more interesting tweets about the lawsuit

[sailingaway]

It's not a missing piece per-se. But having an actual date when more relevant info would be forthcoming might help quell some of the uneasiness that keeps getting posted?

I honestly don't think so in any material respect, I think the 50 day bit is enough for me to know it isn't eminent, and new stuff comes up all the time (like the DOJ sting). But I confess part of my reasoning is I am pretty sure the clerk's office wouldn't look up for a nonparty that information to give it over the phone, just due to staffing pressure. I suspect I'd have to drive to Santa Ana and the nugget of information just doesn't do that much for me to justify spending the day getting it, just as a personal matter. There could well be information I WOULD be willing to spend the day to fetch, but that just isn't it.

 

[Origanalist]

//

 

[sailingaway]

if successful and Romney not an option which is unlikely, it IS likely the rules would need to upheld. The most important rule is the plurality of five states needed for nomination. That leaves Paul and Santorum.

Well, and any compromise candidate who can sway enough states, say Palin or Christie (Christie or Ryan or someone like that for the party tools, of whom many will be present)... etc. The party types will fall in line behind ANY party-establishment consensus candidate. Only independent delegates, us, tea party, values voter activists, genuine conservatives.... will vote independently. And vote discipline may be hard to come by. However, it would sure be better than the planned coronation and opens up possibilities.

 

[sailingaway]

I honestly don't think so in any material respect, I think the 50 day bit is enough for me to know it isn't eminent, and new stuff comes up all the time (like the DOJ sting). But I confess part of my reasoning is I am pretty sure the clerk's office wouldn't look up for a nonparty that information to give it over the phone, just due to staffing pressure. I suspect I'd have to drive to Santa Ana and the nugget of information just doesn't do that much for me to justify spending the day getting it, just as a personal matter. There could well be information I WOULD be willing to spend the day to fetch, but that just isn't it.

however now I feel guilty for being lazy and am in the district 9 court web page, do you have the case number handy? I'm going to try the pacer database.

 

[tod evans]

however now I feel guilty for being lazy and am in the district 9 court web page, do you have the case number handy? I'm going to try the pacer database.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Lawsuit-FAQ&p=4491115&viewfull=1#post4491115

 

[Miss Annie]

I'm not so sure about any of this. It sounds fantastic, but would someone actually be tweeting this stuff? That and I just flat out don't trust the DOJ to do the right thing.

If Holder thinks it could help his master, then I can see it, but there has to be a plan b for these crooks. (Obama and crew)

This is exactly what I am wondering too. The DOJ is not exactly known for holding much respect for the rule of law at this point.

 

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Lawsuit-FAQ&p=4491115&viewfull=1#post4491115

so the answer is SACV 12 - 00927 DOC JPRx

 

[FSP-Rebel]

This is exactly what I am wondering too. The DOJ is not exactly known for holding much respect for the rule of law at this point.

Hopefully, they'll try and redeem themselves after their Fast and Furious fiasco.

 

[PatriotOne]

there is that, yet people understand when someone donates their time to create videos, canvas, create web pages, design logos etc.....

Sure but they don't ask for our delegates names .

 

[Origanalist]

Hopefully, they'll try and redeem themselves after their Fast and Furious fiasco.

You're on a comedy roll FSP-Rebel.........

 

[tod evans]

so the answer is SACV 12 - 00927 DOC JPRx

Yup........sorry I'm kinda busy.....

Here's the link too;
http://www.toolsforjustice.com/1_COMPLAINT_SACV-12-00927-DOC(JPRx).pdf


[edit]

If you do contact the court please see if the respondent has filed a response?

 

[TrishW]

I think we will be really hurt in this lawsuit by the campaign, and yes I do mean Ron Paul too!. going behind our backs and agreeing to the GOP support for Romney. I have no idea what they were thinking. IMO Agreeing to allow the GOP to appoint Romney as their nominee and give money and support to him... Should have been followed by Ron Paul stepping out. No, instead it was kept secret from us and more money bombs and millions were added to a campaign that had all but forfeit.

I have no idea why people are not upset over this? Of course the GOP stepped all over us, they were practically given permission.

I am still for Ron Paul, but some of the glitter has worn off.

 

[sailingaway]

so the answer is SACV 12 - 00927 DOC JPRx

and I am looking into it, there is just a glitch right now. I'll get back to it later.

 

[sailingaway]

I think we will be really hurt in this lawsuit by the campaign, and yes I do mean Ron Paul too!. going behind our backs and agreeing to the GOP support for Romney. I have no idea what they were thinking. IMO Agreeing to allow the GOP to appoint Romney as their nominee and give money and support to him... Should have been followed by Ron Paul stepping out. No, instead it was kept secret from us and more money bombs and millions were added to a campaign that had all but forfeit.

I have no idea why people are not upset over this? Of course the GOP stepped all over us, they were practically given permission.

I am still for Ron Paul, but some of the glitter has worn off.

