RNC calls 'frivolous' lawsuit by Ron Paul supporters

[sailingaway]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/19/rnc-calls-frivolous-lawsuit-by-ron-paul-supporters/

[dannno]

My next blog article:

RNC: Calls Election Fraud "Frivolous"

Edit: http://defeattheprogressos.blogspot.com/

[sailingaway]

My next blog article:

RNC: Calls Election Fraud "Frivolous"

that isn't news, though.

[RDM]

"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it," said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Of course, HE doesn't.

[Dissent]

Of course RP's campaign manager back peddles and whines about not support it...makes me sick...

[tod evans]

And the spin starts.........



[edit]

us.....you cheated

rnc........no we didn't

benton.........i'm not accusing anyone

[V3n]

Duh, Benton can't say he supports it! It's POLITICS.
If Benton says the campaign supports it; it makes Dr. Paul look like a whiny 'sore-loser'.

Benton never said the campaign was trying to stop the lawyers, either.

[Bruehound]

Duh, Benton can't say he supports it! It's POLITICS.
If Benton says the campaign supports it; it makes Dr. Paul look like a whiny 'sore-loser'.

Benton never said the campaign was trying to stop the lawyers, either.

exactly.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

My next blog article:

RNC: Calls Election Fraud "Frivolous"



Hey, you can re-arrange the words in a variety of ways and still come out with the same ridiculousness.


"Frivolous" RNC Calls Election Fraud

"Frivolous" Election Fraud Calls RNC

Election Fraud Calls "Frivolous" RNC

"Frivolous" Calls Election Fraud RNC


I could go on. lol

[The Goat]

all lawsuits are through to be frivolous until the defendants realize their going to need a real defense court.

[dannno]

Posted

http://defeattheprogressos.blogspot.com/

[tsai3904]

Can someone explain why we want all delegates to be able to vote their conscience instead of by their state party rules or state laws? If this is the scenario we want, what's to stop the establishment from making it impossible for grassroots supporters to become delegates in the future? There are already many states where it's notoriously difficult to become a delegate. Why won't other states just adopt the same policies to ensure that their candidate will always win.

[MelissaCato]

And the spin starts.........



[edit]

us.....you cheated

rnc........no we didn't

benton.........i'm not accusing anyone


LOL Ya know it though. Although I think the same thing someone else said on a different thread something like... Ron Paul has been motivating people for decades to fight for liberty and now we are. I would think this is exactly what he wants us to do -- fight for our Republic and to never stop !! Why would Ron Paul change position now after almost 4 decades for fighting for truth and Liberty ?

Something is fishy - unless this is all a part of the plan (us growing a pair of our own) -- ya it prolly is now that I think about it -- Ron Paul 2012 !!

[sailingaway]

Can someone explain why we want all delegates to be able to vote their conscience instead of by their state party rules or state laws? If this is the scenario we want, what's to stop the establishment from making it impossible for grassroots supporters to become delegates in the future? There are already many states where it's notoriously difficult to become a delegate. Why won't other states just adopt the same policies to ensure that their candidate will always win.

I'd have sought a different remedy. I think the fraud/chronic shenanigans bit disenfranchising voters is important, but I don't know if they are maximizing the remedy properly. I'd make the states parties as accomplices through favoring the parties and make them put Ron on the ballots for November, myself, if that is possible. It is the fraud and disenfranchisement of all the party doesn't approve that is the big issue to me.

[thoughtomator]

This is a standard response to almost any lawsuit, which in this case is pretty much certain to be rejected by the court.

[TheGrinch]

Obviously this is just spin from the RNC, but the overuse of the word "frivolous" for any suit that someone doesn't agree with, pisses me off to no end...

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against BS suits that now force companies to have to have 10 pages of legal documentation just to have anyone on their premises, but a case is not frivolous just because it's not a strong enough case, as many want to assume... Just because the law sides one way should not at all be used to deter those who have a legitimate claim (even if it doesn't turn out to be strong enough as the opposing view. That's up to the courts to determine).

Further, I'd like to see lawyers being the ones held responsible for pursuing actual frivolus cases, because they're the ones who should truly know better if they have a case worth pursuing or not.

[Badger Paul]

The Paul campaign, now in limbo but still aiming to have a prominent voice at the convention, says it is not involved in the lawsuit.

"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it," said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Right on cue and totally predictable. Thanks Jesse!

[RDM]

LOL Ya know it though. Although I think the same thing someone else said on a different thread something like... Ron Paul has been motivating people for decades to fight for liberty and now we are. I would think this is exactly what he wants us to do -- fight for our Republic and to never stop !! Why would Ron Paul change position now after almost 4 decades for fighting for truth and Liberty ?

Something is fishy - unless this is all a part of the plan (us growing a pair of our own) -- ya it prolly is now that I think about it -- Ron Paul 2012 !!

I agree. Prior to this lawsuit becoming a topic, everytime I logged into RPF, I thought I was entering the Mustang Ranch in Nevada. I see there's a few "hookers" in this thread. LOL

[PatriotOne]

RNC calls 'frivolous' lawsuit by Ron Paul supporters

PatriotOne calls RNC's response to lawsuit "predictable".

[tsai3904]

I agree. Prior to this lawsuit becoming a topic, everytime I logged into RPF, I thought I was entering the Mustang Ranch in Nevada. I see there's a few "hookers" in this thread. LOL

Since you seem to be an expert on this lawsuit, what is the ultimate goal? I know the explicit goal is to unbind all delegates for this election but beyond that, what are we trying to achieve? Do we really want all future Presidential elections to be decided by delegates who are free to vote for whoever they want? If this is the case, wouldn't each State GOP revise their delegate election rules and make it impossible for average people to become delegates?

