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

[torchbearer]

"A reasonable person would not conclude that a fair reading ofthe Second Amended
Complaint reads like a press release within the meaning of the McHenry v. Rene case.

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is not unintelligible and clearly sets forth the
Federal Question for the Court to rule upon.
It is clear in the Second Amended Complaint that Defendants are refusing to follow any of
the U.S. laws cited within the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above. Defendants have
admitted in oral argument as well as in their written documents the same.
Plaintiffs respectfully disagree that the Federal Question before the Court is impermissible.

The language of the Voting Rights Act itself makes it permissible and, indeed, mandatory that the
District Court act to resolve the claim presented on the merits."

so the questions are-
what is the judge to rule on-
based on what laws
using what facts
for what remedy

have all points been given?

 

[CPUd]

It basically says that the judge should find that the convention is a federal election under the Voting Rights Act because the Voting Rights Act says so.

 

[SteveT1736]

torchbearer -- The problem is that the current version of the complaint lacks a single fact. It has lots of conclusions, ie. delegates won't be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice. But, facts are not generalities. They have to specify which delegate is being prevented by whom and how and when did this occur and where (not very artful). There is nothing like that in the amended complaint in front of the Judge. The reason for the "unintelligible" language is that the Judge has no idea if these particular plaintiffs had something done to them by the named defendants.

The law is the Voting Rights Act. Gilbert keeps trying to get the Court to declare whether or not it applies to a national convention. But, the Court is stuck on the lack of anyone in particular harmed. As I've indicated above, Gilbert keeps trying to run for the finish line when he is still stuck in the starting gate.

 

[torchbearer]

torchbearer -- The problem is that the current version of the complaint lacks a single fact. It has lots of conclusions, ie. delegates won't be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice.

SO instead of saying "delegates won't be allowed to vote for their candidate of their choice"
he should say, "Louisiana's Executive committee has created rules bindings delegates of that state to vote for a candidate regardless of their choice?" and everything would be fine?

 

[torchbearer]

or how about this for specific-
"Villere, chairman of the LAGOP, created rules with consent of other members of the SEC, to prevent Torchbearer from voting who wants at the convention"

 

[freedomordeath]

Anything is possible. But, you have repeated that claim almost like some kind of mantra. It's like you want everyone to believe that the campaign is some kind of sinister force and poor Dr. Paul doesn't know anything about it. We have no proof of that. Certainly not at this point.
What is to be gained by furthering this? The truth will come out in the end. How does jumping to conclusions at this point in time serve us?

And then there are these:

+ Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
+ Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".

dude...... DUDE. My anger boils. So what if the campaign and even Ron Paul is complicit in all of this. We NEVER GIVE UP, WE NEVER COMPROMISE. We all got a job to do, and each one must concentrate on doing their job to the best of their abilities. The delegates excepted the responsibilty given to them by their neighbours to represent them at the RNC and even if Ron jumped ship, they must make their voices heard and do their job so they can sleep well at night.

 

[SteveT1736]

You are going the right direction. It would need to specify what was the limitation, when it was imposed, etc. But, you are on the right track. This is the issue that has hung Gilbert up from the beginning.

But, that creates another problem. He named the RNC and 50 state parties. Presume what you said is accurate. How is the Vermont GOP responsible for that? Or, how is the RNC liable for that act? You have to show the culpability of each defendant. My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.

 

[LibertyEagle]

dude...... DUDE. My anger boils. So what if the campaign and even Ron Paul is complicit in all of this. We NEVER GIVE UP, WE NEVER COMPROMISE. We all got a job to do, and each one must concentrate on doing their job to the best of their abilities. The delegates excepted the responsibilty given to them by their neighbours to represent them at the RNC and even if Ron jumped ship, they must make their voices heard and do their job so they can sleep well at night.

I am suggesting that we focus on the issue at hand and not delve off into assigning blame. Because number one, it's not doing anything to help us get the delegates seated and two, we don't have enough information right now to determine fault.

I am suggesting we stay focused on getting the delegates seated.

 

[torchbearer]

You are going the right direction. It would need to specify what was the limitation, when it was imposed, etc. But, you are on the right track. This is the issue that has hung Gilbert up from the beginning.

