Page 9 of 72 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 2144

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

  1. #241
    Im trying to help but man I get a fishy feeling about this thing. Just my .02.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #242


    SERIOUSLY

    THIS


    (Mr Romney spoke from a podium on the 30-yard line of the football field in Detroit, Michigan, as the crowd, mostly men in suits, sat in chairs set up on the artificial turf.)

    WILL BEATS THIS


    ( http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/05/ron...edia-coverage/ )

    CONSENSUS WINS OVER ANYTHING.... PUBLIC NUMBERS NOT PARTY INFLUENCE.... NEVER AGAIN

    Use the law as they have use the law against us..... public demand is the way to go

  4. #243
    Much thanks for the updated OP RDM


    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  5. #244
    I hate to throw cold water, or maybe ice, on this lawsuit, but as far as this being a FEDERAL issue, there is no case.

    See, the RNC cannot bind any delegate to any candidate. The party itself cannot bind a delegate to a candidate. That's already been established.

    The problem is that STATE LAW can bind delegates to candidates. The election of the President is not a national election, it is 50+ state elections. Primaries/caucuses are different in every state.

    If you are a delegate from a state which had a primary which binds delegates based upon that primary result, your case is with your state. A Federal ruling as no jurisdiction on your state election law. The PARTY isn't forcing you to vote for Romney, your STATE is. Your STATE has delcared that delegates represent the "will of the voters". The PARTY cannot stop you from voting for someone else at the Convention, but you are in violation of STATE LAWS, and depending on state, you can be facing fines of $2,500 - $10,000 as well as jail time. Also, the party then is in violation of STATE law and they have penalties as well...ballot status issues and the like. Hence the reason for PARTY discipline for not voting your forced "pledge".
    "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." -- Ronald Reagan, 1964



  6. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Im trying to help but man I get a fishy feeling about this thing. Just my .02.
    I know, it's like, every time you go to put food into your mouth it gets slapped away, then someone says, hey there's a feast going on and no hand slappers are around, you just kinda...

    But let's hope there really aren't hand slappers here with this and don't forget to keep vetting as we go
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  7. #246

  8. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by NCGOPer_for_Paul View Post
    I hate to throw cold water, or maybe ice, on this lawsuit, but as far as this being a FEDERAL issue, there is no case.

    See, the RNC cannot bind any delegate to any candidate. The party itself cannot bind a delegate to a candidate. That's already been established.

    The problem is that STATE LAW can bind delegates to candidates. The election of the President is not a national election, it is 50+ state elections. Primaries/caucuses are different in every state.

    If you are a delegate from a state which had a primary which binds delegates based upon that primary result, your case is with your state. A Federal ruling as no jurisdiction on your state election law. The PARTY isn't forcing you to vote for Romney, your STATE is. Your STATE has delcared that delegates represent the "will of the voters". The PARTY cannot stop you from voting for someone else at the Convention, but you are in violation of STATE LAWS, and depending on state, you can be facing fines of $2,500 - $10,000 as well as jail time. Also, the party then is in violation of STATE law and they have penalties as well...ballot status issues and the like. Hence the reason for PARTY discipline for not voting your forced "pledge".
    Well, the RNC would argue your statement as false:

    Evidence of the RNC’s interpretation of its own rule was presented in 2008 when a delegate from Utah refused to vote for John McCain, the winner of the Utah popular vote. The delegate wanted to cast a vote for Mitt Romney. When the matter was referred to the RNC’s general counsel, the response is illuminating and likely relevant to the present Ron Paul controversy. The RNC attorney wrote:
    [The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose. The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.
    That is about as clear and definitive a restatement of the RNC position as can be expected. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...eir-conscience

  9. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by NCGOPer_for_Paul View Post
    I hate to throw cold water, or maybe ice, on this lawsuit, but as far as this being a FEDERAL issue, there is no case.

    See, the RNC cannot bind any delegate to any candidate. The party itself cannot bind a delegate to a candidate. That's already been established.

    The problem is that STATE LAW can bind delegates to candidates. The election of the President is not a national election, it is 50+ state elections. Primaries/caucuses are different in every state.

    If you are a delegate from a state which had a primary which binds delegates based upon that primary result, your case is with your state. A Federal ruling as no jurisdiction on your state election law. The PARTY isn't forcing you to vote for Romney, your STATE is. Your STATE has delcared that delegates represent the "will of the voters". The PARTY cannot stop you from voting for someone else at the Convention, but you are in violation of STATE LAWS, and depending on state, you can be facing fines of $2,500 - $10,000 as well as jail time. Also, the party then is in violation of STATE law and they have penalties as well...ballot status issues and the like. Hence the reason for PARTY discipline for not voting your forced "pledge".
    Well, a few problems with this analysis.

    1. As mentioned above, the GOP would seem to disagree with your assertion.

    2. The federal government routinely argues that federal law supersedes state law. Constitutionally, I disagree, but if they chose to actually admit that the state law supersedes federal law in this case, it will be clear cut selective application of the law.

    3. If something so simple was going to derail this lawsuit, don't you think that one of the hundred lawyers or thousands of volunteers would have caught it before filing and embarrassing themselves?

    Not trying to disrespect you or anything, just saying.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by RDM View Post
    Well, the RNC would argue your statement as false:

    Evidence of the RNC’s interpretation of its own rule was presented in 2008 when a delegate from Utah refused to vote for John McCain, the winner of the Utah popular vote. The delegate wanted to cast a vote for Mitt Romney. When the matter was referred to the RNC’s general counsel, the response is illuminating and likely relevant to the present Ron Paul controversy. The RNC attorney wrote:
    [The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose. The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.
    That is about as clear and definitive a restatement of the RNC position as can be expected. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...eir-conscience
    That is EXACTLY what I said.

    The RNC CANNOT tell a delegate how to vote. Delegates are NOT bound by the Republican Party, but a delegate can be bound by their State. Does the delegate HAVE to vote the way s/he is bound by their state? NO. BUT, they are subject to criminal and civil penalties, and the PARTY is subject to violations of election law.

    The 2008 case becomes an issue between that delegate and the State of Utah.

    Is it possible that Ron Paul COULD get the delegates and win the nomination at Convention? YES. However, states where delegates went against the binding LAWS could deny the Republican candidate (Paul) ballot access BECAUSE the delegates at the convention did not represent the will of the people of said state and that state's elections board decrees that (Paul) is a fraudlent candidate.
    "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." -- Ronald Reagan, 1964



  12. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by bcreps85 View Post
    Well, a few problems with this analysis.

    1. As mentioned above, the GOP would seem to disagree with your assertion.

    2. The federal government routinely argues that federal law supersedes state law. Constitutionally, I disagree, but if they chose to actually admit that the state law supersedes federal law in this case, it will be clear cut selective application of the law.

    3. If something so simple was going to derail this lawsuit, don't you think that one of the hundred lawyers or thousands of volunteers would have caught it before filing and embarrassing themselves?

    Not trying to disrespect you or anything, just saying.
    1. The GOP wants an orderly convention. 90% of the people in the GOP will go along with whatever they say, right or wrong.

    2. Federal law supersedes state law only in cases where a case has been tried. Not every state has to go along with everything the Feds do. That's established. Some states have elected Lt. Governors, other states don't have them. Heck, County Cororner is an elected office in Pennsylvania. Judges are appointed in New Jersey. Every state has different election laws. The ONLY way Federal law applies here is if each and every state followed the same process for electing delegates. If every state had a caucus run by the PARTY, the lawsuit would be against the RNC, because the RNC controls the state parties. If every state ran a primary where the results of the primary were applied the same nationwide, then the lawsuit is valid. As long as each state elects delegates in a different way, there can be not overreaching Federal decision. What is being asked is if Federal law can trump the decisions made by States to elect their own delegates. If that is to be the case, then the whole parade of caucuses and primaries are basically for naught. Do you want the Feds saying to all States, you will elect delegates THIS WAY?

