Richard Gilbert: Plaintiffs Wanted So We Can Write-In Ron Paul in All 50 States!

Last edited:
I have a question. This suit is to be filed in the 9th Circuit Supreme Court.. might anyone know why they chose to file in the most liberal court in the country?..... also one that has a HUGE state with write in access? Wouldn't it make more sense to file in a district with more states that don't have write in ballot access? Or does that just make too much sense?
 
I wish him good luck....

I wish that some people here start (well it is kind of started...maybe get involved in) new "project" regarding these issues....

I wish I wish....
 
ClydeCoulter said:
Barrex, give me your impression of this article: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20120608-0
Click to expand...

Dont like the color.

wait Ill read it ;)

Edit:
Ok I read few of them (linked one to another). It seems familiar but I dont think I read it before. I agree with his conclusions. Not because of his article. I had same standpoint on this before. He just took time to make well written arguments based on laws and precedents. I didnt know about O'Brien v. Brown
but I read other stuff. I hoped that he will touch on Ray v Blair (constitutional to force pledge on electors& not constitutional/electors are not delegates I know but.../)too... but there are obviously too many precedents and previous cases to include them all.

Were you looking at something specific?
 
Last edited:
Barrex said:
Dont like the color.

wait Ill read it ;)

Edit:
Ok I read few of them (linked one to another). It seems familiar but I dont think I read it before. I agree with his conclusions. Not because of his article. I had same standpoint on this before. He just took time to make well written arguments based on laws and precedents. I didnt know about O'Brien v. Brown
but I read other stuff. I hoped that he will touch on Ray v Blair (constitutional to force pledge on electors& not constitutional/electors are not delegates I know but.../)too... but there are obviously too many precedents and previous cases to include them all.

Were you looking at something specific?
Click to expand...

Yes, the way he demonstrated how the party process to nominate a nominee is part of the general election process. The argument is for the federal laws to apply to the state and, at minimum, the national convention (ie, 42 USC 1971)
 
Last edited:
ClydeCoulter said:
Yes, the way he demonstrated how the party process to nominate a nominee is part of the general election process. The argument is for the federal laws to apply to the state and, at minimum, the national convention (ie, 42 USC 1971)
Click to expand...

Like I said I agree with him on that. It is good basis for any further lawsuit (in unlikely event grassroots start something). On the other hand Supreme Court decided that binding electors (similar) is ok. So Richard would have problems in his attempt to unbind delegates. Problem from the start was lack of time and lack of resources and lack of organization (this is killing me personally). He took enormous task on him self for free, task that would need specialist with army of researchers and assistants so I kept my mouth shut and I wanted him to win that case... He could have asked for help but he didnt (and use what he got). Could have done many things differently but he didnt. Well grassroots could/should have done things differently too. Pursue these things as they arise and not wait for someone to do it for them.... water under the bridge...


Future:
I am strong "believer" that party process IS part of general election and that election laws apply to it. There is more than enough facts to back it up. That article gives good explanation why and how. There are more arguments for "our" position but he did good job explaining it.

There are many ways to start solving this: 1 large lawsuit or many small ones where "local" people sue "local" GOP and those who were involved. Combination etc. Every path people choose got advantages and flaws. The one path that will lead to fail 100% is not doing anything.
How many charges were pressed?
How many lawsuits? I heard of one "local" and those that RG started.


Problem: It seems that people gave up. How to activate people? How to make them act?

Full disclosure: I am somewhat like that guy Monk (private detective). I like my stuff organized so I know where I am, where am I standing, what are my resources etc... Order and organization...everything that this forum is not :D so I often have to remind my self of that fact.
 
opal said:
so.. how does an attempt at ballot access in all 50 states hurt anything?
Click to expand...

What nobody ever seems to mention around here is that Ron Paul apparently does not want to be a write-in candidate for president. If he wanted to launch a national write-in campaign, he and his organization could easily mobilize to do this and fulfill all the various applicable state requirements needed so his write-in votes would actually count. He didn't do this in 2008 and isn't doing this in 2012 either.

And if you recall, in 2008 when the Montana Constitution Party managed to get him on the ballot, Ron Paul actually asked to have his name REMOVED...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Post-campaign_activities

Paul requested on September 11 that Montana take his name off the ballot, stating that he did not "seek nor consent" to the Montana Constitution Party's nomination.
Click to expand...

What does this tell you, folks? Why are you trying to force the man into something he doesn't apparently want to do? Not very libertarian, is it...?
 
Interesting. That is one question I don't think I've ever heard asked in an interview.. if the good doctor actually WANTS to be president or his campaign was ONLY to open people's eyes to their loss of Liberty.
 
Barrex said:
Like I said I agree with him on that. It is good basis for any further lawsuit (in unlikely event grassroots start something). On the other hand Supreme Court decided that binding electors (similar) is ok. So Richard would have problems in his attempt to unbind delegates. Problem from the start was lack of time and lack of resources and lack of organization (this is killing me personally). He took enormous task on him self for free, task that would need specialist with army of researchers and assistants so I kept my mouth shut and I wanted him to win that case... He could have asked for help but he didnt (and use what he got). Could have done many things differently but he didnt. Well grassroots could/should have done things differently too. Pursue these things as they arise and not wait for someone to do it for them.... water under the bridge...


