Wall Street Journal Law Blog: Ron Paul Supporters Sue RNC for Helping Romney

[sailingaway]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/21/ron-paul-supporters-sue-rnc-for-helping-romney/

 

[ClydeCoulter]

fairly balanced article on the lawsuit.

 

[cheapseats]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/21/ron-paul-supporters-sue-rnc-for-helping-romney/

June 21, 2012, 2:48 PM
Ron Paul Supporters Sue RNC for Helping Romney

By Sam Favate


Associated Press
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
While Mitt Romney may be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, it’s premature to say that the rancor over the nomination is over.

Supporters of Ron Paul have filed a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee and just about all the state parties, claiming that they gave Mr. Romney inappropriate assistance during the primaries and harassed Paul supporters, including the use of violence and intimidation, AP reported.

The alleged threats of violence in the complaint include “dressing security type people in dark clothing searching out supporters of a Candidate Defendants do not approve of to harass and intimidate said Delegates from voting their conscience.”

Mr. Paul’s campaign has said it doesn’t support the lawsuit, but he gave some encouragement to his followers, telling CNN that they had been “pushed around” and that the Republican Party didn’t follow the rules in every instance.

The suit is seeking clarification from a federal court in California over whether delegates at the national convention can vote for any candidate of their choice, even if those delegates were won by Mr. Romney. The suit also alleges that the RNC violates federal law by requiring them to sign pledges to back a certain candidate, restricting delegates’ voting options and illegally limiting their vote, the National Journal reported.

The RNC, which dismissed the suit as frivolous, still intends to plan a legal strategy in response. “We view the suit as completely frivolous but one to which a serious response must be made,” RNC Chief Legal Counsel John Phillippe Jr. told CNN.

“When the RNC calls this frivolous, I think it’s very telling about how the RNC has no respect for the delegates at the convention,” Richard Gilbert, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, told CNN. “These are delegates to a national convention who are asking the judge for guidance whether to follow federal law or whether to follow state party rules or state bylaws. How can that be a frivolous case?

...telling CNN:

THE SITUATION ROOM

Aired June 19, 2012 - 16:00 ET

...

BLITZER: Supporters of Ron Paul's presidential bid are suing the Republican National Committee. They're accusing the RNC of improperly helping Mitt Romney throughout the Republican nomination fight and they're challenging rules requiring many Republican delegates to vote for the winner of their state's primary or caucus at the convention.

In an internal memo obtained by CNN today, the RNC is calling the lawsuit, quote "frivolous." Ron Paul stopped actively campaigning but still hoping to influence the convention at the end of August in Tampa.

Congressman Ron Paul is joining us once again from Capitol Hill.

What's your reaction to this lawsuit, Congressman?

PAUL: Well, I've heard a little bit about it. But it's not part of our campaign. There certainly have been times when we felt like we came up short in the process, but not extremely so. It hasn't ever motivated me to file a lawsuit.

But, you know, at times when we've been pushed around, it's because the other side hasn't followed the rules, you know? And they closed down conventions for us. And they've done things to try to prevent us.

But that has not motivated me to file a lawsuit.

BLITZER: Are you OK just being associated with some of your supporters who have filed this lawsuit?

PAUL: Am I associated with them?

BLITZER: No. Are you okay being associated because these are all your supporters who actually filed the lawsuit?

PAUL: Well, if they have a legitimate argument that they can make and that's what they want to do, I'm not going to say don't do it. If they ask my advice, I'm going to say don't. I didn't motivate them to do it.

But sometimes they do. I mean, sometimes they're in the states there's been times when I want people to act dignified and not try to cause a ruckus and break -- you know, and disrupt things. At the same time I tell them you don't have to tell them to get pushed around. If they're not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules.

I think for the most part these winning caucuses that we've been involved in we have followed the rules. And the other side has at times not followed the rules.

BLITZER: But I assume you've reconciled yourself with the fact that Romney will be your party's nominee?