But, that creates another problem. He named the RNC and 50 state parties. Presume what you said is accurate. How is the Vermont GOP responsible for that? Or, how is the RNC liable for that act? You have to show the culpability of each defendant. My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.

but this isn't the trial- this is like the grand jury of a capital case. the burden of proof is different.
you'd expect in the case- these things are addressed, but you'd expect in a filing just a reference to the things that will later be proven?
am i wrong?

 

[freedomordeath]

he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time.
i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.

Now we talking, we can get this off the ground and grows this thing. We'll be in control and get the right lawyers. I don't have much money, but am willing to chip in.

 

[SteveT1736]

You are correct. But, you have to plead sufficient facts, that if true, would constitute a plausible claim for relief from the Court. Please look at the latest complaint. It is devoid of any facts (remember, more than conclusionary statements) that show that these defendants did something to these plaintiffs. That has been the problem.

 

[torchbearer]

You are correct. But, you have to plead sufficient facts, that if true, would constitute a plausible claim for relief from the Court. Please look at the latest complaint. It is devoid of any facts (remember, more than conclusionary statements) that show that these defendants did something to these plaintiffs. That has been the problem.

maybe its because i lived through it and i know what he's talking about- but i didn't see lack of facts in the original filing- i saw a case so big its hard to comprehend. and that is not something to dismiss because of the general statements it takes to keep the filing from being a 50 chapter explanation of everything that happened in every state.
does the judge really think this guy is pulling his leg or is he standing behind a procedural shield to keep from bothering?
I assume judges are like LEOs and can make a decision on a personal level if a trial or arrest is warranted regardless of tradition?

 

[The Shazad]

but this isn't the trial- this is like the grand jury of a capital case. the burden of proof is different.
you'd expect in the case- these things are addressed, but you'd expect in a filing just a reference to the things that will later be proven?
am i wrong?

Here are some key quotes from the judge in his initial ruling:

"As previously noted, a court accepts as true a plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations and
construes all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The policy justification for
reading a complaint’s allegations liberally is that a plaintiff often must sue before she has had
the benefit of discovery and that defendants are frequently in a better position to know the
details of how their acts caused the plaintiff’s harm. However, this policy justification vanishes
where the harm to the plaintiff is unclear. Thus, pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond
the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.
The following allegations use mere labels and conclusions from which the Court can not
discern what Plaintiffs’ harm is, much less who has done what to whom."

Then, the judge lists Gilbert's claims and says:

"These allegations are all riddled with the same error. For example, Plaintiffs’ vague
reference to “State Bylaws” gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of
the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ use of the passive voice
renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and
whether any of the more than 100 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs’ vague
allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed
simultaneously by all “Defendants” lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique
reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is
insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation.
Thus, this Court does not accept these allegations as true. See McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where lower court reasoned
that complaint failed to “clearly and concisely explain[] which allegations are relevant to which
defendants” and noted that the “purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum
for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes”)."

In short, he was saying that if Gilbert presented specific facts instead of conclusions, he would have accepted them as true (and allowed Gilbert to prove them later). He asked for specifics in an amended complaint, but Gilbert didn't provide any.

 

[torchbearer]

Here are some key quotes from the judge in his initial ruling:

"As previously noted, a court accepts as true a plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations and
construes all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The policy justification for
reading a complaint’s allegations liberally is that a plaintiff often must sue before she has had
the benefit of discovery and that defendants are frequently in a better position to know the
details of how their acts caused the plaintiff’s harm. However, this policy justification vanishes
where the harm to the plaintiff is unclear. Thus, pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond
the speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.
The following allegations use mere labels and conclusions from which the Court can not
discern what Plaintiffs’ harm is, much less who has done what to whom."

Then, the judge lists Gilbert's claims and says:

"These allegations are all riddled with the same error. For example, Plaintiffs’ vague
reference to “State Bylaws” gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of
the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ use of the passive voice
renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and
whether any of the more than 100 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs’ vague
allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed
simultaneously by all “Defendants” lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique
reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is
insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation.
Thus, this Court does not accept these allegations as true. See McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where lower court reasoned
that complaint failed to “clearly and concisely explain[] which allegations are relevant to which
defendants” and noted that the “purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum
for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes”)."

In short, he was saying that if Gilbert presented specific facts instead of conclusions, he would have accepted them as true (and allowed Gilbert to prove them later). He asked for specifics in an amended complaint, but Gilbert didn't provide any.

It is a sad day when sentence structure and word choice trumps justice. and that would be my appeal.

