RNC Breaking Rule #11

[No1butPaul]

Has anyone posted this here?

From RonPaulPosts.com:

Rule #11a states:

(a) The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from
13 of 41
the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing deadline for that office. In those states where state law establishes a nonpartisan primary in which Republican candidates could participate, but in which the general election may not include a Republican candidate, the candidate endorsed by a convention held under the authority of the state Republican Party shall be recognized by the Republican National Committee as the Republican nominee

This from the Romney Site:

“Governor Romney’s strong performance and delegate count at this stage of the primary process has made him our party’s presumptive nominee,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. “In order to maximize our efforts I have directed my staff at the RNC to open lines of communication with the Romney campaign.”

UPDATE: The RNC has made good on their word to help Romney and have done so extremely quickly. Check out the new video they made entitled A Tale of Two Leaders

Are they allowed to do that?

http://ronpaulposts.com/2012/04/romney-and-rnc-break-gop-rule-11-election-fraud/

Urghhhh - so corrupt!!!

QUESTION: Is RNC a private organization with completely no oversight? Would they have to be sued as a private party or is there absolutely no recourse? Should we be calling them en masse?

Start at 2:06


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDamvX5WlhA

[Bern]

Will the Ron Paul campaign file a complaint or sue?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

QUESTION: Is RNC a private organization with completely no oversight? Would they have to be sued as a private party or is there absolutely no recourse? Should we be calling them en masse?

Not sure. They claim to be private when convenient and also claim to be public when convenient. They are getting millions and millions in grants for the RNC convention. Well, I guess the city of Tampa is actually getting the funds, but they are specifically to "provide security" and such for the RNC convention.

[No1butPaul]

Will the Ron Paul campaign file a complaint or sue?

If so, that should be it's own moneybomb. Can you imagine the donations that would come in for a "SUE THE RNC RULE #11 MONEYBOMB?

[wgadget]

OMG. Excellent idea!

[tbone717]

I don't believe it is a violation since the rule states that "The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee...". The RNC has officially announced that it is supporting Romney. Reince Priebus has made that official announcement, therefore the assumption is made that the members of the RNC have voted and/or decided to back Romney.

Don't confuse the Republican National Committee with the Republican National Convention, they are two separate things.

[sailingaway]

I'd be interested in seeing the written and filed approval of ALL members of the Republican National Committee.

[tbone717]

I'd be interested in seeing the written and filed approval of ALL members of the Republican National Committee.

Here is their number, perhaps you want to give them a call.

(202) 863-8500

[No1butPaul]

The approval needs to be written and filed from the RNC in the state involved (presumably this would require approval from all 50 states since its in national media). It seems as though they could legally demand to find out if each state filed their written approval.

"No person nominated in violation of this rule shall be recognized by the RNC as the nominee of the Republican Party of that state."

[No1butPaul]

I'd be interested in seeing the written and filed approval of ALL members of the Republican National Committee.

From EACH state ... I doubt they have it from each state.

[No1butPaul]

UPDATE: I called to the RNC and spoke to the legal department -- they seemed totally thrown off guard. The attorney with whom I spoke said she, herself, was not able to provide the written evidence of approval from all 50 states, she would have someone call me back. I told her since Priebus (sp?) came out in the nat'l media yesterday, it needed to pre-date yesterday. Somebody needs to get into this before they have too much time to try and get their ducks in a row!

FYI -- I reminded them there are still, technically, not just one but two other candidates in this race. Ron Paul supporters are not the only ones who should care about this violation.

[bb23]

UPDATE: I called to the RNC and spoke to the legal department -- they seemed totally thrown off guard. The attorney with whom I spoke said she, herself, was not able to provide the written evidence of approval from all 50 states, she would have someone call me back. I told her since Priebus (sp?) came out in the nat'l media yesterday, it needed to pre-date yesterday. Somebody needs to get into this before they have too much time to try and get their ducks in a row!

Way to be proactive! I hope you guys can investigate this further.

[sailingaway]

UPDATE: I called to the RNC and spoke to the legal department -- they seemed totally thrown off guard. The attorney with whom I spoke said she, herself, was not able to provide the written evidence of approval from all 50 states, she would have someone call me back. I told her since Priebus (sp?) came out in the nat'l media yesterday, it needed to pre-date yesterday. Somebody needs to get into this before they have too much time to try and get their ducks in a row!

