RNC to NV GOP: Don’t let Ron Paul delegates take over nat'l convention slots or don’t come

[sailingaway]

RNC to NV GOP: Don’t let Ron Paul delegates take over national convention slots or don’t bother coming to Tampa


In a letter delivered today to GOP Chairman Michael McDonald, the RNC's chief counsel said if Ron Paul delegates are allowed to take too many slots for the national convention, Nevada's entire contingent may not be seated in Tampa.

John R. Phillippe, Jr., said while his letter is not binding, "I believe it is highly likely that any committee with jurisdiction over the matter would find improper any change to the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegates, thus jeopardizing the seating of Nevada’s entire delegation to the National Convention."

Clearly, the RNC fears that mischief at the Sparks convention this weekend could result in Ron Paul delegates taking Mitt Romney slots and then not abiding by GOP rules to vote for the presumptive nominee on the first ballot in Tampa. So they are trying to force McDonald to ensure that actual Romney delegates fill 20 of the 28 national convention slots, thus removing any mystery of who they will vote for.

more:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2012/may/02/rnc-nv-gop-dont-let-ron-paul-delegates-take-over-n/

NOt sure why VOTING as the MAJORITY following the delegate process is 'mischief'.

here is the RNC letter: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2012/05/02/Letter_to_Nevada_Republican_Party_re_Allocation_of _Delegates.pdf

[Agorism]

I thought the GOP chairman there was a Ron Paul supporter.

[Vanilluxe]

Is that illegal, but the GOP already have broken too many laws and we need to hold them accountable or they will continue.

[The Dark Knight]

It does look kinda silly if we try to change the rules to unbind the delegates for Romney but hey, this is politics.

[sailingaway]

This vetting to make sure they 'actually support' someone is nonsense. I don't see him cite ANY rule on that.

[sailingaway]

Is that illegal, but the GOP already have broken too many laws and we need to hold them accountable or they will continue.
they JUST changed allocation to say Romney has more than he would have had Ron has a couple more and Santa has none. THEY do whatever they want.

The campaign has to decide how to handle this but note that in LA I'm pretty sure the rule to bind at all didn't happen until after Oct, and if they are just making up rules as they go, as with the 'star chamber to decide if someone actually supports a candidate' then they are just saying they can make it up as they go. In which case, at somepoint, .......

[sailingaway]

I REALLY think we have to challenge the RNC under Rule 11 to make them prove they have on file agreement from all fifty states that Romney can be treated as the presumed nominee even though many states haven't even voted and he doesn't have the delegates. AS a Californian, I want to hold my state responsible if they signed away any import of my vote. See discussion here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374202-quot-Did-The-RNC-Break-Any-Rules-Laws-In-%93Its-Official%94-quot&highlight=rule

I think the campaign should challenge that, the RNC should NOT be working on Romney's behalf and their declaration of him as presumed nominee, and fundraising with and for him etc and this on his behalf is very likely in violation of Rule 11 imho.

note they are even reportedly saying they will help retire Gingrich's debt in connection with Gingrich's endorsement of Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374578-RNC-to-help-retire-Grinch-s-debt-when-he-endorses-Romney-Should-we-look-at-Rule-11-again&highlight=rule

and the NVGOP already changed delegate binding to favor Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374436-Changed-Delegate-Count-in-NV-per-NV-GOP/page4&highlight=rule

plus Rule 38 purportedly doesn't recognize state binding in any event at RNC: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374387-Rule-32-Suspension-of-Rules-RNC-Convention&highlight=rule which seems contrary to the new pretense of a rule that people have to 'in their heart' support a candidate in particular also here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374384-GOP-Rules-virtually-unbind-all-delegates-at-the-convention-eschew-the-Unit-Rule&highlight=rule

[drummergirl]

Exactly. Not to mention all the rules about the autonomy of the states in the manner in which they select and bind their delegates. This is just classic bullying. Call the bluff and pass the salsa please.


I REALLY think we have to challenge the RNC under Rule 11 to make them prove they have on file agreement from all fifty states that Romney can be treated as the presumed nominee even though many states haven't even voted and he doesn't have the delegates. AS a Californian, I want to hold my state responsible if they signed away any import of my vote.

