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

[tod evans]

This!

outta rep.........again.

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!

 

[WhistlinDave]

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.

I don't see any irony. Being Libertarian doesn't mean you think the court system should be abolished.

I hear Ron Paul say all the time that the purpose of government is supposed to be to protect our Liberty. So when our Liberty has been trashed by the corruption within the GOP, I'd say a lawsuit is in order. Any time your Liberty is infringed, if you are unable to resolve the dispute on your own, and you have suffered damages as a result of the illegal conduct, then you have the right to use the court system to protect your liberty. Weird, huh? Sometimes government can be a good thing. Imagine that.

 

[Barrex]

Anyway I am gone for tonight. If this idea about collecting facts to help lawsuit is going to work it needs to be aproached activley (look for people and evidance) and not passivley (make a thread and wait for people to post their story and evidance).

Let me know what I can do to help.

I wish from tooth fairy:
1) Richard specifically telling people what he needs
2) Clear plan to start collecting facts to help lawsuit
3) beer

I just need a tooth from someone.

 

[Suzu]

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

Just tell Gilbert to do what the judge told him to do in the ruling. It's all there, for pete's sake. He ought to have known all that stuff right from the start in the first place anyway. I mean, is this guy an ambulance chaser ala Vince Gambini from My Cousin Vinny, or what?!

 

[ClydeCoulter]

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!

^^^ THIS ^^^

 

[sailingaway]

Just tell Gilbert to do what the judge told him to do in the ruling. It's all there, for pete's sake. He ought to have known all that stuff right from the start in the first place anyway. I mean, is this guy an ambulance chaser ala Vince Gambini from My Cousin Vinny, or what?!

he has the true facts all mixed up with internet chatter is the problem.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

To Gilbert:

https://twitter.com/TheLoneCoyote/status/232991168017874944

 

[sailingaway]

retweeted. Sounds like a battle cry, to me.

 

[Suzu]

he has the true facts all mixed up with internet chatter is the problem.

No, the problem is he doesn't know the difference between facts and conclusions. Worse yet, he doesn't seem to know the difference between generality and specificity.

 

[sailingaway]

No, the problem is he doesn't know the difference between facts and conclusions. Worse yet, he doesn't seem to know the difference between generality and specificity.

I was thinking he didn't have the specificity weeded from the trash.

 

[kathy88]

"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.

Charlie has experience EXCLUDING results. Fixed it for ya.

 

[libertylastchance]

They get a better lawyer.. They get plaintiffs that have proof and they stop telling everyone this will be done before Tampa.. the judge denied the plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Expedite...
These judges are expert chessmen.. this case came in with the board and a pawn.... end of game... The scales of justice tip, with evidence..
The fraud needs to be addressed and should of been done by each and every plaintiff at their local level..

 

[sailingaway]

They get a better lawyer.. They get plaintiffs that have proof and they stop telling everyone this will be done before Tampa.. the judge denied the plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Expedite...
These judges are expert chessmen.. this case came in with the board and a pawn.... end of game... The scales of justice tip, with evidence..
The fraud needs to be addressed and should of been done by each and every plaintiff at their local level..

the judge denied the motion to expedite only because there was nothing to expedite until he had a complaint that could go forward. He gave 13 days to file a better one.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[sailingaway]

No, Suzu's right. Think about it, he could have been very specific about this weed, that weed, and another weed. On it's face, it appears Gilbert is making a claim that, if true, can be granted relief by the court. Now, eventually it would come out that Gilbert got his facts wrong but the motion to dismiss would not have been granted because they didn't yet know if Gilbert's facts were true.

Now, imagine instead that everything in the complaint Gilbert actually filed with the court was true (which the judge would have assumed when deciding on how to rule on the motion). The judge would still grant the motion to dismiss because he doesn't know what exactly the problem is and how it can be fixed.

I'm aware of that. But if Gilbert ALSO doesn't know which facts are true he'd have been more likely to try to fudge it with vagueness.

 

[WhistlinDave]

They get a better lawyer.. They get plaintiffs that have proof and they stop telling everyone this will be done before Tampa.. the judge denied the plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Expedite...
These judges are expert chessmen.. this case came in with the board and a pawn.... end of game... The scales of justice tip, with evidence..
The fraud needs to be addressed and should of been done by each and every plaintiff at their local level..

Let me clarify this because I was there when the judge stated in court that either way, no matter what the ruling on the motion to dismiss, he is not going to grant a motion to expedite.

The motion to expedite was a motion to expedite a trial. The judge stated that (if Gilbert can file an amended complaint with enough specificity in it to constitute a proper complaint) there will not be enough time to have such a trial involving so many plaintiffs, defendants, etc., before the convention.