PAUL: Well, it looks like he has the delegates, yes. But he doesn't have the control of the hearts and minds of the people. And right now, a lot of people -- a lot of delegate who are pledged to vote for Romney are actually very strong supporters of ours and will be strongly supporting us when we want to put things into the platform to say, hey, we don't need another war. Yes, we do need to audit the Federal Reserve. Yes, we ought to really cut spending.

So there's going to be a lot more support there than the delegate count indicates. They'll be support for our cause of liberty and for what we've been doing for a good many years.

BLITZER: Your son, Senator Rand Paul, has endorsed Romney. I take it you're not yet ready yourself to endorse Romney, are you?

PAUL: No. Not ready.

BLITZER: You're not ready?

PAUL: No way.

BLITZER: When you say "no way," what's stopping you? You obviously appreciate the fact he's going to have 1,144 delegates that will put him over the top.

PAUL: What's he going to achieve? I think it's legitimate for us to continue to debate. I know they don't want the debate at the convention. Everything has to be smooth and proper.

But you know, I helped pay for the convention because the taxpayers pay Republicans $18 million plus. And Obama gets $18 million plus to have these grand parties. I think we should be serious and discuss differences.

It used to be that we would go the last time I actually went and attended a convention. We didn't even know who the nominee would be. And that was in 1976 when Reagan was challenging Ford.

I mean, they used to mean something. Right now I would like to have these conventions mean something and continue to debate and decide what we as a party actually believe in.

BLITZER: Are you ready to say that Mitt Romney won this nomination fair and square?

PAUL: Won what?

BLITZER: Won the Republican presidential nomination? Has Mitt Romney won the Republican presidential nomination fair and square?

PAUL: I have no reason to say that he cheated. No. I don't have that. All I know is that various factions in the party, which is something that has been rather well-known throughout history, is that people will do certain things to make their party look better. But as far as saying that he's done something unfairly, no, I'm not saying that.

BLITZER: Have you been in touch with him or his folks about a role for you at the convention?

PAUL: Not me personally. Maybe staff have indirectly, but, no. I'm not expecting a whole lot to happen there because, you know, we had to have -- you know, we had to have more delegates to say that we had to have, you know, time for speeches and that sort of thing.

No, it hasn't been resolved. They haven't turned us down. We haven't made any requests. And a little bit more time might solve all those questions.

BLITZER: Well, a lot of us will be watching to see, Congressman, if you get a primetime speaking venue at the Republican convention. That would be significant. I assume you agree.

PAUL: I think so. I think that I would probably take care of the opportunity if I could give my speech.

BLITZER: Congressman, as usual, thanks very much for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you.

BLITZER: Ron Paul joining us from Capitol Hill.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1206/19/sitroom.01.html

 

[FSP-Rebel]

^muddying the waters as usual

 

[KingNothing]

Does Bob Loblaw's Law Blog say anything about this?

 

[sailingaway]

Does Bob Loblaw's Law Blog say anything about this?

I don't know who that is....

this just off twitter by the guy who has been tweeting law suit developments, after a bunch of stuff about activating rule 40 on the floor at RNC:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Today I witnessed the campaign become revitalized. They watched the volunteers and they believe again. We Are In It To Win It

 

[KingNothing]

I don't know who that is....

Clearly you need more Bluths in your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwWAsNZTnug

 

[sailingaway]

Clearly you need more Bluths in your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwWAsNZTnug

He works out of a law library?

 

[jmag]

If the law suit is frivolous, why does it need a serious response?

frivolous: of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice

 

[sailingaway]

If the law suit is frivolous, why does it need a serious response?

frivolous: of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice

that is what defendants always say to spin the narrative. No biggee.

 

[jmag]

that is what defendants always say to spin the narrative. No biggee.

Yeah I just think it's amusing the RNC Counsel's statement is a contradiction.

