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

[sailingaway]

It depends on the judge. My view is that they can't CHANGE the rules once they start the process, but I'm not sure that is the view that is being presented in the complaint. But the Rnc is saying they can do exactly that AND change the rules at the last second or break them. Think about it. The fight in Louisiana is whether the delegates should vote for ROMNEY. Romney didn't win EITHER the primary or caucus in Louisiana. So it isn't like the RNC is saying they are bound to EITHER the rules or the vote.

We played by their rules. I just want to see the rules people depended on when they participated in the process be enforced. Note that in some states if you are a delegate in the nomination of one party you are FORECLOSED from being one in another party, so there was detrimental reliance on the integrity of the RNC rules.

The way it is now, the status quo perpetuates because the prevailing candidate, by whatever margin, is deemed the universal candidate and no conversation between factions can occur to change or modify the direction of the party at RNC, regardless of how frantically the particular voting state may have hated the nationally prevailing candidate. The election was between Romney and the rest of the field. His votes did not outweigh the rest until he was named nominee, prematurely.

The RNC is supposed to be a business meeting if you read the rules, and through 1976, it was one.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree, but if our question is what do we do to help, if we can do anything, do we put that into the complaint draft (note all the FACTS you just mentioned) if we want one ready to go? I'd say sure, as an additional cause of action. Even if the complaint isn't used as a complaint, having facts organized simply with evidence has to help in later hearings on this.

But I confess, my hopes for this suit were always more in the pressure to get our delegates seated with oversight if necessary part, rather than the unbinding part, per se, so I like having the facts in, just as a stand alone matter.

I understand your concern, sailingaway, but at the moment we seem to have a single issue at steak in the lawsuit, that being boundedness, and that based on the RNC being a National Election. ALTHOUGH, your concerns should also be addressed as a seperate issue, and ALL releveant information needs to also be gathered for that. But, we need to keep these 2 efforts seperated in our minds so that we can help, if we can, to the best of our ability.

Concerning Gilberts current complaint, IF it is determined by the judge that the RNC election of a nominee is a Federal Election, which it appears from law that it is, then the question of "Will they likely break the rules/law in the future" becomes the point that Gilbert is pointing out using the RNC layers own words in court the other day. That gave the judge the evidence to his face when they said they can do as they please with the rules and will change them at anytime they wish.

Can we, or do we wish to, add any more "evidence" to the case in support of what Gilbert has filed? The way I see it, we can show more specific evidence of them actually changing their own rules against their own rules. Like in the case of LA. BUT we must keep it simple and only document the rule breaking, not try to push the bone breaking (that is in the seperate effort). In the case of LA, the rules were changed without a proper vote according to their own rules, and, also , they tried to replace the duly elected rules chairman in violation of rules. RULE BREAKING in the past, especially in multiple states, would be what we want to show. That shows disenfranchisement of the delegates. But we have to be specific with "Who did what to whom when and where".

EDIT: there is one more question to ask, do we support the idea that the RNC nomination is a Federal Election, and what impact will that have on future elections.

 

[RonRules]

im a little confused here. this judges decision is history in the making. if he deems that all delegates are not bound at any time, then lets say a candidate wins a states primary, then the delegates selected for that state go to the convention and vote for a candidate that came in last place in the popular vote of that state, how is it fair to the rest of the state who voted for the winner of the state? does what i said even make sense? lol im just thinking out loud

That's what Ron Paul did in about 7-8 states! Sometimes it's a good thing.

One thing is for sure, if the ruling is YES, delegates will get a LOT more scrutiny, not some quick 3 minute speech. They will have to gain the confidence of voters to represent them at the convention, much like congressional reps and senators.

 

[sailingaway]

I see there being multiple causes of action but I agree that the cause of action Gilbert brought is enhanced by the facts in LA about them trying to unilaterally change the rules at the last minute and pretending they were changed (that at least brings in the delegate controversy) the broken bones can just be the extremes they went to to try to get their fake rules rammed in despite overwhelming opposition.

But I would like the other causes of action ready for that lawsuit, for hearings, or in case another is brought.

 

[sailingaway]

That's what Ron Paul did in about 7-8 states! Sometimes it's a good thing.

