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

[libertylastchance]

I saw nothing in the court ruling stating that the RNC said they can break the rules.... does anyone have the transcript?

 

[libertylastchance]

All the fraud should of been handled at the state level.. People who were subjected to, or witnessed to.. need to take the steps to correct the problem..

 

[TheKnowBuddies]

As I recall the first amendment was for the purposes of adding more Plaintiffs and no other content had changed - Ref per minute order 7-12-2012 (from memory)

 

[TheKnowBuddies]

I saw nothing in the court ruling stating that the RNC said they can break the rules.... does anyone have the transcript?

RG said tonight on the Radio Interview that he plans to have it posted on Monday.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ronpaulgirl/2012/08/10/live-interview-with-attorney-richard-gilbert

 

[sailingaway]

I agree, so do we have any attys that are rpf members at all??? I have a friend who is actually a criminal federal atty who is a parner at the best criminal lawyer firms on long island... I wonder if he would be able to help?? The only problem is they don't do pro bono and they are very highly paid!!! He is in new York not Cali though! I wouldn't even begin to know what to ask him or how to ask him for his help??? But I'm willing to give it a shot?

This is the firms website and his name is Joe Ferrante

http://keahonlaw.com/index.cfm

If as a friend he were willing to give tips even if not work on it much, that would be great, but if we are going to hire an attorney I would think it should be one wherever we are bringing suit, and who does civil practice in federal court. I think one issue here is Gilbert is more of a family law attorney etc, and is trying to stretch in an area that isn't really his area, because he feels strongly about it. But any attorney with federal pleading experience who wanted to give tips to you as a friend would be helpful as we try to rough up a complaint possibly for an attorney to look at.

 

[BSU kid]

If as a friend he were willing to give tips even if not work on it much, that would be great, but if we are going to hire an attorney I would think it should be one wherever we are bringing suit, and who does civil practice in federal court. I think one issue here is Gilbert is more of a family law attorney etc, and is trying to stretch in an area that isn't really his area, because he feels strongly about it. But any attorney with federal pleading experience who wanted to give tips to you as a friend would be helpful as we try to rough up a complaint possibly for an attorney to look at.

Interesting thoughts indeed, I guess we can't give up on Gilbert yet but it's nice to have at least a plausible backup. That backup would require a plaintiff who is a delegate though I would imagine.

 

[sailingaway]

Interesting thoughts indeed, I guess we can't give up on Gilbert yet but it's nice to have at least a plausible backup. That backup would require a plaintiff who is a delegate though I would imagine.

Well, some of the plaintiffs are forum members and we have members working with us on the facts who were at least state delegates where the fraud happened --some are national delegates -- we could let it be known there was another suit and I think we'd have plaintiffs. That is how Gilbert got them. I'm telling you, people were desperate for someone to do SOMETHING.

 

[devil21]

And we're still wasting pages of thread material and burying relevant info while entertaining the trolls. How the F would anybody find anything of use in this thread if it's been taken over by stupid legal bickering with new posters?

(Im guilty here too! Just trying to keep stuff in perspective. These threads are valuable for the videos and links that are posted. Stop clogging them up!!! Split it off Sailing. Corral the disruption. Sorry to say this but do your job as a moderator, not as a supporter. Mean that in the nicest way possible.)

 

[sailingaway]

All the fraud should of been handled at the state level.. People who were subjected to, or witnessed to.. need to take the steps to correct the problem..

I really disagree, I think the pattern and practice ACROSS THE NATION due to the RNC accepting state results with a wink and a nod despite cheating is what makes requiring the RNC to seat delegates/obey rules compelling.

 

[sailingaway]

And we're still wasting pages of thread material and burying relevant info while entertaining the trolls. How the F would anybody find anything of use in this thread if it's been taken over by stupid legal bickering with new posters?

(Im guilty here too! Just trying to keep stuff in perspective. These threads are valuable for the videos and links that are posted. Stop clogging them up!!! Split it off Sailing. Corral the disruption. Sorry to say this but do your job as a moderator, not as a supporter. Mean that in the nicest way possible.)

I have banned a couple of them, but this thread is too long and messy to get them all. I have pretty much been taking the videos and actual evidence and posting them at the sticky thread at the top which is ONLY for evidence, statements of facts and vetting whether those facts are true.

I do consider strategy to be the big part of this thread, as well as brainstorming about what facts we need. I consider constructive criticism of strategy necessary for coming up with a good strategy. I don't personally consider just complaining about how bad things are to be constructive however.

