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

[romancito]

This is the beauty of Ron Paul that people don't understand versus the ugliness of Romney that people want to tolerate. Ron Paul does not change his message from month to month. Romney changes his message after every shower he takes. If the Romney that goes to Convention in August 27 is significantly different from the one that ran in an specific state primary, then imo, the delegates must take a second look and they are responsible to take a second look. The new lesser and diminished Romney would not be the Romney that people voted for. Delegates must feel free to motion their delegation and chairman for a vote of no-confidence and request their chairman to unbind them based on the differences ascribed to the candidate. That way delegations such as Nevada and Massachusetts can be unbind and vote as they think responsible to their constituents that they represent back in their states.

I just think that state can bind delegates but only Ron Paul could pass the scrutiny of being the same in January as in August. Romney not so much.

One Ron Paul delegate in a state delegation filled with Romney supporters should be able to convince them that Romney is for REPLACING OBAMACARE and ask them to vote within the delegation to REPLACE Romney. Romney ran on repealing obamacare to counter Backman's strength. Now with no Backman in sight, Romney changed to REPLACE OBAMACARE. Romney needs to be chopped.

[WhistlinDave]

If any delegates face FINES for breaking state law and voting out of their binding on the first ballot and nominating Ron Paul, I will be one of the first fellow supporters to DONATE to help alleviate those fines. IMO, going to jail is worth it if Ron Paul is the nominee...it may not be the same for others though.

Also if all of a sudden a state wants to enforce penalties for breaking a delegate binding, it is incredibly petty especially when Utah let it slide in 2008.

I agree. But more importantly, if this lawsuit is successful then it will mean a Federal judge has ruled ANY SUCH FINES OR PENALTIES ARE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW and states who try to impose such penalties will be BREAKING FEDERAL LAW. Now, they may still do it, but any delegate who finds him or herself in that position would have a pretty easy remedy I would think, to get such penalties nullified by any Federal court. State law and/or state party rules do NOT supersede Federal Law.

[Barrex]

Apparently RNC lawyer acused Richard (LFRP) that he was contacting RNC and not RNC lawyer... Richards response:
"I represent the Plaintiffs in this case. I do not represent the figments of your imaginations."(demanding that RNC lawyer gives proof of his allegations...HE DIDNT.)

Also it looks like RNC is still trying to "communicate" (apparently about things not related to this lawsuit) directly with plaintiffs (Ron delegates in this lawsuit) and go around Richard...Why would they do something so stupid?



Another quote:
If you wish to avoid exposure to a possible criminal prosecution avoid acting like a criminal.

"....the RNC may take jurisdiction thereof and resolve contest. Id.
All contests affecting at large delegates must be resolved by the RNC.Id"

REALLY? RNC beats you and then RNC should decide how RNC should deal with it...They keep claiming that it is internal "thing" and that law, constitution and courts should stay out of it (paraphrasing)....I dont get where are they going with this. Yes parties have some rights but they are subjected to laws too.

about affidavits, broken bones, threats and other claims:

...is supported by little more than sweeping conclusory allegations masquerading as factual allegations...

It is interesting read if you got the time. They (RNC lawyers) raise some interesting arguments.
Interesting.

[CPUd]

All the case filings are posted together in this document:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...hEclBiejQ/edit

Around page 140 the correspondences start.

Their main argument for the motion to dismiss is that they have W number of named defendants, X number of listed plaintiffs, and Z things done to the plaintiffs, but the original complaint does not state "w (from W) did z (from Z) to x (from X)". I think if his response does not include such statements, this portion of the complaint may be dismissed.

Their other argument is that they can choose whomever they want to represent their party under 1st and 14th amendments, and have cited US Supreme Court cases to justify it.

[sailingaway]

All the case filings are posted together in this document:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B42o...hEclBiejQ/edit

Around page 140 the correspondences start.

