Page 61 of 72 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,830 of 2144

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

  1. #1801
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    All that may be true....BUT...we (Louisiana) had a caucus on April 28. I, and many other voters like me, voted for Ron Paul delegates. Ron Paul delegates won.

    Others attended an infamous convention in Shreveport in June. The delegates chose someone other than Roger Villere to head the LAGOP, a Ron Paul supporter who was later assaulted. We were due even more delegates from that convention as I understand it.

    I am fighting to have my vote count. I may even pursue this as a legal matter if those delegates don't get seated. IMO, that is an issue that is bigger than Ron Paul or even the whole Liberty Movement. Maybe they think they can just come along and wipe out the whole election process and do what they want. Maybe they can, but I'm not going to stop fighting until all resources are exhausted. Got it?
    I hoe you do if that's what it takes. Never let them push us out or make us give up. I'd think one of the main goals of the LA liberty contingent would be to make an example out of Villere at the next state convention. We did the same thing with our former state chair up here in MI who wanted Ron outta the debates last time around. He got his ass handed to him in the race for national committeeman last may and was beat by a guy that eventually endorsed Bentivolio BEFORE the primary.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #1802
    Quote Originally Posted by KingNothing View Post
    The most troubling thing about this movement is that so many people live and die on every single "battle" -- everything is Apocalyptic. "THIS IS IT! WE MAKE A STAND HERE! WE WILL WIN THIS, THEN WIN THE NOMINATION! BEEYYYAAAAH!"

    That's just not how this is going to shakeout, and it isn't how it should shakeout. This -"this" being the Liberty movement- is going to take our entire lives to resolve; certainly it will take longer than one man's presidential campaign.

    Sure, fine, pursue legal action where possible. Fight everywhere you can. There's nothing wrong with that. But getting so dejected and depressed that you create absurd conspiracy theories or rush to place blame on anyone other than the RNC and neocons is fruitless. It's just silly.
    Ok, sounds like you know exactly what you want to do. Why are you wasting your time in this thread not taking your own advice?

    Go spread liberty
    THE SQUAD of RPF
    1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
    2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
    3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
    4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick

    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:

    Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.

    7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll

  4. #1803
    Hey, someone who has PACER access, see if you can find this:

    PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
    CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND
    DISCHARGING PRIOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
    This Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this Court should not construe Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal as a desire to stand upon the First Amended Complaint and treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction.
    See August 20, 2012, Order (Dkt. 43). As the Court explained, Plaintiffs “cannot pursue an appeal from the Court’s order and simultaneously treat this matter as ongoing by filing [a] second amended complaint.” Id. (quoting Ingram v. Warden, CIV.A. 10-4151 NLH, 2011 WL 318300, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011)).

    In their Response, Plaintiffs state that they did not intend to file an appeal and, instead, they wish to continue to litigate with the Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading. See Response (Dkt. 44). Thus, the Court DISCHARGES the August 20, 2012, Order to Show Cause and will treat the Second Amended Complaint as the
    operative pleading.

    Because Plaintiffs maintain that they have not filed an appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiffs’ Second Ex Parte Application (Dkt. 37). The Court DENIES the Ex Parte Application.

    However, in the spirit of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application, this Court will seek to expedite the resolution of this case. “Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity
    as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”
    McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding dismissal for “failure to say which wrongs were committed by which defendants”). Here, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint because the vast majority of the pleadings were unintelligible and Plaintiffs’ sole intelligible allegations failed to state a claim. In Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, they appear to have removed all
    factual pleadings and instead request an impermissible advisory opinion from this Court about the scope of the Voting Rights Act. U.S. Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993) (“[A] federal court [lacks] the power to render
    advisory opinions.”).

    Thus, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir.
    2008) (explaining that a complaint that is so confusing that its “true substance, if any, is well disguised” may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Omar v. Sea- Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim
    sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with [Rule 8] may be dismissed with prejudice[.]”).

    Plaintiffs shall electronically file a Response on or before August 23, 2012. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, this Court shall dismiss with prejudice. In addition, if Defendants wish to file a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response, they must do so on or before 1 p.m. on
    August 24, 2012.
    Last edited by CPUd; 08-22-2012 at 02:01 PM.