    3. The ramifications of a decision are great. Even a loss can redefine the whole way we do primaries and caucuses. That's why so many lawyers have hopped on board. This could force a National Primary Day, and eliminate National Nominating Conventions.
    "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." -- Ronald Reagan, 1964



  13. #251
    Our man Ben Swann just posted on his FB page:

    Ben Swann WXIX shared a link.
    33 minutes ago
    Taking a week off to chill with my family. But this is a story I just have to put up. Lawyers For Ron Paul taking over Paul campaign?
    This would have to be a first...
    Trying to get more info on this and I will share with you as it comes in.

  14. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by NCGOPer_for_Paul View Post
    1. The GOP wants an orderly convention. 90% of the people in the GOP will go along with whatever they say, right or wrong.

    2. Federal law supersedes state law only in cases where a case has been tried. Not every state has to go along with everything the Feds do. That's established. Some states have elected Lt. Governors, other states don't have them. Heck, County Cororner is an elected office in Pennsylvania. Judges are appointed in New Jersey. Every state has different election laws. The ONLY way Federal law applies here is if each and every state followed the same process for electing delegates. If every state had a caucus run by the PARTY, the lawsuit would be against the RNC, because the RNC controls the state parties. If every state ran a primary where the results of the primary were applied the same nationwide, then the lawsuit is valid. As long as each state elects delegates in a different way, there can be not overreaching Federal decision. What is being asked is if Federal law can trump the decisions made by States to elect their own delegates. If that is to be the case, then the whole parade of caucuses and primaries are basically for naught. Do you want the Feds saying to all States, you will elect delegates THIS WAY?

    3. The ramifications of a decision are great. Even a loss can redefine the whole way we do primaries and caucuses. That's why so many lawyers have hopped on board. This could force a National Primary Day, and eliminate National Nominating Conventions.
    I agree, this will not only change the outcome of this Primary if successful, but it will also probably force both parties to change the way the Primaries are run. If they want a popular vote to determine the nominee, for example, or any type of vote, then they might have to eliminate the delegate process entirely.

    Judges are not supposed to consider the impact on society when making a decision. They are supposed to decide a case based on the facts and based on how the law applies to those facts. (They often do note the impact to society in their rulings, and sometimes it does influence things to a degree, but if you have a good judge they are going to decide based on the law and let everyone else pick up the pieces later.)

    This Federal law applies to the allegations in the case. I could be wrong but I don't believe they need to try anything in any state courts first. There probably aren't any statutes at the State level regarding coercing someone's vote for a Federal election! (Why would there be?) Assuming that's the case, why would Federal law not apply? That's ridiculous. That would be like saying you need to try someone in their state first for counterfeiting before you can try them for a Federal offense, when counterfeiting is only a Federal offense to begin with.

    The RNC is attempting to manipulate the outcome of this Primary for an election to a Federal office (President), and has been from the beginning, in multiple states all at once. In addition, there is a RICO allegation that will be tried later, and RICO is a Federal statute. Just the fact that the lawsuit alleges an organized effort in multiple states that crosses so many state lines in these violations of the Federal statute, I would think would make this case a Federal issue.

    Sorry to throw a towel on your cold water, but I don't think it will be so easy to get this case dismissed on any technicality. GOP and Romney have f*cked themselves good here, imo.
    Last edited by WhistlinDave; 06-18-2012 at 11:01 AM.
    "Some supporters of the war use their religion to justify the war. Evidently, I’ve been reading from a different Bible." — Ron Paul
    “I'm supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.” ― Ron Paul

    My crazy whistling YouTube channel
    My crazy whistling music on iTunes

  15. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by NCGOPer_for_Paul View Post
    1. The GOP wants an orderly convention. 90% of the people in the GOP will go along with whatever they say, right or wrong.
    I think far more than 10% of the delegates are Ron Paul supporters, and I sure as hell hope they are NOT more interested in an "orderly convention" than in electing the nominee of their choice.

