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

[torchbearer]

Does this apply to party nominations?

it includes primaries, the convention is the final portion of the primary.

 

[RonRules]

So, I'm guessing that nothing happened this morning and that nothing will happen moving forward?

Hey KnowNothing, why don't you find out yourself instead of guessing?

 

[KingNothing]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward

So it looks like he WILL be in court at 9:00 AM. Please someone be there.

Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down. "High Risk. High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down. "High Risk. High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.

Having you been hanging out with PatriotOne again?

 

[sailingaway]

Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down. "High Risk. High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.

go to the vent if you want to just... 'vent' that you don't like something others are doing. Whether the results are good or bad, taunting is not ok.

 

[sailingaway]

Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down. "High Risk. High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.

the court made it very clear there WAS a case there. It may not have been handled from there as needed, we will find out. But taunting is just mean spirited.

 

[pcosmar]

Boy, USA_Patriot_Press sure has the lingo down. "High Risk. High Reward" is certainly the kind of terminology to appeal to those desperate for a win.

That sounds like a post of someone anxious for a loss.



Gonna jump up and down shouting "told ya so"?

 

[rb3b3]

so does anyone know if they are actually in court right now?

 

[KingNothing]

I just hope this place doesn't go Full Crazy. When I'm eventually banned, I hope someone else will create a post that includes this emoticon every so often:

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

King and whoever else sees this lawsuit as complete non-sense or possibly damaging and to those who support the lawsuit.... we can bicker back and forth all day long and that will change nothing. Let me tell you why I support the lawsuit on the most basic level - it's not Richard Gilbert against the Republican Party, it is selected delegates against the Republican Party on the basis they believe that their individual voting rights have been violated.

Regardless of much we trash each other here is irrelevant to the lawsuit, especially since it is now in the hands of the court.

 

[KingNothing]

King and whoever else sees this lawsuit as complete non-sense or possibly damaging and to those who support the lawsuit.... we can bicker back and forth all day long and that will change nothing. Let me tell you why I support the lawsuit on the most basic level - it's not Richard Gilbert against the Republican Party, it is selected delegates against the Republican Party on the basis they believe that their individual voting rights have been violated.

Regardless of much we trash each other here is irrelevant to the lawsuit, especially since it is now in the hands of the court.

Fair enough.

 

[sailingaway]

King and whoever else sees this lawsuit as complete non-sense or possibly damaging and to those who support the lawsuit.... we can bicker back and forth all day long and that will change nothing. Let me tell you why I support the lawsuit on the most basic level - it's not Richard Gilbert against the Republican Party, it is selected delegates against the Republican Party on the basis they believe that their individual voting rights have been violated.

Regardless of much we trash each other here is irrelevant to the lawsuit, especially since it is now in the hands of the court.

I don't like the way the lawsuit has been handled. I do really really wish for a lawsuit in Federal court outing the pattern and practice of fraud across the states. That is the kind of thing the average person on the streets assumes they would know about if were happening, and they don't.

But if this suit goes badly we can take up the possibility of another one after we find out how the RNC is ruling on our delegates. People in this thread have been trying to put together facts to make the lawsuit better, but Gilbert is so set on it being heard before RNC he has undercut every time line the court has given. right or wrong, there isn't a way we here can stop that.

 

[rb3b3]

are they in court right now? anyone know?

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

I don't like the way the lawsuit has been handled. I do really really wish for a lawsuit in Federal court outing the pattern and practice of fraud across the states.

That type of suit will take a long, long time... but still can be filed.

 

[Chadd Murray]

read the law and tell us you're interpretation:

42 U.S.C 1971 Voting Rights

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

The judge already explained the issue. It's that the Plaintiffs failed to provide any reason why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted as widely as they desire, that is to include requiring people to sign an affidavit as a part of a conditioning process to be a delegate.

 

[sailingaway]

The judge already explained the issue. It's that the Plaintiffs failed to provide any reason why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted as widely as they desire, that is to include requiring people to sign an affidavit. This starts on page

\

that is why we were gathering verifiable facts. Broken bones and physical removal requiring an ambulance seem to fit those descriptions fairly clearly. We can't make him drink. However, it does mean there would be 'new facts' for a new complaint with another attorney, in the event the worst happens with this case.

The thing is, no one else was bringing a multistate suit.

 

[Chadd Murray]

Yeah, if he amends his complaint to include such facts the issue would be much clearer. However, without an argument as to why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted more widely it would of course mean that such affidavits remain legal.

 

[CPUd]

Yeah, if he amends his complaint to include such facts the issue would be much clearer.

The issue is, he amended his complaint to remove such facts.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

"the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose" - how does a bound delegate do that?

 

[The Shazad]

The judge already explained the issue. It's that the Plaintiffs failed to provide any reason why "intimidate, threaten or coerce" should be interpreted as widely as they desire, that is to include requiring people to sign an affidavit as a part of a conditioning process to be a delegate.

Yep, which makes it all the more amazing that Richard Gilbert tried to spin the judge's response as a "tentative win" and told everyone that the judge agreed with his interpretation of the law. The judge specifically did the opposite, and wanted some case law or legislative history supporting Gilbert's interpretation - yet the amended complaint included nothing of the sort.

It's also interesting that the only complaint in the original filing that the judge did not deem to be completely "unintelligible" (that of the MA delegate) was removed, along with the rest of the "unintelligible" fraud claims - despite the judge's clear request for some specifics.

It's almost as if Richard Gilbert wrote the final amended complaint prior to getting the judge's response. Oh wait - he did. He's always one step ahead. Unfortunately, while he accurately predicted that there would be a need for an amended complaint, he did not accurately predict what the judge would want him to include in it. I guess we will have to trust that he knows what he is doing and that he's about to put the RNC in checkmate.