdoing, you have to show how specifically how the particular state party, not just individuals, was tied to individual acts.
> 
> The real flaw in Gilbert's complaint is that there is not even a glimmer that any particular defendant did anything on a specific date in a specific location.  That is deadly.
> 
> As I indicated above, the Court said this was the last chance.  Gilbert blew it today. My assumption (evidently flawed) was that he would follow the Judge's prompting and provide detailed factual allegations tied to his claims.  He didn't even try.  I suspect he has just given up.


So we need to bring facts together, if we don't have a federal practice attorney, take a stab at putting them into a complaint in hopes we will get a chance to get it before the judge with one in the next few days.  An attorney won't have much time to get up to speed if we do go that route and we need to have it together.  We do have people with legal training even if it isn't federal litigation expertise, and can at least make a start at a draft.

Amicus might be best if the judge hates Gilbert by now.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I think the critical mistake was suing too broadly.  You have to show wrongdoing by EACH individual plaintiff.  Filing against every state party was doomed to failure.  Even in the states with apparent wrongdoing, you have to show how specifically how the particular state party, not just individuals, was tied to individual acts.
> 
> The real flaw in Gilbert's complaint is that there is not even a glimmer that any particular defendant did anything on a specific date in a specific location.  That is deadly.
> 
> As I indicated above, the Court said this was the last chance.  Gilbert blew it today. My assumption (evidently flawed) was that he would follow the Judge's prompting and provide detailed factual allegations tied to his claims.  He didn't even try.  I suspect he has just given up.


So, you don't think his new approach of asking the judge if the GOP can make up any rules any time they want and then violate/change them any time they want when it involves the selection/election and voting of delegates in an election for nomination of a president has a chance of getting the result that he (Gilbert) is looking for (unbinding of delegates to vote their concience)?

----------


## CPUd

> I think the critical mistake was suing too broadly.  You have to show wrongdoing by EACH individual plaintiff.  Filing against every state party was doomed to failure.  Even in the states with apparent wrongdoing, you have to show how specifically how the particular state party, not just individuals, was tied to individual acts.
> 
> The real flaw in Gilbert's complaint is that there is not even a glimmer that any particular defendant did anything on a specific date in a specific location.  That is deadly.
> 
> As I indicated above, the Court said this was the last chance.  Gilbert blew it today. My assumption (evidently flawed) was that he would follow the Judge's prompting and provide detailed factual allegations tied to his claims.  He didn't even try.  I suspect he has just given up.


Or he's decided to base the entire complaint on what the RNC counsel said in court :




> Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention commencing August 27, 2012.
> 
> Rather, Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the Laws of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants choose.  Defendants have represented this position to this Federal Court on August 6, 2012, on the record in argument.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway --  I think I pointed out above that there is no such thing as an "amicus complaint".  Amicus briefs are documents supporting the legal arguments of parties.  They require court approval or party agreement before being filed.

An outside filing now can't correct the fact that Mr. Gilbert has utterly failed to plead sufficient facts to allow his lawsuit to proceed.  It is an absolute requirement that a plaintiff's complaint meet the minimum standards for factual sufficiency.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway --  I think I pointed out above that there is no such thing as an "amicus complaint".  Amicus briefs are documents supporting the legal arguments of parties.  They require court approval or party agreement before being filed.
> 
> An outside filing now can't correct the fact that Mr. Gilbert has utterly failed to plead sufficient facts to allow his lawsuit to proceed.  It is an absolute requirement that a plaintiff's complaint meet the minimum standards for factual sufficiency.


IF the court wants to they have a lot of discretion, and that is why I wish Gilbert weren't so testing the judge's good will.  IF a third party filed facts and affidavits (regardless of if thrown out) that piqued the court's curiousity and made him feel someone else might do a better job with the complaint he might give court approval to intervene.  Can't people intervene?  If we have one more delegate, can't we?

You are ignoring how much the court CAN do IF it wants to.  I understand it would need to entice the judge but he put in long hours late at night because he felt there was something there, and while he may be getting sick of Gilbert I think he might want to give the CASE a chance if it looked like the facts were actually there for a complaint.   Gilbert preemptively filing a complaint amendment or asking leave to supplement would be best but given what he has just done, I don't hold my breath for it. I just want someone with federal trial experience who DOESN'T want the case to die to comment on what can be done and the state of the case, overall.

----------


## jay_dub

After reading the amended complaint, it seems that Gilbert is asking the court to have the RNC notify all delegates that, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, all delegates are free to vote as they see fit. It's a narrow ruling that he's asking for, but with broad implications.

It reminds me of the privacy notices we've all received from credit card companies. They state what your rights are under the Privacy Act. A ruling in Gilbert's favor would put the same onus on political parties to notify delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act if the judge agrees with Gilbert's interpretation. 

One thing I noticed is that Jennifer Sheehan, in her letter to Nancy Lord, states that a candidate must have a majority from 5 states to be put into nomination. I have heard that it needs to be a plurality, not a majority, from 5 states.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle 
"What I don't understand is why he isn't giving the judge what he said he needed. The judge seems to be giving him all kinds of opportunities.
Is anyone else frustrated?"

Popeye: Oh, what am I? Some kind of barnicle on the dinghy of life? Oh, I ain't no doctors, but I knows that I'm losing me patience. What am I? Some kind of judge or lawyers? Maybe not, but I knows what law suitks me

I wish I could have been in the courtroom Monday evening to hear the final arguments and see the body language and The Judge's reaction to the RNC lawyer when he claims the rights to whims of RNC rule changing. There is more to it than what we can see from here.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> After reading the amended complaint, it seems that Gilbert is asking the court to have the RNC notify all delegates that, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, all delegates are free to vote as they see fit. It's a narrow ruling that he's asking for, but with broad implications.
> 
> It reminds me of the privacy notices we've all received from credit card companies. They state what your rights are under the Privacy Act. A ruling in Gilbert's favor would put the same onus on political parties to notify delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act if the judge agrees with Gilbert's interpretation. 
> 
> One thing I noticed is that Jennifer Sheehan, in her letter to Nancy Lord, states that a candidate must have a majority from 5 states to be put into nomination. I have heard that it needs to be a plurality, not a majority, from 5 states.


there was a rule change since 2008 making it a plurality.  But in our states we have a majority, anyhow, unless credentials committee pulls outrageous shenanigans and we don't have enough altogether.

----------


## SteveT1736

Don't over-read the Judge's direction to amend.  Under federal case law, on a motion to dismiss, that must be granted once as a right.

Reread the Judge's decision.  He thinks Gilbert's complaint was poorly done and told him specifically what was necessary to avoid dismissal -- specific, detailed and concrete facts tied to the claims.  There is no justification -- none -- for failing to follow that direction.

The legal arguments about binding, etc. are utterly and completely irrelevant.  The Plaintiffs' complaint is insufficient.  The only version before the Court is now the current one (previous versions are wiped out by an amendment).  I challenge anyone to find any incident in the new complaint where anyone of the Defendants on any specific date did anything that was a violation of federal law.  It isn't there.  That is why the next step is dismissal with prejudice -- which means it is over.

By the way, these standards are virtually identical to those required in state court.  This is a question of basic competency.

----------


## sailingaway

> Don't over-read the Judge's direction to amend.  Under federal case law, on a motion to dismiss, that must be granted once as a right.
> 
> Reread the Judge's decision.  He thinks Gilbert's complaint was poorly done and told him specifically what was necessary to avoid dismissal -- specific, detailed and concrete facts tied to the claims.  There is no justification -- none -- for failing to follow that direction.
> 
> The legal arguments about binding, etc. are utterly and completely irrelevant.  The Plaintiffs' complaint is insufficient.  The only version before the Court is now the current one (previous versions are wiped out by an amendment).  I challenge anyone to find any incident in the new complaint where anyone of the Defendants on any specific date did anything that was a violation of federal law.  It isn't there.  That is why the next step is dismissal with prejudice -- which means it is over.
> 
> By the way, these standards are virtually identical to those required in state court.  This is a question of basic competency.


the complaint asks a ruling on whether the act applies to the RNC.  The complaint refers to the attorney's on the record statement (fact) saying the act does not apply to the RNC.  Then the complaint argues law.

I would like a lot more facts on the multistate pattern and practice of fraud and abuse shutting out Ron Paul delegates, but even if he acted incompetently, and it doesn't fly, that only BRINGS US to the question of what we'd do.  Clearly, the court doesn't have to let anything happen but the court didn't have to stay up to midnight getting his ruling out with mega detail to help Gilbert on the complaint either.  I notice you don't say the court is UNABLE to allow another amendment, and I am discussing what might make the court want to do so.

But that is where asking someone who doesn't hate the case to look at it comes in.

----------


## jay_dub

> there was a rule change since 2008 making it a plurality.  But in our states we have a majority, anyhow, unless credentials committee pulls outrageous shenanigans and we don't have enough altogether.


Thanks, but that was really an aside to the rest of my post.

Using the Privacy Act as an analogy, Gilbert may just be asking the court to order the RNC to inform the delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act. Using this approach, no wrongdoing needs to be proved. Again, using the Privacy Act analogy, no company has to be shown to be violating it to be required to notify its customers of their rights.

So long as the judge agrees that the VRA supercedes any party rules or state laws, it is merely a formality to require notification. 

At least that's my read on it. It's like he's chosen the path of least resistance.

----------


## sailingaway

> Thanks, but that was really an aside to the rest of my post.
> 
> Using the Privacy Act as an analogy, Gilbert may just be asking the court to order the RNC to inform the delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act. Using this approach, no wrongdoing needs to be proved. Again, using the Privacy Act analogy, no company has to be shown to be violating it to be required to notify its customers of their rights.
> 
> So long as the judge agrees that the VRA supercedes any party rules or state laws, it is merely a formality to require notification. 
> 
> At least that's my read on it. It's like he's chosen the path of least resistance.


I agree that is what his intent seems to be.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway --  A fact is something a Defendant did to a Plaintiff.  A statement of a legal position is not wrongdoing by definition.

Assume that I state in Court that it is my client's position that contracts are voidable with respect to parties over 50.  Would that allow for a lawsuit?  No.  A Plaintiff could only sue if my client failed to honor a specific contract of someone over 50.  Then, they could sue for that specific act.

Courts don't deal with hypothetical situations.  They deal with concrete wrongs.  Again, look through the amended complaint and identify one specific situation with a specific date and location where a specific Defendant did something of legal consequence to a specific Plaintiff.  You won't find one.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## jay_dub

> sailingaway --  A fact is something a Defendant did to a Plaintiff.  A statement of a legal position is not wrongdoing by definition.
> 
> Assume that I state in Court that it is my client's position that contracts are voidable with respect to parties over 50.  Would that allow for a lawsuit?  No.  A Plaintiff could only sue if my client failed to honor a specific contract of someone over 50.  Then, they could sue for that specific act.
> 
> Courts don't deal with hypothetical situations.  They deal with concrete wrongs.  Again, look through the amended complaint and identify one specific situation with a specific date and location where a specific Defendant did something of legal consequence to a specific Plaintiff.  You won't find one.


While the hypothetical you laid out may not be grounds to sue for damages, the fact of having such a policy could be challenged if there is an over-arching law that prevents you from having such a contract clause. Could you not be made to notify your customers of any change in policy resulting from such a challenge? That seems to be the crux of what Gilbert is asking for, though it is not neatly laid out.

----------


## eleganz

Did you guys take a look at the amended complaint yet.

http://electionfraudremedy.com/2nd_a...lant_4DJIR.pdf

----------


## ClydeCoulter

The question is that of binding and that of an action in the future.  How do we approach this?  The current harm to the delegates is the binding, but that is in reference to a future act.

The case that SteveT referenced earlier (sample VRA case) delt with voting in the past of a county that amended the state constitution.

We are dealing with a threat to the freedom to vote in the future, binding.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Did you guys take a look at the amended complaint yet.
> 
> http://electionfraudremedy.com/2nd_a...lant_4DJIR.pdf


Yes, I read it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I think the only "help" we might be to the current complaint is adding more concrete evidence to how binding threatens the delegates ability to vote freely.

Plantiffs are the Who is harmed.
Defendants are the Who are causing the harm.
Binding is the what is being done to Plantiffs by Defendants.
When is 2008 to present, during the rules committe and voting on the rules.

is this a start?

----------


## CPUd

> By MATT REYNOLDS
> 
> SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) - A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing the Republican establishment of thwarting Ron Paul's bid for the party's presidential nomination, but left the door open for an amended complaint.
> 
> U.S. District Judge David Carter rejected allegations by delegates to the Republican National Convention and other Paul supporters that the party establishment used underhanded tactics to undermine Paul's bid to secure the nomination.
> 
> Though he found their claims vague and mostly unintelligible, he gave them a "third and final opportunity" to amend their complaint.
> Paul's supporters had claimed that the Republican National Committee and state GOP operatives violated the Voting Rights Act by misusing state bylaws, threatening voters, and using election fraud to prevent voters and delegates from casting their votes for the libertarian icon.
> 
> ...


http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/09/49160.htm

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/09/49160.htm


See, I knew they were going to mention that (the same law Paul voted against reauthorizing six years ago) since it was stated in the dismissal by the judge.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Any comments on post #1128?  I'm trying to get a ball rolling, but first need a ball

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway --  A fact is something a Defendant did to a Plaintiff.  A statement of a legal position is not wrongdoing by definition.
> 
> Assume that I state in Court that it is my client's position that contracts are voidable with respect to parties over 50.  Would that allow for a lawsuit?  No.  A Plaintiff could only sue if my client failed to honor a specific contract of someone over 50.  Then, they could sue for that specific act.
> 
> Courts don't deal with hypothetical situations.  They deal with concrete wrongs.  Again, look through the amended complaint and identify one specific situation with a specific date and location where a specific Defendant did something of legal consequence to a specific Plaintiff.  You won't find one.


If you were suing only for the determination of the specific federal question of whether contracts were voidable for those over 50 that the attorney for the other side stated their legal belief to the contrary, prior to an event where your rights would be irrevocably damaged if your contract were voided, it might.  But I don't know because I am not a federal litigator whether it is sufficient pleading.  Regardless, the parts of the case that were more attractive to me personally involved the multistate pattern and practice of fraud and abuse to disenfranchise Ron Paul delegates.  So I would like to see that in there.  But you aren't trying to help fix it, you are trying to get people to give up, and didn't like the suit before you ever saw the complaint.  

It isn't like we can erase what Gilbert is doing.  We would like it better directed and we would like some representation of the interests of the delegates who are plaintiffs who didn't have someone to represent them.

So our discussion should be about if there is a way to get that here, and just tearing down what has already been filed, without statements how to fix it, is not helpful.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think the only "help" we might be to the current complaint is adding more concrete evidence to how binding threatens the delegates ability to vote freely.
> 
> Plantiffs are the Who is harmed.
> Defendants are the Who are causing the harm.
> Binding is the what is being done to Plantiffs by Defendants.
> When is 2008 to present, during the rules committe and voting on the rules.
> 
> is this a start?


It is a start to what Gilbert is getting at, I think, because you are right, this is more declaratory judgement than suit for damages for past acts, past acts are relevant mostly to show the PROCLIVITY of defendents to act badly thereby giving rise to the need for the declaratory judgment and the statement by the attorney is what Gilbert is using instead, to show that proclivity.

MY complaint would be more like, there is a pattern and practice of fraud and abuse over the states generally, 'as demonstrated by acts including without limitation to' and specify Louisiana, Oregon, maybe the initial Missouri caucus in St Charles, Maine and Colorado with the fake slates and the payments by the Romney campaign to the guy who passed those slates, alleging also that the RNC and Romney campaign were acting in an intertwined fashion, note the letters coming to Maine from Boston, the 'victory fund' and 'nominee' stuff, etc. Then I'd say that because of that we have reason to believe they may cheat again in credentials determinations and lay out the cases for our delegates, 

....and my view would be that the RNC rules aren't 'irrelevant' but that once they as a contract are accepted by people participating in their primary over another to lead to the National Convention, to change those rules to keep delegates duly elected from voting after all contests are over is impermissible.  That leaves the 'association' issue it is saying they COULD have framed their association differently but they didn't.  It would be saying there is a point where it is disenfranchisement to unilaterally deny duly elected delegates where fraud and abuse has been perpetrated against them in the delegate process under the rules they chose to begin with.

That may not be very clear because I am getting a bit tired at this point, and I'm trying to work on something else at the same time, but it is the response I can give to that post tonight.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> This comment is borderline insulting. I am not attempting to sabotage this case because I think it's the wrong strategy, and I certainly am able to reason objectively.


That doesn't have bearing on what I said.




> Steve hasn't even said he's against the strategy. He's just giving you his honest opinion about how things have gone and how they'll turn out. I don't recall him saying it shouldn't have been one case in federal court, regardless of  who's handling it (my position).


But when I assumed it in my posts, he didn't deny it, either.

----------


## CPUd

Righteous mutiny - RPF is taking over the lawsuit.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> The question is that of binding and that of an action in the future.  How do we approach this?  The current harm to the delegates is the binding, but that is in reference to a future act.
> 
> The case that SteveT referenced earlier (sample VRA case) delt with voting in the past of a county that amended the state constitution.
> 
> We are dealing with a threat to the freedom to vote in the future, binding.


Hasn't this case always been about "Guidance" going forward. The Federal Court's opinion of freedom to vote conscience without coercion or intimidation and the protection Federal Law verses RNC Rules on the matter of voter rights. Binding votes verses freedom to abstain or vote conscience.
Does fraud and all the other allegations really matter if it is considered, as Gilbert pointed out, that RNC Attorney is on record (evident) that RNC believes they can follow, change, abandon and/or break their own rules to effect the outcome of the election process for the Offices of the President and Vice President of the United States. We know the media supports the positions of the RNC. The question is, does the Federal Court see it differently.
On record, The RNC prefers their own methods with out regard to existing Federal Law. I see that as thumbing the nose at the Judge. Judges don't like that and that might be what comes into play with allowing the new amended complaint. Maybe there was a wink and a nod that we were unable to see.

----------


## sailingaway

> At this juncture, the most productive thing that can be done is to try to get the suit withdrawn. If it's too late for that, then it's too late to do anything else to help this case. 
> 
> Then, try to get delegates who have been wronged (and can prove it) to bring their claims in their respective states (too late for the RNC) using competent counsel.
> 
> Remember: Free something isn't always better than nothing. We're beginning to see evidence of that in this case.
> 
> This is my proposal for a fix and not a tear-down of what has already occurred.


How is withdrawing not a tear down?

The point is this, we can't withdraw what Gilbert already filed.  We might be able to influence it.  So withdraw isn't a workable solution.  If I were the only plaintiff I might file with a different attorney-- although to be honest, I think I do not agree it should be in multiple states because that dulls the truly shocking multistate impact of the pattern and practice of fraud and abuse across the nation imho.  It is as if they COUNT on being able to do it, and where they were most succesful they get away with it because then we don't HAVE delegates to argue about having them seat.  That is kind of frustrating, and it being in federal court allows it to be addressed.   But no one here is saying with an unfiled case 'go out and hire this guy', we already have him, and can't unilaterally stop him. We may know plaintiffs who can influence him but since other plaintiffs are also involved, I don't see a practical way that withdrawal could occur even if we wanted it to.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Hasn't this case always been about "Guidance" going forward. The Federal Court's opinion of freedom to vote conscience without coercion or intimidation and the protection Federal Law verses RNC Rules on the matter of voter rights. Binding votes verses freedom to abstain or vote conscience.
> Does fraud and all the other allegations really matter if it is considered, as Gilbert pointed out, that RNC Attorney is on record (evident) that RNC believes they can follow, change, abandon and/or break their own rules to effect the outcome of the election process for the Offices of the President and Vice President of the United States. We know the media supports the positions of the RNC. The question is, does the Federal Court see it differently.
> On record, The RNC prefers their own methods with out regard to existing Federal Law. I see that as thumbing the nose at the Judge. Judges don't like that and that might be what comes into play with allowing the new amended complaint. Maybe there was a wink and a nod that we were unable to see.


Yes, and this has been the main focus for Gilbert all along.  Getting "guidance" from the court on the whether the delegates are lawfully unbound to vote their concience.  That would mean that no candidate has any delegates until the delegates vote at the convention.  Then, it gets interesting for Ron Paul.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

ClydeCoulter,
Finally, I think we are on the same page. I spent waaay to much time arguing with lawdidly over at DP. http://www.dailypaul.com/246589/rich...omment-2660514

lawdidly wants to use the wrecking ball - very negative

If we had a transcript of the proceedings we would have the proper feel for this.
BTW, Gilbert says that he is filing in parallel in another court as a backup. Have you any news on that?

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Yes, and this has been the main focus for Gilbert all along.  Getting "guidance" from the court on the whether the delegates are lawfully unbound to vote their concience.  That would mean that no candidate has any delegates until the delegates vote at the convention.  Then, it gets interesting for Ron Paul.


Rmoney would have zero bound delegates. Presumptuous Rominee not Presumptive Nominee. At this point there is NO nominee. The fan actually hit the burrito back in April when RNC Chair Broke/Abandoned Rule 11. That is when this suit should have started. THE RNC MANIPULATES RULES TO EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - A kin to electioneering? They don't deny it. They proclaim it. I think the Judge is aware of all of this.

----------


## RickyJ

I read the filed comlaint, I don't see much wrong with it. I think this complaint has a good chance of being accepted. Also I think Steve does not understand, or did not really read this complaint. Weather he is really a lawyer or not he is not helping us so I would take everything he has to say with a grain of salt. I think we will win this case.

----------


## WhistlinDave

I've been really busy the last couple days so I've probably missed a lot.  But in reading the amended complaint, it looks to me like Gilbert has basically stripped this lawsuit down to a bare basic minimum, relying heavily on the arguments of the GOP's attorney Bell from Monday, instead of any specific allegation(s) of wrongdoing, in order to compel the court to answer the question and notify all delegates of their freedom to vote their conscience.

I'm not sure if I agree with the strategy, because anything could happen.  But on the one hand, the amended complaint does seem to allege with specificity the fact that the party has already selected Romney as the nominee, and are expecting delegates to vote that way, when in fact Romney is not yet the nominee...

It's a really interesting gamble.  I was there in court and I saw the back and forth between the judge and the GOP attorney regarding whether the GOP feels they are completely outside of the law when it comes to ANYTHING they want to do while selecting the nominee, INCLUDING BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES, AND/OR CHANGING THEM AT THE LAST MINUTE, EVEN WHEN THIS DISENFRANCHISES MEMBERS OF THE PARTY who are operating under those rules.

Perhaps since the judge already stated there would be no time to hear a whole case based on the sheer number of incidents alleged, maybe Gilbert said "Let's just take this down to the very core of the issue.  Is it or is it not a Federal election, and are these Delegates free to vote their conscience or not?"  Why get bogged down in all the details and all the specifics when there isn't time to prove any of that anyway before obtaining injunctive relief?

I don't know, the more I'm thinking about it the more I think he might be onto something.  Instead of worrying about all the bad stuff done so far, let's just look at what the law says, and please tell us judge, does the party have to follow the law or not?

The only major problem I can foresee is that the judge wishes to steer clear of the Constitutional issue invoked here (1st Amendment Freedom to Associate) and Gilbert seems to have ignored the judge's direction to find a way to approach this that doesn't force a determination that is necessarily bound up in that question of Constitutionality.  Based on that, this amended complaint may fail.  I'm sure if Romney ends up NOT being the nominee, this judge doesn't want to be in the middle of a firestorm with the GOP appealing his decision and claiming now the convention is invalid because their constitutional rights were violated, and then the whole general election is held up, or who knows how the hell this would play out.  

It's a really sticky situation and would've been nice if Gilbert had included at least a few states, the most horrifying examples of abuses, so that at least the judge would have some compelling reason as to why the plaintiffs need the court to intervene with an injunction.

I really can't call it either way.  Reading the amended complaint, it seems like Gilbert has made this less about wrongdoing and more about just answering the question.  I just don't know if the court will want to do #2 without feeling some compelling reason to, based on #1, though.

I only hope the judge was as disgusted as I was to hear that GOP attorney say the party leadership can do whatever the hell they want and don't even have to stick to their own rules.  Even then, Gilbert may be asking too much by diving head-on into the Constitutional issue at hand without specifically showing some heinous violation of the law has occurred.  I'm really not sure if this is good.  And yet part of me thinks maybe it might work.

It might all depend on whether this judge has really really big balls, big enough balls to do the right thing.

----------


## shoshanshopon

I am not a lawyer...but the question that comes to my mind after reading the latest filing is what exactly are we complaining about in this "complaint"? I think that is what Steve was trying to point out. Then again...I am not a lawyer.




> I read the filed comlaint, I don't see much wrong with it. I think this complaint has a good chance of being accepted. Also I think Steve does not understand, or did not really read this complaint. Weather he is really a lawyer or not he is not helping us so I would take everything he has to say with a grain of salt. I think we will win this case.

----------


## jay_dub

> I've been really busy the last couple days so I've probably missed a lot.  But in reading the amended complaint, it looks to me like Gilbert has basically stripped this lawsuit down to a bare basic minimum, relying heavily on the arguments of the GOP's attorney Bell from Monday, instead of any specific allegation(s) of wrongdoing, in order to compel the court to answer the question and notify all delegates of their freedom to vote their conscience.
> 
> I'm not sure if I agree with the strategy, because anything could happen.  But on the one hand, the amended complaint does seem to allege with specificity the fact that the party has already selected Romney as the nominee, and are expecting delegates to vote that way, when in fact Romney is not yet the nominee...
> 
> It's a really interesting gamble.  I was there in court and I saw the back and forth between the judge and the GOP attorney regarding whether the GOP feels they are completely outside of the law when it comes to ANYTHING they want to do while selecting the nominee, INCLUDING BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES, AND/OR CHANGING THEM AT THE LAST MINUTE, EVEN WHEN THIS DISENFRANCHISES MEMBERS OF THE PARTY who are operating under those rules.
> 
> Perhaps since the judge already stated there would be no time to hear a whole case based on the sheer number of incidents alleged, maybe Gilbert said "Let's just take this down to the very core of the issue.  Is it or is it not a Federal election, and are these Delegates free to vote their conscience or not?"  Why get bogged down in all the details and all the specifics when there isn't time to prove any of that anyway before obtaining injunctive relief?
> 
> I don't know, the more I'm thinking about it the more I think he might be onto something.  Instead of worrying about all the bad stuff done so far, let's just look at what the law says, and please tell us judge, does the party have to follow the law or not?
> ...


I was alluding to pretty much the same thought when I posted this.




> Using the Privacy Act as an analogy, Gilbert may just be asking the court to order the RNC to inform the delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act. Using this approach, no wrongdoing needs to be proved. Again, using the Privacy Act analogy, no company has to be shown to be violating it to be required to notify its customers of their rights.
> 
> So long as the judge agrees that the VRA supercedes any party rules or state laws, it is merely a formality to require notification.
> 
> At least that's my read on it. It's like he's chosen the path of least resistance.


There are other examples of this, such as the Fair Housing Act, Fair Lending Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act and others where notification of rights must be given. Gilbert's linchpin seems to be the Voting Rights Act superceding any party rules or state laws. If the judge agrees with that, requiring notification of those rights to all delegates would not be unique. Of course, this would be huge and would affect all political parties. It would re-shape the whole process going forward. It also is likely the only way to get a decision before the convention as it doesn't require proof of wrongdoing on anyone's part. 

The judge may well be disgusted with the impunity of the party bosses and decide it's high time to apply the VRA to the nominating process.

----------


## CPUd

> The only major problem I can foresee is that the judge wishes to steer clear of the Constitutional issue invoked here (1st Amendment Freedom to Associate) and Gilbert seems to have ignored the judge's direction to find a way to approach this that doesn't force a determination that is necessarily bound up in that question of Constitutionality.  Based on that, this amended complaint may fail.  I'm sure if Romney ends up NOT being the nominee, this judge doesn't want to be in the middle of a firestorm with the GOP appealing his decision and claiming now the convention is invalid because their constitutional rights were violated, and then the whole general election is held up, or who knows how the hell this would play out.


Yes, because if he rules the delegates are unbound, they could technically nominate someone like Hillary at the DNC.  By 2016, they will have had time to lock it back down, but now there are states like Texas who will probably be unbound in 2016 because they want to be a factor in the primary process.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, what about abstaining?  We know if they try to do it, the chair for the delegation will probably enter their votes for them, but could this action prevent that from happening?

----------


## freedomordeath

> but I really liked all the other stuff about broken bones and fraud etc being in front of media as the credentials committee looks at our delegates. THEY HAVE TO BE SEATED BEFORE THEY CAN VOTE is kinda, my issue. The new complaint to those who DON'T know the facts could be read as more 'in your face' without giving the very reasonable reason why delegates felt driven to do this. As a PR and media document it is not as good as it could be, if nothing else.





> I think it's better to have a favorable ruling on a narrow question than an unfavorable one on a scattershot approach. A win is a win. If Gilbert succeeds, then our side can put our own spin on it. The media will take notice then. They won't take notice of a failed lawsuit, no matter what is contained in it.


We must do both, those bastards must hang. Next time team Mitt sends a message to their goons to do x y & z, those goons might be a bit more reluctant when facing jail time. If I was working RNC and the dude I replaced was sitting in jail for 5 years in a criminal conspiracy, then if I got orders from the next NWO puppet, I would tell him to go take a hike or if I was asked to vote flipp I would phone the police.... see how that works.

Lets wait and be patient and see how this plays out otherwise we chip in for a lawyer. I agree with Sailing we carry on and gets facts and build this case, IT WILL DO NO HARM.

----------


## devil21

> He's also entered into the record that in 2008 the RNC recognized a delegate to vote his concience (for McCain) per the Voting Rights Act.  And he wants all delegates served with notice that they are free at all times to vote their concience per the VRA (page 34(1-4)).


Hate to say it but I think he got that situation backwards.  Wasn't it the Utah delegate that wanted to vote for Romney but was bound to McCain?  That's why the RNC opinion was originally so funny.  Romney could very well lose his "bindings" based on a Mormon delegate in 2008 bucking the system.

----------


## freedomordeath

> I'm not really buying this. Your join date is June 2012, so you've been a member for at least over a month and you said earlier you had been lurking prior to that.
> 
> Now, the judge didn't hear any of this until Monday so all developments from that are new. However, since you've been lurking for a while and this seems to be the only thread you have an interest in, I'd surmise that you should have known what tack Gilbert was taking and certainly could have commented on it sooner. The initial complaint was filed in mid June and has been a matter of record. There has also been a video outlining the basis for the suit since that time.
> 
> Had this suit been so flawed from the beginning, the obvious question is.....why didn't you comment on it earlier? Why the import now when it's already in motion? The only thing you are doing is much the same as Lawdiddle, only you claim more expertise.
> 
> Again...you have been a member for over a month, have been lurking for longer than that, should have been familiar with this case but only chose to comment now to say all is lost. Does that about sum it up?


LOL.. he may be the judge trying to help us from an internet cafe. 

I love Ron Paul supporters absoluately love you guys, you guys question everything, I mean everything and trust no one, thats why this movement rocks. And Steve if you genuine then don't take it personally, you are being vetted and Ron Paulers are like lions, don't make sudden movements esp when they hungry.

----------


## Barrex

> Did you guys take a look at the amended complaint yet.
> 
> http://electionfraudremedy.com/2nd_a...lant_4DJIR.pdf


 Hm... Interesting.



> At this juncture, the most productive thing that can be done is to try to get the suit withdrawn. If it's too late for that, then it's too late to do anything else to help this case. 
> 
> Then, try to get delegates who have been wronged (and can prove it) to bring their claims in their respective states (too late for the RNC) using competent counsel.
> 
> Remember: Free something isn't always better than nothing. We're beginning to see evidence of that in this case.
> 
> This is my proposal for a fix and not a tear-down of what has already occurred.


You are disgusting. You are here on this forum and you know that 2 people went to that court hearing and that they said that "The RNC lawyer indicted himself when forced to answer to the judge that he indeed breaks his own party rules." any yet you attack people on dailypaul who quote those 2 people and keep saying prove it....You are calling them liars.



> Submitted by lawdida on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 18:32. Permalink
> I can understand WHY DNC/Obama trolls would promote this lawsuit.So,go ahead an vote this comment up.


Anyone who doesnt agree with you is a troll and Obama supporter? 

You are petty little, pathetic, lying person. Stop lying. Stop trolling (first time I used this word but since you use it it is "fair game").
Any understanding and compassion I had for you is gone  and I rarely give - rep but you deserve more than just one.
*- rep

*

----------


## RonRules

> One thing that hasn't been mentioned, what about abstaining?  We know if they try to do it, the chair for the delegation will probably enter their votes for them, but could this action prevent that from happening?


Yes abstaining certainly should be a right, but it's not spelled out anywhere. With the latest "Jews and Christians Together," backed by Santorum, if they gain traction and lead evangelicals to abstain, Romney has no chance.

That issue definitely should have been part of the "question".

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## ATXRevolutionary

> *So where is the lie?* The following quote did not appear anywhere on this site until you posted it: 
> 
> "The RNC lawyer indicted himself when forced to answer to the judge that he indeed breaks his own party rules."


If you listen to the post-ruling interview with Gilbert here he explains in detail what occurred: http://electionfraudremedy.com/audio...ow_3595911.mp3

Basically the judge asked the RNC lawyer in several different ways if the RNC is bound by their own rules and the lawyer kept talking around the question until he was forced to admit that they aren't bound by their own rules at all.  Gilbert said the judge was clearly taken aback.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> Basically the judge asked the RNC lawyer in several different ways if the RNC is bound by their own rules and the lawyer kept talking around the question until he was forced to admit that they aren't bound by their own rules at all.  Gilbert said the judge was clearly taken aback.



This is one reason I was saying I would like the complaint to specify that they CHOSE how to associate and when people came in they came in with specific rules promised and their breaking those rules is impermissible rather than saying the RNC rules are just generically irrelevant and federal law is ALL that governs.  That is in the argument, not the facts, so I don't think it is at this moment dispositive and can be fixed but I would focus more on the  breaking rules AFTER THE CARDS ARE ALL PLAYED.  My point is I want our delegates seated and the fraud exposed and trumpeted by media to put pressure on the credentials committee.  If they aren't, the unbinding is much less helpful in any event.  

However, I can't say Gilbert's complaint doesn't do what GILBERT wants.  That I'd have to wait for the judge's ruling to find out.  But if we wait for that, and it loses, it might be all over and too late to fix the complaint. The idea and possibility I saw was that if the judge was aware a more fact driven complaint existed, so he wasn't just futily giving opportunity after opportunity to amend to someone who just wasn't getting facts in (if that is how he feels) he might give another amendment. I can't read his mind, but he spent a lot of time trying to help Gilbert frame his complaint.  Instead, Gilbert sort of stripped the suit to the one place he felt the judge already agreed with him, which is one strategy.  I just like the other strategy better.

----------


## sailingaway

> Bound is in legally bound, right? If that's the case, then I find it more believable that the RNC lawyer had claimed that a private party is not bound by law to follow its own rules than that he admitted that *he* breaks the RNC rules.


So what? Even if you are right how does that further the discussion of helping the suit here, and whether we will do it? You will not be permitted to just be a distraction in this thread, so I suggest you stop.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

so counter-productive :  views from both sides - the lawsuit is already in motion, none of us here can change it regardless of what we think about it.  So it comes down to "what can members of RPF do to help a favorable outcome".  At this point, even though I support the suit, I don't really know of much that I can do to help other than use it as a talking to point to the sleepwalkers to explain how Romney is the not the nominee, at least not at this point.  I had this conversation 2 days ago with my former boss who agrees with 85 - 90% of Paul's views but thinks Romney is already the nominee.

----------


## sailingaway

> so counter-productive :  views from both sides - the lawsuit is already in motion, none of us here can change it regardless of what we think about it.  So it comes down to "what can members of RPF do to help a favorable outcome".  At this point, even though I support the suit, I don't really know of much that I can do to help other than use it as a talking to point to the sleepwalkers to explain how Romney is the not the nominee, at least not at this point.  I had this conversation 2 days ago with my former boss who agrees with 85 - 90% of Paul's views but thinks Romney is already the nominee.


At minimum it gives reason to discuss and spread the fraud facts and videos.  I think we SHOULD continue to collect and vett them and evidence in that stickied thread -- if only to have it in a package for our delegates to give to credentials committee or to send to Gilbert for the later hearings. Then if someone comes in on Monday and wants to fund drafting or refining a complaint after we do our best, we have it ready.  Otherwise there won't be the ability to do anything, if we don't do what we can.   If someone wanted to make up a multistate video collage to spread as a pr matter and to put pressure on the credentials committee, that would be fantastic, but I do understand it might be a big project.

----------


## CPUd

Read from bottom to top:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Palin takes 450 delegates from Romney. Santorum takes 350. Dr Paul can take 300 Romney votes. Newt can take 250 to push Romney below 1144
> 
> 
> 8h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @CorinaKernan The defining issue will be Romney's support for Internment Camps. Delegates will not change their vote over election fraud
> 
> 
> 8h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> ...

----------


## sailingaway

8h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
We successfully positioned the RNC to admit it has no regard for US Law and that it claims it can even violate it's own Rules on the record.

and this shocked the judge, and BREAKING their own rules, not the rules being irrelevant imho is how the issue should be framed, but that doesn't seem as vital as the pleading of facts.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> so counter-productive :  views from both sides - the lawsuit is already in motion, none of us here can change it regardless of what we think about it.  So it comes down to "what can members of RPF do to help a favorable outcome".  At this point, even though I support the suit, I don't really know of much that I can do to help other than use it as a talking to point to the sleepwalkers to explain how Romney is the not the nominee, at least not at this point.  I had this conversation 2 days ago with my former boss who agrees with 85 - 90% of Paul's views but thinks Romney is already the nominee.


So you are saying that your Boss has been misled? We know the media is the cause of the assumption. 
When did the media start this national perception? In April, as I see it. RNC Chairman announced "On The Record", the Fox show hosted by Greta. Greta asked, "Is it true? The merger of the RNC and Team Romnee? RNC chair, we are combining our resources. Greta, What about Ron Paul? RNC Chair, OH, we have been talking to the Ron Paul People. [paraphrases as well as I remember]
Bada Bing! Right there RNC BROKE their own rules(Rule 11). Rmonee was given an enormous advantage! Texas and California were yet to vote. 
DOES THAT TYPE OF RULE BREAKING EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION?
Does it do harm to the Voter and or Plaintiffs? Can it be likened to ELECTIONEERING?

One other point; The GOP Convention is funded with Federal Tax Payer Money.
just some thoughts for now.

PS. For what reasoning would the broken portion of Rule 11 be written in the first place? To provide for a fair and legal election? Breaking the rules does what?

----------


## sailingaway

> So you are saying that your Boss has been misled? We know the media is the cause of the assumption. 
> When did the media start this national perception? In April, as I see it. RNC Chairman announced "On The Record", the Fox show hosted by Greta. Greta asked, "Is it true? The merger of the RNC and Team Romnee? RNC chair, we are combining our resources. Greta, What about Ron Paul? RNC Chair, OH, we have been talking to the Ron Paul People. [paraphrases as well as I remember]
> Bada Bing! Right there RNC BROKE their own rules. Rmonee was given an enormous advantage! Texas and California were yet to vote. 
> DOES THAT TYPE OF RULE BREAKING EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION?
> Does it do harm to the Voter and or Plaintiffs? Can it be likened to ELECTIONEERING?
> 
> One other point; The GOP Convention is funded with Federal Tax Payer Money.
> just some thoughts for now.


I agree that fact situation is important and belongs in the draft, whether it supports electioneering or collusion making the Romney actions and RNC actions blendable and raising the specter of an unfair credentials committee preventing elected delegates from voting, it still belongs in there.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

sailingaway,
wanted to add my ps edit
PS. For what reasoning would the broken portion of Rule 11 be written in the first place? To provide for a fair and legal election? Breaking the rules does what?

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway,
> wanted to add my ps edit
> PS. For what reasoning would the broken portion of Rule 11 be written in the first place? To provide for a fair and legal election? Breaking the rules does what?


according to the RNC attorney they don't have to follow their rules.  we obviously disagree. My feeling is they have the ability to MAKE their rules because they are private, but not change them when people took them up on the package and selected their primary to place their vote in reliance on the rules that existed --and seemed to provide a due process.  Had they said 'we can change these any time we want so delegates are who we want them to be' how many would have voted in their primaries?

That sort of CONTRACT right is a key point I'd like to see in the complaint.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway,
> wanted to add my ps edit
> PS. For what reasoning would the broken portion of Rule 11 be written in the first place? To provide for a fair and legal election? Breaking the rules does what?


Under the RNC rule I think it is supposed to disqualify the candidate (Romney) but I don't remember, I looked at it a long time ago.  But Benton apparently said they could do the legal fund.  Ron's delegates were never asked and as voters in their own right I don't know that Benton can speak for them.  That would be up to the judge.  But a whole lot more than the legal fund was done, at that point in conventions everywhere GOP chairs started saying they should elect delegates to vote for 'the nominee' and it 'was over' etc.  The RNC national called him that too.

----------


## CPUd

... and governors:

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> according to the RNC attorney they don't have to follow their rules.  we obviously disagree. My feeling is they have the ability to MAKE their rules because they are private, but not change them when people took them up on the package and selected their primary to place their vote in reliance on the rules that existed --and seemed to provide a due process.  Had they said 'we can change these any time we want so delegates are who we want them to be' how many would have voted in their primaries?
> 
> That sort of CONTRACT right is a key point I'd like to see in the complaint.


Here is the complaint: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...dFE/edit?pli=1
Please see Page 25 starting at line 10

----------


## LibertyEagle

//

----------


## sailingaway

> Here is the complaint: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...dFE/edit?pli=1
> Please see Page 25 starting at line 10


Yeah, but earlier he says the RNC rules are irrelevant - he probably means 'in the face of conflicting law' and he isn't raising the contract issue to counter the RNC 'free association' in other words, sure they are free, they COULD say 'we change our nominee to whomever we want after you vote, come into our party!' but they don't, and need to follow what they do say they do.

I thought the judge wasn't that impressed that forcing people to vote a particular way was intimidation, but I'd have to look back at the ruling, maybe he just meant, without saying what exactly was done to intimidate.  The point being that the judge was asking for facts, not conclusions.  Twice.  That is why Clyde is working up a draft of a more fact based complaint for us to work on, I believe.

----------


## affa

> ClydeCoulter,
> Finally, I think we are on the same page. I spent waaay to much time arguing with lawdidly over at DP. http://www.dailypaul.com/246589/rich...omment-2660514
> 
> lawdidly wants to use the wrecking ball - very negative


i wonder if "lawdidly at dp" is related to our very own "lawdida"

----------


## sailingaway

lawdida is on vacation from the forum for a week precisely to stop distractions, so.... let's stay focused.  When the thread grows 20 pages saying four things everyone comes on here asking for summaries because of the junk in the thread.  This thread is to discuss facts theories and strategies to potentially make the suit better/support our delegates.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

Is this the Cornerstone of the Complaint?
Extracted from page 25 line 10:

Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention commencing August 27, 20012.

Rather, Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the Laws of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants choose. Defendants have represented this position to this Federal Court on August 6, 2012, on the record argument.

----------


## sailingaway

> Is this the Cornerstone of the Complaint?
> Extracted from page 25 line 10:
> 
> Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention commencing August 27, 20012.
> 
> Rather, Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the Laws of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants choose. Defendants have represented this position to this Federal Court on August 6, 2012, on the record argument.


Yes.

----------


## RonRules

> lawdida is on vacation from the forum


Yeah good call!

Meanwhile, lets be productive and help fill out this thread to collect specific evidence for each state:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuit

The wiki is being updated from the info in the thread. Here are some recent updates to the Wiki:
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Oregon
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Maine
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Louisiana

We need a lot more than that. Just grab a state (even if you don't live there) and collect all the hard facts about the disenfranchisement of Paul voters and delegates. Post in the above thread.

Thanks.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Under the RNC rule I think it is supposed to disqualify the candidate (Romney) but I don't remember, I looked at it a long time ago.  But Benton apparently said they could do the legal fund.  Ron's delegates were never asked and as voters in their own right I don't know that Benton can speak for them.  That would be up to the judge.  But a whole lot more than the legal fund was done, at that point in conventions everywhere GOP chairs started saying they should elect delegates to vote for 'the nominee' and it 'was over' etc.  The RNC national called him that too.


But what I see at issue is, Does Rule Breaking effect a National Election? If the answer is yes then it is Rule Breaking, in the "Cornerstone" needs proof and that Rule 11 was broken and was announced on National Television and we have a Nation of witnesses. Voters were damaged by this action. I live in Texas and I felt cheated of my vote. Many didn't even turn out to vote because they had been defeated by RNC chair.

If it is left standing that RNC basically chooses the nominee and NOT the voter, damage is not only done to the voter but the entire election process of the United States.
It was the Judge, as I hear it, who got the admission from RNC Attorney and it IS in evidence, thanks to the Judge.
This could end up favorable if kept simple. After all it is "Guidance" of the Federal Court that we are seeking. This Judge is making history. One way or another. This is very big and should not be abandoned as a few have loudly advocated.

The motion to expedite was filed 9-9-2012, BTW

PS: "If the result is..... zero bound Romney delegates...then....
I can understand WHY RNC/Romney operatives would bash this lawsuit."

----------


## sailingaway

> But what I see at issue is, Does Rule Breaking effect a National Election? If the answer is yes then it is Rule Breaking, in the "Cornerstone" needs proof and that Rule 11 was broken and was announced on National Television and we have a Nation of witnesses. Voters were damaged by this action. I live in Texas and I felt cheated of my vote. Many didn't even turn out to vote because they had been defeated by RNC chair.
> 
> If it is left standing that RNC basically chooses the nominee and NOT the voter, damage is not only done to the voter but the entire election process of the United States.
> It was the Judge, as I hear it, who got the admission from RNC Attorney and it IS in evidence, thanks to the Judge.
> This could end up favorable if kept simple. After all it is "Guidance" of the Federal Court that we are seeking. This Judge is making history. One way or another. This is very big and should not be abandoned as a few have loudly advocated.
> 
> The motion to expedite was filed 9-9-2012, BTW
> 
> PS: "If the result is..... zero bound Romney delegates...then....
> I can understand WHY RNC/Romney operatives would bash this lawsuit."


I agree, but if our question is what do we do to help, if we can do anything, do we put that into the complaint draft (note all the FACTS you just mentioned) if we want one ready to go? I'd say sure, as an additional cause of action.  Even if the complaint isn't used as a complaint, having facts organized simply with evidence has to help in later hearings on this.

But I confess, my hopes for this suit were always more in the pressure to get our delegates seated with oversight if necessary part, rather than the unbinding part, per se, so I like having the facts in, just as a stand alone matter.

----------


## rb3b3

im a little confused here. this judges decision is history in the making. if he deems that all delegates are not bound at any time, then lets say a candidate wins a states primary, then the delegates selected for that state go to the convention and vote for a candidate that came in last place in the popular vote of that state, how is it fair to the rest of the state who voted for the winner of the state? does what i said even make sense? lol im just thinking out loud

----------


## sailingaway

It depends on the judge.  My view is that they can't CHANGE the rules once they start the process, but I'm not sure that is the view that is being presented in the complaint.  But the Rnc is saying they can do exactly that AND change the rules at the last second or break them.  Think about it.  The fight in Louisiana is whether the delegates should vote for ROMNEY. Romney didn't win EITHER the primary or caucus in Louisiana.  So it isn't like the RNC is saying they are bound to EITHER the rules or the vote.

We played by their rules.  I just want to see the rules people depended on when they participated in the process be enforced.  Note that in some states if you are a delegate in the nomination of one party you are FORECLOSED from being one in another party, so there was detrimental reliance on the integrity of the RNC rules.

The way it is now, the status quo perpetuates because the prevailing candidate, by whatever margin, is deemed the universal candidate and no conversation between factions can occur to change or modify the direction of the party at RNC, regardless of how frantically the particular voting state may have hated the nationally prevailing candidate. The election was between Romney and the rest of the field. His votes did not outweigh the rest until he was named nominee, prematurely.

The RNC is supposed to be a business meeting if you read the rules, and through 1976, it was one.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I agree, but if our question is what do we do to help, if we can do anything, do we put that into the complaint draft (note all the FACTS you just mentioned) if we want one ready to go? I'd say sure, as an additional cause of action.  Even if the complaint isn't used as a complaint, having facts organized simply with evidence has to help in later hearings on this.
> 
> But I confess, my hopes for this suit were always more in the pressure to get our delegates seated with oversight if necessary part, rather than the unbinding part, per se, so I like having the facts in, just as a stand alone matter.


I understand your concern, sailingaway, but at the moment we seem to have a single issue at steak in the lawsuit, that being boundedness, and that based on the RNC being a National Election.  ALTHOUGH, your concerns should also be addressed as a seperate issue, and ALL releveant information needs to also be gathered for that.  But, we need to keep these 2 efforts seperated in our minds so that we can help, if we can, to the best of our ability.

Concerning Gilberts current complaint, IF it is determined by the judge that the RNC election of a nominee is a Federal Election, which it appears from law that it is, then the question of "Will they likely break the rules/law in the future" becomes the point that Gilbert is pointing out using the RNC layers own words in court the other day.  That gave the judge the evidence to his face when they said they can do as they please with the rules and will change them at anytime they wish.

Can we, or do we wish to, add any more "evidence" to the case in support of what Gilbert has filed?  The way I see it, we can show more specific evidence of them actually changing their own rules against their own rules.  Like in the case of LA.  BUT we must keep it simple and only document the rule breaking, not try to push the bone breaking (that is in the seperate effort).  In the case of LA, the rules were changed without a proper vote according to their own rules, and, also , they tried to replace the duly elected rules chairman in violation of rules.  RULE BREAKING in the past, especially in multiple states, would be what we want to show.  That shows disenfranchisement of the delegates.  But we have to be specific with "Who did what to whom when and where".

EDIT: there is one more question to ask, do we support the idea that the RNC nomination is a Federal Election, and what impact will that have on future elections.

----------


## RonRules

> im a little confused here. this judges decision is history in the making. if he deems that all delegates are not bound at any time, then lets say a candidate wins a states primary, then the delegates selected for that state go to the convention and vote for a candidate that came in last place in the popular vote of that state, how is it fair to the rest of the state who voted for the winner of the state? does what i said even make sense? lol im just thinking out loud


That's what Ron Paul did in about 7-8 states! Sometimes it's a good thing.

One thing is for sure, if the ruling is YES, delegates will get a LOT more scrutiny, not some quick 3 minute speech. They will have to gain the confidence of voters to represent them at the convention, much like congressional reps and senators.

----------


## sailingaway

I see there being multiple causes of action but I agree that the cause of action Gilbert brought is enhanced by the facts in LA about them trying to unilaterally change the rules at the last minute and pretending they were changed (that at least brings in the delegate controversy) the broken bones can just be the extremes they went to to try to get their fake rules rammed in despite overwhelming opposition.

But I would like the other causes of action ready for that lawsuit, for hearings, or in case another is brought.

----------


## sailingaway

> *That's what Ron Paul did in about 7-8 states! Sometimes it's a good thing.*
> 
> One thing is for sure, if the ruling is YES, delegates will get a LOT more scrutiny, not some quick 3 minute speech. They will have to gain the confidence of voters to represent them at the convention, much like congressional reps and senators.


he only did it where the rules allowed it and we were able to keep them from cheating and breaking their own rules by force of vast numbers in comparison, often.  He'd have more if they had followed the rules.  NOt all states, as in NH for example, allow it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I'm not sure I think this unbinding deal is a good thing.  I am concerned about unintended consequences down the line.  Personally, I just want them to be required to follow their own damn rules.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I see there being multiple causes of action but I agree that the cause of action Gilbert brought is enhanced by the facts in LA about them trying to unilaterally change the rules at the last minute and pretending they were changed (that at least brings in the delegate controversy) the broken bones can just be the extremes they went to to try to get their fake rules rammed in despite overwhelming opposition.
> 
> But I would like the other causes of action ready for that lawsuit, for hearings, or in case another is brought.


I totally agree.  There is a much larger case to be brought to, I believe, the Federal court level which does concern the use of force and fraud.  For one, I would like to bring up the whole idea of using off duty police as security, since it seems they, the police, cannot seperate the 2 jobs.  The police seem to switch hats in the middle of an event, like when they threatened to confiscate cameras that were recording the LA event showing the bone breaking and knocking to the floor.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not sure I think this unbinding deal is a good thing.  I am concerned about unintended consequences down the line.  Personally, I just want them to be required to follow their own damn rules.


well, one of my reasons for wanting a supplemented complaint available to offer, along with maybe allowing another amendment if Gilberts' is challenged successfully, is to allow the court to follow the path it finds most compelling, which might end up being the fraud part. The court already made it clear he is cognizant of the importance of free association.

----------


## sailingaway

> I totally agree.  There is a much larger case to be brought to, I believe, the Federal court level which does concern the use of force and fraud.  For one, I would like to bring up the whole idea of using off duty police as security, since it seems they, the police, cannot seperate the 2 jobs.  The police seem to switch hats in the middle of an event, like when they threatened to confiscate cameras that were recording the LA event showing the bone breaking and knocking to the floor.


yeah.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Okay, let's say that we create a supplemental in support of Gilberts claims.  We could use evidence from LA and OK and others where we have video evidence of them breaking their own rules.  We have to keep it to the claims to the rule breaking and last minute changes to the rules.

BUT, is there a way to "gracefully" incorporate the "extent" of their "force" to break rules?  That, without complicating the supplemental (I'm not going back pages to find out how to spell cumnae or whatever that was).

----------


## RonRules

> For one, I would like to bring up the whole idea of using off duty police as security, since it seems they, the police, cannot seperate the 2 jobs.  The police seem to switch hats in the middle of an event, like when they threatened to confiscate cameras that were recording the LA event showing the bone breaking and knocking to the floor.


This is a big issue for me too. I've been at protests where LAPD off duty officers were hired by a cult at $75/hr to guard a protest. The cops were totaly on the side of the cult and providing them protester information and threatening arrests for trivial things or shouting. I see that sort of thing as a huge conflict of interest and in the particular case I'm mentioning, a church-state separation issue because this cult claims to be a church.

Imagine half of the Tampa police / Florida State Troopers force working for the GOP inside the convention center. Do you think Ron Paul supporters will have a chance to nominate Ron?

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> So you are saying that your Boss has been misled? We know the media is the cause of the assumption. 
> When did the media start this national perception? In April, as I see it. RNC Chairman announced "On The Record", the Fox show hosted by Greta. Greta asked, "Is it true? The merger of the RNC and Team Romnee? RNC chair, we are combining our resources. Greta, What about Ron Paul? RNC Chair, OH, we have been talking to the Ron Paul People. [paraphrases as well as I remember]
> Bada Bing! Right there RNC BROKE their own rules(Rule 11). Rmonee was given an enormous advantage! Texas and California were yet to vote. 
> DOES THAT TYPE OF RULE BREAKING EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION?
> Does it do harm to the Voter and or Plaintiffs? Can it be likened to ELECTIONEERING?
> 
> One other point; The GOP Convention is funded with Federal Tax Payer Money.
> just some thoughts for now.
> 
> PS. For what reasoning would the broken portion of Rule 11 be written in the first place? To provide for a fair and legal election? Breaking the rules does what?


Not really sure what I am suppose to be answering... but it had already kicked in full speed during this election cycle at CPAC and continue by ignoring and repeatedly stating how "unelectable" Dr. Paul was.. . and yes, my former boss, although he does realize the media is corrupt, does not seek any additional sources outside of the mainstream.

----------


## sailingaway

Absolutely, just gracefully phrase it that way. 'including without limitation:

(i)Villers' (sp?) call as self appointed temporary chairman for privately hired security to forcibly remove duly elected rules chair, Hedwig (?), resulting in the breaking of the rules chair's fingers and injuries necessitating he walk with a cane;

(ii) the direction of privately hired security to physically remove the elderly, duly elected chairman of the convention, Henry Herfort (sp?),  in replacement of Villiers, despite Herfort's calls as they grabbed him that he was handicapped, knocking Herfort to the ground and injuring his newly implanted prosthetic hip requiring he be removed by ambulence with replacement chosen from the audience thereby losing their vote in the convention as delegates....

all to 'enforce' fake rules never passed that they contended existed despite lack of ratification under their own rules for creating rules.....'

or something.

Then we'll all play with it for the graceful part....

----------


## RonRules

> physically remove the elderly, duly elected chairman of the convention,


I'd remove the word "elderly". He is barely 60 and that would give them an excuse along the lines that he was senile, which of course is totally false.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I agree, but if our question is what do we do to help, if we can do anything, do we put that into the complaint draft (note all the FACTS you just mentioned) if we want one ready to go? I'd say sure, as an additional cause of action.  Even if the complaint isn't used as a complaint, having facts organized simply with evidence has to help in later hearings on this.
> 
> But I confess, my hopes for this suit were always more in the pressure to get our delegates seated with oversight if necessary part, rather than the unbinding part, per se, so I like having the facts in, just as a stand alone matter.


A favorable outcome is guidance and relief as prayed for starting on  page 32, line 24.
partially transcribed:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray, and respectfully request that the Court enter judgement:

1. For Declaratory Judgement that to US Statutes cited, including 42 U.S.C. 1971 and its subparts are applicable to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention, and a Court Order to issue declaring that _all_ Delegates to the Federal Election also known as the Republican National Convention in August 2012 to vote in accordance with the Voting Rights Act and its Subparts, including 42 U.S.C. 1971(b).
------------------------------------

----------


## SteveT1736

I doubt this will be appreciated but let me clarify a bit:

Gilbert's new complaint is focused on Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act which bars intimidation of voters.  He asks for the Court to find, under that provision, that delegates may not be bound and notify them in writing of that proposition.

The Judge has already decided this issue.  If you will look to his Order granting the motion to dismiss, on page 17, he rejects that analysis under the heading:  "No authority supports Plaintiffs' interpretation of the[sic] Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act."  

The point is that this Judge has already rejected Gilbert's analysis that the Voting Rights Act bars binding delegates.

As I've noted above, the fact that the RNC's attorney took the position in Court that the RNC Convention is determined by party rules, subject to change, and not outside entities, is not an acceptable justification for a complaint.  It is a position of advocacy not an indication of wrongdoing.  Courts and attorneys banter on these kind of issues all the time as the Judge tests the limits.  But, it is not evidence of anything, merely a legal posture. 

THE PROBLEM NOW is that the complaint lacks factual allegations. Judge Carter specifically told Gilbert to provide specific factual allegations in his complaint or he would be thrown out of court permanently.  Attaching affidavits or videos or other documents now is utterly irrelevant.   They are evidence not allegations in the complaint where they must be.  When you sue someone, you must tell them with particularity what they did wrong.  Then, you justify your allegations with evidence.  This case is high-centered on the lack of appropriate pleadings.

