UPDATE: Lawyers for Ron Paul Conference Call 9PMEST WILL be recorded and posted #inside

[No1butPaul]

He basically answered earlier. If all delegates are unbound, which was the reason for wanting a brokered convention, then no candidate has any delegates so anyone can be on the ballot, including you Dave

That sounds right, but the other component being like I said above b/c Ron Paul still couldn't deny Romney the magic number on his own with current no. of delegates.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

That sounds right, but the other component being like I said above b/c Ron Paul still couldn't deny Romney the magic number own his own with current no. of delegates.

Let's focus on the getting the delegates unbound and able to vote their conscience ... I'll take my chances with Dr. Paul vs Romney. But the delegates have to be unbound first.

 

[WhistlinDave]

He basically answered earlier. If all delegates are unbound, which was the reason for wanting a brokered convention, then no candidate has any delegates so anyone can be on the ballot, including you Dave

OK, right. That's what I thought they were saying. I think the thing that confused me is, if that's the case, then getting Mass delegates reinstated (or any delegates from other states) only matters for the overall numbers, not for the 5 states requirement. But it sounded like they were still talking about the 5 states requirement, and saying we need to get them all reinstated for that. I'm thinking maybe they don't have the whole thing entirely figured out yet, or maybe just didn't remember one half while discussing the other half. (Either that or I just wasn't understanding the entire time what I was hearing.)

 

[No1butPaul]

LFRP message to Ron Paul: Start writing your acceptance speech!

 

[No1butPaul]

Let's focus on the getting the delegates unbound and able to vote their conscience ... I'll take my chances with Dr. Paul vs Romney. But the delegates have to be unbound first.

Absolutely ... first things first.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

OK, right. That's what I thought they were saying. I think the thing that confused me is, if that's the case, then getting Mass delegates reinstated (or any delegates from other states) only matters for the overall numbers, not for the 5 states requirement. But it sounded like they were still talking about the 5 states requirement, and saying we need to get them all reinstated for that. I'm thinking maybe they don't have the whole thing entirely figured out yet, or maybe just didn't remember one half while discussing the other half. (Either that or I just wasn't understanding the entire time what I was hearing.)

I think it was somewhat confusing at times, they were explaining the "current" way things are and then how they envisioned it when the delegates are declared unbound. I noticed some of the callers being confused by the way they answered.

 

[SilenceDewgooder]

OK, right. That's what I thought they were saying. I think the thing that confused me is, if that's the case, then getting Mass delegates reinstated (or any delegates from other states) only matters for the overall numbers, not for the 5 states requirement. But it sounded like they were still talking about the 5 states requirement, and saying we need to get them all reinstated for that. I'm thinking maybe they don't have the whole thing entirely figured out yet, or maybe just didn't remember one half while discussing the other half. (Either that or I just wasn't understanding the entire time what I was hearing.)

The 5 state requirement was mentioned more as a contingent plan just to make sure Paul was on the ballot, but also because if the Mass delegates get reinstated, thats more delegates for Dr. Paul.

But if no one has delegates, how can anyone meet a 5 state requirement.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I don't really know how the liberty movement will be going forward. I know we wont be giving up, but the RNC is going to change the rules to try and shut us out more and more. I think this really is do or die.

I remember hearing some GOP ppl talking a month or two ago about ending any future caucuses. They apparently cause them problems.

-t

 

[sailingaway]

OK, right. That's what I thought they were saying. I think the thing that confused me is, if that's the case, then getting Mass delegates reinstated (or any delegates from other states) only matters for the overall numbers, not for the 5 states requirement. But it sounded like they were still talking about the 5 states requirement, and saying we need to get them all reinstated for that. I'm thinking maybe they don't have the whole thing entirely figured out yet, or maybe just didn't remember one half while discussing the other half. (Either that or I just wasn't understanding the entire time what I was hearing.)

I'm going to have to read through the thread, I just got off the call. I heard your question, Whistlin, and yeah, the guy obviously doesn't have all the facts on the ground yet. Mass isn't the fifth state. NOt counting OK and CO the states are LA, IA, MN, ME and NV, with a couple other possibilities but we will have to see who shows up in Tampa. I'm mulling over my impressions of the call, but for someone who asked, the Rules as they are now say with six states you can force a roll call and with ten states you can force the roll call not be by electronic means, fwiw.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm going to have to read through the thread, I just got off the call. I heard your question, Whistlin, and yeah, the guy obviously doesn't have all the facts on the ground yet. Mass isn't the fifth state. NOt counting OK and CO the states are LA, IA, MN, ME and NV, with a couple other possibilities but we will have to see who shows up in Tampa. I'm mulling over my impressions of the call, but for someone who asked, the Rules as they are now say with six states you can force a roll call and with ten states you can force the roll call not be by electronic means, fwiw.