One thing is for sure, if the ruling is YES, delegates will get a LOT more scrutiny, not some quick 3 minute speech. They will have to gain the confidence of voters to represent them at the convention, much like congressional reps and senators.

he only did it where the rules allowed it and we were able to keep them from cheating and breaking their own rules by force of vast numbers in comparison, often. He'd have more if they had followed the rules. NOt all states, as in NH for example, allow it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not sure I think this unbinding deal is a good thing. I am concerned about unintended consequences down the line. Personally, I just want them to be required to follow their own damn rules.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I see there being multiple causes of action but I agree that the cause of action Gilbert brought is enhanced by the facts in LA about them trying to unilaterally change the rules at the last minute and pretending they were changed (that at least brings in the delegate controversy) the broken bones can just be the extremes they went to to try to get their fake rules rammed in despite overwhelming opposition.

But I would like the other causes of action ready for that lawsuit, for hearings, or in case another is brought.

I totally agree. There is a much larger case to be brought to, I believe, the Federal court level which does concern the use of force and fraud. For one, I would like to bring up the whole idea of using off duty police as security, since it seems they, the police, cannot seperate the 2 jobs. The police seem to switch hats in the middle of an event, like when they threatened to confiscate cameras that were recording the LA event showing the bone breaking and knocking to the floor.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure I think this unbinding deal is a good thing. I am concerned about unintended consequences down the line. Personally, I just want them to be required to follow their own damn rules.

well, one of my reasons for wanting a supplemented complaint available to offer, along with maybe allowing another amendment if Gilberts' is challenged successfully, is to allow the court to follow the path it finds most compelling, which might end up being the fraud part. The court already made it clear he is cognizant of the importance of free association.

 

[sailingaway]

I totally agree. There is a much larger case to be brought to, I believe, the Federal court level which does concern the use of force and fraud. For one, I would like to bring up the whole idea of using off duty police as security, since it seems they, the police, cannot seperate the 2 jobs. The police seem to switch hats in the middle of an event, like when they threatened to confiscate cameras that were recording the LA event showing the bone breaking and knocking to the floor.

yeah.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Okay, let's say that we create a supplemental in support of Gilberts claims. We could use evidence from LA and OK and others where we have video evidence of them breaking their own rules. We have to keep it to the claims to the rule breaking and last minute changes to the rules.

BUT, is there a way to "gracefully" incorporate the "extent" of their "force" to break rules? That, without complicating the supplemental (I'm not going back pages to find out how to spell cumnae or whatever that was).

 

[RonRules]

For one, I would like to bring up the whole idea of using off duty police as security, since it seems they, the police, cannot seperate the 2 jobs. The police seem to switch hats in the middle of an event, like when they threatened to confiscate cameras that were recording the LA event showing the bone breaking and knocking to the floor.

This is a big issue for me too. I've been at protests where LAPD off duty officers were hired by a cult at $75/hr to guard a protest. The cops were totaly on the side of the cult and providing them protester information and threatening arrests for trivial things or shouting. I see that sort of thing as a huge conflict of interest and in the particular case I'm mentioning, a church-state separation issue because this cult claims to be a church.

Imagine half of the Tampa police / Florida State Troopers force working for the GOP inside the convention center. Do you think Ron Paul supporters will have a chance to nominate Ron?

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

So you are saying that your Boss has been misled? We know the media is the cause of the assumption.
When did the media start this national perception? In April, as I see it. RNC Chairman announced "On The Record", the Fox show hosted by Greta. Greta asked, "Is it true? The merger of the RNC and Team Romnee? RNC chair, we are combining our resources. Greta, What about Ron Paul? RNC Chair, OH, we have been talking to the Ron Paul People. [paraphrases as well as I remember]
Bada Bing! Right there RNC BROKE their own rules(Rule 11). Rmonee was given an enormous advantage! Texas and California were yet to vote.
DOES THAT TYPE OF RULE BREAKING EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION?
Does it do harm to the Voter and or Plaintiffs? Can it be likened to ELECTIONEERING?

One other point; The GOP Convention is funded with Federal Tax Payer Money.
just some thoughts for now.

PS. For what reasoning would the broken portion of Rule 11 be written in the first place? To provide for a fair and legal election? Breaking the rules does what?

Not really sure what I am suppose to be answering... but it had already kicked in full speed during this election cycle at CPAC and continue by ignoring and repeatedly stating how "unelectable" Dr. Paul was.. . and yes, my former boss, although he does realize the media is corrupt, does not seek any additional sources outside of the mainstream.