In the decision, Judge Carter bashed Gilbert for his incompetency.  Here is the key statement by the Judge:  "With one exception, Plaintiffs' allegations are not sufficiently intelligibly for this Court to even analyze whether they can state claim a claim." That one fact was stripped out in this version of the complaint.  On the way to work this morning I listened to Gilbert's radio broadcast.  Gilbert claimed that the Judge was in his corner, that the Judge had backed his legal theory (which, as I noted above, the Judge specifically refuted), that a wide ranging victory was nigh.  At best, I can only describe this as delusional.

I'll refrain from commenting in the future.  But, what I've stated above is an accurate statement of the current status.  And, it is not good.  Given what Gilbert has done, there are really no viable alternatives with respect to this case.

----------


## CPUd

> ...
> 
>  Yet, Gilbert claimed in the broadcast that the Judge was in his corner, that he backed his legal theory (which, as I noted above, the Judge specifically refuted), that a wide ranging victory was nigh.  At best, I can only describe this as delusional.


I am unfortunately going to have to agree with you on this point.  This is the same guy who believed one of his prior cases was going to result in California being split into 2 states.  He is now tweeting that he is filing these (substandard) complaints on purpose, and believes this will impress the judge.  It does not take a legal background to see that what it will really do is piss him off.

In the interest of being constructive, I do believe putting together the wiki is worthwhile, and should prove to be an asset, and not necessarily in the legal sense.

----------


## sailingaway

> A favorable outcome is guidance and relief as prayed for starting on  page 32, line 24.
> partially transcribed:
> WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray, and respectfully request that the Court enter judgement:
> 
> 1. For Declaratory Judgement that to US Statutes cited, including 42 U.S.C. 1971 and its subparts are applicable to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention, and a Court Order to issue declaring that _all_ Delegates to the Federal Election also known as the Republican National Convention in August 2012 to vote in accordance with the Voting Rights Act and its Subparts, including 42 U.S.C. 1971(b).
> ------------------------------------


to me they need to be seated or how they vote doesn't matter much, and I'd like to see seating addressed in the complaint by requiring rules be followed.

----------


## sailingaway

> I doubt this will be appreciated but let me clarify a bit:
> 
> Gilbert's new complaint is focused on Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act which bars intimidation of voters.  He asks for the Court to find, under that provision, that delegates may not be bound and notify them in writing of that proposition.
> 
> The Judge has already decided this issue.  If you will look to his Order granting the motion to dismiss, on page 17, he rejects that analysis under the heading:  "No authority supports Plaintiffs' interpretation of the[sic] Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act."  
> 
> The point is that this Judge has already rejected Gilbert's analysis that the Voting Rights Act bars binding delegates.
> 
> As I've noted above, the fact that the RNC's attorney took the position in Court that the RNC Convention is determined by party rules, subject to change, and not outside entities, is not an acceptable justification for a complaint.  It is a position of advocacy not an indication of wrongdoing.  Courts and attorneys banter on these kind of issues all the time as the Judge tests the limits.  But, it is not evidence of anything, merely a legal posture. 
> ...


If this is correct, and I did see some of this myself, and don't know if Gilbert addressed his concerns, then the question still is can we put a factually detailed complaint out so the judge has it in front of him to know it exists and another amendment wouldn't be futile? That is part of the point of what we are doing, belt and suspenders to the existing complaint so the judge sees it and might be persuaded to give the new draft a chance, rather than give up if there is nothing in front of him. 

I don't know he will, he doesn't have to , but he isn't forclosed from doing it either, and he put a LOT of work into detailing what he wanted to see in a complaint.  

As I said, I am NOT a cheerleader for Gilbert, I am trying to figure out if anything can be done to support our delegates who are in this suit.

If Gilbert is not intentionally hurting the suit, and I don't know any reason to think he would, he might be open to putting the complaint draft in response papers to the next motion to dismiss.

At least that is what we are looking at trying to do, so more discussion of how bad some people may think what Gilbert already has done is, isn't constructive, even the parts I may agree with.  What we CAN do is the only thing we should be discussing here.

I think it is pretty much agreed that gathering the facts and evidence of fraud is good in any event, and if we can use it to help the suit, we would at least have it ready.

And we might as well have it ready in complaint format, as best we can put it together.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> This is a big issue for me too. I've been at protests where LAPD off duty officers were hired by a cult at $75/hr to guard a protest. The cops were totaly on the side of the cult and providing them protester information and threatening arrests for trivial things or shouting. I see that sort of thing as a huge conflict of interest and in the particular case I'm mentioning, a church-state separation issue because this cult claims to be a church.
> 
> Imagine half of the Tampa police / Florida State Troopers force working for the GOP inside the convention center. Do you think Ron Paul supporters will have a chance to nominate Ron?


What if anyone, law enforcement, et al, violated a 9th Circuit Declaratory Judgement that the Voter Rights Act, including subparts, be applied to the National Election known as the Republican National Convention? Violation = Threaten, Coerce, etc.

----------


## Cody1

New tweet up

Apparently FBI getting involved with Arizona delegates over election fraud?

I'm so confused, he's spouting that this thing is pretty much a done deal and now Steve is telling us that he is delusional. What is going on here?

----------


## sailingaway

> New tweet up
> 
> Apparently FBI getting involved with Arizona delegates over election fraud?
> 
> I'm so confused, he's spouting that this thing is pretty much a done deal and now Steve is telling us that he is delusional. What is going on here?


Gilbert does kind of wing it but there is usually some truth behind what it says.  But just because FBI look into something it doesn't mean it will impact the suit. Criminal charges or whatever would be an entirely different action.

Whether GILBERT's suit succeeds or fails, the facts still occurred and if we can raise the profile of those facts, there are a whole LOT of people who may be interested.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Okay, so I see 2 choices before us.

1) Add a supplemental to Gilberts currently filed complaint
2) Prepare our own complaint to be put before the judge

#1 assumes that Gilbert has something the judge will consider, and supports his allegations.
#2 assumes that Gilbert just f'ed up, and we want the judge to see that someone can deliver.

If we choose #2 (or both) we need to get our point(s) of allegation together before we try to gather them together with facts.

Edit: And these 2 choices are just for "this" case

----------


## sailingaway

> Okay, so I see 2 choices before us.
> 
> 1) Add a supplemental to Gilberts currently filed complaint
> 2) Prepare our own complaint to be put before the judge
> 
> #1 assumes that Gilbert has something the judge will consider, and supports his allegations.
> #2 assumes that Gilbert just f'ed up, and we want the judge to see that someone can deliver.
> 
> If we choose #2 (or both) we need to get our point(s) of allegation together before we try to gather them together with facts.


I think it is #2, but include Gilbert's to bolster it in case it is something the judge wants.  The real downside is IF the complaint is completely off base so I would want to be sure that avenue is covered, then have the complaint ready to insert into the process whatever best avenue we have for doing that, once it is complete.

----------


## Cody1

> Gilbert does kind of wing it but there is usually some truth behind what it says.  But just because FBI look into something it doesn't mean it will impact the suit. Criminal charges or whatever would be an entirely different action.
> 
> Whether GILBERT's suit succeeds or fails, the facts still occurred and if we can raise the profile of those facts, there are a whole LOT of people who may be interested.


Yeah that's pretty much how I feel as well. It is a little disheartening that he seems a little over the top concerning the developments of this case. He's being interviewed this afternoon supposedly, i'm inclined to see what he has to say.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I think it is #2, but include Gilbert's to bolster it in case it is something the judge wants.  The real downside is IF the complaint is completely off base so I would want to be sure that avenue is covered, then have the complaint ready to insert into the process whatever best avenue we have for doing that, once it is complete.


#2 is a much larger task.  Can we prove that the RNC had anything to do with LA?
I think #2 requires us to find what the judge alluded to about the VRA, the lopez case, etc...   I see it as "The delegates right to associate" opposing the "party right to associate".

----------


## sailingaway

> #2 is a much larger task.  Can we prove that the RNC had anything to do with LA?
> I think #2 requires us to find what the judge alluded to about the VRA, the lopez case, etc...   I see it as "The delegates right to associate" opposing the "party right to associate".


The RNC attitude of the rules being breakable or changable at any time, as mentioned on the record is rampant throughout its state chapters, and the RNC would be ignoring it if they find in the credentials committee that the LAGOP delegates could be seated.  They have already said they think changing the rules at any time unilaterally is fine and that action upcoming to put a seal on this is why we need declaratory judgment that they ARE bound to follow their rules. That's how I look at it, anyhow.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

If they are not seated because they do not support a given candidate within RNC CHOICE, is that not coercion? Or to not signing an illegally presented affidavit? 
If they are duly elected Delegates, don't they have the right to vote at the National Election known as the Republican Convention, if, Gilbert gets the Federal Judge to grant relief and guidance Per Voter Rights Act. Will the RNC go against the Court Ruling and commit Federal Crimes? If they can do what ever they please regardless of Federal Law then they need not even oppose Gilbert in Federal Court.
And their "Crime Syndicate" would just conduct business as usual.

----------


## sailingaway

and the form to use for what are allegations are are the court order detailing what the judge wants in the new complaint, imho.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> The RNC attitude of the rules being breakable or changable at any time, as mentioned on the record is rampant throughout its state chapters, and the RNC would be ignoring it if they find in the credentials committee that the LAGOP delegates could be seated.  They have already said they think changing the rules at any time unilaterally is fine and that action upcoming to put a seal on this is why we need declaratory judgment that they ARE bound to follow their rules. That's how I look at it, anyhow.


I know, but if I'm going to attempt to write a complaint, I will need to factfully connect the dots.  Dates, times, who it was that did what, etc.

We have proof that the rules were broken, that's not a problem, we can furnish that.  But like SteveT is saying, evidence follows allegations, and those allegations have to accuse someone of causing harm to someoneelse at some time.  We can show that the LAGOP harmed delegates, but does that implicate the RNC?  

What I'm saying is, who are the plantiffs and who are the defendants?  Then, what are the charges.  Are all delegates the plantiffs (as in Gilberts complaint)?  Or just LA, OK, etc...?

----------


## sailingaway

> If they are not seated because they do not support a given candidate within RNC CHOICE, is that not coercion? Or to not signing an illegally presented affidavit? 
> If they are duly elected Delegates, don't they have the right to vote at the National Election known as the Republican Convention, if, Gilbert gets the Federal Judge to grant relief and guidance Per Voter Rights Act. Will the RNC go against the Court Ruling and commit Federal Crimes? If they can do what ever they please regardless of Federal Law then they need not even oppose Gilbert in Federal Court.
> And their "Crime Syndicate" would just conduct business as usual.


the judge expressed skepticism over whether requiring support of a candidate is 'intimidation and coercion'.  The broken bones and nasty emails and pretending rules were broken (Maine) when the same gOP chair previously admitted the weren't, I think those are clear coercion tactics, but that is just me.

----------


## sailingaway

> I know, but if I'm going to attempt to write a complaint, I will need to factfully connect the dots.  Dates, times, who it was that did what, etc.
> 
> We have proof that the rules were broken, that's not a problem, we can furnish that.  But like SteveT is saying, evidence follows allegations, and those allegations have to accuse someone of causing harm to someoneelse at some time.  We can show that the LAGOP harmed delegates, but does that implicate the RNC?  
> 
> What I'm saying is, who are the plantiffs and who are the defendants?  Then, what are the charges.  Are all delegates the plantiffs (as in Gilberts complaint)?  Or just LA, OK, etc...?


All Plaintiffs are Plaintiffs all defendants are defendants for now. I wouldn't worry about that part as much, we are still saying it is a nationwide pattern over many of the states.  Frankly I think Iowa GOP and MN GOP and NH GOP etc shouldn't be in there but I don't know all the facts Gilbert has, they might be 'necessary parties'.   For the moment I'd assume they are the same as in the current complaint.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> All Plaintiffs are Plaintiffs all defendants are defendants for now. I wouldn't worry about that part as much, we are still saying it is a nationwide pattern over many of the states.  Frankly I think Iowa GOP and MN GOP and NH GOP etc shouldn't be in there but I don't know all the facts Gilbert has, they might be 'necessary parties'.   For the moment I'd assume they are the same as in the current complaint.


Okay, then we have to go with the type of complaint that Gilbert is making.  Otherwise we would have to show specific harm by each state GOP or by the RNC.  We can't say, all delegates are plantiffs because there is a "general pattern" of abuse, unless, that abuse can be shown to be national.  That then puts it into the RNC/GOP rules in general, and makes it a VRA type of thing, in other words, to show that the RNC election of a nominee is a National Election (imho).

----------


## tod evans

> I know, but if I'm going to attempt to write a complaint, I will need to factfully connect the dots.  Dates, times, who it was that did what, etc.
> 
> We have proof that the rules were broken, that's not a problem, we can furnish that.  But like SteveT is saying, evidence follows allegations, and those allegations have to accuse someone of causing harm to someoneelse at some time.  We can show that the LAGOP harmed delegates, but does that implicate the RNC?  
> 
> What I'm saying is, who are the plantiffs and who are the defendants?  Then, what are the charges.  Are all delegates the plantiffs (as in Gilberts complaint)?  Or just LA, OK, etc...?


When drafting a complaint be sure to utilize the term "agent"...

Every instance of physical violence was carried out by an "agent" of the RNC.

Just as instances of corrosion were carried out by "agents" of the RNC.

If a person attempts to seek redress from an individual then it's entirely possible the RNC will throw that particular individual under the proverbial bus and continue business as usual...It's happened before

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I am unfortunately going to have to agree with you on this point.  This is the same guy who believed one of his prior cases was going to result in California being split into 2 states.  He is now tweeting that he is filing these (substandard) complaints on purpose, and believes this will impress the judge.  It does not take a legal background to see that what it will really do is piss him off.
> 
> In the interest of being constructive, I do believe putting together the wiki is worthwhile, and should prove to be an asset, and not necessarily in the legal sense.


Why not throw as much as possible at the RNC going out the gate? Keep them busy dreaming up their defense. Then hit them with the sucker punch. The Judge helped get the admission of rule breaking.
 The first amended complaint is no longer operative. 
RNC admission to rule breaking is now the pivotal juncture.
Gilbert expected the Dismissal, he already knew the next step and filed it the very next day. Gilbert is not as "delusional" as he lets others believe.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> When drafting a complaint be sure to utilize the term "agent"...
> 
> Every instance of physical violence was carried out by an "agent" of the RNC.
> 
> Just as instances of corrosion were carried out by "agents" of the RNC.
> 
> If a person attempts to seek redress from an individual then it's entirely possible the RNC will throw that particular individual under the proverbial bus and continue business as usual...It's happened before


Do you think you could put the new complaint into writing?  Do you have time to spend?  I will help you all that I can.  You sound like you might have more experience than I.

----------


## sailingaway

> Okay, then we have to go with the type of complaint that Gilbert is making.  Otherwise we would have to show specific harm by each state GOP or by the RNC.  We can't say, all delegates are plantiffs because there is a "general pattern" of abuse, unless, that abuse can be shown to be national.  That then puts it into the RNC/GOP rules in general, and makes it a VRA type of thing, in other words, to show that the RNC election of a nominee is a National Election (imho).


I disagree. We just leave the names on for now and can change them later if we don't have facts to base their participation on.  I absolutely think we can say the pattern over the nation, if not in every instance, is because the RNC at NATIONAL turns a blind eye. We can cite Nevada in 2008 as an example.  And multiple states will show the implications are national.

After making the pattern and practice nationally (even if not in EVERY instance) alleged, we say 'as shown by these facts, including but not limited to'.  We have does to add defendants later in case we need more.  We may discover we need all the states because they all participate at RNC so their rights are impacted.  That might make them 'necessary parties' even if we don't blame them for anything.  I just don't know at this point about that, so I'd start the drafting assuming all are in.

That is just my viewpoint, as a comment.  As you get into it you may see things go a different way, I don't know.

----------


## CPUd

> I think #2 requires us to find what the judge alluded to about *the VRA, the lopez case*, etc...   I see it as "The delegates right to associate" opposing the "party right to associate".


Take a look at the defense's motion to dismiss.  They are using _LopezTorres_ to support their motion.  I think the judge wanted it addressed much in the same way it was when it was overturned on appeal.

----------


## tod evans

> Do you think you could put the new complaint into writing?  Do you have time to spend?  I will help you all that I can.  You sound like you might have more experience that I.


I'm preparing for a custody hearing...

Sorry to say my son takes precedence...

I'll be glad to help as much as I'm able but I'm not comfortable taking this bull by the horns too..

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I disagree. We just leave the names on for now and can change them later if we don't have facts to base their participation on.  I absolutely think we can say the pattern over the nation, if not in every instance, is because the RNC at NATIONAL turns a blind eye. We can cite Nevada in 2008 as an example.  And multiple states will show the implications are national.
> 
> After making the pattern and practice nationally (even if not in EVERY instance) alleged, we say 'as shown by these facts, including but not limited to'.  We have does to add defendants later in case we need more.  We may discover we need all the states because they all participate at RNC so their rights are impacted.  That might make them 'necessary parties' even if we don't blame them for anything.  I just don't know at this point about that, so I'd start the drafting assuming all are in.


I need to have the "allegations" down pat before starting.  What are we alleging?

1) RNC election is a National election therefore is under federal law
2) RNC/GOP breaks their own rules (so? who's to stop them if #1 is not valid)

What I'm concentrating on is not really the abuse and fraud, that's a much larger case.  So what are we after?  To seat our delegates or allow all delegates to vote their concience (and perhaps that because of the fraud and cheating, etc... which makes the case more difficult to submit)

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I'm preparing for a custody hearing...
> 
> Sorry to say my son takes precedence...
> 
> I'll be glad to help as much as I'm able but I'm not comfortable taking this bull by the horns too..


Don't be sorry to say that....

Does what I am posting make any sense from a legal standpoint (to you)? (I'm not a lawyer, but I did prepare a deposition while staying in a holiday inn once).

edit: dang, is that for custody of your son?  All the best to you, if so (well, and even if not).

----------


## tod evans

> Don't be sorry to say that....
> 
> Does what I am posting make any sense to you? (I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay in a holiday inn once).


Hell dude they wouldn't let me in the door...too many bugs stuck in my beard

RNC and its "agents" acting in concert broke laws in various states leading to an interstate conspiracy.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> the judge expressed skepticism over whether requiring support of a candidate is 'intimidation and coercion'.  The broken bones and nasty emails and pretending rules were broken (Maine) when the same gOP chair previously admitted the weren't, I think those are clear coercion tactics, but that is just me.


Rule Breaking, I believe, is key. That sparked the Judge. Rule breaking has many subsets and consequences that are likely deemed to be harmful to the Plaintiffs.
Call me "delusional" but I will go out on a limb and speculate what goes on in the Judges mind.
Say I am the Judge for a minute. Judge: Oh yea wise guy, you think you write the rules, take a lesson, You and yours will adhere to Federal Law or You & yours will be locked up in the Federal Penitentiary. Have a nice day. Oh, and you should stop thumbing your nose at Federal Authority. - Just in jest please.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Rule Breaking, I believe, is key. That sparked the Judge. Rule breaking has many subsets and consequences that are likely deemed to be harmful to the Plaintiffs.
> Call me "delusional" but I will go out on a limb and speculate what goes on in the Judges mind.
> Say I am the Judge for a minute. Judge: Oh yea wise guy, you think you write the rules, take a lesson, You and yours will adhere to Federal Law or You & yours will be locked up in the Federal Penitentiary. Have a nice day. Oh, and you should stop thumbing your nose at Federal Authority. - Just in jest please.


And an appeal would throw his judgement right out the door, if not backed up by really tight constitutionally valid law.  And that is what the judge alluded to in the dismissal, that there IS a constitionally valid interpreation of the law to support his case but he didn't site it.  That's what's so aggrevating about this stuff, why didn't the judge just spit it out, is he prohibited by law or bench traditiion or something?

----------


## libertylastchance

> When drafting a complaint be sure to utilize the term "agent"...
> 
> Every instance of physical violence was carried out by an "agent" of the RNC.
> 
> Just as instances of corrosion were carried out by "agents" of the RNC.
> 
> If a person attempts to seek redress from an individual then it's entirely possible the RNC will throw that particular individual under the proverbial bus and continue business as usual...It's happened before


Judge: How do you know this an agent of the RNC? Judge: what is the agents name? Is this agent named in the suit? What is your physical proof that this "agent" did this? If you are working on the fraud end.. then you need be very clear, and that "agent" has a right to defend themselves against the charges

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I need to have the "allegations" down pat before starting.  What are we alleging?
> 
> 1) RNC election is a National election therefore is under federal law
> 2) RNC/GOP breaks their own rules (so? who's to stop them if #1 is not valid)
> 
> What I'm concentrating on is not really the abuse and fraud, that's a much larger case.  So what are we after?  To seat our delegates or allow all delegates to vote their concience (and perhaps that because of the fraud and cheating, etc... which makes the case more difficult to submit)


I'm really trying to make sure I do this right, afterall, we already have 2 attempts (maybe 3) at it through Gilbert.

I have to ask for a clear/consice remedy(ies) for clear/consice allegation(s) with clear/consice evidence.

----------


## libertylastchance

> I doubt this will be appreciated but let me clarify a bit:
> 
> Gilbert's new complaint is focused on Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act which bars intimidation of voters.  He asks for the Court to find, under that provision, that delegates may not be bound and notify them in writing of that proposition.
> 
> The Judge has already decided this issue.  If you will look to his Order granting the motion to dismiss, on page 17, he rejects that analysis under the heading:  "No authority supports Plaintiffs' interpretation of the[sic] Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act."  
> 
> The point is that this Judge has already rejected Gilbert's analysis that the Voting Rights Act bars binding delegates.
> 
> As I've noted above, the fact that the RNC's attorney took the position in Court that the RNC Convention is determined by party rules, subject to change, and not outside entities, is not an acceptable justification for a complaint.  It is a position of advocacy not an indication of wrongdoing.  Courts and attorneys banter on these kind of issues all the time as the Judge tests the limits.  But, it is not evidence of anything, merely a legal posture. 
> ...


I agree with you , and hope that you keep posting, ignore the negatives.. you are one of the few who makes sense and has a clue about what is going on

----------


## sailingaway

> Judge: How do you know this an agent of the RNC? Judge: what is the agents name? Is this agent named in the suit? What is your physical proof that this "agent" did this? If you are working on the fraud end.. then you need be very clear, and that "agent" has a right to defend themselves against the charges


we have examples.   We would say 'including but not limited to' you don't have to have ALL the facts at the complaint stage, just enough for ONE set of facts to support a lawsuit.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree with you , and hope that you keep posting, ignore the negatives.. you are one of the few who makes sense and has a clue about what is going on


constructive coments are constructive.  "this is a hole that needs to be repaired" is constructive.  "Everything is over just give up" is not.

There is a section of this forum called 'the Vent'.  The mission statement of that subforum is : 


> Liberty Forums: The Vent
> Your very own forum pillow to scream into.


If all you want to do is complain about something that has already passed, and not try to fix it, or offer an alternative, that would be the appropriate place to go, I think.

----------


## rb3b3

I was hating on you earlier in this thread, truth be told its because I feel you can help us all out in a tremendous way and just wish you would!! I think with your help we can win this case no problem!!!!! So why can't you just help us out man??? This is history in the making bro and you can be the one to make the history!!!!!!!! My kids need you to help, their kids and their kids need you to help... And that's just me!!! All of America needs you to help us!!! So please man help us out to make us win!!!







> I doubt this will be appreciated but let me clarify a bit:
> 
> Gilbert's new complaint is focused on Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act which bars intimidation of voters.  He asks
>  for the Court to find, under that provision, that delegates may not be bound and notify them in writing of that proposition.
> 
> The Judge has already decided this issue.  If you will look to his Order granting the motion to dismiss, on page 17, he rejects that analysis under the heading:  "No authority supports Plaintiffs' interpretation of the[sic] Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act."  
> 
> The point is that this Judge has already rejected Gilbert's analysis that the Voting Rights Act bars binding delegates.
> 
> ...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> we have examples.   We would say 'including but not limited to' you don't have to have ALL the facts at the complaint stage, just enough for ONE set of facts to support a lawsuit.


I think the "including but not limited to" only allows for more to be added prior to the court date, or for following cases.  All defendants have to eventually be named so that they can defend themselves, either personally or as  group (as in an agent of a group), I believe.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think the "including but not limited to" only allows for more to be added prior to the court date, or for following cases.  All defendants have to eventually be named so that they can defend themselves, either personally or as  group (as in an agent of a group), I believe.


Sure, but I just want the language in in case we aren't aware of some facts and find them out later, or forget to mention them immediately.  I'm not suggesting we wouldn't ultimately need the facts to prove the case.

----------


## SteveT1736

I've already indicated that my role is highly limited.  I really can't expand more than that.

One thing that does need to be said is that a California attorney must draft this.  A lay person would be practicing law without a license if doing so for anyone besides themselves.

----------


## sailingaway

A lay person can put stuff into a complaint format for an attorney to later review and file as changed.

and meanwhile it stands as a detailed statement of fact and law which may be otherwise useful.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I've already indicated that my role is highly limited.  I really can't expand more than that.
> 
> One thing that does need to be said is that a California attorney must draft this.  A lay person would be practicing law without a license if doing so for anyone besides themselves.


But a "lay person" can draft it, then pass it on to a CA lawyer to submit as his own, right? (after reviewing and editing, I would assume).

edit: oops, sailingaway is a faster typist than I

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

Example of abrupt rule changing that harms Plaintiffs.
Who is harmed: Brent Stafford and attending Delegates
Where: St. Charles, MO
Rule Changed: No recording devices were allowed.
Why: Temporary Chair, (RNC Agent) attempted appointment of New Chair without voting or allowing nomination per Roberts Rules. Closing the convention without proper adjournment. 
Photographer was arrested according to abrupt rule changes.
Orders to vacate or be arrested for trespassing. 
Brent Stafford was unduly arrested.
Brent Stafford was acquitted of charges. Found not to be trespassing.

But this would require testimony, right?
But police record and court records could be submitted, right.

Just an example that may not require very much to prove.

----------


## SteveT1736

Yes.

----------


## sailingaway

> Example of abrupt rule changing that harms Plaintiffs.
> Who is harmed: Brent Stafford and attending Delegates
> Where: St. Charles, MO
> Rule Changed: No recording devices were allowed.
> Why: Temporary Chair, (RNC Agent) attempted appointment of New Chair without voting or allowing nomination per Roberts Rules. Closing the convention without proper adjournment. 
> Photographer was arrested according to abrupt rule changes.
> Orders to vacate or be arrested for trespassing. 
> Brent Stafford was unduly arrested.
> Brent Stafford was acquitted of charges. Found not to be trespassing.
> ...


and in fact the rules there were never ratified, just posted on the door.  And enforcement of those fake rules again included the temporary chair breaking rules to ignore his being voted out, and directing private security to remove people from the noticed caucus, who thereafter took the duly elected chair off in handcuffs, subjecting him to a suit for tresspass of which he was found not guilty by court [insert slip opinion from Stafford's criminal case here]

AND THERE WAS A VIDEO of a state GOP guy saying everyone had to back up the cheater because he was doing it for them to stop us....  We need to put that in the evidence thread.

Everyone completely acted as if this was proper to do.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yes.


Good, so now the question is, what is the complaint.

The delegates are harmed in multiple instances.

1) Right of association with the republican party to elect as nominee their chosen candidate
2) Coercion to vote for a candidate that the delegate does not support, in violation of federal law

Again #2 might have to show that the RNC election for nomination is a National Election and therefore is subject to national laws.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

"That's what's so aggravating about this stuff, why didn't the judge just spit it out, is he prohibited by law or bench traditiion or something? " - ClydeCoulter

Right, The Judge can't write the Complaint, or appear to. Although there seems to be a wink, and nod. He did ask the pertinent question of the RNC Attorney which can now be cited as factual evidence. The Party Rules Changing can be in conflict with Federal Voting Rights Act.
As Alex Jones puts it, You can have a Private Recipe Cooking Club but that does not allow you to Bar-B-Q babies in your back yard.

----------


## rb3b3

I understand that, it's sucks tho!! If someone here was to put something together would you help proof read it and say yes this is perfect or no it's no good go back to drawing board ? Can you give us a starting point? Any tips or anything without you getting into trouble. I thank you for what you've done already, some might say you haven't done anything, but I now believe your helping point us in the right direction and it's very appreciated so far, by me at least . 






> I've already indicated that my role is highly limited.  I really can't expand more than that.
> 
> One thing that does need to be said is that a California attorney must draft this.  A lay person would be practicing law without a license if doing so for anyone besides themselves.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I understand that, it's sucks tho!! If someone here was to put something together would you help proof read it and say yes this is perfect or no it's no good go back to drawing board ? Can you give us a starting point? Any tips or anything without you getting into trouble. I thank you for what you've done already, some might say you haven't done anything, but I now believe your helping point us in the right direction and it's very appreciated so far, by me at least .


If you listened to Gilbert in the interview, in boxing match terms, he was in the 11th round and things not going well during evening of oral arguments. There was a short break and he stepped out and phoned a Plaintiff, reported the status, and asked for suggestions for argument. He took the advise, utilized it and enjoyed a turnaround in the Judges attitude. Subjective input to Gilbert has helped and we should continue kicking this around as long as we have an input channel to Gilbert.

----------


## rb3b3

> If you listened to Gilbert in the interview, in boxing match terms, he was in the 11th round and things not going well during evening of oral arguments. There was a short break and he stepped out and phoned a Plaintiff, reported the status, and asked for suggestions for argument. He took the advise, utilized it and enjoyed a turnaround in the Judges attitude. Subjective input to Gilbert has helped and we should continue kicking this around as long as we have an input channel to Gilbert.


I agree with you, I did listen to that... I just think this guy Steve t can really point us in the right direction.... Gilbert blocked me on twitter because I asked him to look over some of the points we were making in this thread to see if maybe it can help him and the case, and just because of that he blocked me, which to me means he is full of himself, doesn't want anyone's input and feels he is like a god... It scares me, because Steve t is bringing up very valid points!! I feel we can win this, but I also feel its our last shot at winning the case and I would just like to see us do everything the judge is asking Gilbert to do.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree with you, I did listen to that... I just think this guy Steve t can really point us in the right direction.... Gilbert blocked me on twitter because I asked him to look over some of the points we were making in this thread to see if maybe it can help him and the case, and just because of that he blocked me, which to me means he is full of himself, doesn't want anyone's input and feels he is like a god... It scares me, because Steve t is bringing up very valid points!! I feel we can win this, but I also feel its our last shot at winning the case and I would just like to see us do everything the judge is asking Gilbert to do.


I think we need to be careful how we approach Gilbert. He has a bunch of people like we have seen here just dumping on him and he does assume you are in that camp if you come out against stuff. On the other hand he is running a facebook page, or someone is FOR him, to collect evidence of fraud.  More, I overlap with a bunch of his twitter followers, and we know some of the plaintiffs, of course.  I think we just need to get our piece together while we also need to think of the best way to present it.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Example of abrupt rule changing that harms Plaintiffs.
> Who is harmed: Brent Stafford and attending Delegates
> Where: St. Charles, MO
> Rule Changed: No recording devices were allowed.
> Why: Temporary Chair, (RNC Agent) attempted appointment of New Chair without voting or allowing nomination per Roberts Rules. Closing the convention without proper adjournment. 
> Photographer was arrested according to abrupt rule changes.
> Orders to vacate or be arrested for trespassing. 
> Brent Stafford was unduly arrested.
> Brent Stafford was acquitted of charges. Found not to be trespassing.
> ...


Could a summery and police & Court authored documents of the above be entered as evidence / exhibits ?

----------


## sailingaway

> Could a summery and police & Court authored documents of the above be entered as evidence / exhibits ?


the court judgment is absolutely an exception to the hearsay rule, and the complaint is to allege the facts you have to prove later.  We have evidence this stuff happened.  It may be that we'd need to track down different evidence to be admissible here and there, or get an affidavit to support a video or something, but usually if it happened we can find a way to get the fact in.

----------


## sailingaway

By the way I guess this is the interview today.  Don't know if anyone plans to listen: 

Ron Paul Girl ‏@RonPaulGirl
RT @girls4ronpaul: Live Interview with Attorney Richard Gilbert 8/10 6 PM CST Ron Paul Girl Radio | http://ow.ly/cToja @USA_Free_Press

----------


## BSU kid

Why in the world did we choose to file the lawsuit in a liberal court in California, where we don't even have much standing. Why did we not try for a district court in Maine, Louisiana, Oklahoma or some state where the harassment actually occurred in a significant fashion. From what I have read in alternative media (since I don't trust the MSM) the judge is treating this suit like a joke, don't you think a judge in Maine where all this discrimination is going down might take this more seriously? Don't you think he/she might actually understand the charges being leveled against Webster and his thugs, instead of a guy in California. I'm not hating on Gilbert, or trying to troll but I think we lack good standing at this California District Court.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I think we need to be careful how we approach Gilbert. He has a bunch of people like we have seen here just dumping on him and he does assume you are in that camp if you come out against stuff. On the other hand he is running a facebook page, or someone is FOR him, to collect evidence of fraud.  More, I overlap with a bunch of his twitter followers, and we know some of the plaintiffs, of course.  I think we just need to get our piece together while we also need to think of the best way to present it.


Ben Swan follows me on twitter, I may be able to get the message to Ben and have him forward it to Gilbert.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Why in the world did we choose to file the lawsuit in a liberal court in California, where we don't even have much standing. Why did we not try for a district court in Maine, Louisiana, Oklahoma or some state where the harassment actually occurred in a significant fashion. From what I have read in alternative media (since I don't trust the MSM) the judge is treating this suit like a joke, don't you think a judge in Maine where all this discrimination is going down might take this more seriously? Don't you think he/she might actually understand the charges being leveled against Webster and his thugs, instead of a guy in California. I'm not hating on Gilbert, or trying to troll but I think we lack good standing at this California District Court.


Gilbert thinks we have a reasonable Judge and....they know each other.

----------


## sailingaway

> Why in the world did we choose to file the lawsuit in a liberal court in California, where we don't even have much standing. Why did we not try for a district court in Maine, Louisiana, Oklahoma or some state where the harassment actually occurred in a significant fashion. From what I have read in alternative media (since I don't trust the MSM) the judge is treating this suit like a joke, don't you think a judge in Maine where all this discrimination is going down might take this more seriously? Don't you think he/she might actually understand the charges being leveled against Webster and his thugs, instead of a guy in California. I'm not hating on Gilbert, or trying to troll but I think we lack good standing at this California District Court.


We have federal question in a federal suit.  I don't think standing (venue?) has been attacked.  However, Gilbert's law office is in Santa Ana so it is clear why he wanted to file there.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ben Swan follows me on twitter, I may be able to get the message to Ben and have him forward it to Gilbert.


That is a good idea. He follows me also, and he tracks his facebook.  that would be a good idea once we have something to send. I don't want it to be an attack I want it to be a suggestion where he can see the value of the work product. Also we could still look into whether we could intervene if we need to, they don't have to be one or the other, until we know it will be filed.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> the court judgment is absolutely an exception to the hearsay rule, and the complaint is to allege the facts you have to prove later.  We have evidence this stuff happened.  It may be that we'd need to track down different evidence to be admissible here and there, or get an affidavit to support a video or something, but usually if it happened we can find a way to get the fact in.


I don't know, but I will see if Brent is a client. If so, video evidence may have already been entered and is likely that Gilbert would be likely to communicate with Brent.
Just thinkin' -  will go check it out after a ham sandwich or two.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't know, but I will see if Brent is a client. If so, video evidence may have already been entered and is likely that Gilbert would be likely to communicate with Brent.
> Just thinkin' -  will go check it out after a ham sandwich or two.


Nothing will actually have been entered at this point except the complaint, exhibits, and proofs of service.  But he may have it.  I think part of the problem is there is so MUCH so I think what we're doing is organizing it and adding evidence.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> By the way I guess this is the interview today.  Don't know if anyone plans to listen: 
> 
> Ron Paul Girl ‏@RonPaulGirl
> RT @girls4ronpaul: Live Interview with Attorney Richard Gilbert 8/10 6 PM CST Ron Paul Girl Radio | http://ow.ly/cToja @USA_Free_Press


Richard is on now live.
will calls be taken? RonPaulGirl also follows me on twitter -  she has a contact to Richard as well.

----------


## eleganz

LIVE interview with Richard Gilbert right now
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> LIVE interview with Richard Gilbert right now
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert


It keeps pausing, is there a different link?

----------


## eleganz

> It keeps pausing, is there a different link?


This is what I'm on.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert


And I can't believe the Ron Paul girl tried to convert the gingrich supporter that called in to show support of our case...it was just bad... He is the host of a radio show too.

----------


## afwjam

> This is what I'm on.
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert
> 
> 
> And I can't believe the Ron Paul girl tried to convert the gingrich supporter that called in to show support of our case...it was just bad... He is the host of a radio show too.


Yeah that was bad.

----------


## BSU kid

This is an odd radio show...haha.

----------


## sailingaway

> This is what I'm on.
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert
> 
> 
> And I can't believe the Ron Paul girl tried to convert the gingrich supporter that called in to show support of our case...it was just bad... He is the host of a radio show too.


I wasn't listening, but I think she's just a supporter first and a radio host second.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I can't listen to it, without having to click "play" every few seconds, it keeps pausing

I'll have to wait for a tube....

AND, dang it, I wish he would not file an appeal to get the judge to rule on the case quickly.  dang it.  he brought that up again.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> This is what I'm on.
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert
> 
> 
> And I can't believe the Ron Paul girl tried to convert the gingrich supporter that called in to show support of our case...it was just bad... He is the host of a radio show too.


She doesn't know when to NOT interrupt and her mic is mush. Telephone is clearer, she should call into her own show.

----------


## Cody1

> She doesn't know when to NOT interrupt and her mic is mush. Telephone is clearer, she should call into her own show.


I know I cut the feed off, she was getting on my nerves a little bit. There's a time and a place. The topic was the lawsuit, not convert the newt guy by telling him candidate is part of the problem, no matter how right you may be.

----------


## RonRules

Is it cold in Alaska?

----------


## eleganz

> I know I cut the feed off, she was getting on my nerves a little bit. There's a time and a place. The topic was the lawsuit, not convert the newt guy by telling him candidate is part of the problem, no matter how right you may be.


I know...I put in my two cents that the radio show host/gingrich supporter was not the enemy in this case, in fact he is an ally.  Some moron started yelling out NEOCON GLOBALIST SHILL, and the radio show host was in the chatroom.

The radio show host presented himself very well and mature.  I consider that battle Gingrich-1, Paul supporters-0

----------


## tod evans

> Judge: How do you know this an agent of the RNC? Judge: what is the agents name? Is this agent named in the suit? What is your physical proof that this "agent" did this? If you are working on the fraud end.. then you need be very clear, and that "agent" has a right to defend themselves against the charges


Security was hired by the RNC at the venues where violence occurred, a "hired hand" is an agent doing his masters bidding.

In the venues where ballots were shuffled off site once again it was a "hired hand" doing the shuffling.

Even if "names" aren't known pictures and or video are on hand for every claim.

If, as you claim, you have some knowledge in the law then certainly you understand terms like "agent" and "conspiracy"...it need not be proven that every member of a conspiracy knew the actions of others for them to be guilty of the entire conspiracy.

----------


## sailingaway

> I know...I put in my two cents that the radio show host/gingrich supporter was not the enemy in this case, in fact he is an ally.  Some moron started yelling out NEOCON GLOBALIST SHILL, and the radio show host was in the chatroom.
> 
> The radio show host presented himself very well and mature.  I consider that battle Gingrich-1, Paul supporters-0


Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.  Sometimes trolls pretend to be us and do that.  I would think we wouldn't want to do it to ourselves.

----------


## SteveT1736

I listened to Mr. Gilbert on the way home this evening.

What I can't figure out is his motive.

I can't imagine anyone with legal training doing what he is doing.  Getting dismissed for failure to plead any discernible factual claims is unusual.  I would be humiliated.  

Based on what I heard tonight, he is affirmatively misrepresenting Judge Carter's decision.  The judge has flat-out rejected his theory on the Voting Rights Act.  I sense considerable frustration from the bench.  And, the new complaint, without one fact, will (by my estimation) exceed Judge Carter's remaining patience.

Is all this for attention?  Publicity?   I can't discern a financial motive.  Puzzling.

----------


## rb3b3

Steve I'm one of your biggest fans on here, can you please point us it he right direction on how the Fk we can win this thing please. Be short and sweet but outline this thing for us and help us bring it home without you getting in trouble.. Please man!!






> I listened to Mr. Gilbert on the way home this evening.
> 
> What I can't figure out is his motive.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone with legal training doing what he is doing.  Getting dismissed for failure to plead any discernible factual claims is unusual.  I would be humiliated.  
> 
> Based on what I heard tonight, he is affirmatively misrepresenting Judge Carter's decision.  The judge has flat-out rejected his theory on the Voting Rights Act.  I sense considerable frustration from the bench.  And, the new complaint, without one fact, will (by my estimation) exceed Judge Carter's remaining patience.
> 
> Is all this for attention?  Publicity?   I can't discern a financial motive.  Puzzling.

----------


## devil21

> Steve I'm one of your biggest fans on here, can you please point us it he right direction on how the Fk we can win this thing please. Be short and sweet but outline this thing for us and help us bring it home without you getting in trouble.. Please man!!


Super Steve to the rescue?

Get real.  This guy doesn't want to help. He's wasting everyone's time with his posts.  For all you know, he could be a paralegal for the RNC's team.  He's already said in so many words that he's involved in the case in some form.  

Gilbert is moving forward with the case how he sees fit and no one here is going to change that.  Time to continue gathering info on the misconduct and leave the armchair quarterbacking (lawyering?) alone.

----------


## rb3b3

Nah man, I think you have Steve pegged wrong, I think this guy is the truth and wants to help but can't for whatever reason... I think if he did help us , it would be a slam dunk win. Gilbert is weird man it's as if he thinks he knows everything and doesn't want any input from anyone. It's now or never if they dismiss this amendment it's a done deal!!






> Super Steve to the rescue?
> 
> Get real.  This guy doesn't want to help. He's wasting everyone's time with his posts.  For all you know, he could be a paralegal for the RNC's team.  He's already said in so many words that he's involved in the case in some form.  
> 
> Gilbert is moving forward with the case how he sees fit and no one here is going to change that.  Time to continue gathering info on the misconduct and leave the armchair quarterbacking (lawyering?) alone.

----------


## sailingaway

> I listened to Mr. Gilbert on the way home this evening.
> 
> What I can't figure out is his motive.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone with legal training doing what he is doing.  Getting dismissed for failure to plead any discernible factual claims is unusual.  I would be humiliated.  
> 
> Based on what I heard tonight, he is affirmatively misrepresenting Judge Carter's decision.  The judge has flat-out rejected his theory on the Voting Rights Act.  I sense considerable frustration from the bench.  And, the new complaint, without one fact, will (by my estimation) exceed Judge Carter's remaining patience.
> 
> Is all this for attention?  Publicity?   I can't discern a financial motive.  Puzzling.


this is a poster child for an unhelpful post.  Do you know where the vent is? Because I was here for years before I did, but you can truly vent your frustration there, and more, people who agree with you will come and happily keep you company:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...p?276-The-Vent

Your prior post was actually helpful though negative. this one had nothing helpful about it.

----------


## BSU kid

I gotta put out this hypothetical out there just in case, say the Gilbert suit fails...do you think given the information that has been collected here that we can file another in a different district court before the convention?

----------


## eleganz

> Nah man, I think you have Steve pegged wrong, I think this guy is the truth and wants to help but can't for whatever reason... I think if he did help us , it would be a slam dunk win. Gilbert is weird man it's as if he thinks he knows everything and doesn't want any input from anyone. It's now or never if they dismiss this amendment it's a done deal!!


lol steve is only here to backup his buddy lawdiddy, who are only here to state their discontent for the lawsuit, not support it in anyway.

----------


## sailingaway

> I gotta put out this hypothetical just in case, say the Gilbert suit fails...do you think given the information that has been collected here that we can file another in a different district court before the convention?


I hope so. I don't know. I wonder if a motion to reconsider a dismissal (I'm not sure that is the right term) would be considered if supported by a _compliant_ complaint.  And in that case, possibly a different attorney. Or even a different location.  I'm not wishing Gilbert ill, his is the suit we have, but part of my worry is that if it gets dismissed our delegates are back to having no one.  What he filed isn't my daydream of a lawsuit, but no one else is doing anything.  And the thing about keeping the judge and going in for a motion to reconsider (or whatever it is) if we can would be the judge DOES see the act as applying and did hear the attorney say they could break their own rules or change them unilaterally whenever they wanted to.  My goal would be to expose fraud, seat delegates fraudulently challenged or prevented from becoming delegates, and make them follow the rules.  

I know it is a little different than what Gilbert is going for now.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> this is a poster child for an unhelpful post.  Do you know where the vent is? Because I was here for years before I did, but you can truly vent your frustration there, and more, people who agree with you will come and happily keep you company:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...p?276-The-Vent
> 
> Your prior post was actually helpful though negative. this one had nothing helpful about it.


Thank You - Is there a parrot in the room.
BTW - I was able to ask RC via chat: : Mr Gilbert, Does actual harm to Plaintiffs need to be 
proven to be granted "Guidence and Relief"? Thank You - 
TheKnowBuddies

I was called a troll for asking, a caller came to the rescue and read the question on my behalf.

----------


## rb3b3

Usually I'm good at pegging the aholes that are just trolling, for some reason I really feel like Steve is not a guy trolling. I really think he can help us win the case. HOWEVER im human and I have been wrong before... I just don't think I'm wrong and I think Steve knows what he is talking about .  I also think he can give clues and tips and lay it out for us on how to easily win this, but if he don't, I guess he is a useless Fk and I was wrong about him! But again I don't think that's the case. Time will tell





> lol steve is only here to backup his buddy lawdiddy, who are only here to state their discontent for the lawsuit, not support it in anyway.

----------


## sailingaway

> Usually I'm good at pegging the aholes that are just trolling, for some reason I really feel like Steve is not a guy trolling. I really think he can help us win the case. HOWEVER im human and I have been wrong before... I just don't think I'm wrong and I think Steve knows what he is talking about .  I also think he can give clues and tips and lay it out for us on how to easily win this, but if he don't, I guess he is a useless Fk and I was wrong about him! But again I don't think that's the case. Time will tell


I don't need to judge him. My gut tells me he is kinda reluctant but not certain on this, but truly unable to help.. But he could also be a troll, he hasn't actually done anything that would rule that out for me.  My concern is that this thread be constructive, though. Not even just talking about trolls.

----------


## sailingaway

> Thank You - Is there a parrot in the room.
> BTW - I was able to ask RC via chat: : Mr Gilbert, Does actual harm to Plaintiffs need to be 
> proven to be granted "Guidence and Relief"? Thank You - 
> TheKnowBuddies
> 
> I was called a troll for asking, a caller came to the rescue and read the question on my behalf.


For declaratory relief you have to claim actual harm WILL happen and reason why declaratory relief is needed so that will not happen.  Obviously it hasn't happened yet, typically.  Here some of it has happened.

----------


## rb3b3

> I don't need to judge him. My gut tells me he is kinda reluctant but not certain on this, but truly unable to help.. But he could also be a troll, he hasn't actually done anything that would rule that out for me.  My concern is that this thread be constructive, though. Not even just talking about trolls.


I agree, so do we have any attys that are rpf members at all??? I have a friend who is actually a criminal federal atty who is a parner at the best criminal lawyer firms on long island... I wonder if he would be able to help?? The only problem is they don't do pro bono and they are very highly paid!!! He is in new York not Cali though! I wouldn't even begin to know what to ask him or how to ask him for his help??? But I'm willing to give it a shot?

This is the firms website and his name is Joe Ferrante

http://keahonlaw.com/index.cfm

----------


## SteveT1736

Let me speak in general terms.

To survive initial procedural attacks, a lawsuit must:

  * Identify a plaintiff or plaintiff who have suffered specific wrong
  * Identify defendants that are the ones who did the wrong
  * Identify, specifically, by day, place and manner the specific wrong done by a particular defendant to a particular plaintiff
  * Identify a recognized legal theory that provides for the plaintiff to receive relief
  * Identify remedies that are recognized by law

In general, complaints that identify lots of plaintiffs and lots of defendants suffer from the following flaws:
  * Not every plaintiff has suffered a particular wrong
  * Not every defendant has done a particular wrongful act
  * The specific acts cannot be detailed
  * The legal theories don't have a recognized basis
  * The remedy does not flow from the acts or legal theory

If you reread Judge Carter's decision you will see elements of almost every flaw I enumerated.  Some haven't even been raised yet (in particular every plaintiff or defendant being involved in every act) but if this went to the next stage, that probably would be the next step by the Defendants.

There is another aspect I should cover.  Outside parties cannot save a flawed complaint.  Only the parties directly involved in the lawsuit or, in this case, their attorney. A party might have peeled off and done their own thing before but that window has probably closed. That is why I've been so down on the current status.  I really think this is not fixable.

I will disclose that I used to work for a judge.  I have a pretty good idea how they think.

----------


## eleganz

When one does nothing but complain about something, I'd consider it venting too.


I understand Sailingaway's position on Gilbert because I read Sailing's posts regarding Gilbert.  If you read the posts as well, you'd understand too.




> There you go again.  Promoting Gilbert by trying to keep people from saying anything negative about fraudster Gilbert.  The Vent's purpose is not to stop people from making negative comments about a topic posted on the forums.  If that was it's purpose you would be top busy to promote Gilbert because you would be moving about every other post to The Vent in every thread.  It isn't your personal dumping ground for posts you just don't agree with.

----------


## rb3b3

> Let me speak in general terms.
> 
> To survive initial procedural attacks, a lawsuit must:
> 
>   * Identify a plaintiff or plaintiff who have suffered specific wrong
>   * Identify defendants that are the ones who did the wrong
>   * Identify, specifically, by day, place and manner the specific wrong done by a particular defendant to a particular plaintiff
>   * Identify a recognized legal theory that provides for the plaintiff to receive relief
>   * Identify remedies that are recognized by law
> ...


Ahhh ha!! So you were a law clerk, and now your a judge!!! I knew it!!! My wife works in the criminal courts in the chiefs clerks office, I knew you were the truth!!, please keep giving us tips someone will be able to hopefully use them to our advantage!

----------


## PatriotOne

> When one does nothing but complain about something, I'd consider it venting too.
> 
> 
> I understand Sailingaway's position on Gilbert because I read Sailing's posts regarding Gilbert.  If you read the posts as well, you'd understand too.


I have read his posts.  Newbie or not, he's got a better grasp on this than most in this thread.  The only thing he hasn't figured out yet is that Gilbert's incompetence is intentional.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

The first complaint is all but dead and RG said it was anticipated, and that is why he was all ready for the second amended complaint to be filed the very next day. So.... as I see it....
"I can't imagine anyone with legal training doing what he is doing. Getting dismissed for failure to plead any discernible factual claims is unusual. I would be humiliated."
is not important at this time and sounds like what lawdiddly was trying to propagate over on DP where they can vote you off the island with negativity.
I haven't called anyone a troll , yet, name calling  is not my style.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I have read his posts.  Newbie or not, he's got a better grasp on this than most in this thread.  The only thing he hasn't figured out yet is that Gilbert's incompetence is intentional.


You got it.

----------


## RickyJ

> I listened to Mr. Gilbert on the way home this evening.
> 
> What I can't figure out is his motive.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone with legal training doing what he is doing.  Getting dismissed for failure to plead any discernible factual claims is unusual.  I would be humiliated.  
> 
> Based on what I heard tonight, he is affirmatively misrepresenting Judge Carter's decision.  The judge has flat-out rejected his theory on the Voting Rights Act.  I sense considerable frustration from the bench.  And, the new complaint, without one fact, will (by my estimation) exceed Judge Carter's remaining patience.
> 
> *Is all this for attention?  Publicity?   I can't discern a financial motive.*  Puzzling.


What do you mean you can't discern a motive? You had no problem a few days ago suggesting it was deliberate sabotage. 




> The judge has flat-out rejected his theory on the Voting Rights Act.


I don't think that is the case at all. We will see soon. Anyways, you aren't of any help so what are you here for?

----------


## rb3b3

> I have read his posts.  Newbie or not, he's got a better grasp on this than most in this thread.  The only thing he hasn't figured out yet is that Gilbert's incompetence is intentional.





> You got it.


Why please tell me why Gilbert's incompetence is intentional?? Why would someone put in soo many hours pro bono to be incompetent intentionally?? Are you guys trying to say he is working for the GOP to bring this lawsuit up for it to fail miserably so it can never be brought up again in a court room? That's the only logical reason I can see someone being incompetent on purpose!

----------


## RickyJ

> Why please tell me why Gilbert's incompetence is intentional?? Why would someone put in soo many hours pro bono to be incompetent intentionally?? Are you guys trying to say he is working for the GOP to bring this lawsuit up for it to fail miserably so it can never be brought up again in a court room? That's the only logical reason I can see someone being incompetent on purpose!


That is exactly what they are saying. I truly hope that is not the case, but of course it is a possibility.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> For declaratory relief you have to claim actual harm WILL happen and reason why declaratory relief is needed so that will not happen.  Obviously it hasn't happened yet, typically.  Here some of it has happened.


Then will the Defense argue that RG is wrong with the assertion that the Defense does not intend to follow US Federal Law because they have exhibited the potential of following their own rules that they claim to be entitled to break? ['round and 'round and 'round we go, getting dizzy yet?, Judge, stop this merry-go-round please]

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I'm reading the Lopez Torres decision, I'm on page 35 right now.  I'm not so sure that Gilbert is not doing exactly what the judge implied.  I'm off to read more...

edit: although he may need more supporting evidence, I don't know that he gave any...I'll have to reread Gilberts current complaint later.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Why please tell me why Gilbert's incompetence is intentional?? Why would someone put in soo many hours pro bono to be incompetent intentionally?? Are you guys trying to say he is working for the GOP to bring this lawsuit up for it to fail miserably so it can never be brought up again in a court room? That's the only logical reason I can see someone being incompetent on purpose!


He _appears_ to be incompetent, which is his intent. 
When you are on the attack don't show your strength, your opponent becomes over confident and lets down the guard and while he laughs at you you deliver the sucker punch.
If you are being attacked, stand tough and never show weakness.
Crazy as a fox.

----------


## eleganz

Gilbert has sad many times that his main goal is to get the injunctive relief decided right in time for the RNC.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Hmmm............




> Based on the record before me, I find that county leaders in general, and Farrell in
> particular, actually wield enormous and dispositive power in the process by which Justices of the
> Supreme Court are selected. No one can get elected Supreme Court Justice in the First
> Department without Farrell’s support. And since the heart of this case is the plaintiffs’ claim that
> county leaders, along with district leaders, decide who becomes a Justice of the Supreme Court,
> and the plaintiffs have produced ample evidence to support that claim, ...

----------


## PatriotOne

> Why please tell me why Gilbert's incompetence is intentional?? Why would someone put in soo many hours pro bono to be incompetent intentionally?? Are you guys trying to say he is working for the GOP to bring this lawsuit up for it to fail miserably so it can never be brought up again in a court room? That's the only logical reason I can see someone being incompetent on purpose!


I don't know who he is working for but it sure the hell isn't us.  Lot's of people/organizations have a vested interest in suppressing Ron Paul and the movement in general.  Sabotuers are used by many organizations...not just our Government.  I doubt Gilbert is working for the GOP...most of them are clueless about black ops.  I would suspect one of the big bank donors (Fed Reserve bank) to Romney/Obama before I would suspect the GOP.

----------


## libertylastchance

Crazy like a fox he is not.. He by passes all the steps and goes for the gold.. and fails everytime.. the same MO in every case.. Pro bono.. well in his mind the winning of something ground breaking is hitting the jack pot.
Going-for-broke-in-battle-over-gay-vows-Many-2542781

----------


## libertylastchance

> Let me speak in general terms.
> 
> To survive initial procedural attacks, a lawsuit must:
> 
>   * Identify a plaintiff or plaintiff who have suffered specific wrong
>   * Identify defendants that are the ones who did the wrong
>   * Identify, specifically, by day, place and manner the specific wrong done by a particular defendant to a particular plaintiff
>   * Identify a recognized legal theory that provides for the plaintiff to receive relief
>   * Identify remedies that are recognized by law
> ...


The judge was CLEAR.. allow one more amendment (1).. if he chooses to....     meaning there is nothing else that can be added to the case, it would require an amendment to do so... what you are reading in his final amendment is what is goinit g to be.. nothing more and nothing less... Do you really think that the judge at this point after all he has handed him, is going to say ... well OK.... you can amend again...
His first filed amendment was denied because he filed it wrong.. the judge gave instruction on how to file correctly.. the defense even gave information on filing correctly and did not challenge the amendment...... think about this.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

ClydeCoulter, 
RG said that he will be posting the transcript on Monday. This should bring some clarity and less skeptical speculations. (hopefully)

----------


## libertylastchance

He brings logic and reality to the table..

----------


## libertylastchance

I saw nothing in the court ruling stating that the RNC said they can break the rules.... does anyone have the transcript?

----------


## libertylastchance

All the fraud should of been handled at the state level.. People who were subjected to, or witnessed to.. need to take the steps to correct the problem..

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

As I recall the first amendment was for the purposes of adding more Plaintiffs and no other content had changed - Ref per minute order 7-12-2012 (from memory)

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I saw nothing in the court ruling stating that the RNC said they can break the rules.... does anyone have the transcript?


RG said tonight on the Radio Interview that he plans to have it posted on Monday.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree, so do we have any attys that are rpf members at all??? I have a friend who is actually a criminal federal atty who is a parner at the best criminal lawyer firms on long island... I wonder if he would be able to help?? The only problem is they don't do pro bono and they are very highly paid!!! He is in new York not Cali though! I wouldn't even begin to know what to ask him or how to ask him for his help??? But I'm willing to give it a shot?
> 
> This is the firms website and his name is Joe Ferrante
> 
> http://keahonlaw.com/index.cfm


If as a friend he were willing to give tips even if not work on it much, that would be great, but if we are going to hire an attorney I would think it should be one wherever we are bringing suit, and who does civil practice in federal court.  I think one issue here is Gilbert is more of a family law attorney etc, and is trying to stretch in an area that isn't really his area, because he feels strongly about it.  But any attorney with federal pleading experience who wanted to give tips to you as a friend would be helpful as we try to rough up a complaint possibly for an attorney to look at.

----------


## BSU kid

> If as a friend he were willing to give tips even if not work on it much, that would be great, but if we are going to hire an attorney I would think it should be one wherever we are bringing suit, and who does civil practice in federal court.  I think one issue here is Gilbert is more of a family law attorney etc, and is trying to stretch in an area that isn't really his area, because he feels strongly about it.  But any attorney with federal pleading experience who wanted to give tips to you as a friend would be helpful as we try to rough up a complaint possibly for an attorney to look at.


