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

[sailingaway]

I'm not a big twitter user, hell I still don't even know how it all works but I can say I definitely will be on twitter much more now to see what RG has to say.

Maybe you can create another account since you are really good with updating RPF with important tweets, at least I think you are and truly appreciate when you do so.

MAYBE he'll figure out I'm not one of the ones spreading enmity towards him and will unblock me...

In any event, I follow people who follow him and retweet. I can see their tweets, just not his twitter stream page.

[WhistlinDave]

Here's a good example. It's true that, on April 28th, 16 of the 27 congressional district delegate spots went to liberty-minded individuals (Ron Paul did not win them because they are still allocated to Romney). However, Massachusetts sends a total of 41 delegates to the convention:

27 CD delegates
11 appointed (by the state committee) at-large delegates (the state committee only appointed Romney loyalists to these spots)
3 super delegates (State party chair, national committeeman, and national committee woman - all are Romney loyalists)

So, before any delegates were kicked out, the MA liberty caucus had 16/41 delegates. If they had counted the provisional ballots, the liberty caucus would have picked up two more spots at best. 18/41 is not a majority and, in this case, it's not a plurality either.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MA-R

No laws were broken. I think some rules were (although it's not cut and dry). Delegates can be removed for just cause. They say not turning in the affidavit by their deadline was just cause. I disagree. But what business is it of a federal judge? They didn't count the provisional ballots but provisional ballots aren't in the rules (just like affidavits ). They were going to throw out the entire district 5 (Romney's home district) results by using a bogus challenge but they got hit so hard by the media that they upheld the results when it came time to make a decision.

The MA situation doesn't belong in federal court and Paul never had a chance of his name being put into nomination by the MA delegation.

The Federal statute cited in the case says you cannot by means of threats, intimidation, or any other method, coerce someone to vote for, or not vote for, any particular candidate in any Federal election. The law then goes on to state that "Federal election" is defined as any contest to elect, or nominate anyone to run for, a Federal office, or to elect delegates who nominate someone to run for a Federal office. I am not quoting it verbatim, but this is approximately what it says. The way the law is worded it clearly DOES apply to the Massachusetts situation, and it applies to every other instance of delegates being disenfranchised because they were resistant to attempts to coerce them into voting for a particular nominee (Romney). The law even uses the word "delegates" in describing the various processes that qualify as a Federal election under the law.

When the day ended, one of the very last things the judge said was, "If in fact I do find that the Voting Rights Act applies to your party conventions, then I will be ruling that the plaintiff has an opportunity to quickly file an amended complaint."

So basically, this issue is so important the judge is giving Gilbert a chance to get his ducks in a row, and provide more detail in the complaint, IF the judge ends up agreeing that YES the Federal law DOES apply because the delegate selection process is clearly defined as a Federal Election in the Federal Law referenced in the case.

The way the law reads, I don't see how the judge can draw any other conclusion, personally, but then I'm not a lawyer either... Still waiting for the outcome...

[WhistlinDave]

I'm blocked I guess. All I see is that his 'account is protected'.

and I agree, thank you very much for your updates.

You're welcome! I'll ask if he'll unblock you... Can't promise anything, only just met him today but he seems like a reasonable enough guy.

[sailingaway]

You're welcome! I'll ask if he'll unblock you... Can't promise anything, only just met him today but he seems like a reasonable enough guy.

thanks. He will or he won't, either way it isn't your fault, but I appreciate it.

[WhistlinDave]

OK guys I don't think I'll be back on here until tomorrow... I hope we have an answer from the judge by then!! He said he was going to try to render a decision on the motion to dismiss tonight, very late.

[RickyJ]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@CorinaKernan the folks in the audience seemed to think I did very well. I hope it pursaudes the Judge to do what has never been done before

I am kind of surprised he doesn't also think he did very well. I sure hope this is an honest Judge.

[RonRules]

Sailing, what's your Twitter account name? I'll also talk to Richard tomorrow.

Speaking of Twitter, check this out!

http://arstechnica.com/security/2012...ter-followers/

[sailingaway]

Sailing, what's your Twitter account name? I'll also talk to Richard tomorrow.

Speaking of Twitter, check this out!

http://arstechnica.com/security/2012...ter-followers/

thanks: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse

LOL! (re your link) Grinch's were, too. Man, padding their virtual realities.

[CPUd]

Sailing, what's your Twitter account name? I'll also talk to Richard tomorrow.

Speaking of Twitter, check this out!

http://arstechnica.com/security/2012...ter-followers/

What's sad is that whoever did it probably outsourced the account creation to someone in India or the Philippines.

[devil21]

I hope he's as good as you make him sound WhistlinDave. I was pretty sure earlier based on your earlier reports that the judge already allowed an amended complaint but now it's not even known what the judge will do. Could be my reading comprehension or whatever but that's what I got from your earlier posts.

Why not tell us the bombshell? You typed a bunch of stuff after that so it wasn't a time thing. Don't get into the secret billioniare sort of mystery. Just tell us.

[eleganz]

I hope he's as good as you make him sound WhistlinDave. I was pretty sure earlier based on your earlier reports that the judge already allowed an amended complaint but now it's not even known what the judge will do. Could be my reading comprehension or whatever but that's what I got from your earlier posts.