    If it was true that people are going to do what the GOP tells them to, then they are not doing their jobs as delegates. The delegates select the nominee, not the party. That is exactly what this lawsuit is all about.
    "Some supporters of the war use their religion to justify the war. Evidently, I’ve been reading from a different Bible." — Ron Paul
    “I'm supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.” ― Ron Paul

    My crazy whistling YouTube channel
    My crazy whistling music on iTunes

  16. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by WhistlinDave View Post
    I agree, this will not only change the outcome of this Primary if successful, but it will also probably force both parties to change the way the Primaries are run. If they want a popular vote to determine the nominee, for example, or any type of vote, then they might have to eliminate the delegate process entirely.

    Judges are not supposed to consider the impact on society when making a decision. They are supposed to decide a case based on the facts and based on how the law applies to those facts. (They often do note the impact to society in their rulings, and sometimes it does influence things to a degree, but if you have a good judge they are going to decide based on the law and let everyone else pick up the pieces later.)

    This Federal law applies to the allegations in the case. I could be wrong but I don't believe they need to try anything in any state courts first. There probably aren't any statutes at the State level regarding coercing someone's vote for a Federal election! (Why would there be?) Assuming that's the case, why would Federal law not apply? That's ridiculous. That would be like saying you need to try someone in their state first for counterfeiting before you can try them for a Federal offense, when counterfeiting is only a Federal offense to begin with.

    The RNC is attempting to manipulate the outcome of this Primary for an election to a Federal office (President), and has been from the beginning, in multiple states all at once. In addition, there is a RICO allegation that will be tried later, and RICO is a Federal statute. Just the fact that the lawsuit alleges an organized effort in multiple states that crosses so many state lines in these violations of the Federal statute, I would think would make this case a Federal issue.

    Sorry to throw a towel on your cold water, but I don't think it will be so easy to get this case dismissed on any technicality. GOP and Romney have f*cked themselves good here, imo.
    You raise some interesting points.

    However, the Presidential election is NOT a National election. It is 50+ seperate state elections.

    I think people are getting things confused. Did the RNC and state parties violate RNC Rule #11 as it related to endorsing Romney prior to the Convention? Yes, that's pretty obvious. What's the penalty though? Especially if all delegates are officially unbound at the Convention. The question would be if there is actual proof of State Parties acting in conjuction with the RNC to force State Conventions to vote for Romney delegates in States that are not bound by State binding laws. Or, did the RNC work with the Romney campaign in primaries in states prior to him "clinching" the nomination.

    RNC Rule #38 (I think) applies to delegates being "free agents" at the Convention. Again, a delegate is FREE AT THE CONVENTION TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER S/HE CHOOSES. This rule though, DOES NOT COVER A DELEGATE'S STATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WHO HAS BEEN BOUND BY STATE LAW. That delegate can do anything at the Convention, but is subject to penalties by his or her state. The "block rule" applies to the State Party forcing delegates to vote a certain way.

    The court can very easily rule that a delegate is free to do whatever s/he chooses at the convention, but state law applies to bounding, and a private organization (the Republican Party) cannot tell a state (elections board) how to conduct a state-run primary election, ESPECIALLY if the taxpayers are funding it. That's the most likely outcome...which is the status quo.

    The court COULD find state law binding of delegates unconsititutional. North Carolina's binding law IS unconstitutional, as we have our Congressional district conventions PRIOR TO the PRIMARY which binds delegates proportionally. However, no candidate has ever had standing to challenge it. This COULD eliminate primaries, and make everything party-run caucuses, which is the way things used to be done, which led to the "smoke-filled rooms" complaints.

    The court could also rule that such and such day in April is Presidential Primary Day and every state is winner take all (like the electoral college).

    I'm not saying this lawsuit doesn't have some merit. I'm not sure if the entities being sued are the correct ones, and even if the delegates have standing.
    "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." -- Ronald Reagan, 1964



  17. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by NCGOPer_for_Paul View Post
    You raise some interesting points.

    However, the Presidential election is NOT a National election. It is 50+ seperate state elections....