 

[cheapseats]

THE SITUATION ROOM

Aired June 19, 2012 - 16:00 ET

...

BLITZER: Supporters of Ron Paul's presidential bid are suing the Republican National Committee. They're accusing the RNC of improperly helping Mitt Romney throughout the Republican nomination fight and they're challenging rules requiring many Republican delegates to vote for the winner of their state's primary or caucus at the convention.

In an internal memo obtained by CNN today, the RNC is calling the lawsuit, quote "frivolous." Ron Paul stopped actively campaigning but still hoping to influence the convention at the end of August in Tampa.

Congressman Ron Paul is joining us once again from Capitol Hill.

What's your reaction to this lawsuit, Congressman?

PAUL: Well, I've heard a little bit about it. But it's not part of our campaign. There certainly have been times when we felt like we came up short in the process, but not extremely so. It hasn't ever motivated me to file a lawsuit.

But, you know, at times when we've been pushed around, it's because the other side hasn't followed the rules, you know? And they closed down conventions for us. And they've done things to try to prevent us.

But that has not motivated me to file a lawsuit.

BLITZER: Are you OK just being associated with some of your supporters who have filed this lawsuit?

PAUL: Am I associated with them?

BLITZER: No. Are you okay being associated because these are all your supporters who actually filed the lawsuit?

PAUL: Well, if they have a legitimate argument that they can make and that's what they want to do, I'm not going to say don't do it. If they ask my advice, I'm going to say don't. I didn't motivate them to do it.

But sometimes they do. I mean, sometimes they're in the states there's been times when I want people to act dignified and not try to cause a ruckus and break -- you know, and disrupt things. At the same time I tell them you don't have to tell them to get pushed around. If they're not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules.

I think for the most part these winning caucuses that we've been involved in we have followed the rules. And the other side has at times not followed the rules.

BLITZER: But I assume you've reconciled yourself with the fact that Romney will be your party's nominee?

PAUL: Well, it looks like he has the delegates, yes. But he doesn't have the control of the hearts and minds of the people. And right now, a lot of people -- a lot of delegate who are pledged to vote for Romney are actually very strong supporters of ours and will be strongly supporting us when we want to put things into the platform to say, hey, we don't need another war. Yes, we do need to audit the Federal Reserve. Yes, we ought to really cut spending.

So there's going to be a lot more support there than the delegate count indicates. They'll be support for our cause of liberty and for what we've been doing for a good many years.

BLITZER: Your son, Senator Rand Paul, has endorsed Romney. I take it you're not yet ready yourself to endorse Romney, are you?

PAUL: No. Not ready.

BLITZER: You're not ready?

PAUL: No way.

BLITZER: When you say "no way," what's stopping you? You obviously appreciate the fact he's going to have 1,144 delegates that will put him over the top.

PAUL: What's he going to achieve? I think it's legitimate for us to continue to debate. I know they don't want the debate at the convention. Everything has to be smooth and proper.

But you know, I helped pay for the convention because the taxpayers pay Republicans $18 million plus. And Obama gets $18 million plus to have these grand parties. I think we should be serious and discuss differences.

It used to be that we would go the last time I actually went and attended a convention. We didn't even know who the nominee would be. And that was in 1976 when Reagan was challenging Ford.

I mean, they used to mean something. Right now I would like to have these conventions mean something and continue to debate and decide what we as a party actually believe in.

BLITZER: Are you ready to say that Mitt Romney won this nomination fair and square?

PAUL: Won what?

BLITZER: Won the Republican presidential nomination? Has Mitt Romney won the Republican presidential nomination fair and square?

PAUL: I have no reason to say that he cheated. No. I don't have that. All I know is that various factions in the party, which is something that has been rather well-known throughout history, is that people will do certain things to make their party look better. But as far as saying that he's done something unfairly, no, I'm not saying that.

BLITZER: Have you been in touch with him or his folks about a role for you at the convention?