They can write 'as of' on the date.... and I'm sure they will, now.

I'm not sure ROMNEY would be the one in violation, I think the RNC would, but I still like your style. It is outrageous they are saying my own state of California is absolutely irrelevant, along with TX, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky etc etc.

[tbone717]

..

[No1butPaul]

They can write 'as of' on the date.... and I'm sure they will, now..

That is what would be called "FRAUD"

[No1butPaul]

Paul has the chance to prove that they are not irrelevant

Dr. Paul doesn't have to prove anything!

I'm sorry, but I am fired up about this. There has been so much fraud committed against Dr. Paul during this campaign, but nothing anyone could prove and pin on the RNC. The campaign obviously has standing and I hope this is where they will draw the line.

[tbone717]

..

[Titus]

Generally, you cannot predate a document. That being said, if the members had agreed orally before the date of the agreement that would probably be fine. However, if all fifty states are indeed required, Iowa presents a huge problem even for that flexible theory. AJ Spiker has already publicly rejected a request to support Romney; so how could he have agreed to such an RNC pledge?

EX: You agree to buy five widgets from me for five dollars on April 20th. We agree to all terms but the ink doesn't dry until April 21st. If the contract would otherwise be valid in that state on the 20th, this COULD work to state that the agreement was valid on the 20th rather than the 21st. It depends on state law.

[tbone717]

..

[No1butPaul]

Generally, you cannot predate a document. That being said, if the members had agreed orally before the date of the agreement that would probably be fine.

That would be in violation of the rules because it needs to be WRITTEN and FILED

[Titus]

Spiker also stated though that he will support the nominee. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/04/20/iowans-in-romney-photo-line-in-kerfuffle-about-signing-pledges/

Again though I am not sure if the state approval is required in this case. Perhaps an attorney with a better understanding of these types of party rules would have a better understanding.

Right but that is circular logic. Spiker said he would support the nominee but he did not yet say Romney was the nominee. Therefore, this is not an endorsement of the RNC actions to endorse Romney. Rather it is an endorsement of the Tampa process.

If Spiker had said he would support the nominee the RNC chose (rather than the one at the convention) then this would be a pledge to support the RNC's nominee.

[No1butPaul]

They are not running TV ads in individual states are they?

released yesterday (by the RNC) -- on You Tube which is obviously in all 50 states.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYR4Y2EQ-e4

[tbone717]

..

[Titus]

That would be in violation of the rules because it needs to be WRITTEN and FILED

Then yes. It would be a violation but not "fraud" probably if all 140 plus members are required. The RNC could claim an incidental overlooking of the rules. Pressure would definitely be applied to the holdouts to allow the RNC to proceed on a beat Obama platform. Does anyone know when the changing of the guard took place between committee members? (AJ Spiker taking over for the prior chair in Iowa).

[tbone717]

..

[Titus]

Understandable, I think we are splitting hairs though here. Romney's bound delegates, plus his pledged unbounds, and the bound and pledged from the two that have dropped out exceed 1144. That's not saying it is a done deal, but to everyone who isn't a hardcore Paul supporter, the race is essentially over. ... "Paul does have a window of opportunity".

The rules do not say that if the race is essentially over that RNC agreement can be waived. Even then, the race is not officially over. If the race became mathematically over even if Paul's strategy worked perfectly, I am sure Paul would suspend. At that point, his followers on various RNC's would vote to allow the RNC to spend money on Romney's behalf. Until that point, even Buddy Roemer could object.

ETA: Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. There are millions at stake because some i wasn't dotted or a t wasn't crossed right.

[sailingaway]

Understandable, I think we are splitting hairs though here. Romney's bound delegates, plus his pledged unbounds, and the bound and pledged from the two that have dropped out exceed 1144. That's not saying it is a done deal, but to everyone who isn't a hardcore Paul supporter, the race is essentially over.

That being said, Paul does have a window of opportunity to make history and to be the first candidate since the primary process has begun to come from so far behind and win the remaining states. The question is what is he doing between now and May 8th to make that happen? I just checked the events page on the site and it does not appear that he has any campaign stops in NC, WV or IN. Is the campaign skipping those states? There are 132 delegates up for grabs there, and it would certainly make headlines if Paul won all three states that day.