Why not tell us the bombshell? You typed a bunch of stuff after that so it wasn't a time thing. Don't get into the secret billioniare sort of mystery. Just tell us.

I think the shocking thing was that the RNC defense lawyer more or less admitted that they break their own party rules but thats just how I interpreted it after reading posts and twitter feeds.

[RickyJ]

Liberty Lovin' Lady ‏@CorinaKernan

@USA_Free_Press when do you find out his decision? Did the opposing side have any kind of a convincing argument? Or was it pathetic?

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@CorinaKernan I estimate 2 days. We are asking the Court to do what has never been done so RNC did have an argument. Ours was better, I hope

It won't be tonight I guess, Gilbert estimates two days.

[devil21]

I think the shocking thing was that the RNC defense lawyer more or less admitted that they break their own party rules but thats just how I interpreted it after reading posts and twitter feeds.

Naa that's not what WhistlinDave said. He was replying to another poster that asked that question specifically.

Judge asked some questions. One of these was a shocker. I can't go into detail now, it's a little lengthy to explain properly, so you're going to have to wait for that... Wife is pissed, I'm spending too much time on Ron Paul stuff. She loves RP too but I need a job and she's not happy I'm spending so much time on the forum (and in court!) these days. My job hunting has been diligent, but not diligent enough because I'm still unemployed!!

But when I tell you this one thing that the GOP lawyer said, you are going to $#@! bricks!!!! Whoa. (I actually think it helped our side though. More on this shocker later, I promise.)

then goes on to type a bunch more stuff

Man just tell us what was said. It was open court so there are no secrets. You lose credibility with stuff like that.

[Barrex]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to WhistlinDave again.

Thank you for your reports.... Were there any reporters?What ? When? Who? WAKE UP! You cant sleep now you must stay awake and report all and any news....Dave you are our only hope

Well this is getting interesting. After initial "Lawsuit is fraud to collect our delegates names", "case is not/will not be filed" "not legit", "data mining operation" etc, people screaming pretty stupid things in hysteria and panic I am glad this case is moving forward.

I agree that he shuoldnt attack Mass delegates like that but no one is perfect.

P.s.

Sailing you are unblocked

[devil21]

P.s.

Sailing you are unblocked

With 5000 followers Im wondering how you know that.

[soulcyon]

Is there anyone that can verify these hearings?

[devil21]

Is there anyone that can verify these hearings?

Still nothing new on PACER but I don't know when it processes updates. It's not real time.

[jay_dub]

I think one of the best resources for GOP shenanigans is Ben Swann's Reality Check. They are all archived. If Gilbert is trying to get a crash course on what happened that is fact -based, that would seem like the place to start. Any omissions or errors can be corrected by those more familiar with each instance, but it is the best one-stop place to get up to speed on the issue.

http://www.fox19.com/category/208878...xix-cincinnati

[RonRules]

Is there anyone that can verify these hearings?

There was a court reporter there all day. Can someone purchase the court transcript? (I can't) Then you'll have everything 100% correctly reported.

[kathy88]

There was a court reporter there all day. Can someone purchase the court transcript? (I can't) Then you'll have everything 100% correctly reported.

How would someone do that?

[RonRules]

How would someone do that?

In state superior courts, you just have to know the name of the reporter who sells it to you directly. I've done it a couple of times and it was fairly cheap. Like $30 for a 40 minute session in court.

In this case, because it's a federal court it could be free, except for the duplication costs. I would say call the Federal Court house in Santa Ana, ask to speak to the court reporters for Judge Carter.

This will get you started:
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division
Ronald Reagan Federal Building & Courthouse (Orange County)
411 West Fourth St, Room 1053, Santa Ana 92701; (714) 338-4750

Carter is in room 9D.

[RonRules]

http://www.uscourts.gov/federalcourt...ngProgram.aspx

The court reporters and transcribers may charge and collect fees for transcripts requested by the parties, including the United States. The fee schedule should be posted prominently in the district court clerk’s office or available on a court’s web site. When a transcript is ordered, the first party to order it pays the original transcript rate, and subsequent requesters pay a copy rate. When a court reporter or transcriber delivers the original transcript to the ordering party, the court reporter or transcriber is also required to file a certified electronic copy to the clerk of court.

The Judicial Conference has made it explicit that official court reporters may charge only copy fees for transcripts provided to parties when the original transcript was produced at the request of a judge.


I presume both sides will request a transcript. Then you only need to pay for duplication fees.

[sailingaway]

http://www.uscourts.gov/federalcourt...ngProgram.aspx

The court reporters and transcribers may charge and collect fees for transcripts requested by the parties, including the United States. The fee schedule should be posted prominently in the district court clerk’s office or available on a court’s web site. When a transcript is ordered, the first party to order it pays the original transcript rate, and subsequent requesters pay a copy rate. When a court reporter or transcriber delivers the original transcript to the ordering party, the court reporter or transcriber is also required to file a certified electronic copy to the clerk of court.