I think the campaign should challenge that, the RNC should NOT be working on Romney's behalf and their declaration of him as presumed nominee, and fundraising with and for him etc and this on his behalf is very likely in violation of Rule 11 imho.

note they are even reportedly saying they will help retire Gingrich's debt in connection with Gingrich's endorsement of Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374578-RNC-to-help-retire-Grinch-s-debt-when-he-endorses-Romney-Should-we-look-at-Rule-11-again&highlight=rule

and the NVGOP already changed delegate binding to favor Romney: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?374436-Changed-Delegate-Count-in-NV-per-NV-GOP/page4&highlight=rule

[sailingaway]

They are saying a credentials committee run by someone else at RNC would find that way, or threatening it. Up to the campaign..... If it were me and I were certain Ron would have his five anyhow, I might just ignore the 'committment in their heart' stuff that has no shadow of a rule behind it as I understand it, that is contrary to how the GOP has picked insiders for these positions regardless of their love of candidate, for a long time. But I might stick with the binding here and deal with it at National, assuming we have the delegation chair....but it really depends. I'm THINKING that as of last OCTOBER Louisiana didn't bind its delegates at all, but I don't for sure remember. I do remember they changed their rules super late, but I think the RNC is way willing to write off states altogether or 'represent the states with RNC selected people' rather than let the process actually go forward as they designed it, when that design is being used against their wishes.

[JJ2]

I have feeling sparks are gonna fly in Sparks this weekend! ;)

[joshnorris14]

I've got my popcorn.

[sailingaway]

It does look kinda silly if we try to change the rules to unbind the delegates for Romney but hey, this is politics.

they only changed it to stop us, because we were able to take them all over last time. It's not like the membership voted on it, the leadership did.

[RPit]

If they suspend the rules and bind all delegates to Ron Paul, that indeed is a problem. Because according to RNC rules, 'rules' for the delegates (essentially the State Rules) must be given to the RNC the October before election year, that means Oct 2011. If we change those rules and binding rules, that is a 'change to the state rules' and that is NOT acceptable by the RNC. Thus they have a legitimate reason to challenge and unseat the whole delegation. This is why it is important not to make these changes. Because otherwise they will legitimately kick us out. Remember when WA GOP Chairman was trying to get permission from RNC to allow re-convening of some county's convention- the reason he was asking RNC permission was because it would go against the 'submitted' rules to the RNC..

The best route is abstention on the vote- if its allowed. Don't give them any legitimate reason to challenge our delegates!

[JJ2]

If they suspend the rules and bind all delegates to Ron Paul, that indeed is a problem. Because according to RNC rules, 'rules' for the delegates (essentially the State Rules) must be given to the RNC the October before election year, that means Oct 2011. If we change those rules and binding rules, that is a 'change to the state rules' and that is NOT acceptable by the RNC. Thus they have a legitimate reason to challenge and unseat the whole delegation. This is why it is important not to make these changes. Because otherwise they will legitimately kick us out. Remember when WA GOP Chairman was trying to get permission from RNC to allow re-convening of some county's convention- the reason he was asking RNC permission was because it would go against the 'submitted' rules to the RNC..

The best route is abstention on the vote- if its allowed. Don't give them any legitimate reason to challenge our delegates!

But they're saying the submitted rules apply to allocation as well as binding. So it would be better to lose the whole state than have Mitt increase his delegate lead.

[sailingaway]

If they suspend the rules and bind all delegates to Ron Paul, that indeed is a problem. Because according to RNC rules, 'rules' for the delegates (essentially the State Rules) must be given to the RNC the October before election year, that means Oct 2011. If we change those rules and binding rules, that is a 'change to the state rules' and that is NOT acceptable by the RNC. Thus they have a legitimate reason to challenge and unseat the whole delegation. This is why it is important not to make these changes. Because otherwise they will legitimately kick us out. Remember when WA GOP Chairman was trying to get permission from RNC to allow re-convening of some county's convention- the reason he was asking RNC permission was because it would go against the 'submitted' rules to the RNC..

The best route is abstention on the vote- if its allowed. Don't give them any legitimate reason to challenge our delegates!

I disagree, I think the rule was not intended for the delegates and UNbinding, particularly when rule 38 of the RNC says they won't recognize state binding but consider delegates able to vote their conscience. That also makes as NONsense the idea that they internally have to love the candidate to whom they are bound. Also, the NV GOP already broke that rule if it was a rule by SHIFTING delegates between candidates last week.

But it is up to the campaign because they are clearly saying they plan to take that position and if they have the votes on the credentials committee....

[sailingaway]

But they're saying the submitted rules apply to allocation as well as binding. So it would be better to lose the whole state than have Mitt increase his delegate lead.

that is definitely something for the campaign to consider.

[JJ2]

that is definitely something for the campaign to consider.

