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

[libertylastchance]

Is there going to be actual argument? Or was that the time for submittal of papers?

Response from Plaintiff's regarding the "appeal", needs to filed by 9AM Monday 8/21/12.. determination as to if this case will be proceed in the current court, or be ruled by the judge as dismissed with prejudice on the 8/7 ruling, so that it can proceed to the appeals court.
You cannot file in 2 sperate courts, hoping to obtain your desired outcome in one of them.. RG apparently thinks that the judge is not reading his Writ of appeal correctly..

 

[RonRules]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Time:7:45 am Pacific - The case strategy is implemented with precision on multiple fronts to force a timely ruling as planned.

 

[brandon]

Why is this merged into an unrelated thread Bryan started 5 years ago?

 

[KingNothing]

I've paid very little attention to this. Can anyone confirm if there's any substance to this thread, or if it is the same sort of absurd non-sense that we typically get when people get delusional here grasp at straws?

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

I've paid very little attention to this. Can anyone confirm if there's any substance to this thread, or if it is the same sort of absurd non-sense that we typically get when people get delusional here grasp at straws?

read the law and tell us you're interpretation:

42 U.S.C 1971 Voting Rights

(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.

 

[RonRules]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward

So it looks like he WILL be in court at 9:00 AM. Please someone be there.

 

[RonRules]

I've paid very little attention to this.

Just like everything else.

 

[RonRules]

He does have a fan base:

Mike Morales ‏@amorsel
@USA_Free_Press RNC attorneys are bewildered with every move. Everything you do is in plain sight & they still don't know what you're up to

 

[No1butPaul]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward

So it looks like he WILL be in court at 9:00 AM. Please someone be there.

Which courthouse is this?

 

[erowe1]

I've paid very little attention to this. Can anyone confirm if there's any substance to this thread, or if it is the same sort of absurd non-sense that we typically get when people get delusional here grasp at straws?

Skepticism is not allowed here. Leave now, for your own sake. If you choose to stay and keep asking questions, don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Skepticism is not allowed here. Leave now, for your own sake. If you choose to stay and keep asking questions, don't say I didn't warn you.

Why is this merged into an unrelated thread Bryan started 5 years ago?

These have the same answer...

 

[RonRules]

Which courthouse is this?

411 W 4th St., Santa Ana, CA 92701

Court room 9D

 

[libertylastchance]

He does have a fan base:

Mike Morales ‏@amorsel
@USA_Free_Press RNC attorneys are bewildered with every move. Everything you do is in plain sight & they still don't know what you're up to

There was no mention in the judges orders of "appearance", only that a "filing" was needed today by 9AM..

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

There was no mention in the judges orders of "appearance", only that a "filing" was needed today by 9AM..

we'll find out... its 8:47am there ... if I did my timezones right and carried the 2 and accounted for windspeed...

 

[libertylastchance]

we'll find out... its 8:47am there ... if I did my timezones right and carried the 2 and accounted for windspeed...

Unless it is not in pacer : the formality of the courts is to issue a court order to appear, it states the date , courtroom and time, there is no "assuming" in a court of law

 

[RonRules]

There was no mention in the judges orders of "appearance", only that a "filing" was needed today by 9AM..

Gilbert tweeted this:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward

 

[PointsOfOrder]

I have been following this thread for over a month now, and just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has been keeping this up to date. I hope good things come from it. But I really won't know until I see the results.

 

[CPUd]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o0yg7D7tcYlRNTWtCWWNKdFE/edit

Start at page 535 for stuff filed after the SAC. First time I've ever seen a youtube link in a legal motion, though I don't read many of them these days.

 

[KingNothing]

So, I'm guessing that nothing happened this morning and that nothing will happen moving forward?

 

[KingNothing]

read the law and tell us you're interpretation:

42 U.S.C 1971 Voting Rights

(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.

Does this apply to party nominations? And do you really believe that the Party's lawyers would allow them to do anything that would negate the obvious advantages they have?