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

[Barrex]

there might be a weekend or holiday involved. The judge can pretty much say what he wants, I believe.

Actually in most cases he is strictly limited to laws about Rules of Civil Procedure (edited I found correct term lol.. I should have known this one). They are diffrernt from country to county but they exist. That is why I was asking "why number 13". Those "time limits" (regarding complaints, apeals, oppositions etc.) in laws and rlues exist to make sure cases dont last for decades and that courts run and not get tangeld in eternity.


P.s.
Sorry about double posting I am multitasking.

 

[sailingaway]

how does louisiana fit in to all of this?
i mean, hiring thugs to beat up your opponents when the win the chairmanship is kinda hard to ignore.

yeah, that is why it is in the thread we are collecting. I think that is VERY persuasive and stinks to high heaven besides. Let's make the media we do get on this juicy.

 

[sailingaway]

Actually in most cases he is strictly limited to laws about court procedures (sorry I dont know to say correct term in english). They are diffrernt from country to county but they exist. That is why I was asking "why number 13".


P.s.
Sorry about double posting I am multitasking.

there are set procedures but allowing an amended complaint is highly discretionary, expediting a hearing is also highly discretionary, so he could pull out whatever number he wanted imo.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Already done. But we can also clearly see in the ruling that the judge want SPECIFIC violations of the Civil Rights law.

I would also add a CLEAR explanation as to why Ron Paul voted against it. I know Ron had good reasons, but the judge does not know that.

He's clearly annoyed by it and he said it when I was there and he repeats it even more sternly in the ruling:

"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. ...

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."

So please, for someone here that knows this, write this up nice and pretty.

From Wikipedia:

Voting Rights Act

In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[297] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[298] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[299] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, which Paul objected to on the grounds that one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and that as it currently stands it often forces large expenditures to prepare materials that are in some cases never used.[300]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

 

[RickyJ]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

The Judge stated on the record that he tentatively believes that the Voting Rights Act does apply to the Convention

The case will go forward!

 

[WhistlinDave]

how does louisiana fit in to all of this?
i mean, hiring thugs to beat up your opponents when they win the chairmanship is kinda hard to ignore.

Yes, you must've missed my post just before that one. Louisiana is KEY to this.

 

[devil21]

The Judge has denied the motion to dismiss it appears. The case will go forward!

Um no. Read the last few pages of this thread.

 

[sailingaway]

The Judge has denied the motion to dismiss it appears. The case will go forward!

well, he granted the motion to dismiss but allowed the complaint to be amended and spent a good deal of time late at night saying exactly how to do that.

 

[Barrex]

there might be a weekend or holiday involved. The judge can pretty much say what he wants, I believe.

Possible. Here courts have different form for expressing time limits(again dont know word in english): "...file complaint/appeal/or x within y work days" so there is no confusion... That is why it cought my attention.

 

[eleganz]

well, he granted the motion to dismiss but allowed the complaint to be amended and spent a good deal of time late at night saying exactly how to do that.

Isn't it beautiful

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[Suzu]

I am still finding it difficult to believe that R. Gilbert is really a lawyer! Given sufficient facts to work with, I - a non-lawyer with only minimal paralegal experience - could have written a non-dismissable complaint this first time out.

 

[sailingaway]

My agenda is to expose Gilbert's many flaws (and, as an aside, the irony of the Liberty movement bringing this case in federal court and the 9th circuit no less!) before Gilbert does further damage to what Paul and his supporters have worked hard to build.

I don't doubt that everyone in this thread is well-intentioned but they are helping Gilbert do damage when they support him.

where is the damage? So far you've just said he'd be made fun of and so would we. Like we aren't all the time.

 

[sailingaway]

I am still finding it difficult to believe that R. Gilbert is really a lawyer! Given sufficient facts to work with, I - a non-lawyer with only minimal paralegal experience - could have written a non-dismissable complaint this first time out.

please help us.

I agree the complaint needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

 

[Margo37]

Yes I second that. Just like the Vote Flipping threads were split up in to Fraud/No Fraud versions, we should do the same here. That was very effective and productive.

Need 2 threads:

1) How to help Lawyers for Ron Paul win the case and help Ron win the nomination.

2) How to make fun of and ridicule LFRP.

All of the above. Good ideas. Please!

 

[torchbearer]

I am still finding it difficult to believe that R. Gilbert is really a lawyer! Given sufficient facts to work with, I - a non-lawyer with only minimal paralegal experience - could have written a non-dismissable complaint this first time out.

could you throw in some ideas as to how to make it better? we are getting a lot of stuff together in various threads.

 

[sailingaway]

All of the above. Good ideas. Please!

I see no value in a making fun of the suit thread.

 

[RonRules]

This is the core issue:

"Political parties and their members have a First Amendment right to association free from federal encroachment; this right includes the “right to exclude” people from membership or leadership roles in the party in certain circumstances." ...
"This right to exclude includes the right to “choose a candidate-selection process that will in [the party’s] view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.”
...
“In no area is the political [party’s] right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee.”

BUT!

Of course, “[n]either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute.”
"For example, a political party’s right to exclude does not protect a party’s demand of ideological fealty from its members where such a demand violates other constitutional rights, such as the Fifteenth Amendment." (holding that political party’s rules, including rule in which “voting in the primaries was conditioned upon the voter[] taking an oath that he believed in social and educational separation of the races,”

Furthermore, election laws often impose “some burden” on a First Amendment right to associate. The level of scrutiny with which a court reviews the challenged law depends on its effect upon the First Amendment right. See id. at 434. Currently, the standard of review applied in challenges to the Voting Rights Act “remains unsettled.”


Plaintiffs make literally no argument and cite no case law to explain what government interest their interpretation of Section 1971(b) serves. Because the American court system is an adversarial one, this Court may not make arguments on Plaintiffs’ behalf. But this is not to say that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest. Indeed, in Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2008).

The judge is basically saying, go read the Lopez case and see what you can find to help yourself in there.

 

[RonRules]

This judge is feeding Gilbert with a silver platter:

"Finally, the Court concludes that no authority supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 1971(b), but that that there are several indisputably constitutional alternative interpretations of Section 1971(b). Because Plaintiffs’ allegations do not state a claim under these alternative interpretations, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE."

Basically, he's saying find these alternative interpretations and I won't dispute them!

 

[Margo37]

I see no value in a making fun of the suit thread.

I'm not making fun. Splitting them is a good idea as I see it.