  5. #1804
    This is the part that sticks out to me.

    Thus, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir.
    2008) (explaining that a complaint that is so confusing that its “true substance, if any, is well disguised” may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Omar v. Sea- Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim
    sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with [Rule 8] may be dismissed with prejudice[.]”).

    Plaintiffs shall electronically file a Response on or before August 23, 2012. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, this Court shall dismiss with prejudice. In addition, if Defendants wish to file a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response, they must do so on or before 1 p.m. on
    August 24, 2012.

  6. #1805
    Yeah.

    I wish he'd just file the fact filled complaint but he has a direction and is going for it.
    "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

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  7. #1806
    I have a question, it's off topic so sailing away don't get mad at me... This thread is the one with all the attention so that's why I'm posting the question in it.... Do you guys and gals remember when there was soo much talk about our shadow delegates? And how many we could possibly have??? Do you guys think that it could be possible that they cut that deal in la because we have shadow delegates there that would give us a plurality in that state screwing the GOP over at rnc to give Ron his 5 states?? How awesome would that be??? Anyone thin this Is a real possibility?

  8. #1807
    This is what I thought what would happen.

    What Judge Carter is doing is the following:

    * Hold the case in his court.
    * He believes the case as pleaded is unintelligible (Rule 8), lacks merit (Rule 12(b)(6) and the amendment was in direct defiance of the Court's order (in that it failed to plead sufficient facts).
    * He intends to dismiss -- permanently.
    * To comply with due process, he is giving Gilbert a chance to file a response (basically a justification) -- but not to amend yet again.

    It is over.
    Last edited by SteveT1736; 08-22-2012 at 02:25 PM.

  9. #1808
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    This is what I thought what would happen.

    What Judge Carter is doing is the following:

    * Hold the case in his court.
    * He believes the case as pleaded is unintelligible (Rule 8), lacks merit (Rule 12(b)(6) and the amendment was in direct defiance of the Court's order (in that it failed to plead sufficient facts).
    * He intends to dismiss -- permanently.
    * To comply with due process, he is giving Gilbert a chance to file a response.
    I don't think anyone is confused about what he is doing. It is great how you know his thoughts and intentions, though.
    "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

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #1809
    sailingaway --

    I don't have to do any mind-reading. The Judge was crystal clear when he dismissed the complaint before. If you track the rule references, he is being very direct.

    And, he spells out his intention. An order to show cause states the Court's intention and gives a party one last chance (for due process) to try and overturn that intent.

  12. #1810
    why post it then?
    "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

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  13. #1811
    USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
    We still have a glimmer of hope with th eAppellate Court. I have tried my best. I will continue the fight to the very end
    Expand
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    30m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
    It appears our Trial Judge does not wish to Rule on the merits of the case. I expect the Judge to likely dismiss the case on Friday.

  14. #1812
    Quote Originally Posted by afwjam View Post
    USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
    We still have a glimmer of hope with th eAppellate Court. I have tried my best. I will continue the fight to the very end
    Expand
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    30m USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
    It appears our Trial Judge does not wish to Rule on the merits of the case. I expect the Judge to likely dismiss the case on Friday.
    he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time.
    i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  15. #1813
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time.
    i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.
    Yeah, I'd really like to see the multistate fraud outed. A RICO suit seems appropriate, actually.
    "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

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  16. #1814
    There is one new item on Pacer today:

    08/22/2012 47 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Alabama Resident Jason Williams, Alabama Resident Michael Ramzy, Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen, Alaska Delegate Daryl Lanzonto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, Terminate Hearings, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,, 46 (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

    Here's a link to the document. It's a revised version totally different version from the previous response.
    https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7579656

    The end sounds pretty desperate: "In the quiet solemnity of Chambers, Plaintiffs request ...

    I don't see anything from the judge.

