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

[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.