    The court can very easily rule that a delegate is free to do whatever s/he chooses at the convention, but state law applies to bounding, and a private organization (the Republican Party) cannot tell a state (elections board) how to conduct a state-run primary election, ESPECIALLY if the taxpayers are funding it. That's the most likely outcome...which is the status quo.
    I disagree. If you read the actual statutes cited in the complaint (lawsuit), I think the Federal law pretty clearly defines that if you are selecting a nominee to a Federal office such as President, then that qualifies as a Federal election, and this includes the primaries regardless of how or where they are carried out. See below.

    And again, regarding state laws, state party rules, and/or state penalties, if any of those violate the Federal law, then they become nullified because Federal law supercedes state law.

    http://www.toolsforjustice.com/1_COM...%28JPRx%29.pdf

    § 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)).

    (a) Election means the process by which individuals, whether opposed or unopposed, seek nomination for election, or election, to Federal office. The specific types of elections, as set forth at 11 CFR 100.2 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are included in this definition.

    (b) General election. A general election is an election which meets either of the following conditions:

    (1) An election held in even numbered years on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November is a general election.

    (2) An election which is held to fill a vacancy in a Federal office ( i.e. , a special election) and which is intended to result in the final selection of a single individual to the office at stake is a general election. See 11 CFR 100.2(f).

    (c) Primary election. A primary election is an election which meets one of the following conditions:

    (1) An election which is held prior to a general election, as a direct result of which candidates are nominated, in accordance with applicable State law, for election to Federal office in a subsequent election is a primary election.

    (2) An election which is held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of persons for election to the office of President of the United States is a primary election.

    (3) An election which is held to elect delegates to a national nominating convention is a primary election.
    "Some supporters of the war use their religion to justify the war. Evidently, I’ve been reading from a different Bible." — Ron Paul
    “I'm supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.” ― Ron Paul

    My crazy whistling YouTube channel
    My crazy whistling music on iTunes

  18. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by NCGOPer_for_Paul View Post
    You raise some interesting points.

    However, the Presidential election is NOT a National election. It is 50+ seperate state elections.

    I think people are getting things confused. Did the RNC and state parties violate RNC Rule #11 as it related to endorsing Romney prior to the Convention? Yes, that's pretty obvious. What's the penalty though? Especially if all delegates are officially unbound at the Convention. The question would be if there is actual proof of State Parties acting in conjuction with the RNC to force State Conventions to vote for Romney delegates in States that are not bound by State binding laws. Or, did the RNC work with the Romney campaign in primaries in states prior to him "clinching" the nomination.

    RNC Rule #38 (I think) applies to delegates being "free agents" at the Convention. Again, a delegate is FREE AT THE CONVENTION TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER S/HE CHOOSES. This rule though, DOES NOT COVER A DELEGATE'S STATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WHO HAS BEEN BOUND BY STATE LAW. That delegate can do anything at the Convention, but is subject to penalties by his or her state. The "block rule" applies to the State Party forcing delegates to vote a certain way.

    The court can very easily rule that a delegate is free to do whatever s/he chooses at the convention, but state law applies to bounding, and a private organization (the Republican Party) cannot tell a state (elections board) how to conduct a state-run primary election, ESPECIALLY if the taxpayers are funding it. That's the most likely outcome...which is the status quo.

    The court COULD find state law binding of delegates unconsititutional. North Carolina's binding law IS unconstitutional, as we have our Congressional district conventions PRIOR TO the PRIMARY which binds delegates proportionally. However, no candidate has ever had standing to challenge it. This COULD eliminate primaries, and make everything party-run caucuses, which is the way things used to be done, which led to the "smoke-filled rooms" complaints.

    The court could also rule that such and such day in April is Presidential Primary Day and every state is winner take all (like the electoral college).

    I'm not saying this lawsuit doesn't have some merit. I'm not sure if the entities being sued are the correct ones, and even if the delegates have standing.

    i dont think the focus is on internal rules as much as the RNC being a federally funded event and the delegates going there can't be compelled to vote a certain way because it would be a violation of federal law.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #257
    I'm confused about this. This needs to happen ASAP if it is going to impact the convention, or else it will have already happened and the trial will still be going on.