 

[CPUd]

I don't know where the link is, but the one they did in Maine looks like a good example of pleading facts. There are 3 plaintiffs, and each one makes specific claims.

 

[The Shazad]

My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.

AND, too many plaintiffs were involved. Fewer than 5 of the original 120+ plaintiffs were actually real delegates at the national convention. Some were alternates. Some were state delegates. Some were just random people who joined the bandwagon. He was all over the place as to whether he was going after fraud in the states (in which case having state delegates as plaintiffs makes sense) or whether he was wanting to unbind delegates (in which case there's nothing for the state delegates to sue for). It was a shotgun approach with regards to plaintiffs and defendants, and he was never able to make it clear who did what to whom.

 

[CPUd]

maybe its because i lived through it and i know what he's talking about- but i didn't see lack of facts in the original filing- i saw a case so big its hard to comprehend. and that is not something to dismiss because of the general statements it takes to keep the filing from being a 50 chapter explanation of everything that happened in every state.
does the judge really think this guy is pulling his leg or is he standing behind a procedural shield to keep from bothering?
I assume judges are like LEOs and can make a decision on a personal level if a trial or arrest is warranted regardless of tradition?

From everything I've read, the judge was just wanting him to argue the case straight up - on its merits, rather than procedural trickery. When you deal with a cop and start quoting statutes and procedures, with the intent of getting off on a technicality, the cop tends to go by the book on you. Same as with this judge- he is aware of this strategy, and is why I believe he meticulously had his orders written out.

 

[SteveT1736]

Let me quote from the Judge's original decision on the Motion to Dismiss:

"The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is that Defendants have
engaged in various acts—often too vaguely described to be intelligible—that have
disadvantaged Ron Paul in his quest to be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for
President at the Republican National Convention commencing on August 27, 2012."

"The sole allegation that references a specific Defendant and specific Plaintiff appears on
page 32. There, the FAC alleges that “Plaintiff Renato D’Amico is a duly elected National
Delegate from the State of Massachusetts who was unlawfully removed from the State
Delegation when he refused to sign” an affidavit “presented by Defendant Republican Party of
Massachusetts” requiring him to “swear[] under penalty of perjury that he would vote for
Governor Romney.” Id. at 32. The FAC alleges that, “n Massachusetts[,] at least 17
Delegates duly elected were ordered to sign” the same affidavit even though “no Party Rule . . .
permits such an [a]ffidavit nor such an ultimatum, nor has said Defendant ever required such an
[a]ffidavit in the past.” Id. Plaintiffs “request an order of this Court reinstating Plaintiff Renado
D’Amico to his duly elected position as a Certified National Delegate and further requests that
all Massachusetts Delegates be reinstated who were removed solely for refusing to sign the
unlawful [a]ffidavit.” Id."

"With one exception, Plaintiffs’ allegations are not sufficiently intelligible for this Court to even analyze whether they can state a claim"

"the Court concludes that only one page in the FAC contains allegations that are sufficiently intelligible for this Court to even analyze whether they can state a claim."

"The following allegations use mere labels and conclusions from which the Court can not
discern what Plaintiffs’ harm is, much less who has done what to whom.
• “Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws.” FAC 27:5-6.
• “Defendants have refused to Certify [sic] Delegates who were properly elected.” Id. at
27:7-8.
• “n almost every state in the United States[,] Defendants engaged in a scheme to
intimidate and harass Delegates who were supporting a Candidate that Defendants did not
approve of. This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that
Delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution
for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the Delegate fails to vote as
instructed by Defendants.” Id. at 26:21-26. . . . "
"

=========
Looks like someone above tried the same approach while I was pulling this together. The point is that you have to have SPECIFIC FACTS in a complaint. A lawsuit is not a fishing expedition.

 

[The Shazad]

It is a sad day when sentence structure and word choice trumps justice. and that would be my appeal.

It wasn't about style, it was about substance. The judge found no substance in the claims.

Here's one claim: “Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws.”

Ok - which defendant, which state, which bylaw, and which of the plaintiffs was harmed?

 

[RonRules]

You can't blame him for not trying!

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
I am serving the Judge with additional Appellate papers right now. These are the last papers I can file. It's in the hands of god now

(He should capitalize the word "god", jus' sayin)

35m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
"The epitome of beauty stems from the substance of the mind, the depth of the soul, and the light of the spirit." --Angela Enders