Paul Campaign Suing Maker of Huntsman False-Flag Video!!

[RockEnds]

I really don't see how that could even be an issue. If you have ever been left for dead or given up on, you know it's a serious thing and it's not something to be ashamed of. It's something to be proud of that you are no longer in that situation. You have to own up to your history, and there is no shame in having humble beginnings. I had humble beginnings, and I wouldn't necessarily want to divorce myself from that just for the sake of public image. If she was really an orphan who was left for dead, I doubt she cares much about the public image. It's hard to explain, but it's less mortifying to have people know that if it actually happened to you. Most people aren't actually ashamed of having humble beginnings.

So you think it's fine for rich Americans to broadcast to the world that a young child had no future until he saved her? It's okay to tell the world that a little girl was left to be eaten by animals? You don't think this is elitism extraordinaire? Do you hear him telling the world how many hours his wife labored with their bio kids? No? Kind of a private thing, huh? The stories he's telling belong to those girls and no one else. They don't have a birth story. That is where their history begins. And you don't think orphans care about public image? Really? Are they such pitiful little urchins that they should just be grateful to be alive? Since the girl from China wasn't "found" until she was 2 months old, there's a fairly good chance could have been forcibly taken from her home by government officials. It happens in China. But that's her business to investigate when she gets old enough to do the legwork. It could have been his business as the US Ambassador to pressure China to investigate the problem, but he didn't much act like he cared. Huntsman has no business playing the part of the rich savior for his own political gain. He needs to learn discretion (when to shut his ugly, rich mug).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So you think it's fine for rich Americans to broadcast to the world that a young child had no future until he saved her? It's okay to tell the world that a little girl was left to be eaten by animals? You don't think this is elitism extraordinaire? Do you hear him telling the world how many hours his wife labored with their bio kids? No? Kind of a private thing, huh? The stories he's telling belong to those girls and no one else. They don't have a birth story. That is where their history begins. And you don't think orphans care about public image? Really? Are they such pitiful little urchins that they should just be grateful to be alive? Since the girl from China wasn't "found" until she was 2 months old, there's a fairly good chance could have been forcibly taken from her home by government officials. It happens in China. But that's her business to investigate when she gets old enough to do the legwork. It could have been his business as the US Ambassador to pressure China to investigate the problem, but he didn't much act like he cared. Huntsman has no business playing the part of the rich savior for his own political gain. He needs to learn discretion (when to shut his ugly, rich mug).

No, in fact, I don't think it is elitism. It's pandering, but there's nothing wrong with showing the world how lucky someone is to have a family and a place to stay. It's okay to tell the world a little girl was starving and alone if it's a fact. I don't think anyone who's ever been starving and left for dead will argue with that. They don't care about their freaking public image when they're grateful to be alive. If they were saved by someone, they probably want that great heartwarming story to be told and they probably think the person who saved them deserves all the credit they get. What kind of family did you come from that you have so little perspective on life?

The wife laboring with bio kids has absolutely nothing to do with this in any way shape or form in the slightest manner. That is completely different, and the fact that you can't see that is really surprising to me.

Like I said, yes they should be grateful to be alive. Even politicians are capable of good deeds, even if it's only for their own political gain. The guy might be pandering, but that's between him and his conscience. You obviously just hate rich people, not matter what. And yet, you have no perspective to be able to understand what it's like to be poor enough to be grateful to be alive and not be caught up in the politics of whether or not your survival story is being used for political gain. If it's a true story, then it's a freaking true story, and it's a good story because someone was saved.

 

[time4change]

Or an actual Ron Paul supporter...

A Ron Paul supporter who was quoted as saying, "Sorry, campaign has asked me not to speak to reporters", when asked about the video by the Huffington Post?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/huntsman-denounces-video-_n_1189285.html

A Ron Paul supporter who kept the video up even after the overwhelming wave of negative comments and messages from his/her fellow supporters?