Interesting thoughts indeed, I guess we can't give up on Gilbert yet but it's nice to have at least a plausible backup. That backup would require a plaintiff who is a delegate though I would imagine.

----------


## sailingaway

> Interesting thoughts indeed, I guess we can't give up on Gilbert yet but it's nice to have at least a plausible backup. That backup would require a plaintiff who is a delegate though I would imagine.


Well, some of the plaintiffs are forum members and we have members working with us on the facts who were at least state delegates where the fraud happened --some are national delegates -- we could let it be known there was another suit and I think we'd have plaintiffs. That is how Gilbert got them. I'm telling you, people were desperate for someone to do SOMETHING.

----------


## devil21

And we're still wasting pages of thread material and burying relevant info while entertaining the trolls.  How the F would anybody find anything of use in this thread if it's been taken over by stupid legal bickering with new posters?

(Im guilty here too!  Just trying to keep stuff in perspective.  These threads are valuable for the videos and links that are posted.  Stop clogging them up!!!  Split it off Sailing.  Corral the disruption.  Sorry to say this but do your job as a moderator, not as a supporter.  Mean that in the nicest way possible.)

----------


## sailingaway

> All the fraud should of been handled at the state level.. People who were subjected to, or witnessed to.. need to take the steps to correct the problem..


I really disagree, I think the pattern and practice ACROSS THE NATION due to the RNC accepting state results with a wink and a nod despite cheating is what makes requiring the RNC to seat delegates/obey rules compelling.

----------


## sailingaway

> And we're still wasting pages of thread material and burying relevant info while entertaining the trolls.  How the F would anybody find anything of use in this thread if it's been taken over by stupid legal bickering with new posters?
> 
> (Im guilty here too!  Just trying to keep stuff in perspective.  These threads are valuable for the videos and links that are posted.  Stop clogging them up!!!  Split it off Sailing.  Corral the disruption.  Sorry to say this but do your job as a moderator, not as a supporter.  Mean that in the nicest way possible.)


I have banned a couple of them, but this thread is too long and messy to get them all.  I have pretty much been taking the videos and actual evidence and posting them at the sticky thread at the top which is ONLY for evidence, statements of facts and vetting whether those facts are true.

I do consider strategy to be the big part of this thread, as well as brainstorming about what facts we need.  I consider constructive criticism of strategy necessary for coming up with a good strategy.  I don't personally consider just complaining about how bad things are to be constructive however.

----------


## sailingaway

> Let me speak in general terms.
> 
> To survive initial procedural attacks, a lawsuit must:
> 
>   * Identify a plaintiff or plaintiff who have suffered specific wrong
>   * Identify defendants that are the ones who did the wrong
>   * Identify, specifically, by day, place and manner the specific wrong done by a particular defendant to a particular plaintiff
>   * Identify a recognized legal theory that provides for the plaintiff to receive relief
>   * Identify remedies that are recognized by law
> ...


every defendent doesn't need to be involved in every act, they just need to be necessary parties if their rights are affected, I understand?
Doing wrong goes to acts in the past and damages more than to future declaratory judgment except for the part about why you need extraordinary relief in the first place and doesn't the attorney saying they can cheat or change rules after the game is over, unilaterally (as they tried in St Charles) satisfy that?  There may need to be more support but there is some.

But I envision a different complaint, as I've mentioned.

----------


## tod evans

> I really disagree, I think the pattern and practice ACROSS THE NATION due to the RNC accepting state results with a wink and a nod despite cheating is what makes requiring the RNC to seat delegates/obey rules compelling.


I'm of the opinion that even without "proof" there's some sort of hierarchy in the RNC that has been calling the shots all along....

If enough of the underlings feet are held to the fire it's entirely possible we could move up a level or two in this hierarchy...

Just by exposing their actions we get the coals smoldering.....And having this lawsuit in the court system only adds fuel.

----------


## sailingaway

By the way, once we have our facts / complaint mock up in place, two of the ways to possibly get it before the judge are to:

1) submit it to Gilbert, maybe through a plaintiff he can't just 'block' so he at least looks at it.  I am hoping he will LIKE it, and as an 'alternative' argument in his argument against the next motion to dismiss, I am hoping he will attach it as a 'it wouldn't be futile if you gave me the chance to amend again' demonstration of a good faith complaint he would file if allowed (modified as he felt necessary).  I believe the judge WANTS this to go forward if it can be properly prosecuted, and might then give another chance (assuming he would otherwise rule against Gilbert at that time and I am not as certain as some detractors here that he will.)

or 

2) do a motion to reconsider immediately after receiving a motion to dismiss. However, I don't know if we could intervene with different counsel without ALL the plaintiffs on board with that, and otherwise that would also take Gilbert agreeing to it.  Or maybe we'd just need a plaintiff or two to ask to replace THEIR counsel.  I don't know.  But while it seems not to be in the federal rules apparently they do happen in federal court: http://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/dndopini...0-cv-84-35.pdf

I just raise these as possibilities to think about and we should also discuss any ideas anyone else has.

--
edit - I also see discussion of a 'motion to reopen' which apparently divests the appellate court of jurisdiction for an appeal, and I don't know if Gilbert would go along with that.

My thought is we'd have to have our draft to Gilbert before the response is due on the motion to dismiss, or if dismissal is granted before Aug 20, before then to note that that was when the court originally asked for in its order, so it wouldn't have delayed matters.  That's just brainstorming.  Thoughts?

----------


## freedomordeath

> 2) do a motion to reconsider immediately after receiving a motion to dismiss. However, I don't know if we could intervene with different counsel without ALL the plaintiffs on board with that, and otherwise that would also take Gilbert agreeing to it. Or maybe we'd just need a plaintiff or two to ask to replace THEIR counsel. I don't know. But while it seems not to be in the federal rules apparently they do happen in federal court: http://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/dndopini...0-cv-84-35.pdf


Go with 1, but have everything ready for option 2. Also by having a couple of plantiffs on board with a new motion, like gold poeple will go with quality and the rest of the plantiffs will jump ship when they see something better. This will put pressure on Gilbert not to ignore us but to work with us. Also we can get everything together then do a chip in with a lawyer, he can read it over and advice us, surley this will not cost too much if he charges for say 3-4 hours to go over case.

----------


## sailingaway

the reference on the motion to reopen is this: 


> Motion To Reopen a Dismissed Adversary Proceeding and Set Aside the Order of Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


However, some others were thinking a different venue would be better in which case it would be a different procedure but also harder to get heard by RNC.  Again, thoughts?  

The first order of business is to get the facts together and the arguments and potentially supporting law into a complaint mock up for an attorney to review, or to otherwise use (the campaign might want parts of it for delegate challenges if they don't have all the evidence).  But we have a narrow window, IF we are going to do anything in court and we need to have a plan or various plans, imho.

----------


## sailingaway

> Go with 1, but have everything ready for option 2. Also by having a couple of plantiffs on board with a new motion, like gold poeple will go with quality and the rest of the plantiffs will jump ship when they see something better. This will put pressure on Gilbert not to ignore us but to work with us. Also we can get everything together then do a chip in with a lawyer, he can read it over and advice us, surley this will not cost too much if he charges for say 3-4 hours to go over case.


getting an attorney who practices in the area to 'just go over' a complaint might be tough.  Someone would have to file and prosecute it.  MAYBE they would do it for a plaintiff who wanted to file pro se, but I don't know.  We might have to get it through an injunction/hearing.  Money is definitely an issue here, given the time.  But we might be more likely to get it if we have a compelling complaint.

----------


## BSU kid

I'm no law student but it seems to me that if we can find a delegate on this site or daily paul etc. that was not part of the Gilbert suit, they can file a separate case with similar questions to Gilbert. In that instance it would be treated as a different case entirely, especially if it is filed in say the District Court of Maine or Massachusetts (Where we have verifiable evidence of fraud, and violations of the voting rights act) and then we would also be able to ask the question of binding delegates. I would say that if Gilbert fails, which he might not, then we have to ditch him and find a smaller pool of plaintiffs to file a new suit using information that has been compiled on this site and others as a last shot.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm no law student but it seems to me that if we can find a delegate on this site or daily paul etc. that was not part of the Gilbert suit, they can file a separate case with similar questions to Gilbert. In that case it would be treated as a different case entirely, especially if it is filed in say the District Court of Maine or Massachusetts (Where we have verifiable evidence of fraud, and violations of the voting rights act) and then we would also be able to ask the question of binding delegates. I would say that if Gilbert fails, which he might not, then we have to ditch him and find a smaller pool of plaintiffs to file a new suit using information that has been compiled on this site and others as a last shot.


Yes, but the only issue I see there is getting it heard by RNC to get a declaratory judgement they have to follow the rules and seat our delegates.  It is still a potential.

This judge also indicated a belief that the Voting Rights Act DOES apply to the RNC under some theories (I'm thinking contract with the rules being the contract, here but he might have meant something else).  

But there should be a potential for different plaintiffs to go for fraud in different cases.

----------


## BSU kid

> Yes, but the only issue I see there is getting it heard by RNC to get a declaratory judgement they have to follow the rules and seat our delegates.  It is still a potential.
> 
> This judge also indicated a belief that the Voting Rights Act DOES apply to the RNC under some theories (I'm thinking contract with the rules being the contract, here but he might have meant something else).  
> 
> But there should be a potential for different plaintiffs to go for fraud in different cases.


I see what you mean about being heard by the RNC, and that a change of venue might also make it harder. I definitely like Option 2 to an extent, but I think the judge won't reconsider even with a different counsel. After all he has already given us 3 chances here, and if Gilbert strikes out that is probably the end of the inning.

----------


## sailingaway

> I see what you mean about being heard by the RNC, and that a change of venue might also make it harder. I definitely like Option 2 to an extent, but I think the judge won't reconsider even with a different counsel. After all he has already given us 3 chances here, and if Gilbert strikes out that is probably the end of the inning.


We'd find that out very quickly if so. I think if the judge drops it it will be BECAUSE of Gilbert not addressing his stated concerns and immediately bringing in new counsel to do that BEFORE the deadline the judge initially set of Aug 20 might find sympathy. He did stay up to midnight to get his order out late so Gilbert had plenty of direction.  He put a lot into the suit. But he probably doesn't want it argued poorly because of its importance, I suspect.

However, I'm not convinced of one process over another, I'm just trying to get possibilities into the discussion so we can discuss them and know what timing would be required etc.

----------


## BSU kid

> We'd find that out very quickly if so. I think if the judge drops it it will be BECAUSE of Gilbert not addressing his stated concerns and immediately bringing in new counsel to do that BEFORE the deadline the judge initially set of Aug 20 might find sympathy. He did stay up to midnight to get his order out late so Gilbert had plenty of direction.  He put a lot into the suit. But he probably doesn't want it argued poorly because of its importance, I suspect.
> 
> However, I'm not convinced of one process over another, I'm just trying to get possibilities into the discussion so we can discuss them and know what timing would be required etc.


It's nice to hear your theory on the judge, do we have a backup counsel in California just in case?

----------


## No1butPaul

Just curious SteveT1736 -- are you really on OUR side?

EXPOSED:
Chronicling the Crazy Chat on Mitt Romney Central

SteveT1736: Fraud is what the Captain America campaign is about. Can't win primaries. Can't win caucuses. But, maybe, we can play around with the delegates. And, of course, the American people will then embrace Captain America as President. Right. looooooooooool

I have much more confidence Richard Gilbert is on our side than SteveT!  But he's got people here thinking he's a judge or something!  I'm not fooled.

Beware of strangers bearing "gifts."

----------


## SteveT1736

It is fair to say that isn't my posting.  I have no explanation for the similar name.

----------


## torchbearer

> Just curious SteveT1736 -- are you really on OUR side?
> 
> EXPOSED:
> Chronicling the Crazy Chat on Mitt Romney Central
> 
> SteveT1736: Fraud is what the Captain America campaign is about. Can't win primaries. Can't win caucuses. But, maybe, we can play around with the delegates. And, of course, the American people will then embrace Captain America as President. Right. looooooooooool
> 
> I have much more confidence Richard Gilbert is on our side than SteveT!  But he's got people here thinking he's a judge or something!  I'm not fooled.



trolls are easy to spot.

----------


## torchbearer

> It is fair to say that isn't my posting.  I have no explanation for the similar name.


similar?
a political forum site with neocon leaning- some guy comes up with the exact handle.
perhaps a few puppet accounts could help you.

----------


## BSU kid

> It is fair to say that isn't my posting.  I have no explanation for the similar name.


No offense, but it is the *exact same name* and this is from before you even joined RPFs. You could have at least picked a new name if you were going to try to infiltrate this discussion that SailingAway and others have been working very hard on now for weeks. It's pretty shameful, mate.

----------


## SteveT1736

BSUkid -- I created this name when I registered.  I just did a google search and the only time it appears is for my RPF registration.  I really have no explanation.

----------


## No1butPaul

> BSUkid -- I created this name when I registered.  I just did a google search and the only time it appears is for my RPF registration.  I really have no explanation.


Google again ... that's how I found it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Just curious SteveT1736 -- are you really on OUR side?
> 
> EXPOSED:
> Chronicling the Crazy Chat on Mitt Romney Central
> 
> SteveT1736: Fraud is what the Captain America campaign is about. Can't win primaries. Can't win caucuses. But, maybe, we can play around with the delegates. And, of course, the American people will then embrace Captain America as President. Right. looooooooooool
> 
> I have much more confidence Richard Gilbert is on our side than SteveT!  But he's got people here thinking he's a judge or something!  I'm not fooled.
> 
> Beware of strangers bearing "gifts."


can you link to that or give us a screen shot?  I don't see it either.

----------


## BSU kid

> can you link to that or give us a screen shot?  I don't see it either.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Romney-Central 

Post #8, from May...

----------


## sailingaway

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Romney-Central 
> 
> Post #8, from May...


Bingo.

Thanks.

Wow, that really makes me think we must be onto something with this suit. I find that encouraging.

----------


## torchbearer

more exact post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4401318

----------


## No1butPaul

> can you link to that or give us a screen shot?  I don't see it either.


FULL CONVERSATION:

PaulSoHard05-05-2012, 09:57 PM
Here's a wild experience I've seen recently


05/05/12 10:48 PM
StellaAZ: I don't hear any Mitt supporters whining. I think it's you RP supporters doing the whining.

vs


Don: They want to try to cheat the entire U.S. election process

Jayde: the slate thing was a staged stunt by paul supporters made to think it was from romney

JayJames: I am just mad right now. I just hate cheating

daly5x: only need to cheat when you are losing

Paulee: don't let them try to lie to you....They cheated today....

Paulee: this is not patriotic.....one bit.....

Paulee: they are so mouthy...

SteveT1736: Fraud is what the Captain America campaign is about. Can't win primaries. Can't win caucuses. But, maybe, we can play around with the delegates. And, of course, the American people will then embrace Captain America as President. Right.

looooooooooool

LINK:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive...t-375136.html?


ADD:  WHO'S PLAYING AROUND WITH THE DELEGATES? --USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press 
*Leader of Arizona delegation to FBI meeting about Romney Election Fraud gets telephone threat against their children*

----------


## sailingaway

> It's nice to hear your theory on the judge, do we have a backup counsel in California just in case?


No, we need to be moving if we want to get it, and a chip in would be the start I think.  We need someone who is experienced in federal pleading, clearly.

----------


## sailingaway

> FULL CONVERSATION:
> 
> PaulSoHard05-05-2012, 09:57 PM
> Here's a wild experience I've seen recently
> 
> 
> 05/05/12 10:48 PM
> StellaAZ: I don't hear any Mitt supporters whining. I think it's you RP supporters doing the whining.
> 
> ...


well we have the FEC payments from the Romney campaign to the guy who passed the fake slates in Maine at least, I'm not sure which state they are talking about, the Romney folks did it in a bunch, Colorado etc.

--edit, nvm off topic

----------


## rb3b3

Wow hahaha see man I hate that abut myself!!!!! I'm too nice, I give people the benefit of the doubt way too much!!!!! I didn't think Steve was a troll, but I couldn't be more wrong wow!!!!! Soooo mad I was sticking up for him and asking for his help so he can sabotage us!!!!!! What a fkn retart I am!!!! I'm sorry for sticking up for him and it's my apology to every here on rpf.. I feel like an ashle now!! rb3b3= a gullible retart nice guy!

----------


## LibertyEagle

Most excellent detective work, Sailing.  

The jig is up, Steve.

----------


## sailingaway

> Most excellent detective work, Sailing.  
> 
> The jig is up, Steve.


It wasn't me it was No1ButPaul and BSU and torchbearer, but I agree with the rest of it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ah  yes, I see now.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

Good Morning / oops, Afternoon - I have had a few things get between me and my 'puter. I'll have to get caught up on some reading.
In the meantime I'll throw this out there, written by someone I respect and is highly devoted to the Liberty Movement & Dr. Paul
----------------------------------------------------------
We could all benefit from that lesson that, against all odds, this nation was created--and all of us have enjoyed the benefits of those miracles against that tyrannical British regime.

Why are you asking this to be deleted, when there are so many posts, here (DP), where the authors are obviously and deliberately undermining our movement?

Furthermore, it becomes readily apparent that those individuals who are viciously attacking Mr. Gilbert are nothing less than Romney moles at a minimum and are likely Mossad agents. Do you deny it?
----------------------------------------------------------
Any Guesses? 
RG is following me on twitter and has RT 'd my tweets - I can send direct messages but want to build a good report first.
Time is short, I think that there may not be time for major changes - Best to make the Best of what we have.

----------


## rb3b3

Guess We won't be seeing Steve around anymore! What's amazing to me is him trying to deny it lol, now I know what they mean by every inmate in jail are all innocent hahahahahaha.

----------


## BSU kid

The fact that steve was on here trying to derail us, only means that the establishment is scared of this legal action. I say Keep at it!

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

When Reagan was considering running for Prez in '76, his focus was on a delegate strategy.

----------


## sailingaway

> When Reagan was considering running for Prez in '76, his focus was on a delegate strategy.


Yeah, and Ron Paul led the Texas delegation for Reagan in 1976.    Mind you, the same people backing Romney now fought Reagan then, so they don't see it as a plus, in fact I'm sure that is why they never allowed another candidate's name in contention again after that.

Now, back to the lawsuit.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> No offense, but it is the *exact same name* and this is from before you even joined RPFs. You could have at least picked a new name if you were going to try to infiltrate this discussion that SailingAway and others have been working very hard on now for weeks. It's pretty shameful, mate.


How about Steve Dickson ...*and the case AGAINST L4RP* http://www.dailypaul.com/243838/step...e-against-l4rp  ??

( I did not get into name calling, Notice S___ addressed very little toward me, He knows who I am from DP. )

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

So many thought that RG would NOT get this far. The JUDGE got the admission that they BREAK their own rules. No wonder detractors are working overtime.
RG is filing in the Federal Appellate Court early next week as a backup to expedite. Transcript is planned to be posted on Monday. Full Steam Ahead.

----------


## rb3b3

> So many thought that RG would NOT get this far. The JUDGE got the admission that they BREAK their own rules. No wonder detractors are working overtime.
> RG is filing in the Federal Appellate Court early next week as a backup to expedite. Transcript is planned to be posted on Monday. Full Steam Ahead.


What about the people in this thread who have been members of rpf since 2007 saying Gilbert is being incompetent on purpose?? Why are the saying that? I would think if u have been. Member here for that long you re a true supporter? Or am I wring about tht too??

----------


## sailingaway

> What about the people in this thread who have been members of rpf since 2007 saying Gilbert is being incompetent on purpose?? Why are the saying that? I would think if u have been. Member here for that long you re a true supporter? Or am I wring about tht too??


Let's not derail the thread, you can start a different one about trolls if you like.

----------


## robertwerden

All I have to say is this: If you talk bad about the law suit in any way shape or form you go on my ignore list. Simple as that.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> What about the people in this thread who have been members of rpf since 2007 saying Gilbert is being incompetent on purpose?? Why are the saying that? I would think if u have been. Member here for that long you re a true supporter? Or am I wring about tht too??


It's not about how long you've been in town, IMHO, It's about your choices of who and what to believe and trust. 1776 against all odds, Keep the Faith, make the best of what you can and stay focused on your goals. Changing the world is hard work.

----------


## rb3b3

Yeah I'm not interested in the trolls trying to derail us, just want to win this lawsuit and see Ron nominated from the floor and eventually win the GOP nomination and then beat Obama to become potus! BOOOOOOOOOO YA!!

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Yeah I'm not interested in the trolls trying to derail us, just want to win this lawsuit and see Ron nominated from the floor and eventually win the GOP nomination and then beat Obama to become potus! BOOOOOOOOOO YA!!


I am working on establishing a respectful line of communication with Gilbert. He may know more about me than I am aware of. I made no excuses for any of human shortcomings, rather opposed undue personal attacks. He has very little respect for DP. 
Source example from DP:
Submitted by Patriot Press_U... on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:12. Permalink

"No worries. I will not be posting any new articles on this site.
I was new here and I did not know this bumping Rule.
Now, I know the Rule serves the interests of those who seek to defame and curse. (not you)
I have learned enough about this site to know it is beneath my dignity to post articles here.
Thank you for your advice.
Can you assist me in getting the remainder of my articles deleted?
Richard"

If he comes around here, I hope we we show respect?
With the prospect to UNBIND ALL DELEGATES - ALL POLITICAL PARTIES, he is the only Quarterback that we have in the game.
Let us become constructive. Landmark HISTORICAL event -

----------


## sailingaway

> How about Steve Dickson ...*and the case AGAINST L4RP* http://www.dailypaul.com/243838/step...e-against-l4rp  ??
> 
> ( I did not get into name calling, Notice S___ addressed very little toward me, He knows who I am from DP. )


I just brought this up with the mods at daily paul and it does not seem to be the same Steve, so while the one in our thread seems to be from Mitt Romney Central, the one on that DP post seems to be different, at least from the information we have now.  There could easily be more than one steve who don't like the suit.

----------


## sailingaway

> I am working on establishing a respectful line of communication with Gilbert. He may know more about me than I am aware of. I made no excuses for any of human shortcomings, rather opposed undue personal attacks. He has very little respect for DP. 
> Source example from DP:
> Submitted by Patriot Press_U... on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:12. Permalink
> 
> "No worries. I will not be posting any new articles on this site.
> I was new here and I did not know this bumping Rule.
> Now, I know the Rule serves the interests of those who seek to defame and curse. (not you)
> I have learned enough about this site to know it is beneath my dignity to post articles here.
> Thank you for your advice.
> ...


Once we get something to give him that might be a good idea but right now, I'm concerned that someone here who doesn't like the suit would get him mad and close the door more firmly between us. If we do end up wanting to give him any sort of statement of facts or mock up complaint, I don't want someone here attacking him to make that connection impossible.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> Once we get something to give him that might be a good idea but right now, I'm concerned that someone here who doesn't like the suit would get him mad and close the door more firmly between us. If we do end up wanting to give him any sort of statement of facts or mock up complaint, I don't want someone here attacking him to make that connection impossible.


Well, remember, there is that tag team connection, if you read the threads on DP. 
None the less, No One knows more about the 9th circuit action than RG and the Judge. We may gain a lot more confidence once we get the transcript. RG says that the Judge is watching the evidence/DVD's. Although not used at this time, they paint a clear picture. We should not assume that Judge does not have the BIG picture.
In the next oral arguments, the Judge may again get more admissions out of the Defense. This is not a usual case, this is a landmark case, historical case, and so far RG has men on base and likely scoring position. I fully support RG not only here but on twitter.
Examples:
Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
@USA_Free_Press Thanks for answering my questions on @RonPaulGirl radio. Looking forward to transcript.
Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press 

Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
@USA_Free_Press Cheers 2 RG! - The fight is on - All they can do now is to detract & attempt to delay - The Judge has the big picture
Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press

Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
Catch the Replay @RonPaulGirl Interviews Richard Gilbert Lawsuit Lead Attorney http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaul...ichard-gilbert … @USA_Free_Press
Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, remember, there is that tag team connection, if you read the threads on DP. 
> None the less, No One knows more about the 9th circuit action than RG and the Judge. We may gain a lot more confidence once we get the transcript. RG says that the Judge is watching the evidence/DVD's. Although not used at this time, they paint a clear picture. We should not assume that Judge does not have the BIG picture.
> In the next oral arguments, the Judge may again get more admissions out of the Defense. This is not a usual case, this is a landmark case, historical case, and so far RG has men on base and likely scoring position. I fully support RG not only here but on twitter.
> Examples:
> Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
> @USA_Free_Press Thanks for answering my questions on @RonPaulGirl radio. Looking forward to transcript.
> Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press 
> 
> Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
> ...


I don't honestly know the history at DP but it is clearly a sensitive subject.  I got dumped on the second I asked about this and I'm not really interested in getting into it more on the web page, even in the mod comment forum. If the mods want to email me, they have my email address.

----------


## Barrex

LOL....I had so many things to say but I will restrain my self and just say: Lol.

Going forward:
-Unless something extraordinary happens our effort to collect information will not be used before Tampa. We simply are not that organized and fast to make it in such a short time.
-"Public Information Act"(or is it called "Freedom of Inforamtion Act??? sorry translating stuff is not my forte) includes access to reported crimes.(go there and file a simple request) Find out how many people reported crimes at conventions and elections.Get all informations available. This is already codified information that we can use!
-Contacting http://www.toolsforjustice.com wouldnt be bad idea because they are already collecting same information.-If we are taking this project seriously people will have to contact other people via e-mails, phones etc. Contact delegates, voters, convention goers etc. Taking videos and pictures from internet will not get us far.
-This project needs to be separated from LFRP, Richard Gilbert and lawsuit because it creates bad feeling with some people. Collected information can be used later in lawsuit or some other action.
- If someone (look sailingaway) writes article about "Collecting information about illegal activities during this elections" (or something like that) I am willing to spread it on all other Ron Paul friendly websites. I contacted them all and got accounts on all of them. (I would just add that moderator on RPF would be handling all personal info /emails, etc./)
-SMART plan
Specific= What are we going for here?
Measurable/Manageable= How many... 
Attainable=?
Realistic=?
Timely=? This is not going to happen before Tampa.

I was ranting about this for a long time in most of the threads (ok rants) that I started and I pissed some people off but without PLAN and ORGANIZATION sucess chances sink faster than SteveT1736 credibility.

-I am willing to send that guy with nickname " NoFreeBeer" free beer if he changes his nickname.....it really is depressing and bugging the hell out of me (or is it in me...).

----------


## sailingaway

> LOL....I had so many things to say but I will restrain my self and just say: Lol.
> 
> Going forward:
> -Unless something extraordinary happens our effort to collect information will not be used before Tampa. We simply are not that organized and fast to make it in such a short time.
> -"Public Information Act"(or is it called "Freedom of Inforamtion Act??? sorry translating stuff is not my forte) includes access to reported crimes.(go there and file a simple request) Find out how many people reported crimes at conventions and elections.Get all informations available. This is already codified information that we can use!
> -Contacting http://www.toolsforjustice.com wouldnt be bad idea because they are already collecting same information.-If we are taking this project seriously people will have to contact other people via e-mails, phones etc. Contact delegates, voters, convention goers etc. Taking videos and pictures from internet will not get us far.
> -This project needs to be separated from LFRP, Richard Gilbert and lawsuit because it creates bad feeling with some people. Collected information can be used later in lawsuit or some other action.
> - If someone (look sailingaway) writes article about "Collecting information about illegal activities during this elections" (or something like that) I am willing to spread it on all other Ron Paul friendly websites. I contacted them all and got accounts on all of them. (I would just add that moderator on RPF would be handling all personal info /emails, etc./)
> -SMART plan
> ...


foia usually takes 30 days, some states less (CA is 10) but the fastest would be for Brent Stafford to just get us a certified copy of his judgment by walking in and picking it up.

as for your timely stuff it remains to be seen how many jump on this. when we get going we can be mighty 

But if only a couple of us are digging it all up it will be harder.  Why don't you write the article though, because I'm right now more focused on a shorter window if there is an opportunity to use this before Tampa (there are delegate credentials battles right now for one thing). If we aren't going to make that window I'd be happy to write something up later.

----------


## Barrex

> foia usually takes 30 days, some states less (CA is 10) but the fastest would be for Brent Stafford to just get us a certified copy of his judgment by walking in and picking it up.
> 
> as for your timely stuff it remains to be seen how many jump on this. when we get going we can be mighty 
> 
> But if only a couple of us are digging it all up it will be harder.  Why don't you write the article though, because I'm right now more focused on a shorter window if there is an opportunity to use this before Tampa (there are delegate credentials battles right now for one thing). If we aren't going to make that window I'd be happy to write something up later.


Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. We can try to collect and use data before Tampa but be prepared for possibility of not making it by that date.

My english is not perfect and (grammar nazis are after me) I dont want people reject this project because article is written poorly. Whenever you write it I will spread the word.

30 days is acceptable since this will be long endeavor. Like I said: "Unless something extraordinary happens our effort to collect information will not be used before Tampa". This should be prepared for things to come after Tampa, after LFRP lawsuit and injunctive relief. Attainable, realistic.

----------


## sailingaway

> Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. We can try to collect and use data before Tampa but be prepared for possibility of not making it by that date.
> 
> My english is not perfect and (grammar nazis are after me) I dont want people reject this project because article is written poorly. Whenever you write it I will spread the word.
> 
> 30 days is acceptable since this will be long endeavor. Like I said: "Unless something extraordinary happens our effort to collect information will not be used before Tampa". This should be prepared for things to come after Tampa, after LFRP lawsuit and injunctive relief. Attainable, realistic.


but the litigation schedule is what it is, and if we don't do something about that that is one thing, but I don't want the reason to be because we weren't prepared, So I'd rather scramble now but in not too long the window will be over one way or another and I don't have a problem writing something up for that.  People get away with this crap BECAUSE everyone drops it when the election is over.

----------


## BSU kid

> but the litigation schedule is what it is, and if we don't do something about that that is one thing, but I don't want the reason to be because we weren't prepared, So I'd rather scramble now but in not too long the window will be over one way or another and I don't have a problem writing something up for that.  People get away with this crap BECAUSE everyone drops it when the election is over.


I think we really need an injunction before Tampa, don't you think?

----------


## sailingaway

> I think we really need an injunction before Tampa, don't you think?


Well, the plan is to do our best and if we can feed this to Gilbert and he works it in that is the easiest way to get it to the court, otherwise we are going to need to get another attorney, and that is when it becomes harder to meet the time window.  I'm not saying it is impossible. I think an emergency temporary restraining order can happen on three day notice or something, I'm not sure.  But it would be a much larger project involving more participation and funding.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> *LOL*....I had so many things to say but I will restrain my self and just say: *Lol*.
> Going forward:
> -Unless something extraordinary happens our effort to collect information will not be used before Tampa. 
> -This project needs to be separated from LFRP, Richard Gilbert and lawsuit because it creates bad feeling with some people. Collected information can be used later in lawsuit or some other action..


Since I am likely to be considered a newbie, so as not to be a lol lol object, I'll keep my 2 cent out, don't wanna create bad feelings - maybe a *Separate* thread that only has to do with the 9th circuit action to unbind Delegates and put the RNC Chair, Reinse & Company Defendants under the Law would be more practical.

I'll just give it a rest and catch up later.

----------


## Barrex

> Since I am likely to be considered a newbie, so as not to be a lol lol object, I'll keep my 2 cent out, don't wanna create bad feelings - maybe a *Separate* thread that only has to do with the 9th circuit action to unbind Delegates and put the RNC Chair, Reinse & Company Defendants under the Law would be more practical.
> 
> I'll just give it a rest and catch up later.


It was directed at entire situation. I was not here few days and a lot happened. It wasnt directed at you or anyone in particular.... any help is welcome.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

> I think we really need an injunction before Tampa, don't you think?


Yes
From twitter:
Dean AKA born4this ‏@deanrobot
@USA_Free_Press HAHA! I tell people that the lawsuit is going well & they look at me liking I'm a drunk talking about who knows what... :P

Response
USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@deanrobot That is because they do not have the inside information 

On Monday we get the transcript to quote verbatim.
We don't know yet but it will be something to this extent:
Viral Headline to come:
 RNC Defense Attorney Admits to Federal Judge:
 WE BREAK OUR PARTY ELECTION RULES AS WE PLEASEThis will weigh HEAVY in the court of public opinion and will give new life to the effort to UNBIND ALL DELEGATES.
This could make the process more like the first Continental Congress, as RG has implied.
-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I have no regret that the above may offend some readers - Just an exercise of 1st amendment rights.

Rated 
*R*
 For
*Revolution*

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

In the Dismissal 8-7-2012, under the heading: *II. Legal Standard*
Found on page -5-
Starting on line 10 we find the following:

Under the incorporation by reference doctrine,
the court may also consider documents “whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose
authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading.” end quote
----------------------------------------------------------
What do we think that this means?
---------------------------------------------------------
Found on page -6-
Starting on line 21: 
Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate only when the court is satisfied that the
deficiencies in the complaint could not possibly be cured by amendment.
-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I have no regret that the above may offend some readers - Just an exercise of 1st amendment rights.

----------


## libertylastchance

How to file a complaint in Federal Court.. before submitting YOUR evidence you should have all your ducks lined up..
http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/form/cou...nyed000023.pdf

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I have reread the ruling on the motion to dismiss and the current complaint again.  I'm trying to figure out "what" if anything we can add as evidence to the current complaint.

The current complaint "appears" to be lacking, somewhat, in specific references to how law (citing cases) supports his complaint, but not entirely.  It seems he is out right asking the jugdge to take on a constitutional question (does the constitution support VRA in the case of undbinding all delegates per the RNC election of a nominee for President, making it a national election).  

IF someone can decipher what the judge wanted out of the Lopez Torres case, it might help, I have only found the citation where the SCOTUS ruling said *"The weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party"* is what seemed to perhaps have impact on our case.  I think it was because that case was about the candidate, not the voter, from the perspective of "other means of being a candidate, ie, ballot access" that SCOTUS did not use it to support Lopez Torres.  *In our case, the candidate is already "in the party" and so only being a delegate, in the party, gives us access to our candidate.*

And, I'm not so sure, after reading the ruling to dismiss, that the judge is not asking for that exact question to be asked.

???

----------


## ClydeCoulter

(continuing from my above comment)

Therefore, we claim associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party so that we may vote for the candidate, in that party, of our choice, without force, intimidation or coercion to the contrary.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

ClydeCoulter,
I intend to read Lopez Torres, do you have a link?

Also I am looking for other puzzle pieces in ref to Dismissal page 13 line 16:
The Court concludes that no authority supports *Plaintiffs’ interpretation* of Section 1971(b), but that that there are *several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations* of Section 1971(b).

4 kicks, Do you see any humor in this?
twitter:
Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
@USA_Free_Press Can Governor John Sununu be spelled Does 1 through 10 ?
Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Sailing away put the links in the "Sticky Thread" http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuit in the OP at the bottom.

And, yes, that tweet is funnier than........




> ClydeCoulter,
> I intend to read Lopez Torres, do you have a link?
> 
> 4 kicks, Do you see any humor in this?
> twitter:
> Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
> @USA_Free_Press Can Governor John Sununu be spelled Does 1 through 10 ?
> Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I have reread the ruling on the motion to dismiss and the current complaint again.  I'm trying to figure out "what" if anything we can add as evidence to the current complaint.
> 
> The current complaint "appears" to be lacking, somewhat, in specific references to how law (citing cases) supports his complaint, but not entirely.  It seems he is out right asking the jugdge to take on a constitutional question (does the constitution support VRA in the case of undbinding all delegates per the RNC election of a nominee for President, making it a national election).  
> 
> IF someone can decipher what the judge wanted out of the Lopez Torres case, it might help, I have only found the citation where the SCOTUS ruling said *"The weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party"* is what seemed to perhaps have impact on our case.  I think it was because that case was about the candidate, not the voter, from the perspective of "other means of being a candidate, ie, ballot access" that SCOTUS did not use it to support Lopez Torres.  *In our case, the candidate is already "in the party" and so only being a delegate, in the party, gives us access to our candidate.*
> 
> And, I'm not so sure, after reading the ruling to dismiss, that the judge is not asking for that exact question to be asked.
> 
> ???


^^ ANY comment ^^ ??

----------


## tod evans

> ^^ ANY comment ^^ ??


I've read the Lopez ruling twice now.....still waiting for something to click.....

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I've read the Lopez ruling twice now.....still waiting for something to click.....


What's your thought on what I said above?

Our candidate, Ron Paul, is in the Republican party.  That gives us an associational right to join, and have a certain degree of influence in, the party.

In the Lopez case, that could not be used, by SCOTUS, because the case was that the candidate wanted on the ballot of a party and wasn't allowed to BUT could have had ballot access as a non-primary-party by getting signatures.  So, there was an alternative ballot access, it did not require access (associational right) to one of the primary-parties.

In our case, our chosen candidate is in one of the primary-parties, so *the only access we have to our candidate is as a delegate of the party*, and we have a right to vote for the candidate of our choice.

----------


## tod evans

I'll re-read in a bit......Been watching drag-boat tubes with son....

----------


## tod evans

*In his opening statement Scalia says;*

" The State of New York requires that political parties select their nominees for Supreme Court Justice at a convention of delegates chosen by party members in a primary election."


*Skip 3 paragraphs in 'A' and at the bottom of the 4th it says;*

An individual may run for delegate by submitting to the Board of Elections a designating petition signed by 500 enrolled party members residing in the assembly district, or by five percent of such enrolled members, whichever is less. §§6136(2)(i), (3). These signatures must be gathered within a 37-day period preceding the filing deadline, which is approximately two months before the delegate primary. §§6134(4), 6158(1). The delegates elected in these primaries are uncommitted; the primary ballot does not specify the judicial nominee whom they will support. §7114.

*For unbound delegates this pretty much sums it up............in N.Y.*


_[edit]
reading further;_

   The District Court issued a preliminary injunction granting the relief requested, pending the New York Legislatures enactment of a new statutory scheme. 411 F. Supp. 2d 212, 256 (EDNY 2006)It held that voters and candidates possess a First Amendment right to a realistic opportunity to participate in [a political partys] nominating process, and to do so free from burdens that are both severe and unnecessary. Id., at 187.New Yorks electoral law violated that right because of the quantity of signatures and delegate recruits required to obtain a Supreme Court nomination at a judicial convention, see id., at 197, and because of the apparent reality that party leaders can control delegates, see id., at 198200.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@tod evans,

Yes, but the Supreme Court did override the district courts descision (in fact I started with the district court descision before I was alerted to the fact that the SCOTUS overuled it).

Later, the SCOTUS decision recites what I wrote above, but said they were not claiming that but the ballot access, which they had outside of the party by getting signatures (the candidate).  Remember this case is for a candidate, but the SCOTUS recited the above (in my previous post), why?  

If it were a matter of delegates access to the candidate, then it would matter, right?  Isn't that what he (SCOTUS/Scalia) was alluding to?   _"The weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party"_ .. but he goes on to show that is not the case with the candidate...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Actually now I remember why Scalia recited it.  It was because, they could make that claim IF it were not for the alternate ballot access, as a third party, by getting signatures.

But we cannot access our candidate without being a "delegate in the party".

----------


## ClydeCoulter

(continued...)

Therefore, if it requires that we be a "delegate in the party", then there is no relief if the party can control our access and our vote.  I believe the VRA then comes into play.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@tod evans,

In the Lopez Torres case, I'm not looking for delegate stuff, I am looking at the "right to association" stuff. see above posts.  That case was about a candidate for Justice and their ballot access (getting on the ballot) in the party.

----------


## sailingaway

> ^^ ANY comment ^^ ??


Yeah, we have to distinguish it.  Not sure if this works, because I don't know the case law, but it might:

"Lopez is inopposite because in that case a candidate was insisting on measurable influence in the party.  In the current case, after being lured to participate by existing delegate rules, Counsel for the RNC insists the RNC can break or change its rules at any time after the contests are run.  While the RNC might have been able to regularly amend their rules prior to voters detrimentally relying on the rules by participation and incurring costs of participation in the delegate process, changing the rules to freeze out voters invited into the party after the contest is over, or breaking their rules is a violation of the bargain offered by the RNC.  No one forced these rules on the RNC, the RNC freely chose them.'

It might look good to quote the preamble to the current RNC rules:




> *BE IT RESOLVED, That the Republican Party is the party of the open door.  Ours is the party of liberty, the party of equality, of opportunity for all, and favoritism for none.
> 
> It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in the Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans.
> 
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the following be and hereby are adopted as The Rules of the Republican Party,composed  of the rules for the election and government of the Republican National Committee until the next national convention, the rules under which delegates and alternate delegates shall be allotted to the respective states in the next national convention, and the rules under which such delegates and alternate delegates shall be elected and under which contests shall be considered, and the rules of business of this national convention.*


Irony, much? 

Sorry, I'm not abandoning you, I am just busy on a bunch of projects today...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@Sailingaway,
N/P, I knew you must be busy 
We have some time, and I'm not ready to start typing up anything yet.  When you get time, read my string of posts and I think you'll see where I'm headed.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I think I starting to see an approach that "assists the judge concerning the law" with the current complaint.  An Amicus Curiae Brief.

----------


## sailingaway

> @Sailingaway,
> N/P, I knew you must be busy 
> We have some time, and I'm not ready to start typing up anything yet.  When you get time, read my string of posts and I think you'll see where I'm headed.


OK, sorry!  My thought is it is free association because the choosing of these policies and rules was initially voluntary by the RNC but once people rely on it that acts as detrimental reliance (consideration for a contract, essentially) and they have to play fair by the rules they themselves initially picked.  And this goes to the eve of convention attempts to change rules in MO and LA because the RNC rules say no rule changes substantially impacting selection of delegates can occur after Oct 2011, or words similar to that.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think I starting to see an approach that "assists the judge concerning the law" with the current complaint.  An Amicus Curiae Brief.


Yeah, not sure if we can assist with facts but that would be the kind of thing we need to look into.  Otherwise getting it to Gilbert to put into his opposition papers is an idea, but he may be relying on the appeal more for all I know and may not be willing to use it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Sorry for making so many posts out of this, my mind is running faster than my typing.......

The current complaint asks the court to declare that the VRA is applicable to the RNC election because it is a National election for nomination of a President.  We can help by showing that we must have access to our candidate in the party, and the VRA applies in that.  If the RNC can bind delegtes, against the law, then how do we have access?

----------


## sailingaway

> @tod evans,
> 
> Yes, but the Supreme Court did override the district courts descision (in fact I started with the district court descision before I was alerted to the fact that the SCOTUS overuled it).
> 
> Later, the SCOTUS decision recites what I wrote above, but said they were not claiming that but the ballot access, which they had outside of the party by getting signatures (the candidate).  Remember this case is for a candidate, but the SCOTUS recited the above (in my previous post), why?  
> 
> If it were a matter of delegates access to the candidate, then it would matter, right?  Isn't that what he (SCOTUS/Scalia) was alluding to?   _"The weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party"_ .. but he goes on to show that is not the case with the candidate...


Question, when the court in the judgment in the LFRP case cited Lopez, which version did he cite?  Because I would bet that is the version with the argument he thinks has merit.  It wouldn't be an argument the SCOTUS later refuted but it might be one that was no longer relevant the way the court analysed the case.  The judge in giving this to Gilbert will have had a reason for the citation he chose.

And I'm sorry! I have to run for now.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sorry for making so many posts out of this, my mind is running faster than my typing.......
> 
> The current complaint asks the court to declare that the VRA is applicable to the RNC election because it is a National election for nomination of a President.  We can help by showing that we must have access to our candidate in the party, and the VRA applies in that.  If the RNC can bind delegtes, against the law, then how do we have access?


I'm going to have to read the case before I can respond meaningfully.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yeah, not sure if we can assist with facts but that would be the kind of thing we need to look into.  Otherwise getting it to Gilbert to put into his opposition papers is an idea, but he may be relying on the appeal more for all I know and may not be willing to use it.


The facts, in this case, is the law and how it applies, which is what an Amacus Curiae is for, it is for a "friend of the court" to brief them on the law that applies to the case.

----------


## sailingaway

> The facts, in this case, is the law and how it applies, which is what an Amacus Curiae is for, it is for a "friend of the court" to brief them on the law that applies to the case.


I agree regarding the law, for the facts LFRP did allege but I meant the other facts we wanted to get together in case the court doesn't think Gilbert put enough in the pleading (although for the narrow ruling he is seeking, he may have.)

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I agree regarding the law, for the facts LFRP did allege but I meant the other facts we wanted to get together in case the court doesn't think Gilbert put enough in the pleading *(although for the narrow ruling he is seeking, he may have.*)


And, currently that's what I'm working on, a way to help the court, _as a friend of the court_, with the current complaint.

But, that may end up extending into the states...and the rules...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Plaintiffs make literally no argument and cite no case law to explain what government
> interest their interpretation of Section 1971(b) serves. Because the American court system is an
> adversarial one, this Court may not make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf. *But this is not to say
> that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest.* Indeed, in
> Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have
> previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate
> selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205
> (2008).


Another Lopez case citation from the judge in the _ruling on the motion to dismiss._

----------


## sailingaway

> Another Lopez case citation from the judge in the _ruling on the motion to dismiss._


that sounds promising.

----------


## RonRules

> Another Lopez case citation from the judge in the _ruling on the motion to dismiss._


I'm glad you're on this. As soon as I read the judge's ruling, it seemed clear that the Lopez case was important. The key difference is as stated that our delegates cannot run independently. They must run within the party.

Seems cut & dry to me. I wish Gilbert had taken a few days to ponder this further and include that as the main argument.

Hope the judge will see your work. He may have to see it before the response from the opposition, which will have to be served with your work. (You have to serve the other party as well as submit your papers to the court)

----------


## CPUd

> Another Lopez case citation from the judge in the _ruling on the motion to dismiss._


What the judge was wanting is for him to use "the State can require" part of the ruling to refute this argument used by the defense:





> The Supreme Court likewise has rejected the argument that relying on
>  conventions to elect delegates or determine nominees is constitutionally suspect,
>  even when party leaders can exert significant control and influence over them. In
>  N.Y. State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 201 (2008), the
>  plaintiff repeatedly failed to obtain the Republican nomination for a seat on the
>  New York Supreme Court at the party’s convention. She alleged that the
>  convention system unduly “burdened the rights of challengers seeking to run
>  against candidates favored by the party leadership,” because “party leaders can
>  control delegates.” Id. at 201-02. She argued that she did not have a sufficiently
> ...

----------


## sailingaway

> What the judge was wanting is for him to use "the State can require" part of the ruling to refute this argument used by the defense:


that doesn't say they are able to BREAk their rules, however.

But I think the real argument no one raised is that the states collude with the two 'private parties' so they are no longer truly private parties, that they get financial and ballot access assistance which on an national ticket in practical terms makes them the ONLY possibility of winning.  this being the case, parties are disenfranchising those not in their parties through ballot access and state collusion granted preferences, and are disenfranchising those INSIDE their party with the facts we discuss.  The remedy should be putting all parties on the same foot with ballot access and benefits, not only 'established' parties.  And for this year, since there is no time, they should put Ron on all 50 state ballots.  (What can I say, had to add that at the end...)

----------


## CPUd

> that doesn't say they are able to BREAk their rules, however.
> 
> But I think the real argument no one raised is that the states collude with the two 'private parties' so they are no longer truly private parties, that they get financial and ballot access assistance which on an national ticket in practical terms makes them the ONLY possibility of winning.  this being the case, parties are disenfranchising those not in their parties through ballot access and state collusion granted preferences, and are disenfranchising those INSIDE their party with the facts we discuss.  The remedy should be putting all parties on the same foot with ballot access and benefits, not only 'established' parties.  And for this year, since there is no time, they should put Ron on all 50 state ballots.  (What can I say, had to add that at the end...)


When they do it, their position is that they are not breaking the rules, they are following new (or supplemental) rules.  And the case law they cite, they claim allows them to do this, as moving the goalposts 'are not justiciable issues'.

On the other point, Ron has been mentioning in his latest set of interviews that the conventions are getting $18 million taxpayer dollars.  Where is he getting that from?  Because that goes a long way toward showing there is a governmental interest in the conventions.

----------


## sailingaway

> When they do it, their position is that they are not breaking the rules, they are following new (or supplemental) rules.  And the case law they cite, they claim allows them to do this, as moving the goalposts 'are not justiciable issues'.
> 
> On the other point, Ron has been mentioning in his latest set of interviews that the conventions are getting $18 million taxpayer dollars.  Where is he getting that from?  Because that goes a long way toward showing there is a governmental interest in the conventions.


except they have to follow the preexisting rules for CHANGING the rules. In LA, for example, the fake rules were never ratified. In St Charles the same.  Pretending they apply when their own rules say they don't is breaking the rules, not making new ones.

Each of the major parties get that for their conventions because they are supposed to actually facilitate enfranchisement.  Ron pays for HIS rallies, himself.

----------


## CPUd

> except they have to follow the preexisting rules for CHANGING the rules. In LA, for example, the fake rules were never ratified. In St Charles the same.  Pretending they apply when their own rules say they don't is breaking the rules, not making new ones.


Were this shown to be true, it looks just like the kind of thing that would survive a motion to dismiss, because the defense's use of Lopez Torres does not sufficiently support their argument.

----------


## sailingaway

> Were this shown to be true, it looks just like the kind of thing that would survive a motion to dismiss, because the defense's use of Lopez Torres does not sufficiently support their argument.


It is true as I understand it from people there. In LA the chair was properly removed BEFORE the fake rules could be ratified

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

You guys have been busy.
I have had wall to wall distractions-Got some reading to do - I have some thoughts, got sort out the order.
I do believe the _______ at the beginning of the ?RULES? should be quantified
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Republican Party is the party of the open door. Ours is the party of liberty, the party of equality, of opportunity for all, and favoritism for none.? and the rest of it.
Sounds so "Official" but what is it?
A charter, promise, measure of good faith, guarantee, contract, sales tool,
Contract Pledge Assured Purpose mission statement honest pledge of artificial promise put-on goal proposal  undertaking ploy scheme racket bogus snake oil racket deceit trick scam deception dupe smoke and mirrors hoodwink con defraud cheat get or…..a fake wooden nickel?

The judge threw in, "Ironic". Oath keepers, to preserve the constitution, the Judge needs deliver to the Plaintiffs or we will totally lose the Constitution and we will have little need for Judges. Reminds me of the opening of the Beatles movie "Help", "If we lose the congregation, No     more     me." 

Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
@USA_Free_Press & @JudgeNap - The RNC Rule Book Preamble is either a contract to members or it is a FAKE WOODEN NICKEL

----------


## tod evans

> (continued...)
> 
> Therefore, if it requires that we be a "delegate in the party", then there is no relief if the party can control our access and our vote.  I believe the VRA then comes into play.


Shooting from the hip...

(I know there are no citations.)



Our delegates are only asking the court to clarify existing law, they have been duly seated in accordance with party rules.

*Issue 1*

Party bosses however have exceeded their power and fraudulently inserted straw-men into their seats contrary to the lawful election.

In an attempt to satisfy known legal requirements the RNC has admitted that they "changed the rules" when the voters didn't elect those the party bosses wanted.

We contend that placing straw-men in delegate seats after ousting the duly elected delegates is illegal.


_Issue 2_


Party bosses unilaterally have presented duly elected delegates with binding documents and demanded that they be signed under threat of impeachment. 

We contend that by presenting these heretofore unseen documents, the party bosses are attempting to coerce unethical behavior from delegates and that this behavior would violate the trust placed in the delegates by the voters.


_In close;_

We petition this court for relief, that the court would order the RNC and all of it's members to cease and desist any and all actions designed to intimidate or influence delegates to vote any certain way during the convention and that all duly elected delegates be seated.
 Specifically we request that this court instruct every state party leader that it is the delegates who are responsible for following their conscience and party bosses are legally bound to support these delegates not Vice-Versa.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> that doesn't say they are able to BREAk their rules, however.
> 
> But I think the real argument no one raised is that the states collude with the two 'private parties' so they are no longer truly private parties, that they get financial and *ballot access assistance* which on an national ticket in practical terms makes them the ONLY possibility of winning.  this being the case, parties are disenfranchising those not in their parties through ballot access and state collusion granted preferences, and are disenfranchising those INSIDE their party with the facts we discuss.  The remedy should be putting all parties on the same foot with ballot access and benefits, not only 'established' parties.  And for this year, since there is no time, they should put Ron on all 50 state ballots.  (What can I say, had to add that at the end...)


Is this true?  Do the D/R parties have ballot access assistance that, say, the L party does not?  If so, that would be an issue.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

The problem before us is that we cannot amend the amended complaint.  We can only, if the judge allows it, enlighten the court on law and case law as to "how" one might "see" the law or case law supporting the current complaint and/or motion to dismiss.

We need to show how law/case supports the already made claims, ie, the RNC election to nominate a president and/or vice president is a national election that the government has an "interest" in, and that the VRA applies to that RNC election as a national election in some way that prevents any binding of delegates, reguardless of, or in lieu of, party rules.

----------


## TheKnowBuddies

The *INTENT* of the RULES as described in the preamble spells out THE SAID INTENT, if intentions mean anything in a court.
The second paragraph:
"It is the *intent* and *purpose* of these rules to *encourage and allow* the broadest possible *participation* of *all voters* in the Republican Party activities *at all levels and to assure* that the Republican Party is *open and accessible to all Americans*."

*I don't see any disclaimer(s) ie: not applicable in all areas, some restrictions may apply, where you see "rule" you can substitute with "suggestion". yada

Not *all* Bosses and Agents of the RNC break the rule's, but many DO move with *INTENT* to break rules and.......break Federal Laws as well in an attempt to tamper with and change the outcome. All Americans suffer, and will continue to suffer if VRA is not found to protect all voters to vote freely of their choice.

Ps - Admittedly, I have not caught up on reading, Just my wild thoughts that are throw out as they come to me, if I don't write it down right away I will forget, sorry if I am off topic. Much happening, very fast, thoughts on it all.

----------


## KerriAnn

> Shooting from the hip...
> 
> (I know there are no citations.)
> 
> 
> 
> Our delegates are only asking the court to clarify existing law, they have been duly seated in accordance with party rules.
> 
> *Issue 1*
> ...


This is good. And now we need to add some specific instances that back up these claims. WHO, WHAT, WHERE, etc.

Does anyone know some of the plaintiffs named? Are any of them on the forum? Does someone have access to them? Carter specifically asked for details!

Carter seems like he is begging Gilbert for something to work with. I thought this was interesting- 
From the ruling motion to dismiss (From page 19 lines 9-12)



> "The Court emphasizes the narrowness of its holding. Defendants advocate a constricted
> interpretation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. All too frequently, parties that urge
> a constricted interpretation of the Voting Rights Act do so to accomplish exactly that which the
> Voting Rights Act is designed to prevent: disenfranchisement of voters who historically have
> suffered discrimination."

----------


## sailingaway

Here are some facts in Louisiana about a fake rule being called real when it was never ratified according to their own rules, but we should get the details from torchbearer:




> The Paul people's challenge said that the Party issued an illegitimate "supplemental rule" at the Louisiana state convention that allowed them to send on a non-Paul delegation; the RNC decided that rule change was legit.


that's from Doherty's write up about the unfavorable finding of the contest committee in LA

----------


## CPUd

This may be worth listening to; Gilbert talks a bit about the ruling, and explains his thought process behind the amended complaint:

(it's about 2 hrs, but Gilbert is on the 1st hour)
http://electionfraudremedy.com/audio...is8.9.2012.mp3

He says he is filing this week the motion to expedite with the appellate court, which would order the judge to complete the case in 10 days.

oh, and this:

----------


## sailingaway

> Is this true?  Do the D/R parties have ballot access assistance that, say, the L party does not?  If so, that would be an issue.


Yes.  It applies that 'all parties', usually, IF they got x% vote before don't have to do anything but for new parties that is a huge barrier on a national campaign. Otherwise it varies by state but you have to get access in each state.  That's why Ron didn't want to run third party again he says you don't make the debates with the new rules, and you spend all your money just getting on the ballots.

----------


## No1butPaul

> oh, and this:


The above link says private for me ... trying this one.

----------


## Rebelrouser

I really hope something good comes out of this whole ordeal.  I'd feel a lot better about it if Gilbert wasn't a wackjob who makes Vinny Gambino look like Harvey Specter from Suits.

Being that this is the third time he's had to do this, I don't know...

----------


## jay_dub

> The above link says private for me ... trying this one.


Wow...just watched the  video. Gilbert is guilty of defamation if what he says is not true. That there has been no action by the Romney camp to silence him is curious....if what he says is false.

Of course, to challenge him would be to answer to these charges. Personally, if it were me having these things said about me and they weren't true, I would be all over Gilbert like flies on a steaming pile.

I think that's Gilbert's point. He throws all this stuff out there and all we hear are crickets.

----------


## afwjam

So it does seem Gilbert is a little bit over the top. This always seems to be the case with all of us Ron Paul supporters... At least he is trying, I hope for the best, I expect much less.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Concerning the Lopez Torres case, I responded to SteveT (in PM) this:




> On page 8, I see the problem, for which I am seeking a solution, being avoided by the court. The relief that had been sought was exactly from that harm which is not known to be defined in law (that I know of, or the court apparently).
> 
> Corruption does not makes its seat in high places by breaking laws outwardly. Those that attempt such a thing are quickly or eventually caught. To reach high places it is the few that avoided violating the law outwardly, but is corrupt inwardly. It is a collution or conspiracy to collude. 
> 
> I have seen it in my own life. I had a small group of fellows come to me a say, "There's a lot of money to be made in this company". In the open, that statement is true and innocent. Inwardly, and inwardly understood, that statement is the begining of a conspiracy to "take the company for a ride". And they did, without me and to great success. And the stock of the company went from 63.00 to 14.00 after the loss of clients and a lawsuit from AT&T (caused by their failure to deliver). But they got rich and the company, along with it's other employees, suffered.
> 
> This is the problem for which I am looking for an answer, a lawful answer.
> 
> In our case, we have proof of the GOP in many states violating their own rules. I don't see any remedy except to demonstrate that the law that applies to Federal Elections is also applicable for delegate elections for a nominee of a Federal candidate, OR, that rules of a party are a law unto themselves, a type of contract between those that voluntarily join the party by the rules, that cannot be violated and can only changed by use of those same rules (but where is any law for the later, except perhaps in the case of "my right to associate and have influence in the party").


The first part is my "life goal"?  The later part is concerning our case.

Any help with this?

----------


## CPUd

He made the original one private a few minutes after uploading it.  The 2nd, I don't see any major differences, it is the same length.  They might have reencoded it and/or uploaded it to a different account- I didn't pay a lot of attention to it.

These videos are supposedly part of his master plan- the reason he talks about internment camps and uses crime/criminal about 1500 times is because he's trying to make the case to the delegates that no one in good conscience can vote for Mitt.  What concerns me is something he said, to the effect of 'we will work to make sure you never get the keys to the Oval Office'.  And this is after the convention, in the General Election, assuming Mitt doesn't flee to France with Priebus and Sununu.  So, if Ron Paul is not running in the General Election, who benefits from an 'anyone but Romney' strategy?

