We did well in Oregon, totals not completely in

[sailingaway]

as in Texas, it appears they don't want precise details out so for right now I've pulled our thread. We still have it though, and when we get it sorted out we can put it back up.

they tried improper adjournment and each CD handled it differently, after the main delegates were elected but before alternates were because they knew we were doing well and wanted to appoint them themselves. We need to get our real delegates, to Tampa since delegate alternates, even when properly voted in, are sure to be challenged since they are claiming they adjourned.

 

[Jackie Moon]

Thanks, hopefully it won't be too long. I think we can say in general it's good, but they asked for no details or video posted until the lawyers go over it.

 

[devil21]

So more cheating then. After this last week the Lawyers4RP folks will have to motion to amend their complaint to add a lot more shit. Keep it up GOP. You're passing with flying colors.

 

[davegod75]

good news. Can't wait for tampa!

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Godspeed to our delegates and lawyers! and the judge overseeing the case

 

[ClydeCoulter]

So more cheating then. After this last week the Lawyers4RP folks will have to motion to amend their complaint to add a lot more shit. Keep it up GOP. You're passing with flying colors.

gas? what a stink.

 

[parocks]

[substance deleted by mod because that is precisely what we aren't supposed to post yet. I know some others havent' pulled theirs yet. Just know each cd acted differently making the legal arguments for each cd different, and the outcome is better in some than others. Sorry for the deletion, but attorneys are concerned casual mischaractorizations by those who don't know the legal implications of minor differences might jeopardize a legal case if quoted, at least that seems to be their reasoning]

 

[sailingaway]

sorry, parocks.

 

[Barrex]

Sorry sailingaway. Too late I read it

 

[tod evans]

Sorry sailingaway. Too late I read it

Drats! I missed it...

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Sorry sailingaway. Too late I read it

I caught it too, we be insiders now.

 

[sailingaway]

only on one cd

I don't know how much it matters, just that we were asked to take info off social media.

 

[parocks]

sorry, parocks.

i vaguely understand the rationale for this - someone doesn't like it, right? I don't see how this hurts. Why "what happened" needs to be a secret. The people who were there know what happened. The Romney people in Oregon filed a full report to Romney. No secrets are being spread. It just seems that RPF is supposed to be 100% chaff, with a 0% wheat content. This has happened many times, in many different contexts. The one thing that seems like useful information that will make everyone smarter and more informed about what is going on is moved to hot topics or deleted because in theory the opposing campaigns are so clueless that they can't get their own info from their own sources. The other campaigns can and do get their own info. The people who don't get the info isn't Team Romney but us. We're the ones remaining clueless and in the dark, based on that flawed theory that people don't know what's going on. I can will and do fight argue and discuss things that don't matter, endless blather about Rand Paul, Paul Fest, Adam Kokesh. Is that RPF is supposed to be - pure pointless blather? Is that the measurement? This might be good information - delete. This is clearly the rantings of a crazy person - keep it in grassroots. It doesn't really matter at this point, it would've been more helpful, overall, if RPF was pushed toward excellence, excellent information, excellent projects implemented excellently, as opposed to random pointless jibberjabber.

 

[sailingaway]

I can only explain with a hypothetical, and this is only my guess as to why the attorneys don't like it:

Suppose a person saw a woman in a blue dress get hit by a dark colored car and her child fly from her arms and cause another car to swerve and hit another car, knocking it into pedestrians.

This person writes up a quick blog on how shocking it was, the woman dead and blood on the street and the baby permanently crippled and the pedestrians taken by ambulence....

but in the fervent write up the person says it was a black car when in fact it was a dark blue car, the person just wasn't really focusing on the car.

People working for the dark blue car driver then say 'see it was black!! Wrong car!!'

Usually that person is just a bystander but if that person is a party to the suit, if any, say a delegate in a suit brought for delegates, that is an ADMISSION and can be admitted into court, and the person writing wasn't really even thinking about the car color, and on thinking about it would say, you know, I'm not really sure what color it was, but it was dark, and it was a bright day....

To the extent it is fought in the media those with control of the media (certainly not us) can put mistakes like that together as 'proof' in media spin for the other side.

obviously, I just made up the above, but the principles are true, so when I was told the attorneys were asking stuff not be posted on social media before they had a chance to get unaltered 'testimony' from the actual people there, I assume it is something like that.

and that people can later change 'facts' if questioned by people who want it to go a certain way, and attorneys who know they will have to prove facts against people who also have to prove facts want to get the unaltered testimony to check out and compare with other instances, so they can work out the truth.

All the information will be available to make us smarter, later, once the attorneys have had a chance to get the story straight, as I understand it.

 

[talkingpointes]

Just thinking about whats out there....

 

[Barrex]

Research origins of this:
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
If you wanna have some fun research this one (origin of "testimony"):
"Testis unus, testis nullus"

 

[WhistlinDave]

Research origins of this:
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
If you wanna have some fun research this one (origin of "testimony"):
"Testis unus, testis nullus"

That last one, "testis nullus" sounds like the libido nullification curse my wife has been wishing upon me for many years now. (It isn't working.)

 

[parocks]

I can only explain with a hypothetical, and this is only my guess as to why the attorneys don't like it:

Suppose a person saw a woman in a blue dress get hit by a dark colored car and her child fly from her arms and cause another car to swerve and hit another car, knocking it into pedestrians.

This person writes up a quick blog on how shocking it was, the woman dead and blood on the street and the baby permanently crippled and the pedestrians taken by ambulence....

but in the fervent write up the person says it was a black car when in fact it was a dark blue car, the person just wasn't really focusing on the car.

People working for the dark blue car driver then say 'see it was black!! Wrong car!!'

Usually that person is just a bystander but if that person is a party to the suit, if any, say a delegate in a suit brought for delegates, that is an ADMISSION and can be admitted into court, and the person writing wasn't really even thinking about the car color, and on thinking about it would say, you know, I'm not really sure what color it was, but it was dark, and it was a bright day....

To the extent it is fought in the media those with control of the media (certainly not us) can put mistakes like that together as 'proof' in media spin for the other side.

obviously, I just made up the above, but the principles are true, so when I was told the attorneys were asking stuff not be posted on social media before they had a chance to get unaltered 'testimony' from the actual people there, I assume it is something like that.

and that people can later change 'facts' if questioned by people who want it to go a certain way, and attorneys who know they will have to prove facts against people who also have to prove facts want to get the unaltered testimony to check out and compare with other instances, so they can work out the truth.

All the information will be available to make us smarter, later, once the attorneys have had a chance to get the story straight, as I understand it.

Ok, I'm not griping about the specifics and I see the rationale to some degree. The concern is more with the overall trend or policy (not that it really matters at this juncture).

 

[Barrex]

That last one, "testis nullus" sounds like the libido nullification curse my wife has been wishing upon me for many years now. (It isn't working.)

Well when Roman citizen was giving evidence in court, he would place his hand on his testicles as a sign that he was telling the truth.
testis= witness= testicle.
No balls no witnesses.
1 witness (test ) is like no witnesses.

 

[parocks]

[deleted by mod]

this one might be deleted as well - so be it - its daily paul video from oregon