What? With 10 states you can force the roll call not be by electronic means, what reality are we living in?

edit: name it

 

[sailingaway]

Yep, that was me...

So I'm still confused. If this lawsuit succeeds and all delegates are unbound, does that mean it doesn't matter if RP has 5 states' plurality to get his name "on the ballot" because any delegate can simply write in Ron Paul and the rules for nominating don't matter? Does anybody know? I think that's what they're saying, just still unsure.

I think he's confused on that point. I'm still putting my thoughts together though.

 

[Sentinelrv]

When will the recording for this be up? I need to hear this guy for myself. Unfortunately I was at work. Also, did he say in the call when this will go to court?

 

[sailingaway]

The 5 state requirement was mentioned more as a contingent plan just to make sure Paul was on the ballot, but also because if the Mass delegates get reinstated, thats more delegates for Dr. Paul.

But if no one has delegates, how can anyone meet a 5 state requirement.

they WILL vote for someone, they just wouldn't be bound to. Our Minnesota, Maine and Minnesota and many of our LA delegates aren't bound but I dont' think anyone thinks they won't vote for Ron. Also, depending on how the binding rule is written, as in NV, my reading says they can't vote for Ron under the BALLOT as written, but they could still be one of the states to nominate him which is a different vote.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I think he's confused on that point. I'm still putting my thoughts together though.

If no one has bound delegates, then how can they have 5 states? I think that's what he's saying. Division. The national chairman for that state can't just give the bound totals + unbound votes, everyone will have to polled unbound per state. ???

 

[sailingaway]

When will the recording for this be up? I need to hear this guy for myself. Unfortunately I was at work. Did he said in the call when this will go to court?

He says the judge will set the schedule but because of his familiarity with the judge he is confident it will be before the RNC.

 

[sailingaway]

If no one has bound delegates, then how can they have 5 states? I think that's what he's saying. Division. The national chairman for that state can't just give the bound totals + unbound votes, everyone will have to polled unbound per state. ???

if no one has bound delegates the delegates vote. The rule doesn't say you have to have BOUND delegates in a state but that you must have the VOTE of delegates in a state.

 

[sailingaway]

What? With 10 states you can force the roll call not be by electronic means, what reality are we living in?

edit: name it

Not sure what you're asking.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

if no one has bound delegates the delegates vote. The rule doesn't say you have to have BOUND delegates in a state but that you must have the VOTE of delegates in a state.

He says that rule 40 cannot be counted on, they can change it before the convention. That's why they are taking the action they are, so that everyone is unbound and the chair of each state cannot just declare the bound counts.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Some of this other crap he is saying is just irresponsible. He claims that Benton is on Romney's payroll. Where is that proof, because I would like to see it? I am serious here. If there is proof of that, show it to us all. Now, he just slammed Rand Paul, saying he hoped he was a better doctor than he was a politician. Well, Richard, it seems to me that he's doing pretty damned good.

Then for him to act so defensive about being asked about what he himself put out on his own twitter, is just really strange.

I'm not holding my breath about this. Don't know about the guy.

At the moment, I believe the delegates are unbound by default. That prior court case and all. What if the plan is to bring up this court case again and botch it?

What other lawyers are involved with this? Can anyone confirm his credentials?

-t

 

[sailingaway]

He says that rule 40 cannot be counted on, they can change it before the convention. That's why they are taking the action they are, so that everyone is unbound and the chair of each state cannot just declare the bound counts.

I know he says that. I think he means their rules committee would change it and a majority would vote against us to get rid of it. Maybe it is possible but it would be a scandal. there is a threshold vote to be nominated mentioned in the media multiple times as a given and they decide they don't want to follow it after the threshold is met.
I agree that if there is a federal court order on the case and they pull that, a federal judge is likely to find that too cute, and make his displeasure felt. But I'm not as sure it is going to happen, I just don't know. He WAS trying to sell the case.