PAUL: Not me personally. Maybe staff have indirectly, but, no. I'm not expecting a whole lot to happen there because, you know, we had to have -- you know, we had to have more delegates to say that we had to have, you know, time for speeches and that sort of thing.

No, it hasn't been resolved. They haven't turned us down. We haven't made any requests. And a little bit more time might solve all those questions.

BLITZER: Well, a lot of us will be watching to see, Congressman, if you get a primetime speaking venue at the Republican convention. That would be significant. I assume you agree.

PAUL: I think so. I think that I would probably take care of the opportunity if I could give my speech.

BLITZER: Congressman, as usual, thanks very much for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you.

BLITZER: Ron Paul joining us from Capitol Hill.


http://[B]transcripts[/B].cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.01.html

^muddying the waters as usual

I draw your attention to TRANSCRIPTS . . . as in, OUTTA THE HORSE'S MOUTH, so to speak.

I made it blue because Democrats and especially Socialists do a lot of disregarding facts.

Albert Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

 

[Barrex]

I draw your attention to TRANSCRIPTS . . . as in, OUTTA THE HORSE'S MOUTH, so to speak.

I made it blue because Democrats and especially Socialists do a lot of disregarding facts.

Albert Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW WHAT RON THINKS ABOUT THIS listen to 0:43 OUTTA THE HORSE'S MOUTH, so to speak:
[video=youtube;TtHiA7TJUV0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TtHiA7TJUV0[/video]

When Ron Paul was asked about election fraud:"I think they have but i dont have the proof:Nevada there is pretty good evidence. I have heard so many stories about how the votes get manipulated but as far as evidence goes and as far as try to prove anything I am having another things to worry about. I am trying to stop another war with Iran now than pursuing that. I WISH SOME PEOPLE WOULD. THE ONES THAT KNOW ABOUT IT. THEY OUGHT TO PURSUE THIS AND THEN SEE IF THEY CAN, WHATEVER THEY CAN DOCUMENT"

 

[Natural Citizen]

that is what defendants always say to spin the narrative. No biggee.

I don't really agree with that take on it. Far too often things are allowed to happen and are generally accepted because of the old " It's always been that way" or "That's how we did it the last time" gag. All that really does is deter questioning the premise or divert the terms of controversy. It's unfortunate but laziness does trump sometimes, if not most, and folks are too quick to accept being indoctrinated not to question circumstances. The tactic really does deter real change in my opinion.

As far as the lawsuit though, it's obvious that it deserves serious attention from those on the receiving end because if folks get to actually not accepting the status quo reasoning then they'll quickly conclude that the real scope here is that of citizenship or personhood. That's the real battle. One that involves the genuine people versus those fabricated versions if they ever got it through their noggins.

Just my opinion.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't really agree with that take on it. Far too often things are allowed to happen and are generally accepted because of the old " It's always been that way" or "That's how we did it the last time" gag. All that really does is deter questioning the premise or divert the terms of controversy. It's unfortunate but laziness does trump sometimes, if not most, and folks are too quick to accept being indoctrinated not to question circumstances. The tactic really does deter real change in my opinion.

As far as the lawsuit though, it's obvious that it deserves serious attention from those on the receiving end because if folks get to actually not accepting the status quo reasoning then they'll quickly conclude that the real scope here is that of citizenship or personhood. That's the real battle. One that involves the genuine people versus those fabricated versions if they ever got it through their noggins.

Just my opinion.

The reason that is what defendents always say is because it not only trivializes the case it speaks of a standard. Frivolous lawsuits are subject to sanction and an attorney has an ethical obligation to not sign a complaint for what he knows to be a frivolous lawsuit in federal court. So if people are sued in federal court they immediately say it is frivolous. It may or may not BE frivolous, but that really is the knee jerk statement they put out whn they are sued.

I am saying it ISN'T frivolous and I hope it brings out the fraud so others start fighting it too.