No we are not splitting hairs, a bunch for the others will support Paul. Your ASSUMPTION is determinative of your notion that this is splitting hairs. I know you don't like making waves with the GOP, but I hope the campaign makes a point of it. They will have to decide if it is worth it or not.

[No1butPaul]

Then yes. It would be a violation but not "fraud"

I said it would be FRAUD in response to another post that said they could pre-date the approvals -- pre-dating the documents is what would be fraud. I understand it is possible they have written and filed approval from all 50 states, but I do not think it is likely.

[sailingaway]

The rules do not say that if the race is essentially over that RNC agreement can be waived. Even then, the race is not officially over. If the race became mathematically over even if Paul's strategy worked perfectly, I am sure Paul would suspend. At that point, his followers on various RNC's would vote to allow the RNC to spend money on his point. Until that point, even Buddy Roemer could object.

It isn't anything LIKE over. We KNEW all along Santorum and Gingrich had no ground game and we were going for those delegates whereever we could. We'll have to see who turns up in Tampa.

[sailingaway]

I said it would be FRAUD in response to another post that said they could pre-date the approvals -- pre-dating the documents is what would be fraud. I understand it is possible they have written and filed approval from all 50 states, but I do not think it is likely.

If they say 'as is' it says it wasn't really on that date, but fudges when it was. I agree it is intended as subterfuge, but we'll see.

[tbone717]

..

[No1butPaul]

Yeah I saw that. I don't know if YouTube would qualify as running ads in states. Again, you may want to consult an attorney. I have an attorney, but he is a business attorney and would know nothing about party rules like this.

They are from the RNC and they are ads, period.

Why do I get the sense I'm arguing for Ron Paul against the RNC here!!! Well, I've put everything out here and it's up to the campaign. Maybe they will determine it would not be prudent to pursue this and just continue taking it in the you know where.

[Titus]

It isn't anything LIKE over. We KNEW all along Santorum and Gingrich had no ground game and we were going for those delegates whereever we could. We'll have to see who turns up in Tampa.

Sailing, I absolutely agree. Perhaps I should have made that clear. I was engaging in a common legal tactic. That says Even if false belief is true, your premise is this not valid. Here, false belief (race near over) doesn't mean RNC can waive. This race is NOWHERE near over.

[tbone717]

..

[sailingaway]

Sailing, I absolutely agree. Perhaps I should have made that clear. I was engaging in a common legal tactic. That says Even if false belief is true, your premise is this not valid. Here, false belief (race near over) doesn't mean RNC can waive. This race is NOWHERE near over.

I agree with that as well.

[sailingaway]

Are you an attorney, because like I said I am not sure if a YouTube video would qualify as something that is a violation of that rule. I prefer not to speculate on stuff like that since I am not well versed in the legal side of it all.

My understanding is that Rince was going to specifically name Romney that, and I thought I saw headlines yesterday saying he had. They are also now jointly fundraising they said, which presumably involves using their lists for Romney which would explain some of the Romney junk mail I'm getting.

[The Free Hornet]

Perhaps Ron could sue for ballot access as a Republican in November? To what degree can the process be compromised before a Judge declares the results invalid? Perhaps a write in campaign...

Unlikely to win but it is a good way to derail Romney without going 3rd party.

[No1butPaul]

Are you an attorney, because like I said I am not sure if a YouTube video would qualify as something that is a violation of that rule. I prefer not to speculate on stuff like that since I am not well versed in the legal side of it all.

As a matter of fact I do have a longstanding legal background from one of the three original broadcast networks (retired). Whether an ad is an ad is not determined by the platform ... they could put out T-shirts and that would be advertising. Further, anything on the Internet obviously does not only span nationally, but globally. The big question would be, if the campaign wants to pursue this matter.

[tbone717]

..

[sailingaway]

Well that's good then, you probably know someone who is versed in this type of work and can contact the RNC? What type of legal challenge would you suggest be taken to the courts regarding this?

I saw your edit. Why would the campaign have to be the one to persue this? Couldn't you sue on behalf of the voters of the effected states?

your implication is that if he doesn't do that his statements are worthless. you are becoming more divisive by the day.

[No1butPaul]

I don't have legal standing. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have standing.

[Titus]

Well that's good then, you probably know someone who is versed in this type of work and can contact the RNC? What type of legal challenge would you suggest be taken to the courts regarding this?

I saw your edit. Why would the campaign have to be the one to persue this? Couldn't you sue on behalf of the voters of the effected states?