In the radio interview, he says he's not focusing on the fraud and witness affidavits/videos; I have a feeling if he sees what is going on in the sticky thread of verifiable facts, we'll hear from him one way or another.

----------


## afwjam

If it is strategy rather then personality I would be very pleased. Searching for him on google I found news of other cases where he seems to use equally far fetched language, I think its part of his MO.

----------


## sailingaway

> So it does seem Gilbert is a little bit over the top. This always seems to be the case with all of us Ron Paul supporters... At least he is trying, I hope for the best, I expect much less.


He feels strongly enough to work pro bono to bring this suit.  No one else did, apparently, or didn't have the skills, so it is what it is.   I hope for the best outcome, as well.

----------


## sailingaway

> He made the original one private a few minutes after uploading it.  The 2nd, I don't see any major differences, it is the same length.  They might have reencoded it and/or uploaded it to a different account- I didn't pay a lot of attention to it.
> 
> These videos are supposedly part of his master plan- the reason he talks about internment camps and uses crime/criminal about 1500 times is because he's trying to make the case to the delegates that no one in good conscience can vote for Mitt.  What concerns me is something he said, to the effect of 'we will work to make sure you never get the keys to the Oval Office'.  And this is after the convention, in the General Election, assuming Mitt doesn't flee to France with Priebus and Sununu.  So, if Ron Paul is not running in the General Election, who benefits from an 'anyone but Romney' strategy?
> 
> *In the radio interview, he says he's not focusing on the fraud and witness affidavits/videos*; I have a feeling if he sees what is going on in the sticky thread of verifiable facts, we'll hear from him one way or another.


Unfortunately, that is what the court seemed to be focusing on in its order, which is why we are putting the facts together, so if he has to scramble to put a request 'in the alternative' to plead another amendment after the judge said this was the final time, he can at least have the complaint itself in his filing so the judge wont wonder why this chance to fix it should be expected to be any more productive than the others.

----------


## jay_dub

I don't see this latest video having anything to do with the case already filed. It seems more like he's trying to goad Romney into responding. If Romney were to respond, Gilbert could go beyond the hyperbole and offer 'proof' in a legal arena.

My guess is we'll continue to hear crickets from Romney on this.

----------


## WhistlinDave

Whether or not any results come from Gilbert's efforts before the RNC, I think clearly all the fraud, rule breaking, assaults, and other abuses will not be addressed unless there is another lawsuit later.  I wonder if everyone involved would throw in for a class action lawsuit?  Maybe anyone who didn't want to "rock the boat" prior to the convention (like Mass. delegates for example) will decide after the fact that it's worth it to try to clean up this stuff for the benefit of future generations.  It absolutely sickens me, the thought that they're just going to get away with all of this when so many people know all the stuff they have done.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Whether or not any results come from Gilbert's efforts before the RNC, I think clearly all the fraud, rule breaking, assaults, and other abuses will not be addressed unless there is another lawsuit later.  I wonder if everyone involved would throw in for a class action lawsuit?  Maybe anyone who didn't want to "rock the boat" prior to the convention (like Mass. delegates for example) will decide after the fact that it's worth it to try to clean up this stuff for the benefit of future generations.  It absolutely sickens me, the thought that they're just going to get away with all of this when so many people know all the stuff they have done.


AND, I think it needs to be soon after the convention, so that momentum is not lost and perhaps it can make headlines (really?) before November.

----------


## libertylastchance

> Wow...just watched the  video. Gilbert is guilty of defamation if what he says is not true. That there has been no action by the Romney camp to silence him is curious....if what he says is false.
> 
> Of course, to challenge him would be to answer to these charges. Personally, if it were me having these things said about me and they weren't true, I would be all over Gilbert like flies on a steaming pile.
> 
> I think that's Gilbert's point. He throws all this stuff out there and all we hear are crickets.


Maybe they see him as irrelevant .. kinda like Me making a video and saying all this BS.. or You..

----------


## sailingaway

> Maybe they see him as irrelevant .. kinda like Me making a video and saying all this BS.. or You..


they do have lawyers in court filing papers to oppose him, so I don't think they see it as irrelevant.  They likely don't want to call attention to it, though, and keep the face in the media procedural.

----------


## libertylastchance

Mr. Gilbert requested the transcript from the court.. has he posted it yet? He said he would on Monday from what I read in the postings here

----------


## Barrex

I am swamped with papers at my work an busy right now and have no time and and and but am still following this....

Richard have taken completely different route with his last amendment.... There simply is no time to take all the details and information in lawsuit so he focused on things he can accomplish before Tampa. Cases like these are huge and require a lot of manpower, money, time and resources.... We dont have any of that. Problem is that ( like I stated it long time ago) that someone (campaign, grassroots etc.) should have dealt with these problems as they come. For example Iowa and 9 missing trucks of votes   should have been dealt right away and not wait till elections are (nearly) over. Current situation is that all those problems accumulated and for them to be addressed properly will require a lot more than anyone (campaign, grassroots etc.) is currently doing.Lawsuit is right thing to do but more people will need to be involved.

That video is spicy. If they go after him he will get day in court and a lot of media watching him.... That is why they are ignoring him....


_
It is easy, when the sea is high and the winds are blowing the waves about, to watch from the shores the struggles of another._

----------


## No1butPaul

Since search engines still cannot transcribe videos, I have transcribed Richard Gilbert's latest (third) video.  Feel free to correct any errors.  Also, I added some relevant links.




> I am Richard Gilbert, attorney on the federal case for delegates.  Mr. Romney, no one, and I mean no one, pushes around a Ron Paul delegate and politically survives.  Mr. Romney, how was your trip abroad to raise campaign contributions in Israel and Europe? (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diploma...emium-1.454374) It must have been a typical, Bain-style, huge criminal success.  Don't you know it is a felony crime to take any campaign contributions from any foreigner?  Another day, another Romney felony crime.  Of course, this disqualifies you from becoming president.  
> 
> In my second video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=jngor81CRE0#!), I explained what a Romney presidency would be worse (than), it would be worse than Watergate from day one.  So know all delegates have yet another profound reason not to vote for you at the organized crime convention in Tampa.  You are a serial criminal.  Your latest felony crime of taking foreign campaign contributions makes you un-American, a criminal, a felon.  How will you report your foreign contributions to the Federal Election Commission?  Will you commit perjury and lie about it, like you did when you filed your perjurious S.E.C. filing regarding your status as C.E.O. of Bain from 1999 to 2001?  (http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-1...ial-disclosure) A felony crime investigation will start regarding your foreign campaign contributions, even in the course of the general election if necessary.  You will be convicted of these crimes.  Under federal guideline sentencing, you will be sentenced to years in federal prison.  Of course, you will have fled to France by then to avoid extradition and prosecution for your felony crimes.  
> 
> All this, in addition to your support to put U.S. citizens in concentration camps, on U.S. soil, with no court charges and no legal counsel.  No delegate with a conscience can vote for you.  Your support for concentration camps to imprison U.S. citizens on U.S. soil with no rights to a court or legal counsel, or criminal charges, is repugnant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivE5gJdsJrw).  The law you support, Mr. Romney, includes the Patriot Act, which defines a terrorist as a person who commits a criminal act, including a misdemeanor.  The Military Commissions Act gives the Executive branch the authority to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely, without a trial.  Bill H.R. 1955 labels anyone that protests, or resists any government decree as a terrorist.  Anyone that protests, or resists any government decree is a terrorist. 
> 
> These are your policies that you endorse.  Concentration camp operations calls for a "red list."  What is a "red list" Mr. Romney?  The red list are people to be killed in the concentration camp.  They include, and U.S. citizens and delegates listen carefully to this, the red list includes:  outspoken ministers, leaders of patriot groups (like the Tea Party), outspoken talk show hosts and community leaders, all to be killed.  This is what you support Mr. Romney.   So delegates and all citizens now understand that these internment camps mean their loved ones, their friends, will be killed and or detained, without trial, indefinitely.  When delegates understand this, no delegate with a conscience can vote for you.  Here, is the internment camp employment application procedure.  Go to your military recruiter and ask for form 31E, Internment/Resettlement Specialist , Careers and Jobs (http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jo...pecialist.html) -- they're hiring now.  Why are they hiring now?  Because more than 800 internment camps are fully operational throughout the United States.  You can get a job as a concentration camp guard.   They’re available now.  You just have to be willing to support (kill?) U.S. citizens.  That’s what you support Mr. Romney.  (U.S. Army Internment and Resettlement Operations Manual dated 12 February 2010, Field Manual No.3-39.40, Ordered by U.S. Chief of Staff General George W. Casey, and Joyce E. Morrow, Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. http://electionfraudremedy.com/USArm...ent_manual.pdf)
> 
> Mr. Romney, if you show up in Tampa, we may place you under arrest for felony – a felony crime of taking foreign money as campaign contributions while you were on foreign soil.  Here are your rights Mr. Romney: You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say or do, can and will be held against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.  
> ...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Whether or not any results come from Gilbert's efforts before the RNC, I think clearly all the fraud, rule breaking, assaults, and other abuses will not be addressed unless there is another lawsuit later.  I wonder if everyone involved would throw in for a class action lawsuit?  Maybe anyone who didn't want to "rock the boat" prior to the convention (like Mass. delegates for example) will decide after the fact that it's worth it to try to clean up this stuff for the benefit of future generations.  It absolutely sickens me, the thought that they're just going to get away with all of this when so many people know all the stuff they have done.


I will, but I want to know who the lawyer is going to be, first.

----------


## sailingaway

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Pepper Draper @PepperDraper has joined the Freedom Team. Pepper is the heroic Arizona delegate leader who involved the FBI in election fraud

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Whether or not any results come from Gilbert's efforts before the RNC, I think clearly all the fraud, rule breaking, assaults, and other abuses will not be addressed unless there is another lawsuit later.  I wonder if everyone involved would throw in for a class action lawsuit?  Maybe anyone who didn't want to "rock the boat" prior to the convention (like Mass. delegates for example) will decide after the fact that it's worth it to try to clean up this stuff for the benefit of future generations.  It absolutely sickens me, the thought that they're just going to get away with all of this when so many people know all the stuff they have done.





> I will, but I want to know who the lawyer is going to be, first.


I think massive punitive damages are in order.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Any other ideas from anyone on possible ways to assist this lawsuit?  See posts on the last few pages for input needed.

----------


## RonRules

I got this email from Gilbert's assistant at 4:30 pst this morning:

Richard Gilbert

15 minutes ago.

Federal Case Update - *We have tentatively won the case on the historic law*. The RNC is now engaged in delay tactics. To counter, I am filing an Appellate action tomorrow to seek an Appellate Order requiring the Judge to rule prior to the convention. Yes, I said we have tentatively won the case on the historic law.

I don't see anything official from the court, nor the GOP's reply and it's not Aug. 20th.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

From the The Green Papers web site, June 8 2012
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20120608-0

The question about 42 HSC 1971(b) is examined (somewhat) and the author, at the time, didn't see a way for the question to be brought before the court:




> Rather, the actual issue at bar is two-fold:
> 
> 1. would the courts even entertain such an argument to begin with?(the per Curiam opinion in O'Brien [as opposed to Justice Marshall's dissent in same] suggests that the answer would be "no"-- because...)
> 
> 2. how could this argument even be brought before the courts to actually be adjudicated? (as the O'Brien per Curiam itself suggests:
> 
> for, in the instant case now in 2012, Ron Paul "stealth delegates" cannot claim they are being forced- against their will [presumably in violation of 42 USC 1971(b)]- to vote for a presidential contender they themselves do not, in fact, support until and unless they are so forced by the very process of the Convention itself [thus, this argument cannot be made, in a judicial setting, before the Convention itself has already convened and, indeed, even before the Roll Call of the States re: Presidential Nomination is already underway (during which, presumably, such forcing could even occur)] and then, once this Roll Call is itself completed and the presidential nominee is, thereby, already determined, any such argument by a "stealth delegate" after the fact would be, on its face, be moot [that is: it would no longer be a "live case or controversy"- to here use the constitutional language as mere description- which the courts could then at all entertain])--


BUT, now it seems to be before the court and earlier in his argument about 1971(b) he stated:




> Now, I suppose- doubtless, in fact!- that a reasonable legal argument might well be made that a Major Party National Convention itself flows from such Primary elections for the office of President as are certainly covered by 42 USC 1971(b), an argument that- if only theoretically (for reasons I will discuss shortly)- could bring a National Convention under the provisions of 42 USC 1971(b). Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in the case of O'Brien v. Brown [409 U.S. 1 (1972)]- which I examined extensively in a piece of mine posted on this website more than four years ago now- itself hints at a justification for just such an argument (so long as we always keep in mind that this was in a dissent from the Court's per Curiam opinion denying Certiorari [thereby refusing to hear the case] in an action brought before the court based upon National Convention procedure):
> 
> To quote Justice Marshall yet again: The primary process was, by State law, the first step in a process designed to select a [Major Party's] candidate for President; the State will include [presidential] electors pledged to that candidate on the ballot in the general election; the State is intertwined in the process at every step, not only authorizing the primary but conducting it, and adopting its result for use in the general election. In these circumstances, the primary must be regarded as an integral part of the general election.
> 
> Marshall was here relying- as precedent- on the Court's previous decision in United States v. Classic [313 U.S. 299 (1941)], which I also discussed at length in an earlier companion piece to the one to which I have linked a few paragraphs back now.
> 
> Logically speaking: if the Primary (or, or so it could also be argued, a State or other sub-State Convention) that bound/pledged a Party's National Convention delegates to presidential contenders is (as Marshall claimed) an inherent element in (ultimately) the placing of the name of that very Party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees on the State's General Election ballot, then wouldn't the National Convention which a.) actually- officially, formally- so nominates a Party's candidates for President and Vice President and b.) does so through the votes cast by those very delegates bound/pledged by said Primary (or State or other Convention) also be an inherent part of that same process?
> 
> After all, you can't get from A (a Presidential Primary or other National Convention delegate-binding "event") to C (the name of the Party's presidential nominee appearing on the ballot come November) without B (the National Convention said delegates attend and which is also charged with so nominating the Party's candidate for President): and, if so, then the Party's National Convention (and all its officers and committees, rules and procedures [without which the Convention cannot even function]) would then come under color of a Federal statute such as 42 USC 1971(b) [for there would then be no way to separate the actions taken at a National Convention from either the General or Primary election(s) specifically mentioned in- and, therefore, intended to be covered by- that very statute!


?????????????????????????????? WHAT ?????????????????????????????????

Did the defendant lawyers give the ammo needed to bring this question up?  Prior Intent?

----------


## tod evans

As of right now there's no ruling right?

Clyde,

Other than a clear, concise list of documented "cheating" I can't think of any way to help..

Gilbert may very well have such a list already, without access to the evidence there's no way to know.

----------


## CPUd

> I got this email from Gilbert's assistant at 4:30 pst this morning:
> 
> Richard Gilbert
> 
> 15 minutes ago.
> 
> Federal Case Update - *We have tentatively won the case on the historic law*. The RNC is now engaged in delay tactics. To counter, I am filing an Appellate action tomorrow to seek an Appellate Order requiring the Judge to rule prior to the convention. Yes, I said we have tentatively won the case on the historic law.
> 
> I don't see anything official from the court, nor the GOP's reply and it's not Aug. 20th.


For whatever reason, someone has taken that over to the dailypaul and used it to launch a massive disinfo campaign, stating that the judge has officially ruled on the case, and it is a done deal.  Unfortunately, some are taking this as fact, with little or no verification whatsoever.

----------


## tod evans

> For whatever reason, someone has taken that over to the dailypaul and used it to launch a massive disinfo campaign, stating that the judge has officially ruled on the case, and it is a done deal.  Unfortunately, some are taking this as fact, with little or no verification whatsoever.


Well, hang out in this thread long enough and you're liable to hear most anything too..

----------


## CPUd

What we absolutely don't want right now is more threads like this:http://www.dailypaul.com/249249/unbo...elegate-speech

A lot of the TX delegates were flying under the radar.

----------


## tuggy24g

Lets keep them from being unknown right now. We do not want to have any more of are delegates get stripped of there delegate statue.

----------


## sailingaway

> From the The Green Papers web site, June 8 2012
> http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20120608-0
> 
> The question about 42 HSC 1971(b) is examined (somewhat) and the author, at the time, didn't see a way for the question to be brought before the court:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, now it seems to be before the court and earlier in his argument about 1971(b) he stated:
> 
> ...


I printed that out to read and tweeted the link to Gilbert so he can read it if he will.

----------


## sailingaway

> For whatever reason, someone has taken that over to the dailypaul and used it to launch a massive disinfo campaign, stating that the judge has officially ruled on the case, and it is a done deal.  Unfortunately, some are taking this as fact, with little or no verification whatsoever.


Don't know if there is much we can do about that, unfortunately.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I printed that out to read and tweeted the link to Gilbert so he can read it if he will.


It looked pretty good, even though the author didn't see how it could come up before a judge, it is already from what I can tell.

----------


## RonRules

Matt Larson seems to believe it:

----------


## RonRules

This is Gilbert's post on his Facebook page. It's just what I got by email early in the morning.

"Federal Case Update - We have tentatively won the case on the historic law. The RNC is now engaged in delay tactics. To counter, I am filing an Appellate action tomorrow to seek an Appellate Order requiring the Judge to rule prior to the convention. Yes, I said we have tentatively won the case on the historic law"

What's odd is that I thought he said that he already filed the Appellate Order late last week. Is that a second one?

----------


## sailingaway

> Matt Larson seems to believe it:


Yeah, but those of us who read the actual court ruling see Gilbert's point, and argument for that, but would like to embellish the complaint to have a variety of supporting arguments, not just the one.  More than one string for the bow, so to speak.

----------


## BSU kid

Sailing, somebody...What happened today, in regards to this case?

----------


## sailingaway

> Sailing, somebody...What happened today, in regards to this case?


\

Gilbert put out a video.

But ClydeCoulter is putting together a draft of a complaint/brief mock up and floats ideas and authority he finds here, too, and we discuss it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I have a stupid question.  If the RNC has screwed us to the point that we do not have 5 states required and therefore cannot nominate Dr. Paul, how does having the delegates unbound help us?

----------


## sailingaway

> I have a stupid question.  If the RNC has screwed us to the point that we do not have 5 states required and therefore cannot nominate Dr. Paul, how does having the delegates unbound help us?


that isn't a stupid question which is why my own focus is on gathering facts of fraud and going for seating our delegates and making the GOP live by their rules, with I see as a contract.  Gilbert approaches this somewhat differently.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> I have a stupid question.  If the RNC has screwed us to the point that we do not have 5 states required and therefore cannot nominate Dr. Paul, how does having the delegates unbound help us?


Well, one take on it is that if the delegates can vote for anyone; Romney will not get to 1,144 ... then it becomes a brokered convention and anyone can become the nominee.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

It's almost like they did it in anticipation of the lawsuit. At least we are taking over the party at all levels. Soon we'll be able to shut the neocons out. We just need to keep it that way this time.




> I have a stupid question.  If the RNC has screwed us to the point that we do not have 5 states required and therefore cannot nominate Dr. Paul, how does having the delegates unbound help us?

----------


## No1butPaul

> Well, one take on it is that if the delegates can vote for anyone; Romney will not get to 1,144 ... then it becomes a brokered convention and anyone can become the nominee.


That has always been Gilbert's plan, to bring in other people for nomination so Romney wouldn't get 1,144.  I remember at some point he tweeted Sarah Palin was on board.  Only time will tell .... so, tentatively speaking: PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL.  <--sorry Sailing, couldn't help myself!

----------


## devil21

Nothing new on PACER regarding the status of the amended complaint so I wonder where Gilbert is getting his victory information from?  I don't watch his videos so if he says something specific about why he's already talking about winning, please inform us.

----------


## CPUd

> Nothing new on PACER regarding the status of the amended complaint so I wonder where Gilbert is getting his victory information from?  I don't watch his videos so if he says something specific about why he's already talking about winning, please inform us.


What he has been posting is verbatim to his comments from the radio interview he did (I posted a link to it earlier in this thread) last week, talking about what happened in the hearing on 6 August.

----------


## devil21

So it's just speculation on his part, then?

----------


## CPUd

Yeah, until the court transcripts get posted.  Then it will probably be more along the lines of 'creative interpretation'.

----------


## Miss Annie

Dear God..... I hope this comes through because the more I see of our "other options" the more terrified I get!!

----------


## libertylastchance

What kind of BS is this???? A tentative Win... what's that?  What does this mean? How? When? There is nothing in the court doc's.. the defense hasn't even filed anything... What's going on????  And CA does participate in a Tenative Opinion program  in the Appeals, Superior and State Supreme courts.. but not in the district court.. there needs to be ruling..

And where is that transcript.. RG said he would have it for us on MONDAY.. he only requested the written copy.. why not electonic so he could share the facts with us..

----------


## sailingaway

> What kind of BS is this???? A tentative Win... what's that?  What does this mean? How? When? There is nothing in the court doc's.. the defense hasn't even filed anything... What's going on????  And CA does participate in a Tenative Opinion program  in the Appeals, Superior and State Supreme courts.. but not in the district court.. there needs to be ruling..
> 
> And where is that transcript.. RG said he would have it for us on MONDAY.. he only requested the written copy.. why not electonic so he could share the facts with us..


Likely it was cheaper written. He is working pro bono.

However, as to the rest there has been no new court action, just new statements by Gilbert, so it is just his characterization of what happened a week ago.

----------


## libertylastchance

Matt Larson should source his information, instead of just going by a "comment" ..

----------


## libertylastchance

> Yeah, until the court transcripts get posted.  Then it will probably be more along the lines of 'creative interpretation'.


Delusional is more like it

----------


## libertylastchance

> they do have lawyers in court filing papers to oppose him, so I don't think they see it as irrelevant.  They likely don't want to call attention to it, though, and keep the face in the media procedural.


So far nothing is showing up in the courts from the defense.......

----------


## libertylastchance

> Likely it was cheaper written. He is working pro bono.
> 
> However, as to the rest there has been no new court action, just new statements by Gilbert, so it is just his characterization of what happened a week ago.


Why would he send out an e-mail early morning with this statement?  How do you know it"s a characterization of what happened last week?  That is not how it sounded to me.. and what does pro bono ........mean...  that he doesn't have to be professional and that we should just "go along" because he is doing "THIS" for free... Is this really a FAVOR for the liberty movement and Ron Paul...
We should be focused on our delegates that are in the mist of fighting to maintain their seats, and supporting them and the lawyers that are working hard with them.. 
Shocking a movement that prides itself on knowing the TRUTH, getting the FACTS and not being sheeple .. just keep following the piper....

----------


## sailingaway

> Why would he send out an e-mail early morning with this statement?  How do you know it"s a characterization of what happened last week?  That is not how it sounded to me.. and what does pro bono ........mean...  that he doesn't have to be professional and that we should just "go along" because he is doing "THIS" for free... Is this really a FAVOR for the liberty movement and Ron Paul...
> We should be focused on our delegates that are in the mist of fighting to maintain their seats, and supporting them and the lawyers that are working hard with them.. 
> Shocking a movement that prides itself on knowing the TRUTH, getting the FACTS and not being sheeple .. just keep following the piper....


I have no idea why he sends out emails and videos. I don't personally read or watch them. I understand from someone who checked pacer that nothing new happened so it has to be a characterization of what happened last week.  As for getting the electronic vs written, presumably he prefered written for whatever reason. You seem pretty pushy to have him do stuff for you for someone who cuts him down.  Why does he owe you anything?

I am not a cheer leader for him, but I think picking at whether he shares with us (as he needen't at all) a transcript in writing or electronic is the wrong place to focus.

----------


## CPUd

> Why would he send out an e-mail early morning with this statement?  How do you know it"s a characterization of what happened last week?  That is not how it sounded to me.. and what does pro bono ........mean...  that he doesn't have to be professional and that we should just "go along" because he is doing "THIS" for free... Is this really a FAVOR for the liberty movement and Ron Paul...
> We should be focused on our delegates that are in the mist of fighting to maintain their seats, and supporting them and the lawyers that are working hard with them.. 
> Shocking a movement that prides itself on knowing the TRUTH, getting the FACTS and not being sheeple .. just keep following the piper....


Gilbert rarely goes off script.  The content of the recent posts matches up to things he said in this interview .

I don't think there are a lot of people in this thread that have our hopes riding on that guy, rather, we are looking for things we can do to take advantage of the fact that it is in the court system.

----------


## libertylastchance

Well I hope you are right about getting more out of this than he is offering, via the court system.. An unfavorable ruling could rubber stamp the GOP to lie, steal and cheat with the courts blessings..

Anyway someone on FB posted his most recent response to this e-mail/comment

Caution on Update- It is only a temporary opinion called a Tentative. I did not say we won the case. The Judge may change his mind in the final ruling. I said the same thing last week but people just wanted to think we lost then. It is good news and we are in good position, but, we should not be celebrating.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## devil21

oh lord

----------


## CPUd

Tomorrow is supposedly the deadline for defense to file motion to dismiss.

----------


## sailingaway

> Tomorrow is supposedly the deadline for defense to file motion to dismiss.


fyi, banning doesn't keep someone from reading a thread, it just keeps them from participating in it.

----------


## WhistlinDave

So... I have been off the forum for several days but I'm disappointed we still don't have transcripts from the 6th.  I purposely didn't go to the trouble of making a video or a really long written out report of the happenings because I understood we were going to get the transcripts...  Well, I guess we (Ron Rules & I) already shared the most important things that went down that day anyway.

So tomorrow (Monday Aug 20th) is supposed to be the deadline for defense to file a motion to dismiss?  Do we know for sure this is correct?  This all seems to be cutting it extremely close to the RNC.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> So... I have been off the forum for several days but I'm disappointed we still don't have transcripts from the 6th.  I purposely didn't go to the trouble of making a video or a really long written out report of the happenings because I understood we were going to get the transcripts...  Well, I guess we (Ron Rules & I) already shared the most important things that went down that day anyway.
> 
> So tomorrow (Monday Aug 20th) is supposed to be the deadline for defense to file a motion to dismiss?  Do we know for sure this is correct?  This all seems to be cutting it extremely close to the RNC.


but what a nice b-day present it would be to have a favorable ruling tomorrow

----------


## PatriotOne

> What is the next step for the lawsuit?


Complete and utter failure.




> What are we waiting for?


Personally, I'm just waiting for the fat lady to sing so I can say "told ya so" to a few people.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

These are the times that try mens souls.

----------


## RonRules

"The Judge will set the next court date, and I believe that he intends to rule prior to the convention. *If we succeeded in preventing an RNC motion to dismiss Monday*, then the table is set for final argument & ruling if Judge sets it next week." 
--Richard Gilbert

Not too sure how he can prevent them from filing. May have to do with his parallel appeal.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Complete and utter failure.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm just waiting for the fat lady to sing so I can say "told ya so" to a few people.



Will it sound something like this?

"Originally Posted by TrishW:
I'm fairly new here, but it hasn't taken me long to pick up on the fact that you bitch a lot. You were just on another thread complaining about Paul Fest. Your words... "Stab Ron in the Heart Fest" (aka Paul-fest). 

Please set me straight. What are you personally doing to help Ron Paul? You seem to surpass the attempts made by the lawyers, and the Ron Paul Fest people. You must really be doing some GREAT stuff. Can I help?"

Piss off newbie. You don't know enough to address me like that and I could care less what you think. Try again in 5 yrs when you MIGHT have 1/100th of the knowledge and work and $ that I have into this movement.

Or this?

Gotta admit. I love me some Kucinich. The only socialist I would trust to be President. If I had to choose between Mitt or just about any other Republican besides Ron and Rand for Prez....I would...
07-20-2012*03:51 PM

Or:

I wish I had the time, but there are not enough hours in the day to "not suffer the fools" on this forum alone ..

Or maybe ask someone else to?

Thread: Conf. Call w/Atty Richard Gilbert (Lawyers for Ron Paul)

by PatriotOne
Replies
35
Views
1,731
Input:  If you are joining in, can you ask him if he will...

If you are joining in, can you ask him if he will be asking the court to rule on whether the delegates are bound or not via state rules?

Or ask someone to tweet it for you? I wonder who that "moneybomb" was!

I wonder who Moneybomb is over there tweeting LFRP? Got him in a trap! Go Moneybomb! Got this guy pissed off because he can't answer his question .

Or why even bother? All you've done is:

Then this is the stupidest.lawyer.ever.

----------


## RonRules

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@AnneBeck58 @RNC The failure to base the Maine delegates complaint on US law may likely prove fatal. We offered to help them

----------


## PatriotOne

> Input:  If you are joining in, can you ask him if he will...
> 
> If you are joining in, can you ask him if he will be asking the court to rule on whether the delegates are bound or not via state rules?
> 
> Or ask someone to tweet it for you? I wonder who that "moneybomb" was!
> 
> I wonder who Moneybomb is over there tweeting LFRP? Got him in a trap! Go Moneybomb! Got this guy pissed off because he can't answer his question .
> 
> Or why even bother? All you've done is:
> ...


Not even a clue what you are talking about there.  I think those bath salts may be causing brain damage.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## RonRules

> Yeah, I think that's hilarious too. We've all seen the kind of help this guy has delivered.
> 
> What really gets to me is how mean spirited he can be toward people who don't join his lawsuit.


I see your sentencing did not have much of an effect. Have you done anything productive while you were in RPF jail for a week?

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @AnneBeck58 @RNC The failure to base the Maine delegates complaint on US law may likely prove fatal. We offered to help them


I think they brought theirs in state court, and I don't know state law.  Theirs wasn't about binding.

----------


## sailingaway

> Helping delegates with challenges / news releases and preparing for my trip to Tampa.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Where's that transcript? Maybe Gilbert should spend less time preventing "electron particles from collapsing to earth to save all human life, plant life, and animal life" and more time trying to be a competent attorney.


he doesn't owe it to you to post a transcript.  You act as if you pay his fee instead of just cutting him down constantly.

By the way, are you a liberty delegate? You say certified. Has something changed in MASS or were you not one of the Ron Paul supporting delegates?

----------


## PatriotOne

> So... I have been off the forum for several days but I'm disappointed we still don't have transcripts from the 6th.  I purposely didn't go to the trouble of making a video or a really long written out report of the happenings because I understood we were going to get the transcripts...


He's probably too busy.  Maybe he can get one of the "hundreds of lawyers" that he claimed elected him to be the head lawyer of the Lawyers for Ron Paul team to help him post the promised transcript.  Surely at least one of the HUNDREDS of lawyers he claimed on his team has a few extra minutes.

----------


## sailingaway

> He's probably too busy.  Maybe he can get one of the "hundreds of lawyers" that he claimed elected him to be the head lawyer of the Lawyers for Ron Paul team to help him post the promised transcript.  Surely at least one of the HUNDREDS of lawyers he claimed on his team has a few extra minutes.


the rules for this thread are that it remain constructive.  If you want to vent about it do it in the Vent. It is what it is.

One of the people trolling against this thread turned out to be an habituee of Mitt Romney Central chat.  Lawdida said they knew eachother, which makes me wonder about a second.  You are the third.  Confine that to the vent.

----------


## PatriotOne

> One of the people trolling against this thread turned out to be an habituee of Mitt Romney Central chat.  Lawdida said they knew eachother, which makes me wonder about a second.  You are the third.  Confine that to the vent.


WHAT????  Are you implying I am a Romney troll?

How is the suggestion that Gilbert use one of his 100's of lawyers on his RP team to help him not constructive .

----------


## sailingaway

sarcasm is not constructive.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

Gilbert was wrong about Mass as we have said many times.  Gilbert was also wrong to call Mass delegates traitors because they were taking a different path, as we have also said many times.  Gilbert, however, DOES have a case in court, whether people like it or not, and this thread is to try to find ways to help it or change it for the better or give updates on it.  It is not for dumping on, you need to do that in the vent.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Maybe zsh_ninja and I should take the CRIME SYNDICATE known as DP/RPF to FEDERAL court to expose the abuses we've suffered! lol.


Was zsh_ninja banned at DP's?  I would occasionally go look for his/her posts on the subject because they were always interesting and couldn't find him/her last time.  Thought it was just my poor search skills at DP's.

----------


## sailingaway

> I never said I knew him. I think I said I didn't know him. lol...and _I_ was banned and he wasn't. I even gave you my personal info showing you that I'm a delegate.


You were banned for continuing after being warned.  He wasn't as blatant.  And I believe you said you knew him off of the forum which is why you were having a side conversation.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

You shouldn't have banned him. The one line of communication we have with a certified delegate who lets us know what's happening on the ground and you ban him? 




> You were banned for continuing after being warned.  He wasn't as blatant.  And I believe you said you knew him off of the forum which is why you were having a side conversation.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## PatriotOne

SA...are you deleting posts on this thread or is the forum just having tech difficulties?  There are at least 2 posts on this thread (1 from me and 1 from lawdida) that were posted and when refreshed disappeared totally.

----------


## sailingaway

I'm weeding stuff that people already warned post that is not helpful to nor new information concerning the lawsuit.

----------


## sailingaway

yes, lawdida, the posts here are for a purpose, the thread was growing 20 pages a day saying nothing before it started getting weeded and now is being 'censored' or weeded to the topic.  If your only reason for posting here is to derail the thread, don't bother.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## RonRules

55 seconds ago!

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
As of this moment, there is no filing in court by the RNC

----------


## RonRules

So either the RNC is so confident that they don't feel they need to file an opposing motion or that whatever shenanigans that Gilbert was up to (that would prevent them from filing) have worked.

We'll see. Just a few hours left.

----------


## sailingaway

> 55 seconds ago!
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> As of this moment, there is no filing in court by the RNC


Yeah, but it is only 1:00 CA time. they have until 4:30.  I expect them to file, since they did before, but we'll see.

----------


## Barrex

> 55 seconds ago!
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> As of this moment, there is no filing in court by the RNC


How much time they still got to file? too many time zones to calculate....

----------


## devil21

> How much time they still got to file? too many time zones to calculate....


I didnt see the filing time deadline but it's probably 5pm west coast.  It's 2pm there now.  They still have a few hours.

----------


## torchbearer

waiting. 
the trolls aren't even that entertaining anymore.
for people who dislike this suit, they take an awful lot of interest in it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> waiting. 
> the trolls aren't even that entertaining anymore.
> for people who dislike this suite, they take an awful lot of interest in it.


A bit too much interest.  Verrry Interrrestink...

----------


## torchbearer



----------


## eleganz

Update as of 2 hours ago:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> As of this moment, there is no filing in court by the RNC

----------


## RonRules

A couple of days ago he posted this:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
I am confident our 3 dimesnional chess plan has blocked the RNC from being able to file a Motion to Dismiss on Monday.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## RonRules

17 Aug:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
If we succeeded in preventing an RNC motion to dismiss Monday then the table is set for final argument & ruling if Judge sets it next week

----------


## torchbearer

> You going to be in Tampa?


depends. i have the week scheduled off from work for such a purpose. i'm involved in a congressional run in my district so its wait and see.

----------


## PatriotOne

> waiting. 
> the trolls aren't even that entertaining anymore.
> for people who dislike this suit, they take an awful lot of interest in it.


Herr Sailingaway is deleting Gilberts non-cheerleader's posts now and banning those who don't support him.  Who are you calling a troll Torch?

----------


## torchbearer

> Herr Sailingaway is deleting Gilberts non-cheerleader's posts now and banning those who don't support him.  Who are you calling a troll Torch?


the people who are being counterproductive in this thread. 
have you thought about making a "bash the law suit" thread. then i could come and troll your thread.

----------


## rb3b3

Well its 7:26 eastern time making it 4:26 pm pacific time... Did the rnc file a motion to dismiss??

----------


## PatriotOne

> the people who are being counterproductive in this thread. 
> have you thought about making a "bash the law suit" thread. then i could come and troll your thread.


LOL.  Sailingaway is the one who decided to hijack this thread and make it her own "gather info to help Gilbert save the world" and everyone else has to step off of it or get banned.  This one was well established discussing the pro's and cons of the lawsuit for a couple months before SA called imminent domain over it.  She's the one who should have started her own thread .

----------


## torchbearer

> LOL.  Sailingaway is the one who decided to hijack this thread and make it her own "gather info to help Gilbert save the world" and everyone else has to step off of it or get banned.  This one was well established discussing the pro's and cons of the lawsuit for a couple months before SA called imminent domain over it.  She's the one who should have started her own thread .


I stand by my previous statement.
want to know what trolling is? start a thread concerning the conspiracy that this lawsuit was just to get our delegate info.
i'll be there to show example of trolling.

----------


## torchbearer

> Well its 7:26 eastern time making it 4:26 pm pacific time... Did the rnc file a motion to dismiss??


can't you see we are busy discussing things that are not kosher to this suit?
some people.

----------


## RonRules

Countdown: 14 minutes to go!

----------


## Miss Annie

> LOL.  Sailingaway is the one who decided to hijack this thread and make it her own "gather info to help Gilbert save the world" and everyone else has to step off of it or get banned.  This one was well established discussing the pro's and cons of the lawsuit for a couple months before SA called imminent domain over it.  She's the one who should have started her own thread .


And all this time I thought Sailing was a hot guy...... how disappointing.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I stand by my previous statement.
> want to know what trolling is? start a thread concerning the conspiracy that this lawsuit was just to get our delegate info.
> i'll be there to show example of trolling.


Of course you stand by your statement.  Being right isn't important.  Anywho.......

Are you threatening me with..._gasp_....trolling ?  Good grief Torch .

----------


## torchbearer

> Of course you stand by your statement.  Being right isn't important.  Anywho.......
> 
> Are you threatening me with..._gasp_....trolling ?  Good grief Torch .


I was thinking of a teaching moment, not a threat.
you asked:



> Who are you calling a troll Torch?


as if, you didn't know what such behavior would look like.
i offered to show you.
most people pay for their education. i was giving you a grant.

----------


## PatriotOne

> And all this time I thought Sailing was a hot guy...... how disappointing.


I'm a girl also so don't get any idea's bout me either.  Back off sista .

----------


## PatriotOne

> I was thinking of a teaching moment, not a threat.
> you asked:
> 
> 
> as if, you didn't know what such behavior would look like.
> i offered to show you.
> most people pay for their education. i was giving you a grant.


Thanks but I have been trolled by professional trolls plenty.  I think I have a grasp on the art of trolling.

----------


## torchbearer

> Thanks but I have been trolled by professional trolls plenty.  I think I have a grasp on the art of trolling.


then the question was feign?

----------


## RonRules

> And all this time I thought Sailing was a hot guy...... how disappointing.


Would you settle for a wet dolphin?

----------


## RonRules

It's 5 PM, no notice from Gilbert about a filing.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Would you settle for a wet dolphin?


I think that might be the fishiest offer I have ever had!

----------


## torchbearer

> It's 5 PM, no notice from Gilbert about a filing.

----------


## RonRules

This is the latest from Pacer:

08/08/2012	36 	SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Republican National Committee amending First Amended Complaint, 12 ; filed by plaintiffs (rla) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/09/2012	37 	Second EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite THE CASE CONSISTENT WITH 42 USC 1971(e) filed by PLAINTIFF Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/09/2012	38 	 OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFF Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen, re Second EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite THE CASE CONSISTENT WITH 42 USC 1971(e) 37 served on 08-09-2012. (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/09/2012)

08/10/2012	39 	TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 8/6/2012 Item 11, Vol. I. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: DEBBIE GALE, phone number 714-558-8141 or EMAIL: debbie_gale@cacd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/31/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/10/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/8/2012. (Gale, Debbie) (Entered: 08/10/2012)

08/10/2012	40 	NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 8/6/2012 Item 11, Vol. I re Transcript 39 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Gale, Debbie) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/10/2012)

08/10/2012	41 	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 08/06/2012 to 08/06/2012 as to PLAINTIFF Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen Court Reporter Jane Sutton Rule. Court will contact Richard C. Gilbert at richardattorney@gmail.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Opening Statement by Plaintiff on 08/06/2012. Opening Statement by Defendant on 08/06/2012. Closing Argument by Plaintiff on 08/06/2012. Closing Argument by Defendant on 08/06/2012. Opinion of the Court on 08/06/2012. Other: 08/06/2012. Category: Daily. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/10/2012)

08/13/2012	42 	TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 08/06/2012. Court Reporter: Jane Sutton Rule, phone number (714)558-7755, janesutton@sbcglobal.net. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/3/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/13/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/11/2012. (Sutton, Jane) (Entered: 08/13/2012)

08/20/2012	43 	MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THISCOURT SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF APPEAL AS A DESIRE TO STAND UPON THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Thus, this Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not construe Plaintiffs notice of appeal as a desire to stand upon the First Amended Complaint and treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that plaintiff who filed an Election to Stand Upon the Sufficiency of AmendedComplaint Pleadings made a reasonable choice to expedite the rest of the case and test her belief that the... claim was adequately pled). Plaintiffs shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by 9 a.m. on August 21, 2012. If Plaintiffs fail to file a Response or file a Response that fails to clearly indicate whether they are appealing or not, this Court will strike Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and issue a final judgment dismissing Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with prejudice and for the reasons stated in the Courts August 7, 2012, Order. (twdb) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

The last item has me curious. That appeals business before a judgement (which puzzled me) pissed off the judge. He's got to show up tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM.

----------


## sailingaway

> Herr Sailingaway is deleting Gilberts non-cheerleader's posts now and banning those who don't support him.  Who are you calling a troll Torch?


Note the revised op taken from the forum guidelines section.  The fact of having the lawsuit is not up for debate, and is out of the control of the forum.  This thread is to see if it can be influenced or helped in a positive way.  You may make an opposing thread, in hot topics or vent to just blow off steam, but note the comments about that in the first post above.

----------


## RonRules

> I think that might be the fishiest offer I have ever had!


I'm NOT a fish, I'm a bona-fide mammal. I presume you are too!

----------


## sailingaway

> This is the latest from Pacer:
> 
> 08/08/2012	36 	SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Republican National Committee amending First Amended Complaint, 12 ; filed by plaintiffs (rla) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
> 
> 08/09/2012	37 	Second EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite THE CASE CONSISTENT WITH 42 USC 1971(e) filed by PLAINTIFF Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
> 
> 08/09/2012	38 	 OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFF Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen, re Second EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite THE CASE CONSISTENT WITH 42 USC 1971(e) 37 served on 08-09-2012. (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
> 
> 08/10/2012	39 	TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 8/6/2012 Item 11, Vol. I. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: DEBBIE GALE, phone number 714-558-8141 or EMAIL: debbie_gale@cacd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/31/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/10/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/8/2012. (Gale, Debbie) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
> ...


 it was with leave to amend so seems to me the cause is to keep this part alive as well.  I wasn't thrilled to see the appeal.  I wonder if the other side knew this was coming, since they didn't file a motion to dismiss.

----------


## SteveT1736

Here is what has happened on the Court docket on the Pacer System:

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF APPEAL AS A DESIRE TO STAND UPON THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Thus, this Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not construe Plaintiffs notice of appeal as a desire to stand upon the First Amended Complaint and treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that plaintiff who filed an Election to Stand Upon the Sufficiency of AmendedComplaint Pleadings made a reasonable choice to expedite the rest of the case and test her belief that the... claim was adequately pled). Plaintiffs shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by 9 a.m. on August 21, 2012. If Plaintiffs fail to file a Response or file a Response that fails to clearly indicate whether they are appealing or not, this Court will strike Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and issue a final judgment dismissing Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with prejudice and for the reasons stated in the Courts August 7, 2012, Order. (twdb) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

An order to show cause is a last chance before the court takes action.  Essentially, the Judge believes Gilbert's pleading was non-responsive and is preparing to strike the case.  If so, it will be up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  But, they will be looking at the version that the trial court previously struck (because the new version has not been accepted by the trial court).  Appeals are tough and usually take a few months.   A faster process is sometimes possible but is difficult because it is at the Court's discretion.

FYI:  There is no deadline to file a motion to dismiss by today.  Those must be filed before filing a responsive answer which is 30 days after a complaint (or amended complaint ) is filed -- unless the court specifies otherwise.  Also, in federal court, one can file until midnight and still be timely. 


P.S.  I know some are suspicious of me and my motives.  But, nothing I have ever posted has been inaccurate or misleading.

----------


## BSU kid

No offensive Steve, but "suspicious" is a bit of an understatement.

----------


## sailingaway

it has indeed been misleading.  I don't know if it has been inaccurate.  

The judge doesn't appear to be saying that it is non responsive but that he may view the appeal of the part of the judgment as divesting the lower court of jurisdiction by appealing a final judgment.  It could only have been final as to parts the court said it was final to though, not as to parts the court said could be restated.

What I don't like is the dismissal 'with prejudice', which is why we wanted to insert our fraud facts if poss as responsive to their expected motion to strike.  

However, I need to look at that case.

----------


## RonRules

Here is a public link to the judge's order:
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7556347

----------


## freedomordeath

> Note the revised op taken from the forum guidelines section. The fact of having the lawsuit is not up for debate, and is out of the control of the forum. This thread is to see if it can be influenced or helped in a positive way. You may make an opposing thread, in hot topics or vent to just blow off steam, but note the comments about that in the first post above.


When those annoying little brats were not posting, actual discussion were taking place, I e-mailed the thread to loads of Law Faculties, but none of them seem to have given a $#@!, and if anyone did bother sticking their nose in, then all they will see is Lawdida hijacking this. What is being done for this thread is 2 objectives , one is helping the case and the other is to document for historical purposes.

Lawdida you MADE YOU POINT VERY $#@!ING CLEAR!!!!! you do not support the case. WE ALL GET IT. 

I personally think this has legs and after TAMPA if things don't work out with Gilbert we'll chipin for another lawyer (hopefully foreigners will FINALLY BE ABLE TO GIVE SOME FREAKING MONEY TO SOMETHING LOL, NOT THAT i HAVE MUCH but it would be cool to sacrifice some beers for Ron Paul). I also thought of a Liberty Lawyers type association. YAL has proven very successful and it would be so awesome to have a Liberty Lawyers Association. If this gets off the ground then poeple will be very wary of fcking with us. This association can deal with all constitutional matters and political type matters.

----------


## RonRules

As most of us non-lawyers intuitively thought:

"Because Plaintiffs filed both an amended complaint and a notice of appeal, this
Court can not discern whether Plaintiffs wish to: (1) treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a
final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction; or (2) continue to litigate in this Court.
The one thing that is certain is that Plaintiffs can not do both. Plaintiffs “cannot pursue
an appeal from the Court’s order and simultaneously treat this matter as ongoing by filing
[a] second amended complaint.” Ingram v. Warden, CIV.A. 10-4151 NLH, 2011 WL
318300, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011). Plaintiffs “cannot ‘hedge [their] bets’ by hoping that
either continuing proceedings before this Court or . . . before the Court of Appeals [will]
yield a favorable result; rather, [Plaintiffs are] obligated to make an exclusive election.”
Id."

----------


## torchbearer

> As most of us non-lawyers intuitively thought:
> 
> "Because Plaintiffs filed both an amended complaint and a notice of appeal, this
> Court can not discern whether Plaintiffs wish to: (1) treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a
> final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction; or (2) continue to litigate in this Court.
> The one thing that is certain is that Plaintiffs can not do both. Plaintiffs “cannot pursue
> an appeal from the Court’s order and simultaneously treat this matter as ongoing by filing
> [a] second amended complaint.” Ingram v. Warden, CIV.A. 10-4151 NLH, 2011 WL
> 318300, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011). Plaintiffs “cannot ‘hedge [their] bets’ by hoping that
> ...



this strategy does not appear to be filled with win.

----------


## CPUd

Is this his knockout punch?

----------


## PatriotOne

> Note the revised op taken from the forum guidelines section.  The fact of having the lawsuit is not up for debate, and is out of the control of the forum.  This thread is to see if it can be influenced or helped in a positive way.  You may make an opposing thread, in hot topics or vent to just blow off steam, but note the comments about that in the first post above.


Did you put that there?  And yeah...I got something to say about that because it does not support your hijacking this thread and making it your own at all.

But we can discuss that after the latest Gilbert idiocy has been dissected .

----------


## rb3b3

Now I'm really confused can someone help me try to understand what the Fk is going on? Did rnc file a motion to dismiss today or not? Did they not have to? Has the judge made any rulings today at all? What the Fk is going on? All this bickering with one another isn't helping much and some people are trying to understand if this is going to go in our favor for once or not as usual! Thank you in advance!

----------


## freedomordeath

> But we can discuss that after the latest Gilbert idiocy has been dissected .


Ok try showing a technical reason for his idiocy. Where did he mess up, quote or state the legal argument he made that has flaws and show us the flaws instead of making some random statements.

----------


## RonRules

> Is this his knockout punch?


He's just got to pick which way to go: Amended complaint #1 on appeal or Amended complaint #2, probably to be decided tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM.

We had a great judge, he was feeding him with a silver platter full of helpful clues. Now he's pissed and who knows what the appeals court will do. 

All the appeals can do is decide if Carter ruled wrongly with the dismissal and motion to amend. There was nothing wrong with that. 

So I think Gilbert will have to wear a nice suit tomorrow morning and cross every appendage in anticipation of what the judge will say.

----------


## sailingaway

> this strategy does not appear to be filled with win.


not sure what you mean by 'with win'?  

I don't like a number of things Gilbert did, and tomorrow may just be something we can't do anything about, but my focus is on what we can do to help, if anything.  Our intent had been to respond or send materials to respond to a motion to dismiss that didn't come.  Not sure if we here can do anything about this, does anyone have constructive ideas? 

In the case cited by the court no amended complaint was filed. Here it was.  I frankly would rather he just asked leave to replead and plead with facts we have in our evidence thread.  Under this procedural posture, it is hard to raise the points we want raised.  I actually think it should be in Federal Court because of the pattern and practice of fraud across the nation, often the same tactic in multiple locations.  State court doesn't paint the truly horrific national disenfranchisement that was occurring.

I agree the judge laid it out plainly and he is pissed.

I'd throw myself on the court's discretion and ask to amend again, keeping it in lower court and do what I would have done to begin with, but I also wouldn't have filed the appeal after the judge's ruling and would have done the complaint differently.  So I don't think I'm exactly on the same page as Gilbert.

----------


## rb3b3

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??????? rnc didn't file motion to dismiss??? I thought that's what we wanted????????????? Wow you guys are selfish!

----------


## torchbearer

> not sure what you mean by 'with win'?  
> 
> I don't like a number of things Gilbert did, and tomorrow may just be something we can't do anything about, but my focus is on what we can do to help, if anything.  Our intent had been to respond or send materials to respond to a motion to dismiss that didn't come.  Not sure if we here can do anything about this, does anyone have constructive ideas? 
> 
> In the case cited by the court no amended complaint was filed. Here it was.  I frankly would rather he just asked leave to replead and plead with facts we have in our evidence thread.  Under this procedural posture, it is hard to raise the points we want raised.  I actually think it should be in Federal Court because of the pattern and practice of fraud across the nation, often the same tactic in multiple locations.  State court doesn't paint the truly horrific national disenfranchisement that was occurring.
> 
> I agree the judge laid it out plainly and he is pissed.


insulting the judge is not a way to make friends and win cases.

----------


## torchbearer

> WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??????? rnc didn't file motion to dismiss??? I thought that's what we wanted????????????? Wow you guys are selfish!


did you read the pdf listed?
gilbert filed an appeal before a final decision was made, basically flipping off the judge.
the judge has asked, do you want to keep the dismissed complaint? if so, i will comply.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ok try showing a technical reason for his idiocy. Where did he mess up, quote or state the legal argument he made that has flaws and show us the flaws instead of making some random statements.


no, don't.  After tomorrow we can ad nauseum pick apart what went wrong, we can leave that off today.

----------


## sailingaway

> insulting the judge is not a way to make friends and win cases.


I couldn't agree more.

----------


## rb3b3

> did you read the pdf listed?
> gilbert filed an appeal before a final decision was made, basically flipping off the judge.
> the judge has asked, do you want to keep the dismissed complaint? if so, i will comply.


Thank you torchbearer , I'm no legal expert very far from it, but why would Gilbert file an appeal before the judge made a decision on the new amended complaint? What am i missing? So does this mean we lost as usual?

----------


## sailingaway

The judge will be making a decision tomorrow and Gilbert has until then to prepare an argument.

----------


## torchbearer

> Thank you torchbearer , I'm no legal expert very far from it, but why would Gilbert file an appeal before the judge made a decision on the new amended complaint? What am i missing? So does this mean we lost as usual?


why would he file an appeal before a final decision is the question of my $#@!ing lifetime.
i hope i'm too much a simpleton to understand this logic.
we haven't lost yet, but he didn't do us any favors as far as i can tell.

----------


## sailingaway

> why would he file an appeal before a final decision is the question of my $#@!ing lifetime.
> i hope i'm too much a simpleton to understand this logic.
> we haven't lost yet, but he didn't do us any favors as far as i can tell.


Why didn't he follow directions in amending the complaint?

He was in and people went to him because he was the only attorney bringing a suit.

----------


## torchbearer

> Why didn't he follow directions in amending the complaint?
> 
> He was in and people went to him because he was the only attorney bringing a suit.


I will wait to see what he does next.
i'm not familiar with court room drama, so i'm not sure what cards he is holding in his hand.

----------


## CPUd

The only reason I can think of is that he's trying to time these court actions in a way that keeps the defense from responding in an unpredictable way.  Sorta like the end of a basketball game when the strategy is to foul the winning team on purpose so the losing team can regain control of the ball.

----------


## torchbearer

> The only reason I can think of is that he's trying to time these court actions in a way that keeps the defense from responding in an unpredictable way.  Sorta like the end of a basketball game when the strategy is to foul the winning team on purpose so the losing team can regain control of the ball.


sounds risky when its seems like we were ahead.

----------


## CPUd

> sounds risky when its seems like we were ahead.


Yeah, in the basketball analogy, he is like the winning team fouling the losing team.

----------


## sailingaway

> sounds risky when its seems like we were ahead.


between today and tomorrow, I don't know what we can do.  Gilbert has a direction we didn't get when he started the appeal stuff anyhow.  I'd still go to full multistate fraud complaint. Claim new facts with the Maine situation, for example.  The main thing is don't piss the judge off, imho.  He has a ton of discretion.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Ok try showing a technical reason for his idiocy. Where did he mess up, quote or state the legal argument he made that has flaws and show us the flaws instead of making some random statements.


I'll just translate the judges ruling from today for you instead:

Judge Carter:  What the hell are you doing ya moron?  Do you really have a law degree?  I want it produced in court so I can verify it's authenticity.  And what's up with that hair?  Makes Trump's hairdo look stylish and trendy.

----------


## freedomordeath

I put this on a thread of its own, but thought to post it here because there is some technical info as per this paricular district 

Romney Delegate from Louisiana Supports Fairness Toward Ron Paul http://centralcitynews.us/wp-content...us-7-30-12.pdf




> July 30, 2012
> Mr. Reince Priebus, Chairman
> Republican National Convention
> 310 First Street, SE
> Washington, DC 20003
> RE: Delegates from Sixth Congressional District of Louisiana
> Dear Reince:
> You have probably heard a lot about the controversy surrounding the Louisiana Republican
> Party state convention held in June 2012, which resulted in two different national convention delegations
> ...

----------


## sailingaway

thanks, I copied it to the verifiable facts thread.  Which I tweeted to Gilbert.

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

We can't end the lawsuit, it has over a hundred delegate plaintiffs as I understand.  My main concern is preserving their rights.  We can't do what you are saying because WE cannot end the lawsuit.  Every plaintiff has to do that, for that to work.  MEanwhile, tomorrow at 9am the court is hearing arguments.  So I don't see how that is helpful, again.  We know you don't like it.  We know the guy who habituates Mitt Romney Central chat doesn't like it. We would handle it differently ourselves, if we had the ability to give direction.  So how is what you wrote helpful?

_This_ lawsuit is in court, like it or not.  So _this_ lawsuit is what we are discussing.

----------


## freedomordeath

> I didn't say we could end it. I said we could abandon and repudiate it and try to get others to do so as well. That means not trying to help Gilbert (and therefore not associating ourselves with those who desire to continue to peruse it). It means telling others it was ill conceived and poorly executed - a mistake. If the consensus of the movement is that it was a mistake, then intellectual credibility is maintained and/or restored. If people continue to try to make it work at this point, it reflects poorly on the judgment of those in the movement.
> 
> All delegates won't attempt to withdraw but even if we could get some to withdraw, it would restore credibility.
> 
> Please don't delete this. If you can't see how it's a helpful suggestion, at least others might.


for poeple to abandon this ship, they need to jump to another ship or eveyone drowns. Its no good supplying an ideas ship, a real ship needs to be supplied. Do you have one.

----------


## freedomordeath

> Seriously? If you were on a ship that was sinking, you would hold on tight as it pulled you underwater because you didn't have another ship to hop on?
> 
> I would jump off, and try to grab a piece of the ship (like taking the already collected examples of fraud and abuse, organizing them and sorting out the fact from fiction so that they'll be ready to go) and either wait for a new ship to come by or swim in the direction where I'm likely to find another one.


So the answer is NO then, you don't have us another ship or even a general direction where to swim to find another ship before we all drown.

----------


## libertylastchance

DUH.... said that all along.. he threw his own appleal out the window..

----------


## RonRules

> DUH.... said that all along.. he threw his own appleal out the window..


He could still appeal the 2nd complaint, if the judge decides against it. It's a pretty bare bones case though.

----------


## MelissaCato

EVERYONE get on the Ron Paul 2012 ship - NOW !!! lol

----------


## CPUd



----------


## MelissaCato

LOL - hurry naw !!

----------


## lawdida

I don't know.

----------


## sailingaway

> *Pay competent attorneys to file claims in the states in which the abuses occurred.*
> 
> I know sailing away said she wants a single federal suit because it shows a pattern of abuses. The problem is, there is no way to prove that the various abuses are connected in a coordinated way.
> 
> Contrary to the picture Gilbert paints, Mitt Romney is not sitting in a war room coordinating with people in various states to defraud voters.
> 
> Generally, what is happening is local state party "leaders" are attempting to preserve their power and keep their party from being taken over by people they don't thing belong. Yes, there is a pattern but there is no causal relationship - certainly none that can be proven anyway.
> 
> So, while I can't offer you a big ship. There are enough smaller ships around for everyone to jump in.


There are ways to allege it is a pattern overlooked in practice by RNC when rules are broken and show similarities between what was done in different states etc actually.  You are arguing facts now, and you don't seem to know the facts.

The point is, there is a lawsuit in court. We don't have to 'go in that direction' it is already going.  This thread is not about starting a different lawsuit, but you can start your own about a different lawsuit you would like to see. Not in this thread.

and the fec payments by Romney's campaign included payments to a guy reported to have passed fake slates to create confusion in MULTIPLE states.  So while I'm sure Romney himself is not in a warroom directing details, there are links to the campaign in more than one state.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Just keep going.  Never a good idea to change direction.  Go Gilbert!