I wonder if the RNC realizes that they are not giving the Paul campaign any incentive to play by their "rules."

If the state's delegation gets thrown out, the RNC benefits by not seating all of those Paul delegates.

But it's also a better option for the Paul campaign than simply allowing Mitt to win the majority of NV's delegates. They have no reason to comply with such a demand.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

This is pretty much threatening.

"Do not allow Ron Paul delegates to succeed, by any means necessary."

That's just proof they advocate a message of election fraud, because they're threatening subordinates within the party with punishment, if they do not succeed as leaders at the RNC wish for.

[joshnorris14]

This is pretty much threatening.

"Do not allow Ron Paul delegates to succeed, by any means necessary."

That's just proof they advocate a message of election fraud, because they're threatening subordinates within the party with punishment, if they do not succeed as leaders at the RNC wish for.

Technically they are trying to prevent the NV GOP from breaking RNC rules. If we unbound delegates, the NV GOP's delegation will be stripped.

[sailingaway]

I wonder if the RNC realizes that they are not giving the Paul campaign any incentive to play by their "rules."

If the state's delegation gets thrown out, the RNC benefits by not seating all of those Paul delegates.

But it's also a better option for the Paul campaign than simply allowing Mitt to win the majority of NV's delegates. They have no reason to comply with such a demand.

we have to out vote Santa's people too.... but I agree vis a vis Romney there is leverage.

[sailingaway]

Technically they are trying to prevent the NV GOP from breaking RNC rules. If we unbound delegates, the NV GOP's delegation will be stripped.

they might 'change it' like they did last time. People who don't pay attention have no idea how little they follow their own rules. Also, if the rule doesn't apply to delegate votes to unbind, and see the RNC rule 38 as to why it shouldn't, if the RNC doesn't even recognize binding once they get there, then they aren't stopping from breaking rules but merely pushing their weight around on behalf of Romney, as a biased partisan in the election.

ABSOLUTELY that is what the RNC is doing on the 'vet their true loyalties to candidates' bit.

I leave that to the campaign.

[sailingaway]

I think they are acting on behalf of someone they are calling the 'presumed nominee' and they should have to release the signed requests from all 50 states that it was fine to do so before he even had the delegates to take the nomination even under the squishy' allocation' of the AP.

[RPit]

I disagree, I think the rule was not intended for the delegates and UNbinding, particularly when rule 38 of the RNC says they won't recognize state binding but consider delegates able to vote their conscience. That also makes as NONsense the idea that they internally have to love the candidate to whom they are bound. Also, the NV GOP already broke that rule if it was a rule by SHIFTING delegates between candidates last week.

But it is up to the campaign because they are clearly saying they plan to take that position and if they have the votes on the credentials committee....

If they aren't 'bound' really according to 38, then don't do anything?

[sailingaway]

If they aren't 'bound' really according to 38, then don't do anything?
It is entirely up to the campaign.

That bit about vetting to make sure they truly support someone is complete nonsense nowhere in NV or RNC rules that I am aware of and would ITSELF be a change in allocation and binding rules. The RNC needs to be challenged under Rule 11 for bias in treating Romney as nominee. I want to see who in CA signed away the importance of my vote, since our primary hasn't even happened yet. And I will BET Iowa didn't sign it away, and all 50 states have to.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well isn't that special? After the Nevada GOP establishment completely threw all of the rules out the window with the consent of the National GOP in 2008, now all of a sudden they are concerned about Nevada conforming to the rules (in reality, conforming to the results that they desire)?

[BrooklynZoo]

That's funny stuff. "Battle born" Nevada had better be ready for a fight Saturday. I know I am.

[Barrex]

Sorry to derail this thread but how much would one of these cost:

http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/70d9/a97mbpoj0y9rt6h5g.jpg?

[speciallyblend]

fill every damn spot, rather have the delegation not seated and not counted for romney. Just make sure we vip the nevada delegation in tampa and at the paul festival. Treat'em good!!

it is pretty obvious the rnc supports obama.

[Tiso0770]

Interesting, someone needs to take a snap shot of that article for future reference. If the GOP is allowed to get away with this, they will try to threaten the rest of the states....or is this article another blatant attempt from the MSM to discourage Ron Paul supporters.

[parocks]

that is definitely something for the campaign to consider.

If they removed Nevada from the calculations, wouldn't <1144 become smaller?

[parocks]

Interesting, someone needs to take a snap shot of that article for future reference. If the GOP is allowed to get away with this, they will try to threaten the rest of the states....or is this article another blatant attempt from the MSM to discourage Ron Paul supporters.