 

[sailingaway]

Let me speak in general terms.

To survive initial procedural attacks, a lawsuit must:

* Identify a plaintiff or plaintiff who have suffered specific wrong
* Identify defendants that are the ones who did the wrong
* Identify, specifically, by day, place and manner the specific wrong done by a particular defendant to a particular plaintiff
* Identify a recognized legal theory that provides for the plaintiff to receive relief
* Identify remedies that are recognized by law

In general, complaints that identify lots of plaintiffs and lots of defendants suffer from the following flaws:
* Not every plaintiff has suffered a particular wrong
* Not every defendant has done a particular wrongful act
* The specific acts cannot be detailed
* The legal theories don't have a recognized basis
* The remedy does not flow from the acts or legal theory

If you reread Judge Carter's decision you will see elements of almost every flaw I enumerated. Some haven't even been raised yet (in particular every plaintiff or defendant being involved in every act) but if this went to the next stage, that probably would be the next step by the Defendants.

There is another aspect I should cover. Outside parties cannot save a flawed complaint. Only the parties directly involved in the lawsuit or, in this case, their attorney. A party might have peeled off and done their own thing before but that window has probably closed. That is why I've been so down on the current status. I really think this is not fixable.

I will disclose that I used to work for a judge. I have a pretty good idea how they think.

every defendent doesn't need to be involved in every act, they just need to be necessary parties if their rights are affected, I understand?
Doing wrong goes to acts in the past and damages more than to future declaratory judgment except for the part about why you need extraordinary relief in the first place and doesn't the attorney saying they can cheat or change rules after the game is over, unilaterally (as they tried in St Charles) satisfy that? There may need to be more support but there is some.

But I envision a different complaint, as I've mentioned.

 

[tod evans]

I really disagree, I think the pattern and practice ACROSS THE NATION due to the RNC accepting state results with a wink and a nod despite cheating is what makes requiring the RNC to seat delegates/obey rules compelling.

I'm of the opinion that even without "proof" there's some sort of hierarchy in the RNC that has been calling the shots all along....

If enough of the underlings feet are held to the fire it's entirely possible we could move up a level or two in this hierarchy...

Just by exposing their actions we get the coals smoldering.....And having this lawsuit in the court system only adds fuel.

 

[sailingaway]

By the way, once we have our facts / complaint mock up in place, two of the ways to possibly get it before the judge are to:

1) submit it to Gilbert, maybe through a plaintiff he can't just 'block' so he at least looks at it. I am hoping he will LIKE it, and as an 'alternative' argument in his argument against the next motion to dismiss, I am hoping he will attach it as a 'it wouldn't be futile if you gave me the chance to amend again' demonstration of a good faith complaint he would file if allowed (modified as he felt necessary). I believe the judge WANTS this to go forward if it can be properly prosecuted, and might then give another chance (assuming he would otherwise rule against Gilbert at that time and I am not as certain as some detractors here that he will.)

or

2) do a motion to reconsider immediately after receiving a motion to dismiss. However, I don't know if we could intervene with different counsel without ALL the plaintiffs on board with that, and otherwise that would also take Gilbert agreeing to it. Or maybe we'd just need a plaintiff or two to ask to replace THEIR counsel. I don't know. But while it seems not to be in the federal rules apparently they do happen in federal court: http://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/dndopinions/html/4-10-cv-84-35.pdf

I just raise these as possibilities to think about and we should also discuss any ideas anyone else has.

--
edit - I also see discussion of a 'motion to reopen' which apparently divests the appellate court of jurisdiction for an appeal, and I don't know if Gilbert would go along with that.

My thought is we'd have to have our draft to Gilbert before the response is due on the motion to dismiss, or if dismissal is granted before Aug 20, before then to note that that was when the court originally asked for in its order, so it wouldn't have delayed matters. That's just brainstorming. Thoughts?

 

[freedomordeath]

2) do a motion to reconsider immediately after receiving a motion to dismiss. However, I don't know if we could intervene with different counsel without ALL the plaintiffs on board with that, and otherwise that would also take Gilbert agreeing to it. Or maybe we'd just need a plaintiff or two to ask to replace THEIR counsel. I don't know. But while it seems not to be in the federal rules apparently they do happen in federal court: http://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/dndopini...0-cv-84-35.pdf

Go with 1, but have everything ready for option 2. Also by having a couple of plantiffs on board with a new motion, like gold poeple will go with quality and the rest of the plantiffs will jump ship when they see something better. This will put pressure on Gilbert not to ignore us but to work with us. Also we can get everything together then do a chip in with a lawyer, he can read it over and advice us, surley this will not cost too much if he charges for say 3-4 hours to go over case.