Enough already.  Just stop it.  Start a negative thread if you want to, but why post this stuff in this thread?

----------


## BSU kid

It's hard to sugar coat these rulings over and over again, this lawsuit is not going well imo. Not negative, realistic.

----------


## sailingaway

nevermind.

So, tomorrow at 9 there is a hearing.  Gilbert has been open to nonattacking tweets in the past but I can't think of anything succinct enough to help except the verifiable facts thread link I already sent him and the greenpapers article sent last week.  He has a direction and I don't know that we can change it from here.  Did anyone have any ideas?

----------


## sailingaway

> It's hard to sugar coat these rulings over and over again, this lawsuit is not going well imo. Not negative, realistic.


no, it isn't, imho, either. Please don't mistake our wanting this thread clear of mocking clutter as any ratification of actions taken.

I would have reacted very differently to the judge's last ruling which was actually very positive imho, if you followed his directions. Heck, I would have framed the question towards the fraud and abuse and making the RNC follow its own laws from the start.  However, BEFORE that last ruling and before the complaint in response were filed lawdida et al were just as negative.  That doesn't lead to constructive action.

----------


## BSU kid

> nevermind.
> 
> So, tomorrow at 9 there is a hearing.  Gilbert has been open to nonattacking tweets in the past but I can't think of anything succinct enough to help except the verifiable facts thread link I already sent him and the greenpapers article sent last week.  He has a direction and I don't know that we can change it from here.  Did anyone have any ideas?


Has he responded to you at all? Any sign he is seeing the thread?

----------


## sailingaway

> Has he responded to you at all? Any sign he is seeing the thread?


he sent me a message when I sent him the greenpapers write up the other day showing he had read it.  Unfortunately, he may have people in the faceless pool of attorneys he speaks to who are misleading him, or, heck, he may be up to no good, or may be brilliant and I just don't understand where he's going with this.  But I don't know what we can do more, between today and tomorrow, off hand.  I'm open to suggestions, though.

----------


## BSU kid

> he sent me a message when I sent him the greenpapers write up the other day showing he had read it.  Unfortunately, he may have people in the faceless pool of attorneys he speaks to who are misleading him, or, heck, he may be up to no good, or may be brilliant and I just don't understand where he's going with this.  But I don't know what we can do more, between today and tomorrow, off hand.  I'm open to suggestions, though.


I am glad he has at least acknowledged the efforts from this site, but I don't think we can do anything. Gilbert has all the power here.

----------


## RonRules

> Has he responded to you at all? Any sign he is seeing the thread?


Others are twittering him:

Ron Paul - Real Hope ‏@tweetAmiracle
@USA_Free_Press Anything interesting happen today my friend?

Ron Paul - Real Hope ‏@tweetAmiracle
@USA_Free_Press Clarification of time on issuing ruling? Positive?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> he sent me a message when I sent him the greenpapers write up the other day showing he had read it.  Unfortunately, he may have people in the faceless pool of attorneys he speaks to who are misleading him, or, heck, he may be up to no good, or may be brilliant and I just don't understand where he's going with this.  But I don't know what we can do more, between today and tomorrow, off hand.  I'm open to suggestions, though.


I expected the judges reaction to the appeal (I was hoping he wouldn't do that).  He said the appeal was to make sure this case was heard before Aug 27 (RNC convention).

Hopefully, he sees that was not a good thing to do and asks the judge to continue, and withdraw the appeal.

At this point, all we can do is wait for tomorrow morning.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Others are twittering him:
> 
> Ron Paul - Real Hope ‏@tweetAmiracle
> @USA_Free_Press Anything interesting happen today my friend?
> 
> Ron Paul - Real Hope ‏@tweetAmiracle
> @USA_Free_Press Clarification of time on issuing ruling? Positive?


Okay, I hope everyone keeps it cool...don't need to distract or piss him off either.

----------


## SteveT1736

Mr. Gilbert just filed a response with the Court to the Order to Show Cause.

It says that his filing with the 9th Circuit is not an appeal but an appellate writ (basically to order the District to proceed faster).  Apparently, giving his order to Show Cause earlier today, Judge Carter disagrees with the characterization.

There is also text complaining that if the RNC files as required under the rules (Gilbert says 14 days -- I think the applicable time period is 30 days), that the merits can't be reached pre-Convention.  Courts are rule-driven, not results oriented.

One part that is inexplicable is that he says the Court must order final argument this Friday.  That is procedurally deficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The issues now are either a motion to dismiss or an answer to the amended complaint.  Thereafter, one party could start the summary judgment process but that will take about 45 days before argument can be heard. Gilbert is trying to jump ahead when he is still in the initial stages.

I suspect the Court will either A) Deem Gilbert's appellate court action as an appeal and dismiss or B) Accept the second complaint and dismiss.

We will see . .

----------


## sailingaway

> Mr. Gilbert just filed a response with the Court to the Order to Show Cause.
> 
> It says that his filing with the 9th Circuit is not an appeal but an appellate writ (basically to order the District to proceed faster).  Apparently, giving his order to Show Cause earlier today, Judge Carter disagrees with the characterization.
> 
> There is also text complaining that if the RNC files as required under the rules (Gilbert says 14 days -- I think the applicable time period is 30 days), that the merits can't be reached pre-Convention.  Courts are rule-driven, not results oriented.
> 
> One part that is inexplicable is that he says the Court must order final argument this Friday.  That is procedurally deficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The issues now are either a motion to dismiss or an answer to the amended complaint.  Thereafter, one party could start the summary judgment process but that will take about 45 days before argument can be heard. Gilbert is trying to jump ahead when he is still in the initial stages.
> 
> I suspect the Court will either A) Deem Gilbert's appellate court action as an appeal and dismiss or B) Accept the second complaint and dismiss.
> ...


I find it fascinating that a guy who frequents Mitt Romney Central chat is following a lawsuit that is so deficient so closely he knows what Gilbert just filed after hours, and is sharing it with us.

Thank you for sharing, of course.....

Separately I wish Gilbert would TAKE the time the court gives.  Last time, too.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- I would challenge you to provide any evidence I've ever "frequented" Mr. Romney's website.  The evidence cited is one post.  One that uses language different than mine (the username is equivalent to mine but the only place I've ever used that particular name is here).

As to motive, I've found this entire suit fascinating.  I find Mr. Gilbert's actions inexplicable.

Again, I think you will find every item I have posted here is an accurate reflection of federal court practice.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway -- I would challenge you to provide any evidence I've ever "frequented" Mr. Romney's website.  The evidence cited is one post.  One that uses language different than mine (the usernmae is equivalent to mine but the only place I've ever used that name is here).
> 
> As to motive, I've found this entire suit fascinating.  I find Mr. Gilbert's actions inexplicable.


why are you following it so closely?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> sailingaway -- I would challenge you to provide any evidence I've ever "frequented" Mr. Romney's website.  The evidence cited is one post.  One that uses language different than mine (the username is equivalent to mine but the only place I've ever used that particular name is here).
> 
> As to motive, I've found this entire suit fascinating.  I find Mr. Gilbert's actions inexplicable.
> 
> Again, I think you will find every item I have posted here is an accurate reflection of federal court practice.


Why is R-money beyond your reproach? Criticize at will Johnny be good

----------


## SteveT1736

I work in federal court almost exclusively.  I saw some press on the lawsuit.  Looked it up on Pacer.  Have followed the docket regularly and the commentary on the suit (Comes with OCD).  Frankly, I couldn't figure out what Gilbert was up to and it has increased my curiosity.  

My own sense is that he has affirmatively misled many as to the status and effectiveness of his actions.  I don't know why.

I have some sympathy for the plaintiffs because if the case as dismissed as postured right now, the RNC will likely seek attorney fees and costs and prevail on those.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

YET Mr Steve is the man. Anything else

----------


## sailingaway

> I work in federal court almost exclusively.  I saw some press on the lawsuit.  Looked it up on Pacer.  Have followed the docket regularly and the commentary on the suit (Comes with OCD).  Frankly, I couldn't figure out what Gilbert was up to and it has increased my curiosity.  
> 
> My own sense is that he has affirmatively misled many as to the status and effectiveness of his actions.  I don't know why.
> 
> I have some sympathy for the plaintiffs because if the case as dismissed as postured right now, the RNC will likely seek attorney fees and costs and prevail on those.


that sounds like a really unlikely reason for following it so closely.

----------


## RonRules

Gilbet's latest tweet:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
I explained we were doing this on purpose as part of our case strategy. From now on there will be tests given


At least he still has a sense of humor.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I work in federal court almost exclusively.  I saw some press on the lawsuit.  Looked it up on Pacer.  Have followed the docket regularly and the commentary on the suit (Comes with OCD).  Frankly, I couldn't figure out what Gilbert was up to and it has increased my curiosity.  
> 
> My own sense is that he has affirmatively misled many as to the status and effectiveness of his actions.  I don't know why.
> 
> I have some sympathy for the plaintiffs because if the case as dismissed as postured right now, the RNC will likely seek attorney fees and costs and prevail on those.


I work there as well, you seem brite as a tool's pigeon to speculate about the rnc and their attys costs. No tellin about tellin about what will happen but I think good will come to this.

----------


## zachrbroussard

You know, the other day I slipped on our wood floor and spilled my glass of water all over my self. As I stood up, I exclaimed to everyone around me "Ya, I did that on purpose"....

Just saying.

----------


## RonRules

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
I intentionally irked the Judge to move on the case. Otherwise the clock would run out

----------


## SteveT1736

I worked for a political figure roughly a decade and a half ago. I follow what is happening but haven't participated significantly (besides voting) since then.  I've done some election law (long time ago) and that is a key reason for the interest in this particular suit.  Right now my work precludes political activity -- even if I had the interest to do so.

----------


## freedomordeath

> I have some sympathy for the plaintiffs because if the case as dismissed as postured right now, the RNC will likely seek attorney fees and costs and prevail on those.


IF thats the case then we will do this properly get good lawyers, double up and RICO their ass. I smell jail time for certain individuals, when the rats smell danger they'll be climbing over one another to run state witness to avoid jail. They'll be snitching on one another and we'll climb the tree of corruption until we get to the top. We'll not rest until the fraud has been prosecuted... I'm e-mailing law faculties all over the world. Yes most of these bastards are left wing socialist facisits ready to distribute everyones wealth, but sometimes when you fish with dynamite you might catch some fish. 

even if Gilbert fails, he got the Ball Rolling and this movement will not rest. Who knows there might even be some kinda Liberty or Ron Paul's Lawyers association spring from this to protect the constitution.

----------


## sailingaway

> I worked for a political figure roughly a decade and a half ago. I follow what is happening but haven't participated significantly (besides voting) since then.  I've done some election law (long time ago) and that is a key reason for the interest in this particular suit.  Right now my work precludes political activity -- even if I had the interest to do so.


It seems like a lot of time to spend on something you aren't paid for and for a politician you don't support.

----------


## SteveT1736

Yeah.  I think my wife is on the same page with you.  I'm sitting in my living room, doing some legal research for a document I need to file and watching the postings here.  During the day, I'm pretty limited except during my breaks.

----------


## BSU kid

> It seems like a lot of time to spend on something you aren't paid for and for a politician you don't support.


It's even odder that of all the places he choose to talk about this case, he chose this site. Not DP, not a law site, but somehow he ended up at RPF.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's even odder that of all the places he choose to talk about this case, he chose this site. Not DP, not a law site, but somehow he ended up at RPF.


and someone with an identical, to the number, username ended up at Mitt Romney Central chat, but isn't him.  I end up here, rather than at DP too. DP is for news, it is harder to have a conversation there, imho.  But I agree, that suit PLUS this forum seems like a lot of dedication for someone not, um, dedicated.

but I must stop, this is just shooting the breeze, exactly what I didn't want people to do because then people can't keep up with the thread.  When something happens.

----------


## SteveT1736

I didn't know about Daily Paul until a couple weeks ago.  I'm not aware of a legal site that discusses cases like this.

My original thought was that I could provide some legal perspective on what was happening.   

I've become more emotionally engaged the more I've seen the distance between what Mr. Gilbert claims and what I'm seeing in the Court filings/docket.  I really don't understand why he is doing what he is doing.  I don't get the motive.

----------


## sailingaway

I don't get his motive entirely either, but I've stopped trying to figure it out because there was nothing I could do about it.

----------


## SteveT1736

On a more positive note, I had a chance this evening to read the Maine complaint.  The draft is much stronger than Mr. Gilbert's efforts.  At least I can say that I don't see any obvious procedural defects.

----------


## SteveT1736

I was just sent Mr. Gilbert's tweets.  Essentially, he claims this all part of some master plan to get the Judge to expedite the case.

That is pretty inaccurate.  None of this really has to do with getting a faster decision.  He is battling (and has placed himself at considerable disadvantage) to stay before the Court.

----------


## sailingaway

> I was just sent Mr. Gilbert's tweets.  Essentially, he claims this all part of some master plan to get the Judge to expedite the case.
> 
> That is pretty inaccurate.  None of this really has to do with getting a faster decision.  He is battling (and has placed himself at considerable disadvantage) to stay before the Court.


I evaluate what happens in court not in his tweets.   He wouldn't be the first person in the world to say he'd planned whatever occured, and that is neither here nor there regarding what happens tomorrow.

----------


## sailingaway

> On a more positive note, I had a chance this evening to read the Maine complaint.  The draft is much stronger than Mr. Gilbert's efforts.  At least I can say that I don't see any obvious procedural defects.


Why did you read it?

----------


## SteveT1736

I was sent the link.  That complaint is structured correctly.  Pleads facts that, if accurate, would arguably be grounds for a decision.   Outlines legal grounds that could result in a favorable decision.

----------


## devil21

No way the RNC gets legal fees.  Judge would have to rule the case itself frivolous and that's not going to happen.  Judge knows there's merit to the case.  Whether Gilbert is a good attorney or not doesn't negate the merits of the case itself.

Definitely curious to see what happens tomorrow.

----------


## SteveT1736

devil21 -- There is some authority for the proposition that a complaint that can't provide facts sufficient to survive a motion for dismiss is inherently frivolous.

Remember that the case right now is at the stage where the plaintiffs have to plead sufficient facts to justify further inquiry into the facts alleged.  Judge Carter dismissed previously because he only saw one alleged fact that was in itself insufficient.  The current version has no alleged facts at all.

Only after this stage does the Court begin looking at whether the facts are accurate or not.

----------


## sailingaway

> I was sent the link.  That complaint is structured correctly.  Pleads facts that, if accurate, would arguably be grounds for a decision.   Outlines legal grounds that could result in a favorable decision.


but only addresses one state not the pattern and practice across the nation.  whatever, we will see what happens.

----------


## RonRules

Couple more Gilbert Tweets:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Yes we are taking big time risks. We always knew that!


USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
If someone has the minute order then they also can see my Response. What does it tell you that they are not disclosing my Response?

----------


## RonRules

Just because the RNC did not submit a reply to the 2nd amended complaint, I will now entertain intentional sabotage conspiracies.

Seems like the RNC already knows it's not even worth replying. Why would they know that? Why was the 2nd complaint cleared of all facts, when the judge expressly requested more facts? Why was the appeal filed forcing Gilbert in a corner?

It's starting to get a bit too much for me.

----------


## RonRules

> Couple more Gilbert Tweets:
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Yes we are taking big time risks. We always knew that!


That particular Tweet is what pissed me off. He continually said early on that there was NO RISK.

----------


## sailingaway

> That particular Tweet is what pissed me off. He continually said early on that there was NO RISK.


I never set expectations based on the tweets.  I would have gone a different direction from day one, for a variety of reasons, but this guy brought a suit to court and no one brought the fraud/abuse/make them live by their rules, dammit, case to court that I invisioned.  However, we will find out soon enough where this is going and there is no use either way second guessing it at the moment, imho.

----------


## ord33

> That particular Tweet is what pissed me off. He continually said early on that there was NO RISK.


Yep, I remember him saying in an interview that this preemptive appeal was a way of essentially hedging his bets and trying to make sure the case moved forward quickly. He made it sound like it was the prudent, normal, and justifiable thing to do at the time of the interview. He definitely didn't portray it at the time as "taking big time risks".

As far as Mr. Gilbert's second tweet you posted, didn't SteveT say that the Response was in fact posted? If so, what in the world is Gilbert talking about. For reference, see SteveT's post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4591068

----------


## libertylastchance

His reply is that the judge doesn't understand court filings.. it's a writ of appeal... and the higher court needs to tell the lower court what to do!

----------


## libertylastchance

Good summary...

----------


## sailingaway

> His reply is that the judge doesn't understand court filings.. it's a writ of appeal... and the higher court needs to tell the lower court what to do!


the question is whether you need a final judgment to file a writ from.

We'll see what happens.

----------


## CPUd

____





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> The plan has been execututed with precision. Either we get a date for Final Argument or we get dismissed not by the RNC but by the Judge.

----------


## devil21

> devil21 -- There is some authority for the proposition that a complaint that can't provide facts sufficient to survive a motion for dismiss is inherently frivolous.
> 
> Remember that the case right now is at the stage where the plaintiffs have to plead sufficient facts to justify further inquiry into the facts alleged.  Judge Carter dismissed previously because he only saw one alleged fact that was in itself insufficient.  The current version has no alleged facts at all.
> 
> Only after this stage does the Court begin looking at whether the facts are accurate or not.


I disagree that it has no alleged facts.  The alleged facts are the VRA and the RNC counsel's own admission that they dont have to follow it.  Whether thats a convincing argument for his honor is a different issue entirely.  Fees are awarded usually when a suit is frivolous on its face.  There's a genuine point of law here and the judge knows it.  No fees will be awarded even if dismissed.  I dont get Gilberts writ but Im not an attorney, i just play one on tv.




> That particular Tweet is what pissed me off. He continually said early on that there was NO RISK.


A lawyer may have lied?  No way I dont believe it.  That never happens.


sorry for clogging up thread with this stuff

----------


## libertylastchance

F or approximately 11 days the Court has had an unopposed Motion to Expedite with no
2
ruling. It appears that the Voting Rights Act itself gives sufficient guidance that the case should be
3
expedited in such fashion as to make it possible to vote with the enumerated Rights set forth in the
4
Voting Rights Act.
5
At the present time the Court is not requiring Defendants to file their response prior to its
6
14-day due date which would be Thursday, August 23,2012.
7
Unless the Court were to order Counsel to appear in court Friday, August 24,2012, for
8
final argument it does not appear that the Court will have the opportunity to complete the case and
9
rule prior to the commencement ofthe Convention.
10
This is the sole reason making an Appellate Writ appropriate and necessary.
11
Defense Counsel has not contacted Plaintiffs' Counsel to Meet and Confer regarding any
12
motion concerning the Second Amended Complaint. It appears Defense Counsel intends to file an
13
answer to the Second Amended Complaint late Thursday afternoon in an attempt to delay any ruling
14
beyond the Convention.
15
While Plaintiffs do believe that Plaintiffs offered to stipulate on the First Amended
16
Complaint to proceed with only the Federal Question and no other issue, it is not the position of
17
Plaintiffs that the First Amended Complaint must be the operative Complaint. Plaintiffs welcome
18
proceeding on the Second Amended Complaint and the Appellate Writ makes it clear that Plaintiffs
19
are willing to do so.
2 a
The Appellate Writ makes it clear that there is no request for a stay and further makes it
21
clear that Plaintiffs are hoping the Trial Court will expedite the case on the Second Amended
22
Complaint rendering the Appellate Writ moot.
23
Ifthe Trial Court were to order the case expedited so that final argument may be presented
24
Wednesday" Thursday, or Friday, Plaintiffs would immediately notify the Appellate Court that the
25
Appellate Writ has become moot.
26
Clearly, Plaintiffs have never filed a Notice ofAppeal nor do Plaintiffs take the position
27
that the case should not be expedited on the Second Amended Complaint.
28
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO COURT'S OSC -2Case
8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR Document 44 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:619

----------


## libertylastchance

For these reasons Plaintiffs ask the Court not to construe Plaintiffs' Writ as a "Notice of Appeal" as there is no Notice of Appeal and Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court not to construe Plaintiffs' Writ as a position that the First Amended Complaint must be the operative Complaint as the Writ does not so state.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs continue to pray that this Court will expedite this case on the Second Amended Complaint and complete the case and rule prior to the Convention.
R~Ubmitted'
J"
DATED: August 20, 2012
RICHARD C. GILBERT, ESQ. State Bar No. 85912
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO COURT'S OSC -3Case
8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR Document 44 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:620

----------


## libertylastchance

Anyone have this Writ of Appeal that was filed?????

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> That particular Tweet is what pissed me off. He continually said early on that there was NO RISK.


I interpret this risk being with the lawsuit, not with Dr. Paul.   When he said No Risk originally, he was referring to Dr. Paul's campaign...  but thats just my take...

----------


## Barrex

No risk for delegates.
Risk if this will be done on time.
2 different types of risks.


I am busy right now can someone update OP with all links to court files? I would like to read them when I got time (those newer ones that I didnt get to read yet).

----------


## RonRules

Hope someone can make it to the court in Santa-Ana this morning at 9:00 AM. I can't.

Otherwise, we'll be speculating for days again.

----------


## tod evans

> Hope someone can make it to the court in Santa-Ana this morning at 9:00 AM. I can't.
> 
> Otherwise, we'll be speculating for days again.


1700 miles........not likely.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> 1700 miles........not likely.


um.. I'm on the east coast

----------


## libertylastchance

Judges order http://theunconventionalconservative...to-show-cause/

RG response
http://theunconventionalconservative...it-not-appeal/

----------


## libertylastchance

Agreed, won't be till tomorrow that that the judges order appears in Pacer.. Can't go by RG's word.. if you haven't learned by now that he twists the truth you will never know..

----------


## jcannon98188

> Agreed, won't be till tomorrow that that the judges order appears in Pacer.. Can't go by RG's word.. if you haven't learned by now that he twists the truth you will never know..


Wait? He twists the truth? PFtttt no he doesn't.










</sarcasm>

----------


## sailingaway

> Agreed, won't be till tomorrow that that the judges order appears in Pacer.. Can't go by RG's word.. if you haven't learned by now that he twists the truth you will never know..


I think it would be hard to twist whatever result comes out of this.

But I don't think attorneys lie more than others devil21 -- it is just worse morally if you do lie if you are in a position of trust where the person trusting you is inherently unable to second guess you.  But that goes to plumbers, as well.

Whatever happens, unless I conclude Gilbert did it poorly _deliberately,_ there is still the fact that he got no fee out of this, at all.

----------


## RonRules

15,883 people voted for Ron Paul in Orange County, CA alone.

Plenty are in walking distance. Please make an effort to go.

411 W 4th St.,  Santa Ana, CA 92701

Court room 9D

----------


## sailingaway

Is there going to be actual argument?  Or was that the time for submittal of papers?

----------


## CPUd

> Hope someone can make it to the court in Santa-Ana this morning at 9:00 AM. I can't.
> 
> Otherwise, we'll be speculating for days again.


I don't think they are actually gonna be in court.  The order just says he has to file a response by 9AM

----------


## libertylastchance

Short memory here! On the last ruling by the judge, RG reported the via his twitter that there was a court date set for 4pm the next day, which there was NOT.. but who knew that until the court ruling was available on PACER..
Where is the proof of this "Tentative Win"?????  Where is all the common sense here?  Anyone who questions "all these actions", is proclaimed a troll.. Certainly not the Ron Paul way.... if anything Ron Paul has always promoted to seek out the truth..
Am I to now think that RG is smarter than the Judge in court filings? Is Judge Carter not able or capable of understanding a "writ"?  And what does his not charging a fee have to do with anything?  Just because he is not charging he should be able to make massive mistakes and be supported for doing so?
I guess if you are facing a murder charge and assigned a public defender at no cost, it doesn't matter what their ability is to defend you..

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> I don't think they are actually gonna be in court.  The order just says he has to file a response by 9AM


USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press 
The Time:7:45 am Pacific - The case strategy is implemented with precision on multiple fronts to force a timely ruling as planned.

----------


## CPUd

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press 
> The Time:7:45 am Pacific - The case strategy is implemented with precision on multiple fronts to force a timely ruling as planned.


Oh, after reading this last bit of 'brilliance', I think there will be a ruling as soon as the judge reads it.

----------


## libertylastchance

File response by 9AM Monday morning..

----------


## RonRules

> I don't think they are actually gonna be in court.  The order just says he has to file a response by 9AM


You might be right here. The response has been filed.

It's clear that the RNC is using delaying tactics. The case was filed on June 11th, nearly 2.5 months ago. Gilbert is trying to expedite and the Appellate Writ was just that, an order to expedite.

The judge wanted an answer from Gilbert on Aug. 20, which he filed about 10 days early, but the judge did not specify a response from the RNC. After Gilbert's filing, the judge should have requested a fast reply form the RNC.

----------


## libertylastchance

> Is there going to be actual argument?  Or was that the time for submittal of papers?


Response from Plaintiff's regarding the "appeal", needs to filed by 9AM Monday 8/21/12.. determination as to if this case will be proceed in the current court, or be ruled by the judge as dismissed with prejudice on the 8/7 ruling, so that it can proceed to the appeals court.
You cannot file in 2 sperate courts, hoping to obtain your desired outcome in one of them.. RG apparently thinks that the judge is not reading his Writ of appeal correctly..

----------


## RonRules

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Time:7:45 am Pacific - The case strategy is implemented with precision on multiple fronts to force a timely ruling as planned.

----------


## brandon

Why is this merged into an unrelated thread Bryan started 5 years ago?

----------


## KingNothing

I've paid very little attention to this.  Can anyone confirm if there's any substance to this thread, or if it is the same sort of absurd non-sense that we typically get when people get delusional here grasp at straws?

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> I've paid very little attention to this.  Can anyone confirm if there's any substance to this thread, or if it is the same sort of absurd non-sense that we typically get when people get delusional here grasp at straws?


read the law and tell us you're interpretation:

42 U.S.C 1971 Voting Rights

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion 
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

----------


## RonRules

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward

So it looks like he WILL be in court at 9:00 AM.  Please someone be there.

----------


## RonRules

> I've paid very little attention to this.


Just like everything else.

----------


## RonRules

He does have a fan base:

Mike Morales ‏@amorsel
@USA_Free_Press RNC attorneys are bewildered with every move. Everything you do is in plain sight & they still don't know what you're up to

----------


## No1butPaul

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward
> 
> So it looks like he WILL be in court at 9:00 AM.  Please someone be there.


Which courthouse is this?

----------


## erowe1

> I've paid very little attention to this.  Can anyone confirm if there's any substance to this thread, or if it is the same sort of absurd non-sense that we typically get when people get delusional here grasp at straws?


Skepticism is not allowed here. Leave now, for your own sake. If you choose to stay and keep asking questions, don't say I didn't warn you.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Skepticism is not allowed here. Leave now, for your own sake. If you choose to stay and keep asking questions, don't say I didn't warn you.





> Why is this merged into an unrelated thread Bryan started 5 years ago?


These have the same answer...

----------


## RonRules

> Which courthouse is this?


411 W 4th St., Santa Ana, CA 92701

Court room 9D

----------


## libertylastchance

> He does have a fan base:
> 
> Mike Morales ‏@amorsel
> @USA_Free_Press RNC attorneys are bewildered with every move. Everything you do is in plain sight & they still don't know what you're up to


There was no mention in the judges orders of "appearance", only that a "filing" was needed today by 9AM..

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> There was no mention in the judges orders of "appearance", only that a "filing" was needed today by 9AM..


we'll find out... its 8:47am there ... if I did my timezones right and carried the 2 and accounted for windspeed...

----------


## libertylastchance

> we'll find out... its 8:47am there ... if I did my timezones right and carried the 2 and accounted for windspeed...


Unless it is not in pacer : the formality of the courts is to issue a court order to appear, it states the date , courtroom and time, there is no "assuming" in a court of law

----------


## RonRules

> There was no mention in the judges orders of "appearance", only that a "filing" was needed today by 9AM..


Gilbert tweeted this:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward

----------


## PointsOfOrder

I have been following this thread for over a month now, and just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has been keeping this up to date. I hope good things come from it. But I really won't know until I see the results.

----------


## CPUd

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...tCWWNKdFE/edit

Start at page 535 for stuff filed after the SAC.  First time I've ever seen a youtube link in a legal motion, though I don't read many of them these days.

----------


## KingNothing

So, I'm guessing that nothing happened this morning and that nothing will happen moving forward?

----------


## KingNothing

> read the law and tell us you're interpretation:
> 
> 42 U.S.C 1971 Voting Rights
> 
> (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion 
> No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.



Does this apply to party nominations?  And do you really believe that the Party's lawyers would allow them to do anything that would negate the obvious advantages they have?

----------


## torchbearer

> Does this apply to party nominations?


it includes primaries, the convention is the final portion of the primary.

----------


## RonRules

> So, I'm guessing that nothing happened this morning and that nothing will happen moving forward?


Hey KnowNothing, why don't you find out yourself instead of guessing?

----------


## KingNothing

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward
> 
> So it looks like he WILL be in court at 9:00 AM.  Please someone be there.


Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down.  "High Risk.  High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down.  "High Risk.  High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.


Having you been hanging out with PatriotOne again?

----------


## sailingaway

> Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down.  "High Risk.  High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.


go to the vent if you want to just... 'vent' that you don't like something others are doing. Whether the results are good or bad, taunting is not ok.

----------


## sailingaway

> Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down.  "High Risk.  High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.


the court made it very clear there WAS a case there.  It may not have been handled from there as needed, we will find out.  But taunting is just mean spirited.

----------


## pcosmar

> Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down.  "High Risk.  High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.


That sounds like a post of someone anxious for a loss.



Gonna jump up and down shouting "told ya so"?

----------


## rb3b3

so does anyone know if they are actually in court right now?

----------


## KingNothing

I just hope this place doesn't go Full Crazy.  When I'm eventually banned, I hope someone else will create a post that includes this emoticon every so often:

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

King and whoever else sees this lawsuit as complete non-sense or possibly damaging and to those who support the lawsuit....  we can bicker back and forth all day long and that will change nothing.  Let me tell you why I support the lawsuit on the most basic level - it's not Richard Gilbert against the Republican Party, it is selected delegates against the Republican Party on the basis they believe that their individual voting rights have been violated.  

Regardless of much we trash each other here is irrelevant to the lawsuit, especially since it is now in the hands of the court.

----------


## KingNothing

> King and whoever else sees this lawsuit as complete non-sense or possibly damaging and to those who support the lawsuit....  we can bicker back and forth all day long and that will change nothing.  Let me tell you why I support the lawsuit on the most basic level - it's not Richard Gilbert against the Republican Party, it is selected delegates against the Republican Party on the basis they believe that their individual voting rights have been violated.  
> 
> Regardless of much we trash each other here is irrelevant to the lawsuit, especially since it is now in the hands of the court.



Fair enough.

----------


## sailingaway

> King and whoever else sees this lawsuit as complete non-sense or possibly damaging and to those who support the lawsuit....  we can bicker back and forth all day long and that will change nothing.  Let me tell you why I support the lawsuit on the most basic level - it's not Richard Gilbert against the Republican Party, it is selected delegates against the Republican Party on the basis they believe that their individual voting rights have been violated.  
> 
> Regardless of much we trash each other here is irrelevant to the lawsuit, especially since it is now in the hands of the court.


I don't like the way the lawsuit has been handled.  I do really really wish for a lawsuit in Federal court outing the pattern and practice of fraud across the states.  That is the kind of thing the average person on the streets assumes they would know about if were happening, and they don't.

But if this suit goes badly we can take up the possibility of another one after we find out how the RNC is ruling on our delegates.  People in this thread have been trying to put together facts to make the lawsuit better, but Gilbert is so set on it being heard before RNC he has undercut every time line the court has given.  right or wrong, there isn't a way we here can stop that.

----------


## rb3b3

are they in court right now? anyone know?

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> I don't like the way the lawsuit has been handled.  I do really really wish for a lawsuit in Federal court outing the pattern and practice of fraud across the states.


That type of suit will take a long, long time...  but still can be filed.

----------


## Chadd Murray

> read the law and tell us you're interpretation:
> 
> 42 U.S.C 1971 Voting Rights
> 
> (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion 
> No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.


The judge already explained the issue. It's that the Plaintiffs failed to provide any reason why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted as widely as they desire, that is to include requiring people to sign an affidavit as a part of a conditioning process to be a delegate.

----------


## sailingaway

> The judge already explained the issue. It's that the Plaintiffs failed to provide any reason why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted as widely as they desire, that is to include requiring people to sign an affidavit. This starts on page


\

that is why we were gathering verifiable facts. Broken bones and physical removal requiring an ambulance seem to fit those descriptions fairly clearly.   We can't make him drink.  However, it does mean there would be 'new facts' for a new complaint with another attorney, in the event the worst happens with this case. 

The thing is, no one else was bringing a multistate suit.

----------


## Chadd Murray

Yeah, if he amends his complaint to include such facts the issue would be much clearer. However, without an argument as to why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted more widely it would of course mean that such affidavits remain legal.

----------


## CPUd

> Yeah, if he amends his complaint to include such facts the issue would be much clearer.


The issue is, he amended his complaint to remove such facts.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

"the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose" - how does a bound delegate do that?

----------


## The Shazad

> The judge already explained the issue. It's that the Plaintiffs failed to provide any reason why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted as widely as they desire, that is to include requiring people to sign an affidavit as a part of a conditioning process to be a delegate.


Yep, which makes it all the more amazing that Richard Gilbert tried to spin the judge's response as a "tentative win" and told everyone that the judge agreed with his interpretation of the law. The judge specifically did the opposite, and wanted some case law or legislative history supporting Gilbert's interpretation - yet the amended complaint included nothing of the sort. 

It's also interesting that the only complaint in the original filing that the judge did not deem to be completely "unintelligible" (that of the MA delegate) was removed, along with the rest of the "unintelligible" fraud claims - despite the judge's clear request for some specifics.

It's almost as if Richard Gilbert wrote the final amended complaint prior to getting the judge's response. Oh wait - he did. He's always one step ahead. Unfortunately, while he accurately predicted that there would be a need for an amended complaint, he did not accurately predict what the judge would want him to include in it. I guess we will have to trust that he knows what he is doing and that he's about to put the RNC in checkmate.

----------


## kathy88

> Yep, which makes it all the more amazing that Richard Gilbert tried to spin the judge's response as a "tentative win" and told everyone that the judge agreed with his interpretation of the law. The judge specifically did the opposite, and wanted some case law or legislative history supporting Gilbert's interpretation - yet the amended complaint included nothing of the sort. 
> 
> It's also interesting that the only complaint in the original filing that the judge did not deem to be completely "unintelligible" (that of the MA delegate) was removed, along with the rest of the "unintelligible" fraud claims - despite the judge's clear request for some specifics.
> 
> It's almost as if Richard Gilbert wrote the final amended complaint prior to getting the judge's response. Oh wait - he did. He's always one step ahead. Unfortunately, while he accurately predicted that there would be a need for an amended complaint, he did not accurately predict what the judge would want him to include in it. I guess we will have to trust that he knows what he is doing and that he's about to put the RNC in checkmate.


Very strange first post.

----------


## The Shazad

> Very strange first post.


Admittedly, yes. But I've been following this case closely since its inception and its eventual outcome has always been fairly certain. I'm interested to see if Richard can pull a rabbit out of his hat.

----------


## CPUd

Shazad is from the DP, and is familiar with the case.

----------


## SilenceDewgooder

> Fair enough.


cool...  I think that is the first time that argument has actually prevailed...

----------


## sailingaway

> Yep, which makes it all the more amazing that Richard Gilbert tried to spin the judge's response as a "tentative win" and told everyone that the judge agreed with his interpretation of the law. The judge specifically did the opposite, and wanted some case law or legislative history supporting Gilbert's interpretation - yet the amended complaint included nothing of the sort. 
> 
> It's also interesting that the only complaint in the original filing that the judge did not deem to be completely "unintelligible" (that of the MA delegate) was removed, along with the rest of the "unintelligible" fraud claims - despite the judge's clear request for some specifics.
> 
> It's almost as if Richard Gilbert wrote the final amended complaint prior to getting the judge's response. Oh wait - he did. He's always one step ahead. Unfortunately, while he accurately predicted that there would be a need for an amended complaint, he did not accurately predict what the judge would want him to include in it. I guess we will have to trust that he knows what he is doing and that he's about to put the RNC in checkmate.


the rules on this thread are don't just take pot shots at Gilbert.  No one here is a 'Gilbert fan'.  There is a lawsuit in court and our delegates are plaintiffs, and we hope the best for their sake and want the fraud exposed.  At this moment the fraud really isn't in the complaint, though. So that may take a later suit, even if this wins.

----------


## No1butPaul

> the rules on this thread are don't just take pot shots at Gilbert.  No one here is a 'Gilbert fan'.  There is a lawsuit in court and our delegates are plaintiffs, and we hope the best for their sake and want the fraud exposed.  At this moment the fraud really isn't in the complaint, though. So that may take a later suit, even if this wins.


I am a fan - I think it is a most noble thing for Mr. Gilbert to put all of his time and energy into this cause' PRO BONO. Win or lose, I appreciate what he has done and tried to achieve.

----------


## RonRules

From Gilbert a minute ago:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Here my Response to the Order of the Court.

http://electionfraudremedy.com/PLAIN...08-20-2012.pdf

Appears to be the same document I posted before.

----------


## CPUd

To get the Appellate Writ from PACER, I think someone might have to look up the Court of Appeals to find it.  Those with access, do you see anything in there about it?

----------


## SteveT1736

A couple things that may be of interest:

First, this is Judge Carter's calendar today.  There is nothing related to this suit:  http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/...LE/0821DOC.pdf

Second, I can't find the action in the 9th Circuit.  Usually, an attorney files a notice of appeal, even for a writ, with the district court and then proceeds with the appellate court.  I think that may be why Judge Carter reacted the way he did (sheer confusion as to what Gilbert was up to).

----------


## SteveT1736

It may be helpful to step back a bit.

A lawsuit usually has the following steps:

1)  A complaint that is sufficient is filed.

2) Discovery (gathering of evidence) is done.

3) A trial is held.

Often, once you are passed #1 and into #2, parties will try to file summary judgment motions (essentially, there is no dispute as to material facts and a request that the Court resolve particular issues before trial).

Here, Gilbert is still stuck on #1.  The Court says his complaint isn't sufficient to even begin the process.  A complaint must allege facts (who did what to whom, where and when) that give rise to a claim or claims that the law allows for the Court to grant some form of relief.   Alleging the Voting Rights Act has been violated doesn't do it.  You must say who did something specific, when they did it, where they did and to whom with a high level of specificity.  General allegations don't work at all.  When I say that the complaint lacks facts that is what I am referring to.

I think he keeps trying to jump to the summary judgment stage.  But, the Court won't let him there until they have a valid complaint in front of them.  Right now, he isn't even out of the starting gate.

----------


## sailingaway

> It may be helpful to step back a bit.
> 
> A lawsuit usually has the following steps:
> 
> 1)  A complaint that is sufficient is filed.
> 
> 2) Discovery (gathering of evidence) is done.
> 
> 3) A trial is held.
> ...


  YOur facts on the 9th circuit are appreciated.  The constant editorial, less so.  We know he had only so many facts and it will be up to the judge, I guess, where we go from here.

----------


## RonRules

Gilbert again:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Can we trust our delegates? There can be no party unity with Romney. We cannot negotiate terms of surrender

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-1/

----------


## chris41336

> It may be helpful to step back a bit.
> 
> A lawsuit usually has the following steps:
> 
> 1)  A complaint that is sufficient is filed.
> 
> 2) Discovery (gathering of evidence) is done.
> 
> 3) A trial is held.
> ...


You are right, but that is another big reason we need TORT reform. People could be getting shafted all around the country, and because there is nothing "specific" the courts do nothing.

It's utterly insane.

----------


## erowe1

> You are right, but that is another big reason we need TORT reform. People could be getting shafted all around the country, and because there is nothing "specific" the courts do nothing.
> 
> It's utterly insane.


So you should be able to sue someone for nothing specific?

----------


## libertylastchance

> You are right, but that is another big reason we need TORT reform. People could be getting shafted all around the country, and because there is nothing "specific" the courts do nothing.
> 
> It's utterly insane.


Imagine if everyone could file a lawsuit with no specific allegations.. 

yes Richard is STUCK alright

----------


## sailingaway

> So you should be able to sue someone for nothing specific?


there was plenty specific.  It just needed to be in the complaint.  He ended up citing one specific thing and stripping the case to that one issue.  We'll see what the court does with it.

----------


## chris41336

> So you should be able to sue someone for nothing specific?


Obviously that is what I was implying....

In a situation like this where the judge has basically admitted that there is "something here" but that Gilbert needs to prove it more, particularly something as important as our votes counting and our election process being valid, I'm pretty sure that the generalities should be enough to warrant a looking into of some kind. This isn't someone suing someone because they "generally just give me a bad feeling" or something.

----------


## The Shazad

> the rules on this thread are don't just take pot shots at Gilbert.  No one here is a 'Gilbert fan'.  There is a lawsuit in court and our delegates are plaintiffs, and we hope the best for their sake and want the fraud exposed.  At this moment the fraud really isn't in the complaint, though. So that may take a later suit, even if this wins.


I guess I'd argue that there may be competing interpretations of what constitutes the "best" for the delegate plaintiffs. One might be able to make a strong argument that it would be best for them if they dropped out as plaintiffs and never allowed Richard Gilbert to represent them again.

Maybe in the future there will be a national lawsuit about fraud, but right now that has been stripped from the case and Richard Gilbert is trying to force the judge to decide if delegates are legally unbound. But it's just not going well for him at all.

----------


## sailingaway

> Obviously that is what I was implying....
> 
> In a situation like this where the judge has basically admitted that there is "something here" but that Gilbert needs to prove it more, particularly something as important as our votes counting and our election process being valid, I'm pretty sure that the generalities should be enough to warrant a looking into of some kind. This isn't someone suing someone because they "generally just give me a bad feeling" or something.


actually, federal pleading used to be vague and that may be what Gilbert's issue is.  CA pleading may still be vague but federal appears to have newly required more facts.  The idea used to be that you might need discovery to discover the specific names times dates actions that led to a damage and complaints were loosely allowed, but I guess court back log led them to tighten up.  It likely sometimes creates injustice both ways. STrike suits are expensive against people who didn't really do anything wrong, but can't get it thrown out, too.  Here, though, tons was done.

----------


## sailingaway

> I guess I'd argue that there may be competing interpretations of what constitutes the "best" for the delegate plaintiffs. One might be able to make a strong argument that it would be best for them if they dropped out as plaintiffs and never allowed Richard Gilbert to represent them again.
> 
> Maybe in the future there will be a national lawsuit about fraud, but right now that has been stripped from the case and Richard Gilbert is trying to force the judge to decide if delegates are legally unbound. But it's just not going well for him at all.


You may not make that argument in this thread, and it is futile in any event since the ruling will shortly be forthcoming.  Put derogatory comments about the case in a thread in the vent and those who want to discuss that may go there to do it.

----------


## libertylastchance

> A couple things that may be of interest:
> 
> First, this is Judge Carter's calendar today.  There is nothing related to this suit:  http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/...LE/0821DOC.pdf
> 
> Second, I can't find the action in the 9th Circuit.  Usually, an attorney files a notice of appeal, even for a writ, with the district court and then proceeds with the appellate court.  I think that may be why Judge Carter reacted the way he did (sheer confusion as to what Gilbert was up to).


He had to file somewhere, and it must be in the appeal court.. Judges don't write orders based on hear-say , facts only

----------


## sailingaway

It might have just been the filing deadline not an appearance. I wasn't entirely clear on that, in any event.

----------


## CPUd

> A couple things that may be of interest:
> 
> First, this is Judge Carter's calendar today.  There is nothing related to this suit:  http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/...LE/0821DOC.pdf
> 
> Second, I can't find the action in the 9th Circuit.  Usually, an attorney files a notice of appeal, even for a writ, with the district court and then proceeds with the appellate court.  I think that may be why Judge Carter reacted the way he did (sheer confusion as to what Gilbert was up to).


There was a footnote in the judge's last order- something to the effect of "notice of appeal was not filed electronically"

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- Federal court pleading standards are actually more lenient than state court standards.  Generally speaking, you have to plead sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss.  The Supreme Court has heightened them a bit in the past few years (specifying that conclusionary statements don't work). Discovery can yield additional facts but the lawsuit itself can not be for the sole purpose of leading a fishing expedition.

CPUd -- I saw that statement.  That is why I searched today.  There is nothing on file in PACER with the 9th Circuit from Richard Gilbert for this case.  I think he submitted a paper document (although all attorneys are required to electronically file).  The Circuit Court Clerk found that there was no notice of appeal and reported the receipt of that document to Judge Carter.  As I tried to indicate, I think that was the trigger for the Judge's order yesterday.

----------


## SteveT1736

Mr. Gilbert has posted his pleading that is apparently filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (though not showing on their docket):  https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MXHj...gJ/edit?pli=1#

On reading, it is clearly an attempt to overturn decisions by the District Court Judge.  Here is a key example:  "Plaintiffs / Petitioners are requesting this Appellate Court to reverse the decision of the Trial Court on the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss . . . ."

I am now convinced that the District Court Judge will now dismiss the case and bar a chance to amend.  The pleading filed with the District Court last night claims this was not an appeal of the lower court's actions.  It absolutely is.  The filing was highly misleading and Judge Carter is likely to react harshly to the misrepresentation.

That will leave Gilbert to pursue an appeal before the Court of Appeals.  As I've indicated, that will be difficult given that the complaint is on its face inadequate.  And, it will likely take (though there is some possibility of expediting) some time, probably months.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

SteveT,
I can't get that link to load, says "This content cannot be displayed in a frame"

----------


## jcannon98188

> SteveT,
> I can't get that link to load, says "This content cannot be displayed in a frame"


It works for me.

----------


## RonRules

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Here is the Appellate Writ I filed 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MXHj...-Le4AbhgJ/edit

Edit: This looks like a full appeal, not a quick "please hurry they judge" request.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway -- Federal court pleading standards are actually more lenient than state court standards.  Generally speaking, you have to plead sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss.  The Supreme Court has heightened them a bit in the past few years (specifying that conclusionary statements don't work). Discovery can yield additional facts but the lawsuit itself can not be for the sole purpose of leading a fishing expedition.
> 
> CPUd -- I saw that statement.  That is why I searched today.  There is nothing on file in PACER with the 9th Circuit from Richard Gilbert for this case.  I think he submitted a paper document (although all attorneys are required to electronically file).  The Circuit Court Clerk found that there was no notice of appeal and reported the receipt of that document to Judge Carter.  As I tried to indicate, I think that was the trigger for the Judge's order yesterday.


Wouldn't that depend on the state, since pleading standards for different states are different?  regardless, I'm not pleading on Gilbert's behalf and already said I would  have done things differently.  What is in court is in court, however.

----------


## sailingaway

> Mr. Gilbert has posted his pleading that is apparently filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (though not showing on their docket):  https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MXHj...gJ/edit?pli=1#
> 
> On reading, it is clearly an attempt to overturn decisions by the District Court Judge.  Here is a key example:  "Plaintiffs / Petitioners are requesting this Appellate Court to reverse the decision of the Trial Court on the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss . . . ."
> 
> I am now convinced that the District Court Judge will now dismiss the case and bar a chance to amend.  The pleading filed with the District Court last night claims this was not an appeal of the lower court's actions.  It absolutely is.  The filing was highly misleading and Judge Carter is likely to react harshly to the misrepresentation.
> 
> That will leave Gilbert to pursue an appeal before the Court of Appeals.  As I've indicated, that will be difficult given that the complaint is on its face inadequate.  And, it will likely take (though there is some possibility of expediting) some time, probably months.


those are your conclusions, let's wait for the judge's conclusions.

----------


## Margo37

Ran across this a little while ago,  not sure helpful 

http://libertycrier.com/politics/ron...-dire-straits/

----------


## libertylastchance

The Writ of Appeal
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MXHj...hgJ/edit?pli=1

----------


## sailingaway

thanks, guys.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Ran across this a little while ago,  not sure helpful 
> 
> http://libertycrier.com/politics/ron...-dire-straits/


From Richard Gilbert's FB page about 4 hours ago. My apologies if this has already been posted in this thread.

"Here is my Response to The Court Order you have heard about which, as usual, was presented to you out of context by a person who always writes articles against the case. Those of you who follow my posts know I planned this encounter with the Trial Court 2 weeks ago to force a ruling prior to the convention. http://electionfraudremedy.com/PLAINTIFFS_RESPONSE_TO_COURTS_ORDER_TO_SHOW_CAUSE_  08-20-2012.pdf"

Perhaps he is referring to the libertycrier article posted above?

----------


## Margo37

> From Richard Gilbert's FB page about 4 hours ago. My apologies if this has already been posted in this thread.
> 
> "Here is my Response to The Court Order you have heard about which, as usual, was presented to you out of context by a person who always writes articles against the case. Those of you who follow my posts know I planned this encounter with the Trial Court 2 weeks ago to force a ruling prior to the convention. http://electionfraudremedy.com/PLAINTIFFS_RESPONSE_TO_COURTS_ORDER_TO_SHOW_CAUSE_  08-20-2012.pdf"
> 
> Perhaps he is referring to the libertycrier article posted above?



From her blog I only saw two articles in August re this (didn't go further)  and never saw any of her writings before this so I can't say.    More arguing/interpretations  under the Dire Straits article!      
I'm not seeing Gilbert's tweets from this AM anymore!

Taking that back,  now I see them and he has some new ones.
https://twitter.com/USA_Free_Press

----------


## ChristopherShelley

Pepper L. Draper Pepper L. Draper ‏@PepperDraper

@USA_Free_Press As a Plaintiff in the lawsuit,I counted on our delegates to have integrity, now I hear they do not know what courage is. 


Pepper L. Draper Pepper L. Draper ‏@PepperDraper

@USA_Free_Press I would love to send a personal video message to them, personally thanking them for making a mockery of our case

----------


## ChristopherShelley

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@tweetAmiracle neither positive nor negative. The Judge did not set a court date. 48 hours left. Imay be the only one left with faith. 

ANYONE WHO CARES. ANYONE WHO APPRECIATES WHAT RICHARD GILBERT IS TRYING TO DO. PLEASE SEND HIM SOME LOVE!!!!!

Imo, this man took on the world.

He will forever be a hero of mine, whether we win or lose THIS case.

Much love, Mr. Gilbert. Much respect.

----------


## The Shazad

> He will forever be a hero of mine, whether we win or lose THIS case


And thusly, a possible motive for his actions in this case has been identified.

Mr. Gilbert, based on recent tweets, does appear to be losing hope of this all working out in time. It's unclear what his plan is at this point besides just waiting for the judge.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> And thusly, a possible motive for his actions in this case has been identified.
> 
> Mr. Gilbert, based on recent tweets, does appear to be losing hope of this all working out in time. It's unclear what his plan is at this point besides just waiting for the judge.


I don't think there's anything else he can do.

I don't know what the heck happened today. I was hoping to see resolution and all I see is another giant knot I have to unravel in trying to understand what this "deal" is, if it happens, and then hope to God that somehow, and I am speaking for myself here, because this is what I wanted all along, Paul still winds up being inaugurated in January.

I'm sorry, but I WILL NOT accept Romney or Obama.

----------


## Miss Annie

> And thusly, a possible motive for his actions in this case has been identified.
> 
> Mr. Gilbert, based on recent tweets, does appear to be losing hope of this all working out in time. It's unclear what his plan is at this point besides just waiting for the judge.


From the looks of Mr Gilbert's twitter page,...... it appears the delegates made a deal to vote for Romney in the 11th hour (before verdict on the lawsuit).  There are some really pissed off people.  If you read the last several hours of his twitter page.... it kind of tells the story.  Starting with this one : 

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press  8 hours ago.

Can we trust our delegates? There can be no party unity with Romney. We cannot negotiate terms of surrender http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-1/ …

----------


## sailingaway

> From the looks of Mr Gilbert's twitter page,...... it appears the delegates made a deal to vote for Romney in the 11th hour (before verdict on the lawsuit).  There are some really pissed off people.  If you read the last several hours of his twitter page.... it kind of tells the story.  Starting with this one : 
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press  8 hours ago.
> 
> Can we trust our delegates? There can be no party unity with Romney. We cannot negotiate terms of surrender http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-1/ …


that isn't what happened.  some of our delegates aren't being seated it is others who would be voting.  Benton is negotiating this, as the campaign brought the delegate challenge they control settling it.  However, that is one state, although one we have a majority in if the rules are followed.  It isn't the entire picture.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

I have only one plan left. To Win !!! 

8:12 PM - 21 Aug 12 via web

thats what im mfin talkin about.

----------


## CPUd

> From the looks of Mr Gilbert's twitter page,...... it appears the delegates made a deal to vote for Romney in the 11th hour (before verdict on the lawsuit).  There are some really pissed off people.  If you read the last several hours of his twitter page.... it kind of tells the story.  Starting with this one : 
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press  8 hours ago.
> 
> Can we trust our delegates? There can be no party unity with Romney. We cannot negotiate terms of surrender http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-1/ …


They are 2 separate issues; what he's trying to do is lump their situation with his because he somehow sees a benefit to himself in doing so.  This is exactly what he tried to do with the delegates from Mass. until enough people told him that wasn't cool.

----------


## sailingaway

> They are 2 separate issues; what he's trying to do is lump their situation with his because he somehow sees a benefit to himself in doing so.  This is exactly what he tried to do with the delegates from Mass.


He needs to leave our delegates alone.  I back those who are plaintiffs in his suit but I back the others as well.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> They are 2 separate issues; what he's trying to do is lump their situation with his because he somehow sees a benefit to himself in doing so.  This is exactly what he tried to do with the delegates from Mass. until enough people told him that wasn't cool.


Do you mean a benefit to himself or the case? I'm not being snarky here.

----------


## Miss Annie

> that isn't what happened.  some of our delegates aren't being seated it is others who would be voting.  Benton is negotiating this, as the campaign brought the delegate challenge they control settling it.  However, that is one state, although one we have a majority in if the rules are followed.  It isn't the entire picture.


Well I am glad to be wrong in this situation!!  I don't have a twitter and am not used to reading the pages - I pray to God that I misunderstood it!

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> He needs to leave our delegates alone.  I back those who are plaintiffs in his suit but I back the others as well.


I don't understand. You back delegates who make a deal to give up seats at the RNC?

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't understand. You back delegates who make a deal to give up seats at the RNC?


No delegates made any such deal. Benton is negotiating the challenges because the campaign is the one that filed the challenge.  The delegates have no say until they are seated IF they are seated.

----------


## CPUd

> Do you mean a benefit to himself or the case? I'm not being snarky here.


It benefits Gilbert and Gilbert alone.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> No delegates made any such deal. Benton is negotiating the challenges because the campaign is the one that filed the challenge.  The delegates have no say until they are seated IF they are seated.


Ok. 

I had understood from reading threads here that we had given up seats just to get some of our delegates seated. But you're saying it all hasn't been determined yet.

So, you're saying that Richard is calling out these delegates BEFORE they have made the deal. IOW, how can he or anyone judge the deal until we know what it is?

That makes sense.

But if these people caved and sabotaged the lawsuit and we get less out of the "deal" then we would have had if we had won the case, I'm gonna be pissed.

That's a lot of ifs, which is part of the problem. The case might not have even been ruled on before the convention.

Sorry, I need more information. But the fact that this "deal" happened like this after the RNC could no longer make a motion to dismiss or whatever reeks like Denmark to me.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> It benefits Gilbert and Gilbert alone.


How will it benefit him if he looks like a complete ass? If this was all about him, he did a poor job of putting himself in a position to look good. The case, however, is still alive.

----------


## The Shazad

> Ok. 
> 
> I had understood from reading threads here that we had given up seats just to get some of our delegates seated. But you're saying it all hasn't been determined yet.
> 
> So, you're saying that Richard is calling out these delegates BEFORE they have made the deal. IOW, how can he or anyone judge the deal until we know what it is?
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
> But if these people caved and sabotaged the lawsuit and we get less out of the "deal" then we would have had if we had won the case, I'm gonna be pissed.
> ...


This deal has absolutely nothing to do with Richard Gilbert, except to the extent that the lawsuit annoyed the RNC and they found the Paul campaign guilty by association (making them less likely to cooperate). They're not waiting on the edge of their seats to see what happens in the lawsuit. They are already considering it to have failed.

So far, the only "deal" that has been officially announced is that instead of 1 delegate in Louisiana, Ron Paul will have 17. Originally the Paul legal team had lost that challenge. It is not completely clear what the RNC has received in return, but both sides are talking as if they are happy with the compromise.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> This deal has absolutely nothing to do with Richard Gilbert, except to the extent that the lawsuit annoyed the RNC and they found the Paul campaign guilty by association (making them less likely to cooperate). They're not waiting on the edge of their seats to see what happens in the lawsuit. They are already considering it to have failed.
> 
> So far, the only "deal" that has been officially announced is that instead of 1 delegate in Louisiana, Ron Paul will have 17. Originally the Paul legal team had lost that challenge. It is not completely clear what the RNC has received in return, but both sides are talking as if they are happy with the compromise.


Ok, so so far, according to you we have 16 delegates more than we had yesterday, but we might have given up something (we don't know what that might be).

The rest of what you said was fluff.

----------


## The Shazad

> Ok, so so far, according to you we have 16 delegates more than we had yesterday, but we might have given up something (we don't know what that might be).
> 
> The rest of what you said was fluff.


One thing that was given up was the hope of Louisiana being one of 5 states needed to nominate Ron Paul. If the Paul side got their way, Ron Paul would have had 27 delegates out of 46 and they would have been able to put his name up for nomination. If the Republican Party of Louisiana got their way, Paul would have had 1 out of 46. The compromise was 17. Obviously, that will not be a plurality. There was probably more to the deal, but this is one obvious thing that the Paul side conceded.

----------


## CPUd

> How will it benefit him if he looks like a complete ass? If this was all about him, he did a poor job of putting himself in a position to look good. The case, however, is still alive.


Go look at his twitter feed; read the last 2500 entries or so, and think about what is going on.  The ones who criticize him the most have 1 thing in common- they are all familiar with his full body of work.

I'm done talking about this guy until after the convention.  Hopefully by then, he will have faded into obscurity.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Go look at his twitter feed; read the last 2500 entries or so, and think about what is going on.  The ones who criticize him the most have 1 thing in common- they are all familiar with his full body of work.
> 
> I'm done talking about this guy until after the convention.  Hopefully by then, he will have faded into obscurity.


Ok. So you're saying I don't understand him or what he is about. Fair enough.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> One thing that was given up was the hope of Louisiana being one of 5 states needed to nominate Ron Paul. If the Paul side got their way, Ron Paul would have had 27 delegates out of 46 and they would have been able to put his name up for nomination. If the Republican Party of Louisiana got their way, Paul would have had 1 out of 46. The compromise was 17. Obviously, that will not be a plurality. There was probably more to the deal, but this is one obvious thing that the Paul side conceded.