 

[sailingaway]

Absolutely, just gracefully phrase it that way. 'including without limitation:

(i)Villers' (sp?) call as self appointed temporary chairman for privately hired security to forcibly remove duly elected rules chair, Hedwig (?), resulting in the breaking of the rules chair's fingers and injuries necessitating he walk with a cane;

(ii) the direction of privately hired security to physically remove the elderly, duly elected chairman of the convention, Henry Herfort (sp?), in replacement of Villiers, despite Herfort's calls as they grabbed him that he was handicapped, knocking Herfort to the ground and injuring his newly implanted prosthetic hip requiring he be removed by ambulence with replacement chosen from the audience thereby losing their vote in the convention as delegates....

all to 'enforce' fake rules never passed that they contended existed despite lack of ratification under their own rules for creating rules.....'

or something.

Then we'll all play with it for the graceful part....

 

[RonRules]

physically remove the elderly, duly elected chairman of the convention,

I'd remove the word "elderly". He is barely 60 and that would give them an excuse along the lines that he was senile, which of course is totally false.

 

[TheKnowBuddies]

I agree, but if our question is what do we do to help, if we can do anything, do we put that into the complaint draft (note all the FACTS you just mentioned) if we want one ready to go? I'd say sure, as an additional cause of action. Even if the complaint isn't used as a complaint, having facts organized simply with evidence has to help in later hearings on this.

But I confess, my hopes for this suit were always more in the pressure to get our delegates seated with oversight if necessary part, rather than the unbinding part, per se, so I like having the facts in, just as a stand alone matter.

A favorable outcome is guidance and relief as prayed for starting on page 32, line 24.
partially transcribed:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray, and respectfully request that the Court enter judgement:

1. For Declaratory Judgement that to US Statutes cited, including 42 U.S.C. 1971 and its subparts are applicable to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention, and a Court Order to issue declaring that all Delegates to the Federal Election also known as the Republican National Convention in August 2012 to vote in accordance with the Voting Rights Act and its Subparts, including 42 U.S.C. 1971(b).
------------------------------------

 

[SteveT1736]

I doubt this will be appreciated but let me clarify a bit:

Gilbert's new complaint is focused on Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act which bars intimidation of voters. He asks for the Court to find, under that provision, that delegates may not be bound and notify them in writing of that proposition.

The Judge has already decided this issue. If you will look to his Order granting the motion to dismiss, on page 17, he rejects that analysis under the heading: "No authority supports Plaintiffs' interpretation of the[sic] Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act."

The point is that this Judge has already rejected Gilbert's analysis that the Voting Rights Act bars binding delegates.

As I've noted above, the fact that the RNC's attorney took the position in Court that the RNC Convention is determined by party rules, subject to change, and not outside entities, is not an acceptable justification for a complaint. It is a position of advocacy not an indication of wrongdoing. Courts and attorneys banter on these kind of issues all the time as the Judge tests the limits. But, it is not evidence of anything, merely a legal posture.

THE PROBLEM NOW is that the complaint lacks factual allegations. Judge Carter specifically told Gilbert to provide specific factual allegations in his complaint or he would be thrown out of court permanently. Attaching affidavits or videos or other documents now is utterly irrelevant. They are evidence not allegations in the complaint where they must be. When you sue someone, you must tell them with particularity what they did wrong. Then, you justify your allegations with evidence. This case is high-centered on the lack of appropriate pleadings.

In the decision, Judge Carter bashed Gilbert for his incompetency. Here is the key statement by the Judge: "With one exception, Plaintiffs' allegations are not sufficiently intelligibly for this Court to even analyze whether they can state claim a claim." That one fact was stripped out in this version of the complaint. On the way to work this morning I listened to Gilbert's radio broadcast. Gilbert claimed that the Judge was in his corner, that the Judge had backed his legal theory (which, as I noted above, the Judge specifically refuted), that a wide ranging victory was nigh. At best, I can only describe this as delusional.

I'll refrain from commenting in the future. But, what I've stated above is an accurate statement of the current status. And, it is not good. Given what Gilbert has done, there are really no viable alternatives with respect to this case.

 

[CPUd]

...

Yet, Gilbert claimed in the broadcast that the Judge was in his corner, that he backed his legal theory (which, as I noted above, the Judge specifically refuted), that a wide ranging victory was nigh. At best, I can only describe this as delusional.

I am unfortunately going to have to agree with you on this point. This is the same guy who believed one of his prior cases was going to result in California being split into 2 states. He is now tweeting that he is filing these (substandard) complaints on purpose, and believes this will impress the judge. It does not take a legal background to see that what it will really do is piss him off.

In the interest of being constructive, I do believe putting together the wiki is worthwhile, and should prove to be an asset, and not necessarily in the legal sense.

