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

[tod evans]

I think this is a great opportunity. The judge basically tells us step by step what needs to be added. A dismissal and leave to amend is a great thing.

The judge clearly sees this is a worthwhile case and must have worked till 1 or 2 AM to prepare this ruling.

We're on!

My understanding as well..........(only skimmed ruling)

[RonRules]

Can someone put this in one google document so it is not cut into pieces? I am very interested in this and would like to study it a bit further.

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6409463

[RonRules]

where do you see the 13 days? I missed that.

Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.

[sailingaway]

Well, it's a good thing Gilbert called the Massachusetts folk "traitors" and their leader a "coward." Otherwise he still might have a chance.

Oh, and the other day Evan Kenney (18-year-old who was removed for not signing the affidavit) tweeted a screenshot of a facebook post that came from Gilbert's account. See here:

https://twitter.com/EvanKenney/statu...72801098231808

There's probably a really good chance the Judge is going to see it as well.

and your point is?

He shouldn't have said that to the MA delegates, but I don't see how that helps write the complaint.

[tod evans]

What does this mean? "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial"

In plain English the judge told Gilbert he needs to file coherent pleadings based on current law by Aug. 20th, he can ASK that the court expedite and potential hearings in the future but THIS motion is denied.

He didn't throw Gilbert out on his ear, however "AS PLEAD" we have no standing.

[CPUd]

<edit> see PDF posted above

[RonRules]

I suggest again that we do a proper hierarchical document like a Wiki that can be group edited. Not fully public, but with membership such as DP and RPF long time forum members.

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[Barrex]

where do you see the 13 days? I missed that.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4570201

"Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
DATED: August 7, 2012"

[RonRules]

Download the original document here:

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6409463

[sailingaway]

Download the original document here:

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6409463

thanks.

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[Barrex]

Barrex, can you make heads or tails out of what the judgment reads? It appears as though he's giving hints of case law that might be used, is that true?

Yes. It could be interpreted that way.
In general I dont like judges. In BiH (where I was born) you can find out a price of certain judge to secure you a favorable ruling.
I would like to hear audio or read transcripts from this.
That being said my opinion about judge (based on all court documents and people who were in that courtroom):
Judge in this case seems really good one. He went out of his way to give fair treatment to Ron Paul delegates. He pretty clearly said you need to do this and this. I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).

[RonRules]

For me this part stands out:

"Plaintiffs’ vague reference to “State Bylaws” gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ use of the passive voice renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and whether any of the more than 10 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs’ vague allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed simultaneously by all “Defendants” lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation."

In other words: BE SPECIFIC!

[eleganz]

IV. Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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.
DATED: August 7, 2012
__________________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Just went on twitter to find this:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Court has ruled that the it is possible to state a claim that The Voting Rights Act (vote your conscience) may apply to The Convention

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Court requires an Amended Complaint We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file an Appellate Writ

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
We shall at the same time to seek the guidance of both Courts. Do not be confused by the technical language of granting the motion

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The case survives

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Judge stated on the record that he tentatively believes that the Voting Rights Act does apply to the Convention

[RonRules]

I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).

He's admonishing Gilbert pretty hard in this ruling, but I love this judge.

Saw him put someone away for 30 years and he was just as just can be.

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[sailingaway]

That's a good one.

I know it's a quote, but I liked this one:

"purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes"

what is your agenda?

[Barrex]

Barrex, can you make heads or tails out of what the judgment reads? It appears as though he's giving hints of case law that might be used, is that true?

Yes. It could be interpreted that way.
In general I dont like judges. In BiH (where I was born) you can find out a price of certain judge to secure you a favorable ruling.
I would like to hear audio or read transcripts from this.
That being said my opinion about judge (based on all court documents and people who were in that courtroom):
Judge in this case seems really good one. He went out of his way to give fair treatment to Ron Paul delegates. He pretty clearly said you need to do this and this. I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).

I have one question:
Judge gave our side 13 days to file apeal. In most countries there is time limit of 8 days or 15 or a month depending on case, court and country. I never heard of 13 days. Is it law in US (13 days)? Or is it coincidence that judge gave himself enough time for our side to file final version and for judge to rule on this before Tampa (august 27th)? Either way this it not bad thing.

There will be time to talk in detalis with this. Now is time to focus at work that needs to be done and done fast:
-Someone ask R. Gilbert what he needs and what he needs to get all information and ask it fast.
-There is not much time!
-If people here want to help there needs to be clear plan how and who and when...

[RonRules]

"USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Court requires an Amended Complaint We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file an Appellate Writ"

In the first complaint, I clearly remember he was not going to file an appeal. Why file an appeal if you don't know how the final ruling will be. Don't understand.

[WhistlinDave]

I think this is a great opportunity. The judge basically tells us step by step what needs to be added. A dismissal and leave to amend is a great thing.

The judge clearly sees this is a worthwhile case and must have worked till 1 or 2 AM to prepare this ruling.

We're on!

I agree.

The physical violence in Louisiana (dislocated hip and broken fingers) of the duly elected officials is key in proving "threaten, coerce, intimidate" allegations.

