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

[TheKnowBuddies]

You guys have been busy.
I have had wall to wall distractions-Got some reading to do - I have some thoughts, got sort out the order.
I do believe the _______ at the beginning of the ?RULES? should be quantified
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Republican Party is the party of the open door. Ours is the party of liberty, the party of equality, of opportunity for all, and favoritism for none.? and the rest of it.
Sounds so "Official" but what is it?
A charter, promise, measure of good faith, guarantee, contract, sales tool,
Contract Pledge Assured Purpose mission statement honest pledge of artificial promise put-on goal proposal undertaking ploy scheme racket bogus snake oil racket deceit trick scam deception dupe smoke and mirrors hoodwink con defraud cheat get or…..a fake wooden nickel?

The judge threw in, "Ironic". Oath keepers, to preserve the constitution, the Judge needs deliver to the Plaintiffs or we will totally lose the Constitution and we will have little need for Judges. Reminds me of the opening of the Beatles movie "Help", "If we lose the congregation, No more me." :o

Paul Napolitano ‏@TheKnowBuddies
@USA_Free_Press & @JudgeNap - The RNC Rule Book Preamble is either a contract to members or it is a FAKE WOODEN NICKEL

 

[tod evans]

(continued...)

Therefore, if it requires that we be a "delegate in the party", then there is no relief if the party can control our access and our vote. I believe the VRA then comes into play.

Shooting from the hip...

(I know there are no citations.)



Our delegates are only asking the court to clarify existing law, they have been duly seated in accordance with party rules.

Issue 1

Party bosses however have exceeded their power and fraudulently inserted straw-men into their seats contrary to the lawful election.

In an attempt to satisfy known legal requirements the RNC has admitted that they "changed the rules" when the voters didn't elect those the party bosses wanted.

We contend that placing straw-men in delegate seats after ousting the duly elected delegates is illegal.


Issue 2


Party bosses unilaterally have presented duly elected delegates with binding documents and demanded that they be signed under threat of impeachment.

We contend that by presenting these heretofore unseen documents, the party bosses are attempting to coerce unethical behavior from delegates and that this behavior would violate the trust placed in the delegates by the voters.


In close;

We petition this court for relief, that the court would order the RNC and all of it's members to cease and desist any and all actions designed to intimidate or influence delegates to vote any certain way during the convention and that all duly elected delegates be seated.
Specifically we request that this court instruct every state party leader that it is the delegates who are responsible for following their conscience and party bosses are legally bound to support these delegates not Vice-Versa.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

that doesn't say they are able to BREAk their rules, however.

But I think the real argument no one raised is that the states collude with the two 'private parties' so they are no longer truly private parties, that they get financial and ballot access assistance which on an national ticket in practical terms makes them the ONLY possibility of winning. this being the case, parties are disenfranchising those not in their parties through ballot access and state collusion granted preferences, and are disenfranchising those INSIDE their party with the facts we discuss. The remedy should be putting all parties on the same foot with ballot access and benefits, not only 'established' parties. And for this year, since there is no time, they should put Ron on all 50 state ballots. (What can I say, had to add that at the end...)

Is this true? Do the D/R parties have ballot access assistance that, say, the L party does not? If so, that would be an issue.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The problem before us is that we cannot amend the amended complaint. We can only, if the judge allows it, enlighten the court on law and case law as to "how" one might "see" the law or case law supporting the current complaint and/or motion to dismiss.

We need to show how law/case supports the already made claims, ie, the RNC election to nominate a president and/or vice president is a national election that the government has an "interest" in, and that the VRA applies to that RNC election as a national election in some way that prevents any binding of delegates, reguardless of, or in lieu of, party rules.

 

[TheKnowBuddies]

When I dont write down the chords & lyrics the inspiration gets away to the next one.

The INTENT of the RULES as described in the preamble spells out THE SAID INTENT, if intentions mean anything in a court.
The second paragraph:
"It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in the Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans."

*I don't see any disclaimer(s) ie: not applicable in all areas, some restrictions may apply, where you see "rule" you can substitute with "suggestion". yada

Not all Bosses and Agents of the RNC break the rule's, but many DO move with INTENT to break rules and.......break Federal Laws as well in an attempt to tamper with and change the outcome. All Americans suffer, and will continue to suffer if VRA is not found to protect all voters to vote freely of their choice.

Ps - Admittedly, I have not caught up on reading, Just my wild thoughts that are throw out as they come to me, if I don't write it down right away I will forget, sorry if I am off topic. Much happening, very fast, thoughts on it all. :o

 

[KerriAnn]

Shooting from the hip...

