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

[kathy88]

Yep, which makes it all the more amazing that Richard Gilbert tried to spin the judge's response as a "tentative win" and told everyone that the judge agreed with his interpretation of the law. The judge specifically did the opposite, and wanted some case law or legislative history supporting Gilbert's interpretation - yet the amended complaint included nothing of the sort.

It's also interesting that the only complaint in the original filing that the judge did not deem to be completely "unintelligible" (that of the MA delegate) was removed, along with the rest of the "unintelligible" fraud claims - despite the judge's clear request for some specifics.

It's almost as if Richard Gilbert wrote the final amended complaint prior to getting the judge's response. Oh wait - he did. He's always one step ahead. Unfortunately, while he accurately predicted that there would be a need for an amended complaint, he did not accurately predict what the judge would want him to include in it. I guess we will have to trust that he knows what he is doing and that he's about to put the RNC in checkmate.

Very strange first post.

 

[The Shazad]

Very strange first post.

Admittedly, yes. But I've been following this case closely since its inception and its eventual outcome has always been fairly certain. I'm interested to see if Richard can pull a rabbit out of his hat.

 

[CPUd]

Shazad is from the DP, and is familiar with the case.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

Fair enough.

cool... I think that is the first time that argument has actually prevailed...

 

[sailingaway]

Yep, which makes it all the more amazing that Richard Gilbert tried to spin the judge's response as a "tentative win" and told everyone that the judge agreed with his interpretation of the law. The judge specifically did the opposite, and wanted some case law or legislative history supporting Gilbert's interpretation - yet the amended complaint included nothing of the sort.

It's also interesting that the only complaint in the original filing that the judge did not deem to be completely "unintelligible" (that of the MA delegate) was removed, along with the rest of the "unintelligible" fraud claims - despite the judge's clear request for some specifics.

It's almost as if Richard Gilbert wrote the final amended complaint prior to getting the judge's response. Oh wait - he did. He's always one step ahead. Unfortunately, while he accurately predicted that there would be a need for an amended complaint, he did not accurately predict what the judge would want him to include in it. I guess we will have to trust that he knows what he is doing and that he's about to put the RNC in checkmate.

the rules on this thread are don't just take pot shots at Gilbert. No one here is a 'Gilbert fan'. There is a lawsuit in court and our delegates are plaintiffs, and we hope the best for their sake and want the fraud exposed. At this moment the fraud really isn't in the complaint, though. So that may take a later suit, even if this wins.

 

[No1butPaul]

the rules on this thread are don't just take pot shots at Gilbert. No one here is a 'Gilbert fan'. There is a lawsuit in court and our delegates are plaintiffs, and we hope the best for their sake and want the fraud exposed. At this moment the fraud really isn't in the complaint, though. So that may take a later suit, even if this wins.

I am a fan - I think it is a most noble thing for Mr. Gilbert to put all of his time and energy into this cause' PRO BONO. Win or lose, I appreciate what he has done and tried to achieve.

 

[RonRules]

From Gilbert a minute ago:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Here my Response to the Order of the Court.

http://electionfraudremedy.com/PLAINTIFFS_RESPONSE_TO_COURTS_ORDER_TO_SHOW_CAUSE_08-20-2012.pdf

Appears to be the same document I posted before.

 

[CPUd]

To get the Appellate Writ from PACER, I think someone might have to look up the Court of Appeals to find it. Those with access, do you see anything in there about it?

 

[SteveT1736]

A couple things that may be of interest:

First, this is Judge Carter's calendar today. There is nothing related to this suit: http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/MasterCal.nsf/17c28a028ce48ceb882570540053b738/2d60ac8901ff70a688257a5d0060c246/$FILE/0821DOC.pdf

Second, I can't find the action in the 9th Circuit. Usually, an attorney files a notice of appeal, even for a writ, with the district court and then proceeds with the appellate court. I think that may be why Judge Carter reacted the way he did (sheer confusion as to what Gilbert was up to).

 

[SteveT1736]

It may be helpful to step back a bit.

A lawsuit usually has the following steps:

1) A complaint that is sufficient is filed.

2) Discovery (gathering of evidence) is done.

3) A trial is held.

Often, once you are passed #1 and into #2, parties will try to file summary judgment motions (essentially, there is no dispute as to material facts and a request that the Court resolve particular issues before trial).

Here, Gilbert is still stuck on #1. The Court says his complaint isn't sufficient to even begin the process. A complaint must allege facts (who did what to whom, where and when) that give rise to a claim or claims that the law allows for the Court to grant some form of relief. Alleging the Voting Rights Act has been violated doesn't do it. You must say who did something specific, when they did it, where they did and to whom with a high level of specificity. General allegations don't work at all. When I say that the complaint lacks facts that is what I am referring to.

I think he keeps trying to jump to the summary judgment stage. But, the Court won't let him there until they have a valid complaint in front of them. Right now, he isn't even out of the starting gate.

 

[sailingaway]

It may be helpful to step back a bit.

A lawsuit usually has the following steps:

1) A complaint that is sufficient is filed.

2) Discovery (gathering of evidence) is done.

3) A trial is held.

Often, once you are passed #1 and into #2, parties will try to file summary judgment motions (essentially, there is no dispute as to material facts and a request that the Court resolve particular issues before trial).