We need a rock solid narrative of the who, what, when, where of these events, and in the complaint any supporting videos must be referenced.

[sailingaway]

Yes. It could be interpreted that way.
In general I dont like judges. In BiH (where I was born) you can find out a price of certain judge to secure you a favorable ruling.
I would like to hear audio or read transcripts from this.
That being said my opinion about judge (based on all court documents and people who were in that courtroom):
Judge in this case seems really good one. He went out of his way to give fair treatment to Ron Paul delegates. He pretty clearly said you need to do this and this. I, a person who doesnt like judges, have nothing bad to say about this one (based on information I have).

I have one question:
Judge gave our side 13 days to file apeal. In most countries there is time limit of 8 days or 15 or a month depending on case, court and country. I never heard of 13 days. Is it law in US (13 days)? Or is it coincidence that judge gave himself enough time for our side to file final version and for judge to rule on this before Tampa (august 27th)? Either way this it not bad thing.

There will be time to talk in detalis with this. Now is time to focus at work that needs to be done and done fast:
-Someone ask R. Gilbert what he needs and what he needs to get all information and ask it fast.
-There is not much time!
-If people here want to help there needs to be clear plan how and who and when...

there might be a weekend or holiday involved. The judge can pretty much say what he wants, I believe.

[CPUd]

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.

He was made aware that his complaint had problems, the defense went out of their way 2 weeks ago to point them out. The judge recessed for several hours yesterday so that he could fix them. I think it is a good idea to get him some good information, but the real challenge will be to get this horse to drink.

[devil21]

Not a terrible ruling but not a surprise either. Broad allegations don't fly in civil suits. Need names, exact allegations of conduct, etc.

I hope Gilbert has considered that there are legal hurdles to the state of Iowa forcing a delegate to do something in a different state. Once you cross state lines out of Iowa (example), Iowa law/rules no longer applies to your conduct unless there's a written contract guaranteeing future performance or the states have a reciprocity compact in place already. IOW, Florida law would apply to people from Iowa while they're in Florida. Iowa delegate binding law is irrelevant in Tampa, just like every other Iowa law is irrelevant in Florida. Gilbert needs to make this point! Seems to me that he's attacking the binding rules/laws in the wrong manner.

@Barrex
It's not an appeal, it's an amended complaint and the judge has discretion to set pretty much any time limit he wants for that. An appeal would be taking the dismissal to the Federal Court of Appeals (next level and last step before SCOTUS). That's not what's happening here. The judge gave Gilbert the chance to refile a new complaint and start over.

[sailingaway]

"USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Court requires an Amended Complaint We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file an Appellate Writ"

In the first complaint, I clearly remember he was not going to file an appeal. Why file an appeal if you don't know how the final ruling will be. Don't understand.

granting of a motion to dismiss is a final order and appealable but not sure how it works if you were given leave to amend to fix it. I guess he is still fighting the provision the court doesn't think applies.

[RonRules]

-Someone ask R. Gilbert what he needs and what he needs to get all information and ask it fast. -There is not much time!

Already done. But we can also clearly see in the ruling that the judge want SPECIFIC violations of the Civil Rights law.

I would also add a CLEAR explanation as to why Ron Paul voted against it. I know Ron had good reasons, but the judge does not know that.

He's clearly annoyed by it and he said it when I was there and he repeats it even more sternly in the ruling:

"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. ...

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."

So please, for someone here that knows this, write this up nice and pretty.

[WhistlinDave]

Also I think a more detailed description of the threats employed when people were told to sign affadavits would make it clear that even though it wasn't quite to the level of the KKK walking in with big clubs in their hands to intimidate people, there were very real threats of criminal (felony?) charges being brought against delegates for perjury, if they did not vote how they were being told to vote. With more detail, these events probably DO rise to the level of illegal intimidation described in the judge's narrow reading of the statute.

[sailingaway]

Already done. But we can also clearly see in the ruling that the judge want SPECIFIC violations of the Civil Rights law.

I would also add a CLEAR explanation as to why Ron Paul voted against it. I know Ron had good reasons, but the judge does not know that.

He's clearly annoyed by it and he said it when I was there and he repeats it even more sternly in the ruling:

"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. ...

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."

So please, for someone here that knows this, write this up nice and pretty.

I would ignore that. It has no bearing on the case and is a distraction.

[RonRules]

"I never heard of 13 days. Is it law in US (13 days)? Or is it coincidence that judge gave himself enough time for our side to file final version and for judge to rule on this before Tampa (august 27th)?"

He specifically said in court that he wan't to rule before Aug. 27.

Personally, I'm hoping for Monday morning Aug. 27. Just for the Lulz.

[torchbearer]

Also I think a more detailed description of the threats employed when people were told to sign affadavits would make it clear that even though it wasn't quite to the level of the KKK walking in with big clubs in their hands to intimidate people, there were very real threats of criminal (felony?) charges being brought against delegates for perjury, if they did not vote how they were being told to vote. With more detail, these events probably DO rise to the level of illegal intimidation described in the judge's narrow reading of the statute.

how does louisiana fit in to all of this?
i mean, hiring thugs to beat up your opponents when they win the chairmanship is kinda hard to ignore.