[RDM]

Since you seem to be an expert on this lawsuit, what is the ultimate goal? I know the explicit goal is to unbind all delegates for this election but beyond that, what are we trying to achieve? Do we really want all future Presidential elections to be decided by delegates who are free to vote for whoever they want? If this is the case, wouldn't each State GOP revise their delegate election rules and make it impossible for average people to become delegates?

Never claimed to be a expert on the lawsuit. There are attorneys that are working the case. I'm sure IF you really wanted your concerns answered, you would send a email with your inquiry to them and have them address it. I know that's what I would do instead of aimlessly posting the question on a forum with a bunch of average Ron Paul supporters that probably have NO legal or case law knowledge.

[cassielund99@gmail.com]

Well at least we know why cnn wanted him on today. Cnn is first big news agency to pick this up.

[tsai3904]

Never claimed to be a expert on the lawsuit. There are attorneys that are working the case. I'm sure IF you really wanted your concerns answered, you would send a email with your inquiry to them and have them address it. I know that's what I would do instead of aimlessly posting the question on a forum with a bunch of average Ron Paul supporters that probably have NO legal or case law knowledge.

I'm not questioning you as an expert...I just figured you had some connection since you seem to post all the latest news related to the case.

My question doesn't have to be answered by the lawyers. My point is why is everyone so happy about this case? Why are YOU so excited about this case? Are you not worried of the concerns I brought up?

[ChristopherShelley]

LOL Ya know it though. Although I think the same thing someone else said on a different thread something like... Ron Paul has been motivating people for decades to fight for liberty and now we are. I would think this is exactly what he wants us to do -- fight for our Republic and to never stop !! Why would Ron Paul change position now after almost 4 decades for fighting for truth and Liberty ?

Something is fishy - unless this is all a part of the plan (us growing a pair of our own) -- ya it prolly is now that I think about it -- Ron Paul 2012 !!

Why do we want Ron Paul to defend us when he has been telling us we need to defend ourselves?

[brandon]

The lawsuit probably is frivolous, but Benton is a giant douche as always.

[anaconda]

"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it," said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Of course, HE doesn't.

But the campaign admits rampant fraud, so why would they not support it?

[anaconda]

This is a standard response to almost any lawsuit, which in this case is pretty much certain to be rejected by the court.

What good is it to have laws if the courts continue to say that no one has "standing" under the laws? It seems like all of the serious cases are tossed out due to "lack of standing." I wonder if this will be one of those cases?

[RDM]

I'm not questioning you as an expert...I just figured you had some connection since you seem to post all the latest news related to the case.

My question doesn't have to be answered by the lawyers. My point is why is everyone so happy about this case? Why are YOU so excited about this case? Are you not worried of the concerns I brought up?

First, let's get one thing straight. I am playing the messenger. I am NOT whatsoever affiliated or "inside" the workings of this lawsuit. The only reason I'm doing this is for the benefit of the forum, since a large % of forum members are anti-Facebook and most of the updated info is coming across FaceBook.

I do have a opinion of this lawsuit. IMO, I see something that could possibly be monumental in reigning in the "real" corruption in elections committed by both parties over many, many years. I know this election alone and I can say this with confidence, that 99.99999999999% of the people that frequent this forum agree there has been corruption in the election process. If this case presents the evidence and testimony and the judicial system weighs on this case in a non-bias way, I am about 98% confident, we will prevail. This case could benefit not only this election but elections in the future and bring back integrity and trust to those that exercise their Constitutional right to vote and have confidence it means something.

[Athan]

"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it," said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Of course, HE doesn't.

Him and Trygvi Olsen are full of "duh" and "der".

[sailingaway]

The lawsuit probably is frivolous, but Benton is a giant douche as always.

there really was rampant fraud, I have to think there is a real cause of action in there somewhere, I just don't know if the way they phrase it is the right way.

[sailingaway]

But the campaign admits rampant fraud, so why would they not support it?

Honestly, I think the campaign is working for someone other than Ron's run at this point, sometimes, however, it could be they can't coordinate with a separately funded thing. Dunno.

[anaconda]

Of course RP's campaign manager back peddles and whines about not support it...makes me sick...

Odd that they throw the grassroots under the bus.

[riviera1992]

Obviously this is just spin from the RNC, but the overuse of the word "frivolous" for any suit that someone doesn't agree with, pisses me off to no end...Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against BS suits that now force companies to have to have 10 pages of legal documentation just to have anyone on their premises, but a case is not frivolous just because it's not a strong enough case, as many want to assume... Just because the law sides one way should not at all be used to deter those who have a legitimate claim (even if it doesn't turn out to be strong enough as the opposing view. That's up to the courts to determine).

Further, I'd like to see lawyers being the ones held responsible for pursuing actual frivolus cases, because they're the ones who should truly know better if they have a case worth pursuing or not.

Well, it's typical establishement talk; "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth"

As an anecdote, some of my co-workers who were let go because of a change in ownership 4 years ago, started a class action suit and everybody were saying it had no chance of success. Well 3 years later, they all got a settlement worth 3 years of their respective salary.

So as far as this being "frivolous", maybe if it's dragged in court too long, of course it wouldn't help matters much for Dr Paul's chances. All hopes rely on a favorable judge. Is there any?

[Richie]

"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it." -Jesse Benton.

[anaconda]

If Benton says the campaign supports it; it makes Dr. Paul look like a whiny 'sore-loser'.


But we're not looking for popular vote anymore. So who cares?

[bcreps85]

This is the standard response...don't see why anyone would be surprised by it. Did anyone really expect them to say "You got us!" and then spill the beans? Beyond that and regardless of what you think of Benton, please understand that the campaign sometimes has to pick words wisely. He (edit: Ron) said if there was fraud people should act on it. We are. If they say they support the lawsuit though, then it looks like they are trying to destabilize the party before an election, making it more likely that the RNC would just try to bring someone in that hasn't been running. The official campaign can't be seen as trying to divide the party - regardless of whether the party is wrong or not.

This seems wrong to us because we have the backbone to call a spade a spade. Most in the party don't. Think of them like cops...they'll cover for each other no matter how many illegal activities they are involved in.

[jay_dub]

Odd that they throw the grassroots under the bus.

In this case, I would call it 'plausible deniability'. There's nothing to gain for Ron to support it and there's no way for them to stop it. The best thing to do is let this run its course.

[tod evans]

This leads to the question; Support how?

Broad statements are usually broad for a reason.

I don't know Benson from a hole in the wall so couldn't say what he tended to portray with his statement.....My first inkling was that support generally means money.

But I have no first hand knowledge of who's doing or thinking what.

[tsai3904]

This case could benefit not only this election but elections in the future and bring back integrity and trust to those that exercise their Constitutional right to vote and have confidence it means something.

Well it seems like if this case prevails and unbinds all delegates in Presidential elections, what we'll end up with is a caucus system for every state. Primaries will all be straw polls that mean nothing. All that will matter is how delegates are elected. Some states make it easy for people to become delegates while others do not. I'm afraid more states will go the route of making it impossible for grassroots supporters to become delegates.

[bcreps85]

Well it seems like if this case prevails and unbinds all delegates in Presidential elections, what we'll end up with is a caucus system for every state. Primaries will all be straw polls that mean nothing. All that will matter is how delegates are elected. Some states make it easy for people to become delegates while others do not. I'm afraid more states will go the route of making it impossible for grassroots supporters to become delegates.

A lawyery type would have to say if this is correct, but I'd imagine that the party can't be too exclusive in who can be delegates without breaking some sort of federal laws. While they may try to make it harder for us, we could just work harder to take over local parties and state parties and do the same thing to them in retaliation.

[anaconda]

Primaries will all be straw polls that mean nothing. All that will matter is how delegates are elected. I'm afraid more states will go the route of making it impossible for grassroots supporters to become delegates.

I think The People might actually begin to rebel at that point. When the voters actually realize that their vote does not count they will wake up and be angry.

[romacox]

This leads to the question; Support how?

I don't know Benson from a hole in the wall

.

Many Ron Paul supporters have become unhappy with Benton because of his suspected contacts with the Romney campaign and his overall handling of the Ron Paul campaign. Supporters are so frustrated that they are calling for Benton to be fired,

http://www.facebook.com/FireJesseBenton

Because of his previous connections, some Ron Paul supporters consider him to be part of the establishment, and deliberately taking the campaign in a wrong turn.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/jesse-bentons-586616-take-as-result-of.html

[Mini-Me]

Well it seems like if this case prevails and unbinds all delegates in Presidential elections, what we'll end up with is a caucus system for every state. Primaries will all be straw polls that mean nothing. All that will matter is how delegates are elected. Some states make it easy for people to become delegates while others do not. I'm afraid more states will go the route of making it impossible for grassroots supporters to become delegates.

Regardless of your feelings on the general case, binding delegates to the popular vote is extremely questionable in this particular case, since the very legitimacy of that vote is being called into question on several fronts. Rule 38 already upholds unbound delegates anyway, so the suit isn't about changing the rules to reflect that. It's about holding the RNC accountable for past abuses and ensuring they don't continue to abuse the process in Tampa.

If you really favor binding, the correct choice is not to drop the suit and let the RNC continue ignoring the rules, but to actually get into a position to change the rules. Besides, look at it this way: If the GOP leadership really thinks that unbound delegates will benefit them in the future, they'll unbind their appointed delegates in future elections anyway, unless we get into the position to stop them. One way or another, it's mandatory that we take over GOP leadership positions.

[romancito]

I guess they would call our interventions to install democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq 'frivolous' even after we had close to 5 thousand of our soldiers killed in action, tens of thousands wounded, and close to two trillion in expenses. I am glad for the lawsuit because it means someone cares about the blood we have spilled in foreign countries enough to make our own democracy worthwhile.

[tod evans]

Many Ron Paul supporters have become unhappy with Benton because of his suspected contacts with the Romney campaign and his overall handling of the Ron Paul campaign. Supporters are so frustrated that they are calling for Benton to be fired,

http://www.facebook.com/FireJesseBenton

Because of his previous connections, many consider him to be part of the establishment, and deliberately taking the campaign in a wrong turn.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/jesse-bentons-586616-take-as-result-of.html

I know, I've read the threads and understand the opinions.....I refuse to condemn a man unless I look into his eyes and see a snake.

Not saying I trust him, I don't know him..........

Ron Paul keeps him around to talk to the press for some reason?

Would I piss on him if he was on fire?.........Maybe, depends on how my day was going...

[green73]

Benton!

Also, is it intentional that "Lawyers for Ron Paul" is omitted from the article?

[rockerrockstar]

The GOP needs to be taught a lesson about election fraud so why not support this lawsuit. I guess it may be about not pissing the GOP off too much so he can try to get Rand elected in the future. Otherwise I am not so sure. I guess maybe trying to influence the platform may be the reason. I kinda think the GOP has show they are willing to play dirty the whole way and I am not certain that this plan to influence the platform will pay off.

[realtonygoodwin]

But the campaign admits rampant fraud, so why would they not support it?


Link please?

[Carlybee]

What if Ron comes out and says HE doesn't support it?

[tsai3904]

Regardless of your feelings on the general case, binding delegates to the popular vote is extremely questionable in this particular case, since the very legitimacy of that vote is being called into question on several fronts. Rule 38 already upholds unbound delegates anyway, so the suit isn't about changing the rules to reflect that. It's about holding the RNC accountable for past abuses and ensuring they don't continue to abuse the process in Tampa.