A Ron Paul supporter who kept the video up even after the Ron Paul campaign itself asked that the video be taken down?

I guess anything is possible.

 

[RockEnds]

Like I said, yes they should be grateful to be alive.

No more than Huntsman.

And yet, you have no perspective to be able to understand what it's like to be poor enough to be grateful to be alive and not be caught up in the politics of whether or not your survival story is being used for political gain.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and those girls are not poor. Huntsman is nothing more than a gossip. He needs to learn discretion.

 

[nc4rp]

Ron Paul campaign files an exploratory lawsuit against John Doe to find out who really put out this video.

This will allow them to subpoena Youtube for their records, which should tell us who made the video.

thanks. i cant wait to see who made it

 

[isee]

The Paul campaign has filed a federal lawsuit : re Huntsman Attack Video

The Paul campaign has filed a federal lawsuit against an anonymous person who uploaded a hurtful video of rival Jon Huntsman.
12:40 AM PST 1/19/2012 by Eriq Gardner


The presidential campaign of Ron Paul has filed a federal lawsuit against anonymous individuals who uploaded a video to the Internet attacking former presidential contender Jon Huntsman. The video in question purported to come from New Hampshire supporters of Paul and suggested that Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to China, was a "Manchurian Candidate." Paul is suing for defamation, false advertising and false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act in what could be an interesting lawsuit to follow.

TV attack ads are not unusual in electorial politics. But the commercial (below) was particularly nasty, leading Huntsman to address the video on the New Hampshire stump last week. "If someone wants to poke fun at me, that's OK," he said. "What I object to is bringing forward pictures and videos of my adopted daughters and suggesting there's something sinister there."

Paul also came out against the ad and bristled at suggestions that anybody in his campaign was behind it.

Some have made the suggestion that the attack ad was a "false flag," put up by Huntsman's campaign itself in order to gather sympathy, a conspiracy theory that's gained steam upon word that the first referral to the video came from jon2012.com, the website of the Huntsman campaign.

No matter who was behind it, Paul has filed a suit that says, "This is a classic case of dirty politics resulting in the unlawful use in commerce of an underhanded and deceptive advertisement designed to tarnish Plaintiff's reputation, to interfere with its consulting and information dissemination services, and to hinder its efforts to raise funds for and promote Dr. Ron Paul's candidacy for President of the United States."

The lawsuit raises many curiosities. Here's our big questions and some insight from Rebecca Tushnet, a Georgetown University law professor who writes a blog about false advertising:

•Jurisdictional: Why has Paul, the libertarian candidate from Texas who wants to return power back to the states, chosen a federal court in San Francisco to pursue a video that purports to come from New Hampshire?
"Normally, defamation claims are usually brought in the state a plaintiff resides or has a valid interest," says Tushnet. "In theory, you can sue wherever you experience harm."

Tushnet speculates that Paul brought the lawsuit in San Francisco in the interest of serving a subpoena on Bay Area-based Google to identify who uploaded the video to YouTube.

•The Lanham Act: Do political candidates have the ability to exploit a provision of trademark law to shut down statements made by others that creates a false and misleading suggestion of an endorsement?
"The question (of using false advertising laws to shut down speech) is coming up again and again these days," says Tushnet. "Sometimes, you don't like the friends you have. Although trademark owners don't like that, I think in a free society, it's hard to argue that saying that you like me creates the appearance of a false endorsement from me."

Tushnet adds that Paul's complaint lacks a solid argument that there was commercial activity involved. Political campaigns aren't corporations and usually don't hold trademarks, after all.

"Perhaps if he's soliciting money for himself, then there's a reasonable case that he shouldn't be doing that," says Tushnet. "But if he's asking for money to be sent to Ron Paul, or not soliciting anything but the idea that you shouldn't vote for the other guy, that's not a commercial advertisement in the traditional sense."

