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

[JSaindon]

A for effort, but the courts move at a snails pace. Good luck trying to get anything done in court by November.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Wow, this is the most exciting thing I've heard in a very long time!!

 

[CPUd]

It only took 8 pages for someone to say what I thought to be the obvious......

It is mentioned briefly in the complaint. Since they are not seeking damages in $$ amounts(as is the overwhelming majority of civil suits), some of the more time-consuming phases of the case can be bypassed. Add to that, the time-sensitive nature of the case, it meets the criteria of a case that can be fast-tracked.

 

[Dianne]

How could we hope to have an resolution on this in a few short weeks, don't things like this usually take years to play out in the courts?

http://www.californiality.com/2012/06/ron-paul-civil-rights-lawsuit.html

'Lawyers for Ron Paul' has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in California against the Republican National Committee and state GOP chapters for alleged voting rights violations, election fraud and other misconduct at GOP primaries and caucuses in 2012.

In the bombshell lawsuit, the group claims "overwhelming evidence" that the voting rights of Ron Paul Republican delegates and other voters were violated by "nearly every state GOP party and the RNC during the 2012 primary election phase, with utter and blatant disregard for any rule of law."

Other groups are reportedly lining up to join the coalition of lawyers, paralegals, and concerned citizens who filed the civil lawsuit against the GOP.

Case Number SACV 12-00927 was filed at the Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, California, Ninth Federal Circuit. Judge Carter is said to be assigned to the case.

The plaintiff group wants court action to protect delegates attending the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa this August, regardless of which presidential candidate each delegate intends to vote for.




Immediately, the petitioning group seeks a federal injunction clarifying that all GOP delegates can vote their conscience at the national convention, unbound."The pattern of abuse is guaranteed to get worse, to the extent that the delegates who attend the national convention will be subjecting themselves to legal and/or physical peril," said the group of attorneys who filed the lawsuit citing actions by the GOP as having "devolved into those of an organized criminal enterprise."

In addition to the civil rights lawsuit, the group also intends to file a RICO lawsuit to expose widespread election fraud and abuse across the nation.

Great numbers of Ron Paul supporters are quickly uniting behind the unprecedented federal lawsuit, as they believe that Congressman Ron Paul has been blatantly cheated out of a potential victory.

All legal services provided for all plaintiffs in the suit are pro bono, provided by Lawyers for Ron Paul. The following lawsuit FAQ video explains the federal civil rights lawsuit against the GOP in extended detail, including instructions on how to participate in the legal action.

 

[Just Another Genius]

You should pursue any questions you have, but please don't demand anything from these guys. You don't know them and they are working really f ing hard it seems so don't talk like they owe you proof or like you know their strategies. Did you listen to the audio? If you like what they're doing, support them. If you have suggestions, contact them. Otherwise, stfu and go do something productive besides bitching about how they're not doing it right. Is no one here happy with anything?

It amazes me to see what's in front of us and people piss all over it. If you have something to contribute then do it. Otherwise get out of the way, ok?

I didn't demand anything from these lawyers, so why don't you STFU pal, since you don't know what the F your talking about. I'm just offering suggestions to help their cause in case someone finds these suggestions worthy of consideration. They are known to read these comments so why not discuss ideas which I haven't seen discussed EVER on this site, the Daily Paul site, or the lawyers site. The only person I see bitching around here is you, who seems to want everyone to be sheep followers instead of contributors. The more minds and more opinions are more apt to get you the best answers to a solution instead of just depending upon a handful of opinions. The only opinion you brought to this table is to complain, bitch, and moan about others like me who offered constructive opinions. Perhaps you need to take your own advice and stop pissing on the hard work other people are trying to do to help this cause. If you have nothing valuable to add to the conversation than your bitching then perhaps you need to get out of the way, ok?

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Case Number SACV 12-00927

This is the only legal document I could find at the moment.

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/3_CERTIFICATE_OF_INTERESTED_PARTIES_SACV-12-00927-DOC(JPRx).pdf

 

[jay_dub]

I think I'm going to visit this guy...after all, near me. We just really don't need the crazies approaching him...

That seems very improper. Only the attorneys involved should have direct contact with the judge hearing this matter. If, by visit, you mean sit in on a hearing he's conducting in another case, that's different.

 

[kahless]

If this case succeeds does that mean the delegates can vote for anyone or just whom is still in the race? For example does this mean they can vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Cain?

We may still have an uphill battle in that regard since you would not want to be replacing Romney with the likes of Santorum.

 

[jay_dub]

The most immediate relief they are seeking is an injunction that would allow EVERY delegate to be unbound. Essentially, no candidate would go into Tampa with ANY delegates, including Ron Paul. The convention would then be like sudden-death overtime, to use a football analogy.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

If this case succeeds does that mean the delegates can vote for anyone or just whom is still in the race? For example does this mean they can vote for Santorum, Gingrich or Cain?