If you really favor binding, the correct choice is not to drop the suit and let the RNC continue ignoring the rules, but to actually get into a position to change the rules. Besides, look at it this way: If the GOP leadership really thinks that unbound delegates will benefit them in the future, they'll unbind their appointed delegates in future elections anyway, unless we get into the position to stop them. One way or another, it's mandatory that we take over GOP leadership positions.

Good points. When you say the popular vote is extremely questionable, what do you mean by this? Are you referring to the vote flipping algorithm?

In regards to Rule 38, if we force the RNC to interpret it that delegates are free to vote their conscience, is this a rule we want to keep going forward? I don't see how all delegates being free agents is a good process to elect a Presidential nominee.

[kathy88]

Ron supports us.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

What good is it to have laws if the courts continue to say that no one has "standing" under the laws? It seems like all of the serious cases are tossed out due to "lack of standing." I wonder if this will be one of those cases?

In the case of all these mortgages where banks did illegal things with them and can't produce the required legal documentation, we should hope they keep throwing them out for lack of standing. Instead, we'll more likely see legislative solutions that excuse the bad behavior of those crooks.

I don't know about standing in this lawsuit.



In this case, I would call it 'plausible deniability'. There's nothing to gain for Ron to support it and there's no way for them to stop it. The best thing to do is let this run its course.


Yeah. I don't see why people don't get this. That campaign's support obviously isn't needed, either. Not to mention, who wants them directing it? Not me.

[ClydeCoulter]

there really was rampant fraud, I have to think there is a real cause of action in there somewhere, I just don't know if the way they phrase it is the right way.

I know. A remedy at this point is larger than delegates at the RNC. What about all the primaries and polls and caucuses that prevented Ron from getting wins (which I believe he would have rolled across the country with) and also delegates for RP that won't be there because of the fraud/deception/etc.?
Maybe you are correct in the remedy being on the ballot in all 50 in November.

[Mini-Me]

Good points. When you say the popular vote is extremely questionable, what do you mean by this? Are you referring to the vote flipping algorithm?
Partially: The voting machines were sold by a party with a potential conflict of interest, and they exhibit a lot of statistical abnormalities that deserve more attention than they're getting from people outside this board. There are other issues too though, such as the tally verification process being so fishy in other areas that even a Romney delegate refused to sign off on it. The whole process has been so rife with abuse that I would consider it "extremely questionable" to hold delegates to their original pledges at this point, especially considering the party rule prohibits this in the first place. If there has ever been a time for Rule 38 to be followed, it's now.


In regards to Rule 38, if we force the RNC to interpret it that delegates are free to vote their conscience, is this a rule we want to keep going forward? I don't see how all delegates being free agents is a good process to elect a Presidential nominee.
I don't really have the answer to this question; it really depends on how delegates are selected in the first place, as you've said.

I don't think it's a relevant point of debate at this particular time though, because the rule is already in place. That means, if it ever became favorable to the RNC, all it would take to screw us would be for them to voluntarily agree to enforce the correct interpretation in the future...whenever it became convenient for them. Unless and until we challenge them, the RNC can pick and choose which of their rules they want to follow, whenever they want. That's the status quo. Lawsuit or not, they can already unbind the delegates at essentially any time of their choosing, so forcing them to follow the GOP rules consistently instead of conveniently selecting when and where to apply them shouldn't negatively impact the future at all.

The only way we can stop a shady delegate selection process (whether the party chooses to follow rule 38 or not) is to take control of party leadership positions, so whether or not Rule 38 is actually a good idea in the long run is a moot point until we're actually in a position to decide whether to keep the rule or officially vote to change it. Once we are in that position, I think this debate will take on a lot more significance.

[RickyJ]

"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it," said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Of course, HE doesn't.

I hope Ron fires him before the convention. What a big fat joke he is.

[tsai3904]

I don't think it's a relevant point of debate at this particular time though, because the rule is already in place. That means, if it ever became favorable to the RNC, all it would take to screw us would be for them to voluntarily agree to enforce the correct interpretation in the future...whenever it became convenient for them. Unless and until we challenge them, the RNC can pick and choose which of their rules they want to follow, whenever they want. That's the status quo. Lawsuit or not, they can already unbind the delegates at essentially any time of their choosing, so forcing them to follow the GOP rules consistently instead of conveniently selecting when and where to apply them shouldn't negatively impact the future at all.

The only way we can stop a shady delegate selection process (whether the party chooses to follow rule 38 or not) is to take control of party leadership positions, so whether or not Rule 38 is actually a good idea in the long run is a moot point until we're actually in a position to decide whether to keep the rule or officially vote to change it. Once we are in that position, I think this debate will take on a lot more significance.

If it ever became favorable for the RNC to enforce Rule 38, it might already be too late because we will have gotten our supporters through each states' delegate election process. The problem I foresee is if we force the RNC to enforce Rule 38 now, many states will change their delegate selection rules at their first opportunity, which will most likely be in the next year or two. We are not yet in a position to change the rules in most states. Basically, we are giving the establishment a head start.

[Mini-Me]

If it ever became favorable for the RNC to enforce Rule 38, it might already be too late because we will have gotten our supporters through each states' delegate election process. The problem I foresee is if we force the RNC to enforce Rule 38 now, many states will change their delegate selection rules at their first opportunity, which will most likely be in the next year or two. We are not yet in a position to change the rules in most states. Basically, we are giving the establishment a head start.

Is there any reason they wouldn't choose to change their delegate selection rules at the earliest opportunity anyway though? (This would also give them exactly the circumstances they'd want for agreeing to follow rule 38; it seems to me they'd prefer to change the delegate selection rules first.) They've already made it clear that they don't intend for "this" (all of these Ron Paul delegates) to ever happen again, so we're already racing against time in that regard, no matter what happens with this suit.

[tsai3904]

Is there any reason they wouldn't choose to change their delegate selection rules anyway though? They've already made it clear that they don't intend for "this" to ever happen again, so we're already racing against time in that regard, no matter what happens with this suit.

Well I think it depends how ruckus the convention turns out to be. If nothing happens, I don't think many states will see the urgency to change their delegate selection rules if they think delegates will still be bound to their primary election results.

Regardless of what happens, I agree with you that we all need to be getting involved in our local GOP and find out how the leadership positions are elected. This is the surest way to make sure we will have fair elections.

[dannno]

In this case, I would call it 'plausible deniability'. There's nothing to gain for Ron to support it and there's no way for them to stop it. The best thing to do is let this run its course.

This.

Just because Benton says they aren't supporting it, doesn't mean that they all don't personally support them, it just means the campaign doesn't officially support them.

[dannno]

Link please?

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/ron-paul-is-not-out-he-is-up/

[RickyJ]

This.

Just because Benton says they aren't supporting it, doesn't mean that they all don't personally support them, it just means the campaign doesn't officially support them.

A better response would have been that they have a neutral stance right know because they do not know enough about it. Saying they don't support it sounds really bad.

[sailingaway]

Ron supports us.

^^^ :D

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

A better response would have been that they have a neutral stance right know because they do not know enough about it. Saying they don't support it sounds really bad.


I think Paul handled it just like he should have on CNN today. Many of us knew that would be some kind of "gotcha" attempt. It was, and he handled it.

[RickyJ]

I think Paul handled it just like he should have on CNN today. Many of us knew that would be some kind of "gotcha" attempt. It was, and he handled it.

Yes Paul handled it well, I was talking about what Benton said saying we don't support it. He should have at least clarified that like Paul did saying we are not involved with it and are not giving them any financial support or advice, but defend their right to bring a lawsuit to protect their rights.

[bcreps85]

It was as good an answer as could be expected. If nothing comes of the lawsuit, he can't be publicly dragged down for supporting it, and they can't try to drag him down prior to the convention because of that either. If it does what we all hope it will do, he can say he had no idea all of these things had happened and that his supporters took the proper course of action.

[satchelmcqueen]

benton sucks with his pansy ass ways.
"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it," said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Of course, HE doesn't.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Yes Paul handled it well, I was talking about what Benton said saying we don't support it. He should have at least clarified that like Paul did saying we are not involved with it and are not giving them any financial support or advice, but defend their right to bring a lawsuit to protect their rights.


Keep in mind that Benton could have said 10 sentences, and the media will report the single sentence they like the most. I think that is one of the reasons why people around here can start clamoring to hear from Paul himself. When we hear from him, it is usually unfiltered, or we watch him handling media attacks.

Also, Benton can disappear for all I care. I'm not his mom. But when I consider that something could be a media problem instead of a campaign problem, it's likely a media problem if the problem isn't coming straight from the campaign.

[CPUd]

I think in this case, Benton chose his words carefully. He's not trying to discredit the lawsuit, the lawsuit will stand on its own. Most here should know by now how the game works- politicians and campaigns use specific wording, the MSM interprets the wording however they want.

If Benton had said something like 'we have nothing to do with it, but support their cause', the headline would be 'Ron Paul Sues the RNC'

And as you can see now, they are already saying the plaintiffs are all Ron Paul delegates, not Republican delegates.

[bcreps85]

And as you can see now, they are already saying the plaintiffs are all Ron Paul delegates, not Republican delegates.

Which is a distortion of the truth. As I understand it, there are non-Paul supporters involved.

[Veteran Citizen]

Regardless of your feelings on the general case, binding delegates to the popular vote is extremely questionable in this particular case, since the very legitimacy of that vote is being called into question on several fronts. Rule 38 already upholds unbound delegates anyway, so the suit isn't about changing the rules to reflect that. It's about holding the RNC accountable for past abuses and ensuring they don't continue to abuse the process in Tampa.

If you really favor binding, the correct choice is not to drop the suit and let the RNC continue ignoring the rules, but to actually get into a position to change the rules. Besides, look at it this way: If the GOP leadership really thinks that unbound delegates will benefit them in the future, they'll unbind their appointed delegates in future elections anyway, unless we get into the position to stop them. One way or another, it's mandatory that we take over GOP leadership positions.



My worry is that this has a HUGE potential of blowing up in our faces. The this will be spun STRONGLY by the MSM as an usurping the will of the voters in the primaries. It doesn't matter what the rules actually say, that is going to be the message, and we had better have a strategy to deal with the backlash, maybe even a way to do a political judo and spin that backlash back at them.

These are dangerous games, and the stakes ARE HUGE

Anyone have any word on what the plan is if we win the suit, how do we turn this into something the general public will support?

[RDM]

Which is a distortion of the truth. As I understand it, there are non-Paul supporters involved.

I've seen some posts on Lawyers for Ron Paul, some Gingrich delegates have signed on. Can't verify completely.

[ronpaulgirl]

I've seen some posts on Lawyers for Ron Paul, some Gingrich delegates have signed on. Can't verify completely.




https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/592221_389376597747158_244353591_q.jpg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/events/337021533040974/)
Ron Paul Girl Live on Liberty Chat w/ guest Edward True from Lawyers 4 Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/events/337021533040974/)

[PaulConventionWV]

"We have nothing to do with it and do not support it," said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Of course, HE doesn't.

No, the campaign doesn't, you nitwit. That's an obvious fact.

[PaulConventionWV]

all lawsuits are through to be frivolous until the defendants realize their going to need a real defense court.

This.