 

[sailingaway]

A favorable outcome is guidance and relief as prayed for starting on page 32, line 24.
partially transcribed:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray, and respectfully request that the Court enter judgement:

1. For Declaratory Judgement that to US Statutes cited, including 42 U.S.C. 1971 and its subparts are applicable to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention, and a Court Order to issue declaring that all Delegates to the Federal Election also known as the Republican National Convention in August 2012 to vote in accordance with the Voting Rights Act and its Subparts, including 42 U.S.C. 1971(b).
------------------------------------

to me they need to be seated or how they vote doesn't matter much, and I'd like to see seating addressed in the complaint by requiring rules be followed.

 

[sailingaway]

I doubt this will be appreciated but let me clarify a bit:

Gilbert's new complaint is focused on Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act which bars intimidation of voters. He asks for the Court to find, under that provision, that delegates may not be bound and notify them in writing of that proposition.

The Judge has already decided this issue. If you will look to his Order granting the motion to dismiss, on page 17, he rejects that analysis under the heading: "No authority supports Plaintiffs' interpretation of the[sic] Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act."

The point is that this Judge has already rejected Gilbert's analysis that the Voting Rights Act bars binding delegates.

As I've noted above, the fact that the RNC's attorney took the position in Court that the RNC Convention is determined by party rules, subject to change, and not outside entities, is not an acceptable justification for a complaint. It is a position of advocacy not an indication of wrongdoing. Courts and attorneys banter on these kind of issues all the time as the Judge tests the limits. But, it is not evidence of anything, merely a legal posture.

THE PROBLEM NOW is that the complaint lacks factual allegations. Judge Carter specifically told Gilbert to provide specific factual allegations in his complaint or he would be thrown out of court permanently. Attaching affidavits or videos or other documents now is utterly irrelevant. They are evidence not allegations in the complaint where they must be. When you sue someone, you must tell them with particularity what they did wrong. Then, you justify your allegations with evidence. This case is high-centered on the lack of appropriate pleadings.

In the decision, Judge Carter bashed Gilbert for his incompetency. Here is the key statement by the Judge: "With one exception, Plaintiffs' allegations are not sufficiently intelligibly for this Court to even analyze whether they can state claim a claim." That one fact was stripped out in this version of the complaint. On the way to work this morning I listened to Gilbert's radio broadcast. Gilbert claimed that the Judge was in his corner, that the Judge had backed his legal theory (which, as I noted above, the Judge specifically refuted), that a wide ranging victory was nigh. At best, I can only describe this as delusional.

I'll refrain from commenting in the future. But, what I've stated above is an accurate statement of the current status. And, it is not good. Given what Gilbert has done, there are really no viable alternatives with respect to this case.

If this is correct, and I did see some of this myself, and don't know if Gilbert addressed his concerns, then the question still is can we put a factually detailed complaint out so the judge has it in front of him to know it exists and another amendment wouldn't be futile? That is part of the point of what we are doing, belt and suspenders to the existing complaint so the judge sees it and might be persuaded to give the new draft a chance, rather than give up if there is nothing in front of him.

I don't know he will, he doesn't have to , but he isn't forclosed from doing it either, and he put a LOT of work into detailing what he wanted to see in a complaint.

As I said, I am NOT a cheerleader for Gilbert, I am trying to figure out if anything can be done to support our delegates who are in this suit.

If Gilbert is not intentionally hurting the suit, and I don't know any reason to think he would, he might be open to putting the complaint draft in response papers to the next motion to dismiss.

At least that is what we are looking at trying to do, so more discussion of how bad some people may think what Gilbert already has done is, isn't constructive, even the parts I may agree with. What we CAN do is the only thing we should be discussing here.

I think it is pretty much agreed that gathering the facts and evidence of fraud is good in any event, and if we can use it to help the suit, we would at least have it ready.

And we might as well have it ready in complaint format, as best we can put it together.

 

[TheKnowBuddies]

This is a big issue for me too. I've been at protests where LAPD off duty officers were hired by a cult at $75/hr to guard a protest. The cops were totaly on the side of the cult and providing them protester information and threatening arrests for trivial things or shouting. I see that sort of thing as a huge conflict of interest and in the particular case I'm mentioning, a church-state separation issue because this cult claims to be a church.

Imagine half of the Tampa police / Florida State Troopers force working for the GOP inside the convention center. Do you think Ron Paul supporters will have a chance to nominate Ron?

What if anyone, law enforcement, et al, violated a 9th Circuit Declaratory Judgement that the Voter Rights Act, including subparts, be applied to the National Election known as the Republican National Convention? Violation = Threaten, Coerce, etc.