The poster above me talking about standing is correct. It is not enough that someone suffered an injury. That injury has to be done to you. Even if you donated to the RNC that may not be sufficient to generate "standing". You might be required to trace the money. Even then, that argument might not be allowed because it is similar to taxpayer standing (already stopped by the courts).

However, someone else who could be entitled to that money might be able to sue. The burden of proof to show standing may be to high however. This is better done by a public shaming campaign.

[wgadget]

Are you an attorney, because like I said I am not sure if a YouTube video would qualify as something that is a violation of that rule. I prefer not to speculate on stuff like that since I am not well versed in the legal side of it all.

Hell, the Huntsman YouTubes were considered "ads," weren't they?

[Bern]

I don't have legal standing. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have standing.

So does Santorum technically. His campaign is suspended, not ended.

[Revolution9]

As a matter of fact I do have a longstanding legal background from one of the three original broadcast networks (retired). Whether an ad is an ad is not determined by the platform ... they could put out T-shirts and that would be advertising. Further, anything on the Internet obviously does not only span nationally, but globally. The big question would be, if the campaign wants to pursue this matter.

I was gonna say eff a gaggle of Attorneys..can't you read and parse said words that were read? Attorneys are for reconvoluting a bunch of double mouthed, silk tongued, convoluted conjugations. "I am not an attorney so I can't...yadda yadda.." It is one of the lamest excuses for not thinking for yourself or bothering to parse legalese.



Rev9

[No1butPaul]

Attorneys are for reconvoluting a bunch of double mouthed, silk tongued, convoluted conjugations.

Agree!

[sailingaway]

Agree!

I believe you just had an attorney or a couple defend you, above.

Attorneys are individuals too, some even take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously.

[No1butPaul]

I guess it's a matter of interpretation whether or not you find the above statement offensive. I find it more a matter of fact that things end up getting convoluted when they enter the legal process. Have you seen the health care legislation?

Edit: To the extent anyone defended me, personally, well thank you. But I certainly don't see this having anything to do with me. This is a fight for liberty.

[Titus]

I believe you just had an attorney or a couple defend you, above.

Attorneys are individuals too, some even take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously.

I am one such attorney. I deal with red light cameras and their serious constitutional issues out here. However, we are not technically vital. We just help. If someone has standing in civil court and a meritorious claim, most if not all states, allow the individual to proceed without an attorney. There may be different procedures though and you would be held to an attorney's standard for the most part. In criminal court, you almost certainly can represent yourself if you are sane but you waive incompetency of counsel on appeal in most cases.

This is not personal at all. In fact, I give +rep for people who disagree with me intelligently.

I don't push many of the legal issues in court due to lack of standing, resources, skill and a bar license in states with irregularities. I don't want anything I say to be interpreted as legal advice, especially where I am not licensed to pratice.

[sailingaway]

An attorney is a good idea in many places. And yes, many are on the dark side, but many are not. Like politicians, attorneys have outsized impact, but it is collectivist to assume the entire group comes from the same place.

[rockandrollsouls]

Has anyone contacted the official campaign in regard to this and the possibility of legal recourse? I think it would be an appropriate route for the campaign to pursue.

[No1butPaul]

So does Santorum technically. His campaign is suspended, not ended.

Given he's suspended his campaign AND endorsed Romney, I am not 100% certain, but think that would be laughed out of court.

[No1butPaul]

Has anyone contacted the official campaign in regard to this and the possibility of legal recourse? I think it would be an appropriate route for the campaign to pursue.

I have only tried to notify through my post and pm's here ... I don't have any contacts with the campaign.

[Bern]

Given he's suspended his campaign AND endorsed Romney, ...

I don't believe that he has officially endorsed Romney. Piers Morgan tried to make that claim, but he's spinning what was actually said.

[Paul Fan]

It would be interesting to hear if the RNC gets back to you.

[idiom]

Nail their balls to the floor.



Use really big nails.

[No1butPaul]

..

I find it quite odd you scrubbed all of your many comments to this thread. What's the deal?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I believe you just had an attorney or a couple defend you, above.

Attorneys are individuals too, some even take their oath to defend the Constitution seriously.


Yep. I wouldn't go chasing them off. Sometimes, you NEED them. Right or wrong, that's the fact of the environment we live in.