"Frivolous" is just another term for a lawsuit that probably isn't going anywhere. In this case, they're probably right.

[realtonygoodwin]

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/ron-paul-is-not-out-he-is-up/

I see neither the word "rampant" or the word "fraud" in that post...

[jcannon98188]

My worry is that this has a HUGE potential of blowing up in our faces. The this will be spun STRONGLY by the MSM as an usurping the will of the voters in the primaries. It doesn't matter what the rules actually say, that is going to be the message, and we had better have a strategy to deal with the backlash, maybe even a way to do a political judo and spin that backlash back at them.

These are dangerous games, and the stakes ARE HUGE

Anyone have any word on what the plan is if we win the suit, how do we turn this into something the general public will support?

Why do we have to make the general public support anything? You assume the general public cares about politics (they don't)

[dannno]

I see neither the word "rampant" or the word "fraud" in that post...

Well then maybe you should just read about the rampant fraud that he discusses throughout the article.

[Veteran Citizen]

Why do we have to make the general public support anything? You assume the general public cares about politics (they don't)

I assume that if there is not strong support for this, all it will accomplish is crashing the republican convention, and generating some seriously long term resentment. Both by the voters at large (the ones that actually vote) and the republican party. Do you play chess? The more moves you think ahead, the better you will be.

Let's assume that we win the lawsuit, and can even nominate Dr. Paul from the floor as the Republican nominee. Then what? What is the reaction of the RNC, the primary voters that will feel disenfranchised, and the voters that will be voting in November.

The more I think about the cascade of events that will begin with the first domino falling, winning the lawsuit, the less this looks like a good idea.

I think Dr. Paul knows what he is doing, I have faith in his wisdom, he's been playing this game for a long time. Having the lawsuit filed puts more pressure on the RNC, but even with the stealth delegates, he is pretty sure we don't have enough to nominate him. But we DO have enough to influence the platform.

We are treading into risky territory, that's all I'm thinking.

[RDM]

Looks like KETK in East Texas has run the story: http://www.ketknbc.com/news/rnc-calls-frivolous-lawsuit-by-ron-paul-supporters

[JellyRev]

the good Doctor knows what he is doing, he made sure in the cnn interview that he is not accountable for the lawsuit. On the inside I feel he is proud it went this far, he knows that the fraud and corruption was horrendous.

he's giving the MSM and RNC this :D for show but he is giving us this ;) at the same time.

I still feel he knows something about Romney we don't, his lack of attacks on him was for a reason, he's been thinking ahead. he wouldn't take our money to try and not get nominated.

[tod evans]

We are treading into risky territory, that's all I'm thinking.


I'd much rather tread into dangerous territory with my head held high than sit back with my head hung low.

But that's me and I'm not known for having good sense. ;)

[RDM]

I'd much rather tread into dangerous territory with my head held high than sit back with my head hung low.

But that's me and I'm not known for having good sense. ;)

It's kind of like: I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

[tod evans]

It's kind of like: I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

Yup.

[Veteran Citizen]

I'd much rather tread into dangerous territory with my head held high than sit back with my head hung low.

But that's me and I'm not known for having good sense. ;)


Lets just say I've tread into more than a few firefights in multiple parts of the world. It's not personal apprehension I have, it's organizational. If this is played right, we get to have influence, maybe even a nominee, played wrong, and we get squat divided by zero. There is always a chance that someone will go off reservation and do something stupid.

I'm going to assume that all will be explained at the festival.

[paulbot24]

No candidate winning in the polls will ever expose any corrupt activities regarding the process while it is benefitting them, and any candidate losing in the polls can not speak about fraud and manipulation at the polls without being painted as a "sore loser." This dysfunctional thinking that the media perpetuates is maddening since it effectively blocks any serious inquiry.

[asurfaholic]

Lets just say I've tread into more than a few firefights in multiple parts of the world. It's not personal apprehension I have, it's organizational. If this is played right, we get to have influence, maybe even a nominee, played wrong, and we get squat divided by zero. There is always a chance that someone will go off reservation and do something stupid.

I'm going to assume that all will be explained at the festival.

A little apprehension is good and healthy. But we are in a fight - there has been blatant disregard for rule of law in our country, and this is a worth fighting for cause of using the law to bring the criminals down. I am very excited about what is in store.

By the way, you get squat divided by zero if you don't try, every time, guaranteed.

[DGambler]

I think The People might actually begin to rebel at that point. When the voters actually realize that their vote does not count they will wake up and be angry.

I think your wrong. There is enough evidence to support that the Government doesn't work for the people NOW and most people could give a rat's ass as long as the candidate has the right letter next to their name.

[Weston White]

How on Earth can a case that is able to provide prima facie evidence of widespread manipulation, fraud, intimidation, and misrepresentation be construed as being frivolous?

[tod evans]

How on Earth can a case that is able to provide prima facie evidence of widespread manipulation, fraud, intimidation, and misrepresentation be construed as being frivolous?

It hasn't.

The respondent has dubbed it frivolous.

[SpicyTurkey]

I hope Benton gets fired. There is something about him that irks the hell out of me. That coupled with the fact that he is horrible at his job.

/null

[seawolf]

Jesse Benton and John Tate cannot be allowed to have any official office with the Campaign for Liberty after the Convention.

As Tom Woods, have said we need new leadership at C4L. If not, I predict many Liberty Supporters will not renew their memberships.

[jethro654]

I am directly involved with this case. I am a constitutionalist, with over 30 years of study in this particular venue. I have been a member here for quite a while. I cannot believe that, when someone FINALLY does something to stand up to all the BS of the RNC, people want to tear it down. This case is definitely VERY NON FRIVOLOUS, and yes, we do have a mountain, of evidence, it has already been accepted by the courts, and we are very serious about the allegations we have made.