(I know there are no citations.)



Our delegates are only asking the court to clarify existing law, they have been duly seated in accordance with party rules.

Issue 1

Party bosses however have exceeded their power and fraudulently inserted straw-men into their seats contrary to the lawful election.

In an attempt to satisfy known legal requirements the RNC has admitted that they "changed the rules" when the voters didn't elect those the party bosses wanted.

We contend that placing straw-men in delegate seats after ousting the duly elected delegates is illegal.


Issue 2


Party bosses unilaterally have presented duly elected delegates with binding documents and demanded that they be signed under threat of impeachment.

We contend that by presenting these heretofore unseen documents, the party bosses are attempting to coerce unethical behavior from delegates and that this behavior would violate the trust placed in the delegates by the voters.


In close;

We petition this court for relief, that the court would order the RNC and all of it's members to cease and desist any and all actions designed to intimidate or influence delegates to vote any certain way during the convention and that all duly elected delegates be seated.
Specifically we request that this court instruct every state party leader that it is the delegates who are responsible for following their conscience and party bosses are legally bound to support these delegates not Vice-Versa.

This is good. And now we need to add some specific instances that back up these claims. WHO, WHAT, WHERE, etc.

Does anyone know some of the plaintiffs named? Are any of them on the forum? Does someone have access to them? Carter specifically asked for details!

Carter seems like he is begging Gilbert for something to work with. I thought this was interesting-
From the ruling motion to dismiss (From page 19 lines 9-12)

"The Court emphasizes the narrowness of its holding. Defendants advocate a constricted
interpretation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. All too frequently, parties that urge
a constricted interpretation of the Voting Rights Act do so to accomplish exactly that which the
Voting Rights Act is designed to prevent: disenfranchisement of voters who historically have
suffered discrimination."

 

[sailingaway]

Here are some facts in Louisiana about a fake rule being called real when it was never ratified according to their own rules, but we should get the details from torchbearer:

The Paul people's challenge said that the Party issued an illegitimate "supplemental rule" at the Louisiana state convention that allowed them to send on a non-Paul delegation; the RNC decided that rule change was legit.

that's from Doherty's write up about the unfavorable finding of the contest committee in LA

 

[CPUd]

This may be worth listening to; Gilbert talks a bit about the ruling, and explains his thought process behind the amended complaint:

(it's about 2 hrs, but Gilbert is on the 1st hour)
http://electionfraudremedy.com/audio/WTPNGilbertCallihanDavis8.9.2012.mp3

He says he is filing this week the motion to expedite with the appellate court, which would order the judge to complete the case in 10 days.

oh, and this:

 

[sailingaway]

Is this true? Do the D/R parties have ballot access assistance that, say, the L party does not? If so, that would be an issue.

Yes. It applies that 'all parties', usually, IF they got x% vote before don't have to do anything but for new parties that is a huge barrier on a national campaign. Otherwise it varies by state but you have to get access in each state. That's why Ron didn't want to run third party again he says you don't make the debates with the new rules, and you spend all your money just getting on the ballots.

 

[No1butPaul]

oh, and this:

The above link says private for me ... trying this one.

 

[Rebelrouser]

I really hope something good comes out of this whole ordeal. I'd feel a lot better about it if Gilbert wasn't a wackjob who makes Vinny Gambino look like Harvey Specter from Suits.

Being that this is the third time he's had to do this, I don't know...

 

[jay_dub]

The above link says private for me ... trying this one.

Wow...just watched the video. Gilbert is guilty of defamation if what he says is not true. That there has been no action by the Romney camp to silence him is curious....if what he says is false.

Of course, to challenge him would be to answer to these charges. Personally, if it were me having these things said about me and they weren't true, I would be all over Gilbert like flies on a steaming pile.

I think that's Gilbert's point. He throws all this stuff out there and all we hear are crickets.

 

[afwjam]

So it does seem Gilbert is a little bit over the top. This always seems to be the case with all of us Ron Paul supporters... At least he is trying, I hope for the best, I expect much less.:o

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Concerning the Lopez Torres case, I responded to SteveT (in PM) this:

On page 8, I see the problem, for which I am seeking a solution, being avoided by the court. The relief that had been sought was exactly from that harm which is not known to be defined in law (that I know of, or the court apparently).