Their main argument for the motion to dismiss is that they have W number of named defendants, X number of listed plaintiffs, and Z things done to the plaintiffs, but the original complaint does not state "w (from W) did z (from Z) to x (from X)". I think if his response does not include such statements, this portion of the complaint may be dismissed.

Their other argument is that they can choose whomever they want to represent their party under 1st and 14th amendments, and have cited US Supreme Court cases to justify it.

the rebuttal to the latter argument imho is that the states give preferences to the parties creating huge monopoly barriers to entry so in light of those barriers this is disenfranchisement if they don't follow their own rules -- alternatively their rules are a contract with party members.

I want the first, since I want the alternate remedy of destroying ballot access restrictions on presidential races, and maybe to ask that Ron be put on the ballot for all 50 states....

but that is me.....

and it would likely mean the 50 states would have to be named as defendants, I should think, since it is their access rules being addressed, if we were trying to strike them down.

[The Northbreather]

Meanwhile this judge sits at home at night on his computer and slowly starts to understand Ron Paul's plight and the ideas of freedom behind our movement (I am manifesting it) .

[Scott_in_PA]

Meanwhile this judge sits at home at night on his computer and slowly starts to understand Ron Paul's plight and the ideas of freedom behind our movement (I am manifesting it) .

I would hope he would at least be up on current political events.....I'm wondering how he feels about the "Nebraska Last Stand" and "It's over" headlines.

The press isn't the rnc but the facts should be set straight.

[devil21]

If any delegates face FINES for breaking state law and voting out of their binding on the first ballot and nominating Ron Paul, I will be one of the first fellow supporters to DONATE to help alleviate those fines. IMO, going to jail is worth it if Ron Paul is the nominee...it may not be the same for others though.



Also if all of a sudden a state wants to enforce penalties for breaking a delegate binding, it is incredibly petty especially when Utah let it slide in 2008.

Im still wondering how the state of Iowa (example) is able to enforce state law against Iowa delegates for something that happens in Florida. I don't think that works in this country legally. If you break an Iowa state law in Florida, Iowa can't charge, arrest, or fine you since the conduct didn't happen there. Florida can arrest you for violating Florida law, however, and Iowa can have a reciprocity agreement with Florida for stuff like traffic laws, which is written into law as a compact already. The way I see it, only Florida law would apply to delegate "conduct" in Tampa. Iowa state law is irrelevant anywhere except Iowa.

(caveat: unless an express private contract was set up to guarantee future conduct between the state GOP and the delegate, then the state GOP could sue a delegate for the fine as plain breach of contract. Otherwise, they have no legal standing to enforce any jail or fine or whatever through the criminal or civil system. This seems like a scare tactic to me that has no teeth.)

[TrishW]

Im still wondering how the state of Iowa (example) is able to enforce state law against Iowa delegates for something that happens in Florida. I don't think that works in this country legally. If you break an Iowa state law in Florida, Iowa can't charge, arrest, or fine you since the conduct didn't happen there. Florida can arrest you for violating Florida law, however, and Iowa can have a reciprocity agreement with Florida for stuff like traffic laws, which is written into law as a compact already. The way I see it, only Florida law would apply to delegate "conduct" in Tampa. Iowa state law is irrelevant anywhere except Iowa.

(caveat: unless an express private contract was set up to guarantee future conduct between the state GOP and the delegate, then the state GOP could sue a delegate for the fine as plain breach of contract. Otherwise, they have no legal standing to enforce any jail or fine or whatever through the criminal or civil system. This seems like a scare tactic to me that has no teeth.)

I like how you think! You most certainly could be right!

[CPUd]

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:
http://electionfraudremedy.com/OPPOS...TO_DISMISS.pdf

He's trying to catch them on a technicality that since some of the named defendants are RP delegates, the defense must file paperwork on them waiving conflict of interest.

Reading the 'merits' section now.

He's got a shot at getting the case heard, but the reasoning he used to oppose the motion to dismiss limits the scope on what the judge would actually be able to do. My opinion, the judge will deny the motion to dismiss, and when the case is heard, tell them to follow their respective state laws for those bound by statute and send them on their way.

