New Lawsuit - Thoughts?

[WhistlinDave]

I was really excited by the Lawyers For Ron Paul lawsuit, until it actually happened, and then at the end I was extremely disappointed at Gilbert's handling of it. I don't want to re-hash all that. But I do think any serious effort should exclude Gilbert from here on out; he just showed that he is not thorough or detail oriented enough for this job. We need somebody who will put in the time and effort, not just grandstand. He was good in the courtroom, I give him that, but it means nothing if you can't do the paperwork correctly, or follow a judge's lead who is trying to help you.

However, I keep thinking there are so many ways now that people could pursue a lawsuit, or lawsuits, against the GOP and RNC. I am simply putting my thoughts out there and I invite you to do the same.

Possible angle: Breach of Contract -- One of the reasons it would be hard to win a lawsuit against the party is because they have a First Amendment right of free association, and the judge in the Gilbert case even said he was very wary of treading into that territory. BUT, the party rules are a sort of contract. It's an agreement between all party members, "This is how we agree we do party business." Ron Paul supporters participated in good faith, and followed that contract, and then the party didn't. Could this be the basis of getting Romney removed as the nominee?

In addition to everything that's occurred so far, now we have the rules change that did NOT legitimately pass, and we even have video of "the ayes have it" on the teleprompter before the "nays" had even spoken! (Not to mention Boehner completely ignored calls of objection and point of order from the floor and proceeded as if there were none.)

To me the entire nomination hinges on this. Ron legitimately had enough states to be placed on the ballot, and this rule change was the only thing that prevented that, and it didn't even really pass!! All the party members who said "Nay" were just defrauded.

That's my next angle: Fraud... Election Fraud (and no, I know I'm not saying anything new here).

Lastly, I keep thinking, I wonder if a class action lawsuit could be launched. I have damages myself. Over $160. on massive Ron Paul signs I made out of plywood to put up before my state primary. And money I've donated to the campaign. Delegates have the cost of attending the RNC. I wonder how many people across the nation have financial damages as a result of this cheating? Now, granted, there's no way to prove what the outcome would've been, so maybe a fair judge would say I'm entitled to collect 1/10th of my damages. But I don't care, for three reasons.

1. I care more about sticking the GOP & RNC with massive PUNITIVE damages in the multi millions. Edit: Not for me, again, my damages were small. The point of punitive damages are to teach them a lesson, make it hurt.
2. I spent that money knowing Ron Paul might not win, and spent it gladly (not that this makes their cheating OK, it doesn't...)
3. Perhaps a goal of the lawsuit should be to get Romney's name off the ballot instead? Or maybe have two nominees, Ron Paul AND Romney.

I don't even know if that last one is legally permissible even with a successful lawsuit. But I bet in a three way race, Ron Paul would win if he was in on the debates with the two puppets.

Any way you slice this I cannot stand the thought of letting Romney and the RNC get away with this. Probably a good thing right now I don't own or know how to accurately fire a sniper rifle. A lawsuit seems like a slightly more moral approach to payback. (Only by a little bit though.)

Feel free to chime in with any thoughts, good, bad, or ugly.

[sailingaway]

yeah, I definitely think this is something we need to consider. I think we need to set up something to run it though so the results can't be compromised away for something we don't find to be sufficient.

[truthspeaker]

Second that. There is enough evidence with the National party shanagans. Add Mass. and Maine and any others whose slates were cheated out.

[acptulsa]

Don't bother with election fraud because neither a convention nor this Calvinball tournament are elections. There's no way one party gets two nominees on the ticket. As for simple fraud, or breach of contract, they are interesting angles. But, since there's absolutely no precedent, who knows if a judge would even hear the case?

[WhistlinDave]

Don't bother with election fraud because neither a convention nor this Calvinball tournament are elections. There's no way one party gets two nominees on the ticket. As for simple fraud, or breach of contract, they are interesting angles. But, since there's absolutely no precedent, who knows if a judge would even hear the case?

Actually it is an election under Federal law. This was one thing Gilbert had right, and I am thankful he brought it to all of our attention. (Gotta give credit where credit is due.)


42 USC § 1971 - Voting rights

"Intimidation, threats, or coercion. 
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate."

Caucus or Convention. 
A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.” - 11 CFR 100.2 - Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1))."

[CPUd]

This scumbag here is asking to get sued:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSf_83CvVT0

[Barrex]

Lawsuit was the way to go and it still is. I was for last one I am for this one too...

There is more than enough evidence around but I didnt see anyone who managed to codify it. If this is going to happen people need to step up and do the necessary work.


P.s.
There will be people who will again scream "this is fraud to get our delegates names" etc.

[LibertyEagle]

All I know is that if we do another lawsuit, we can't be giving them a heads up on every single thing we are doing, before we do it, by laying it out on here.