Gilbert stated he did not intend for a full trial to occur, but more of a summary judgement in order to arrive at the judge issuing the injunctive relief Gilbert was requesting.

The judge said that if the plaintiffs could present a claim that meets the minimum burden of plausibility and specificity required by the law, and the judge finds the claim has merit, he could issue an injunction before the convention. (Of course that's IF he finds in favor of Gilbert.)

The injunction is basically a court order saying "I order *this* to happen, even though this case isn't fully settled and done, but because I feel there is enough concern to warrant protecting the interests of the plaintiffs (or of whatever party is petitioning the court for the injunction), I am going to order these parties to do (or not do) these things."

Another example of an injunction might be a man divorcing a woman is suing, and the woman says she's selling the Ferrari this weekend, and so the husband gets an injunction saying "You are not allowed to sell the car." It's a court order made in the interest of limited time, when a trial is expected to take too long to prevent something from happening. (Something happening that could harm someone's interests.) Maybe the wife is entitled to the Ferrari, maybe not. Since the judge doesn't know until the case is done, the injunction says, "Don't do anything yet until this is decided."

In the case of this delegates lawsuit, the judge would be saying with an injunction, "No monkey business at the convention, tell all delegates to vote their conscience, no coercion, etc."

So what it boils down to is, if there is an amended complaint filed, the judge said he will be able to make a determination before the convention to say yes or no on the question of injunctive relief (Federal Marshalls, and/or a notice handed to all delegates they may vote their conscience, and/or re-seating delegates removed improperly, etc., or whatever combination the judge feels is appropriate).

Besides that though, the other people here are correct in that the judge can't grant a motion to expedite when a case has been dismissed, and at the moment, this one is dismissed without prejudice and needs to be amended and re-filed. But I don't think Gilbert will re-file a motion to expedite when he re-files the complaint, only a motion requesting injunctive relief as far as I understood the judge.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[eleganz]

Richard Gilbert's FB:

Throughout the ruling, disguised in legal language, the Judge is clearly saying he thinks we can win. People will not understand because it will confuse them that the motion is granted, but, the Judge went on to say "without prejudice to plaintiffs" which means our case is quite alive.

 

[tod evans]

When names are named, specifically broken bones in LA, it's imperative that the RNC et-al be listed as the defendant due to the fact that the "thugs" were acting as agents of the RNC.

Let me clarify this because I was there when the judge stated in court that either way, no matter what the ruling on the motion to dismiss, he is not going to grant a motion to expedite.

The motion to expedite was a motion to expedite a trial. The judge stated that (if Gilbert can file an amended complaint with enough specificity in it to constitute a proper complaint) there will not be enough time to have such a trial involving so many plaintiffs, defendants, etc., before the convention.

Gilbert stated he did not intend for a full trial to occur, but more of a summary judgement in order to arrive at the judge issuing the injunctive relief Gilbert was requesting.

The judge said that if the plaintiffs could present a claim that meets the minimum burden of plausibility and specificity required by the law, and the judge finds the claim has merit, he could issue an injunction before the convention. (Of course that's IF he finds in favor of Gilbert.)

The injunction is basically a court order saying "I order *this* to happen, even though this case isn't fully settled and done, but because I feel there is enough concern to warrant protecting the interests of the plaintiffs (or of whatever party is petitioning the court for the injunction), I am going to order these parties to do (or not do) these things."

Another example of an injunction might be a man divorcing a woman is suing, and the woman says she's selling the Ferrari this weekend, and so the husband gets an injunction saying "You are not allowed to sell the car." It's a court order made in the interest of limited time, when a trial is expected to take too long to prevent something from happening. (Something happening that would harm someone's interests.)

So what it boils down to is, if there is an amended complaint filed, the judge said he will be able to make a determination before the convention to say yes or no on the question of injunctive relief (Federal Marshalls, and/or a notice handed to all delegates they may vote their conscience, and/or re-seating delegates removed improperly, etc., or whatever combination the judge feels is appropriate).

 

[devil21]

When names are named, specifically broken bones in LA, it's imperative that the RNC et-al be listed as the defendant due to the fact that the "thugs" were acting as agents of the RNC.

Could even refer to them as Jane Doe and John Doe (#1, #2, #3, so on) if exact names aren't immediately available. At least that leaves the door open for discovery of who John Doe, the cop that was ordered to remove the elected chair in LA is(for example), and at least specifies an individual person that CAN be identified, instead of broad statements about "security removed elected chair". That's the sort of specificity the judge is talking about, even if a proper name isn't immediately available. It will be at a later date. People are deposed, not "groups".

I agree that the ruling language does lay out much of what Gilbert needs to provide in the new complaint to get the judge to act. The defense also realizes this.