[Barrex]

What are you basing your opinion about "following their respective state laws"?


Things are getting interesting.... thats for sure.

[CPUd]

What are you basing your opinion about "following their respective state laws"?


Things are getting interesting.... thats for sure.

Meaning, if they are bound by statute, they should comply with that statute.

[romancito]

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:
http://electionfraudremedy.com/OPPOS...TO_DISMISS.pdf

He's trying to catch them on a technicality that since some of the named defendants are RP delegates, the defense must file paperwork on them waiving conflict of interest.

Reading the 'merits' section now.

He's got a shot at getting the case heard, but the reasoning he used to oppose the motion to dismiss limits the scope on what the judge would actually be able to do. My opinion, the judge will deny the motion to dismiss, and when the case is heard, tell them to follow their respective state laws for those bound by statute and send them on their way.

You got it.

[Barrex]

I understand. Not sure of the outcome tho. I am more interested in request to have federal marshals in Tampa protecting delegates.

[Cinderella]

I haven't yet seen this answered, but what is their plan B? This attorney is sooo sure that they will win....but what if they don't? Or what if the case IS dismissed? They will have essentially given the Romeny campaign "just cause" to decertify hundreds of liberty delegates who were bound to vote for Romney. Has this even been brought up?

[romancito]

I"just cause" to decertify hundreds

they are only seeking guidance. where there is no guidance then plan b would be to go on an abstain on first ballot. a whole lot of abstentions will not get romeny 1144. no? then sarah palin could team up with rand paul and chop romney.

[Cinderella]

they are only seeking guidance. where there is no guidance then plan b would be to go on an abstain on first ballot. a whole lot of abstentions will not get romeny 1144. no? then sarah palin could team up with rand paul and chop romney.

Seeking guidance by signing on as plaintiffs to participate in a lawsuit that is seeking to unbind them from voting for the candidate they are bound to? Looks like just the type of "just cause" they are looking for to decertify these delegates. Your plan B would not even see the light of day if these delegates are replaced.

[RonRules]

What's actually hilarious is that clearly the RNC lawyers did not read the original complaint.

In short, as clearly stated by Lawer for Ron Paul Gilbert: "The issue of fraud has no relevance
whatsoever". (See page 13, line 24 of document OPPOSITION_TO_MOTION_TO_DISMISS.pdf)

The RNC lawyers responded in panic thinking the complaint alleged fraud. They should have just read the complaint and responded to only the argument of law regarding the ability for a delegate to vote his/her conscience.

You can see how totally confident Gilbert is in writing the Opposition to motion, by quoting the complaint and not wavering a bit. I like what I'm seeing.

If Gilbert gets the expected right answer from the judge (the filing was just a question, not a claim of fraud), I bet the next step will be to file a huge fraud lawsuit, preferably before Aug. 26. Three days before the convention would be ideal. I know he's got a lot of data to do it with.

[romancito]

Seeking guidance by signing on as plaintiffs to participate in a lawsuit that is seeking to unbind them from voting for the candidate they are bound to? Looks like just the type of "just cause" they are looking for to decertify these delegates. Your plan B would not even see the light of day if these delegates are replaced.

Well, then use plan c. The economy just tanked, really, I just finished listening to Bernanke, and the prospects are grim really, we are slipping quite quickly towards a major depression. That's because new entrants into the job market will find nothing, nothing, nothing.

Plan c would seek to disenfranchise Romney of his delegates since he won his primaries based on the rosy pictures Bernanke painted in December and January. Clearly everything Romney promised as the entrepreneur guru in chief is hogwash right now. All his policies in the debates are now clearly invalid. There is no truthful information right now on how Romney would do if he inherits this Bush/Obama debacle. The Romney that ran in the primaries is a ghost for the new economic reality for our country. Any delegate that does not considers that reality before voting would be a fool. Freedom to vote their conscience.