This article should be distributed far and wide. Is this the RNC openly working on behalf of Mitt Romney? Shouldn't they be neutral? If Ron Paul wasn't doing something effectively, why would the RNC care? If it was over, and Romney had won, why would the RNC care? Clearly, the RNC cares.

[Tiso0770]

Saw a video on tube about CNN trying to get RNC to call Ron and Gingrich out of the race.

[speciallyblend]

If they removed Nevada from the calculations, wouldn't <1144 become smaller?

good point and yes they probably would change rules at convention and lower the number.

[abruzz0]

This is the democracy we slaughter Arabs for. What a wonderful world.

[IronPatriot]

This Saturday is going to be quite interesting, and I'm going to be there.

[alucard13mmfmj]

This is the democracy we slaughter Arabs for. What a wonderful world.

we claim we are spreading democracy all over the world... but democracy is a failed concept ^^ and funny how we are a republic.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If we just play nice enough and allow them every whim, we'll have freedom.

[digitaldean]

This is a video of what you are talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaaSoPZN0cA

[Crystallas]

Who wrote this letter? That is what we need to find out. Just knowing that the RNC wrote it, doesn't cut it, we need names and not guesses.

[Algorres]

Who wrote this letter? That is what we need to find out. Just knowing that the RNC wrote it, doesn't cut it, we need names and not guesses.

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2012/05/02/Letter_to_Nevada_Republican_Party_re_Allocation_of _Delegates.pdf scroll to the bottom and see for yourself

[kathy88]

If they removed Nevada from the calculations, wouldn't <1144 become smaller?

Yes, you would have to make a new avatar, and that's actually the first think I thought of when I read this. Crap, if they throw Nevada out parocks needs a new avatar.

[LostNFoundNTx]

But they're saying the submitted rules apply to allocation as well as binding. So it would be better to lose the whole state than have Mitt increase his delegate lead.

That's true. For any state where Romney has >50% of the delegates bound to him, it would be better for a first round vote to lose all delegates from that state than to send loyal Romney delegates in those slots.

[rockerrockstar]

This makes me mad because it says your vote does not matter. The GOP will do what ever they want to get their favorite elected. It seems wrong. Ron Paul is running as a republican and they act like he is not a republican and they don't want him in there. Ron should sue them for all the money he spent on his campaign if they keep on screwing him like this.

[rb3b3]

this is just scare tactics!!! they are just making empty threats to our supporters.... lets just go about our business as usual, and kick ass at the state convention in nevada!!

[Elwar]

Umm, what rule allows the RNC to unseat a state?

[georgiaboy]

links in op not working for me - we overloading their servers?
edit - working now.

[sailingaway]

That's true. For any state where Romney has >50% of the delegates bound to him, it would be better for a first round vote to lose all delegates from that state than to send loyal Romney delegates in those slots.

But you are forgetting Santorum. He has the least in that state and to catch/pass HIM Ron needs delegates.. I see NO WHERE where a candidates delegates have to love them in their heart, in the rules. Does anyone else? Because that is contrary to every other delegate selection in history as far as I am aware. That is simply the RNC acting in its internal opinion letters as an arm of the Romney campaign imho, and if they have not satisfied Rule 11 to consider Romney the 'presumed nominee' as I suspect they have not, THAT is a huge point. I'm thinking that confab where the parties of the various states had to sign undying loyalty pledges to Romney or whatever it was, and IOWA DID NOT likely played into that somewhere.

[sailingaway]

Umm, what rule allows the RNC to unseat a state?

It would be the credentials committee at the RNC but if there is any rule saying people in their heart must support a particular candidate it has never been enforced before so selective enforcement doesn't begin to touch it. The problem is I'm assuming (and don't know) that they will dominate the credentials committee. So they are saying 'we operate the light switch and will do it this way.'

Remember when NV GOP leadership in 2008 fled the state convention because they didn't have the votes to adjourn, and we held our own meeting later? We now know we have to do it the same day and keep going, elect a new chair etc. However, we noticed and held a meeting which was certainly more by the rules than what they did which was have an internal conference call to 'appoint' delegates. The credentials committee just called them inept but mostly kept their delegates and just added a couple that had been elected for Paul before the lights were turned out. Mind you, that was MORE egregious because Ron had BEAT McCain in Nevada. This time they can say Romney won in the straw poll, yet that didn't govern what they did in North Dakota. Here they have the binding argument. But Ron needs plurality in 5 states. Only the campaign really knows where we stand on that.

[Athan]

Sounds like criminal mischief on behalf of the RNC.

[Tyler_Durden]

Paul Supporters to RNC:

Disenfranchise us and it's Forward! with 4 more years.

[UtahApocalypse]

Everyone has missed the bigger point of this letter....

They already have Counsel picking through the rules and preparing for us. The more states that we get the delegates from the more they are going to try and find way to push back. Every delegate going to Tampa better be ready for a fight. And before ANYONE attempts a Rule 38, or similar we better have Lawyers, and Parliamentarians at the ready.

In the meantime..... looks like this weekend is going to be the longest ever on RPF.

[hkbrandt]

It is my understanding that Nevada became 'bound' only during the 2008 season in a small room with few people. This was done since even at that time they feared the Ron Paul contingent. This current letter does nothing but fuel the fire. Keep it up RNC. Perhaps there will be a vote this weekend to overturn the 'bound' delegate process here. The RNC does nothing but push forward their own demise with reckless abandon.

We had a robocall last night stating that 'we' Nevadans cannot let the Ron Paul people take over this weekend. They are out of their minds with fear. The attempt here by the RNC is to now threaten the state. This should only motivate more Ron Paul delegates to make it to Sparks this weekend. Let their fears and worse come true. NOBP!!!!!!!!!

[sailingaway]

Sorry to derail this thread but how much would one of these cost:

http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/70d9/a97mbpoj0y9rt6h5g.jpg?

very little, just rental for a sky light and the cost of an acrylic filter.. :p

[sailingaway]

This article should be distributed far and wide. Is this the RNC openly working on behalf of Mitt Romney? Shouldn't they be neutral? If Ron Paul wasn't doing something effectively, why would the RNC care? If it was over, and Romney had won, why would the RNC care? Clearly, the RNC cares.

I downloaded the letter itself. I'm wondering what 'prior letter of April 30' regarding unbinding delegates said? Because it looks very much as if there was prior internal coordination strategy and they discussed it then someone said 'can you put that last part into a letter I can release?'

[sailingaway]

It is my understanding that Nevada became 'bound' only during the 2008 season in a small room with few people. This was done since even at that time they feared the Ron Paul contingent. This current letter does nothing but fuel the fire. Keep it up RNC. Perhaps there will be a vote this weekend to overturn the 'bound' delegate process here. The RNC does nothing but push forward their own demise with reckless abandon.

We had a robocall last night stating that 'we' Nevadans cannot let the Ron Paul people take over this weekend. They are out of their minds with fear. The attempt here by the RNC is to now threaten the state. This should only motivate more Ron Paul delegates to make it to Sparks this weekend. Let their fears and worse come true. NOBP!!!!!!!!!

It is the campaign's call. We really need discipline -- but to RON's interests.

[Gray Fullbuster]

WEAD AND SWANN

Please and ty.

[hkbrandt]

It is the RNC that needs discipline. We are organized. We are polite..well, most of the time. We are prepared. We will not however kowtow to threats. People here are still reeling from the shenanigans in 2008. We need to be strong and hold our ground.

No matter how proper we are though I am sure it will all be reported with words like extreme, takeover, mischief, wild, etc.

[Cleaner44]

We should publicise to the RNC that actions like this are a message NOT lto vote Romney in the general! Make it clear that attempts to repress us will be used to further a No One But Paul vote in the general.

[Carehn]

Any odds on us winning been posted yet?

[thoughtomator]

Someone preserve the letter for the RICO/election fraud suit which this lawyer will be criminally charged with abetting.

[sailingaway]

It is the RNC that needs discipline. We are organized. We are polite..well, most of the time. We are prepared. We will not however kowtow to threats. People here are still reeling from the shenanigans in 2008. We need to be strong and hold our ground.

No matter how proper we are though I am sure it will all be reported with words like extreme, takeover, mischief, wild, etc.

I'm backing the campaign's decision and I would assume the delegates to the NV state convention will as well. The campaign has the national strategy, and only they have the internal delegate counts in other states etc.

If I'm right and Louisiana only bound their delegates to the primary after Oct last year, that may factor in, as well.

The thing is the NV caucus was run so 'ineptly' with 'irregularities' throwing out entire caucuses and votes disappearing behind gates in gated communities before they were counted etc, I don't think many of us are convinced the results were valid, to begin with.

