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

[tod evans]

I posted what we have including their letter in that new thread, I am hoping Chris Dixon who is a delegate who posted it here will give more details to clean it up.




Note that their agreement to vote for Romney if Ron isnt on the ballot gives INCENTIVE to the credentials committee to bar Ron's delegates elsewhere.

After quick perusal of the google doc. this appears to be a succinct state court complaint.

 

[sailingaway]

After quick perusal of the google doc. this appears to be a succinct state court complaint.

yeah, I was reading it at the same time. I posted it from the description. the 'offer of compromise' is apparently separate, by the state GOP chair:

his weekend, the RNC, via Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster offered a "compromise"... take a look:

1. A majority of the delegates sign a statement agreeing that, if Ron Paul is not on the ballot, they will vote at the Convention for Mitt Romney.

2. Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president. That spokesperson would also handle all media on behalf of the Maine delegation.

3. There will be nothing negative said about Mitt Romney or positive said about Obama (especially to media).

4. The Delegation will be admitted to the Convention, and to all committee assignments, without barrier.

5. The Contest brought by Jan Staples and Peter Cianchette will be withdrawn.

 

[tod evans]

Against the maine establishment/RNC, right?

Even if the documents have not been filed in state court they appear complete enough to proffer as evidence in the federal hearing.

(I ain't a lawyer!)

 

[Barrex]

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.

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?

good idea. I'll make my post on LA into a thread for other threads and circumstances to be added, and add the name of forum members we think can substantiate it, so we can double check our details. I'll just put the post up now as is and refine it later. Torchbearer did say it was accurate and he was willing to testify (so presumably would have no problem signing an affidavit).

please monitor the new thread as you can: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-for-LFRP-lawsuit
also the RNC has apparently just said if the Maine delegates don't sign to a laundry list of requirements they will not get to go.

This is good idea.... but o dont kill me): For court data should be presented in certain (universal if possible) manner:
Who,where, when to whom etc.

A lot of names and dates and accusations. I advise CAUTION and due diligence. Before people start to collect information maybe there should be some things clarified: who has access? Data is public? What info will be required? How will data be collected? et cetera... Make clear rules and hierarchy (like it or not it is effective).
I am all for it but this needs to be done proffesionally and not "ad hoc" bar debate style.

Good preparation makes half of success (this doesnt sounds right on english).

 

[kathy88]

Ladies and Gentlemen, there are millions of freedom-liberty minded people in Europe and elsewhere, but we cann”t intervine in your battle, not yet, maybe later, only God knows, y hope we”ll have the opportunity, till then you have to fight on your own. You”ll lose or winn this war on one battlefield; REP.Party. The only thing that matters is THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE AND CAN BRING INTO. DON”T GIVE UP; THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE YOU ARE WATCHING FROM OUTSIDE; YOU ARE NOT ALONE; STAY BEHIND RON PAUL AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD BE THE NOMENEE IN TAMPA.

Sincerly yours
aurel barber

Welcome to the forums. Thank you for your kind words.

 

[tod evans]

[/B]Good preparation makes half of success (this doesnt sounds right on english).

Sure it does!

Somebody please cover me on rep, I'm out..

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Sure it does!

Somebody please cover me on rep, I'm out..

done

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Ladies and Gentlemen, there are millions of freedom-liberty minded people in Europe and elsewhere, but we cann”t intervine in your battle, not yet, maybe later, only God knows, y hope we”ll have the opportunity, till then you have to fight on your own. You”ll lose or winn this war on one battlefield; REP.Party. The only thing that matters is THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE AND CAN BRING INTO. DON”T GIVE UP; THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE YOU ARE WATCHING FROM OUTSIDE; YOU ARE NOT ALONE; STAY BEHIND RON PAUL AND NOBODY ELSE SHOULD BE THE NOMENEE IN TAMPA.

Sincerly yours
aurel barber

The emotional support means a lot, a whole lot, thank you

 

[sailingaway]

This is good idea.... but o dont kill me): For court data should be presented in certain (universal if possible) manner:
Who,where, when to whom etc.

A lot of names and dates and accusations. I advise CAUTION and due diligence. Before people start to collect information maybe there should be some things clarified: who has access? Data is public? What info will be required? How will data be collected? et cetera... Make clear rules and hierarchy (like it or not it is effective).
I am all for it but this needs to be done proffesionally and not "ad hoc" bar debate style.

Good preparation makes half of success (this doesnt sounds right on english).

first we need to make sure we have the correct facts then one person can write them up in a uniform style, then others can fact check.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[eleganz]

pull up AZ delegate letter

 

[RonRules]

"Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president."

It's like Brent Tweed can't read results?!!

Charlie Webster has experience reading results I guess.

 

[sailingaway]

There is a letter written from one of the AZ delegates as well, I can pull that up into the thread when its created.

the thread exists, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-for-LFRP-lawsuit

 

[ClydeCoulter]

first we need to make sure we have the correct facts then one person can write them up in a uniform style, then others can fact check.
...
the thread exists, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-for-LFRP-lawsuit

^^^ THIS ^^^

 

[sailingaway]

"Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president."

It's like Brent Tweed can't read results?!!

Charlie Webster has experience reading results I guess.

the delegate chair speaks to media AND REPORTS VOTES at RNC for the state. They don't ask every individual. Last time it was reported from RNC that our guys' votes were not acknowledged by most delegation chairs. So they didn't exist as far as the rest of the world knew.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I just read the response of the Maine delegation to the RNC in your new thread, sailingaway, MAINE freakin' ROCKS !

 

[RonRules]

Breaking:

"ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: (See document for details.) Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16). (See document for details.) The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial 16 . Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012. (rla) (Entered: 08/07/2012)"

 

[bcreps85]

the delegate chair speaks to media AND REPORTS VOTES at RNC for the state. They don't ask every individual. Last time it was reported from RNC that our guys' votes were not acknowledged by most delegation chairs. So they didn't exist as far as the rest of the world knew.

Exactly. They'll let our delegates go to the convention, if we allow the guy who will misrepresent the votes be the delegate chair. Either way, we'd essentially have 0 delegates. This needs to be fought.

 

[RonRules]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DELEGATES TO THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL CONVENTION ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No.: SACV 12-00927 DOC(JPRx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

Section 1971 of Title 42 of the United States Code is part of a landmark civil rights
statutory scheme, commonly referred to as the “Voting Rights Act,” which Congress enacted to end the violence and discrimination that plagued minority voters in Congressman Ron Paul’s home state of Texas and other parts of this country. See McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U.S. 236, 243, 243 n.11 (1984); Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 213 (1996) (“Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1964 because it concluded that case-by-case enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment, as exemplified by the history of the white primary in Texas, had proved ineffective to stop discriminatory voting practices in certain areas of the country.”); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966) (“The Voting Rights Act was designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.”); Elections, 13D Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. §
3576 (3d ed.) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1971 as part of comprehensive legislation “to provide effective remedies against discrimination in the conduct of elections” that began “with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and with broadening amendments in 1960, 1964, 1965, and 1970”). “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.” Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 201 (2009). “When it was first passed, unconstitutional discrimination was rampant and the ‘registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead’ of black registration in many covered States.” Id.; see also Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 541 (1927) (lawsuit challenging Texas statute “forbid[ding] negroes to take part in a primary election”).
Six years ago, Congressman Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.1 Ironically, his supporters now bring this lawsuit under the very statutory scheme he tried to end.
After reviewing the moving papers and oral argument, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16).

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Breaking:

"ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: (See document for details.) Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16). (See document for details.) The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial 16 . Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012. (rla) (Entered: 08/07/2012)"

What does this mean? "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial"