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

[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_York_State_Board_of_Elections_v._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_York_State_Board_of_Elections_v._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/Delegates-vs-RNC-ORDER-GRANTING-DEFENDANTS’-MOTION-TO-DISMISS

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.