Here, Gilbert is still stuck on #1. The Court says his complaint isn't sufficient to even begin the process. A complaint must allege facts (who did what to whom, where and when) that give rise to a claim or claims that the law allows for the Court to grant some form of relief. Alleging the Voting Rights Act has been violated doesn't do it. You must say who did something specific, when they did it, where they did and to whom with a high level of specificity. General allegations don't work at all. When I say that the complaint lacks facts that is what I am referring to.

I think he keeps trying to jump to the summary judgment stage. But, the Court won't let him there until they have a valid complaint in front of them. Right now, he isn't even out of the starting gate.

YOur facts on the 9th circuit are appreciated. The constant editorial, less so. We know he had only so many facts and it will be up to the judge, I guess, where we go from here.

 

[RonRules]

Gilbert again:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Can we trust our delegates? There can be no party unity with Romney. We cannot negotiate terms of surrender

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...s-set-to-strike-deal-with-rnc/comment-page-1/

 

[chris41336]

It may be helpful to step back a bit.

A lawsuit usually has the following steps:

1) A complaint that is sufficient is filed.

2) Discovery (gathering of evidence) is done.

3) A trial is held.

Often, once you are passed #1 and into #2, parties will try to file summary judgment motions (essentially, there is no dispute as to material facts and a request that the Court resolve particular issues before trial).

Here, Gilbert is still stuck on #1. The Court says his complaint isn't sufficient to even begin the process. A complaint must allege facts (who did what to whom, where and when) that give rise to a claim or claims that the law allows for the Court to grant some form of relief. Alleging the Voting Rights Act has been violated doesn't do it. You must say who did something specific, when they did it, where they did and to whom with a high level of specificity. General allegations don't work at all. When I say that the complaint lacks facts that is what I am referring to.

I think he keeps trying to jump to the summary judgment stage. But, the Court won't let him there until they have a valid complaint in front of them. Right now, he isn't even out of the starting gate.

You are right, but that is another big reason we need TORT reform. People could be getting shafted all around the country, and because there is nothing "specific" the courts do nothing.

It's utterly insane.

 

[erowe1]

You are right, but that is another big reason we need TORT reform. People could be getting shafted all around the country, and because there is nothing "specific" the courts do nothing.

It's utterly insane.

So you should be able to sue someone for nothing specific?

 

[libertylastchance]

You are right, but that is another big reason we need TORT reform. People could be getting shafted all around the country, and because there is nothing "specific" the courts do nothing.

It's utterly insane.

Imagine if everyone could file a lawsuit with no specific allegations..

yes Richard is STUCK alright

 

[sailingaway]

So you should be able to sue someone for nothing specific?

there was plenty specific. It just needed to be in the complaint. He ended up citing one specific thing and stripping the case to that one issue. We'll see what the court does with it.

 

[chris41336]

So you should be able to sue someone for nothing specific?

Obviously that is what I was implying....

In a situation like this where the judge has basically admitted that there is "something here" but that Gilbert needs to prove it more, particularly something as important as our votes counting and our election process being valid, I'm pretty sure that the generalities should be enough to warrant a looking into of some kind. This isn't someone suing someone because they "generally just give me a bad feeling" or something.

 

[The Shazad]

the rules on this thread are don't just take pot shots at Gilbert. No one here is a 'Gilbert fan'. There is a lawsuit in court and our delegates are plaintiffs, and we hope the best for their sake and want the fraud exposed. At this moment the fraud really isn't in the complaint, though. So that may take a later suit, even if this wins.

I guess I'd argue that there may be competing interpretations of what constitutes the "best" for the delegate plaintiffs. One might be able to make a strong argument that it would be best for them if they dropped out as plaintiffs and never allowed Richard Gilbert to represent them again.

Maybe in the future there will be a national lawsuit about fraud, but right now that has been stripped from the case and Richard Gilbert is trying to force the judge to decide if delegates are legally unbound. But it's just not going well for him at all.

 

[sailingaway]

Obviously that is what I was implying....

In a situation like this where the judge has basically admitted that there is "something here" but that Gilbert needs to prove it more, particularly something as important as our votes counting and our election process being valid, I'm pretty sure that the generalities should be enough to warrant a looking into of some kind. This isn't someone suing someone because they "generally just give me a bad feeling" or something.

actually, federal pleading used to be vague and that may be what Gilbert's issue is. CA pleading may still be vague but federal appears to have newly required more facts. The idea used to be that you might need discovery to discover the specific names times dates actions that led to a damage and complaints were loosely allowed, but I guess court back log led them to tighten up. It likely sometimes creates injustice both ways. STrike suits are expensive against people who didn't really do anything wrong, but can't get it thrown out, too. Here, though, tons was done.

 

[sailingaway]

I guess I'd argue that there may be competing interpretations of what constitutes the "best" for the delegate plaintiffs. One might be able to make a strong argument that it would be best for them if they dropped out as plaintiffs and never allowed Richard Gilbert to represent them again.

Maybe in the future there will be a national lawsuit about fraud, but right now that has been stripped from the case and Richard Gilbert is trying to force the judge to decide if delegates are legally unbound. But it's just not going well for him at all.

You may not make that argument in this thread, and it is futile in any event since the ruling will shortly be forthcoming. Put derogatory comments about the case in a thread in the vent and those who want to discuss that may go there to do it.