[Travlyr]

I don't see why anybody would seek judgment from an American court today. It is totally rigged. Judges do not work for the people.

Winfred P. Adams MAJOR, USAF, Retired, has spent a lot of years in the courts working for justice. Here (https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?ui=2&ik=eb6ef6e5b6&view=att&th=1395985d693e2fe5&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P_mAOrOqsH1QBK85IAuuu43&sadet=1346412375918&sads=xciZTJIQW_qFk0RC2qDmmNj6A6E) is what he has to say.

[tod evans]

Fix your link please.


I don't see why anybody would seek judgment from an American court today. It is totally rigged. Judges do not work for the people.

Winfred P. Adams MAJOR, USAF, Retired, has spent a lot of years in the courts working for justice. Here (https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?ui=2&ik=eb6ef6e5b6&view=att&th=1395985d693e2fe5&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P_mAOrOqsH1QBK85IAuuu43&sadet=1346412375918&sads=xciZTJIQW_qFk0RC2qDmmNj6A6E) is what he has to say.

[RickyJ]

I don't see why anybody would seek judgment from an American court today. It is totally rigged. Judges do not work for the people.

Winfred P. Adams MAJOR, USAF, Retired, has spent a lot of years in the courts working for justice. Here (https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?ui=2&ik=eb6ef6e5b6&view=att&th=1395985d693e2fe5&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P_mAOrOqsH1QBK85IAuuu43&sadet=1346412375918&sads=xciZTJIQW_qFk0RC2qDmmNj6A6E) is what he has to say.

I can believe that. It is much easier to buy off a single judge than a few hundred congressmen.

[Travlyr]

Fix your link please. Thanks. Unable to fix the link, so copy and paste.


Winfred P. Adams
MAJOR, USAF, Retired
2347 Forest Avenue
Durango, Colorado 81301-4878

August 15, 2012

Chairman, House Committee on:
The Judiciary, Government Oversight, and Appropriations
2138 RHOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
www. judiciarv.house.gov
www.oversight.house.gov
www.appropriations.house.gov

Chairman, Senate Committee on:
the Judiciary, Government Oversight, and Appropriations
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
www.judiclarv.senate.gov
www.oversight.senate.gov
www.appropriations.senate.gov

Chairman, House Committee on Government Oversight
RE: Urgent Legislative Cure needed for Federal and State Office Holder Defect

Sirs:
I have struggled for years seeking a solution to a public office integrity problem; a problem whose acceptability in the affected society varied directly with the size of the population affected and the concentration of the hannful influence, and inversely with the enduring consequence of a persistent harm. One might consider a truncated cone with its small flat area corresponding to its population affected, its conical section corresponding to the concentration of the harmful influence, and the large flat area of the truncated cone corresponding to the enduring consequence of the persistent harm engendered. A small population size with an even smaller size harmed might correspond to an acutely noticeable defect; a similar population with an even greater population might indicate a population being acclimated to the harm being done. In other words, the more people affected, the greater the probability of it becoming acclimated to the harm. My study has produced the criteria for a valid solution which is offered below.

With that in mind, consider a judicial matter in which those with positions as judges in courts of law not holding their public office either constitutionally or statutorily; yet, the only courts available for those harmed by the defect to seek constitutional protections or statutory remedies are controlled by imposters in those courts who deny the very constitutional powers and defy the very statutory authorities designed to prevent or cure the defect. A question arises as to whether these persons while not constitutionally or statutorily holding public office draw publicly appropriated funds by exercising the power of those offices in violation of 18 U.S .c. § 912 . If one expands the scope of the defect to involve all public office positions: executive, legislative, and judicial, both state and federal, then the impact of the defect becomes greatly increased and then becomes acceptable as the norm.

Now let us examine the generic means for one to acquire, enter, and hold a public office positions, both state and federal. For illustrative purposes, I attach the State of New Mexico constitutional and statutory bonding mandates which represent those in four other states.

First, one must be acquire a public office position both constitutionally and statutorily.

A. The applicable constitution establishes various categories of public office: executive, legislative, and judicial; no other public office is permitted.

B. Statutes enacted by the applicable legislature establish positions available within the specific category of public offices; no other positions are permitted.

C. The statute applicable to the particular public office must specify the qualification for acquiring, holding, and entering the public office; failure to meet requirements voids entering the office; a secretary of state must declare the position vacant.

Next, one elected or appointed to office must take the applicable oath of office.

A. The oath of office is a constitutional contract between the potential office holder and the public at-large; both parties to the contract must give a consideration to validate the contract; the oath to the public contains special promises that the oath taker will faithfully abide by throughout the term in office; and the oath taker must file and record with the secretary of state an affidavit with evidence of the oath taken.