[BrooklynZoo]

This is a shot across the bow. If we cave to them in Nevada, they will take advantage of that in every other state. I say we call their bluff.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

This is a shot across the bow. If we cave to them in Nevada, they will take advantage of that in every other state. I say we call their bluff.

Agreed completely, who gives a shit, either you vote for Paul or you don't! Don't cave in to this fear-mongering & threats, we've nothing to lose!

[RPFORLIBERTY]

St Charles County, Missouri delegates(we took entire slate) have been challenged. There will be a hearing in Jefferson City on May 10th to defend the challenge of the re-scheduled caucus we had after the local committee railroaded the first. They continue to try to beat us down, but we will remain strong.

[ninepointfive]

Here's a link to share with those who aren't on the RPF: http://ronpauldelegates.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/ron-paul-will-win-nevada-and-the-gop-wants-to-stop-him/

[jbauer]

Well, got off the phone with a friend who lived in Vegas for 40 yrs.

If we want to show our power we should go after Michael McDonald (GOP Chairman). She said he IS Vegas and that I have a better chance of getting hit by lightening holding a winning powerball ticket then anyone has of getting him out of power. She also said there is no way on earth that Romney won out there legitimatley by the margin he did. Which would make sense given the general makeup of Vegas.

God Speed Nevadaian. Give em hell!!!

[anaconda]

Does anyone know if the official campaign is aware of this and dealing with it?

[anaconda]

Is all of this foul play across the land sufficient grounds for a 3rd Party run? Just document all this stuff and say to the GOP "this is what you get for corruption and dishonesty."

[puppetmaster]

Everyone has missed the bigger point of this letter....

They already have Counsel picking through the rules and preparing for us. The more states that we get the delegates from the more they are going to try and find way to push back. Every delegate going to Tampa better be ready for a fight. And before ANYONE attempts a Rule 38, or similar we better have Lawyers, and Parliamentarians at the ready.

In the meantime..... looks like this weekend is going to be the longest ever on RPF.

The RNC is sending in their own special Parliamentarian to our convention here....we already have an elected one but I guess they did not like that.....

[anaconda]

If I'm right and Louisiana only bound their delegates to the primary after Oct last year, that may factor in, as well.



What? I thought Louisiana was assigned at the caucus, and that the primary had zero impact?

[Eisenhower]

More garbage... Almost like an subtle allusion to what happened in various states in 2008.

[Warmon]

excert...So, for example, if Ron Paul has 2 slots available after processes 1 and 2 above, the two highest vote-getters that support Ron Paul should be allocated to him. And if Mitt Romney has 4 slots available after processes 1 and 2 above have been completed, the 4 highest vote-getters that support Mitt Romney should be allocated to him.

Not a lawyer here, but have some fair experience with contracts and phrasing that will stand up in court. The key words in this part of the chief counsel's letter is "should". "Shall" is binding. "Should" means next to nothing in a dispute :D

[sailingaway]

Not a lawyer here, but have some fair experience with contracts and phrasing that will stand up in court. The key words in this part of the chief counsel's letter is "should". "Shall" is binding. "Should" means next to nothing in a dispute :D

Just because he is a lawyer doesn't mean he can unilaterally write rules up out of his whims and dreams. Show me in the rules where there is any such process. And if it is NEW as it seems to be, it would violate the rule about not changing anything after Oct, now wouldn't it?

[sailingaway]

What? I thought Louisiana was assigned at the caucus, and that the primary had zero impact?

some were bound by the primary, more by the caucus. but then there are the 'automatics' too....

but up to Oct of last year, I'm pretty sure they were all bound by caucus. Doesn't LA have more GOP delegates than NV?

[sailingaway]

Is all of this foul play across the land sufficient grounds for a 3rd Party run? Just document all this stuff and say to the GOP "this is what you get for corruption and dishonesty."

I'm there, and I've been GOP since I started voting.

Not sure if Ron is there or not, but honestly, I'm not sure he would be doing Rand any favors letting them get away with this crap.

[Warmon]

Just because he is a lawyer doesn't mean he can unilaterally write rules up out of his whims and dreams. Show me in the rules where there is any such process. And if it is NEW as it seems to be, it would violate the rule about not changing anything after Oct, now wouldn't it?

Agreed...show me the money! My sense is that if it was legally binding, he would have cited each rule; what it says and what he thinks it means. The only thing he can come up with is proportion. They can't prevent anybody from having a conscious no matter how hard they try.

[Bruno]

So, they REALLY want to force the No One But Paul for fence-sitters, don't they?

They must love the Obama administration.