Ok so we lost a possible plurality in favor of 17 delegates instead of 1. Who made that decision?

----------


## The Shazad

> Ok so we lost a possible plurality in favor of 17 delegates instead of 1. Who made that decision?


Ron Paul, via a surrogate.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Ron Paul, via a surrogate.


So the "surrogate" made it happen, but you know Paul told him/her to do it?

----------


## sailingaway

> So the "surrogate" made it happen, but you know Paul told him/her to do it?


in his mind he does.

----------


## The Shazad

> So the "surrogate" made it happen, but you know Paul told him/her to do it?


They didn't exactly involve me in the discussion, so I can't give you the play by play. But Ron Paul is in control of his campaign and is working with the RNC as the convention approaches. Between Ron Paul, his campaign managers, and his lawyers, a deal was worked in this dispute. Whether or not Ron Paul was personally there when the deal was made, he approved it. His team isn't just running around making deals that he is completely opposed to.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> They didn't exactly involve me in the discussion, so I can't give you the play by play. But Ron Paul is in control of his campaign and is working with the RNC as the convention approaches. Between Ron Paul, his campaign managers, and his lawyers, a deal was worked in this dispute. Whether or not Ron Paul was personally there when the deal was made, he approved it. His team isn't just running around making deals that he is completely opposed to.


Ok, well that was ALL speculation on your part and you didn't answer my question, so... boom goes the ignore button.

----------


## sailingaway

> They didn't exactly involve me in the discussion, so I can't give you the play by play. But Ron Paul is in control of his campaign and is working with the RNC as the convention approaches. Between Ron Paul, his campaign managers, and his lawyers, a deal was worked in this dispute. Whether or not Ron Paul was personally there when the deal was made, he approved it. His team isn't just running around making deals that he is completely opposed to.


you have no idea.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Our delegates are selling us out. We must never let them hold public office


7:12 PM - 21 Aug 12 via web


Ron Paul - Real Hope ‏@tweetAmiracle

@USA_Free_Press Which delegates are selling out?


USA_Patriot_Press

8:51 PM - 21 Aug 12 via web 


USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@tweetAmiracle I have an estimate of 60 delegates as of 4 pm. There will be more. Hawaii is likely to sellout. The Iowa Chairman also 

8:52 PM - 21 Aug 12 via web

----------


## sailingaway

I wonder if he means withdrawing as plaintiffs rather than what is happening at RNC?

If some think his posture might lose they may just not want to be hit with 'dismissal _with_ prejudice.  That isn't the same as selling out Ron.  But I'm not clear what he is talking about.

----------


## The Shazad

> you have no idea.


What are you implying? Any explanation besides mine makes Ron Paul look REALLY bad. I'm going with glass half full here.

----------


## sailingaway

> What are you implying? Any explanation besides mine makes Ron Paul look REALLY bad. I'm going with glass half full here.


you are making it up as you go.

----------


## The Shazad

> I wonder if he means withdrawing as plaintiffs rather than what is happening at RNC?
> 
> If some think his posture might lose they may just not want to be hit with 'dismissal _with_ prejudice.  That isn't the same as selling out Ron.  But I'm not clear what he is talking about.


It's possible. It could very well affect an individual's chances of suing the RNC in the future if they have sued every state chairman and already lost.

----------


## The Shazad

> you are making it up as you go.


What's your explanation? Has Ron Paul lost control?

----------


## sailingaway

> What's your explanation? Has Ron Paul lost control?


please read the first post in this thread.  Off topic posts will be removed. Repeated off topic posts after being warned subjects you to being banned.

----------


## The Shazad

> please read the first post in this thread.  Off topic posts will be removed. Repeated off topic posts after being warned subjects you to being banned.


I'm one of at least 3 people talking about this subject, and I'm the one being extremely positive about it regarding Ron Paul and what he is doing right now. I haven't been negative at all about Ron's strategy in Louisiana. I feel it's relevant to the thread because that's what Richard Gilbert is talking about right now, and because he feels it relates to the lawsuit. But I'll stop discussing it since you asked.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> I wonder if he means withdrawing as plaintiffs rather than what is happening at RNC?
> 
> If some think his posture might lose they may just not want to be hit with 'dismissal _with_ prejudice.  That isn't the same as selling out Ron.  But I'm not clear what he is talking about.


I'm not either. And if I understand you correctly, you mean that if we had lost the case there might have been consequences that would have been worse than if it had never been filed? IOW, we would have just fought to win delegates?

I don't know. I wish I did. But I am worried that this was an orchestrated sabotage of the case by the RNC (and any rats within the Paul campaign) to take away any pro-Paul effect that the ruling would have had, if it had been given before "deals" were made.

Now let's say that the ruling is given and the delegates are ruled to be unbound. Then I don't see how any deals would be negative unless we wound up at the RNC with less delegates than we would have had if we could have gotten more to the RNC without making any deals.

People would be able to vote their conscience, but we would have less of our people there.

I'm spitballing here, but I really have a problem with the events that have happened in the last 24 hours, namely that RG tweeted he had to take an important phone call last night:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

I will be back later. Important call

9:43 PM - 20 Aug 12 via web 


Then we all wait to see what happens at 9 this morning, then all of a sudden there is a *report* of deals being made that included a statement that an announcement would be made this afternoon (Tuesday):

"The deal, which is expected to be announced Tuesday afternoon" - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-1/

The announcement as far as I know was never made.

What I am afraid of is that this has been an attempt to try and undermine any pro-Paul effect that winning the case might have.

Now, we could still win the case.

But I'm afraid that delegates are being shepherded here towards accepting that there really is NO chance of Paul becoming president.

Now, if that is what Paul wants, then there is really nothing anyone can do about it.

I'm not going to try and read the mind of Ron Paul, who I trust. And if he does NOT become president, then I will not give up on HIM. I trust his guidance.

My own personal opinion was and still is that he needs to be president.

But if Paul has a plan, I don't want to get in the way of it.

The fact is, I don't know.

I am putting my faith in Ron Paul. I will put my faith in my own belief that he knows what is going on. 

I am trying to make sense of it all. I just have my own fears.

----------


## sailingaway

I'd rather we didn't just guess.  I don't know how much Ron has turned this over to others or what he has been told. I have faith in Ron and I support our delegates, regardless of their decision regarding this suit.  The are the ones who have to make the judgment calls.

----------


## RonRules

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> I will be back later. Important call
> 
> 9:43 PM - 20 Aug 12 via web


The deal with the Maine delegates was made at 9:45 PM. Jus' sayin.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> I'd rather we didn't just guess.  I don't know how much Ron has turned this over to others or what he has been told. I have faith in Ron and I support our delegates, regardless of their decision regarding this suit.  The are the ones who have to make the judgment calls.


Right, which is why I don't want to get in the way of anything. But at the same time, I want to try and help out if I can, and if I see something that looks off, I am at least going to point it out.

I want progress along the lines of what I believe Paul is about. And when it comes to the presidential election, for me it's a no-brainer. But I believe that he can lead even if he is not president.

I do not want to get in the way. But I'm not always sure if I am or not because I'm trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

But yeah, when it comes down to it, when Paul speaks, from his own mouth, I will shut up and listen.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

But I will say this. I believe in Richard Gilbert. Some people listen to their gut, which I do as well, but I have listened to his heart and to me it rings true. I could be wrong of course, but I haven't seen anything of substance to make me believe that he is doing what he does other than because he loves people, he loves his country, and he loves the freedoms that we all have a right to. That's my take, but like I said, I haven't seen anything that says otherwise.

----------


## afwjam

I know one of the Hawaii delegates for Ron Paul and they would not sell out.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> I know one of the Hawaii delegates for Ron Paul and they would not sell out.


Facts will sort themselves out. I don't doubt that what you say is possible. But I don't determine things that are beyond my control.

----------


## No1butPaul

What would be the point of making a deal to be seated if they couldn't vote for Ron Paul -- I just don't get that.  What an epic disappointment.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> What would be the point of making a deal to be seated if they couldn't vote for Ron Paul -- I just don't get that.  What an epic disappointment.


And boom goes the ignore button.

----------


## ord33

> And thusly, a possible motive for his actions in this case has been identified.
> 
> Mr. Gilbert, based on recent tweets, does appear to be losing hope of this all working out in time. It's unclear what his plan is at this point besides just waiting for the judge.


It appears he is doing everything he can under the law to expedite the case. In his most recent document it states:

"Subsection (e) of the Voting Rights Act provides guidance that the case should be expedited. The salient part of subsection (e) reads as follows:
      "An application for an order pursuant to this subsection shall be heard within ten days, and the execution of any order disposing of such application shall not by stayed if the effect of such stay would be to delay the effectiveness of the order beyond the date of any election at which the applicant would otherwise be enabled to vote."

So it appears at this time, he is certainly trying to get it moved on as quick as possible. He is just at the mercy somewhat of the courts. I'd have to think that they'd be more likely to take closer to the ten days rather than the about 3 days we would have remaining.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> It appears he is doing everything he can under the law to expedite the case. In his most recent document it states:
> 
> "Subsection (e) of the Voting Rights Act provides guidance that the case should be expedited. The salient part of subsection (e) reads as follows:
>       "An application for an order pursuant to this subsection shall be heard within ten days, and the execution of any order disposing of such application shall not by stayed if the effect of such stay would be to delay the effectiveness of the order beyond the date of any election at which the applicant would otherwise be enabled to vote."
> 
> So it appears at this time, he is certainly trying to get it moved on as quick as possible. He is just at the mercy somewhat of the courts. I'd have to think that they'd be more likely to take closer to the ten days rather than the about 3 days we would have remaining.


You'd think with all of the legal experts we have on this board we would be able to take on the RNC ourselves. 

Yet somehow, so many of these experts gave their analysis here in this thread and did nothing else. 

I sure hope you guy(s) get together sometime and take on the injustices that our delegates suffered, and do it with as much passion as you had when you criticized this case (and babbled on about whatever other irrelevant stuff that came to mind, i.e. Richard Gilbert's appearance, his taste in music, or whatever).

Seems like so many of these people had so much time on their hands.

I don't like to waste time, mine or other people's.

I find it to be insincere.

----------


## Barrex

I am in that group too 


All these information and we still dont know anything conclusive... Did someone gave up on 5 states to give Ron Paul nomination from the floor and 15 minute unedited speech?

I was always saying that we dont have 5 states secured even if we did win them fair and square....but I never imagined that someone from our own ranks would take them away in some sort of a deal... It is still unknown what is going on. All we know is that something is going on....

----------


## MarcusI

> The deal with the Maine delegates was made at 9:45 PM. Jus' sayin.


Which deal?

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## libertylastchance

> I'd rather we didn't just guess.  I don't know how much Ron has turned this over to others or what he has been told. I have faith in Ron and I support our delegates, regardless of their decision regarding this suit.  The are the ones who have to make the judgment calls.



Agreed, I trust Ron Paul.. there is no connection of events being tied to the lawsuit of RG and what the lawyers for Ron Paul are doing.. nor should there be a bashing of our delegates. What is going on with the RNC and the delegates is a stand alone issue and we need to support our delegate.

----------


## libertylastchance

> Which deal?


By Ben Swann
An interesting development in the RNC delegate battle. The RNC/Romney campaign have been telling delegates in Maine that rather than viewing Maine as a stand alone state.. they are viewing delegates from Maine, Masschusetts, Oregon and Louisiana as a block. 
Last night at 9:45 the Maine delegates were offered a deal.
 Give Romney 7 slots in Maine and in return the RNC would seat 9 of the Massachusetts 17, the entire Oregon delegation and nearly all of the Lousiana delegates. As of late this afternoon the discussion was on-going but I have seen an update out of Louisiana that a number of liberty delegates WILL BE SEATED. 
MORE TO COME

----------


## cajuncocoa

> By Ben Swann
> An interesting development in the RNC delegate battle. The RNC/Romney campaign have been telling delegates in Maine that rather than viewing Maine as a stand alone state.. they are viewing delegates from Maine, Masschusetts, Oregon and Louisiana as a block. 
> Last night at 9:45 the Maine delegates were offered a deal.
>  Give Romney 7 slots in Maine and in return the RNC would seat 9 of the Massachusetts 17, the entire Oregon delegation and nearly all of the Lousiana delegates. As of late this afternoon the discussion was on-going but I have seen an update out of Louisiana that a number of liberty delegates WILL BE SEATED. 
> MORE TO COME


17 of 46 delegates in Louisiana is not "nearly all"...I think torchbearer said we are supposed to have 27.  That's only a little more than half of what we're supposed to have.

----------


## DGambler

That deal makes me sick and it makes me sick that we're capitulation to the RNC.

----------


## cajuncocoa

This is bull$#@!. 


"I think *it's a huge win for our campaign* because it showed what happened in Louisiana was wrong," (RP campaign chair for Louisiana, Charlie) Davis said by phone from Tampa. "It's been a long uphill battle, but the overwhelming evidence was on our side."

Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/21/ro...ached-report-c

----------


## sailingaway

> Which deal?


Last I heard Maine was not yet settled and they are saying they won't give anything.  That was late last night (early morning EST I think).

----------


## sailingaway

> 17 of 46 delegates in Louisiana is not "nearly all"...I think torchbearer said we are supposed to have 27.  That's only a little more than half of what we're supposed to have.


the point is we are supposed to have the MAJORITY, that is what counts in nominating Ron AND in bringing other motions before the assembly to do business generally.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> the point is we are supposed to have the MAJORITY, that is what counts in nominating Ron AND in bringing other motions before the assembly to do business generally.


Yes, I know...that's what the RNC is trying to avoid.  I understand what the RNC gets out of it, but I don't understand what WE get out of it.  The campaign should never, _never_ have agreed to this.  

Is it possible that Ron no longer wants to be nominated from the floor??

----------


## RonRules

After the convention, I will start a new thread entitled: "The BIG lie".

Hope you like it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, I know...that's what the RNC is trying to avoid.  I understand what the RNC gets out of it, but I don't understand what WE get out of it.  The campaign should never, _never_ have agreed to this.  
> 
> *Is it possible that Ron no longer wants to be nominated from the floor?*?


I think it is _possible_ someone on his own team has convinced him he _can't_ be, but no, he really wanted that speech and for the people to be able to pick. Why would that change?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think it is _possible_ someone on his own team has convinced him he _can't_ be, but no, he really wanted that speech and for the people to be able to pick. Why would that change?


I don't suppose you have a verifiable source for that claim, do you?

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't suppose you have a verifiable source for that claim, do you?


did you see the word 'think'? and 'possible'?

Perhaps you think it is impossible.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> did you see the word 'think'? and 'possible'?
> 
> Perhaps you think it is impossible.


Anything is possible.  But, you have repeated that claim almost like some kind of mantra.  It's like you want everyone to believe that the campaign is some kind of sinister force and poor Dr. Paul doesn't know anything about it.  We have no proof of that.  Certainly not at this point.  
What is to be gained by furthering this?  The truth will come out in the end.  How does jumping to conclusions at this point in time serve us?

And then there are these:

+ Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
+ Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Anything is possible.  But, you have repeated that claim almost like some kind of mantra.  It's like you want everyone to believe that the campaign is some kind of sinister force and poor Dr. Paul doesn't know anything about it.  We have no proof of that.  Certainly not at this point.  
> What is to be gained by furthering this?  The truth will come out in the end.  How does jumping to conclusions at this point in time serve us?


Well, LE, look at everything that's transpired.  2+2 still equals 4!!  I hate to bring up the newsletters, but this wouldn't be the first time someone has done something in Ron Paul's name that he was not aware of.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, LE, look at everything that's transpired.  2+2 still equals 4!!  I hate to bring up the newsletters, but this wouldn't be the first time someone has done something in Ron Paul's name that he was not aware of.


I know, Cajun, but that kind of thing is typical with newsletters and I would imagine he learned from that too.  You cannot believe that Ron isn't aware of what is going on with the delegates.

This whole blame game isn't doing anything to help us do what we need to get done.  There will be plenty of time to do that later on, if need be.  But, I will tell you one thing, the truth is usually not nearly as interesting as what people have dreamed up.  Remember that whole thing about C4L and that candidate in Colorado?  Remember the meltdown with so many people calling for heads to roll and that C4L had hid it from Dr. Paul and that they were all traitors?  Oh, and the belief that our donations were used for the ad?  We wanted to blast out to the entire world what we BELIEVED was going on.  People were pissed off.  

And then the truth came out when Dr. Paul called Michael Nystrom.  NONE of what we thought was true.  Not a bit of it.  

These things take their toll on not only those of us involved, but the movement as a whole. 

There will be a time for this.  When we have all the facts.  We do not have them now.

----------


## KingNothing

> NONE of what we thought was true.  Not a bit of it.  
> 
> These things take their toll on not only those of us involved, but the movement as a whole. 
> 
> There will be a time for this.  When we have all the facts.  We do not have them now.


Wait a minute.  You mean that people flying off the handle with beliefs that are not rooted in reality is a problem?

----------


## cajuncocoa

What is it that's not "rooted in reality"?  Is someone going to come along and tell me that my vote in the Louisiana caucus DID count on April 28, and the delegates I voted for (who won, BTW) are going to be seated next week? 

 Or do I have to wait until after the convention to determine whether the numerous news reports that came out last night are valid, when it's too late for anyone to do anything about it?

----------


## KingNothing

> You'd think with all of the legal experts we have on this board we would be able to take on the RNC ourselves.


Not sure if serious.

The RNC has oodles of money to hire professionals to read every line of every contract, over and over and over again, and weigh all possible outcomes and considerations.  This isn't their first trip around the block.  We can't beat them with lawyers.  We can only beat them by convincing as many people as possible to vote the way we'd like them to vote.  Once enough people are on our side, we won't have to worry about their tricks and scheming.

----------


## KingNothing

> What is it that's not "rooted in reality"?  Is someone going to come along and tell me that my vote in the Louisiana caucus DID count on April 28, and the delegates I voted for (who won, BTW) are going to be seated next week?
> 
>  Or do I have to wait until after the convention to determine whether the numerous news reports that came out last night are valid, when it's too late for anyone to do anything about it?


What?  I don't know.  My guess is that the RNC did whatever it wanted to do, and that the Paul campaign was powerless to stop them.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What is it that's not "rooted in reality"?  Is someone going to come along and tell me that my vote in the Louisiana caucus DID count on April 28, and the delegates I voted for (who won, BTW) are going to be seated next week? 
> 
>  Or do I have to wait until after the convention to determine whether the numerous news reports that came out last night are valid, when it's too late for anyone to do anything about it?


No, you don't.  But, blaming isn't going to find out whether the story is true.  

Does anyone have any ideas of what we can do to get to the bottom of this?

----------


## kathy88

Claws down, ladies

----------


## torchbearer

> the point is we are supposed to have the MAJORITY, that is what counts in nominating Ron AND in bringing other motions before the assembly to do business generally.


we meed 24 delegates in louisiana for a majority.
that is why 27 was not acceptable and 17 is for the RNC.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Wait a minute.  You mean that people flying off the handle with beliefs that are not rooted in reality is a problem?


And... the ignore button.

----------


## KingNothing

The most troubling thing about this movement is that so many people live and die on every single "battle" -- everything is Apocalyptic.  "THIS IS IT!  WE MAKE A STAND HERE!  WE WILL WIN THIS, THEN WIN THE NOMINATION!  BEEYYYAAAAH!"

That's just not how this is going to shakeout, and it isn't how it should shakeout.  This -"this" being the Liberty movement- is going to take our entire lives to resolve; certainly it will take longer than one man's presidential campaign.

Sure, fine, pursue legal action where possible.  Fight everywhere you can.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But getting so dejected and depressed that you create absurd conspiracy theories or rush to place blame on anyone other than the RNC and neocons is fruitless.  It's just silly.

----------


## sailingaway

> The most troubling thing about this movement is that so many people live and die on every single "battle" -- everything is Apocalyptic.  "THIS IS IT!  WE MAKE A STAND HERE!  WE WILL WIN THIS, THEN WIN THE NOMINATION!  BEEYYYAAAAH!"
> 
> That's just not how this is going to shakeout, and it isn't how it should shakeout.  This -"this" being the Liberty movement- is going to take our entire lives to resolve; certainly it will take longer than one man's presidential campaign.
> 
> Sure, fine, pursue legal action where possible.  Fight everywhere you can.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But getting so dejected and depressed that you create absurd conspiracy theories or rush to place blame on anyone other than the RNC and neocons is fruitless.  It's just silly.


this is not the liberty movement, the liberty movement has no delegates. This is the Ron Paul campaign, and this is definitely what the campaign was for -- getting Ron nominated on the floor at RNC.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The most troubling thing about this movement is that so many people live and die on every single "battle" -- everything is Apocalyptic.  "THIS IS IT!  WE MAKE A STAND HERE!  WE WILL WIN THIS, THEN WIN THE NOMINATION!  BEEYYYAAAAH!"
> 
> That's just not how this is going to shakeout, and it isn't how it should shakeout.  This -"this" being the Liberty movement- is going to take our entire lives to resolve; certainly it will take longer than one man's presidential campaign.
> 
> Sure, fine, pursue legal action where possible.  Fight everywhere you can.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But getting so dejected and depressed that you create absurd conspiracy theories or rush to place blame on anyone other than the RNC and neocons is fruitless.  It's just silly.





> this is not the liberty movement, the liberty movement has no delegates. This is the Ron Paul campaign, and this is definitely what the campaign was for -- getting Ron nominated on the floor at RNC.


*Yes.*

We *must* take a stand on important issues (such as making sure our duly-elected delegates get seated for the convention).  That doesn't mean we win in Tampa; it means we won't stand for them screwing us over.

Some things are worth the fight.

----------


## torchbearer

> After the convention, I will start a new thread entitled: "The BIG lie".
> 
> Hope you like it.


make it a blog. i'll read.

----------


## KingNothing

> this is not the liberty movement, the liberty movement has no delegates. This is the Ron Paul campaign, and this is definitely what the campaign was for -- getting Ron nominated on the floor at RNC.


Ok.  And?

----------


## KingNothing

> After the convention, I will start a new thread entitled: "The BIG lie".
> 
> Hope you like it.


Where's the lie?  The RNC has been pretty straightforward and honest with its disdain of the process it has put together, when that process gives it results that it doesn't like.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Where's the lie?  The RNC has been pretty straightforward and honest with its disdain of the process it has put together, when that process gives it results that it doesn't like.


So what do YOU suggest we do about that?  Go along to get along?

----------


## KingNothing

> So what do YOU suggest we do about that?  Go along to get along?


Focus on Liberty.  Spread the message.  Work to get as many delegates as we can in this election, and every election, and work to get as many people in as many political positions as possible.  That's it.  Beyond that, I have no idea what anyone should do.  We aren't going to win the nomination this year.  We probably aren't going to be able to nominate Paul.  And if we could, it wouldn't really accomplish anything more than giving the man an opportunity to speak.  That has value, but not an infinite amount of value.  This convention isn't Judgement Day.  We'll have more cracks at this.

EDIT:  Ultimately, I guess that I suggest that people do whatever they feel is best, after rationally weighing their options and making a decision that is focused on Liberty and Virtue.  Ya know?  be good people.  Don't be emotional and reckless.  That's all.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

"18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." 

- http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

Look, one can only stop so much from happening. But once it happens, whatever it is, one can deal with it.

Paul can still deal with whatever reality is created over the upcoming days and weeks. We all have to. One can't determine everything, but one can deal with anything.

If you look at your goals, be they defending your life or your liberty or whatever, as JUST an endpoint, you are always going to be disappointed, because there is always going to be a threat, or at least a potential for threat.

But that's why defense of what one values is a process that does not end.

One must win as many battles as possible, but the war goes on.

If Paul does not become president, then to me the BIGGEST battle, so far, was lost. That is MY opinion. 

But the war goes on. The POINT of war is to DEFEND, not to "win."

If one chooses to defend one's self, one's freedom, one's life, one's family, then one must never give up on the process. Some battles must be lost in order to survive, so that one can continue to fight and defend.


I don't claim to know what Paul's intentions are, what, if any, plan he has, but I can believe that he has an endgame, and that it is defending the people of this country, of this world.

That endgame is the "war" itself, DEFENSE.

By choosing the defense as the endgame itself, one can only go wrong it what it chooses to defend.

Whatever realities has been created by the campaign, the RNC, or by Paul himself, I believe that I cannot place 100% faith in any theory that I or anyone else can come up with as to how or why these realities were created. And by realities, I mean facts, as in, "Ron Paul is still a candidate for president", or "Rand endorsed Romney."

Do I believe that Ron Paul has the intention of defending the people of this world? Yes, I believe that. When I balance what I know about him, that is something that I am willing to put faith in.

But does Ron Paul deceive? If he is fighting a "war", and if one accepts the premise that "all warfare is based on deception", then yes, I do.

The point is, "why" and "how" does one deceive? If one deceives to defend, to protect, then the deception is in alignment with the point of the war.

So if Ron Paul has a "plan", and he has or does deceive, I believe that it is in alignment with his endgame, to defend the people of this country, the people of this world.

That is my belief. 

But NO ONE can determine the outcome of each battle. One has to reposition one's self, find new strategies to fight, in order to NOT LOSE THE WAR. 

As long as those strategies are in alignment with the principle, the ONLY just principle that one can have to go to war, which is to defend that which should never be taken from anyone, then one has the moral high ground.

"16. The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success."

I believe, that at this moment in our history, our moral leader is Ron Paul.

I will place faith in him, his intelligence, and his sincerity, as much as I see that it is due.

But as individuals, it is our responsibility to determine what is truly going on and act accordingly. If we are part of this "war", then our mission is to defend that what must be defended, while adhering to moral principles. 

That, to me, is the only way a "war" can be justified. The means justify the ends, and the ends justify the means.

This, again, to me, is a dynamic that exists in everything we do, whether it is trying to elect a president, or that president defending his nation from physical harm, or just me talking with someone. There is always the possibility that I or anyone could infringe on someone's rights. 

That is the balance that must be kept. Defend what must be defended for you and for all.

If I had to choose one person to do that as the president of the United States, right now it would be Paul.

Babe Ruth used to hit more home runs than other TEAMS.

I want him hitting clean-up, not as the bench coach.

But we can't always get what we want.

But we have to keep trying.

And to me, the whole freaking point of this is to DEFEND that which must be defended.

Paul or no Paul.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Focus on Liberty.  Spread the message.  Work to get as many delegates as we can in this election, and every election, and work to get as many people in as many political positions as possible.  That's it.  Beyond that, I have no idea what anyone should do.  *We aren't going to win the nomination this year.  We probably aren't going to be able to nominate Paul.  And if we could, it wouldn't really accomplish anything more than giving the man an opportunity to speak.  That has value, but not an infinite amount of value.  This convention isn't Judgement Day.  We'll have more cracks at this.*
> 
> EDIT:  Ultimately, I guess that I suggest that people do whatever they feel is best, after rationally weighing their options and making a decision that is focused on Liberty and Virtue.  Ya know?  be good people.  Don't be emotional and reckless.  That's all.


All that may be true....BUT...we (Louisiana) had a caucus on April 28.  I, and many other voters like me, voted for Ron Paul delegates.  Ron Paul delegates won.  

Others attended an infamous convention in Shreveport in June.  The delegates chose someone other than Roger Villere to head the LAGOP, a Ron Paul supporter who was later assaulted.  We were due even more delegates from that convention as I understand it.

I am fighting to have my vote count.  I may even pursue this as a legal matter if those delegates don't get seated.  IMO, that is an issue that is bigger than Ron Paul or even the whole Liberty Movement.  Maybe they think they can just come along and wipe out the whole election process and do what they want.  Maybe they can, but I'm not going to stop fighting until all resources are exhausted.  Got it?

----------


## sailingaway

> Ok.  And?


and therefor that is what we are fighting for through the end and those who don't want to should focus on other aspects of the liberty movement than Ron Paul's campaign, I should think.

But it is pretty astonishing to have people come into RON PAUL's CAMPAIGN forum and tell people we should just walk away while the convention is a week away.

Yes, people should do what they want in support of liberty and that is what we are doing. You are just harassing people doing it.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Focus on Liberty.  Spread the message.  Work to get as many delegates as we can in this election, and every election, and work to get as many people in as many political positions as possible.  That's it.  Beyond that, I have no idea what anyone should do.  We aren't going to win the nomination this year.  We probably aren't going to be able to nominate Paul.  And if we could, it wouldn't really accomplish anything more than giving the man an opportunity to speak.  That has value, but not an infinite amount of value.  This convention isn't Judgement Day.  We'll have more cracks at this.
> 
> EDIT:  Ultimately, I guess that I suggest that people do whatever they feel is best, after rationally weighing their options and making a decision that is focused on Liberty and Virtue.  Ya know?  be good people.  Don't be emotional and reckless.  That's all.


08-22-2012 01:16 PM
KingNothing
Thread: MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT:...
Ditto, fatso.

Hey Kong, thanks for the -rep. Is that guerilla for ipso facto?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> All that may be true....BUT...we (Louisiana) had a caucus on April 28.  I, and many other voters like me, voted for Ron Paul delegates.  Ron Paul delegates won.  
> 
> Others attended an infamous convention in Shreveport in June.  The delegates chose someone other than Roger Villere to head the LAGOP, a Ron Paul supporter who was later assaulted.  We were due even more delegates from that convention as I understand it.
> 
> I am fighting to have my vote count.  *I may even pursue this as a legal matter if those delegates don't get seated.*  IMO, that is an issue that is bigger than Ron Paul or even the whole Liberty Movement.  Maybe they think they can just come along and wipe out the whole election process and do what they want.  Maybe they can, but I'm not going to stop fighting until all resources are exhausted.  Got it?


I hoe you do if that's what it takes. Never let them push us out or make us give up. I'd think one of the main goals of the LA liberty contingent would be to make an example out of Villere at the next state convention. We did the same thing with our former state chair up here in MI who wanted Ron outta the debates last time around. He got his ass handed to him in the race for national committeeman last may and was beat by a guy that eventually endorsed Bentivolio BEFORE the primary.

----------


## eleganz

> The most troubling thing about this movement is that so many people live and die on every single "battle" -- everything is Apocalyptic.  "THIS IS IT!  WE MAKE A STAND HERE!  WE WILL WIN THIS, THEN WIN THE NOMINATION!  BEEYYYAAAAH!"
> 
> That's just not how this is going to shakeout, and it isn't how it should shakeout.  This -"this" being the Liberty movement- is going to take our entire lives to resolve; certainly it will take longer than one man's presidential campaign.
> 
> Sure, fine, pursue legal action where possible.  Fight everywhere you can.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But getting so dejected and depressed that you create absurd conspiracy theories or rush to place blame on anyone other than the RNC and neocons is fruitless.  It's just silly.


Ok, sounds like you know exactly what you want to do.  Why are you wasting your time in this thread not taking your own advice?

Go spread liberty

----------


## CPUd

Hey, someone who has PACER access, see if you can find this:




> PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
> CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND
> DISCHARGING PRIOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
> This Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this Court should not construe Plaintiffs notice of appeal as a desire to stand upon the First Amended Complaint and treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction.
> See August 20, 2012, Order (Dkt. 43). As the Court explained, Plaintiffs cannot pursue an appeal from the Courts order and simultaneously treat this matter as ongoing by filing [a] second amended complaint. Id. (quoting Ingram v. Warden, CIV.A. 10-4151 NLH, 2011 WL 318300, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011)).
> 
> In their Response, Plaintiffs state that they did not intend to file an appeal and, instead, they wish to continue to litigate with the Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading. See Response (Dkt. 44). Thus, the Court DISCHARGES the August 20, 2012, Order to Show Cause and will treat the Second Amended Complaint as the
> operative pleading.
> 
> ...

----------


## LibertyEagle

This is the part that sticks out to me.




> Thus, *the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with* Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir.
> 2008) (explaining that a complaint that is so confusing that its “true substance, if any, is well disguised” may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Omar v. Sea- Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim
> sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with [Rule 8] may be dismissed with prejudice[.]”).
> 
> *Plaintiffs shall electronically file a Response on or before August 23, 2012. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, this Court shall dismiss with prejudice. In addition, if Defendants wish to file a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response, they must do so on or before 1 p.m. on
> August 24, 2012.*

----------


## sailingaway

Yeah.  

I wish he'd just file the fact filled complaint but he has a direction and is going for it.

----------


## rb3b3

I have a question, it's off topic so sailing away don't get mad at me... This thread is the one with all the attention so that's why I'm posting the question in it.... Do you guys and gals remember when there was soo much talk about our shadow delegates? And how many we could possibly have??? Do you guys think that it could be possible that they cut that deal in la because we have shadow delegates  there that would give us a plurality in that state screwing the GOP over at rnc to give Ron his 5 states?? How awesome would that be??? Anyone thin this Is a real possibility?

----------


## SteveT1736

This is what I thought what would happen.

What Judge Carter is doing is the following:

* Hold the case in his court.
* He believes the case as pleaded is unintelligible (Rule 8), lacks merit (Rule 12(b)(6) and the amendment was in direct defiance of the Court's order (in that it failed to plead sufficient facts).
* He intends to  dismiss -- permanently.
* To comply with due process, he is giving Gilbert a chance to file a response (basically a justification)  -- but not to amend yet again.

It is over.

----------


## sailingaway

> This is what I thought what would happen.
> 
> What Judge Carter is doing is the following:
> 
> * Hold the case in his court.
> * He believes the case as pleaded is unintelligible (Rule 8), lacks merit (Rule 12(b)(6) and the amendment was in direct defiance of the Court's order (in that it failed to plead sufficient facts).
> * He intends to  dismiss -- permanently.
> * To comply with due process, he is giving Gilbert a chance to file a response.


I don't think anyone is confused about what he is doing.  It is great how you know his thoughts and intentions, though.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway --

I don't have to do any mind-reading.  The Judge was crystal clear when he dismissed the complaint before.  If you track the rule references, he is being very direct.

And, he spells out his intention.  An order to show cause states the Court's intention and gives a party one last chance (for due process) to try and overturn that intent.

----------


## sailingaway

why post it then?

----------


## afwjam

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
We still have a glimmer of hope with th eAppellate Court. I have tried my best. I will continue the fight to the very end
Expand
 Reply  Retweet  Favorite
30m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
It appears our Trial Judge does not wish to Rule on the merits of the case. I expect the Judge to likely dismiss the case on Friday.

----------


## torchbearer

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> We still have a glimmer of hope with th eAppellate Court. I have tried my best. I will continue the fight to the very end
> Expand
>  Reply  Retweet  Favorite
> 30m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> It appears our Trial Judge does not wish to Rule on the merits of the case. I expect the Judge to likely dismiss the case on Friday.


he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time. 
i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.

----------


## sailingaway

> he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time. 
> i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.


Yeah, I'd really like to see the multistate fraud outed.  A RICO suit seems appropriate, actually.

----------


## RonRules

There is one new item on Pacer today:

08/22/2012	47 	RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Alabama Resident Jason Williams, Alabama Resident Michael Ramzy, Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen, Alaska Delegate Daryl Lanzonto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, Terminate Hearings, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,, 46 (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

Here's a link to the document. It's a revised version totally different version from the previous response. 
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7579656

The end sounds pretty desperate: "In the quiet solemnity of Chambers, Plaintiffs request ...

I don't see anything from the judge.

I don't think we'll see anything from the RNC.

----------


## torchbearer

> There is one new item on Pacer today:
> 
> 08/22/2012    47     RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Alabama Resident Jason Williams, Alabama Resident Michael Ramzy, Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen, Alaska Delegate Daryl Lanzonto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, Terminate Hearings, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,, 46 (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
> 
> Here's a link to the document. It's a revised version of the previous response. 
> https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7579656
> 
> I don't see anything from the judge.


translate?

----------


## SteveT1736

The problem from the beginning here has been a lack of facts in the complaint, ie. who did what to whom and when and where.  Mr. Gilbert failed to give the Judge anything that could be evaluated.  Thus, the result.  This is simply a failure of following some very basic procedural guidelines.

----------


## sailingaway

> translate?


He feels he lost his bet with the lower court and is only hoping for appeal.  we never got a chance to add our more fact driven idea of a complaint which we should discuss doing separately, likely.

----------


## SteveT1736

I'm going to give Gilbert a nod.  His just filed response to the Court's Order to Show Cause is actually pretty well written.  I suspect it is not enough, given the Court's current direction.  But, it is somewhat better than what I've seen up to this point.

----------


## rb3b3

Can't we have a money bomb and do this the right way with a real federal attorney??? As many of you hate Stevet, the guy has been dead fkn accurate as to the holes in the case and what the judge would rule!!!! Sailing away let's put together a money bomb And do this the right way!!!! Gilbert is a jackass he really is and I should of known this the day that he blocked me on twitter simply because I had asked him to look at the ideas in this thread!!!! I'm all in for a money bomb done by a powerful attorney the way we want it done!!!!

----------


## CPUd

"A reasonable person would not conclude that a fair reading ofthe Second Amended
Complaint reads like a press release within the meaning of the McHenry v. Rene case.

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is not unintelligible and clearly sets forth the
Federal Question for the Court to rule upon.
It is clear in the Second Amended Complaint that Defendants are refusing to follow any of
 the U.S. laws cited within the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above. Defendants have
 admitted in oral argument as well as in their written documents the same.
Plaintiffs respectfully disagree that the Federal Question before the Court is impermissible.

 The language of the Voting Rights Act itself makes it permissible and, indeed, mandatory that the
 District Court act to resolve the claim presented on the merits."

----------


## torchbearer

> "A reasonable person would not conclude that a fair reading ofthe Second Amended
> Complaint reads like a press release within the meaning of the McHenry v. Rene case.
> 
> Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is not unintelligible and clearly sets forth the
> Federal Question for the Court to rule upon.
> It is clear in the Second Amended Complaint that Defendants are refusing to follow any of
>  the U.S. laws cited within the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above. Defendants have
>  admitted in oral argument as well as in their written documents the same.
> Plaintiffs respectfully disagree that the Federal Question before the Court is impermissible.
> ...



so the questions are-
what is the judge to rule on-
based on what laws
using what facts
for what remedy

have all points been given?

----------


## CPUd

It basically says that the judge should find that the convention is a federal election under the Voting Rights Act because the Voting Rights Act says so.

----------


## SteveT1736

torchbearer -- The problem is that the current version of the complaint lacks a single fact.  It has lots of conclusions, ie. delegates won't be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice.  But, facts are not generalities.  They have to specify which delegate is being prevented by whom and how and when did this occur and where (not very artful).   There is nothing like that in the amended complaint in front of the Judge.  The reason for the "unintelligible" language is that the Judge has no idea if these particular plaintiffs had something done to them by the named defendants.

The law is the Voting Rights Act. Gilbert keeps trying to get the Court to declare whether or not it applies to a national convention.  But, the Court is stuck on the lack of anyone in particular harmed.  As I've indicated above, Gilbert keeps trying to run for the finish line when he is still stuck in the starting gate.

----------


## torchbearer

> torchbearer -- The problem is that the current version of the complaint lacks a single fact.  It has lots of conclusions, ie. delegates won't be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice.


SO instead of saying "delegates won't be allowed to vote for their candidate of their choice"
he should say, "Louisiana's Executive committee has created rules bindings delegates of that state to vote for a candidate regardless of their choice?" and everything would be fine?

----------


## torchbearer

or how about this for specific-
"Villere, chairman of the LAGOP, created rules with consent of other members of the SEC, to prevent Torchbearer from voting who wants at the convention"

----------


## freedomordeath

> Anything is possible.  But, you have repeated that claim almost like some kind of mantra.  It's like you want everyone to believe that the campaign is some kind of sinister force and poor Dr. Paul doesn't know anything about it.  We have no proof of that.  Certainly not at this point.  
> What is to be gained by furthering this?  The truth will come out in the end.  How does jumping to conclusions at this point in time serve us?
> 
> And then there are these:
> 
> + Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
> + Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".


dude...... DUDE. My anger boils. So what if the campaign and even Ron Paul is complicit in all of this. We NEVER GIVE UP, WE NEVER COMPROMISE. We all got a job to do, and each one must concentrate on doing their job to the best of their abilities. The delegates excepted the responsibilty given to them by their neighbours to represent them at the RNC and even if Ron jumped ship, they must make their voices heard and do their job so they can sleep well at night.

----------


## SteveT1736

You are going the right direction.  It would need to specify what was the limitation, when it was imposed, etc.  But, you are on the right track.   This is the issue that has hung Gilbert up from the beginning.

But, that creates another problem.  He named the RNC and 50 state parties.  Presume what you said is accurate.  How is the Vermont GOP responsible for that?  Or, how is the RNC liable for that act?  You have to show the culpability of each defendant.  My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> dude...... DUDE. My anger boils. So what if the campaign and even Ron Paul is complicit in all of this. We NEVER GIVE UP, WE NEVER COMPROMISE. We all got a job to do, and each one must concentrate on doing their job to the best of their abilities. The delegates excepted the responsibilty given to them by their neighbours to represent them at the RNC and even if Ron jumped ship, they must make their voices heard and do their job so they can sleep well at night.


I am suggesting that we focus on the issue at hand and not delve off into assigning blame.  Because number one, it's not doing anything to help us get the delegates seated and two, we don't have enough information right now to determine fault.

I am suggesting we stay focused on getting the delegates seated.

----------


## torchbearer

> You are going the right direction.  It would need to specify what was the limitation, when it was imposed, etc.  But, you are on the right track.   This is the issue that has hung Gilbert up from the beginning.
> 
> But, that creates another problem.  He named the RNC and 50 state parties.  Presume what you said is accurate.  How is the Vermont GOP responsible for that?  Or, how is the RNC liable for that act?  You have to show the culpability of each defendant.  My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.


but this isn't the trial- this is like the grand jury of a capital case. the burden of proof is different.
you'd expect in the case- these things are addressed, but you'd expect in a filing just a reference to the things that will later be proven?
am i wrong?

----------


## freedomordeath

> he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time. 
> i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.


Now we talking, we can get this off the ground and grows this thing. We'll be in control and get the right lawyers. I don't have much money, but am willing to chip in.

----------


## SteveT1736

You are correct.  But, you have to plead sufficient facts, that if true, would constitute a plausible claim for relief from the Court.  Please look at the latest complaint.  It is devoid of any facts (remember, more than conclusionary statements) that show that these defendants did something to these plaintiffs.  That has been the problem.

----------


## torchbearer

> You are correct.  But, you have to plead sufficient facts, that if true, would constitute a plausible claim for relief from the Court.  Please look at the latest complaint.  It is devoid of any facts (remember, more than conclusionary statements) that show that these defendants did something to these plaintiffs.  That has been the problem.


maybe its because i lived through it and i know what he's talking about- but i didn't see lack of facts in the original filing- i saw a case so big its hard to comprehend. and that is not something to dismiss because of the general statements it takes to keep the filing from being a 50 chapter explanation of everything that happened in every state.
does the judge really think this guy is pulling his leg or is he standing behind a procedural shield to keep from bothering?
I assume judges are like LEOs and can make a decision on a personal level if a trial or arrest is warranted regardless of tradition?

----------


## The Shazad

> but this isn't the trial- this is like the grand jury of a capital case. the burden of proof is different.
> you'd expect in the case- these things are addressed, but you'd expect in a filing just a reference to the things that will later be proven?
> am i wrong?


Here are some key quotes from the judge in his initial ruling:

"As previously noted, a court accepts as true a plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations and
construes all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The policy justification for
reading a complaint’s allegations liberally is that a plaintiff often must sue before she has had
the benefit of discovery and that defendants are frequently in a better position to know the
details of how their acts caused the plaintiff’s harm. However, this policy justification vanishes
where the harm to the plaintiff is unclear. Thus, pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond
the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.
The following allegations use mere labels and conclusions from which the Court can not
discern what Plaintiffs’ harm is, much less who has done what to whom."

Then, the judge lists Gilbert's claims and says:

"These allegations are all riddled with the same error. For example, Plaintiffs’ vague
reference to “State Bylaws” gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of
the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ use of the passive voice
renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and
whether any of the more than 100 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs’ vague
allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed
simultaneously by all “Defendants” lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique
reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is
insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation.
Thus, this Court does not accept these allegations as true. See McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where lower court reasoned
that complaint failed to “clearly and concisely explain[] which allegations are relevant to which
defendants” and noted that the “purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum
for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes”)."

In short, he was saying that if Gilbert presented specific facts instead of conclusions, he would have accepted them as true (and allowed Gilbert to prove them later). He asked for specifics in an amended complaint, but Gilbert didn't provide any.

----------


## torchbearer

> Here are some key quotes from the judge in his initial ruling:
> 
> "As previously noted, a court accepts as true a plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations and
> construes all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Manzarek v. St. Paul
> Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The policy justification for
> reading a complaint’s allegations liberally is that a plaintiff often must sue before she has had
> the benefit of discovery and that defendants are frequently in a better position to know the
> details of how their acts caused the plaintiff’s harm. However, this policy justification vanishes
> where the harm to the plaintiff is unclear. Thus, pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond
> ...


It is a sad day when sentence structure and word choice trumps justice. and that would be my appeal.

----------


## CPUd

I don't know where the link is, but the one they did in Maine looks like a good example of pleading facts.  There are 3 plaintiffs, and each one makes specific claims.

----------


## The Shazad

> My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.


AND, too many plaintiffs were involved. Fewer than 5 of the original 120+ plaintiffs were actually real delegates at the national convention. Some were alternates. Some were state delegates. Some were just random people who joined the bandwagon. He was all over the place as to whether he was going after fraud in the states (in which case having state delegates as plaintiffs makes sense) or whether he was wanting to unbind delegates (in which case there's nothing for the state delegates to sue for). It was a shotgun approach with regards to plaintiffs and defendants, and he was never able to make it clear who did what to whom.

----------


## CPUd

> maybe its because i lived through it and i know what he's talking about- but i didn't see lack of facts in the original filing- i saw a case so big its hard to comprehend. and that is not something to dismiss because of the general statements it takes to keep the filing from being a 50 chapter explanation of everything that happened in every state.
> does the judge really think this guy is pulling his leg or is he standing behind a procedural shield to keep from bothering?
> I assume judges are like LEOs and can make a decision on a personal level if a trial or arrest is warranted regardless of tradition?


From everything I've read, the judge was just wanting him to argue the case straight up - on its merits, rather than procedural trickery.  When you deal with a cop and start quoting statutes and procedures, with the intent of getting off on a technicality, the cop tends to go by the book on you.  Same as with this judge- he is aware of this strategy, and is why I believe he meticulously had his orders written out.

----------


## SteveT1736

Let me quote from the Judge's original decision on the Motion to Dismiss:

"The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is that Defendants have
engaged in various acts—often too vaguely described to be intelligible—that have
disadvantaged Ron Paul in his quest to be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for
President at the Republican National Convention commencing on August 27, 2012."

"The sole allegation that references a specific Defendant and specific Plaintiff appears on
page 32. There, the FAC alleges that “Plaintiff Renato D’Amico is a duly elected National
Delegate from the State of Massachusetts who was unlawfully removed from the State
Delegation when he refused to sign” an affidavit “presented by Defendant Republican Party of
Massachusetts” requiring him to “swear[] under penalty of perjury that he would vote for
Governor Romney.” Id. at 32. The FAC alleges that, “[i]n Massachusetts[,] at least 17
Delegates duly elected were ordered to sign” the same affidavit even though “no Party Rule . . .
permits such an [a]ffidavit nor such an ultimatum, nor has said Defendant ever required such an
[a]ffidavit in the past.” Id. Plaintiffs “request an order of this Court reinstating Plaintiff Renado
D’Amico to his duly elected position as a Certified National Delegate and further requests that
all Massachusetts Delegates be reinstated who were removed solely for refusing to sign the
unlawful [a]ffidavit.” Id."

"With one exception, Plaintiffs’ allegations are not sufficiently intelligible for this Court to even analyze whether they can state a claim"

"the Court concludes that only one page in the FAC contains allegations that are sufficiently intelligible for this Court to even analyze whether they can state a claim."

"The following allegations use mere labels and conclusions from which the Court can not
discern what Plaintiffs’ harm is, much less who has done what to whom.
• “Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws.” FAC 27:5-6.
• “Defendants have refused to Certify [sic] Delegates who were properly elected.” Id. at
27:7-8.
• “[I]n almost every state in the United States[,] Defendants engaged in a scheme to
intimidate and harass Delegates who were supporting a Candidate that Defendants did not
approve of. This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that
Delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution
for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the Delegate fails to vote as
instructed by Defendants.” Id. at 26:21-26. . . . "
"

=========
Looks like someone above tried the same approach while I was pulling this together.  The point is that you have to have SPECIFIC FACTS in a complaint.  A lawsuit is not a fishing expedition.

----------


## The Shazad

> It is a sad day when sentence structure and word choice trumps justice. and that would be my appeal.


It wasn't about style, it was about substance. The judge found no substance in the claims.

Here's one claim: “Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws.”

Ok - which defendant, which state, which bylaw, and which of the plaintiffs was harmed?

----------


## RonRules

You can't blame him for not trying!

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
*I am serving the Judge with additional Appellate papers right now. These are the last papers I can file. It's in the hands of god now*

(He should capitalize the word "god", jus' sayin)

35m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
"The epitome of beauty stems from the substance of the mind, the depth of the soul, and the light of the spirit." --Angela Enders

----------


## devil21

> The problem from the beginning here has been a lack of facts in the complaint, ie. who did what to whom and when and where.  Mr. Gilbert failed to give the Judge anything that could be evaluated.  Thus, the result.  This is simply a failure of following some very basic procedural guidelines.


There simply wasn't enough time to collect and organize the evidence to the level of specificity this judge is seeking, not for lack of case merits.  Cases like this would usually takes years but had to be crammed into a couple months.  Shame really.  It's still not officially dismissed yet so let's wait until then before doing any more post mortems.

----------


## torchbearer

> It wasn't about style, it was about substance. The judge found no substance in the claims.
> 
> Here's one claim: “Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws.”
> 
> Ok - which defendant, which state, which bylaw, and which of the plaintiffs was harmed?


is that not a question that can be answered by me right now?
how am i not before that very judge? are on the phone with him tonight assuring him that there is something here to look at?

----------


## RonRules

> There simply wasn't enough time to collect and organize the evidence to the level of specificity this judge is seeking, not for lack of case merits.  Cases like this would usually takes years but had to be crammed into a couple months.  Shame really.  It's still not officially dismissed yet so let's wait until then before doing any more post mortems.


I don't believe so. The judge did not ask for extreme details in the evidence. Just normal verifiable facts. I was in the court room and the judge was clearly trying to help Gilbert, telling him that he just wanted the slightest morsels of facts to act positively on the case.

The stuff we have on the stick thread (already compiled in a Wiki) was sufficient. Gilbert refused any and all help. I personally tried. I tried though another lawyer, I tried through a friend of his.

----------


## torchbearer

> I don't believe so. The judge did not ask for extreme details in the evidence. Just normal verifiable facts. I was in the court room and the judge was clearly trying to help Gilbert, telling him that he just wanted the slightest morsels of facts to act positively on the case.
> 
> The stuff we have on the stick thread (already compiled in a Wiki) was sufficient. Gilbert refused any and all help. I personally tried. I tried though another lawyer, I tried through a friend of his.


hubris was his downfall.

----------


## CPUd

Road to disbarment begins here:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @FozenPink Read RNC Rule 15 which binds delegates. We do need a Judge
> 
> 17m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Judge is essentially ordering the RNC to now take that position by Friday.
> 
> 18m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Not even the RNC claimed what the Judge wants to claim
> 
> ...

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Yep, Gilbert was just the wrong guy and was in way over his head.




> he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time. 
> i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.

----------


## torchbearer

> Road to disbarment begins here:


well, if you believe the judge is poisoned, you do have an obligation to report it.
just saying.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Yep. Gilbert was rude to everyone, didn't accept help, and was quick to hijack our movement for himself to be the hero.

What happened? We wasted a lot of time hoping an incompetent, pompous jerk would win the case. A bunch of "coulda woulda shoulda's" here, but this is a major disappointment. I think a lot of us saw it coming, but still....




> I don't believe so. The judge did not ask for extreme details in the evidence. Just normal verifiable facts. I was in the court room and the judge was clearly trying to help Gilbert, telling him that he just wanted the slightest morsels of facts to act positively on the case.
> 
> The stuff we have on the stick thread (already compiled in a Wiki) was sufficient. Gilbert refused any and all help. I personally tried. I tried though another lawyer, I tried through a friend of his.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Pretty evident the judge was trying to help him. Gilbert was a jerk to everyone but himself. No one person can do everything himself, especially in our movement with the odds stacked against us.




> well, if you believe the judge is poisoned, you do have an obligation to report it.
> just saying.

----------


## torchbearer

> Pretty evident the judge was trying to help him. Gilbert was a jerk to everyone but himself. No one person can do everything himself, especially in our movement with the odds stacked against us.


just saying that questioning a judge is not grounds for disbarrment.

----------


## CPUd

> just saying that questioning a judge is not grounds for disbarrment.


That's just how it begins.  Given his history, the statements *probably* will get stronger.

----------


## dillo

gilbert was a cointelpro psy op

----------


## RonRules

I now think he should drop the appeal before it gets ruled. If the appeals court rules that the Voting Rights act does not apply to delegates, conventions and political parties, we are SCREWED from now till eternity. That appeals ruling will be used for anyone that wants to take on this or similar cases in the future.

Drop the appeal!!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

THIS. He's doing more damage than good at this point. Drop the appeal before we're stuck with something that effects us forever.




> I now think he should drop the appeal before it gets ruled. If the appeals court rules that the Voting Rights act does not apply to delegates, conventions and political parties, we are SCREWED from now till eternity. That appeals ruling will be used for anyone that wants to take on this or similar cases in the future.
> 
> Drop the appeal!!

----------


## sailingaway

> is that not a question that can be answered by me right now?
> how am i not before that very judge? are on the phone with him tonight assuring him that there is something here to look at?


because Gilbert is taking a tack that doesn't go with the fraud but just with the Attorney's statement that the RNC thinks it doesn't have to follow its own rules.

The case we want is a different one.

----------


## Chadd Murray

> because Gilbert is taking a tack that doesn't go with the fraud but just with the Attorney's statement that the RNC thinks it doesn't have to follow its own rules.
> 
> The case we want is a different one.


That's what he's doing, but he's refused to offer an interpretation of "coerce, intimidate or threaten" - as has he now refused to tell the court why it should render an advisory opinion.




> I now think he should drop the appeal before it gets ruled. If the appeals court rules that the Voting Rights act does not apply to delegates, conventions and political parties, we are SCREWED from now till eternity. That appeals ruling will be used for anyone that wants to take on this or similar cases in the future.


I think it's doubtful the Appeals court will do anything other than affirm that the trial judge was correct to dismiss the complaint. That said, at this point only harm is being done.

----------


## libertylastchance

RG has used the Sheehan letter in every filing, and there are many who have stated there is more to that letter.. well there is..
http://theunconventionalconservative...tes-are-bound/

----------


## libertylastchance

> There simply wasn't enough time to collect and organize the evidence to the level of specificity this judge is seeking, not for lack of case merits.  Cases like this would usually takes years but had to be crammed into a couple months.  Shame really.  It's still not officially dismissed yet so let's wait until then before doing any more post mortems.


Then you don't do them, until you have what is need to get a judge to actually find merit with the case.... food for thought

----------


## sailingaway

> Then you don't do them, until you have what is need to get a judge to actually find merit with the case.... food for thought


why food for thought? It is either over or not.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Is there any word on when a court date might be for this 2nd amended complaint?

----------


## CPUd

> Is there any word on when a court date might be for this 2nd amended complaint?


It will be done on Friday, one way or another.


___

in related news, check this out : http://www.scribd.com/doc/103540151/...aign-Sent-8-21

Said to have just been sent to RNC, Team Mitt, and everywhere far and wide.

Edit: I have to admit, I feel like what they wrote needed to be said.  But looking at the list of 'senders' at the end makes me a bit wary.

___

And then, there's this:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We are now just one Court from the United States Supreme Court and I am ready and willing to go all the way
> 
> 
> 4h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We are the Freedom Team- equals shoulder to shoulder fighting for liberty freedom and our Constitution. "We have just begun to fight"

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> It will be done on Friday, one way or another.
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> *in related news, check this out : http://www.scribd.com/doc/103540151/...aign-Sent-8-21*
> 
> Said to have just been sent to RNC, Team Mitt, and everywhere far and wide.
> 
> ...


There is a petition listed in the comments at that link.  Are we starting a campaign to get signatures on it?  (/discussion)

----------


## CPUd

I'd recommend not filling their database with more personal info.  Everything they've done the last 3 months has involved getting names on lists.  One person's petition is another person's mailing list.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'd recommend not filling their database with more personal info.  Everything they've done the last 3 months has involved getting names on lists.  One person's petition is another person's mailing list.


the petition was actually started by someone else who asked them to attach it.  It may well be for a mailing list, but it is someone else's mailing list.  I don't think it will go anywhere, though.  Up to the individual if they want to sign it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then you don't do them, until you have what is need to get a judge to actually find merit with the case.... food for thought


Yup.  Agreed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We are now just one Court from the United States Supreme Court and I am ready and willing to go all the way
> 
> 
> 4h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We are the Freedom Team- equals shoulder to shoulder fighting for liberty freedom and our Constitution. "We have just begun to fight"


Does anyone else besides me, see this as a major problem?

----------


## libertylastchance

> It will be done on Friday, one way or another.
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> in related news, check this out : http://www.scribd.com/doc/103540151/...aign-Sent-8-21
> 
> Said to have just been sent to RNC, Team Mitt, and everywhere far and wide.
> 
> ...


There is nothing new about RG taking his cases to the Supreme Court

----------


## libertylastchance

> I'd recommend not filling their database with more personal info.  Everything they've done the last 3 months has involved getting names on lists.  One person's petition is another person's mailing list.


agreed

----------


## libertylastchance

> Does anyone else besides me, see this as a major problem?


your not alone

----------


## libertylastchance

> why food for thought? It is either over or not.


Food for Thought...  That promoting this case and trying to advance it in any form is not productive.  Think about how this case was from the beginning a fail. Think before you jump into something. Where is the merit of the case? You have to leave your personal feelings at the door step, you cannot bring into the room your vision of fairness, you can only think in terms of law and it's requirements. As a lawyer you have to know that you need to produce something of substance..

----------


## BSU kid

We are one step closer to the Supreme Court, and not for good reasons at all.

----------


## CPUd

> Does anyone else besides me, see this as a major problem?


Yes.

----------


## sailingaway

> We are one step closer to the Supreme Court, and not for good reasons at all.


I think we all here would have handled it differently, but this was the direction he chose.  

Too bad the delegates weren't given a better national lawsuit to get involved with.

----------


## SteveT1736

I've indicated this before but the named plaintiffs really are at considerable risk.  This is clearly going to be deemed a frivolous lawsuit.  I think they are likely to be held liable for the other side's attorney fees and costs.   The further this goes the higher those are going to be.