    I don't think we'll see anything from the RNC.
    Last edited by RonRules; 08-22-2012 at 05:14 PM.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  17. #1815
    Quote Originally Posted by RonRules View Post
    There is one new item on Pacer today:

    08/22/2012 47 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Alabama Resident Jason Williams, Alabama Resident Michael Ramzy, Alaska Delegate Barbara Andersen, Alaska Delegate Daryl Lanzonto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held, Terminate Hearings, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,, 46 (Gilbert, Richard) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

    Here's a link to the document. It's a revised version of the previous response.
    https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7579656

    I don't see anything from the judge.
    translate?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  18. #1816
    The problem from the beginning here has been a lack of facts in the complaint, ie. who did what to whom and when and where. Mr. Gilbert failed to give the Judge anything that could be evaluated. Thus, the result. This is simply a failure of following some very basic procedural guidelines.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #1817
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    translate?
    He feels he lost his bet with the lower court and is only hoping for appeal. we never got a chance to add our more fact driven idea of a complaint which we should discuss doing separately, likely.
    "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

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  21. #1818
    I'm going to give Gilbert a nod. His just filed response to the Court's Order to Show Cause is actually pretty well written. I suspect it is not enough, given the Court's current direction. But, it is somewhat better than what I've seen up to this point.

  22. #1819
    Can't we have a money bomb and do this the right way with a real federal attorney??? As many of you hate Stevet, the guy has been dead fkn accurate as to the holes in the case and what the judge would rule!!!! Sailing away let's put together a money bomb And do this the right way!!!! Gilbert is a jackass he really is and I should of known this the day that he blocked me on twitter simply because I had asked him to look at the ideas in this thread!!!! I'm all in for a money bomb done by a powerful attorney the way we want it done!!!!

  23. #1820
    "A reasonable person would not conclude that a fair reading ofthe Second Amended
    Complaint reads like a press release within the meaning of the McHenry v. Rene case.

    Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is not unintelligible and clearly sets forth the
    Federal Question for the Court to rule upon.
    It is clear in the Second Amended Complaint that Defendants are refusing to follow any of
    the U.S. laws cited within the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above. Defendants have
    admitted in oral argument as well as in their written documents the same.
    Plaintiffs respectfully disagree that the Federal Question before the Court is impermissible.

    The language of the Voting Rights Act itself makes it permissible and, indeed, mandatory that the
    District Court act to resolve the claim presented on the merits."

  24. #1821
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    "A reasonable person would not conclude that a fair reading ofthe Second Amended
    Complaint reads like a press release within the meaning of the McHenry v. Rene case.

    Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is not unintelligible and clearly sets forth the
    Federal Question for the Court to rule upon.
    It is clear in the Second Amended Complaint that Defendants are refusing to follow any of
    the U.S. laws cited within the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above. Defendants have
    admitted in oral argument as well as in their written documents the same.
    Plaintiffs respectfully disagree that the Federal Question before the Court is impermissible.

    The language of the Voting Rights Act itself makes it permissible and, indeed, mandatory that the
    District Court act to resolve the claim presented on the merits."

    so the questions are-
    what is the judge to rule on-
    based on what laws
    using what facts
    for what remedy

    have all points been given?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  25. #1822
    It basically says that the judge should find that the convention is a federal election under the Voting Rights Act because the Voting Rights Act says so.

  26. #1823
    torchbearer -- The problem is that the current version of the complaint lacks a single fact. It has lots of conclusions, ie. delegates won't be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice. But, facts are not generalities. They have to specify which delegate is being prevented by whom and how and when did this occur and where (not very artful). There is nothing like that in the amended complaint in front of the Judge. The reason for the "unintelligible" language is that the Judge has no idea if these particular plaintiffs had something done to them by the named defendants.

    The law is the Voting Rights Act. Gilbert keeps trying to get the Court to declare whether or not it applies to a national convention. But, the Court is stuck on the lack of anyone in particular harmed. As I've indicated above, Gilbert keeps trying to run for the finish line when he is still stuck in the starting gate.

