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

[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...

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 PLEASE​

This 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/courtforms/fed/cir/c2/d/nyed/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/showth...-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-for-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.