We may still have an uphill battle in that regard since you would not want to be replacing Romney with the likes of Santorum.

I would interpret voting for anyone as the choice to vote for anyone. I do not remember reading anything in the RNC by-laws to the effects of a potential nominee's campaign status. And let us remember, all of the contenders never ended their campaigns, they just "suspended" them.

 

[kahless]

The most immediate relief they are seeking is an injunction that would allow EVERY delegate to be unbound. Essentially, no candidate would go into Tampa with ANY delegates, including Ron Paul. The convention would then be like sudden-death overtime, to use a football analogy.

With candidates only being Romney and Ron Paul, correct? It does not open the door for them to vote for Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, etc?

 

[jay_dub]

With candidates only being Romney and Ron Paul, correct? It does not open the door for them to vote for Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, etc?

I would suppose other rules would still apply, such as having 5 states to place a candidate's name in nomination. That would leave out some, but Santorum would still be eligible, it would seem.

 

[KingNothing]

If they're attacking state/local Republican parties who completely ignored accepted rules of order and state laws, this is an excellent move. That pretty much happened everywhere.

Local parties did everything in their power to disregard the process that everyone had agreed to. That shouldn't go unpunished, or, atleast, unacknowledged.

 

[pcosmar]

10 pages,,and not posted yet.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/06/mitt_romney_ron_paul_rnc.php

 

[Endthefednow]

We The People are for Ron Paul

 

[Elwar]

So...if Ron Paul's delegates are unbound. Do we have the 1144 delegates to get him elected?

I have seen a few states go toward Ron Paul and a few states send a few RP delegates, but it is a stretch to believe that Ron Paul supporters got into the Romney machine early enough to get nominated as their delegates in order to be stealth candidates.

I could see the announcement by Ron Paul of 200-500 delegates being fairly accurate. Even if it was 600-800 it would still not be enough.

And Gingrich and Santorum supporters would likely make a deal with the "presumed" candidate, Mitt Romney, as opposed to putting themselves out there as being against their party in order to support Dr. Paul.

As a former Libertarian Party member I am used to the party filing lawsuits at the last minute to either stop the ballots from being printed without our candidate's name on it or for defamation or libel as well as many other legitimate lawsuits. What tends to happen is, late November/December the lawsuit wraps up with "ya, you were right but it wouldn't have mattered anyway".

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Judge Carter from a post on Daily Paul in 2009:

Ethics or Intimidation: Birther Judge Carter Stands To Be Recused

David O. Carter (born 1944 in Providence, Rhode Island) is a United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California. Assumed office October 22, 1998, Nominated by Bill Clinton. Carter is hearing the case Barnett vs Obama, questioning the legitimacy of the President's office.

On October 1, just four days before the Motion To Dismiss hearing, Carter hired Siddharth Velamoor to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010. Velamoor is a lawyer who works for a law firm where Robert F. Bauer, one of Obama’s top lawyers is a partner. Bauer’s wife is none other than Anita Dunn, the White House Communication’s Director.

The unethical placement of Velamoor on Judge Carter's staff means the case is extremely flexible, and a waste of time. It does not matter either way the case would go, the whole case is invalid. If the case goes against the plaintiff, Orly Taitz will file motion for Judge Carter's recusal. If it is in favor of the plaintiff, the Judge will have himself recused.

Was this a conspiracy (theory?) right out of the Clinton style politics? Obama/Chicago style strategy? Or, is this how Judge Carter saves face by agreeing to hear the case, but, the outcome is worthless? I guess we'll have to wait for the movie. I'm sure it will baffle even the most dedicated John Grisham fan.

more
http://mossinterest.blogspot.com/2009/10/ethics-or-intimidation-birther-judge.html

I'm not sure if I like what I'm seeing:

Appointed by Clinton
Rule in favor of Lehman Bros vs First Alliance Corp
Barett vs Obama - In 2009, Carter dismissed a lawsuit, Barnett v. Obama, challenging President Barack Obama's election and assumption of office because of the claims that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, commenting that the power to remove a sitting president from office resides with Congress, not the judiciary.

 

[zachrbroussard]

So...if Ron Paul's delegates are unbound. Do we have the 1144 delegates to get him elected?

But if we can broker the convention you can change people's minds in the pursuing debates.

Regarding voting for others: wouldn't it be a "all for romney, yay or nay, all for paul yay or nay"? So if they wanted to vote for someone else a move would have to be made from the floor? Not that that's out of the question I guess, but it would be more involved for someone to get that done.

 

[LibertyEagle]

We couldn't do any worse. What's Jesse gonna do now....fetch Ron's laundry?

Is it really necessary for you to act like this?

 

[tod evans]

10 pages,,and not posted yet.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/06/mitt_romney_ron_paul_rnc.php

Worth the read!