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

[sailingaway]

a link to the woody jenkins letter from louisiana: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-delegation-controversy...&highlight=jenkins

I tweeted it to LFRP but they are getting so MUCH material, much of it false, I am concerned they may not read the important stuff.

by the way, thanks for getting me unblocked, Whistlin Dave.

 

[Tiso0770]

I +Rep'd him

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I tweeted it to LFRP but they are getting so MUCH material, much of it false, I am concerned they may not read the important stuff.

by the way, thanks for getting me unblocked, Whistlin Dave.

If enough people insert enough falsehood, they may be able to affect his reply to the judge. We/he have to find a way to get the false stuff filtered out, quick !

 

[MelissaCato]

Really, what kinds of "holes" did he hint at? Gilbert always acted like this case was a slam dunk.I wouldn't count on any more MA delegates getting involved. Attorney Gilbert didn't exactly do himself any favors when he tried to sweet-talk them by calling them "traitors," their leader a "coward," and making other threats at them. Oh, and then there's the fact that he's generally unprofessional in manner & appearance, has a track record of losing high-profile cases, and has a losing legal argument.Seriously, does anyone really believe he is going to get a judge to send armed federal marshals to escort delegates into the convention? Anyone?

Hey, anything can happen. I hope he wins his case.

 

[kathy88]

Sailing can you post the tweet, if we send numerous tweets chances are it will get picked up on.

 

[sailingaway]

Sailing can you post the tweet, if we send numerous tweets chances are it will get picked up on.

I realized afterwards that it had a typo, but: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse/status/232879501221167104

 

[Elwar]

Basically, the judge got the GOP lawyer to admit that the GOP believes it is FREE TO BREAK ITS OWN RULES, OR CHANGE ITS OWN RULES AT THE LAST MINUTE, any time it wants, even if that disenfranchises party members involved in the process, and the GOP thinks they have the right to do it, without the courts intervening!!! My jaw dropped. I mean my jaw literally dropped wide open (and I think the judge saw it too--there were only two people in the courtroom besides the lawyers, judge, and court transcriber). I couldn't believe he said that!!! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!

They are likely, like many of us do, under the false assumption that because the Republican Party is a private entity, they can do whatever they want.

But they have spent so much time intertwining their party apparatus with the government laws that they have screwed themselves. They also need to take into account the fact that their own rules are a sort of contract with its members. Breaking such a contract is illegal.

I much prefer the Libertarian Party way of not holding their primary elections with government run voting, but keeping it all within the confines of their party.

 

[RonRules]

Richard Gilbert wrote me back, when I offered hivemind help for providing various forms of evidence in all 50 states:

Richard:
Thank you for your e mail RR. We will know better what we need going forward once we receive the Judge's Ruling.
Regards,
Richard

So standby for the ruling and be ready to collect all the data he needs.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[eleganz]

Isn't breaking party rules in accordance to delegates or elections directly betraying ALL of the votes received? Votes that were cast in good faith that they were voting for their delegate/candidate?

 

[sailingaway]

I do think we should be culling information. Wasted effort is a lot better than regrets if he needs it and we don't have something simple and compelling to give him.

But to the lawdida, we don't have a choice of attorneys, there is this one, and he is doing something. I personally would prefer to try to make it successful.

 

[freedomordeath]

He doesn't want to work on gathering evidence of abuses. He want's to wait to see if the judge asks for it first. Doesn't he want to fight this all the way? Nothing is wasted by gathering that information. If time is so short, why is he waiting to be asked?

DUDE... its too late, the ball is rolling, if the top notch lawyers stepped up in the first place then this would not be an issue. Lets make the best of this, afterall the only other solution is the 2nd amendment, I would hope like hell this guys wins.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

I do think we should be culling information. Wasted effort is a lot better than regrets if he needs it and we don't have something simple and compelling to give him.

But to the lawdida, we don't have a choice of attorneys, there is this one, and he is doing something. I personally would prefer to try to make it successful.

"Better to have and not need than to need and not have"

 

[freedomordeath]

I couldn't believe he said that!!! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!

we sould quote the RNC laywer directly, and phone bomb the RNC and ask them does this mean they can vote flip in the voting machines, if what the lawyer said was true, doe sthis not mean they can literally change the results in the primaries.

 

[tod evans]

My understanding from what I've read is this is a MOTIONS hearing...

If in fact it is/was then "evidence" per-se won't likely be required to prove the validity of the motion.

It's likely that if the motions are decided in our favor that the case will move to an actual "HEARING"(trial) on the issues......

This will require "evidence".

Again, it is my understanding that yesterdays hearing was only about the defenses motion to dismiss...

 

[sailingaway]

My understanding from what I've read is this is a MOTIONS hearing...

If in fact it is/was then "evidence" per-se won't likely be required to prove the validity of the motion.

It's likely that if the motions are decided in our favor that the case will move to an actual "HEARING"(trial) on the issues......

This will require "evidence".

Again, it is my understanding that yesterdays hearing was only about the defenses motion to dismiss...

Yeah, but we are talking about stating ACCURATE facts with sufficient specificity in a to be amended complaint. He's being fed a bunch of myths with facts mixed in. The facts are compelling, but he needs to be clear on which are in fact facts.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[eleganz]

Yeah, but we are talking about stating ACCURATE facts with sufficient specificity in a to be amended complaint. He's being fed a bunch of myths with facts mixed in. The facts are compelling, but he needs to be clear on which are in fact facts.

Let's just create a new sticky thread where we can compile information where one poster handles the main post for final factual accurate evidence. When we're finished, we can link to Gilbert...another grassroots victory?

 

[sailingaway]

He is the only one willing to do it for free. With all the attorneys out there, and this being a high profile issue, it is a bad sign for the success of the case that Gilbert’s the only volunteer.





Since everyone here knows other attorneys could have worked on the case if someone would was willing to pay them, we know that Gilbert wasn’t the only choice. Yet, he’s granted a lot of latitude considering his shoddy work product and unprofessional deportment.

Why isn’t this latitude given to Jesse, Rand, and others? Why just Gilbert? It is because he’s crazy and you feel bad? Or is it because he acts out your legal rage fantasies and promises to storm the convention with armed federal marshals?

In all honesty, I try to criticize him at every point when he’s taken seriously. However, as a performance artist, I think he’s really funny.

are you kidding? It is because we want all the fraud and strong arming against Ron's delegates exposed, and he is the one working to do that. Rand and Jesse aren't.

 

[tod evans]

Yeah, but we are talking about stating ACCURATE facts with sufficient specificity in a to be amended complaint. He's being fed a bunch of myths with facts mixed in. The facts are compelling, but he needs to be clear on which are in fact facts.

Facts in court are only fact with documentation.......Testimony is just that.

Broken bones and affidavits will carry much more weight than speculative analysis of vote tally's.

Video that isn't subject to interpretation is good as gold.

If the lawyer is getting his "facts" as I've read them on the forum it's going to be a hard row to hoe..

(I think that's what you're talking about with myths?)