----------


## sailingaway

> I've indicated this before but the named plaintiffs really are at considerable risk.  This is clearly going to be deemed a frivolous lawsuit.  I think they are likely to be held liable for the other side's attorney fees and costs.   The further this goes the higher those are going to be.


I think a separate hearing on costs would bring out the facts of why this wasn't at all frivolous just strangely framed.  Do you think they'd actually push for that? Because we can continue putting the nationwide fraud and abuse facts into order to prepare for such a hearing.

----------


## KingNothing

> Does anyone else besides me, see this as a major problem?


The ridiculous, unprofessional, rah-rah, Go-Team, cliched patrioric rhetoric?  Yes.  It is stupid.

"We are the Freedom Team- equals shoulder to shoulder fighting for liberty freedom and our Constitution. "We have just begun to fight"" 


....really?  He really said this?

Why does anyone have faith in the law suit?

----------


## sailingaway

YOu raise straw men.  People haven't been expressing 'faith' in the law suit but a desire to not tear down what we can't stop, and to try to make it better, when we thought we might have that opportunity.  Why do you feel the need to belittle things you don't personally agree with?

----------


## SteveT1736

The frivolousness is established by the conduct in this particular case. There will be a hearing on the amount of the fees but the Judge won't even consider any underlying merit, if any, because none has been established.  Quite the contrary. The Judge sees this as something completely lacking merit the way it has been plead.

----------


## sailingaway

> The frivolousness is established by the conduct in this particular case. There will be a hearing on the amount of the fees but the Judge won't even consider any underlying merit, if any, because none has been established.  Quite the contrary. The Judge sees this as something completely lacking merit the way it has been plead.


wow, that mindreading must serve you well in life.

I think he'd have a hearing. I don't practice in federal court like you do, but he has given every opportunity.  Make it a hearing on 'the amount' then.  Does the RNC really want that? Because it would galvanize us.

----------


## BSU kid

Somebody tell me why we didn't get Marc Victor or some other liberty lawyer, who actually has a track record of getting the job done? That's all I'll say or else I might start venting.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- I don't understand the reference to mind-reading.  My logic is this:  1) You have a case being dismissed for failure to show any facts,  2) You have defendants that have incurred fees,  3) Defendants in that kind of fact pattern are entitled to fees, and 4) The only issue at a hearing would be whether the fees themselves are reasonable.

----------


## Chadd Murray

> wow, that mindreading must serve you well in life.
> 
> I think he'd have a hearing. I don't practice in federal court like you do, but he has given every opportunity.  Make it a hearing on 'the amount' then.  Does the RNC really want that? Because it would galvanize us.


If there was a hearing about costs and Gilbert tries to re-argue that the case is sufficiently plead then he will get absolutely no where, yet again. 

Personally though, I don't think fees will be awarded. The courts would be very reluctant to scare people with potentially legitimate voting rights claims from trying to pursue legal action, which an award of fees in this case would potentially do.

----------


## SteveT1736

Chadd -- I have to disagree with you.  There is clear precedent for awarding fees for frivolous Voter Rights Act claims.

The RNC/state parties may decide to just cover the fees.  But, I'm just indicating there is substantial legal risk given what has happened.

----------


## CPUd

_____




> USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
>  We must battle the Judge & convince him he is wrong at the same time. We have not successfully done that since Tuesday
> 
> 1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> With the RNC out of ammunition the battle now rages with the Judge. We have entered the 4th dimension.
> 
> 
> 1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @pattyrae1 I am trying my hardest Patricia. Our fight for liberty is just beginning. This case, win or lose, is only the beginning

----------


## Chadd Murray

> Chadd -- I have to disagree with you.  There is clear precedent for awarding fees for frivolous Voter Rights Act claims (in the 9th Circuit).
> 
> The RNC/state parties may decide to just eat it.  But, I'm just indicating there is substantial legal risk given what has happened.


Fair enough, if there is precedent then I retract my earlier opinion. If fees are awarded, then what success (in the most general terms) do such plaintiffs usually have in suing their solicitor, especially where that solicitor has made assurances and the like? I have no idea what professional responsibility requirements are like in the US, but I'm guessing low?

----------


## sailingaway

> Fair enough, if there is precedent then I retract my earlier opinion. If fees are awarded, then what success (in general) do such plaintiffs have in suing their solicitor, especially where that solicitor has made assurances and the like? I have no idea what professional responsibility requirements are like in the US, but I'm guessing low?


and this was pro bono.  I don't think it will happen because the hearing would be documented with other attorneys, I am fairly sure.  A motion would be made to continue the motion for new counsel and we all know the facts themselves are compelling.

----------


## sailingaway

> Chadd -- I have to disagree with you.  There is clear precedent for awarding fees for frivolous Voter Rights Act claims.
> 
> The RNC/state parties may decide to just cover the fees.  But, I'm just indicating there is substantial legal risk given what has happened.


 A lot of political risk from stirring existing facts to the top on a short deadline, if they do.  I am not sure they'd want to do that.

----------


## SteveT1736

Chadd -- That is an interesting question. I would presume there is liability but I don't know California law on that issue.

Sailingaway -- Understand that a dismissal with prejudice means this suit is over.  Completely and permanently.  There is no future opportunity to relitigate or replead for this suit.

----------


## libertylastchance

> Fair enough, if there is precedent then I retract my earlier opinion. If fees are awarded, then what success (in the most general terms) do such plaintiffs usually have in suing their solicitor, especially where that solicitor has made assurances and the like? I have no idea what professional responsibility requirements are like in the US, but I'm guessing low?


This court has a clear policy on it's web page that loser pay all court cost, regardless of RG not charging.. it was said also that the RNC lawyer was pro bono.. but the cost for his research and time??? Could he submit costs?

----------


## libertylastchance

> Chadd -- I have to disagree with you.  There is clear precedent for awarding fees for frivolous Voter Rights Act claims.e
> The RNC/state parties may decide to just cover the fees.  But, I'm just indicating there is substantial legal risk given what has happened.


Fees incurred are a deterent to "frivolous" .. imagine if it were completely free just because the lawyer filing was pro bono

----------


## sailingaway

> Chadd -- That is an interesting question. I would presume there is liability but I don't know California law on that issue.
> 
> Sailingaway -- Understand that a dismissal with prejudice means this suit is over.  Completely and permanently.  There is no future opportunity to relitigate or replead for this suit.


for those plaintiffs. We have hundreds.

Plus, another attorney could bring a motion to reconsider, with the facts.

----------


## libertylastchance

> Somebody tell me why we didn't get Marc Victor or some other liberty lawyer, who actually has a track record of getting the job done? That's all I'll say or else I might start venting.


f
Because any incident of provable fraud was handled at the state level, and the campaign was involved

----------


## CPUd

One question - 

Since this will happen after the convention, for new legal and non-legal actions being considered here, what would be considered a sufficient remedy?

----------


## libertylastchance

> I think a separate hearing on costs would bring out the facts of why this wasn't at all frivolous just strangely framed.  Do you think they'd actually push for that? Because we can continue putting the nationwide fraud and abuse facts into order to prepare for such a hearing.


Why would a hearing on costs involve any type of case issue, the hearing would only determine reasonable cost incurred nothing more nothing less, check the court web site, all incurred cost are the responsibility of the losing party.

----------


## libertylastchance

I think this entire issue of a federal lawsuit should be dropped, those delegates who have proof of wrong doing should return to their states and take every avenue available to correct the wrongs... There are many from certain states and they should work together as a group, gathering information and research the rules and laws of their states

----------


## sailingaway

> One question - 
> 
> Since this will happen after the convention, for new legal and non-legal actions being considered here, what would be considered a sufficient remedy?


we have time to discuss that, but before I heard of Gilbert, what I was thinking it would be great to go after the angle of the RNC and states colluding to give them monopoly on representation in national races, due to ballot access and debate rules, thus permitting disenfranchisement such as you are seeing at RNC now, with no real option. My preferred remedy would be to demand ballot access laws for federal elections be only sufficient to deter the casual not the true candidate, because otherwise it forces people into the fraudulent party system.  It would be great if we could get some PUMAs on board to show it on the Dem side as well.  

I'd also like them to make Ron get on the ballots for Nov, since his supporters were disenfranchised here,  but I don't know Ron would cooperate, realistically.  Changing ballot access laws and if we can, the debates, (that would likely have to be in negotiated settlement, not sure the court could order that) would give us a new playing field and new possibilities going forward.

----------


## sailingaway

> Why would a hearing on costs involve any type of case issue, the hearing would only determine reasonable cost incurred nothing more nothing less, check the court web site, all incurred cost are the responsibility of the losing party.


then there could be a motion to reconsider by a different attorney after the judgment was entered, alternatively other delegates could bring suit.   this case wouldn't have been decided on the merits.

However, the plaintiffs in the suit now have a decision to make. It is their decision, and we can't make it for them.  But there are others who were at those conventions who are not plaintiffs to that suit.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

"We are waiting for a ruling from the Appellate Court where we seek an Order to require our Judge to rule prior to the convention.
Our Judge does not wish to rule upon the merits of the case at this time. Procedures are being used by the Judge to declare our claim a press release that he finds unintelligible. Our complaint can be readily understood by any reasonable person. It asks whether the Vot
ing Rights Act applies. Not even the RNC has agreed with the Judge's current position. In efffect the Judge is ordering the RNC to file papers to agree with the Judge. Our 2nd Amended Complaint is posted for you at electionfraudremedy.com
Take a look for yourself. Do you see a press release? Do you not understand what the claim is for?"

Richard Gilbert
3 hours ago

https://www.facebook.com/RichardAttorneyInUSA

----------


## ChristopherShelley

If the point of a legal case is to determine the truth so that appropriate actions may be taken in order to defend and/or protect people and their rights, then these legal battles must be fought.

If one never tries, then the battles are never even started.

If Richard Gilbert, an individual, fails to win this case, has he failed to determine, or failed to make plain to the eyes of the world, any truths that may be useful if others were to continue to fight to defend the rights that had been allegedly violated?

If the people on this thread are truly serious about finding the truth and defending it so that the rights of all are protected, then they will do so.

We will see who on this board has been serious about defending the rights of our delegates, the right of any citizen of this country to vote by their conscience and the moral necessity of having that right defended, by the *actions taken by these individuals* who have filled up the 190 pages of this thread, not what they have *said*.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

The truth can never be killed, only buried alive.

Grab a god damn shovel.

----------


## PointsOfOrder

The law is already on the books... why not just use it and then have the RNC try to take the RP supports to court?

----------


## ChristopherShelley

I'm not a lawyer. I can't speak to the law. But laws are supposed to be made to protect the truth and the rights of people. Any deviation from that, a law or the actions of an individual or group, is an attempt to suppress the truth and the process that defends our rights. That can be observed by anyone, legal expertise or not.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

The determination of truth and the defending of rights is a process. We either go all the way, or we don't.

----------


## sailingaway

The question is whether the case was framed in the best way.  The thing is is, this is the only suit there was that addressed, at least under earlier complaints, the fraud and abuse across the nation.

Gilbert is going to do what he is going to do, and the plaintiffs are going to do what they are going to do.

----------


## RonRules

Do consider also that this is a very far reaching case, affecting all future elections, and the judge may want to get rid of this hot potato as fast as he can.

The judge calling the second amended complain a "press release" is disingenuous on his part. He clearly just wants to see this thing go.

Consider that.

----------


## sailingaway

> Do consider also that this is a very far reaching case, affecting all future elections, and the judge may want to get rid of this hot potato as fast as he can.
> 
> The judge calling the second amended complain a "press release" is disingenuous on his part. He clearly just wants to see this thing go.
> 
> Consider that.


the judge gave a very detailed description of how the complaint could be ruled satisfactory, but Gilbert wanted to pursue only a different theory.  I liked the judge's complaint better, but I didn't bring the suit.  Since Gilbert put his time into it, Gilbert chose the strategy.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> The question is whether the case was framed in the best way.  The thing is is, this is the only suit there was that addressed, at least under earlier complaints, the fraud and abuse across the nation.
> 
> Gilbert is going to do what he is going to do, and the plaintiffs are going to do what they are going to do.


Well that was kind of my point. He initiated this lawsuit and a lot of people criticized him for it, rightly or wrongly.

But if the point of a lawsuit is to find the truth and determine if anyone's rights have been violated, if that is the premise, then it should be judged on that basis.

If the lawsuit does not do that, and people's rights were violated, then they must still be defended.

All I'm saying is that there has been a lot of talk in this thread about what should have been done or what should be done, and I hope that those people who had so many opinions will pursue that, no matter what the result of this lawsuit is.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

Richard Gilbert 

You may be very insightful Robert Werden We were left with no choice when the Judge refused to expedite the case with only 4 days left. By the way, the critics made much noise about the Order the Judge made for Tuesday to show cause why the case shouldn't be dismissed for filing the Appellate papers. The critics do not seem to wish to tell everyone the Judge ruled in our favor. The case, for the moment, survives again

4 hours ago 

https://www.facebook.com/RichardAttorneyInUSA

from the comments section of this post:

Richard Gilbert

5 hours ago

We are waiting for a ruling from the Appellate Court where we seek an Order to require our Judge to rule prior to the convention.
Our Judge does not wish to rule upon the merits of the case at this time. Procedures are being used by the Judge to declare our claim a press release that he finds unintelligible. Our complaint can be readily understood by any reasonable person. It asks whether the Vot
ing Rights Act applies. Not even the RNC has agreed with the Judge's current position. In efffect the Judge is ordering the RNC to file papers to agree with the Judge. Our 2nd Amended Complaint is posted for you at electionfraudremedy.com
Take a look for yourself. Do you see a press release? Do you not understand what the claim is for?

----------


## CPUd

> Do consider also that this is a very far reaching case, affecting all future elections, and the judge may want to get rid of this hot potato as fast as he can.
> 
> The judge calling the second amended complain a "press release" is disingenuous on his part. He clearly just wants to see this thing go.
> 
> Consider that.


Technically, he didn't directly call it a press release, he was quoting from case law, which used that language as a basis for tossing a complaint.  Same difference, I suppose, as he was lumping it into that category.

----------


## SteveT1736

ChristopherShelley --

Mr. Gilbert's characterization is inaccurate and, frankly, deceptive.

He is facing dismissal because HE has not bothered to plead specific facts linking wrongs by the defendants to wrongs suffered by the plaintiffs.  That is a pre-condition for every lawsuit.   That is not some new burden on him.

The issue is NOT that the Judge cannot determine what he is asking.  It is that the Judge has no specific wrongs to apply the law at issue to and craft a remedy for.  That is Gilbert's job -- one at which he has utterly failed.

There is another issue that has not had much discussion. What Gilbert is asking the Court to do is determine whether or not the Voting Rights Act applies to a political convention -- without anyone being wronged (remember the lack of specific facts).  That is called an advisory opinion and those in our court system are not allowed (mostly for constitutional reasons going back to the early days of the Republic).  Courts do not address hypotheticals. They must handle actual wrongs.

The bit about the RNC not agreeing with the Judge's position or being ordered to do this or that is flat-out false.  The Defendants' attorneys have sat on the side while Gilbert himself blew the case apart.  They have not filed a thing since the Motion to Dismiss was granted.  The Judge's order this week didn't require them to do anything -- if gave them the right to file a document if they felt compelled (which so far they have not).

I get the strong impression that Mr. Gilbert is trying to provide cover for his own failings by blaming the Judge.  This Judge has done everything to give Mr. Gilbert the chance to fix his errors.  Instead, each time he has compounded them.  The responsibility for this disaster rests clearly on one set of shoulders and it is not Judge Carter's.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> ChristopherShelley --
> 
> Mr. Gilbert's characterization is inaccurate and, frankly, deceptive.
> 
> He is facing dismissal because HE has not bothered to plead specific facts linking wrongs by the defendants to wrongs suffered by the plaintiffs.  That is a pre-condition for every lawsuit.   That is not some new burden on him.
> 
> The issue is NOT that the Judge cannot determine what he is asking.  It is that the Judge has no specific wrongs to apply the law at issue to and craft a remedy for.  That is Gilbert's job -- one at which he has utterly failed.
> 
> There is another issue that has not had much discussion. What Gilbert is asking the Court to do is determine whether or not the Voting Rights Act applies to a political convention -- without anyone being wronged (remember the lack of specific facts).  That is called an advisory opinion and those in our court system are not allowed (mostly for constitutional reasons going back to the early days of the Republic).  Courts do not address hypotheticals. They must handle actual wrongs.
> ...


Declaratory speech signifies, to me, either knowledge or manipulation. That's why I like facts.

I have seen a whole lot of the former here on RPF.

I am going to try to stick with the latter.

So, your point is, that he blew the case because he did not provide sufficient facts to back his complaint?

That seems like a reasonable argument. I would think that one could not win a court case by going in there with only an accusation and a theory.

But you, sir, imo are No. 1 at the moment for the person around here who needs to start putting something together in the real world instead of just posting here in this thread. I hope you will.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

96% of all Appellate Writs are denied. Our Appellate Writ survives at least until Friday

5:22 PM - 23 Aug 12 via web

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

We successfully quashed The ability of the RNC to file a Motion To dismiss. So the Judge ordered the RNC to do it. I file papers in morning

5:32 PM - 23 Aug 12 via web

----------


## sailingaway

Sounds like he doesn't see a lot of future in it. But he went with the theory he said he would. I still have the jury out on that guy's motives but he always wanted a different case than I did.  And he did what he said he planned to do.  

I just STILL really would like to see that multistate fraud suit, but even if he wins on appeal, he isn't addressing that.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Sounds like he doesn't see a lot of future in it. But he went with the theory he said he would. I still have the jury out on that guy's motives but he always wanted a different case than I did.  And he did what he said he planned to do.  
> 
> I just STILL really would like to see that *multistate fraud suit*, but even if he wins on appeal, he isn't addressing that.


I hope this isn't dropped after the convention.

----------


## RonRules

> We successfully quashed The ability of the RNC to file a Motion To dismiss.


I'd sure like to know how he did that.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

If it happened we should be able to find that out.

----------


## sailingaway

NOw that it seems unlikely to be a win media is running it as Ron's 'last chance' and ignoring the suit in Maine for an injunction to seat the Maine delegates, etc.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...legates-suit-/

----------


## devil21

> This court has a clear policy on it's web page that loser pay all court cost, regardless of RG not charging.. it was said also that the RNC lawyer was pro bono.. but the cost for his research and time??? Could he submit costs?


Link to this source that loser automatically pays other side's legal costs?  That's NOT a federal rule and I have a very hard believing that would stand up to legal scutiny.

----------


## sailingaway

> Link to this source that loser automatically pays other side's legal costs?  That's NOT a federal rule and I have a very hard believing that would stand up to legal scutiny.


ditto.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

I have no idea about that.

----------


## libertylastchance

On August 7, 2012, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 12]. This Court’s Order of dismissal [Doc. No. 35] found that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and that the First Amended Complaint therefore failed to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Order permitted Plaintiffs leave to amend so as to give them one final opportunity to state a claim for relief under Section 1971 of the Voting Rights Act.
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 36] the next day. Stunningly, Plaintiffs have fallen even further short of Rule 8(a)’s pleading requirements. Rather than attempt to address this Court’s unambiguous request for a clear statement of facts which would support a claim under Section 1971 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs appear to have simply removed all factual allegations from their First Amended Complaint and styled it as a Second Amended Complaint. Without factual allegations, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is, at best, a request for an advisory opinion. This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a request. See U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1; see also U.S. Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993) (“[A] federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions”). Hence, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.greater force to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and they are hereby incorporated by reference
To the extent this Court chooses to analyze the remaining substance of the Second Amended Complaint; Defendants rely on the arguments and authorities stated in their original Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 7] and their Reply in Support of the same [Doc. No. 29]. These arguments and authorities apply with even For these reasons, Defendants ask this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Dated: August 23, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,
BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACK, LLP

----------


## libertylastchance

Since 2008, courts have consistently acknowledged that at least some e-discovery costs are recoverable by a prevailing party; however, courts are split about which specific costs are actually recoverable. As a starting point, courts look to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which provides that prevailing parties should be allowed to recover their costs unless a federal statute, rule or court directs otherwise. The specific costs that may be taxed are set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. In evaluating the taxability of e-discovery costs, courts rely on the language in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920(4) which provides that the court “may tax as costs ... fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/06...ble-by-the-pre

----------


## libertylastchance

> ditto.


http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/06...ble-by-the-pre

Since 2008, courts have consistently acknowledged that at least some e-discovery costs are recoverable by a prevailing party; however, courts are split about which specific costs are actually recoverable. As a starting point, courts look to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which provides that prevailing parties should be allowed to recover their costs unless a federal statute, rule or court directs otherwise. The specific costs that may be taxed are set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. In evaluating the taxability of e-discovery costs, courts rely on the language in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920(4) which provides that the court “may tax as costs ... fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case

----------


## sailingaway

> http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/06...ble-by-the-pre
> 
> Since 2008, courts have consistently acknowledged that at least some e-discovery costs are recoverable by a prevailing party; however, courts are split about which specific costs are actually recoverable. As a starting point, courts look to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), which provides that prevailing parties should be allowed to recover their costs unless a federal statute, rule or court directs otherwise. The specific costs that may be taxed are set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. In evaluating the taxability of e-discovery costs, courts rely on the language in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920(4) which provides that the court “may tax as costs ... fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case


there hasn't been any e discovery. There wasn't even a complaint.

----------


## devil21

That is a very narrow interpretation.  E-discover costs.  OK.

FRCP 54d1:
(d) Costs; Attorney's Fees.

(1) Costs Other Than Attorney's Fees. Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party. But costs against the United States, its officers, and its agencies may be imposed only to the extent allowed by law. The clerk may tax costs on 14 days’ notice. On motion served within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerk's action.

----------


## CPUd

____



> USA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We sure have Romney shaking like a coward with our case
> 
> 48mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We will not go silently into the night of a police state. Our freedoms will survive. Our Constitution restored. Our children will live free
> 
> 51mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press
> ...

----------


## KingNothing

I'm relatively certain that this guy is insane.  With that said, in the string of lunacy he tweeted, this was included:

"Never quit. If we never quit we will win the war and restore our freedoms"

That is an excellent sentiment.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Is Gilbert going to be in court today?  And, if so, are we going to have any boots on the ground there?

----------


## RonRules

> I'm relatively certain that this guy is insane.


For the first time ever, KnowNothing may have a point:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
On this final day we litigate in the 4th dimension
 View video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Ignore the critics. They are a waste of our time. When they see their loved ones dissappear into Concentration Camps they will know then ...

----------


## CPUd

Enter the 4th dimension:




> PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS' REPLY
> 
> Today, Defendants changed their RNC rules related to denying all Delegates their
> enumerated rights pursuant to the Voting Right Act.
> Defendants' reply is also filed late, past the Court's 1:30 p.m. deadline.
> Had Plaintiffs pled party rules, which were changed today, the RNC would be arguing that
> the Second Amended Complaint was based upon rules that no longer existed.
> 
>  With the new rules made by Defendants today it should become clear to the Court that
> ...


Continued here:
http://www.toolsforjustice.com/Plain...yToDismiss.pdf

----------


## SteveT1736

Gilbert filed today one of the oddest things I've ever seen filed in a Court:  http://www.toolsforjustice.com/Plain...yToDismiss.pdf

Lots of odd thrashing.

In it he states:  "The majority of reasonable people even without a formal education would have no problem reading the Second Amended Complaint and understanding that the Federal Question is whether the enumerated rights set forth in the Voting Rights Act must be applied to the Federal Election commencing Monday in Tampa commonly known as the Republican National Convention."

In effect, he is calling the Judge stupid for deeming his complaint lacking.

There is bunch about recent RNC rule changes, claiming it is a violation of federal law without showing how it is.  

Another section says that the RNC offended the dignity of the appellate court by not filing their pleading with them.  There is no requirement to do so.

It does read like it is geared to a public audience, not the Court.

Really, really sad.


The RNC also filed a motion to dismiss (very short) and set a hearing for 9/24.  Presumably they did that as a backup if the  Judge doesn't dismiss on his own accord.  But, given they are filing one page responses, I don't sense much worry on their part.

I am surprised the Judge didn't rule today.  He'll probably deal with it on Monday.

----------


## CPUd

He's expecting a ruling:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 5::05 pm Pacific - Drama builds - No Rulings from either Court

----------


## SteveT1736

While I was posting that, Gilbert posted a tweet claiming "Drama builds -- No ruling from either Court."

 I would suggest that the drama is coming from one source.

----------


## sailingaway

> Gilbert filed today one of the oddest things I've ever seen filed in a Court:  http://www.toolsforjustice.com/Plain...yToDismiss.pdf
> 
> Lots of odd thrashing.
> 
> In it he states:  "The majority of reasonable people even without a formal education would have no problem reading the Second Amended Complaint and understanding that the Federal Question is whether the enumerated rights set forth in the Voting Rights Act must be applied to the Federal Election commencing Monday in Tampa commonly known as the Republican National Convention."
> 
> In effect, he is calling the Judge stupid for deeming his complaint lacking.
> 
> There is bunch about recent RNC rule changes, claiming it is a violation of federal law without showing how it is.  
> ...


I wonder if the Court is taking judicial notice that the RNC today passed a rule so they can change any of their rules any time without delegate vote? Which would imply that regardless of what the attorney said about not having to follow their own rules, they are pretty concerned about that.

----------


## SteveT1736

I've had a couple personal messages where folks have asked me to explain pleading standard a bit.

Presume that someone had hit me with my bike.  I want to sue.

I file two versions of a complaint:

Version #1:  Someone hit someone.

Version #2:  On August 24, 2012, at approximately 4:00 pm, Jane L. was riding her Giant hybrid bicycle east on S. Main Street.  Near the corner of S. Main Street and 2nd Street, she plowed into Steve T. when she was fiddling with her cell phone.  As a result, Steve T. suffered two broken ribs, a contusion and a concussion.


Version #2 is what is required for a valid complaint:  Who did what to whom, when and where.  What Mr. Gilbert has done is very close to Version #1.  No one can identify what was done by a specific defendant to a specific plaintiff.  They cannot identify even what was specifically done.   The sanction for failure to plead specifics, after being given ample opportunity to amend, is dismissal and a bar to refile the lawsuit.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- Providing a process to change rules is not the same as not following them.   


EDIT:  That was an incomplete thought.  What I was trying to indicate was that today's rule change (I just read about that) doesn't show that action directly impacts anyone inappropriately.  Perhaps requiring rule changes to be done a certain way for a political party might be actionable.  But, just alleging a change doesn't mean a wrong.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Gilbert filed today one of the oddest things I've ever seen filed in a Court:  http://www.toolsforjustice.com/Plain...yToDismiss.pdf
> 
> Lots of odd thrashing.
> 
> In it he states:  "The majority of reasonable people even without a formal education would have no problem reading the Second Amended Complaint and understanding that the Federal Question is whether the enumerated rights set forth in the Voting Rights Act must be applied to the Federal Election commencing Monday in Tampa commonly known as the Republican National Convention."
> 
> *In effect, he is calling the Judge stupid for deeming his complaint lacking.*
> 
> There is bunch about recent RNC rule changes, claiming it is a violation of federal law without showing how it is.  
> ...


No, SteveT, he's calling the Defendants stupid, read it again.

----------


## sailingaway

The RNC guy said they didn't have to follow their own rules anyhow so it didn't matter what happened, essentially, apparently.  Seems they changed their mind.

But I don't know if anything is coming from the suit. I'm sure we'll find out in due time. I'm more interested in the pattern of fraud and abuse suit it turned out not to be, to be honest.

----------


## SteveT1736

Clyde, I have to disagree.  The Judge is the one who officially deemed the complaint incomprehensible.

----------


## No1butPaul

Come on baby---for liberty!!!

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Clyde, I have to disagree.  The Judge is the one who officially deemed the complaint incomprehensible.


Perhaps so, but that's not how Gilbert worded the document you refered to.  He was talking about the defendants when he made that statement.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> The majority of reasonable people even without a formal education would have no problem
> reading the Second Amended Complaint *and understanding* that the Federal Question is whether
> the enumerated rights set forth in the Voting Rights Act must be applied to the "Federal Election"
> commencing Monday in Tampa commonly known as the Republican National Convention.
> *So clearly does the RNC understand* the Second Amended Complaint that they now are
> moving up the Nomination Vote to Monday


It refers to the RNC.

----------


## SteveT1736

Clyde,

Remember the RNC is not the party reading this.  It is the Judge.  The same Judge who said, in writing, that the complaint didn't make any sense.  The specific reference doesn't matter.  The overall context does.  

As I've indicated before, I used to work for a judge.  I guarantee that he wouldn't have overlook something like this.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Clyde,
> 
> Remember the RNC is not the party reading this.  It is the Judge.  The same Judge who said, in writing, that the complaint didn't make any sense.  The specific reference doesn't matter.  The overall context does.  
> 
> As I've indicated before, I used to work for a judge.  I guarantee that he wouldn't have overlook something like this.


You're stretching.  When I read it, I understood it, and I'm just an average joe.  He was discussing the RNC's response.

----------


## CPUd

The windup:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> The Trial Judge has just sent word that at 7:24 pm he ordered the case dismissed. We next must wait to see what the Appellate Court rules


And the pitch:




> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> This is just the begining of our fight to restore liberty. One case does not make a Revolution. We will prepare our next case next week

----------


## afwjam

Well in one of his previous cases he was expecting California to split into two states, one gay friendly and one not. All as a result of the victorious ruling on his case, which I don't think happened.

----------


## SteveT1736

Here's the crux of the Judge's ruling:




> Plaintiffs’ six-page Response to the Order to Show Cause fails to identify a single factual allegation in the Second Amended Complaint about a specific act done by a specific defendant to a specific plaintiff that gives rise to a Voting Rights Act violation,and this Court has found none. See Response (Dkt. 47). In addition, Plaintiffs cite no authority other than one case identified by this Court in its Order to Show Cause. See id.
> 
> Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b).

----------


## The Shazad

> You're stretching.  When I read it, I understood it, and I'm just an average joe.  He was discussing the RNC's response.


I'll settle this. He's saying that about BOTH the RNC's lawyers and the judge. The RNC lawyers directly, and the judge indirectly. There's little chance the judge would have read that and not felt like it was somehow referring to him.

----------


## The Shazad

> Here's the crux of the Judge's ruling:


Could you possibly post a link to the full ruling?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Could you possibly post a link to the full ruling?


^^ THIS ^^

----------


## SteveT1736

I don't know where to link to for the decision.  It is fairly short.  Here is the text.




> This Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). See August 20, 2012, Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 46).
> 
> As the Court explained in that Order to Show Cause:
> 
> "[T]he Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint because
> the vast majority of the pleadings were unintelligible and Plaintiffs’
> sole intelligible allegations failed to state a claim. In Plaintiffs’
> Second Amended Complaint, they appear to have removed all factual
> pleadings and instead request an impermissible advisory opinion from
> ...


Rule 8 allows a complaint to be dismissed for failing to state why the plaintiff is entitled to relief, ie. specific facts showing a wrong.

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to be dismissed for failing to show facts and legal theories that allow a court to rule.

Rule 41(b) allows a complaint to be dismissed for failing to follow a court's order (here, to plead specific facts).

----------


## sailingaway

So we have to decide if it is worth doing a motion to reconsider on that case, or just bring a different multistate federal case with different plaintiffs, or what.  We can put that into the 'after Tampa' discussions.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- Anybody involved as a plaintiff in these lawsuit is likely barred from bringing another.

I reread your posting after I posted.  It looks like you realize that.  My apologies.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway -- Anybody involved as a plaintiff in these lawsuit is likely barred from bringing another.


That is where the motion to reconsider would come in, but we have hundreds and hundreds of state and national delegates who were not involved in the lawsuit.

Many never made it to national specifically BECAUSE of fraud and rule breaking at lower levels.

----------


## SteveT1736

The real question now is if the Defendants seek attorney fees.  I saw the discussion above about costs.  Attorney fees are the more dramatic aspect.  The Court has deemed the lawsuit frivolous.  The only issue is the amount of the attorney fees.  The real kicker is that every Plaintiff would be liable for the full amount and the Defendants could pursue one or all to collect the amount.

It will be interesting to see what the Defendants do.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Whatever we do, please let us keep this as far away from Gilbert as we can get.  He reflects upon us poorly.

----------


## RonRules

I uploaded all the court files since Aug. 23rd. About 50 people downloaded the previous files, so I'm sure you're finding this useful.

PlaintiffOppositiontoDefendantReplyToDismiss
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580874

ProposedOrderGrantingDefendantsMotionToDismissPlai  ntiffsSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580882

MemorandumOfPointsAndAutoritiesInSupportOfDefendan  tsMotionToDismissPlaintiffsSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580863

PlaintifffsOppositionToDefendantsMotionToDismissSe  condAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580872

DefendantsReplyToPlaintiffsOppositionToMotionToDis  missSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580869

PlaintiffsOppositionToDefendantsReplyToDismissSeco  ndAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580886

OrderDismissingCaseWithPrejudiceAndDenyingDefendan  tsMotionAsMoot
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580878


*Quick question Steve or other lawyers:* 

Does having a case dismissed without prejudice "for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)" still allow a case to be re-filed, hopefully this time with facts backing it up? Since the case was not denied on it's merits per-se, but because of lack of facts, I would think we could re-file with a more competent attorney? Correct?

----------


## SteveT1736

RonRules -- This was dismissed with prejudice which means it cannot be refiled.  It was denied for lack of merits (when you don't plead facts that is the consequence) and now is barred.  This probably prevents any of these Plaintiffs from doing anything.  Plus, the risk of paying the Defendants' attorney's fees.

----------


## sailingaway

> RonRules -- This was dismissed with prejudice which means it cannot be refiled.  It was denied for lack of merits (when you don't plead facts that is the consequence) and now is barred.  This probably prevents any of these Plaintiffs from doing anything.  Plus, the risk of paying the Defendants' attorney's fees.


a motion to reconsider can be filed to reopen it, but the pleadings and orders may also be useful in filing a new case.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- The problem with a motion to reconsider is that there usually has to be an error by the Court.  Here, the problem is on the part of the Plaintiffs.  The hurdle is even higher because the Court gave the Plaintiffs a chance to fix the problem and Gilbert did exactly the opposite of what the Court requested.  I don't think that is remotely viable.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I don't read nor comprehend legalese so much of this thread lately went over my head. But how did all of this evidence of corruption fall flat on its face? I don't get it.

----------


## sailingaway

I said either or, obviously we would seek advice before spending money on either.  Not yours, I think.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't read nor comprehend legalese so much of this thread lately went over my head. But how did all of this evidence of corruption fall flat on its face? I don't get it.


he took all the evidence out. It was the damndest thing.  But we can do our own if the community supports it.

----------


## SteveT1736

A significant issue now is mootness.   If the issue was behavior that prevented one from being a delegate at the national convention, how can a court now address it (once the convention has passed)?

----------


## sailingaway

> A significant issue now is mootness.   If the issue was behavior that prevented one from being a delegate at the national convention, how can a court now address it (once the convention has passed)?


we won't raise it in that context.  I'm not interested in the suit Gilbert filed.  I want to use rampant fraud and abuse along with collusion with states through ballot access laws and taxpayer funding of major parties automatically with huge barriers to entry, to say this disenfranchises voters who have no other realistic option.  I'd like to see systemic changes getting rid of those barriers to entry.  A non-trivial side effect would be outing the fraud and abuse, and of course those damaged in this go round would be entitled to damages.

but we'd need to bounce it around.

Thank you for your concern, however.

----------


## sailingaway

Also, if we do bring our own suit I think we need to set up a board and process to run it.  I don't even suggest the campaign run it, because then might have political pressures on them to settle it, and I'm not sure we'd like that.

Besides, the campaign will be unwinding when the campaign is over.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- That was interesting.

What would the basis for making in easier to get on the ballot?  I remember (reaching back 20 years) that a state can create reasonable barriers to getting on the ballot . . signature requirements, filing fees, etc.   I suspect parties are pretty free (actually, now I think about it, there is a Supreme Court decision on this point) to choose who their candidates are and limit who can be nominated and the procedures to be followed.

I wonder if the better course may be approaching state legislatures to make substantive changes.

----------


## sailingaway

It would be the collusion aspect making it easier for major parties. That would be for the judge to decide.  

The new rules changes will make it even more evident how rigged the internal system is so that there has to be actual realistic opportunity in a national campaign for non major party candidates.  Plus it would raise the profile of the egregious power grab Romney's attorney is trying in the rules changes, which is a good thing in itself.

Besides your way doesn't get recompense from the people and state parties who committed fraud and abuse.  That is a big part of it.  They count on people 'moving on' after a campaign.

But unlike traditional campaigns, we have a grassroots organization between campaigns.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

Aren't there constitutional lawyers, like the ones who defended Brandon Raub, who might take a case defending victims of election fraud (by victims, I mean the people and the process)?

----------


## sailingaway

Also in a presidential campaign the barriers to entry and disenfranchisement are a federal concern, trumping state law.

----------


## sailingaway

> Aren't there constitutional lawyers, like the ones who defended Brandon Raub, who might take a case defending victims of election fraud (by victims, I mean the people and the process)?


to be honest, I think we are going to need to start a new thread to discuss this, after Tampa. The Rutherford attorneys might do it, but the downside is then you don't control if they settle or drop a case, or really the shape of it. It would depend on how much funding we could get whether we'd want to go that way, I should think.

----------


## SteveT1736

Courts don't simply say something was wrong.  The issue has to be redressible.  I don't know how you make someone a delegate to an event that has already occurred.  I'm not seeing monetary damages.  Further, generally speaking, courts don't rule on future or potential harms. 

I'm curious to see how the Maine suit is resolved.  While well-pleaded, time is the enemy.  I'll bet the Court dismisses for mootness.

----------


## sailingaway

> Courts don't simply say something was wrong.  The issue has to be redressible.  I don't know how you make someone a delegate to an event that has already occurred.  I'm not seeing monetary damages.  Further, generally speaking, courts don't rule on future or potential harms. 
> 
> I'm curious to see how the Maine suit is resolved.  While well-pleaded, time is the enemy.  I'll bet the Court dismisses for mootness.


The issue would be redressible by getting rid of barriers to entry in state law and federal funding.  OR in the alternative.... I can think of quite a list.  You narrow this so far to not find an issue, it is no longer reality.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> to be honest, I think we are going to need to start a new thread to discuss this, after Tampa. The Rutherford attorneys might do it, but the downside is then you don't control if they settle or drop a case, or really the shape of it. It would depend on how much funding we could get whether we'd want to go that way, I should think.


I agree with starting a new thread. 

I don't understand what you mean by settle or drop. Are you saying that lawyers could just drop or settle a case against the wishes of the people they represent? 

I just pm'd RG via twitter and asked him if he can address the question of whether the defendants in his case can seek costs etc. and whom would be liable.

----------


## SteveT1736

Both ballot restrictions and federal funding have been upheld as constitutional already (I personally disfavor both).  Courts tend to follow previous cases.  I think that would be a losing hand.

But, issues concerning voting (with the exception of the race-related protections of the Voting Rights Act) really are issues for state legislatures.  If you want it different in your state, lobby your legislators.

----------


## sailingaway

The other cases that lost were not on this theory with these facts. We have a LOT of facts.  Similar repeated patterns across the nation, in fact.  Gilbert simply had an allergy to facts (not fair, he wasn't as immersed in them and didn't know true from false, and had a specific legal question he wanted to pitch, nothing else. Regardless, his case is a different case.)

And this is a national case and this is most particularly relevant in an national campaign because other parties are less squeezed out when they only have to campaign locally.  On a national basis it becomes realistically near or actually impossible given the network of barriers to entry.  I think you need to go to the place they all overlap, which is the presidential race, to best illustrate that to a court.

However, we will get into it more after Tampa.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> ChristopherShelley --
> 
> Mr. Gilbert's characterization is inaccurate and, frankly, deceptive.
> 
> He is facing dismissal because HE has not bothered to plead specific facts linking wrongs by the defendants to wrongs suffered by the plaintiffs.  That is a pre-condition for every lawsuit.   That is not some new burden on him.
> 
> The issue is NOT that the Judge cannot determine what he is asking.  It is that the Judge has no specific wrongs to apply the law at issue to and craft a remedy for.  That is Gilbert's job -- one at which he has utterly failed.
> 
> There is another issue that has not had much discussion. What Gilbert is asking the Court to do is determine whether or not the Voting Rights Act applies to a political convention -- without anyone being wronged (remember the lack of specific facts).  That is called an advisory opinion and those in our court system are not allowed (mostly for constitutional reasons going back to the early days of the Republic).  Courts do not address hypotheticals. They must handle actual wrongs.
> ...


While at times I have thought your motives here are questionable from some of the things you say Steve, I have to agree with you here.

Having sat in court and heard everything the judge said to Gilbert just before issuing his ruling to dismiss the first time, clearly the judge wanted Gilbert to put some substance into the (second) amended complaint, and even though people here were trying to get more specifics to him, Gilbert chose to go the other direction with it.  I'm really disappointed personally.  It's like the judge handed Gilbert a road map and Gilbert threw it in the trash and started driving in the opposite direction, away from the destination.

The good news of course is that there are still plenty of other ways in which a suit could be brought for all the election fraud.  The fact this case was dismissed with prejudice means little.  It just means these plaintiffs cannot sue again for the exact same reason under the exact same law.  I'm guessing there are still plenty of other angles to pursue this.

With a different lawyer.  

I hope everyone involved kept copies of their affadavits and lists of YouTube videos & other evidence... And/or maybe if another attorney takes on a new case perhaps if Gilbert is truly the "freedom fighter" he imagines himself to be, then he won't mind handing over everything for the new effort.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Both ballot restrictions and federal funding have been upheld as constitutional already (I personally disfavor both).  Courts tend to follow previous cases.  I think that would be a losing hand.
> 
> But, issues concerning voting (with the exception of the race-related protections of the Voting Rights Act) really are issues for state legislatures.  If you want it different in your state, lobby your legislators.


So, to clarify, you think that whatever the next legal action is, it should not be at the federal level?

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree with starting a new thread. 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by settle or drop. Are you saying that lawyers could just drop or settle a case against the wishes of the people they represent? 
> 
> I just pm'd RG via twitter and asked him if he can address the question of whether the defendants in his case can seek costs etc. and whom would be liable.


As a practical matter if the campaign or the Rutherford attorneys are paying for it they will have a ton of control over settling it and may require plaintiffs, to be represented, to sign that they can settle it in some fashion.

----------


## sailingaway

> So, to clarify, you think that whatever the next legal action is, it should not be at the federal level?


You are listening to a guy who frequented Mitt Romney Central Chat?

----------


## WhistlinDave

I also agree with starting a new thread.

I'm going to throw this out there, and I expect some people will think this idea is totally ridiculous, but...

Maybe Gloria Allred would be interested in taking on this case?  The reasons I suggest her are:


1.  She's a huge attention whore.  When the whole Tiger Woods mistresses thing happened, she made this apparent.  Win or lose, it would be nice to get some major national coverage of all this election fraud.

2.  She's a damn good attorney.  With all the evidence, I believe she could easily win it.

3.  I'm guessing she would love to be involved in bringing corrupt GOP people to their knees.  (Because of her political leanings.)

4.  If this is a class action suit for all the fraud, and punitive damages are sought, then it could easily go into the millions of dollars.

5.  Based on #1, 3, and especially #4 above, maybe she would even do it pro bono if she knew how much evidence there is?

----------


## sailingaway

I'd rather we hired steady attorneys to handle this.  But it will depend on if we can raise enough money. I would only go to attention whores if we couldn't get the financial support.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> You are listening to a guy who frequented Mitt Romney Central Chat?


I meant that question more as one to help define what he and anyone else thought was the best way to pursue a case.

I can't keep up with who is accused of what around here. I try, but I'm more concerned with facts and strategy that pertain to how a case could be successful.

also

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

We should not expect a ruling from the Appellate Court before Monday. They may decide the case is now moot


11:13 AM - 25 Aug 12

----------


## sailingaway

> I meant that question more as one to help define what he and anyone else thought was the best way to pursue a case.
> 
> I can't keep up with who is accused of what around here. I try, but I'm more concerned with facts and strategy that pertain to how a case could be successful.
> 
> also
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We should not expect a ruling from the Appellate Court before Monday. They may decide the case is now moot
> ...


I just meant analyze what he says with your own brain.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

To me, it is pretty clear.

If crimes were committed, the law was broken and people must be defended. 

If there is no one who was/is willing to take that on, honestly and competently, then I don't know what to make of the situation.


I'm waiting to hear back from RG about the PM I sent regarding the question of whether the defendants in his case would be able to seek costs, etc.

----------


## sailingaway

> To me, it is pretty clear.
> 
> If crimes were committed, the law was broken and people must be defended. 
> 
> If there is no one who was/is willing to take that on, honestly and competently, then I don't know what to make of the situation.
> 
> 
> I'm waiting to hear back from RG about the PM I sent regarding the question of whether the defendants in his case would be able to seek costs, etc.


Just because someone doesn't jump in today doesn't mean it won't happen.  After Tampa we will need to decide what to do.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> I just meant analyze what he says with your own brain.


Thanks, I will try that.

This is the message I received from RG.

"No. It can not happen . This was discussed many times throuhoutthe case. I am nota member so maybe you can tell them "

I will ask him to tweet this or whatever so that it is clear what his understanding/position is on this.

----------


## libertylastchance

#52 8.24 order to dismiss
 Full docket text for document 52:
 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge David O. Carter Dismissing Case with Prejudice and Denying Defendants' Motion as Moot [48]. This Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). On August 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48). The next day, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (Dkt. 49). Because the Court dismisses with prejudice, the Court DENIES AS MOOT that Motion. (See Order for further details) (db)

----------


## sailingaway

yes, that was posted a few pages ago

----------


## ChristopherShelley

We Are Liberty Radio ‏@WeRLibertyRadio

@USA_Free_Press Richard, can you please make a public statement regarding the concern as to whether the defendants in your case can seek


2:47 PM - 25 Aug 12 via web 


We Are Liberty Radio ‏@WeRLibertyRadio

@USA_Free_Press court costs, etc. from the plaintiffs, i.e. those who participated in supporting your case?

2:48 PM - 25 Aug 12 via web · Details

----------


## sailingaway

I don't know that we want to start pushing the ideas of costs on twitter.  It is POSSIBLE they would get them.  It is just then that would make it more likely people would be spurred to show the court why the suit isn't frivolous by reopening it.

----------


## SteveT1736

Section 1973(e) [of the Voting Rights Act] provides that a court, "in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney's fee" in "any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment." 42 U.S.C. § 1973(e).  This action was under the 14th Amendment guarantee.

There is case law that defendants in a voting rights case, where the case was dismissed under Rule 8 or Rule 12(b)(6) are the prevailing party and such frivolous actions entitle them to attorney fees.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> I don't know that we want to start pushing the ideas of costs on twitter.  It is POSSIBLE they would get them.  It is just then that would make it more likely people would be spurred to show the court why the suit isn't frivolous by reopening it.


I'm not sure I understood this.

So you mean that public information as to whether the defendants are responsible for any costs that the defendants seek in RG's case might inhibit people from pursuing any future cases?

----------


## SteveT1736

Here's the key Supreme Court case on the topic:

In Christiansburg Garment Co., the Court concluded that a "prevailing defendant" in a civil rights suit could not recover his fees and costs from the plaintiff unless there had been a showing "that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith." _Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission_, 434 U.S. 412 (1978).

A case dismissed under Rule 8 or 12(b)(6) meets that standard for award of fees.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> Here's the key Supreme Court case on the topic:
> 
> In Christiansburg Garment Co., the Court concluded that a "prevailing defendant" in a civil rights suit could not recover his fees and costs from the plaintiff unless there had been a showing "that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith." _Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission_, 434 U.S. 412 (1978).
> 
> A case dismissed under Rule 8 or 12(b)(6) meets that standard for award of fees.


I can't speak to the actual laws. I just don't want the plaintiffs stuck with a dime owed to anyone from this case.

----------


## SteveT1736

ChistopherShelley -- My point is that, if the Defendants desire, they can force the Plaintiffs to pay their attorney fees and costs.  Whether they will seek to do so is unknowable.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Has anyone thought about contacting The Institute for Justice to litigate for us?

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> ChistopherShelley -- My point is that, if the Defendants desire, they can force the Plaintiffs to pay their attorney fees and costs.  Whether they will seek to do so is unknowable.


I don't know what to say, other than I will be pitching in to help cover any costs. I am flabbergasted.

----------


## SteveT1736

When you file a lawsuit, you bear the risk of paying for the costs the other side pays to defend against your suit.  With a Voter Rights Act case, you better not file one without a basis.  Here, the problem was not even bothering to provide a factual basis.  

I just saw Mr. Gilbert's tweet on the attorney fees issue ("I have discussed with Plaintiffs many times that There are no issues of attorney fees or costs").  I think it is highly misleading if not flat-out false.


My guess is that Defendants' attorney fees are somewhere between $40,000 and $100,000.

----------


## BSU kid

I wonder if Gilbert could be disbarred for mishandling this case so badly.

----------


## SteveT1736

There may be merit to an argument that he has consistently misrepresented the risk of litigation and what is occurring in the case.  If what he is communicating to the plaintiffs mirrors what he is doing publicly, then there could be a problem.

----------


## sailingaway

> When you file a lawsuit, you bear the risk of paying for the costs the other side pays to defend against your suit.  With a Voter Rights Act case, you better not file one without a basis.  Here, the problem was not even bothering to provide a factual basis.  
> 
> I just saw Mr. Gilbert's tweet on the attorney fees issue ("I have discussed with Plaintiffs many times that There are no issues of attorney fees or costs").  I think it is highly misleading if not flat-out false.
> 
> 
> My guess is that Defendants' attorney fees are somewhere between $40,000 and $100,000.


Wasn't the attorney for RNC also pro bono? I read that somewhere.

However, if they go after our delegate plaintiffs we will have to see what can be done, obviously.

----------


## RonRules

> I wonder if Gilbert could be disbarred for mishandling this case so badly.


Congratulations, that was post #2000 on the thread.

For Gilbert, no good deed ever goes unpunished! But frankly, he should seriously consider retirement.

----------


## sailingaway

> Congratulations, that was post #2000 on the thread.
> 
> For Gilbert, no good deed ever goes unpunished! But frankly, he should seriously consider retirement.


If he was in good faith, he was someone who did something and thought that was the only way to get it done before convention.  His skills were part of the package.  If he wasn't in good faith -- that's a different story.

----------


## afwjam

> You are listening to a guy who frequented Mitt Romney Central Chat?


You know anybody can type any name in to use in that chat and then screenshot it.

----------


## sailingaway

> You know anybody can type any name in to use in that chat and then screenshot it.


Yeah, but that screen shot of Mitt's forum was in a thread here in May and he didn't show up here until August.  I think that's a stretch.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- Please look at my join date.  I think that is the date of approval not application.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway -- Please look at my join date.  I think that is the date of approval not application.


I wasn't parsing carefully.  You joined after our run in with Mitt Romney forums, but you never posted until on this lawsuit in August, to say how bad it was, in conjunction with someone else saying how bad it was.  So the idea that someone here, before you ever posted, tried to frame you in May, is unlikely.

YOU haven't been banned, because you have been a decent neighbor if a dissenting voice, but I can't say I consider you unbiased on this topic. I believe it is the ONLY thread you have commented on.

----------


## SteveT1736

As I've indicated, my interest isn't the politics.  It is the lawsuit.

----------


## sailingaway

> As I've indicated, my interest isn't the politics.  It is the lawsuit.


I understand. But you always seem to take an argumentative viewpoint from one side of it.

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- That is a fair criticism.   I'm obviously cynical of the success possibilities of Mr. Gilbert's effort.  When I read the first complaint, I realized the problems right off the bat.  I thought I could play a role here in explaining what was going on.  I've tried to carefully avoid commenting on the underlying merit of the issues behind the suit (mostly because I don't know them that well). 

I've been doing a series of writing projects and it has been interesting to monitor the posts.   Frankly, it has been a fascinating experience but one that is coming to an end.  I've kind of enjoyed the personalities here.

----------


## ChristopherShelley

> sailingaway -- That is a fair criticism.   I'm obviously cynical of the success possibilities of Mr. Gilbert's effort.  When I read the first complaint, I realized the problems right off the bat.  I thought I could play a role here in explaining what was going on.  I've tried to carefully avoid commenting on the underlying merit of the issues behind the suit (mostly because I don't know them that well). 
> 
> I've been doing a series of writing projects and it has been interesting to monitor the posts.   Frankly, it has been a fascinating experience but one that is coming to an end.  I've kind of enjoyed the personalities here.


I find that post to be perverse and it disgusts me.

This has never been some kind of sick exercise in observation or intellectual interest for me.

My conscience is clear.

I did what I thought was right.

I'm done with this for now.

I hope to God that something good comes out of this. And if it doesn't then I will do whatever I can to rectify the situation.

But this has never been a game for me, and I am more certain now, with that post, that for months I have been dealing with some people who view this whole thing with a detachment that I cannot accept.

----------


## erowe1

> sailingaway -- That is a fair criticism.   I'm obviously cynical of the success possibilities of Mr. Gilbert's effort.  When I read the first complaint, I realized the problems right off the bat.  I thought I could play a role here in explaining what was going on.  I've tried to carefully avoid commenting on the underlying merit of the issues behind the suit (mostly because I don't know them that well). 
> 
> I've been doing a series of writing projects and it has been interesting to monitor the posts.   Frankly, it has been a fascinating experience but one that is coming to an end.  I've kind of enjoyed the personalities here.


Great post.
+rep

----------


## WhistlinDave

> I'd rather we hired steady attorneys to handle this.  But it will depend on if we can raise enough money. I would only go to attention whores if we couldn't get the financial support.


If I can ever get another job I will certainly contribute what I can if a real effort with a competent attorney happens.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway -- That is a fair criticism.   I'm obviously cynical of the success possibilities of Mr. Gilbert's effort.  When I read the first complaint, I realized the problems right off the bat.  I thought I could play a role here in explaining what was going on.  I've tried to carefully avoid commenting on the underlying merit of the issues behind the suit (mostly because I don't know them that well). 
> 
> I've been doing a series of writing projects and it has been interesting to monitor the posts.   Frankly, it has been a fascinating experience but one that is coming to an end.  I've kind of enjoyed the personalities here.


You can drop by to chat, when you are bored.  If one thing isn't going on, there's another.

----------


## Veteran Citizen

> Wasn't the attorney for RNC also pro bono? I read that somewhere.
> 
> However, if they go after our delegate plaintiffs we will have to see what can be done, obviously.



That can change suddenly when he realizes that he can make people he isn't supporting pay him.

We'll have to wait and see, but they ask for attorney's fees simply to discourage any other suits without competent lawyers leading them.  I said early on that Gilbert was not right in the head, but didn't want to pile on too much.  He did try, he just didn't have what it takes.

----------


## RonRules

FYI, as of today Gilbert is still at it:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Today I shall fight to the final moment in the Appellate Court to seek a ruling

At this point, I'm looking forward to the US Supreme court telling him to GTFO.

----------


## No1butPaul

Skip to 1:28 Interview with Richard Gilbert - regarding rule changes, Romney dictatorship w/in own part, etc.




Our case is alive ... We are in the court of appeals...
It's not an appeal, it's a fast-moving writ...We may have a ruling Monday (today) or Tuesday...
They could dismiss, or write an historic opinion...
Romney wanted the vote to be moved to Monday because he is frightened of the appellate case...
Romney is trying to subterfuge the law...
If he wants to defy the appellate court, they may order the whole nominating vote may be done a second time...
He wants to be President of the United States, but wants to be a dictator in his own party?...
Romney is a sociopath...Romney doesn't believe in freedom or the constitution...

----------


## RonRules

> Romney wanted the vote to be moved to Monday because he is frightened of the appellate case...


Moving the nomination to Monday was kind of odd, considering that this supposed hurricane looked no worse than that Main snowstorm.

It is possible that this is the motivation, but looking at how relaxed the RNC took this lawsuit, with one lawyer at the court and one paragraph opposition to motions, it is unlikely that the appellate case really freaks them out.

----------


## sailingaway

> Moving the nomination to Monday was kind of odd, considering that this supposed hurricane looked no worse than that Main snowstorm.
> 
> It is possible that this is the motivation, but looking at how relaxed the RNC took this lawsuit, with one lawyer at the court and one paragraph opposition to motions, it is unlikely that the appellate case really freaks them out.


the judge told him in detail to do one thing, saying another wouldn't work and he chose not to do what the judge said and to appeal what the judge said wouldn't work, and that is risky, to put it mildly, but does indeed put it on a fast track.   I'd have done both, at minimum.  The problem is, as I said all along, having the delegates in the room to vote for ANYONE. That is where they simply cheated and THAT is what I'd like to be challenging, but he is doing the work and controls the case.  This case, anyhow.

----------


## RonRules

> 


Incidentally, yesterday I made a comment on that video that I would prefer if Gilbert dropped the appellate case since he totally screwed up the lower court case. The comment was deleted. I was in the court room and the judge was initially clearly on our side and told Gilbert with no uncertain terms how to refile, that is with FACTS.

Gilbert ignored the judge and all of us that tried to give him the facts, including an attorney he knows well.

I also suspect that the 120 affidavits he received from the plaintiffs (including mine) were NOT included in his submittal to the court. I worked a lot on mine, got it notarized and sent it to him Fed Ex as well as a scanned PDF e-mail to make absolutely sure he got it and would not have to print it. It think he never read it and just trashed it.

I also gave him another copy in court, in case he needed to refer to it. He seemed like he knew nothing about it.

Because of his big ego, he ignored everybody and now we have high risk of losing the appellate case, which will be precedent setting.

I've clearly had it with that guy.

----------


## sailingaway

> Incidentally, yesterday I made a comment on that video that I would prefer if Gilbert dropped the appellate case since he totally screwed up the lower court case. The comment was deleted. I was in the court room and the judge was initially clearly on our side and told Gilbert with no uncertain terms how to refile, that is with FACTS.
> 
> Gilbert ignored the judge and all of us that tried to give him the facts, including an attorney he knows well.
> 
> I also suspect that the 120 affidavits he received from the plaintiffs (including mine) were NOT included in his submittal to the court. I worked a lot on mine, got it notarized and sent it to him Fed Ex as well as a scanned PDF e-mail to make absolutely sure he got it and would not have to print it. It think he never read it and just trashed it.
> 
> I also gave him another copy in court, in case he needed to refer to it. He seemed like he knew nothing about it.
> 
> Because of his big ego, he ignored everybody and now we have high risk of losing the appellate case, which will be precedent setting.
> ...


It will only be precedent setting on what it takes to plead a complaint, however, unless there is a motion to consider, those plaintiffs may not be able to bring a similar case. Not sure on precisely the boundaries of that.

We have hundreds of potential plaintiffs, however.  But that was my biggest concern with the case and why I wanted to get him facts to win the motion, but he moved too fast.