The Judicial Conference has made it explicit that official court reporters may charge only copy fees for transcripts provided to parties when the original transcript was produced at the request of a judge.


I presume both sides will request a transcript. Then you only need to pay for duplication fees.

If it was a twenty minute hearing we are talking about under $200, likely, for the transcript. I also hope they ordered it but since he is working pro bono I can't rule out the possibility he was trying to work off good notes. You'd need rush transcription (an additional fee) to get it in time, though. That would need to be requested. They won't do rush automatically. I would think the RNC would have asked for it, however.

[LibertyEagle]

No news yet, eh?

[RonRules]

No news yet, eh?

While the news is coming, send a nice bouquet to Richard. Guys like that haven't gotten flowers for years!

Richard C Gilbert
Gilbert & Marlowe
950 West 17th Street Suite D & E
Santa Ana, CA 92706-3573
714-667-1038
Fax: 714-667-2388
Email: richardattorney@gmail.com

[WhistlinDave]

I think the shocking thing was that the RNC defense lawyer more or less admitted that they break their own party rules but thats just how I interpreted it after reading posts and twitter feeds.

Well there were two different aspects to this question. And you're right, one of them was my big shocker. I didn't want to boil it down too much last night because I need to present it in the proper context of the arguments being made, etc....

One aspect of it was the question of whether state party rules are in conflict with RNC rules. State party rules bind delegates, but the 2008 internal ruling by the RNC clearly indicates the RNC wants delegates to vote their conscience. So on that, if I recall correctly, he did acknowledge the two are in conflict. Gilbert put it in terms of "they are breaking their own rules" but I don't remember Bell ever responding to say for sure "yes we break our own rules" or anything.

The other aspect of it, my big shocker, I will have to go into more detail later because I've got to go to an appointment here in a little bit. But I won't keep you in suspense.

Basically, the judge got the GOP lawyer to admit that the GOP believes it is FREE TO BREAK ITS OWN RULES, OR CHANGE ITS OWN RULES AT THE LAST MINUTE, any time it wants, even if that disenfranchises party members involved in the process, and the GOP thinks they have the right to do it, without the courts intervening!!! My jaw dropped. I mean my jaw literally dropped wide open (and I think the judge saw it too--there were only two people in the courtroom besides the lawyers, judge, and court transcriber). I couldn't believe he said that!!! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!

I will have to explain this in more detail later so you can understand the context in which this occurred, how it was said, the line of questioning that led up to it, and the way the GOP lawyer repeatedly tried to dodge the question! It was an amazing moment and I want to get the word out about this because it's $#@!ING BULL$#@!!!!!!

Corruption at its finest, and this GOP lawyer just admitted it to this Federal judge on the record in court. $#@!ing amazing. Pardon my French.

[WhistlinDave]

Naa that's not what WhistlinDave said. He was replying to another poster that asked that question specifically.



Man just tell us what was said. It was open court so there are no secrets. You lose credibility with stuff like that.

LOL Sorry for the wait... I wanted to explain it as it happened, because it was amazing how the judge went back & forth with the GOP lawyer. It was like pulling teeth. But see my post just above this one. I still didn't go into any detail but the basic shocker of what it was, well... amazing.

[torchbearer]

a link to the woody jenkins letter from louisiana: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...hlight=jenkins

[ClydeCoulter]

Well there were two different aspects to this question. And you're right, one of them was my big shocker. I didn't want to boil it down too much last night because I need to present it in the proper context of the arguments being made, etc....

One aspect of it was the question of whether state party rules are in conflict with RNC rules. State party rules bind delegates, but the 2008 internal ruling by the RNC clearly indicates the RNC wants delegates to vote their conscience. So on that, if I recall correctly, he did acknowledge the two are in conflict. Gilbert put it in terms of "they are breaking their own rules" but I don't remember Bell ever responding to say for sure "yes we break our own rules" or anything.

The other aspect of it, my big shocker, I will have to go into more detail later because I've got to go to an appointment here in a little bit. But I won't keep you in suspense.

Basically, the judge got the GOP lawyer to admit that the GOP believes it is FREE TO BREAK ITS OWN RULES, OR CHANGE ITS OWN RULES AT THE LAST MINUTE, any time it wants, even if that disenfranchises party members involved in the process, and the GOP thinks they have the right to do it, without the courts intervening!!! My jaw dropped. I mean my jaw literally dropped wide open (and I think the judge saw it too--there were only two people in the courtroom besides the lawyers, judge, and court transcriber). I couldn't believe he said that!!! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT!!!!

I will have to explain this in more detail later so you can understand the context in which this occurred, how it was said, the line of questioning that led up to it, and the way the GOP lawyer repeatedly tried to dodge the question! It was an amazing moment and I want to get the word out about this because it's $#@!ING BULL$#@!!!!!!

Corruption at its finest, and this GOP lawyer just admitted it to this Federal judge on the record in court. $#@!ing amazing. Pardon my French.

Dang, can't rep you again, so I'm reposting you ^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

[Tiso0770]

Lolz, unbelievable.....

So the GOP could actually 'turn down' a candidate even if he got 99% of the votes at the RNC. This is starting to sound like the Federal reserve nightmare scenario of 'above the law'.