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

[robertwerden]

I wasn't bad mouthing him, I just DO pitch my discussion of hot button issues in a way they can be easier heard. I agree that he is doing a lot of work on our behalf, and I hope it turns out great.

Was not directed at you, sorry for the confusion.

 

[robertwerden]

Those with the means to take on such a task do not believe this is the proper route to go. Such is the case with the delegates from Oklahoma and several other states.

The issues with Gilbert are ones he has brought on himself, by making outrageous claims that he is 'taking over the campaign,' how he is going to instruct 'our delegates' to turn their backs when romney speaks at the RNC and more recently, by launching verbal assaults on 18-year-old kids and young mothers, calling them traitors and vowing that they will never hold positions in the party again, simply because they do not want to be associated with Gilbert's cause.

So you don't agree with the idea of what Richard is doing?

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[robertwerden]

In the 2nd video, he carefully builds this whole case about how Romney endorses internment camps, it's his stated policy, we should just trust him. Then he inserts a long segment of Romney discussing his health care agenda, and then goes on as if he had just shown a clip of Romney talking about internment camps! Then he launches into an interminable tirade wherein he repeatedly refers to the camps as if Romney thought them up and is eagerly waiting to fill them up!

Same question to you. You dont agree with the case?

 

[CPUd]

The issue is, the complaint needs to present a plausible claim of a violation of law with specificity. Who, what, when, where, how, and why. Apparently the complaint states the basics, but does not go into enough detail of exactly what happened to whom, and when, and where, and all that. This is why the defense is asking for it to be thrown out.

Gilbert nailed him to the wall on the issue of "plausibility" especially when it came to the Mass. delegation, and that one was mentioned in the amended complaint too, and the judge seemed to agree.

Basically, it needs to be re-written with more specifics included in the actual complaint.

This is where it gets dicey, because there are 50 state chairmen as defendants, and what happens if he rewrites the complaint with specifics that maybe implicates 2 or 3 of them? I doubt he is going to have time to add more than a handful of incidents to the complaint, unless he knew this was coming, and has already written them up. Does it mean that the number of defendants will be stripped down to only those who are implicated? Would it also mean the same for the plaintiffs? Then for those states not named in the amended complaint, would the RNC be allowed to continue 'business as usual' by unseating them all?

I doubt all that would happen, but the point is that the defense will do whatever they can to stall this thing out.

 

[sailingaway]

In the 2nd video, he carefully builds this whole case about how Romney endorses internment camps, it's his stated policy, we should just trust him. Then he inserts a long segment of Romney discussing his health care agenda, and then goes on as if he had just shown a clip of Romney talking about internment camps! Then he launches into an interminable tirade wherein he repeatedly refers to the camps as if Romney thought them up and is eagerly waiting to fill them up!

He is referring to the fact that Romney said he would have signed NDAA, and to a report about relocation camps plans for which in fact do exist, it is just that there are reasons you might need them besides interrment, for example in the event of a Katrina type event. He puts those together. I'm pretty furious about NDAA as well, but I also wish he had chosen to not raise it but it is like some 9/11 people who see Ron's larger audience as a terrific place to get everyone's attention about their beliefs about 9/11.

BUT it doesn't mean he isn't trying to serve our interests in the suit imho. Any more than it means that people here who have specific beliefs about 9/11 aren't really supporting Ron. Of course they are.

 

[Michigan11]

hmmmm.....sounds familiar

 

[sailingaway]

This is where it gets dicey, because there are 50 state chairmen as defendants, and what happens if he rewrites the complaint with specifics that maybe implicates 2 or 3 of them? I doubt he is going to have time to add more than a handful of incidents to the complaint, unless he knew this was coming, and has already written them up. Does it mean that the number of defendants will be stripped down to only those who are implicated? Would it also mean the same for the plaintiffs? Then for those states not named in the amended complaint, would the RNC be allowed to continue 'business as usual' by unseating them all?

I doubt all that would happen, but the point is that the defense will do whatever they can to stall this thing out.

He has to say 'many events including but not limited to'.

I am concerned about bad law being created, but he is doing something and no one else is. It isn't as if, if he didn't do it, some other attorney was going to prosecute the fraud at conventions. I consider it a Hail Mary, and might have framed the remedy differently (or he can add new remedies later) but he is the one doing the work.

Since it is happening ANYHOW, I wish the suit well.