•Defamation: In an era where nasty campaign advertisements fly, what's the liabilty for making false statements with malice? And if dirty tricks are involved, does misrepresenting the speaker of a statement constitute injury?
To the latter question, Tushnet says she isn't sure. (This is one of the reasons why this case is fascinating.)

But Tushnet does caution that in defamation cases, "the fact that it has not come up before is usually bad for plaintiffs as courts are usually leery about extending the law to unprecedented claims."

SOURCE: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gop-ron-paul-jon-huntsman-internet-attack-283026

 

[fatjohn]

Well, that could be a big plus for Rand´s campaign in 2016, it will probably be too late for this campaign though.

 

[isee]

And a few more links for those interested in other angles:

SOURCE: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/18/43126.htm
SOURCE: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-video-deriding-gop-ex-canidate-huntsman.html
SOURCE: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-ron-paul-campaign-sues-to-stop-unauthorized-web-videos/
SOURCE: http://www.prweekus.com/paul-campai...eo-of-ex-rival-huntsman-video/article/223618/
SOURCE: http://www.webpronews.com/ron-paul-may-have-a-troll-2012-01

 

[isee]

The potential exists to stir up a firestorm of support & empathy for the obvious bias against RP's campaign should evidence be brought forward identifying the anonymous part as being associated with the Huntsman campaign. Should this occur - there will be an immediate validation to Paul's integrity.

AT the very least, this will be an exercise in judicial process and set a new bar for campaign strategies - any one person, group, or party with the intent of employing such strategies has been put on notice that such tactics will not be tolerated by the Paul campaign, and will be subject to prosecution in a court of law, notwithstanding, public scrutiny and embarassment.

 

[isee]

Furthermore - should the Paul camp be successful in establishing merit for it's claims, then propogation and promotion of the video (by media) could be quashed vis a vis a court order stating that the video (which is before the courts) should either be removed by Youtube, and not promoted as content affiliated with the campaign. At the very least it would direct media to state the the matter is before the courts, and the subject video is clearly not officially endorsed material, and should the court agree it is damaging to the campaign the media could be compelled ot avoid further 'damage' to RP by airing it, or issuing a 'corrective statement' or retraction for it's misleading reporting. Any court decision or movement in favour of the campaign, and justice at large, even if ignored or played down by media will be a victory for the campaign, and surely something senior advisors to paul will consider playing up during interviews, and replies.

It will be interesting how this unfolds.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Old news is Old.

 

[isee]

A charge or scandal involving Huntsman or a Huntsman family member, or campaign staffer being indicted is relevant.

 

[tempest]

Tune in to Fox News

Megyn Kelly just announced that she's gonna have a segment on this ad/lawsuit issue (discussion panel segment coming up)

 

[shrugged0106]

A charge or scandal involving Huntsman or a Huntsman family member, or campaign staffer being indicted is relevant.

unless its found that a current candidate still running is behind them (not saying it is, but maybe they know something we dont?)

 

[low preference guy]

42 pages

 

[dntrpltt]

For anyone that has a Pacer.gov account (lets you access court documents), you can go to https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html and search for case number 3:12-cv-00240-MEJ to view the court documents filed in this case. Pacer accounts are semi-free; they charge a fee per page viewed, but waive the fee if under $10 a quarter (I believe it is 0.08 per page).

 

[isee]

UPDATE: FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES PAUL CAMPAIGN:

LINK to actual Judgement: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79478504/Ron-Paul-2012-v-Does-C-12-0240-N-D-Cal-Jan-25-2012

 

[Jtorsella]

Yeah, it did seem like it was shaky.

 

[Kregisen]

Damn...

 

[tsai3904]

UPDATE: FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES PAUL CAMPAIGN:

LINK to actual Judgement: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79478504/Ron-Paul-2012-v-Does-C-12-0240-N-D-Cal-Jan-25-2012

It seems like only expedited discovery was denied, not the entire lawsuit.