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

[ClydeCoulter]

Clyde, I have to disagree. The Judge is the one who officially deemed the complaint incomprehensible.

Perhaps so, but that's not how Gilbert worded the document you refered to. He was talking about the defendants when he made that statement.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The majority of reasonable people even without a formal education would have no problem
reading the Second Amended Complaint and understanding that the Federal Question is whether
the enumerated rights set forth in the Voting Rights Act must be applied to the "Federal Election"
commencing Monday in Tampa commonly known as the Republican National Convention.
So clearly does the RNC understand the Second Amended Complaint that they now are
moving up the Nomination Vote to Monday

It refers to the RNC.

 

[SteveT1736]

Clyde,

Remember the RNC is not the party reading this. It is the Judge. The same Judge who said, in writing, that the complaint didn't make any sense. The specific reference doesn't matter. The overall context does.

As I've indicated before, I used to work for a judge. I guarantee that he wouldn't have overlook something like this.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Clyde,

Remember the RNC is not the party reading this. It is the Judge. The same Judge who said, in writing, that the complaint didn't make any sense. The specific reference doesn't matter. The overall context does.

As I've indicated before, I used to work for a judge. I guarantee that he wouldn't have overlook something like this.

You're stretching. When I read it, I understood it, and I'm just an average joe. He was discussing the RNC's response.

 

[CPUd]

The windup:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Trial Judge has just sent word that at 7:24 pm he ordered the case dismissed. We next must wait to see what the Appellate Court rules

And the pitch:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
This is just the begining of our fight to restore liberty. One case does not make a Revolution. We will prepare our next case next week

 

[afwjam]

Well in one of his previous cases he was expecting California to split into two states, one gay friendly and one not. All as a result of the victorious ruling on his case, which I don't think happened.

 

[SteveT1736]

Here's the crux of the Judge's ruling:

Plaintiffs’ six-page Response to the Order to Show Cause fails to identify a single factual allegation in the Second Amended Complaint about a specific act done by a specific defendant to a specific plaintiff that gives rise to a Voting Rights Act violation,and this Court has found none. See Response (Dkt. 47). In addition, Plaintiffs cite no authority other than one case identified by this Court in its Order to Show Cause. See id.

Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b).

 

[The Shazad]

You're stretching. When I read it, I understood it, and I'm just an average joe. He was discussing the RNC's response.

I'll settle this. He's saying that about BOTH the RNC's lawyers and the judge. The RNC lawyers directly, and the judge indirectly. There's little chance the judge would have read that and not felt like it was somehow referring to him.

 

[The Shazad]

Here's the crux of the Judge's ruling:

Could you possibly post a link to the full ruling?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Could you possibly post a link to the full ruling?

^^ THIS ^^

 

[SteveT1736]

I don't know where to link to for the decision. It is fairly short. Here is the text.

This Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). See August 20, 2012, Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 46).

As the Court explained in that Order to Show Cause:

"[T]he Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint because
the vast majority of the pleadings were unintelligible and Plaintiffs’
sole intelligible allegations failed to state a claim. In Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint, they appear to have removed all factual
pleadings and instead request an impermissible advisory opinion from
this Court about the scope of the Voting Rights Act. U.S. Nat. Bank
of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993)
(“[A] federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.”)."

Plaintiffs’ six-page Response to the Order to Show Cause fails to identify a single factual allegation in the Second Amended Complaint about a specific act done by a specific defendant to a specific plaintiff that gives rise to a Voting Rights Act violation, and this Court has found none. See Response (Dkt. 47). In addition, Plaintiffs cite no authority other than one case identified by this Court in its Order to Show Cause. See id.

Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a complaint that is so confusing that its “true substance, if any, is well disguised” may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with [Rule 8] may be dismissed with prejudice[.]”).

In addition, on August 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48). The next day, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (Dkt. 49). Because the Court dismisses with prejudice, the Court DENIES AS MOOT that Motion.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this action.

Rule 8 allows a complaint to be dismissed for failing to state why the plaintiff is entitled to relief, ie. specific facts showing a wrong.

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to be dismissed for failing to show facts and legal theories that allow a court to rule.

Rule 41(b) allows a complaint to be dismissed for failing to follow a court's order (here, to plead specific facts).

 

[sailingaway]

So we have to decide if it is worth doing a motion to reconsider on that case, or just bring a different multistate federal case with different plaintiffs, or what. We can put that into the 'after Tampa' discussions.

 

[SteveT1736]

sailingaway -- Anybody involved as a plaintiff in these lawsuit is likely barred from bringing another.

I reread your posting after I posted. It looks like you realize that. My apologies.

 

[sailingaway]

sailingaway -- Anybody involved as a plaintiff in these lawsuit is likely barred from bringing another.

That is where the motion to reconsider would come in, but we have hundreds and hundreds of state and national delegates who were not involved in the lawsuit.

Many never made it to national specifically BECAUSE of fraud and rule breaking at lower levels.

 

[SteveT1736]

The real question now is if the Defendants seek attorney fees. I saw the discussion above about costs. Attorney fees are the more dramatic aspect. The Court has deemed the lawsuit frivolous. The only issue is the amount of the attorney fees. The real kicker is that every Plaintiff would be liable for the full amount and the Defendants could pursue one or all to collect the amount.

It will be interesting to see what the Defendants do.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Whatever we do, please let us keep this as far away from Gilbert as we can get. He reflects upon us poorly.

 

[RonRules]

I uploaded all the court files since Aug. 23rd. About 50 people downloaded the previous files, so I'm sure you're finding this useful.

PlaintiffOppositiontoDefendantReplyToDismiss
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580874

ProposedOrderGrantingDefendantsMotionToDismissPlaintiffsSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580882

MemorandumOfPointsAndAutoritiesInSupportOfDefendantsMotionToDismissPlaintiffsSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580863

PlaintifffsOppositionToDefendantsMotionToDismissSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580872

DefendantsReplyToPlaintiffsOppositionToMotionToDismissSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580869

PlaintiffsOppositionToDefendantsReplyToDismissSecondAmendedComplaint
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580886

OrderDismissingCaseWithPrejudiceAndDenyingDefendantsMotionAsMoot
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7580878


Quick question Steve or other lawyers:

Does having a case dismissed without prejudice "for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)" still allow a case to be re-filed, hopefully this time with facts backing it up? Since the case was not denied on it's merits per-se, but because of lack of facts, I would think we could re-file with a more competent attorney? Correct?

 

[SteveT1736]

RonRules -- This was dismissed with prejudice which means it cannot be refiled. It was denied for lack of merits (when you don't plead facts that is the consequence) and now is barred. This probably prevents any of these Plaintiffs from doing anything. Plus, the risk of paying the Defendants' attorney's fees.

 

[sailingaway]

RonRules -- This was dismissed with prejudice which means it cannot be refiled. It was denied for lack of merits (when you don't plead facts that is the consequence) and now is barred. This probably prevents any of these Plaintiffs from doing anything. Plus, the risk of paying the Defendants' attorney's fees.

a motion to reconsider can be filed to reopen it, but the pleadings and orders may also be useful in filing a new case.

 

[SteveT1736]

sailingaway -- The problem with a motion to reconsider is that there usually has to be an error by the Court. Here, the problem is on the part of the Plaintiffs. The hurdle is even higher because the Court gave the Plaintiffs a chance to fix the problem and Gilbert did exactly the opposite of what the Court requested. I don't think that is remotely viable.