 

[CPUd]

So you don't agree with the idea of what Richard is doing?

I was willing to accept that he is performing theatrics, until he got personal and turned it towards the delegates in an effort to intimidate them into joining his cause.

The lawsuit itself, I think could have taken on a different strategy, and the remedy he is seeking, I don't see it being beneficial in the long term. No matter how it turns out, there will be a significant number of states in the general election that will not provide Ron Paul ballot access.

 

[sailingaway]

I also think he shouldn't have turned on delegates who simply didn't want to join his suit. I told him so by tweet (and now I seem to be blocked, but whatever).

 

[torchbearer]

He is referring to the fact that Romney said he would have signed NDAA, and to a report about relocation camps plans for which in fact do exist, it is just that there are reasons you might need them besides interrment, for example in the event of a Katrina type event. He puts those together. I'm pretty furious about NDAA as well, but I also wish he had chosen to not raise it but it is like some 9/11 people who see Ron's larger audience as a terrific place to get everyone's attention about their beliefs about 9/11.

BUT it doesn't mean he isn't trying to serve our interests in the suit imho. Any more than it means that people here who have specific beliefs about 9/11 aren't really supporting Ron. Of course they are.

one of those FEMA camps is built at the LSU in Alexandria Campus. They call it a "super-shelter".

 

[Suzu]

These "professionals" can't even spell the word "FRAUD" correctly.... see the box about halfway down the page @ electionfraudremedy.com - under the word "ATTENTION" - it's been that way for weeks....

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[sailingaway]

These "professionals" can't even spell the word "FRAUD" correctly.... see the box about halfway down the page @ electionfraudremedy.com - under the word "ATTENTION" - it's been that way for weeks....

I have a ton of typos in my posts, and remember how we used to complain about typos on Ron's facebook page? It is better if they aren't there, but they didn't mean Ron wasn't the best candidate.

 

[sailingaway]

They call statutes "case law."

the question here isn't whether we would select a different attorney from a dozen qualified attorneys all vying for the job, but whether we support our delegates who chose to join the suit with the only attorney who was jumping on the issue. AT least that is how I see it. I support ALL our delegates, those who joined and those who did not.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[sailingaway]

And I think that's great. Seriously, I do. I don't doubt for a minute that they've been cheated and abused. However, I see Gilbert as a different kind of abuse. It's not that he's well intentioned but not very good. It's that he's inflicting a different kind of abuse on them and the movement in general. There's no doubt in my mind that he's taking advantage of them and anyone else who buys in. Even if he wasn't, he's still doing harm.

But I want to reiterate, I thought it was great that you stood up for those MA delegates. Many of Gilbert's other followers joined in but you had sense enough to know it was wrong and the courage to say something.

I don't really consider myself one of his 'followers' (which is likely why he blocked me). I was getting information. And I thought he was clearly in the wrong on that point (the way he referred to MA delegates). I also thought it was counterproductive according to his own goals since it pissed people off at him who would otherwise support his suit. I just know others with that personality type and I don't think it necessarily means he isn't doing his best to further his client's interests. I can't vouch for him, but since he is doing this and has 300 state and national delegates apparently filing affidavits in support of his suit, I hope it turns out well.

 

[CPUd]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
It is highly unusual for a Federal Court to stay open until 9 pm for argument


1h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Returning to Court at 4 pm. I anticipate filing an Appellate Writ as to some issues which I talked about previously


4h USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Argument set at 5 pm Pacific by Court

 

[kathy88]

I also think he shouldn't have turned on delegates who simply didn't want to join his suit. I told him so by tweet (and now I seem to be blocked, but whatever).

How utterly grown up of you, Sailing. He blocked you and you aren't on here calling him names and dissing every word that comes out of his mouth? Huh.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Those who are complaining, do you have a better plan to give Ron Paul a snowball's chance in hell to still have a shot at the nomination?

I didn't see anyone rushing out to pay better lawyers, if you think Gilbert isn't up to the task.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I am reserving judgement until this whole thing is over... This guy is a godsend as far as I'm concerned, quirks and all.

I think even if he can't get all 50 states in the complaint, he can put enough of them in the complaint to illustrate the merits of the case and justify why he is asking for the injunctive relief of the Federal Marshalls and to have the binding/unbinding question answered.

Proving all the details would come later in the actual court case, this is just the structuring of the complaint itself at this point.

I'm off to court now, re-convening at 5PM... More to come later.