[Titus]

Has anyone contacted the official campaign in regard to this and the possibility of legal recourse? I think it would be an appropriate route for the campaign to pursue.

There is a problem with suing the RNC in this manner. The RNC would have to spend more in resources to defend the lawsuit than it would spend while the lawsuit is resolved. Even if we won, we would not gain the money back the RNC spent. We would win the battle but lose the war.

[drummergirl]

That is what would be called "FRAUD"

There's enough documented fraud in this election to wallpaper Mount Rushmore.

[Warmon]

That is what would be called "FRAUD"

Since when does that matter to the RNC? I think this whole presumptive nominee thing is perhaps the most despicable affair of the entire campaign. It's so obvious this was railroaded from the top down since day 1.

[Warmon]

There's enough documented fraud in this election to wallpaper Mount Rushmore.

That was well put!..:)

[Eisenhower]

Does it honestly matter if they are breaking a rule? Everything pertaining to politics has been corrupt for decades... This is a small violation when comparing it to the bigger picture.

[kathy88]

Does it honestly matter if they are breaking a rule? Everything pertaining to politics has been corrupt for decades... This is a small violation when comparing it to the bigger picture.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think it's a HUGE violation that can affect the entire GOP party. Up to this point it has been isolated counties, caucus chairs, maybe a crooked state level person.... but this is the whole enchilada. This is breaking rules and having no recourse. If nothing else, the Libs would love to get a hold of this.

[sailingaway]

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think it's a HUGE violation that can affect the entire GOP party. Up to this point it has been isolated counties, caucus chairs, maybe a crooked state level person.... but this is the whole enchilada. This is breaking rules and having no recourse. If nothing else, the Libs would love to get a hold of this.

I agree, it is 'ending' the primary prematurely and telling the members it is time to rally around the nominee -- when there isn't one.

[dannno]

Does it honestly matter if they are breaking a rule? Everything pertaining to politics has been corrupt for decades... This is a small violation when comparing it to the bigger picture.

It matters because it is clear that legally they aren't allowed to do it, so we can stop them in court.

If you can prove it... and you have standing... you should take it to court.

Gore and Kerry could probably have proved that the elections were stolen from them, and they had standing, but they were puppets so they chose not to take a stand.

Ron Paul might choose not to take a stand for strategic reasons, or because maybe we are misinterpreting something.

[Titus]

It matters because it is clear that legally they aren't allowed to do it, so we can stop them in court.

If you can prove it... and you have standing... you should take it to court.

Gore and Kerry could probably have proved that the elections were stolen from them, and they had standing, but they were puppets so they chose not to take a stand.

Ron Paul might choose not to take a stand for strategic reasons, or because maybe we are misinterpreting something.

Gore and Kerry actually did have a lawsuit regarding Florida. It was Bush v. Gore and ultimately the Supreme Court decided in favor of Bush along ideological lines.

I disagree with the first person who has standing rushing to court. It may create the impression we are sore losers, especially if we lose the court case. The first person may not be the best equipped person. If someone came to me with a legitimate fraud claim in California, I would hesitate to take it because I am NOT an expert election law lawyer and may do the campaign more harm than good.

The best strategy is to email the campaign with a well researched memorandum and then leave it. If the campaign pursues it, great. If not, well they decided not to. Don't lose sleep over it. Maybe tell people about it if they are your target audience. After that, do canvassing, vote from home, and networking instead.

[dude58677]

Let him make a fool of himself on national television after Ron Paul wins the National Delegate vote.

[No1butPaul]

The best strategy is to email the campaign with a well researched memorandum and then leave it. If the campaign pursues it, great. If not, well they decided not to. Don't lose sleep over it. Maybe tell people about it if they are your target audience. After that, do canvassing, vote from home, and networking instead.

I was wondering if they could send a cease & desist. That would, at the very least, get some media attention. Maybe not the usual MSM, but everything the MSM ignores and doesn't report, makes them look less valuable when people eventually get the info from other sources. Even non-Ron Paul supporters getting hip to that. I agree though, ultimately the campaign will be the one to decide if it is a good move or not.

[Smitty]

but it is a good way to derail Romney without going 3rd party.

The RNC has already derailed Romney's chances.,..if he ever had any.

They've made "Republican" a damaged brand.

I definitely understand the need for Ron Paul type of reform in the GOP, but sometimes I wonder if it's the correct path.