Corruption does not makes its seat in high places by breaking laws outwardly. Those that attempt such a thing are quickly or eventually caught. To reach high places it is the few that avoided violating the law outwardly, but is corrupt inwardly. It is a collution or conspiracy to collude.

I have seen it in my own life. I had a small group of fellows come to me a say, "There's a lot of money to be made in this company". In the open, that statement is true and innocent. Inwardly, and inwardly understood, that statement is the begining of a conspiracy to "take the company for a ride". And they did, without me and to great success. And the stock of the company went from 63.00 to 14.00 after the loss of clients and a lawsuit from AT&T (caused by their failure to deliver). But they got rich and the company, along with it's other employees, suffered.

This is the problem for which I am looking for an answer, a lawful answer.

In our case, we have proof of the GOP in many states violating their own rules. I don't see any remedy except to demonstrate that the law that applies to Federal Elections is also applicable for delegate elections for a nominee of a Federal candidate, OR, that rules of a party are a law unto themselves, a type of contract between those that voluntarily join the party by the rules, that cannot be violated and can only changed by use of those same rules (but where is any law for the later, except perhaps in the case of "my right to associate and have influence in the party").

The first part is my "life goal"? The later part is concerning our case.

Any help with this?

 

[CPUd]

He made the original one private a few minutes after uploading it. The 2nd, I don't see any major differences, it is the same length. They might have reencoded it and/or uploaded it to a different account- I didn't pay a lot of attention to it.

These videos are supposedly part of his master plan- the reason he talks about internment camps and uses crime/criminal about 1500 times is because he's trying to make the case to the delegates that no one in good conscience can vote for Mitt. What concerns me is something he said, to the effect of 'we will work to make sure you never get the keys to the Oval Office'. And this is after the convention, in the General Election, assuming Mitt doesn't flee to France with Priebus and Sununu. So, if Ron Paul is not running in the General Election, who benefits from an 'anyone but Romney' strategy?

In the radio interview, he says he's not focusing on the fraud and witness affidavits/videos; I have a feeling if he sees what is going on in the sticky thread of verifiable facts, we'll hear from him one way or another.

 

[afwjam]

If it is strategy rather then personality I would be very pleased. Searching for him on google I found news of other cases where he seems to use equally far fetched language, I think its part of his MO.

 

[sailingaway]

So it does seem Gilbert is a little bit over the top. This always seems to be the case with all of us Ron Paul supporters... At least he is trying, I hope for the best, I expect much less.:o

He feels strongly enough to work pro bono to bring this suit. No one else did, apparently, or didn't have the skills, so it is what it is. I hope for the best outcome, as well.

 

[sailingaway]

He made the original one private a few minutes after uploading it. The 2nd, I don't see any major differences, it is the same length. They might have reencoded it and/or uploaded it to a different account- I didn't pay a lot of attention to it.

These videos are supposedly part of his master plan- the reason he talks about internment camps and uses crime/criminal about 1500 times is because he's trying to make the case to the delegates that no one in good conscience can vote for Mitt. What concerns me is something he said, to the effect of 'we will work to make sure you never get the keys to the Oval Office'. And this is after the convention, in the General Election, assuming Mitt doesn't flee to France with Priebus and Sununu. So, if Ron Paul is not running in the General Election, who benefits from an 'anyone but Romney' strategy?

In the radio interview, he says he's not focusing on the fraud and witness affidavits/videos; I have a feeling if he sees what is going on in the sticky thread of verifiable facts, we'll hear from him one way or another.

Unfortunately, that is what the court seemed to be focusing on in its order, which is why we are putting the facts together, so if he has to scramble to put a request 'in the alternative' to plead another amendment after the judge said this was the final time, he can at least have the complaint itself in his filing so the judge wont wonder why this chance to fix it should be expected to be any more productive than the others.

 

[jay_dub]

I don't see this latest video having anything to do with the case already filed. It seems more like he's trying to goad Romney into responding. If Romney were to respond, Gilbert could go beyond the hyperbole and offer 'proof' in a legal arena.

My guess is we'll continue to hear crickets from Romney on this.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Whether or not any results come from Gilbert's efforts before the RNC, I think clearly all the fraud, rule breaking, assaults, and other abuses will not be addressed unless there is another lawsuit later. I wonder if everyone involved would throw in for a class action lawsuit? Maybe anyone who didn't want to "rock the boat" prior to the convention (like Mass. delegates for example) will decide after the fact that it's worth it to try to clean up this stuff for the benefit of future generations. It absolutely sickens me, the thought that they're just going to get away with all of this when so many people know all the stuff they have done.