[Cinderella]

Plan c would seek to disenfranchise Romney of his delegates since he won his primaries based on the rosy pictures Bernanke painted in December and January. Clearly everything Romney promised as the entrepreneur guru in chief is hogwash right now. All his policies in the debates are now clearly invalid. There is no truthful information right now on how Romney would do if he inherits this Bush/Obama debacle. The Romney that ran in the primaries is a ghost for the new economic reality for our country. Any delegate that does not considers that reality before voting would be a fool. Freedom to vote their conscience.

Lol, whatever youre smoking, pass some of that over here!!

[TheGrinch]

I haven't yet seen this answered, but what is their plan B? This attorney is sooo sure that they will win....but what if they don't? Or what if the case IS dismissed? They will have essentially given the Romeny campaign "just cause" to decertify hundreds of liberty delegates who were bound to vote for Romney. Has this even been brought up?

Then we're no better or worse off then we are today....

Just like the nomination, people do need to realize that in this corrupt system, things might not work out like we want for them to, even if we're completely right.

Most of us here have realized what kind of long odds we're working against in this campaign. But the stakes are too big not to try, and you'll never know until you try. That's really all you can do...

[devil21]

Meaning, if they are bound by statute, they should comply with that statute.

Yeah but they can't enforce state law in another state. Simple legal principle regarding how states work in this country. See my previous post. I really think this line of stuff is intimidation that can't be enforced. Scare tactic. How is Wyoming going to enforce WY law for conduct in Florida???

[CPUd]

Yeah but they can't enforce state law in another state. Simple legal principle regarding how states work in this country. See my previous post. I really think this line of stuff is intimidation that can't be enforced. Scare tactic. How is Wyoming going to enforce WY law for conduct in Florida???

I'm interested in seeing whether or not the states would go after them for breach of contract. I doubt the judge would, or even could, order them to comply with state laws, but probably would recommend that they do, and leave it up to each delegate to decide for his/herself.

He did jump on the fact that they tried to offer a defense against the fraud by saying this is a federal question case, but if the fraud is irrelevant, how can he argue that the remedies are needed?

Defense cites this case : N.Y. State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 201 (2008)

I think it's their strongest argument. And if the judge doesn't rule in favor of the plaintiffs, or otherwise deems the above cited case relevant, the RNC can then use it to justify the unseating of any RNC delegate.

[romancito]

Yeah but they can't enforce state law in another state. Simple legal principle regarding how states work in this country. See my previous post. I really think this line of stuff is intimidation that can't be enforced. Scare tactic. How is Wyoming going to enforce WY law for conduct in Florida???

You keep repeating this and now I am convinced. Courage and valor they will need. They need to buy a bottle of it at Walgreens. A whole lot of abstentions and Romney will get to 1143 and not one more. People will begin the celebration and the day will be called a holiday.

[romancito]

I'm interested in seeing whether or not the states would go after them for breach of contract.

Although states have unlimited resources to waste, the case would unravel rather quickly since Romney changes his views every four hours. Now he buried his income tax return with Obama's birth certificate and college transcripts. When Romney ran in the primaries he promised to disclose his income tax return. Voters who voted for Romney then voted for a ghost. Primary results are no longer valid.

[Barrex]

Does anyone knows anything about this:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press @tweetAmiracle A Plaintiff was beaten last night by one of Romney's people. Medical casre is required,. I will dm .

???

[sailingaway]

Does anyone knows anything about this:
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press @tweetAmiracle A Plaintiff was beaten last night by one of Romney's people. Medical casre is required,. I will dm .

???

Aaron Saucedo ‏@iworkiron
@USA_Free_Press Is everything ok my friend?
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
39m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
@iworkiron Aaron what do you mean? I am fine. Do you mean the beaten delegate ? He is recovering

//

[Barrex]

Yea....I meant that... Does anyone got any details?

[ClydeCoulter]

What? Any news on how they are?

[kathy88]

WTF? More info!!!!!!