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

[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.

 

[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.

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?