The fraud and unfair practices that have been carried out mentioned in this lawsuit are very substantial, and very provable. I am not here to debate that. I KNOW the case is not frivoulous, I AM READING the literally 100's of legal, signed afidavits that we are getting, filing, and submitting.

This case does go further than the election. It is about protecting what few rights we have left. It is about purging the system of crooks, theives and liars, and getting back to honest elections, and holding accountable those responsible for physically abusing Ron Paul supporters and American citizens. IF one thinks this lawsuit is frivolous, then the rights we have, must also seem frivolous as well, THAT is what this case is about. Thank you and have a nice day.

Jerry E. Davis, Legal researcher, LFRP.

[LibertyEagle]

Jesse Benton and John Tate cannot be allowed to have any official office with the Campaign for Liberty after the Convention.

As Tom Woods, have said we need new leadership at C4L. If not, I predict many Liberty Supporters will not renew their memberships.

What are you blaming them for NOW?

[tod evans]

Thanks for chiming in Jerry!




I am directly involved with this case. I am a constitutionalist, with over 30 years of study in this particular venue. I have been a member here for quite a while. I cannot believe that, when someone FINALLY does something to stand up to all the BS of the RNC, people want to tear it down. This case is definitely VERY NON FRIVOLOUS, and yes, we do have a mountain, of evidence, it has already been accepted by the courts, and we are very serious about the allegations we have made.

The fraud and unfair practices that have been carried out mentioned in this lawsuit are very substantial, and very provable. I am not here to debate that. I KNOW the case is not frivoulous, I AM READING the literally 100's of legal, signed afidavits that we are getting, filing, and submitting.

This case does go further than the election. It is about protecting what few rights we have left. It is about purging the system of crooks, theives and liars, and getting back to honest elections, and holding accountable those responsible for physically abusing Ron Paul supporters and American citizens. IF one thinks this lawsuit is frivolous, then the rights we have, must also seem frivolous as well, THAT is what this case is about. Thank you and have a nice day.

Jerry E. Davis, Legal researcher, LFRP.

[Diashi]

It's reassuring to know we have well-motivated intellectuals behind this suit, who know their business. These updates really get our fire burning.

[Barrex]

I am directly involved with this case. I am a constitutionalist, with over 30 years of study in this particular venue. I have been a member here for quite a while. I cannot believe that, when someone FINALLY does something to stand up to all the BS of the RNC, people want to tear it down. This case is definitely VERY NON FRIVOLOUS, and yes, we do have a mountain, of evidence, it has already been accepted by the courts, and we are very serious about the allegations we have made.

The fraud and unfair practices that have been carried out mentioned in this lawsuit are very substantial, and very provable. I am not here to debate that. I KNOW the case is not frivoulous, I AM READING the literally 100's of legal, signed afidavits that we are getting, filing, and submitting.

This case does go further than the election. It is about protecting what few rights we have left. It is about purging the system of crooks, theives and liars, and getting back to honest elections, and holding accountable those responsible for physically abusing Ron Paul supporters and American citizens. IF one thinks this lawsuit is frivolous, then the rights we have, must also seem frivolous as well, THAT is what this case is about. Thank you and have a nice day.

Jerry E. Davis, Legal researcher, LFRP.

Thanks . This tickles my professional imagination.
Could you keep us updated? Is there any link to those affidavits and other evidence?
So many questions :rolleyes:.

Dont give up. This can be done. People in Croatia did it. You can too.

Good luck.

[WhistlinDave]

Can someone explain why we want all delegates to be able to vote their conscience instead of by their state party rules or state laws? If this is the scenario we want, what's to stop the establishment from making it impossible for grassroots supporters to become delegates in the future? There are already many states where it's notoriously difficult to become a delegate. Why won't other states just adopt the same policies to ensure that their candidate will always win.


I'd have sought a different remedy. I think the fraud/chronic shenanigans bit disenfranchising voters is important, but I don't know if they are maximizing the remedy properly. I'd make the states parties as accomplices through favoring the parties and make them put Ron on the ballots for November, myself, if that is possible. It is the fraud and disenfranchisement of all the party doesn't approve that is the big issue to me.

Me too. I would have sought the removal of Romney from eligibility to be the candidate.

That's where I think the delegates need to go with the lawsuit.

One thing that I do look forward to, however, is the RICO lawsuit to follow. I wonder how many people in the GOP who cheated in the primaries will find their new living arrangements in Federal prison "frivolous."

[WhistlinDave]

I am directly involved with this case. I am a constitutionalist, with over 30 years of study in this particular venue. I have been a member here for quite a while. I cannot believe that, when someone FINALLY does something to stand up to all the BS of the RNC, people want to tear it down. This case is definitely VERY NON FRIVOLOUS, and yes, we do have a mountain, of evidence, it has already been accepted by the courts, and we are very serious about the allegations we have made.

The fraud and unfair practices that have been carried out mentioned in this lawsuit are very substantial, and very provable. I am not here to debate that. I KNOW the case is not frivoulous, I AM READING the literally 100's of legal, signed afidavits that we are getting, filing, and submitting.

This case does go further than the election. It is about protecting what few rights we have left. It is about purging the system of crooks, theives and liars, and getting back to honest elections, and holding accountable those responsible for physically abusing Ron Paul supporters and American citizens. IF one thinks this lawsuit is frivolous, then the rights we have, must also seem frivolous as well, THAT is what this case is about. Thank you and have a nice day.

Jerry E. Davis, Legal researcher, LFRP.

GO JERRY!!!!!! Thanks for letting us know!!! (Not that anyone here really questioned it... At least I hope not... Haven't finished reading the whole thread yet.)