 

[sailingaway]

the reference on the motion to reopen is this:

Motion To Reopen a Dismissed Adversary Proceeding and Set Aside the Order of Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, some others were thinking a different venue would be better in which case it would be a different procedure but also harder to get heard by RNC. Again, thoughts?

The first order of business is to get the facts together and the arguments and potentially supporting law into a complaint mock up for an attorney to review, or to otherwise use (the campaign might want parts of it for delegate challenges if they don't have all the evidence). But we have a narrow window, IF we are going to do anything in court and we need to have a plan or various plans, imho.

 

[sailingaway]

Go with 1, but have everything ready for option 2. Also by having a couple of plantiffs on board with a new motion, like gold poeple will go with quality and the rest of the plantiffs will jump ship when they see something better. This will put pressure on Gilbert not to ignore us but to work with us. Also we can get everything together then do a chip in with a lawyer, he can read it over and advice us, surley this will not cost too much if he charges for say 3-4 hours to go over case.

getting an attorney who practices in the area to 'just go over' a complaint might be tough. Someone would have to file and prosecute it. MAYBE they would do it for a plaintiff who wanted to file pro se, but I don't know. We might have to get it through an injunction/hearing. Money is definitely an issue here, given the time. But we might be more likely to get it if we have a compelling complaint.

 

[BSU kid]

I'm no law student but it seems to me that if we can find a delegate on this site or daily paul etc. that was not part of the Gilbert suit, they can file a separate case with similar questions to Gilbert. In that instance it would be treated as a different case entirely, especially if it is filed in say the District Court of Maine or Massachusetts (Where we have verifiable evidence of fraud, and violations of the voting rights act) and then we would also be able to ask the question of binding delegates. I would say that if Gilbert fails, which he might not, then we have to ditch him and find a smaller pool of plaintiffs to file a new suit using information that has been compiled on this site and others as a last shot.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm no law student but it seems to me that if we can find a delegate on this site or daily paul etc. that was not part of the Gilbert suit, they can file a separate case with similar questions to Gilbert. In that case it would be treated as a different case entirely, especially if it is filed in say the District Court of Maine or Massachusetts (Where we have verifiable evidence of fraud, and violations of the voting rights act) and then we would also be able to ask the question of binding delegates. I would say that if Gilbert fails, which he might not, then we have to ditch him and find a smaller pool of plaintiffs to file a new suit using information that has been compiled on this site and others as a last shot.

Yes, but the only issue I see there is getting it heard by RNC to get a declaratory judgement they have to follow the rules and seat our delegates. It is still a potential.

This judge also indicated a belief that the Voting Rights Act DOES apply to the RNC under some theories (I'm thinking contract with the rules being the contract, here but he might have meant something else).

But there should be a potential for different plaintiffs to go for fraud in different cases.

 

[BSU kid]

Yes, but the only issue I see there is getting it heard by RNC to get a declaratory judgement they have to follow the rules and seat our delegates. It is still a potential.

This judge also indicated a belief that the Voting Rights Act DOES apply to the RNC under some theories (I'm thinking contract with the rules being the contract, here but he might have meant something else).

But there should be a potential for different plaintiffs to go for fraud in different cases.

I see what you mean about being heard by the RNC, and that a change of venue might also make it harder. I definitely like Option 2 to an extent, but I think the judge won't reconsider even with a different counsel. After all he has already given us 3 chances here, and if Gilbert strikes out that is probably the end of the inning.

 

[sailingaway]

I see what you mean about being heard by the RNC, and that a change of venue might also make it harder. I definitely like Option 2 to an extent, but I think the judge won't reconsider even with a different counsel. After all he has already given us 3 chances here, and if Gilbert strikes out that is probably the end of the inning.

We'd find that out very quickly if so. I think if the judge drops it it will be BECAUSE of Gilbert not addressing his stated concerns and immediately bringing in new counsel to do that BEFORE the deadline the judge initially set of Aug 20 might find sympathy. He did stay up to midnight to get his order out late so Gilbert had plenty of direction. He put a lot into the suit. But he probably doesn't want it argued poorly because of its importance, I suspect.

However, I'm not convinced of one process over another, I'm just trying to get possibilities into the discussion so we can discuss them and know what timing would be required etc.