B. Within a prescribed period of time, perhaps thirty days, the oath taker must acquire a personal fidelity bond, as their contract consideration, binding them to the promises in the oath and payable to the public; then, they post the bond with the secretary of state.

C. Completing paragraphs A and B above, one only becomes eligible to enter the office.

In order to enter the applicable public office, one must be bound by the recorded oath taken and bond posted before being allowed to perform the specific duties ofthe office acquired.

A. The oath taker with a lawful bond acquires the office only by exercising the public trust, the public's consideration for the contract between them for as long as the office is lawfully held.

B. A member or group of the public at-large must have authority to call the bond of any public officer upon demonstrating a pattern of failures to abide by the oath promises.

Calling an official bond would require the holder of the bond, perhaps a secretary of state, to declare the office vacant.

With that out of the way, the problem I have struggled with for many years is that many of those holding public office do so as imposters for failure to post a personal fidelity bond binding them to the promises in the oath. That defect allows for judicial activism, denying the power of a constitutional provision or a defying of statutory authority cloaked in a fictitious immunity. That type social environment is the breeding ground for a system of peonage, a subspecies of involuntary servitude prohibited by the power of the Thirteenth Amend, and the authorities of 14 Stat. 546, now codified as 42 US.C § 1994 and 18 US.C §§ 1581 et seq.

Today, there are no lawful office holders in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado in evidence, either state or federal. Victims seeking constitutional protections, statutory remedies, or escape from the conditions of peonism from such government office holder do so in vain. The latter problem cannot be resolved in courts of law lacking competent jurisdiction. In Colorado today for example, private citizens are bound by state statutes, court decisions, and court rules, but they are denied the free and unrestrained access to these public renderings by the Colorado Supreme Court. Those authorized to practice law dare not challenge a system that makes them the only ones with access to the state statutes, court decisions, court rules and court docket sheets. Perhaps you can find a non-lawyer who will enter their courts of law and report back what they experienced. God forbid they get themselves arrested for an infraction of the law binding on them but unavailable to them for review. Check it out.

In view of the foregoing, I respectfully request each committee take up the matter expressed and review the constitutional and statutory bonding requirements - Article VI, Clause 3, US. Constitution, and 31 US.C §§ 9301 et seq. - for persons to acquire, enter, and hold public office with provisions for a no-bond removal should the defect described be demonstrated.

Respectfully submitted,

Winfred P. Adams MAJOR, USAF, Retired

Attached: New Mexico Constitution and statutory Public Office Requirements


Article VI, Clause 2, Constitution of the United States

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and ofthe several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affinnation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[The following constitutional provisions were required of the Territory of New Mexico by the Enabling Act for Statehood: 14 Stat. 557 which required an irrevocable ordinance that no change would occur without the consent of Congress and a favorable vote of the electorate. No changes were ever authorized by Congress and no vote on these constitutional and statutory provision
ever occurred.]

Article XXlI, Section 19, Constitution of New Mexico

Within thirty days after the issuance by the president ofthe United States of his proclamation announcing the result of said election so ascertained, all officers elected at such election, except members of the legislature, shall take the oath of office and give bond as required by this constitution or by the laws of the territory of New Mexico in case of like officers in the territory, county or district, and shall thereupon enter upon the duties of their respective offices; but the legislature may by law require such officers to give other or additional bonds as a condition of their continuance in office.

Section does not exempt officers elected subsequently to first election from giving bond.
Board of Comm'rs v. District Court, 29 N.M. 244,223 P. 516 (1924).

Section 10-2-5. [Recording of bonds required.] (1893)

The bonds given by all persons elected or appointed to office in this state shall be recorded.

History: Laws 1893, ch. 56, § 1; c.L. 1897, § 3187; Code 1915, § 515; C.S. 1929, § 17-111;
1941 Comp. , § 10-205; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-5.

Section 10-2-6. [Record of official bonds of state and district officers.] (1893)

The bonds of all state and district officers shall be recorded in a record book to be provided for that purpose, and known as the record of official bonds, in the office of the secretary of state.

History: Laws 1893, ch. 56, § 2; c.L. 1897, § 3188; Code 1915, § 516; C.S. 1929, § 17-112;
1941 Comp., § 10-206; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-6.

Section 10-2-7. [Filing of bonds by officials of state and state agencies.] (1905)

The bonds of all state officials, and of the members of all state boards and institutions, after having been recorded as required by law, shall be filed and kept in the office ofthe secretary of state; and all state bonds now filed elsewhere shall be transferred to the office of the secretary.

History: Laws 1905, ch. 59, § 1; Code 1915, § 517; C.S. 1929, § 17-113; 1941 Comp., § 10*
207; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-7.

Section 10-2-9. [Recording as prerequisite to discharging duties of office.] (1893)

Each and every person who may hereafter be elected or appointed to office in this state, required by law to give bond, shall file the same for record before entering upon the discharge of the duties of the office.

History: Laws 1893, ch. 56, § 5; c.L. 1897, § 3190; Code 1915, § 519; C.S. 1929, § 17-115;
1941 Comp., § 10-209; 1953 Comp., § 5-2-9.

[kathy88]

I think racketeering is the answer. Treble damages for each plaintiff if they are found guilty.

[Carlybee]

Seek Judge Nap's advice

[RonRules]

Besides what was said above, I think another lawsuit should concentrate on the constitutionality of the new Rule 16 (delegate binding) and totalitarian control of those delegates, under the Voting Right Act.

[Acala]

This war is going to be won over the long haul through education, one on one conversation, organization, the development and support of activists, statesmen, and scholars, and a Black Swan or two. It will not be won with a lawsuit or a presidential election. Courts are very bad places to seek vindication.

[jmdrake]

This war is going to be won over the long haul through education, one on one conversation, organization, the development and support of activists, statesmen, and scholars, and a Black Swan or two. It will not be won with a lawsuit or a presidential election. Courts are very bad places to seek vindication.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Black Swan", but Ben Swann has been very helpful.

[nobody's_hero]

In my opinion, lawsuits at this point should be aimed at throwing Romney off the ballot in Maine (he broke the rules state law, there's a thread of it on here somewhere). I say that as someone in Georgia who would want to see legal efforts applied where I think we have a fighting chance, and those would be in states where our people have taken over the party (read: NOT Georgia . . . yet).

If our people get an initiative started in Maine, I have $20 ready for the legal fund (I'm tapped out, or I'd give more)

[specsaregood]

All I know is that if we do another lawsuit, we can't be giving them a heads up on every single thing we are doing, before we do it, by laying it out on here.

In that recent Doug Wead interview he mentioned about the campaign's legal strategy.. still confused by that as he said it was hushhush and i don't even know what he was referencing as I don't recall any official campaign court cases.

[WhistlinDave]

I think racketeering is the answer. Treble damages for each plaintiff if they are found guilty.

True... (That's RICO, right?)

[WhistlinDave]

Besides what was said above, I think another lawsuit should concentrate on the constitutionality of the new Rule 16 (delegate binding) and totalitarian control of those delegates, under the Voting Right Act.

There seems to be a conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 1st Amendment right of Free Association of the party, and Judge Carter indicated he was unwilling to infringe upon the 1st Amendment issue without really good reason, and preferred to avoid it entirely if there was some other issue that could decide the case. So while I agree it doesn't seem Constitutional, that may be trumped by 1st Amendment.

Either way I think it's not necessary to go there. The rule was adopted via disregard for rules of order, and therefore it was adopted fraudulently and it constitutes a breach of contract. (The voice vote clearly was way too close to call, with the "Nay" being at least as loud as the "Ayes" so a roll call vote should've been taken. Boehner also ignored calls of objection and calls for Point of Order. The teleprompter showed the "ayes" winning before the "nays" were even done speaking! This is a violation of the party rules everyone agreed to, which is in essence a contract.)

I think there should definitely be a lawsuit that seeks, as a remedy, to throw out these rule changes and require that if the party wants to adopt them, require a new written ballot from all delegates present at the convention, and have the vote overseen/administrated by an independent third party selected by the court to ensure fairness. This way they couldn't even appeal, because the court would be saying, "We're not telling you that you cannot enact these rules. We're just saying you cheated, which is a breach of contract and fraud. If you want to enact these rules, you still can, but you need to do it properly according to your own rules that all party members agreed to. Since the Convention is already done, here is how you must go about it with a paper ballot via mail and via a third party." I think that would make it very tough to appeal... And the rules changes would fail in a fair vote.

I think the fraud/breach of contract should be attacked first, because the rule should never have happened in the first place. If it is ever enacted in a fair & honest manner, then we could go after the Constitutionality of it. Just my opinion.

[WhistlinDave]

In my opinion, lawsuits at this point should be aimed at throwing Romney off the ballot in Maine (he broke the rules state law, there's a thread of it on here somewhere). I say that as someone in Georgia who would want to see legal efforts applied where I think we have a fighting chance, and those would be in states where our people have taken over the party (read: NOT Georgia . . . yet).

If our people get an initiative started in Maine, I have $20 ready for the legal fund (I'm tapped out, or I'd give more)

Thanks! I will chip in as well... We just need someone to spearhead it and to be honest I don't think I can do it. I will help out but I don't have the time required to do this right, as it's going to be a huge effort.

(And/or people could pursue cases in their individual states as well, for things that happened on the state level...? I think one big RICO trial would be better though.)

[WhistlinDave]

All I know is that if we do another lawsuit, we can't be giving them a heads up on every single thing we are doing, before we do it, by laying it out on here.

I agree. There's got to be a better way to dig into all the details and strategy.