----------


## RonRules

Speaking of the storm, this is a current picture and it's far from Tampa:

----------


## SteveT1736

Mr. Gilbert says that the reason the case was dismissed at the District Court level is the following:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@jberk1 The Judge could not understand the Question -Does the Voting Rights Act apply to the Republican National Convention? (42 U.S.C.1971)

That is a rather creative interpretation.  Again, it implies the Judge is stupid when that wasn't the issue at all.  The sole reason it was dismissed was a failure to plead any specific facts.

He also indicates:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Today I shall fight to the final moment in the Appellate Court to seek a ruling

I have no idea what that references.  He filed an appeal.  There is nothing more to do than see if the 9th Circuit will take it up (unlikely in my estimation).   There is no "fight" left to do at this point.

The 9th Circuit can choose to deny/accept the appellate write based on the writing, request additional briefing, set it for oral argument or just ignore it.  Purely discretionary.  I think they will probably deny on the grounds of mootness, ie. there is nothing now the Court could do to fix the claimed wrong.

----------


## Chadd Murray

> Mr. Gilbert says that the reason the case was dismissed at the District Court level is the following:
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @jberk1 The Judge could not understand the Question -Does the Voting Rights Act apply to the Republican National Convention? (42 U.S.C.1971)
> 
> That is a rather creative interpretation.  Again, it implies the Judge is stupid when that wasn't the issue at all.  The sole reason it was dismissed was a failure to plead any specific facts.
> 
> He also indicates:
> 
> ...


Furthermore, I believe the judge stated specifically in regards to:




> @jberk1 The Judge could not understand the Question -Does the Voting Rights Act apply to the Republican National Convention? (42 U.S.C.1971)


That the court does not give such advisory opinions.

----------


## Sentinelrv

Here are some recent tweets from Richard...

*Aug 28:* "The Appellate Court has Just announced that there will be an Order issued in this case. The Court did not say if it will be today"

*18 Hours Ago:* "The Organized Crime stage is fully set. RNC is panicked by unusual Appellate Court announcement & filed a new brief. We shall wait calmly"

*9 Hours Ago:* "I continue to fight our case. Win or lose, I believe the Appellate Court is writing a historic ruling - This time for all Americans"

*5 Hours Ago:* "Our case is alive after all the ammunition has been launched by the RNC and all other parties. Something very big is happening"

*5 Hours Ago:* "Our Delegates will be making a statement that the Liberty Movement shall never forget" *Possibly talking about today's delegate press conference?*

*4 Hours Ago:* "Our delegates will be remembered for their defining statement"

----------


## S.Shorland

Aren't there any other lawyers apart from Mr Gilbert available who can give a second opinion?

----------


## brandon

What a surprise, this all turned out to be an embarrassing waste of time.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Not only did I listen, but participated with a question. I'm identified as Ron from PA. I'm sure one of your NON lazy ass friends will sum it up for you.


sum it up and stop being selfish, hughes net i wish you had it. then you can try to stream 4 minutes in 30 minutes. If it was really big news it would be front page and being talked about.

----------


## erowe1

> What a surprise, this all turned out to be an embarrassing waste of time.


There's still hope that we can have another lawsuit that instructs the electors that they are free to vote their conscience, and they are not bound to vote for the candidates who won their states.

----------


## RonRules

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
If I was contacted by the FBI, even last night, about some election fraud evidence, I could not tell you - such investigations are secret

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Our case is alive after all the ammunition has been launched by the RNC and all other parties. Something very big is happening.

Gilbert may have been contacted by the FBI, but then maybe not.  Note: *If* I was contacted ...

Looks like he's filed ANOTHER appellate brief:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Organized Crime stage is fully set. RNC is panicked by unusual Appellate Court announcement & filed a new brief. We shall wait calmly

----------


## tod evans

$#@!ing cryptic BS...

Why in the world would anyone choose to communicate like that?

----------


## erowe1

> $#@!ing cryptic BS...
> 
> Why in the world would anyone choose to communicate like that?


He kind of reminds me of Larry Sinclair.

----------


## No1butPaul

> $#@!ing cryptic BS...
> 
> Why in the world would anyone choose to communicate like that?


But you can't stop looking at his cryptic BS though, eh?

----------


## tod evans

> But you can't stop looking at his cryptic BS though, eh?


I check this thread hoping for a miracle.........

I'll keep checking and hoping too.

----------


## No1butPaul

> I check this thread hoping for a miracle.........
> 
> I'll keep checking and hoping too.


Really, we don't seem to have much else to hope for.  :\

----------


## sailingaway

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> If I was contacted by the FBI, even last night, about some election fraud evidence, I could not tell you - such investigations are secret
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> Our case is alive after all the ammunition has been launched by the RNC and all other parties. Something very big is happening.
> 
> Gilbert may have been contacted by the FBI, but then maybe not.  Note: *If* I was contacted ...
> 
> Looks like he's filed ANOTHER appellate brief:
> ...


Man, I'm sure the appelate court gave him more time than that, and I WISH he would open up to suggestions.  If the Appellate court didn't dismiss the case I would guess the are HOPING for facts, and we have tons, especially now.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Man, I'm sure the appelate court gave him more time than that, and I WISH he would open up to suggestions.  If the Appellate court didn't dismiss the case I would guess the are HOPING for facts, and we have tons, especially now.


If he would just go with the greenpapers article he could get things rolling.  I just don't understand, it seems he wants it handed to him in a silver cup then raise to his mouth and help him swallow.

----------


## CPUd

> $#@!ing cryptic BS...
> 
> Why in the world would anyone choose to communicate like that?


This is his *business model* :

----------


## Arbusto

[QUOTE=CPUd;4615930]This is his *business model* :



This is what it feel like.  I must be silly for still following his tweets and refreshing this forum...waiting for actual information.  Is there a place to trace this court?  People posting information from PACER was quite handy in actually getting information out of the case.

----------


## rb3b3

I am now convinced that Gilbert is a $#@! atty!!! Don't get me wrong I appreciate all his hard work I really do, but we have an enormous case here andi just wish a different more powerful attorney was handling it! Gilbert does not want to take any recomendationsn from any of us and it sucks!

----------


## CPUd

Anybody see Appellate Court filings in PACER?  I think this guy is mostly talking out of his ass, but he is claiming the RNC have filed some things:





> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> If we are the prevailing party, all new candidates have a chance to walk through the doors we will have blown open
> 
> 
> 3h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> I will continue posting Court documents at http://ElectionFraudRemedy.com  Some docs are not yet posted
> 
> 
> 3h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> ...





So basically, if the Appellate Court throws out his case, he can appeal to the Supreme Court?

----------


## No1butPaul

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Justices are taking painstaking time to write an opinion that will be one of the great cases in history and stand up in the Supreme Ct
Expand
 Reply  Retweet  Favorite
58m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@mattyTLOOK Thanks Matty. All is well and I am feeling positive about events in the Appellate Court.
 View conversation
 Reply  Retweet  Favorite
59m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The longer the Appellate Court takes the more likely, not guaranteed, is the chance a historic opinion is being written in our favor
Expand
 Reply  Retweet  Favorite
1h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Romney fearful of our case was forced to advance the fraudulent nomination vote under a mistaken belief advancing the vote subterfuges Order

----------


## sailingaway

Maybe the court is trying to figure out how much it can take judicial notice of, at the appellate level...

----------


## SteveT1736

Mr. Gilbert's tweets seem highly disconnected from the reality of the situation.

In his appellate request, Gilbert asked for one of three things:

1) Overturn the District Court's ORIGINAL order dismissing the case, not the second and final, one.

2) Rule on the question of whether the Voting Rights Act applies to a party's national convention and, if so, bars state statutes binding delegates.

3) Direct the District Court to rule before the RNC.


Several problems. . . First, the motion to dismiss references the origin Judge's order which allowed Gilbert to amend.  The case was finally dismissed because of how he handled the amending process.  This request, referencing the original motion to dismiss is clearly moot

Second, the issue of the Voting Rights Act is also moot -- because the RNC has already been held.

Third, the request to direct the District Court to rule before the RNC is also moot for the same reason.

An appellate court only considers what is requested.  Gilbert didn't request anything that can be dealt with NOW by the 9th Circuit.  The RNC brief makes these points -- and they are correct here.

The probable reason for the delay is that a judge's law clerk hasn't gotten around to drafting something.  It could be months or a few days or, conceivably, never.

----------


## sailingaway

whatever. We'll find out when the appellate court does it. Then we might do our own things.

Did you see this?  




and this?

----------


## RonRules

> Second, the issue of the Voting Rights Act is also moot -- because the RNC has already been held.


FYI, Gilbert thinks the appellate court will make the delegates REVOTE!

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@AndyMurthi @TwittingLiberty @Strange_Times67 @iworkiron -- The Justices can order the convention to reconvene for a new vote

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@Strange_Times67 @iworkiron @TwittingLiberty We may have an Order for a new vote. Romney's nomination may be ordered invalid

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
I think it is a good sign in our favor that they are taking time to write a very detailed opinion that will hold up in the US Supreme Court.

----------


## No1butPaul

One thing Gilbert is 100% right about is we are dealing with an organized crime syndicate. I don't care how much money is involved, they will eventually be taken down. Don't you agree SteveT?

God bless Mr. Gilbert for trying to get some justice. Don't you agree with that also SteveT. Don't you agree Romney is a scumbag and criminal not suited fir the oval office? Take your time.

----------


## RonRules

> One thing Gilbert is 100% right about is we are dealing with an organized crime syndicate. I don't care how much money is involved, they will eventually be taken down. Don't you agree SteveT?
> 
> God bless Mr. Gilbert for trying to get some justice. Don't you agree with that also SteveT. Don't you agree Romney is a scumbag and criminal not suited fir the oval office? Take your time.


That was a great 1,000th post! I also wonder if SteveT will admit that Romney runs a crime syndicate. 

We might just hear crickets.

----------


## rb3b3

> One thing Gilbert is 100% right about is we are dealing with an organized crime syndicate. I don't care how much money is involved, they will eventually be taken down. Don't you agree SteveT?
> 
> God bless Mr. Gilbert for trying to get some justice. Don't you agree with that also SteveT. Don't you agree Romney is a scumbag and criminal not suited fir the oval office? Take your time.


I'm very interested in seeing stevet answers to ALL of these questions directed at him above !! Great post no1butpaul, if I knew how to rep you I would!!!


Edit... I think I repd you!

----------


## WhistlinDave

I'm also grateful to Gilbert for his efforts, I just wish he had taken a clue from the judge when he filed his second amended complaint... 

If SteveT's analysis above in post #2045 is correct, and it sounds correct assuming his facts are right re. the three things Gilbert asked for, then I'm thinking the court of appeals isn't going to rule favorably on this.

I think a new case will be needed.  I do think, however, that reversing the recent rule changes, and forcing a new vote for the nomination, are not entirely impossible IF you can get enough facts into the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, AND have a chance to present all the evidence that the rules of order were not followed at the convention, delegates were stripped from Ron Paul in violation of the rules, etc.

It seems like something that is pie in the sky, but fact of the matter is, they cheated.  Over, and over, and over.  All the way to the end, it was one big cheat fest.  In any other kind of contest, if you cheat, you get disqualified.  I don't see why this should be any different.  The party leadership defrauded party members by willfully acting in violation of the rules everybody agreed to.  Over, and over, and over.

I'm just nervous about Gilbert being the one to launch a new suit.  Not too confident he is able (and/or willing?) to put the level of specificity in the complaint that is going to be needed.  This is something that needs to be found out, because I don't want to see this effort fail.  It's too important to fail.  If Gilbert isn't up to the task of doing it right, he should step aside and let someone else handle it.  Just my opinion.

----------


## No1butPaul

> I'm very interested in seeing stevet answers to ALL of these questions directed at him above !! Great post no1butpaul, if I knew how to rep you I would!!!
> 
> 
> Edit... I think I repd you!


 TY

----------


## CPUd

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> We are not trusting government to handle the polar shift. We will deal with it
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> @AnneBeck58 @tweetAmiracle We are working on the Polar Shift Anne. Don't worry, we know about it and we have 3 years to save earth.
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> There's enough evidence to convict Romney on felonies including income tax evasion, more than Al Capone. It will be in the next video
> 
> ...


At some point this guy is going to be a liability to the movement.

----------


## Eric39

> At some point this guy is going to be a liability to the movement.


Seriously. Why can't these people at least recognize where to draw the line for PR's sake, even if they do believe it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> At some point this guy is going to be a liability to the movement.


Oh, I think we're there right now.

----------


## S.Shorland

Yes I'm smelling a rat.I'd suggest a spoof but nobody's such a perfect scriptwriter.
@USA_Free_Press Rmoney supporters are awful, I think they may actually be from a less intelligent 3rd dimension. #NewBreedOfStupid

----------


## rb3b3

I said it once I'll say it again, Gilbert has got to be far Farr Farr away from this case!!!!! We were cheated on video, rules were changed at last second, people got beat up, broken bones, etc... I'm praying we get a competent lawyer to handle this MONSTER case!!! We have all been stripped of our voting rights!! After seeing this entire election I am convinced our vote don't mean a thing!!!!! Does anyone disagree with me?? Let's get a powerful attorney who can handle this type of case, and have a HUGE money bomb to support the case!!! Sailing away can't you set this up for everyone including choosing the attorney?? I'm sure everyone here at rpf trusts you! LET'S DO THIS SHT!!!

----------


## PatriotOne

> I said it once I'll say it again, Gilbert has got to be far Farr Farr away from this case!!!!!


He was far, far away from this case.  He was litigating in the 4th dimension while the judge only had jurisdiction in the 3rd dimension.  I'm hoping for a Gilbert appeal to the United Federation of Dimensional Courts personally.

----------


## No1butPaul

Thank God we have the prospect of a 3rd party run now on which to pin our false hopes!  LOL  Although, I seriously am hoping for a 3rd party run.  Can you imagine the energy that would ignite?

----------


## Arbusto

Is there any additional information form this?  His tweets went from, "Appellate has an Order, but isn't telling" to his usuall....stuff.  Then a Mass Block of people which included me.  Then this thread died, I assume out of nothing new to report.

----------


## No1butPaul

Late Friday evening tweet.  Well, I guess that's that.  


USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

I am sorry to inform you that the Appellate Court has denied our Writ

----------


## RickyJ

> Late Friday evening tweet.  Well, I guess that's that.  
> 
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> I am sorry to inform you that the Appellate Court has denied our Writ


I kind of expected that. Richard might be an OK lawyer,  I don't really know because I am not a lawyer, but honestly judging  from his tweets he seems kind of wacky. Claiming we need to protect ourselves from particles because of the Van Allen belt and the pole shift he keeps talking about. He just doesn't seem all there.

----------


## SteveT1736

Oddly enough, the 9th Circuit issued its decision on Wednesday.

Here is what it says:


"The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.  All pending motions are denied as moot.

No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case.

DENIED."



Moot means that the issue stated in the case has resolved itself such that a court could not resolve the issue.  Here, the completion of the Republican National Convention makes the case moot.

I noticed Gilbert plans to sue to require states to allow write-ins.  That, in my estimation, is a non-starter.  Most states have a write-in procedure.  Courts have previously deemed constitutional requirements to pay fees and obtain signatures for write-ins.  I don't see a rationale that will stand scrutiny.

His other potential suit is a claim of kidnapping.  If I understand his basis, it has something to do with delegates being waylaid in a bus on the way to the convention hall.  That, conceivably create a claim.  But, it would likely be a civil claim for a fairly nominal dollar amount. I can't imagine a prosecutor using public resources for such a claim.  I don't see the purpose.

----------


## sailingaway

> Oddly enough, the 9th Circuit issued its decision on Wednesday.
> 
> Here is what it says:
> 
> 
> "The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.  All pending motions are denied as moot.
> 
> No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case.
> 
> ...


I do, and it is the states and major parties in collusion so individuals are disenfranchised by rule breaking by major parties - and now they could show both the Dem and RNC on the obvious voice vote fails in support of that. In this context ballot access and taxpayer subsidizing of major parties to create barriers to entry by other candidates not inside the corrupt system is disenfranchisement.  but I wouldn't go for a write in but for abolition of the ballot access laws beyond those to get rid of 'whim' candidates, and immediate ballot access for Ron.

And I'm pretty sure that isn't the case Gilbert has in mind.  There is something in his tweets about wanting one of the VA delegates imprisoned on a bus and not allowed out as the rules vote was taken to contact him, but I don't think many are tracking it at this point.

----------


## RonRules

I presume it's a good thing that it's denied as moot rather than on the merits of the case. This won't affect future claims of the sort, I guess.

Steve, I'm glad you're keeping up on the news about this!

----------


## SteveT1736

sailingaway -- 

The challenge you have is that you have to have a constitutional principle justifying your proposed case.  The Courts have never recognized a right to easily get on the ballot.  They have for decades recognized the right of states to create reasonable pre-conditions -- fees, signatures, etc.  

My point is I don't see anything legally that would allow the result you desire.

As I've mentioned before, though, state legislatures can loosen up their ballot access restrictions.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingaway -- 
> 
> The challenge you have is that you have to have a constitutional principle justifying your proposed case.  The Courts have never recognized a right to easily get on the ballot.  They have for decades recognized the right of states to create reasonable pre-conditions -- fees, signatures, etc.  
> 
> My point is I don't see anything legally that would allow the result you desire.
> 
> As I've mentioned before, though, state legislatures can loosen up their ballot access restrictions.


I do, and they recognize a right to vote and if the process is skewed, by fraud or collusion, I believe that is actionable where the results of ballot access and other taxpayer funded benefits combine at the presidential, national race level to  funnel all people into corrupt parties who then don't even follow their own rules.










> *Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands. That should have done the trick: Rules require signatures from just five states. But the party changed the rules on the spot. Henceforth, delegates must gather petitions from eight states.
> 
> Ron Paul supporters filled the hall with boos and shouts of “no!” Delegates from Maine chanted “point of order!”*


http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...?smid=tw-share

----------


## SteveT1736

RonRules --  I think there is some merit to your post.  The District Court relied on the lack of a properly plead complaint.  The Judge did indicate that there is no authority that the Voting Rights Act applies to state binding rules.  But, beyond that, he really didn't get to the underlying merits.

The 9th Circuit essentially said this case is simply too late.  Again, not focused on the merits.

Now, the named plaintiffs are barred from bringing another similar suit.  But, others could.  But, mootness is a problem for them also.

But, in a future election year, someone might try to contest binding rules with a timely complaint properly pleaded.

----------


## sailingaway

The plaintiffs could bring a motion to reconsider in the lower court with new counsel and a complaint that follows the direction of the court and see if he would reinstate it.  But I don't know that that is happening, I think a different lawsuit would be better, and my only reason for wanting to do the motion to reconsider would be to free up the plaintiffs.  I do think they might have a case for being let to file again anyhow since the attorney sought them out, not the other way around, court discretion being as broad as it is.  But this becomes moot unless the community wants to get behind a law suit.  I think the lawsuit I describe would be worth it, but it would have to be a major effort.

----------


## No1butPaul



----------


## sailingaway

> RonRules --  I think there is some merit to your post.  The District Court relied on the lack of a properly plead complaint.  The Judge did indicate that there is no authority that the Voting Rights Act applies to state binding rules.  But, beyond that, he really didn't get to the underlying merits.
> 
> The 9th Circuit essentially said this case is simply too late.  Again, not focused on the merits.
> 
> Now, the named plaintiffs are barred from bringing another similar suit.  But, others could.  But, mootness is a problem for them also.
> 
> But, in a future election year, someone might try to contest binding rules with a timely complaint properly pleaded.


Binding rules were never my issue, making the RNC FOLLOW its rules and seat our delegates was my issue.  and now, getting rid of the two party monopoly enforced through ballot and debate access and taxpayer subsidies is my issue.

----------


## fr33

> 


I would never hire that man as a lawyer.

----------


## Barrex

I am still following this and I see it dying slowly.  I dont mean this specific lawsuit. I mean this entire subject of rules breaking, laws breaking, rigging elections etc. If someone doesnt step up and organizes people they will walk away with it! Is there really not 1 single person who is motivated enough to do something substantial about it (just posting on Internet doesnt count)?

Richard failed. It was right thing to try but nothing is lost if people still want to pursue this.


_
"The rights we dont use: we lose."

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”_

----------


## sailingaway

> I am still following this and I see it dying slowly.  I dont mean this specific lawsuit. I mean this entire subject of rules breaking, laws breaking, rigging elections etc. If someone doesnt step up and organizes people they will walk away with it! Is there really not 1 single person who is motivated enough to do something substantial about it (just posting on Internet doesnt count)?
> 
> Richard failed. It was right thing to try but nothing is lost if people still want to pursue this.
> 
> 
> _
> "The rights we dont use: we lose."
> 
> “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”_


Yeah.  I don't know if people are taking a break from it because there is no deadline like RNC coming up, or not.  But getting rid of ballot access and subsidy barriers would do a lot to improve representativeness of government by increasing fear of competition, imho. I think it is worth it, and think they need to not get away with what they did or they are just encouraged to continue. I also think it might be a path to getting Rule 12 etc overturned as the passage of those votes was obviously shady and was the same vote that changed the rules so Ron's six states weren't enough to nominate him. I think it is the same lawsuit. 

but I don't know how many will be as interested with the RNC not immediately ahead of us.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yeah.  I don't know if people are taking a break from it because there is no deadline like RNC coming up, or not.  But getting rid of ballot access and subsidy barriers would do a lot to improve representativeness of government by increasing fear of competition, imho. I think it is worth it, and think they need to not get away with what they did or they are just encouraged to continue. I also think it might be a path to getting Rule 12 etc overturned as the passage of those votes was obviously shady and was the same vote that changed the rules so Ron's six states weren't enough to nominate him. I think it is the same lawsuit. 
> 
> but I don't know how many will be as interested with the RNC not immediately ahead of us.


I'm still interested, just not quite sure how to approach it.  It all seems so rigged, from start to finish.  Why have things been allowed to go on this far for so long?  "It's a private clube and we ain't in it", is that it and all it is?

----------


## Barrex

> Yeah.  I don't know if people are taking a break from it because there is no deadline like RNC coming up, or not.  But getting rid of ballot access and subsidy barriers would do a lot to improve representativeness of government by increasing fear of competition, imho. I think it is worth it, and think they need to not get away with what they did or they are just encouraged to continue. I also think it might be a path to getting Rule 12 etc overturned as the passage of those votes was obviously shady and was the same vote that changed the rules so Ron's six states weren't enough to nominate him. I think it is the same lawsuit. 
> 
> but* I don't know how many will be as interested with the RNC not immediately ahead of us*.


That is the problem. How long RNC and party chairmans will keep ballots, documents etc? As time passes by people will lose interest in this. I am not optimistic that anything will be done (see my "ultimate rant" threads ).

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm still interested, just not quite sure how to approach it.  It all seems so rigged, from start to finish.  Why have things been allowed to go on this far for so long?  "It's a private clube and we ain't in it", is that it and all it is?


Law suits are a little different. No guarantee, but different.

----------


## sailingaway

> That is the problem. How long RNC and party chairmans will keep ballots, documents etc? As time passes by people will lose interest in this. I am not optimistic that anything will be done (see my "ultimate rant" threads ).


there were no ballots at the RNC. It would be witness testimony and video evidence.  I don't know if something will be done or not, but I think people are licking their wounds and taking a break right now. I think our people will turn their heads to what is most effective going forward, in time.  But I don't know if there will be enough support for this particular avenue or not.

----------


## Barrex

> there were no ballots at the RNC. It would be witness testimony and video evidence.  I don't know if something will be done or not, but I think people are licking their wounds and taking a break right now. I think our people will turn their heads to what is most effective going forward, in time.  But I don't know if there will be enough support for this particular avenue or not.


I am not talking about ballots at the (where does "the" goes...we dont have these stupid things in Croatia... useless piece of freaking stupid...) RNC. I am talking all paper evidence during entire elections. EVERYTHING. Collect everything.... 

By the way I simply can not understand how those 9 percints/trucks of votes could just disappear and no one even tried to find out what happened... What happened? That is first case and I would continue all the way to tampa. Every state everything....

----------


## sailingaway

Well Maine already said they threw their paper vote tallies away right away.

But we HAVE a lot of evidence. While I agree Nevada etc could be very interesting if we had more, particularly given what it did to momentum, I think we have a strong case with what we have at conventions and caucuses.  The question is whether the will and support is there to do something with it.

----------


## Barrex

> Well Maine already said they threw their paper vote tallies away right away.
> 
> But we HAVE a lot of evidence. While I agree Nevada etc could be very interesting if we had more, particularly given what it did to momentum, I think we have a strong case with what we have at conventions and caucuses.  The question is whether the will and support is there to do something with it.


No. There are evidence but we dont have them. No one collected video tapes, no one identified witnesses, no one collected testimonies and so on and so on... and as time passes by those people who got those things will be harder to find and it will take more money and resources...

Yes. There is a question whether the will and support is there to do something with it. 

From what I see there is not... and I dont understand why. There is so many people talking what next? This should be "next"...

Not optimistic regarding this at all.

People can say anything they want about R.G. but he did at least tried something.

----------


## RickyJ

> I'm still interested, just not quite sure how to approach it.  It all seems so rigged, from start to finish.  Why have things been allowed to go on this far for so long?  "It's a private clube and we ain't in it", is that it and all it is?


Are you talking about the RNC? They have been taken over lock stock and barrel by the same people that have taken over the DNC. They also have taken over virtually all of the media, all of Congress, and control presidents like they are their personal puppets. Public schools are also under their control, it is how they ensure that they keep their power from generation to generation. And don't think that the courts will give you justice, they also control most judges, and the ones they don't control, they are not afraid of because appeals will just go to ones they do control.

Like Ron Paul says, education is our most potent weapon right now to take back control of our nation, without enough people that know the truth there is little chance anything will ever change.

----------


## sailingaway

> No. There are evidence but we dont have them. No one collected video tapes, no one identified witnesses, no one collected testimonies and so on and so on... and as time passes by those people who got those things will be harder to find and it will take more money and resources...
> 
> Yes. There is a question whether the will and support is there to do something with it. 
> 
> From what I see there is not... and I dont understand why. There is so many people talking what next? This should be "next"...
> 
> Not optimistic regarding this at all.
> 
> People can say anything they want about R.G. but he did at least tried something.


we have been collecting video and names of those who could give testimony, we have a bunch we could get to in Oregon and Louisiana, and Oklahoma and Missouri.  I am not concerned we won't be able to get enough evidence, though I agree preserving it is important and wish the evidence thread were growing. But I think there needs to be a project to get people involved, so it is circular.

----------


## No1butPaul

Ron Paul - Real Hope ‏@tweetAmiracle
Any delegates that were kidnapped on the Tampa buses - Contact Richard at @USA_Free_Press for instructions about contacting the FBI - PLZ RT
Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press

USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@toujours61 This is more dangerous work than many may realize. We need to involve the FBI

USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@toujours61 @tweetAmiracle *The Bus Drivers were paid cash by the armed security.* The FBI needs to go up the ladder. It goes to the top

----------


## FSP-Rebel

As this bus was driving around one would have to think that it came to a stop sign or stop light at some point in the area close to the convention center. Seems like once stopped, people could've forced the driver to open up the door to exit. just a thought

----------


## coffeewithgames

> As this bus was driving around one would have to think that it came to a stop sign or stop light at some point in the area close to the convention center. Seems like once stopped, people could've forced the driver to open up the door to exit. just a thought


Yeah, I was wondering about the emergency exits on the bus. Maybe it was a van? But, even those usually have a back door that can be opened. If anything, why not place a 911 call and complain for kidnapping? At least the police would perhaps show up and file a report? Which, would hopefully get the vehicle stopped?

Is there any video of the incident yet?

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah, I was wondering about the emergency exits on the bus. Maybe it was a van? But, even those usually have a back door that can be opened. If anything, why not place a 911 call and complain for kidnapping? At least the police would perhaps show up and file a report? Which, would hopefully get the vehicle stopped?
> 
> Is there any video of the incident yet?


People on the bus said the guards wouldn't let them leave, by tweets at the time it was happening. I don't have details but we have forum members who were on the buses.

----------


## No1butPaul

> People on the bus said the guards wouldn't let them leave, by tweets at the time it was happening. I don't have details but we have forum members who were on the buses.


Kidnapping: The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

The law of kidnapping is difficult to define with precision because it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most state and federal kidnapping statutes define the term kidnapping vaguely, and courts fill in the details.

Generally, kidnapping occurs when a person, without lawful authority, physically asports (i.e., moves) another person without that other person's consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective. Under the Model Penal Code (a set of exemplary criminal rules fashioned by the American Law Institute), kidnapping occurs when any person is unlawfully and non-consensually asported and held for certain purposes. These purposes include gaining a ransom or reward; facilitating the commission of a felony or a flight after the commission of a felony; terrorizing or inflicting bodily injury on the victim or a third person; and interfering with a governmental or political function (Model Penal Code § 212.1).

----------


## PointsOfOrder

If I was on that bus, and kept up with this thread, Gilbert would be the last person I would go to. After seeing a couple of his videos, it is almost like he is going off on "text book conspiracy theory's", the ones that the MSM bring up to discredit the movement. Almost like he is trying to make himself fit in with the Ron Paul crowd, or he really does not know what is truly going on. I don't trust Gilbert, and I am someone who is into the information from Icke.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Considering the Reality Check on the front page, why aren't we going after both parties?

Does anyone know if the Dems have been pulling the same kind of things the RNC has this election cycle, other than the teleprompter stunt?

-t

----------


## sailingaway

> Considering the Reality Check on the front page, why aren't we going after both parties?
> 
> Does anyone know if the Dems have been pulling the same kind of things the RNC has this election cycle, other than the teleprompter stunt?
> 
> -t


that was kind of my thought.  And go after ballot access and other barriers to competition by showing both major parties are corrupt and don't follow their own rules when the chips are down, and that the barriers combine to make it necessary as a practical matter to be in one of these corrupt parties to be elected.

But it would be a huge project.

----------


## CPUd

> If I was on that bus, and kept up with this thread, Gilbert would be the last person I would go to. After seeing a couple of his videos, it is almost like he is going off on "text book conspiracy theory's", the ones that the MSM bring up to discredit the movement. *Almost like he is trying to make himself fit in with the Ron Paul crowd*, or he really does not know what is truly going on. I don't trust Gilbert, and I am someone who is into the information from Icke.


This is precisely what he is doing.  Unfortunately, as long as people buy into what he's producing, he will continue to do so.

----------


## Barrex

OK what is alternative? I am willing to help.

Who will start moneybomb for lawsuit expenses?
Who will collect evidence?
Who will do something?
Who will do anything?

Apparently no one...
_
When all is said and done more is said than done.
_

----------


## sailingaway

> OK what is alternative? I am willing to help.
> 
> Who will start moneybomb for lawsuit expenses?
> Who will collect evidence?
> Who will do something?
> Who will do anything?
> 
> Apparently no one...
> _
> ...


I don't think we start with the money bomb, you have to have a level of interest first.  That is what I am TRYING to measure and see if we can stir up. It seems like you are trying to say it is futile and damp it down.

----------


## Margo37

Did you all see this?   

http://libertycrier.com/politics/app...-unimpressive/

----------


## sailingaway

> Did you all see this?   
> 
> http://libertycrier.com/politics/app...-unimpressive/


I wasn't personally thinking about using him, but others may not have seen that.  I have a more nuts and bolts attitude towards this.

----------


## Margo37

That's very damaging,  I wouldn't pass it on except in here.    Of course,  no way could we possibly use him.    Not sure if it's on Twitter etc.  but it was in Libery Crier this AM.

----------


## sailingaway

It's not all that damaging, imho.  Attorneys lose cases.  But the way he approached the last one decided not to do what the judge told him to do but go a different route in hopes of getting something by RNC which wouldn't have been as effective, even if we got it, as seating our delegates would have been, in my personal opinion, was a shame, I thought. however, he didn't feel we had time to fight that other case. He was working for free, so without actual evidence of culpability, I'm not going to trash him, but my thought was to hire a different attorney more versed in Federal court procedure, now that there is no deadline, and do it right, assuming we got the support for it.

----------


## CPUd

What about the firm who is working the OK delegates' case?

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/

They have done some cases at the federal level.

----------


## libertygrl

https://www.rutherford.org/

Since 1982, The Rutherford Institute has defended the constitutional rights of thousands of people. Many of these cases involved the defense of parents' and students' rights, free speech rights, and privacy rights. Most cases were settled out of court, some were fought in courtrooms across the country, and several were appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter what legal question was involved or how much attention the case received, each case has been equally important. As John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, has said, "All freedoms hang together. To defend one constitutional freedom is to defend them all, and to defend one person's constitutional rights is to defend those rights for everyone."

----------


## Margo37

> It's not all that damaging, imho.  Attorneys lose cases.  But the way he approached the last one decided not to do what the judge told him to do but go a different route in hopes of getting something by RNC which wouldn't have been as effective, even if we got it, as seating our delegates would have been, in my personal opinion, was a shame, I thought. however, he didn't feel we had time to fight that other case. He was working for free, so without actual evidence of culpability, I'm not going to trash him, but my thought was to hire a different attorney more versed in Federal court procedure, now that there is no deadline, and do it right, assuming we got the support for it.


I understand all that as I've followed it all, would love to see a new case with a new attorney but support I wonder as it wasn't so easy to
even get fantastic money bomb contributions  for the campaign this time like '07  '08.    Was it PACs or the economy,  I don't know.  But Richard goes off the rails now and then and not following the judge's directions probably a fatal flaw,  I'm not versed in law either. 

This was up
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

I will discuss the Write In Ron Paul case on Global Talk radio Tuesday at 5pm Pacific http://www.blogtalkradio.com/global-...-after-the-gnc 
Expand

    Reply
    Retweet
    Favorite

----------


## sailingaway

> I understand all that as I've followed it all, would love to see a new case with a new attorney but support I wonder as it wasn't so easy to
> even get fantastic money bomb contributions  for the campaign this time like '07  '08.    Was it PACs or the economy,  I don't know.  But Richard goes off the rails now and then and not following the judge's directions probably a fatal flaw,  I'm not versed in law either. 
> 
> This was up
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> I will discuss the Write In Ron Paul case on Global Talk radio Tuesday at 5pm Pacific http://www.blogtalkradio.com/global-...-after-the-gnc …
> Expand
> 
> ...


Yeah, I was just discussing lawsuits, not him as an attorney.  I don't focus on him.

On the money bomb I think the economy is much worse, also some went through a similar recoil from the campaign last time, I think, at least I know from the beginning there were people here saying they supported Ron last time but were only supporting grass roots efforts this time because they didn't like the campaign team. At the time I found it incredibly frustrating since we only needed a little push more before Iowa, in my view.  At the moment, it seems more understandable, although I'd still support RON.  If you seriously don't have faith in those around him it is a tough nut, though.  Another part of that is that people were giving money earlier because those dollars counted for more, but even so, Ron had double the votes, much more support, and only a little more money.

As to the law suit, yeah, people would have to be serious about it and logic tells me it may not happen. We have such comprehensive evidence in so many states it seems a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the system, is all.

----------


## Margo37

> As to the law suit, yeah, people would have to be serious about it and logic tells me it may not happen. We have such comprehensive evidence in so many states it seems a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the system, is all.


This!

----------


## Barrex

> I don't think we start with the money bomb, you have to have a level of interest first.  That is what I am TRYING to measure and see if we can stir up. It seems like you are trying to say it is futile and damp it down.


I know I was just throwing questions to get this thing started.

I would suggest that someone contacts http://www.toolsforjustice.com/ ; blackboxvoting.com(??) ; Richarg Gilbert etc. Those are the people who already got evidence compiled and codified.

Second then contact those 2 :





> What about the firm who is working the OK delegates' case?
> 
> http://www.lawandfreedom.com/
> 
> They have done some cases at the federal level.





> https://www.rutherford.org/
> 
> Since 1982, The Rutherford Institute has defended the constitutional rights of thousands of people. Many of these cases involved the defense of parents' and students' rights, free speech rights, and privacy rights. Most cases were settled out of court, some were fought in courtrooms across the country, and several were appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter what legal question was involved or how much attention the case received, each case has been equally important. As John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, has said, "All freedoms hang together. To defend one constitutional freedom is to defend them all, and to defend one person's constitutional rights is to defend those rights for everyone."


It is easy and it would only take few dollars for phone call and few hours to start this thing.

What do oyu got to lose? Pick up that telephone and ask them 

Ask them are they interested? What would grassroots need to do to make them interested and make it happen?

2 questions..... 1 man (ok or woman)..... infinite + rep ( fo you narcissistic persons)... people would walk around and look at you as a role model... men will buy you beer wherever you go... women would bake cookies for you....It is obvious that I suck at motivational speeches...

----------


## parocks

> Yeah, I was wondering about the emergency exits on the bus. Maybe it was a van? But, even those usually have a back door that can be opened. If anything, why not place a 911 call and complain for kidnapping? At least the police would perhaps show up and file a report? Which, would hopefully get the vehicle stopped?
> 
> Is there any video of the incident yet?


yes, where is the video?

----------


## sailingaway

> yes, where is the video?


I don't think it was videod, there were tweets at the time, though, including from members here.

There may also be video, but at this point I don't know of it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I don't think it was videod, there were tweets at the time, though, including from members here.
> 
> There may also be video, but at this point I don't know of it.


Surely there is some video.  Weren't there some RP guys there?

----------


## dusman

> Yeah, I was just discussing lawsuits, not him as an attorney.  I don't focus on him.
> 
> On the money bomb I think the economy is much worse, also some went through a similar recoil from the campaign last time, I think, at least I know from the beginning there were people here saying they supported Ron last time but were only supporting grass roots efforts this time because they didn't like the campaign team. At the time I found it incredibly frustrating since we only needed a little push more before Iowa, in my view.  At the moment, it seems more understandable, although I'd still support RON.  If you seriously don't have faith in those around him it is a tough nut, though.  Another part of that is that people were giving money earlier because those dollars counted for more, but even so, Ron had double the votes, much more support, and only a little more money.
> 
> As to the law suit, yeah, people would have to be serious about it and logic tells me it may not happen. We have such comprehensive evidence in so many states it seems a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the system, is all.


Sailing, I think your last statement has some particular importance to it. 

If there are forces working together to stifle dissent and maintain control of party forces (of course there are), then we probably strained their ability to keep things under control and inadvertently exposed part of that operation. We were at the cusp of winning majorities in many more delegations and threatening to take over chair positions. I think their response was one of epic miscalculation and its clear we caught them off guard in this rare moment you speak of. 

With that said, its certainly easy to establish a motive for such fraud and if we were to really dig into what happened, we'd come up with some mighty legal gems that absolutely could change things. Particularly if prosecutions occur and the hierarchy loses its foundation - the whole deck of cards could fall in the GOP power structure. 

I think if we don't act upon the evidence we have this election cycle, we won't get another opportunity once contingencies are in place. If we act now, we act against a rattled establishment that doesn't have much room to back peddle.

----------


## Carlybee

What needs to be done to get the ball rolling on another lawsuit?  Moneybomb?  Finding a reputable firm? (preferably willing to at least do part of it pro bono) Research, documentation, timelines, etc?   


Could this organization help? http://www.ij.org/




> Founded in 1991, the Institute for Justice is what a civil liberties law firm should be. As our nation's only *libertarian* public interest law firm, we engage in cutting-edge litigation and advocacy both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights are denied by the government.
> 
> Institute Mission:
> 
> Through strategic litigation, training, communication, activism and research, the Institute for Justice advances a rule of law under which individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society. IJ litigates to secure economic liberty, school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties, and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government.

----------


## WarAnonymous

Can't drag feet here. It has to move now or never. This is a one shot thing, if it passes by we probably will never have another shot ever again. I hope that people are for real with this and willing to push it.

----------


## Carlybee

Bear in mind there are other interested parties besides us on this site. It would be a matter of getting everyone on board.  A hundred thousand dollar money bomb would be a good start I would think.  That's not much in comparison to what has been raised before.  The main issue would be who is still willing to fight and who has moved on.
The getting a lawyer part..well someone would have to make sure all interested parties are on board and then draft an inquiry for starters.  I'm not a legal person so I don't know what really would be involved....but whatever it is, it needs to be expedited.

----------


## WarAnonymous

> Bear in mind there are other interested parties besides us on this site. It would be a matter of getting everyone on board.  A hundred thousand dollar money bomb would be a good start I would think.  That's not much in comparison to what has been raised before.  The main issue would be who is still willing to fight and who has moved on.
> The getting a lawyer part..well someone would have to make sure all interested parties are on board and then draft an inquiry for starters.  I'm not a legal person so I don't know what really would be involved....but whatever it is, it needs to be expedited.


Yeah well it needs to move NOW. Everyone needs to start getting together. Need to find GOOD law representation, and the money bomb is a great idea. Everyone should still be willing to fight, this is not some magical quest of unrealisticness.

----------


## Barrex



----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What needs to be done to get the ball rolling on another lawsuit?  Moneybomb?  Finding a reputable firm? (preferably willing to at least do part of it pro bono) Research, documentation, timelines, etc?   
> 
> 
> Could this organization help? http://www.ij.org/


I just called Institute for Justice and they didn't seem interested in this case.  Once I mentioned the RNC and DNC shinanigans and voters rights, the lady said they don't take class action type lawsuits.  I told her that the cases that they do take, according to their web site, were cases that are directly effected by the types of laws and the constitutionality of those laws and our ability, as grassroots, to elect representatives that will follow the constitution.  She acknowleged that fact and said that a case like that would be out of their scope, but I could fill out of form for "potential case" on their web site and someone would take a look at it, but it's not really the type of case they focus on.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah well it needs to move NOW. Everyone needs to start getting together. Need to find GOOD law representation, and the money bomb is a great idea. Everyone should still be willing to fight, this is not some magical quest of unrealisticness.


We might want to set a higher target.  It would need to be more than $100,000 I think.  Not to get it started, but I would expect both parties to try to make it expensive through discovery and our money bombs are very public, they would know exactly how much we had in reserve in our war chest. I wouldn't be surprised if by the end the legal fees were above a million, possibly even higher, even if we can get decent rates because it is such an awesome project.

----------


## sailingaway

> I just called Institute for Justice and they didn't seem interested in this case.  Once I mentioned the RNC and DNC shinanigans and voters rights, the lady said they don't take class action type lawsuits.  I told her that the cases that they do take, according to their web site, were cases that are directly effected by the types of laws and the constitutionality of those laws and our ability to elect representatives that will follow the constitution.  She acknowleged that fact and said that a case like that would be out of their scope, but I could fill out of form for "potential case" on their web site and someone would take a look at it, but it's not really the type of case they focus on.


I don't know if the Rutherford institute would be interested either, but I like what they did with that Straub (?) case, and a couple of others.

But I really like the idea of keeping control of the case because the time will come, if we establish we have a case, where the other sides will offer stuff to settle, and the case could be settled away. If you aren't paying for the fees you often have to give practical control of settlement to the ones who are.  We'd have to set up people and a process to approve that that is satisfactory.  I don't know anyone here who would have settled for less than control of Louisiana's delegates, for example.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I don't know if the Rutherford institute would be interested either, but I like what they did with that Straub (?) case, and a couple of others.
> 
> But I really like the idea of keeping control of the case because the time will come, if we establish we have a case, where the other sides will offer stuff to settle, and the case could be settled away. If you aren't paying for the fees you often have to give practical control of settlement to the ones who are.  We'd have to set up people and a process to approve that that is satisfactory.  I don't know anyone here who would have settled for less than control of Louisiana's delegates, for example.


I agree.  But *who* represents *us*?  Maine really did well (standing as a group), how did they handle the who, was their stance voted on between the members of the delegation?  MN did well, were they challenged (at the state or rnc level)?

----------


## Carlybee

> I just called Institute for Justice and they didn't seem interested in this case.  Once I mentioned the RNC and DNC shinanigans and voters rights, the lady said they don't take class action type lawsuits.  I told her that the cases that they do take, according to their web site, were cases that are directly effected by the types of laws and the constitutionality of those laws and our ability, as grassroots, to elect representatives that will follow the constitution.  She acknowleged that fact and said that a case like that would be out of their scope, but I could fill out of form for "potential case" on their web site and someone would take a look at it, but it's not really the type of case they focus on.


Worth a shot...you would think since they bill themselves as libertarian they would be interested. Did you speak to a partner?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Worth a shot...you would think since they bill themselves as libertarian they would be interested. Did you speak to a partner?


Whoever the person was that answered the phone, she would not pass me on to someone else.  I talked to her for some time (conversation as per my shortened version above) trying to peak interest.

I do agree with @sailingaway that we need control (we, as in the plantiffs, which are the citizens of the various states, but the "who" are, at minimum, primaries in the various cases that we have proof of fraud, harm, etc...).  We sure don't want anyone "settling" for less than integrity in the system.

----------


## Carlybee

> Whoever the person was that answered the phone, she would not pass me on to someone else.  I talked to her for some time (conversation as per my shortened version above) trying to peak interest.
> 
> I do agree with @sailingaway that we need control (we, as in the plantiffs, which are the citizens of the various states, but the "who" are, at minimum, primaries in the various cases that we have proof of fraud, harm, etc...).  We sure don't want anyone "settling" for less than integrity in the system.


I think the assistants/secretaries shield calls but not sure it's the last word on what a principle would say...thanks for trying. Whomever we get let's hope is professional and preferably doesn't come off like that lawyer on Breaking Bad lol.

----------


## JK/SEA

Don't forget, Washington State has a case on the burner. From the Reagan Wing:

''Now, at last, someone is fighting back.

Doug Parris has committed to take the perjurious attacks of a corrupt politician all the way to Federal Court to put a stop to political intimidation. This website tells the story.

If you are willing to help take our political process back from the bullies and liars, consider donating to Doug’s political defense fund. Doug is taking on the worst corruption in the Washington State Republican Party and has retained the best attorney in the State to do it: State Attorney General Candidate Steve Pidgeon. Help give them the tools to fight to victory. Please consider a financial donation of any size and click on the PayPal button in the upper right column''.


From my talks with Doug, he has a briefcase full of documented evidence of county convention abuses. Still waiting for more news. I've already donated 100 dollars.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think the assistants/secretaries shield calls but not sure it's the last word on what a principle would say...thanks for trying. Whomever we get let's hope is professional and preferably doesn't come off like that lawyer on Breaking Bad lol.


If we talk about this enough and get enough signs of support to do a money bomb what we will need to do is set up a legal PAC or entity with specified board and process for key decisions such as settlement or what to do if there isn't enough money.  Then we'd have a money bomb. For the first moneybomb we could say if we get only X and don't get Y with subsequent donations by a certain date, we will do Q  with the money (donate it to Ron's PAC for example.)  At that point we would have a board of decision makers and a process for trying to get grass roots temperature, but the plaintiffs will be the ones with actual evidence who were at the conventions.  The first money bomb might be a seed money money bomb to put it together with an attorney, the organization and the process, and then have a moneybomb going to that organization.

----------


## sailingaway

> Don't forget, Washington State has a case on the burner. From the Reagan Wing:
> 
> ''Now, at last, someone is fighting back.
> 
> Doug Parris has committed to take the perjurious attacks of a corrupt politician all the way to Federal Court to put a stop to political intimidation. This website tells the story.
> 
> If you are willing to help take our political process back from the bullies and liars, consider donating to Doug’s political defense fund. Doug is taking on the worst corruption in the Washington State Republican Party and has retained the best attorney in the State to do it: State Attorney General Candidate Steve Pidgeon. Help give them the tools to fight to victory. Please consider a financial donation of any size and click on the PayPal button in the upper right column''.
> 
> 
> From my talks with Doug, he has a briefcase full of documented evidence of county convention abuses. Still waiting for more news. I've already donated 100 dollars.


Yeah, but they aren't doing it at the federal level where all the ballot access rules come together in order to change the system.  Which is not at all to say these cases shouldn't be supported, only that they are different than what I am talking about, personally.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yeah, but they aren't doing it at the federal level where all the ballot access rules come together in order to change the system, and also, they seem to settle for chips we don't find as important.  The entire problems with the campaign was with their valuing different things more than we did.


Talking with Doug, the Federal Level is not off the table. He said they will be going for monetary damages. There is a strategy to this, so i think we have to wait and see how this plays out. At least its something to consider as relevant, and puts the screws to the party. Lawyers for Ron Paul are involved. Will see.

----------


## sailingaway

> Talking with Doug, the Federal Level is not off the table. He said they will be going for monetary damages. There is a strategy to this, so i think we have to wait and see how this plays out. At least its something to consider as relevant, and puts the screws to the party. Lawyers for Ron Paul are involved. Will see.


I don't think we should wait, however, I wish Doug well with what he is doing and hope to hear more about it.

----------


## Carlybee

> If we talk about this enough and get enough signs of support to do a money bomb what we will need to do is set up a legal PAC or entity with specified board and process for key decisions such as settlement or what to do if there isn't enough money.  Then we'd have a money bomb. For the first moneybomb we could say if we get only X and don't get Y with subsequent donations by a certain date, we will do Q  with the money (donate it to Ron's PAC for example.)  At that point we would have a board of decision makers and a process for trying to get grass roots temperature, but the plaintiffs will be the ones with actual evidence who were at the conventions.  The first money bomb might be a seed money money bomb to put it together with an attorney, the organization and the process, and then have a moneybomb going to that organization.


People such as yourself who are knowledgeble about these things should be in charge of coordinating...should we poll to guage interest?

----------


## sailingaway

> People such as yourself who are knowledgeble about these things should be in charge of coordinating...should we poll to guage interest?


I'm happy to help coordinate it at this stage, at least, then we can see how people want to handle it.  A poll might be a good idea, to get discussion going, at least.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't think we should wait, however, I wish Doug well with what he is doing and hope to hear more about it.


I don't follow....changing the system will not happen over night, so, the fact that there are multiple legal fronts being forged is a plus. 

Don't think we should wait?...isn't it basically too late to affect the situation with regards to the upcoming elections anyway?...

What i took out of our meeting with Doug, 3/4 of whom were PCO's, that his comments on the cheating and other abuses will be addressed in court. After following this thread on the waste of time perpetrated by Gilbert, this case by Doug is a fresh start into gaining our ultimate goal.

I'm not reading or seeing any other court cases other than the Gilbert lost cause, and Doug Parris's case. Am i missing something?

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't follow....changing the system will not happen over night, so, the fact that there are multiple legal fronts being forged is a plus. 
> 
> Don't think we should wait?...isn't it basically too late to affect the situation with regards to the upcoming elections anyway?...
> 
> What i took out of our meeting with Doug, 3/4 of whom were PCO's, that his comments on the cheating and other abuses will be addressed in court. After following this thread on the waste of time perpetrated by Gilbert, this case by Doug is a fresh start into gaining our ultimate goal.
> 
> I'm not reading or seeing any other court cases other than the Gilbert lost cause, and Doug Parris's case. Am i missing something?


I'm saying we would start a new one, not just in one state but likely federally to make the system representative. (or that would be the goal) there might be a Hail Mary type of 'put Ron on the ballots' thing, but honestly, I don't expect him to get involved and don't see courts forcing a panic printing at the last minute.  But what we ask for is one of the things we'd be discussing, in the other thread.  I think a lot of people don't follow this one any more because they don't have faith in Gilbert's suit.  

My understanding is that Doug (and I don't know who he is which is part of it) is doing something on his own but would hold the entire settlement ability in his own hands, and I don't know what his goals are or if grass roots would get input.  If this can be melded into one ball of wax, I'm not against it. I don't know Doug though, to personally have confidence in him, at this particular moment.  I will look at your link, though.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I'm saying we would start a new one, not just in one state but likely federally to make the system representative. (or that would be the goal) there might be a Hail Mary type of 'put Ron on the ballots' thing, but honestly, I don't expect him to get involved and don't see courts forcing a panic printing at the last minute.  But what we ask for is one of the things we'd be discussing, in the other thread.  I think a lot of people don't follow this one any more because they don't have faith in Gilbert's suit.  
> 
> My understanding is that Doug (and I don't know who he is which is part of it) is doing something on his own but would hold the entire settlement ability in his own hands, and I don't know what his goals are or if grass roots would get input.  If this can be melded into one ball of wax, I'm not against it. I don't know Doug though, to personally have confidence in him, at this particular moment.  I will look at your link, though.


His blog hasn't been updated for awhile, so the only info i have is 1st hand from our meeting last week. He has a lot on his plate right now which may explain delay's in updates.

----------


## sailingaway

> His blog hasn't been updated for awhile, so the only info i have is 1st hand from our meeting last week.


I don't have any particular selection of who should be lead, if he turns out to be the right guy to do what I am talking about, I just don't know if that is what he is doing.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I don't have any particular selection of who should be lead, if he turns out to be the right guy to do what I am talking about, I just don't know if that is what he is doing.


Too early yet for anything concrete. He's supposed to be in court wednesday morning for a 1st round.

----------


## dusman

> If we talk about this enough and get enough signs of support to do a money bomb what we will need to do is set up a legal PAC or entity with specified board and process for key decisions such as settlement or what to do if there isn't enough money.  Then we'd have a money bomb. For the first moneybomb we could say if we get only X and don't get Y with subsequent donations by a certain date, we will do Q  with the money (donate it to Ron's PAC for example.)  At that point we would have a board of decision makers and a process for trying to get grass roots temperature, but the plaintiffs will be the ones with actual evidence who were at the conventions.  The first money bomb might be a seed money money bomb to put it together with an attorney, the organization and the process, and then have a moneybomb going to that organization.


Yeah, if there was an effort to raise funds to litigate, there definitely should be some type of organization in place before allowing this to get off the ground. I'm not sure of any limitations involved by organizing it through a PAC or a 501c non-profit, but I would think a 501c would be a little easier to establish and might be less restrictive. 

Whatever group decides to pursue this needs to not only carefully select counsel, but also be mindful of the logistics involved in building public awareness that such a pursuit exists. For that to be successful, I think we should agree that a portion of money raised needs to go exclusively to reaching out to every potential plaintiff and raising awareness among not only Ron Paul supporters, but also disenfranchised Democrats and others whom may qualify under this suit. 

I think we could start from Judge Carter's response that Gilbert failed to act upon and all of the evidence that has already been collected. Something that could start happening right now is outlining the qualifications we seek and scouting attorneys that meet those qualifications. I think with what we presently have available to us, it would be less of a challenge to gain acceptance from a well-qualified attorney. 

Anyways, I like this idea. I'm probably in a position now where I could contribute some time to help. I do have all of the code available from BTO and Tea Party 11, so a moneybomb could be prepared rather quickly. Even if I'm not involved, the code and mailing list we built would be readily available to whoever leads that effort.

----------


## JK/SEA

Its time for an epic video to raise the Patriots attention.

don't look at me, i can barely use a digital camera.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah, if there was an effort to raise funds to litigate, there definitely should be some type of organization in place before allowing this to get off the ground. I'm not sure of any limitations involved by organizing it through a PAC or a 501c non-profit, but I would think a 501c would be a little easier to establish and might be less restrictive. 
> 
> Whatever group decides to pursue this needs to not only carefully select counsel, but also be mindful of the logistics involved in building public awareness that such a pursuit exists. For that to be successful, I think we should agree that a portion of money raised needs to go exclusively to reaching out to every potential plaintiff and raising awareness among not only Ron Paul supporters, but also disenfranchised Democrats and others whom may qualify under this suit. 
> 
> I think we could start from Judge Carter's response that Gilbert failed to act upon and all of the evidence that has already been collected. Something that could start happening right now is outlining the qualifications we seek and scouting attorneys that meet those qualifications. I think with what we presently have available to us, it would be less of a challenge to gain acceptance from a well-qualified attorney. 
> 
> Anyways, I like this idea. I'm probably in a position now where I could contribute some time to help. I do have all of the code available from BTO and Tea Party 11, so a moneybomb could be prepared rather quickly. Even if I'm not involved, the code and mailing list we built would be readily available to whoever leads that effort.


great ideas.  And, thank you!

----------


## Barrex

Dead?

----------


## sailingaway

Dunno.  The statute of limitations doesn't run for a while.  Right now I'm getting Ron as a write in candidate in CA.  But we could bump the thread with the poll again.

----------


## kathy88

*cough* *Racketeering**cough*

----------


## Barrex

> *cough* *Racketeering**cough*


Uh,oh...mystery post.. a joke?.!...uh oh... what is it...




I dont get it...

----------


## sailingaway

> Uh,oh...mystery post.. a joke?.!...uh oh... what is it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont get it...


a potential cause of action for racketeering under RICO, is what she is suggesting, I believe.

----------


## kathy88

> a potential cause of action for racketeering under RICO, is what she is suggesting, I believe.


Indeed. The beauty of that is monetary damages are tripled if the suit is successful.

----------


## Barrex

> a potential cause of action for racketeering under RICO, is what she is suggesting, I believe.





> Indeed. The beauty of that is monetary damages are tripled if the suit is successful.


Yea I got it... I answered about this on this thread before... I just forgot it (didnt think before I wrote question....). 

There is difference Civil lawsuit (private party, corporation, individual...) and criminal lawsuit (RICO...). For RICO we would need prosecutor (government). Any of you know a government prosecutor who will do it?

----------


## kathy88

> Yea I got it... I answered about this on this thread before... I just forgot it (didnt think before I wrote question....). 
> 
> There is difference Civil lawsuit (private party, corporation, individual...) and criminal lawsuit (RICO...). For RICO we would need prosecutor (government). Any of you know a government prosecutor who will do it?


There are possibilities for a civil RICO suit. If it gains traction, perhaps a hungry Fed will pick it up?

----------


## Barrex

> There are possibilities for a civil RICO suit. If it gains traction, perhaps a hungry Fed will pick it up?


Realm of philosophical debate:

It is possible and this "potential case" can be filed as RICO....BUT.... without government at least starting investigation 
 I would not do it under these circumstances (lack of support,organization, money manpower....). Correct me if I am wrong but since anyone can file a RICO lawsuit for breaking any criminal statute arent  judges "hostile" toward a civil RICO lawsuits? I might be wrong but reasoning is that every tort action could be changed into civil RICO lawsuit. They also dont like misuse of legal remedy that was originally intended for organized crime. I would stick to tort and other "ways". Go for RICO only if we are strong and prepared.
I simply dont believe that this movement can (maybe better word is "will") get enough resources, manpower to make civil RICO work. Government with its unlimited resources has trouble getting enough evidence to "get" organized crime and to prove its illegal activities. I simply dont believe that this movement is (will) do it....
Tort, breach of contract, breach of trust, RICO.... all this can be done and there are ways but (and many more .._quantum meruit_ bla bla bla. I really dont want to go on a tangent here):
It is not what you know it is what you can prove....also it is not what is right it is what you can afford (sadly).

Realm of reality: 
We can only afford pro bono RG.

*I do believe that what they did with false arrests, breaking bones, election fraud etc. is very serious matter and that it should be investigated but *I simply dont see anyone doing it* (and that is biggest obstacle)...

----------