Future:
I am strong "believer" that party process IS part of general election and that election laws apply to it. There is more than enough facts to back it up. That article gives good explanation why and how. There are more arguments for "our" position but he did good job explaining it.

There are many ways to start solving this: 1 large lawsuit or many small ones where "local" people sue "local" GOP and those who were involved. Combination etc. Every path people choose got advantages and flaws. The one path that will lead to fail 100% is not doing anything.
How many charges were pressed?
How many lawsuits? I heard of one "local" and those that RG started.


Problem: It seems that people gave up. How to activate people? How to make them act?

Full disclosure: I am somewhat like that guy Monk (private detective). I like my stuff organized so I know where I am, where am I standing, what are my resources etc... Order and organization...everything that this forum is not :D so I often have to remind my self of that fact.
Click to expand...

Likewise here. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm not familiar with cases involving voting rights.

I found that greenpapers article after a whole lot of searching and reading. At first, I almost skipped over it, since it didn't start out talking about case law or voting rights. But for some reason, I kept reading it, and "bam" it included what I had been searching for laid our pretty well. It also included stuff that I had been reading up to that point, but condensed down and logically laid out.

(1) I think what we are after is to keep in tact the delegate/caucus process. We don't need no stinkin' democracy. Which is where it seems things are headed with the "bound delegates" thing. (2) But, also, rules need to be followed. I would not join in on even a simple game that the rules are not solid on, much less an election for offices that make or execute rules/laws.

Do you have any more input that you can give?
 
Last edited:
svf said:
What nobody ever seems to mention around here is that Ron Paul apparently does not want to be a write-in candidate for president. If he wanted to launch a national write-in campaign, he and his organization could easily mobilize to do this and fulfill all the various applicable state requirements needed so his write-in votes would actually count. He didn't do this in 2008 and isn't doing this in 2012 either.

And if you recall, in 2008 when the Montana Constitution Party managed to get him on the ballot, Ron Paul actually asked to have his name REMOVED...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Post-campaign_activities



What does this tell you, folks? Why are you trying to force the man into something he doesn't apparently want to do? Not very libertarian, is it...?
Click to expand...

He couldn't do that before all the deadlines ran and still run for GOP nominee. Now that is is over and we are deciding where to vote, those of us who want to vote for Ron would prefer his votes be counted, but none of the above is still a count.

Ron neither encourages nor discourages this. He leaves it up to the individual. In the case of Montana, he had endorsed Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party putting Ron on the ballot created a state where Baldwin didn't have ballot access.
 
sailingaway said:
He couldn't do that before all the deadlines ran and still run for GOP nominee. Now that is is over and we are deciding where to vote, those of us who want to vote for Ron would prefer his votes be counted, but none of the above is still a count.

Ron neither encourages nor discourages this. He leaves it up to the individual. In the case of Montana, he had endorsed Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party putting Ron on the ballot created a state where Baldwin didn't have ballot access.
Click to expand...

This is true. Ron doesn't tell people who to vote for. If you want to write him in, write him in.
 
svf said:
What nobody ever seems to mention around here is that Ron Paul apparently does not want to be a write-in candidate for president. If he wanted to launch a national write-in campaign, he and his organization could easily mobilize to do this and fulfill all the various applicable state requirements needed so his write-in votes would actually count. He didn't do this in 2008 and isn't doing this in 2012 either.

And if you recall, in 2008 when the Montana Constitution Party managed to get him on the ballot, Ron Paul actually asked to have his name REMOVED...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Post-campaign_activities



What does this tell you, folks? Why are you trying to force the man into something he doesn't apparently want to do? Not very libertarian, is it...?
Click to expand...

It tells you that was 2008 and this is 2012, after the GOP stole the nomination from Paul, beat his delegates, and changed the every time it looked like he could make headway.
 
Ron Paul is one of us, he represents us, therefore our write-in vote for Ron Paul is how we stand up and make our voices heard. Anyway, George Washington did not want to be president either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Snowball
Wacko Judge blocks Trump's ban on transvestite army
2
Replies
34
Views
272
nikcers
nikcers
jmdrake
Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid, spelling potential problems for DOGE
Replies
9
Views
173
nobody's_hero
nobody's_hero
ammodotcom
Locked Up: How the Modern Prison-Industrial Complex Puts So Many Americans in Jail
Replies
2
Views
85
Working Poor
Working Poor
Matt Collins
Massie Introduces Nat'l Constitutional Carry Act to Protect Carry Rights in All States
Replies
3
Views
3K
osan
osan
Anti Federalist
OH-6th US District Ct rules schools CAN punish students for "misgendering" transqueeers
Replies
13
Views
976
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
Back
Top