  21. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by chris41336 View Post
    I'm confused about this. This needs to happen ASAP if it is going to impact the convention, or else it will have already happened and the trial will still be going on.
    Process servers are delivering lawsuit documents to defendants as we speak. The Lawyers for Ron Paul team are fairly confident that the case will heard within a month.

  22. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by RDM View Post
    Process servers are delivering lawsuit documents to defendants as we speak. The Lawyers for Ron Paul team are fairly confident that the case will heard within a month.
    Eh...I won't get my hopes up. I've done that way too many times this race, just to be severely disappointed.

  23. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by chris41336 View Post
    Eh...I won't get my hopes up. I've done that way too many times this race, just to be severely disappointed.
    Poor you.

  24. #261
    Just Posted:

    Allan Colmes said he wants the lawyers on his show.

  25. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherShelley View Post
    Poor you.
    I'm not asking for a pity party. I just am going to wait this out and hope for the best, the legality of it seems sound, but they always find a way to screw us over. At least they do for now. After this election we have so many liberty candidates in power it won't be this easy anymore. This is their last hurrah.

  26. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by RDM View Post
    Just Posted:

    Allan Colmes said he wants the lawyers on his show.
    Posted where?

  27. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotOne View Post
    Posted where?
    He mentioned it on his radio show yesterday. I don't have a link for it. Someone posted about it on the Lawyers for Ron Paul FB page.
    Last edited by RDM; 06-19-2012 at 08:18 AM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by RDM View Post
    He mentioned it on his radio show yesterday. I don't have a link for it. Someone posted about it on the Lawyers for Ron Paul FB page.
    Thxs. I listened to the Power Hour interview. The laywer sounded like he could handle himself quite well so I hope he does it. Though he should be aware that Clear Channel Communications (Mitt Romney owned) and Fox News have a distribution deal. Basically he may be going on a show distributed by Mitt Romney's company.
    Last edited by PatriotOne; 06-19-2012 at 08:27 AM.

  30. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotOne View Post
    Thxs. I listened to the Power Hour interview. The laywer sounded like he could handle himself quite well so I hope he does it. Though he should be aware that Clear Channel Communications (Mitt Romney owned) and Fox News have a distribution deal. Basically he may be going on a show distributed by Mitt Romney's company.
    Would that be something Allan Colmes would have to worry about. You know...fired?

  31. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by RDM View Post
    Would that be something Allan Colmes would have to worry about. You know...fired?
    It certainly would give Allan pause as to how he covered the story at best scenario. Can't imagine he would become a "Go Ron Paul Lawyers" cheerleader knowing his show could get cancelled "for some other reason". Worst case scenario is Allan attempts to ridicule the whole lawsuit...being an employee of Fox News and all. I don't know why Allan is interested in the story, but just think the lawyer needs to know the links between Mitt's company (Clear Channel) and Fox Radio so he can be prepared for the worst.

  32. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotOne View Post
    Clear Channel Communications (Mitt Romney owned)

    Yeah, that isn't true.

    It's very important for our movement that we maintain a high level of credibility. Repeating incorrect statements wins us no friends, favors or trust.
    Last edited by KingNothing; 06-19-2012 at 09:20 AM.

  33. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotOne View Post
    It certainly would give Allan pause as to how he covered the story at best scenario. Can't imagine he would become a "Go Ron Paul Lawyers" cheerleader knowing his show could get cancelled "for some other reason". Worst case scenario is Allan attempts to ridicule the whole lawsuit...being an employee of Fox News and all. I don't know why Allan is interested in the story, but just think the lawyer needs to know the links between Mitt's company (Clear Channel) and Fox Radio so he can be prepared for the worst.

    They are aware, it's been posted.

  34. #270
    Not much preparation required for honest integrity...

    It's those who have something to hide or spin who need to prepare.

Page 9 of 72 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... 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
  •