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

sailingaway said:
He probably didn't know why Ron was against. He was being snarky and implying it was racially motivated, or at least ironic. It is irrelevant to the case, but it might impact the judge's view of Ron so if there were a way to let him know why Ron did it (it wasn't for voting provisions) it might be a good thing to do. But we don't want to make that the focus of attention since it doesn't matter, legally.
Click to expand...

It's just aggravating when people just keep spouting off stuff about stuff they don't have all of the information on, especially in a form that is documented and/or televised.
 
I just hope they use the good evidence and hard work this community has been gathering and providing them with.

sailingaway said:
I don't want the complaint thrown out 'with prejudice' so it can't be amended. However, there is nothing we can do about that except try to help make the case stronger, because it is going forward, regardless.
Click to expand...
 
rockandrollsouls said:
I just hope they use the good evidence and hard work this community has been gathering and providing them with.
Click to expand...

The problem is the information is all scattered about. You can't expect Gilbert or anyone else to find all that.

That's why sailing has started a thread to collect the info:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ng-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-for-LFRP-lawsuit/page2

Please help the project.

We will also collect that in a public Wiki:


Here are some example pages:
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Iowa
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Louisiana
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Maine
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Michigan
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Missouri
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Nevada
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Washington
 
RonRules said:
The problem is the information is all scattered about. You can't expect Gilbert or anyone else to find all that.

That's why sailing has started a thread to collect the info:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ng-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-for-LFRP-lawsuit/page2

Please help the project.

We will also collect that in a public Wiki:


Here are some example pages:
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Iowa
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Louisiana
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Maine
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Michigan
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Missouri
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Nevada
http://l4rp.wikispaces.com/Washington
Click to expand...

that is why we have our thread at the top. It isn't in 'format' yet but some parts are more than others, and it is a working thread so people with facts can contribute. We can then make it pretty for someone to post on wiki or send to Gilbert. If I were him I'd be checking it periodically though. I may tweet it periodically.
 
sailingaway said:
the new complaint was filed. Gilbert is filing a motion to expedite today, I understand. Not sure I wouldn't just go with the judge's idea of using a preliminary injunction format, but there it is. We just have to hope Gilbert's new complaint follows what the judge said he needs to do.
Click to expand...

Why isn't the NEW filing showing up on PACER????
 
sailingaway said:
he was trying but yeah, people would say he was biased. They do sometimes try but the way our system works is with two WELL BRIEFED and WELL REPRESENTED opposing sides presenting the best case for each side so the judge can pick the most compelling. The facts do have to be before him.
Click to expand...

I think the judge was more than helpful , he actually informed Mr. Gilbert when he filed his first amendment and it was denied HOW to file it properly so it would be accepted..
 
ClydeCoulter said:
What is the "commentary" at the start of the ruling the judge gave. I don't understand how that has anything to do with the case, why mention Ron Paul being against the Voting Rights Act without also having discussion of why?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102312914/Delegates-vs-RNC-ORDER-GRANTING-DEFENDANTS’-MOTION-TO-DISMISS
Click to expand...


Because the complaint filed clearly referenced Ron Paul..


The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is that Defendants have
engaged in various acts—often too vaguely described to be intelligible—that have
disadvantaged Ron Paul in his quest to be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for
President at the Republican National Convention commencing on August 27, 2012

The judge IMO is fully aware of why Ron Paul voted NAY.
 
Lopez Case the judge refered to said:
However, the Court explained, the political parties' associational rights were not at issue in the case; rather, the "weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party
Click to expand...

I think I see what he is saying, it's not just the parties right to associate, but the delegates right to associate. Am I missing something?

edit: Or is this old or useless news
 
Last edited:
freedomordeath said:
Do I have permission to spread this around the interwebs, get others involved.
Click to expand...

Yes but the number of editors is limited. Five for now unless we chip in a few dollars to open it up to more.

It's probably best to fill in the stickied thread that Sailing put up and we'll fill up the Wiki. We could use two more editors right now.
 
ClydeCoulter said:
I think I see what he is saying, it's not just the parties right to associate, but the delegates right to associate. Am I missing something?

edit: Or is this old or useless news
Click to expand...

I think what he is saying is they have a right of association but once they let people associate as a so called open tent, they can't change and say they can't have influence according to the rules that tempted them in.

It is almost more of a contract idea. This was THEIR offer, and they didn't have to make it that way, but once they made it and people relied on it, they can't just change it willy nilly.
 
Why hasn't 42 USC 1971(b) been brought up?

- (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

If (b) is upheld then (c) states:

- (c) Preventive relief; injunction; rebuttable literacy presumption; liability of United States for costs; State as party defendant
Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.
 
It's short and sweet. No specifics about broken bones, etc. He's emphasizing the Voting Rights Act as the judge asked for:

On page 24, the core issue:
This second Amended Complaint presents a Federal Question for the Court's consideration

The Federal Question presented is whether the Voting Rights Act (hereafter "VRA") applies to the National Convention of the Defendants to be held in Tampa commencing Aug 27, 2012.

There is no other issue presented. If the Court concludes that the Voting Rights Act is applicable to the National Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief pursuant to 42 USC S1971(c) to order Defendants to apply the law set forth in 41 USC S1971 and its sub parts to the Convention and to provide a copy of the Court's Order to each Delegate participating in the Convention.

It's going to be hard for the judge to say no to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ronpaulhawaii
Ron Paul BBQ team looking to expand event size
Replies
6
Views
151
ronpaulhawaii
ronpaulhawaii
Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
403
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
The 9/11 Attacks Exposed Major Government Failure, But Americans Learned the Wrong Lessons
Replies
0
Views
69
PAF
PAF
PAF
Pentagon Demands Journalists Sign Pledge Not To Gather Certain Information
Replies
2
Views
224
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
NY - judge strikes down the "vampire rule" [FPC lawsuit]
Replies
0
Views
418
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top