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

[CPUd]

Second Amended complaint:
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6414717

It's a more focused complaint, he took out the part about the US Marshals, but there is nothing specific. I'm guessing all those might be added in after the defense files motion to dismiss, because they will do so on the grounds that the complaint is not specific, and they will probably once again cite LopezTorres.

 

[RonRules]

Why hasn't 42 USC 1971(b) been brought up?

It totally is now. Look at the Second Amended complaint.

 

[CPUd]

42 USC 1971(b) is central to the new complaint, but looks like he's waiting for the defense to ask how is it central.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

what the judge said before was that the FACTS to apply that law against weren't clearly enough stated. I hope they are this time. And that is where the broken bones would have come in.

 

[RonRules]

what the judge said before was that the FACTS to apply that law against weren't clearly enough stated. I hope they are this time. And that is where the broken bones would have come in.

Gilbert was ecstatic (according to WhistlingDave) when the GOP lawyer had to admit that they break their own rules. P25:"Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election..." "Rather Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the law of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants chose"

I think that's the angle Gilbert is using and that the details are not important at this point.

 

[sailingaway]

Gilbert was ecstatic (according to WhistlingDave) when the GOP lawyer had to admit that they break their own rules. P25:"Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election..." "Rather Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the law of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants chose"

I think that's the angle Gilbert is using and that the details are not important at this point.

I think the court specifically said that details were very important and he couldn't even tell what had happened. Crap. I have to read the complaint to comment, though.

 

[sailingaway]

Well. I would have added fact situations. I frankly would amend now to add them. If he amends before the court's date of Aug 20 and before the other side files, I think it will end up not being a big deal.

 

[RonRules]

In the judge's previous ruling:

"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts which, if true, would entitle the complainant to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss). The pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

Now because the GOP lawyer put his foot in his mouth, admitting that they don't follow Federal Election law, and that they even break their own rules, no other facts matter!

"claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss"

It's no longer a he/she said. The GOP lawyer said it right in front of the judge and that's why it was so painful for him to admit it.

Case closed!

 

[sailingaway]

In the judge's previous ruling:

"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts which, if true, would entitle the complainant to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss). The pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

Now because the GOP lawyer put his foot in his mouth, admitting that they don't follow Federal Election law, and that they even break their own rules, no other facts matter!

"claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss"

It's no longer a he/she said. The GOP lawyer said it right in front of the judge and that's why it was so painful for him to admit it.

Case closed!

I do see what he is doing, given this is a declaratory judgment but it does nothing to bring out the fraud that has happened to date, for one thing, and I would amend to also more obviously pile onto this part of your quote:

a plaintiff
must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.”

I just don't like to rely on only one theory and justification when SO MANY exist.

I would supplement the complaint.

 

[RonRules]

I just don't like to rely on only one theory and justification when SO MANY exist.

I actually agree with you, not being a lawyer, it seems like the prudent thing to do.

But I think Gilbert is totally confident and simply saying:

The GOP is breaking election law, they admitted in front of you. There is no need for testimony or affidavits. Can you please admonish them and remind the GOP about the Civil Rights Voting Act, clearly stating that delegates can vote their conscience. Oh and BTW, get them to serve that ruling to all delegates. Thank you.

BTW, FYI there is more coming, in a few weeks.

Edit: La-di-da, La-di-da.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[CPUd]

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

he is very good at this.


I think he is going to see how they respond, but when they respond is beginning to be a bit more important.

 

[RonRules]

So, it could be more like "case dismissed."

Thought you said you weren't going to post here anymore?

"RNC hasn't prevented delegates from voting about anything"

OhReally? And what about these arm twisting affidavits to be signed and the recent Maine "compromise" letter, allegedly sent from Romney's headquarters in Boston?

 

[torchbearer]

Thought you said you weren't going to post here anymore?

Dude has a job to do. he won't recieved full payment if he doesn't shill.
best to just put on ignore.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[RonRules]

The affidavits were sent out by the Massachusetts GOP Allocation Committee.

You seem well informed.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[torchbearer]

You seem well informed.

see my post previous post.
not a random poster, has knowledge of gop inside events and he has a hard-on for huckabee. should tell you all you need to know.
read his post history, notice the shit threads that attract the fly.

 

[lawdida]

I don't know.

 

[sailingaway]

I know it's missing the "w' but I thought you might be calling me.





Eh. I don't think it will meet the requirements of an injunction.

But you never know with these 9th circuit judges.

The affidavits were sent out by the Massachusetts GOP Allocation Committee. I'm not as familier with the Maine situation but a compromise is a compromise.

the question is whether when a GOP chair who previously said all rules are followed sends out a 'compromise' because 'rules have been broken' as 'the way ' to settle a suit and be seated whether that is impliedly a threat. And why the challenge to delegates was sent to Maine from Mass is interesting too, since I understand that is what happened. And why the guy who handed out fake Paul slates was paid by the Romney campaign per FEC reports, and how closely the RNC and Romney campaign are coordinating. And fake reasons to not let delegates be seated, or, in Louisiana, directing private security to physically remove them, breaking fingers and sending another guy off by ambulance, does keep them from voting. Those are really pretty clear.

However, I don't see them in the complaint and would add them.