  27. #1824
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    torchbearer -- The problem is that the current version of the complaint lacks a single fact. It has lots of conclusions, ie. delegates won't be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice.
    SO instead of saying "delegates won't be allowed to vote for their candidate of their choice"
    he should say, "Louisiana's Executive committee has created rules bindings delegates of that state to vote for a candidate regardless of their choice?" and everything would be fine?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #1825
    or how about this for specific-
    "Villere, chairman of the LAGOP, created rules with consent of other members of the SEC, to prevent Torchbearer from voting who wants at the convention"
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  30. #1826
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Anything is possible. But, you have repeated that claim almost like some kind of mantra. It's like you want everyone to believe that the campaign is some kind of sinister force and poor Dr. Paul doesn't know anything about it. We have no proof of that. Certainly not at this point.
    What is to be gained by furthering this? The truth will come out in the end. How does jumping to conclusions at this point in time serve us?

    And then there are these:

    + Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
    + Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".
    dude...... DUDE. My anger boils. So what if the campaign and even Ron Paul is complicit in all of this. We NEVER GIVE UP, WE NEVER COMPROMISE. We all got a job to do, and each one must concentrate on doing their job to the best of their abilities. The delegates excepted the responsibilty given to them by their neighbours to represent them at the RNC and even if Ron jumped ship, they must make their voices heard and do their job so they can sleep well at night.

  31. #1827
    You are going the right direction. It would need to specify what was the limitation, when it was imposed, etc. But, you are on the right track. This is the issue that has hung Gilbert up from the beginning.

    But, that creates another problem. He named the RNC and 50 state parties. Presume what you said is accurate. How is the Vermont GOP responsible for that? Or, how is the RNC liable for that act? You have to show the culpability of each defendant. My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.
    Last edited by SteveT1736; 08-22-2012 at 05:45 PM.

  32. #1828
    Quote Originally Posted by freedomordeath View Post
    dude...... DUDE. My anger boils. So what if the campaign and even Ron Paul is complicit in all of this. We NEVER GIVE UP, WE NEVER COMPROMISE. We all got a job to do, and each one must concentrate on doing their job to the best of their abilities. The delegates excepted the responsibilty given to them by their neighbours to represent them at the RNC and even if Ron jumped ship, they must make their voices heard and do their job so they can sleep well at night.
    I am suggesting that we focus on the issue at hand and not delve off into assigning blame. Because number one, it's not doing anything to help us get the delegates seated and two, we don't have enough information right now to determine fault.

    I am suggesting we stay focused on getting the delegates seated.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 08-22-2012 at 05:53 PM.

  33. #1829
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    You are going the right direction. It would need to specify what was the limitation, when it was imposed, etc. But, you are on the right track. This is the issue that has hung Gilbert up from the beginning.

    But, that creates another problem. He named the RNC and 50 state parties. Presume what you said is accurate. How is the Vermont GOP responsible for that? Or, how is the RNC liable for that act? You have to show the culpability of each defendant. My own thought is that he tried to go after too many defendants.
    but this isn't the trial- this is like the grand jury of a capital case. the burden of proof is different.
    you'd expect in the case- these things are addressed, but you'd expect in a filing just a reference to the things that will later be proven?
    am i wrong?
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  34. #1830
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    he would have to make a case against the technicals of the trial with the appellate court, and i don't see anything proceduraly wrong. dude bet on the wrong horse. big time.
    i would contribute to an attorney who will pick up the louisiana case against Villere. i was defrauded, damaged. my qualifying fees were taken under false pretenses of a fair election. crimes have been committed. i think a louisiana chipin could happen for a lawyer capable.
    Now we talking, we can get this off the ground and grows this thing. We'll be in control and get the right lawyers. I don't have much money, but am willing to chip in.

Page 61 of 72 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Lawyers settle Paula Deen lawsuit(sexual harrassment) in Georgia
    By juleswin in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-23-2013, 09:56 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-08-2012, 07:23 PM
  3. Potential Opportunities For You To Help 'Lawyers For Ron Paul' Lawsuit
    By ChristopherShelley in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-19-2012, 02:58 PM
  4. Replies: 122
    Last Post: 06-19-2012, 03:15 AM
  5. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-29-2008, 04:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •