MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: Lawyers for Ron Paul Lawsuit NOTE: Having the lawsuit not up 4 debate

[devil21]

Can you cut-n-paste or screen shot from pacer?

Thanks for the update!

No point in doing that. Im paraphrasing what Im reading. More info on the dismissal motion shortly.

Eta: It's a pretty scathing Motion and the lawyers that wrote it clearly don't think too highly of Mr. Gilbert and his Plaintiffs. Many veiled insults throughout the motion. Defendant's attorneys are trying to get it dismissed based on the complaint itself not being sufficient according to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, not on any factual basis. Unfortunately, I think they may be right. The complaint is very vague in parts and federal complaints require a specificity as to "who, what, when, where, why, how", not just broad conclusary statements. We shall see.

[torchbearer]

No point in doing that. Im paraphrasing what Im reading. More info on the dismissal motion shortly.

Eta: It's a pretty scathing Motion and the lawyers that wrote it clearly don't think too highly of Mr. Gilbert and his Plaintiffs. Many veiled insults throughout the motion. Defendant's attorneys are trying to get it dismissed based on the complaint itself not being sufficient according to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, not on any factual basis. Unfortunately, I think they may be right. The complaint is very vague in parts and federal complaints require a specificity as to "who, what, when, where, why, how", not just broad conclusary statements. We shall see.

up to the judge.

[jay_dub]

No point in doing that. Im paraphrasing what Im reading. More info on the dismissal motion shortly.

Eta: It's a pretty scathing Motion and the lawyers that wrote it clearly don't think too highly of Mr. Gilbert and his Plaintiffs. Many veiled insults throughout the motion. Defendant's attorneys are trying to get it dismissed based on the complaint itself not being sufficient according to Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, not on any factual basis. Unfortunately, I think they may be right. The complaint is very vague in parts and federal complaints require a specificity as to "who, what, when, where, why, how", not just broad conclusary statements. We shall see.

I would think the specificity would be found in the plaintiffs affidavits. With over 100 plaintiffs, the complaint is too big to be specific on every point. At least that would be my layman's take on it.

[WhistlinDave]

I would think the specificity would be found in the plaintiffs affidavits. With over 100 plaintiffs, the complaint is too big to be specific on every point. At least that would be my layman's take on it.

I agree and I think that may be a valid argument for Gilbert in explaining why he did not go into too many specifics in the complaint. If he were to go into detail regarding every allegation, the complaint itself could be the size of a phone book, or at least a novel.

[tod evans]

No point in doing that. Im paraphrasing what Im reading. More info on the dismissal motion shortly.

If you could, I for one would sure like to read what's been filed?

Thanks!

[devil21]

If you could, I for one would sure like to read what's been filed?

Thanks!

If you wish to pay me then Im happy to give you a Paypal address. PACER access is free but pulling down pages and documents is not. I spent $10 just reading these docs earlier. Every filed pleading is in pdf format and I am charged by the page and capturing and downloading and all that gets expensive. You and anyone else can sign up for PACER. Actually, the Lawyers should already have this stuff posted. I shoudn't be the one providing updates on this thing. The Lawyers pages should already have this stuff up and spread around. They get it before I do!

[eleganz]

the lawsuit is already online in pdf for free...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...T0U/edit?pli=1

[sailingaway]

up to the judge.

Regardless, they'll be given time amend the complaint to cure it, or it would be astonishing. However complaints don't need to be that specific.

Under Bell Atlantic, however, merely pleading a possibility of recovery is not enough.
The duty is to furnish factual “allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” an
“entitlement to relief.” 127 S. Ct. at 1966 (internal quotations omitted). Bell Atlantic calls this
the “Rule 8 entitlement requirement” — the “threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) that the
‘plain statement’ possess enough heft to ‘show that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id.
3

The Second Circuit in Bell Atlantic had taken the view that: “The factual predicate that is
pleaded does need to include conspiracy among the realm of plausible possibilities” (425 F.3d at
111 (emphasis added)). The Supreme Court held that a mere-possibility standard does not
satisfy the Rule 8 entitlement requirement because a possibility of relief is something less than a
plausibility of relief. See 127 S.Ct. at 1966 (“An allegation of parallel conduct ... gets the
complaint close to stating a claim, but without some further factual enhancement it stops short of
the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’”).

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...ng%20Rules.pdf

this was a tightening of the pleading rules, but it doesn't mean list all the factual allegations.

[devil21]

New case info is up on PACER now.

7-6-12 - Notice of E-filing deficiencies.
NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION to Dismiss Case 7 , Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,,,,, 6 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1-1 No Certification of Interested Parties and or no copies. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (db) (Entered: 07/06/2012)

7-9-12
07/09/2012 9 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants All Defendants, identifying None. (Bell, Charles) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
07/09/2012 10 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE 4 : (See document for details.) Thus, if Plaintiff wishes to file an Amended Complaint containing the changes outlined in the Ex Parte, Plaintiff is free to do so under Rule 15. If Plaintiff fails to timely file such an Amended Complaint, this Court will analyze Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) based only on the Complaint filed on June 11, 2012. (rla) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
(devil21: Judge basically saying Plaintiffs can file a new complaint adding in whatever was left out previously if done quickly.)

7-10-12
07/10/2012 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Delegates to the Republican National Convention amending Complaint - 1 ; filed by plaintiffs Delegates to the Republican National Convention (rla) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/12/2012: # 1 SUMMONS ISSUED) (rla). (Entered: 07/12/2012)
07/10/2012 21 DAY Summons Issued re FIRST Amended Complaint 12 as to All Defendants. (rla) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
(devil21: Yep, new complaint filed next day with additional allegations and probably additional Plaintiffs. I havent reviewed new complaint but we all know what the new shenanigans pulled were.)

7-11-12
NOTICE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Defendants, et al
(devil21: Defendants attorneys accepting service of amended complaint)

7-12-12
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: Order Reinstating Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Setting Briefing Schedule. Plaintiff shall file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) on or before noon on July 20, 2012. Defendants shall file a Reply, if at all, on or before noon on July 27, 2012. The Court does not alter the hearing date of 8:30 a.m. on August 6, 2012. (mt) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
(devil21: Judge ordering a response in opposition to Motion to Dismiss by 7-20-12. Gilbert needs to file a counter to the motion to dismiss by then.)

---------------
The legal wrangling is about to start. I still think parts of the complaint are overly vague and a judge is free to throw out sections of a complaint instead of dismissing the entire case. SCOTUS has ruled many times that federal civil suits are not to be a contest between lawyers to see who can write the best pleadings and win based on that, but rather are to be decided on the case merits and a deficient side given every opportunity to present their case. Hopefully Gilbert has tightened up his complaint with the newly amended complaint.

[TrishW]

I don't understand lawyer talk. Is it good or bad for us?