[Weston White]

I am directly involved with this case. I am a constitutionalist, with over 30 years of study in this particular venue. I have been a member here for quite a while. I cannot believe that, when someone FINALLY does something to stand up to all the BS of the RNC, people want to tear it down. This case is definitely VERY NON FRIVOLOUS, and yes, we do have a mountain, of evidence, it has already been accepted by the courts, and we are very serious about the allegations we have made.

The fraud and unfair practices that have been carried out mentioned in this lawsuit are very substantial, and very provable. I am not here to debate that. I KNOW the case is not frivoulous, I AM READING the literally 100's of legal, signed afidavits that we are getting, filing, and submitting.

This case does go further than the election. It is about protecting what few rights we have left. It is about purging the system of crooks, theives and liars, and getting back to honest elections, and holding accountable those responsible for physically abusing Ron Paul supporters and American citizens. IF one thinks this lawsuit is frivolous, then the rights we have, must also seem frivolous as well, THAT is what this case is about. Thank you and have a nice day.

Jerry E. Davis, Legal researcher, LFRP.

Excellent! May you and your team both take down this raging bull as a skilled matador and live to be a thousand years old, sir.

[LibertyEagle]

I am very thankful that this is being done. :D

[Veteran Citizen]

A little apprehension is good and healthy. But we are in a fight - there has been blatant disregard for rule of law in our country, and this is a worth fighting for cause of using the law to bring the criminals down. I am very excited about what is in store.

By the way, you get squat divided by zero if you don't try, every time, guaranteed.

We have the delegates, pro liberty guys, they will be at the convention, hundreds of them. There is a lot that can be achieved, some that might be achieved, and some things that are simply over-reaching. Ever watch a war movie? Seen the parts at the end of the battle where soldiers are going through the clothes and buildings looking for intel..... trust me, you want to be those guys, not the guys on the ground. The greatest glory in battle, is in success. Custer is not taught at command and general staff college as a brilliant guy.

What we have:
1. enough to get Dr. Paul an unedited speech on the floor.
2. enough to have influence on the platform
3. an opportunity to change hearts and minds (ok, that one is flimsy)

What we might have:
1. enough to cause a bit of chaos on the floor, by voting unbound, regardless of what the courts say.
2. enough to heckle and interupt non-pro liberty speakers.
3. enough to cause the convention to implode.

What we don't have
1. enough to get Dr. Paul nominated. He's said so himself.


Most don't plan to fail, many fail to plan. There are high stakes for us, we will either rise to greater heights, or not.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I am directly involved with this case. I am a constitutionalist, with over 30 years of study in this particular venue. I have been a member here for quite a while. I cannot believe that, when someone FINALLY does something to stand up to all the BS of the RNC, people want to tear it down. This case is definitely VERY NON FRIVOLOUS, and yes, we do have a mountain, of evidence, it has already been accepted by the courts, and we are very serious about the allegations we have made.

The fraud and unfair practices that have been carried out mentioned in this lawsuit are very substantial, and very provable. I am not here to debate that. I KNOW the case is not frivoulous, I AM READING the literally 100's of legal, signed afidavits that we are getting, filing, and submitting.

This case does go further than the election. It is about protecting what few rights we have left. It is about purging the system of crooks, theives and liars, and getting back to honest elections, and holding accountable those responsible for physically abusing Ron Paul supporters and American citizens. IF one thinks this lawsuit is frivolous, then the rights we have, must also seem frivolous as well, THAT is what this case is about. Thank you and have a nice day.

Jerry E. Davis, Legal researcher, LFRP.


Good. Keep it up, and thanks for stopping in. :)

[jcannon98188]

we get squat divided by zero.

Squat Divided by Zero is still the complete destruction of everything nearby. Never divide by zero (unless you are using it as a weapon)

[bcreps85]

I am directly involved with this case. I am a constitutionalist, with over 30 years of study in this particular venue. I have been a member here for quite a while. I cannot believe that, when someone FINALLY does something to stand up to all the BS of the RNC, people want to tear it down. This case is definitely VERY NON FRIVOLOUS, and yes, we do have a mountain, of evidence, it has already been accepted by the courts, and we are very serious about the allegations we have made.

The fraud and unfair practices that have been carried out mentioned in this lawsuit are very substantial, and very provable. I am not here to debate that. I KNOW the case is not frivoulous, I AM READING the literally 100's of legal, signed afidavits that we are getting, filing, and submitting.

This case does go further than the election. It is about protecting what few rights we have left. It is about purging the system of crooks, theives and liars, and getting back to honest elections, and holding accountable those responsible for physically abusing Ron Paul supporters and American citizens. IF one thinks this lawsuit is frivolous, then the rights we have, must also seem frivolous as well, THAT is what this case is about. Thank you and have a nice day.

Jerry E. Davis, Legal researcher, LFRP.

Thanks for chiming in Jerry, extremely happy that you guys are doing what you are doing after scratching my head this whole primary season and being upset that the campaign wasn't doing it. Please understand that most people here support what you are doing...most of the ones who don't mainly feel that way because they think it will be used against us in future elections (making it harder to get delegates for non-establishment picks...), or because they are on the rag about all the good news that doesn't pan out with this movement...so they can't get excited about anything anymore. Godspeed!

[Veteran Citizen]

Squat Divided by Zero is still the complete destruction of everything nearby. Never divide by zero (unless you are using it as a weapon)


OK, for you "Numbers" and "Dr. Who" fans, guess I should have used "null" instead.

[PaulConventionWV]

But the campaign admits rampant fraud, so why would they not support it?

Because it would make them the laughingstock of the Republican party. You people are so lacking in perspective it's just not funny.

[jethro654]

You are all very welcome...Here is one update. Rience Prebus...YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED....YEAH!! :) ( literally, he got his "papers" Wednesday !! whoo hoo!!