pull up AZ delegate letter
pull up AZ delegate letter
Last edited by eleganz; 08-07-2012 at 02:55 PM.
Los Angeles County Republican Party (the largest GOP central committee in the nation)
-57% of the executive board is liberty
-43% of the executive committee is liberty
-40% of the central committee is liberty
Getting involved at the local level is the most important thing you can do to WIN
be ACTIVE, be EFFECTIVE, be ORGANIZED, be STRATEGIC, be VICTORIOUS.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing"
-Ron Paul
"Instead of Brent Tweed, Charlie Webster or Paul LePage would serve as the spokesperson for the delegation and announce the votes cast for president."
It's like Brent Tweed can't read results?!!
Charlie Webster has experience reading results I guess.
Statistics don't lie, people do.
the thread exists, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-LFRP-lawsuitOriginally Posted by eleganz
"Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul
“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” ― Aristotle
“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.”― Ralph Waldo Emerson
^^^ THIS ^^^
Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 08-07-2012 at 02:55 PM.
0...1...∞
the delegate chair speaks to media AND REPORTS VOTES at RNC for the state. They don't ask every individual. Last time it was reported from RNC that our guys' votes were not acknowledged by most delegation chairs. So they didn't exist as far as the rest of the world knew.
"Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul
“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” ― Aristotle
“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.”― Ralph Waldo Emerson
I just read the response of the Maine delegation to the RNC in your new thread, sailingaway, MAINE freakin' ROCKS !
0...1...∞
Breaking:
"ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: (See document for details.) Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16). (See document for details.) The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Because the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial 16 . Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012. (rla) (Entered: 08/07/2012)"
Statistics don't lie, people do.
Exactly. They'll let our delegates go to the convention, if we allow the guy who will misrepresent the votes be the delegate chair. Either way, we'd essentially have 0 delegates. This needs to be fought.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DELEGATES TO THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL CONVENTION ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE ET AL.,
Defendants.
Case No.: SACV 12-00927 DOC(JPRx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
Section 1971 of Title 42 of the United States Code is part of a landmark civil rights
statutory scheme, commonly referred to as the “Voting Rights Act,” which Congress enacted to end the violence and discrimination that plagued minority voters in Congressman Ron Paul’s home state of Texas and other parts of this country. See McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U.S. 236, 243, 243 n.11 (1984); Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 213 (1996) (“Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1964 because it concluded that case-by-case enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment, as exemplified by the history of the white primary in Texas, had proved ineffective to stop discriminatory voting practices in certain areas of the country.”); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966) (“The Voting Rights Act was designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.”); Elections, 13D Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. §
3576 (3d ed.) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1971 as part of comprehensive legislation “to provide effective remedies against discrimination in the conduct of elections” that began “with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and with broadening amendments in 1960, 1964, 1965, and 1970”). “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable.” Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 201 (2009). “When it was first passed, unconstitutional discrimination was rampant and the ‘registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead’ of black registration in many covered States.” Id.; see also Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 541 (1927) (lawsuit challenging Texas statute “forbid[ding] negroes to take part in a primary election”).
Six years ago, Congressman Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.1 Ironically, his supporters now bring this lawsuit under the very statutory scheme he tried to end.
After reviewing the moving papers and oral argument, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16).
Statistics don't lie, people do.
What does this mean? "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial"
0...1...∞
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote