MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: Lawyers for Ron Paul Lawsuit NOTE: Having the lawsuit not up 4 debate

sailingaway said:
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... :p 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.
Click to expand...

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 )
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Are these lawyers getting anyway? I have not heard anything about this going anywhere.
 
RonRules said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RonRules said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheGrinchWhoStoleDC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WhistlinDave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheGrinchWhoStoleDC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Thats a good sign. Sounds like the judge is logical and is not falling for obfuscation from the RNC counsel.
 
WhistlinDave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
WhistlinDave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ronpaulhawaii
Ron Paul BBQ team looking to expand event size
Replies
6
Views
195
ronpaulhawaii
ronpaulhawaii
Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
485
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
The 9/11 Attacks Exposed Major Government Failure, But Americans Learned the Wrong Lessons
Replies
0
Views
93
PAF
PAF
PAF
Pentagon Demands Journalists Sign Pledge Not To Gather Certain Information
Replies
2
Views
238
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
NY - judge strikes down the "vampire rule" [FPC lawsuit]
Replies
0
Views
420
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top