If you mean the rule 11 thing, all I can say is Ron's biggest flaw from a supporter point of view is his disbelief that he can make anything big happen as an individual (after 30 years of pushing this) and his willingness to let others manage events surrounding his campaign. While I am sure he was in it to run his best race, I also think he wouldn't necessarily be predisposed to think his best race was going to win -- at least after super Tuesday. I completely disagree that he personally would sell anything out, but he might imho be persuaded by those he trusts that it makes no sense to fight this because it won't make any difference, and he is standing in Rand's way, or something. If he even had details of it at all before the fact.

His position on this lawsuit is pure Ron. He says he's not behind it, he himself thought we had 'come up short' sometimes in delegates, but not to the point where he would want to push a law suit, but if we had facts and thought we had a legitimate claim he wouldn't say we shouldn't push it..... and another time when he said about voter fraud that he personally didn't have facts to follow up but if someone did he hoped they would...

I think it is a byproduct of his bone deep conviction that central planning hurts more than it helps.

 

[kathy88]

Well, and any compromise candidate who can sway enough states, say Palin or Christie (Christie or Ryan or someone like that for the party tools, of whom many will be present)... etc. The party types will fall in line behind ANY party-establishment consensus candidate. Only independent delegates, us, tea party, values voter activists, genuine conservatives.... will vote independently. And vote discipline may be hard to come by. However, it would sure be better than the planned coronation and opens up possibilities.

Then why are we making such a big deal about unbound del pluralities in 5 states? We have more but some are bound. If romneys out we have more. Wouldn't they have had to have been a candidate?

 

[sailingaway]

Then why are we making such a big deal about unbound del pluralities in 5 states? We have more but some are bound. If romneys out we have more. Wouldn't they have had to have been a candidate?

I think bound or not in most states they can vote to NOMINATE, that is separate from winning. THe nomination alone gets Ron the unedited speech and a showing up support in a format that hasn't occurred since 1976. The rest of this is about WINNING. And that will take negotiations and convincing others to come our way, out of the choices then available. Santa might (and might not) have five states but if Palin comes in, how many of his, unbound, might prefer her? Or whatever? It opens up all the brokered convention speculation.

 

[QWDC]

The complaint was very helpful, helped me with some questions I had, I now officially know that:

A. ALL Delegates are unbound at the national level regardless of state rules.
B. You must have fulfilled the "5 state rule" to officially receive votes to become the nominee.

Of course the Big Question is
C. Does binding you under penalty of perjury at the state level constitute harassment or intimidation? Since the RNC does not recognize binding, I'd lean towards yes. I could definitely see it going either way in court, though.

 

[devil21]

I'm not going to bother him or his staff.

I've seen a court stamped copy of the civil suit......That's good enough for me.

I'd suggest if folks "NEED" information that they phone or fax the clerk of the court instead of an attorney who's trying to compile a case on our behalf.

There's no new information on the case since the date of filing, according to PACER. There won't be any updates until service is completed and the court gets copies of all the certificates of service.

The court clerk can't give you information on the case specifics, only procedural information and whatever is displayed on their computers, which is basically the same as the PACER data. The lawyer and his staff really should have a designated spokesperson that's appointed to handle all media requests as well as inquiries like the ones on this thread.

If you do contact the court please see if the respondent has filed a response?

No responses have been filed and they definitely won't be filed until the very last day of the deadline to respond. That is standard procedure. The deadline is generally 21 days from date of service. The 21 day service deadline hasn't even passed yet. In other words, don't expect responses to be filed for another month. The Party will not want to progress this case any faster than necessary.

Anybody wanting to learn this stuff can read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It's surprisingly easy to follow.

Here's the service deadline rule.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12

so the answer is SACV 12 - 00927 DOC JPRx

Case number is 8:12-CV-00927. If you search that exact case in PACER case lookup there are only two results.

 

[sailingaway]

The complaint was very helpful, helped me with some questions I had, I now officially know that:

A. ALL Delegates are unbound at the national level regardless of state rules.
B. You must have fulfilled the "5 state rule" to officially receive votes to become the nominee.

Of course the Big Question is
C. Does binding you under penalty of perjury at the state level constitute harassment or intimidation? Since the RNC does not recognize binding, I'd lean towards yes. I could definitely see it going either way in court, though.

what about dislocating hips and breaking fingers when you are following Roberts' rules of order? Arresting the delegate in Georgia the other day? Things like that? I suspect they are making a pattern and practice argument by showing overwhelming evidence, varying by locale, but nation wide, with repetition of tactics. But the complaint is allegations, the law suit is where it is all proven.

 

[sailingaway]

There's no new information on the case since the date of filing, according to PACER. There won't be any updates until service is completed and the court gets copies of all the certificates of service.

The court clerk can't give you information on the case specifics, only procedural information and whatever is displayed on their computers, which is basically the same as the PACER data. The lawyer and his staff really should have a designated spokesperson that's appointed to handle all media requests as well as inquiries like the ones on this thread.



Case number is 8:12-CV-00927. If you search that exact case in PACER case lookup there are only two results.

thanks, I had a glitch when I checked it. I was going to go back later.