Page 38 of 72 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,140 of 2144

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

  1. #1111
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    I think the critical mistake was suing too broadly. You have to show wrongdoing by EACH individual plaintiff. Filing against every state party was doomed to failure. Even in the states with apparent wrongdoing, you have to show how specifically how the particular state party, not just individuals, was tied to individual acts.

    The real flaw in Gilbert's complaint is that there is not even a glimmer that any particular defendant did anything on a specific date in a specific location. That is deadly.

    As I indicated above, the Court said this was the last chance. Gilbert blew it today. My assumption (evidently flawed) was that he would follow the Judge's prompting and provide detailed factual allegations tied to his claims. He didn't even try. I suspect he has just given up.
    Or he's decided to base the entire complaint on what the RNC counsel said in court :

    Defendants do not intend to apply the Laws of the United States of America to the Federal Election, commonly known as the Republican National Convention commencing August 27, 2012.

    Rather, Defendants intend to apply their own private rules disregarding the Laws of the United States and further, Defendants claim they can violate their own rules at any time Defendants choose. Defendants have represented this position to this Federal Court on August 6, 2012, on the record in argument.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #1112
    sailingaway -- I think I pointed out above that there is no such thing as an "amicus complaint". Amicus briefs are documents supporting the legal arguments of parties. They require court approval or party agreement before being filed.

    An outside filing now can't correct the fact that Mr. Gilbert has utterly failed to plead sufficient facts to allow his lawsuit to proceed. It is an absolute requirement that a plaintiff's complaint meet the minimum standards for factual sufficiency.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #1113
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    sailingaway -- I think I pointed out above that there is no such thing as an "amicus complaint". Amicus briefs are documents supporting the legal arguments of parties. They require court approval or party agreement before being filed.

    An outside filing now can't correct the fact that Mr. Gilbert has utterly failed to plead sufficient facts to allow his lawsuit to proceed. It is an absolute requirement that a plaintiff's complaint meet the minimum standards for factual sufficiency.
    IF the court wants to they have a lot of discretion, and that is why I wish Gilbert weren't so testing the judge's good will. IF a third party filed facts and affidavits (regardless of if thrown out) that piqued the court's curiousity and made him feel someone else might do a better job with the complaint he might give court approval to intervene. Can't people intervene? If we have one more delegate, can't we?

    You are ignoring how much the court CAN do IF it wants to. I understand it would need to entice the judge but he put in long hours late at night because he felt there was something there, and while he may be getting sick of Gilbert I think he might want to give the CASE a chance if it looked like the facts were actually there for a complaint. Gilbert preemptively filing a complaint amendment or asking leave to supplement would be best but given what he has just done, I don't hold my breath for it. I just want someone with federal trial experience who DOESN'T want the case to die to comment on what can be done and the state of the case, overall.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 08-09-2012 at 10:20 PM.
    "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

  6. #1114
    After reading the amended complaint, it seems that Gilbert is asking the court to have the RNC notify all delegates that, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, all delegates are free to vote as they see fit. It's a narrow ruling that he's asking for, but with broad implications.

    It reminds me of the privacy notices we've all received from credit card companies. They state what your rights are under the Privacy Act. A ruling in Gilbert's favor would put the same onus on political parties to notify delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act if the judge agrees with Gilbert's interpretation.

    One thing I noticed is that Jennifer Sheehan, in her letter to Nancy Lord, states that a candidate must have a majority from 5 states to be put into nomination. I have heard that it needs to be a plurality, not a majority, from 5 states.
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  7. #1115
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle
    "What I don't understand is why he isn't giving the judge what he said he needed. The judge seems to be giving him all kinds of opportunities.
    Is anyone else frustrated?"

    Popeye: Oh, what am I? Some kind of barnicle on the dinghy of life? Oh, I ain't no doctors, but I knows that I'm losing me patience. What am I? Some kind of judge or lawyers? Maybe not, but I knows what law suitks me

    I wish I could have been in the courtroom Monday evening to hear the final arguments and see the body language and The Judge's reaction to the RNC lawyer when he claims the rights to whims of RNC rule changing. There is more to it than what we can see from here.
    Last edited by TheKnowBuddies; 08-09-2012 at 10:26 PM.

  8. #1116
    I don't know.
    Last edited by lawdida; 09-10-2012 at 12:57 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    Righteous mutiny - RPF is taking over the lawsuit.
    Boom:

    Are we just playing around?

    The Grand Shi Strategy

  9. #1117
    I don't know.
    Last edited by lawdida; 09-10-2012 at 12:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    Righteous mutiny - RPF is taking over the lawsuit.
    Boom:

    Are we just playing around?

    The Grand Shi Strategy

  10. #1118
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_dub View Post
    After reading the amended complaint, it seems that Gilbert is asking the court to have the RNC notify all delegates that, pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, all delegates are free to vote as they see fit. It's a narrow ruling that he's asking for, but with broad implications.

    It reminds me of the privacy notices we've all received from credit card companies. They state what your rights are under the Privacy Act. A ruling in Gilbert's favor would put the same onus on political parties to notify delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act if the judge agrees with Gilbert's interpretation.

    One thing I noticed is that Jennifer Sheehan, in her letter to Nancy Lord, states that a candidate must have a majority from 5 states to be put into nomination. I have heard that it needs to be a plurality, not a majority, from 5 states.
    there was a rule change since 2008 making it a plurality. But in our states we have a majority, anyhow, unless credentials committee pulls outrageous shenanigans and we don't have enough altogether.
    "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

  11. #1119
    Don't over-read the Judge's direction to amend. Under federal case law, on a motion to dismiss, that must be granted once as a right.

    Reread the Judge's decision. He thinks Gilbert's complaint was poorly done and told him specifically what was necessary to avoid dismissal -- specific, detailed and concrete facts tied to the claims. There is no justification -- none -- for failing to follow that direction.

    The legal arguments about binding, etc. are utterly and completely irrelevant. The Plaintiffs' complaint is insufficient. The only version before the Court is now the current one (previous versions are wiped out by an amendment). I challenge anyone to find any incident in the new complaint where anyone of the Defendants on any specific date did anything that was a violation of federal law. It isn't there. That is why the next step is dismissal with prejudice -- which means it is over.

    By the way, these standards are virtually identical to those required in state court. This is a question of basic competency.

  12. #1120
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    Don't over-read the Judge's direction to amend. Under federal case law, on a motion to dismiss, that must be granted once as a right.

    Reread the Judge's decision. He thinks Gilbert's complaint was poorly done and told him specifically what was necessary to avoid dismissal -- specific, detailed and concrete facts tied to the claims. There is no justification -- none -- for failing to follow that direction.

    The legal arguments about binding, etc. are utterly and completely irrelevant. The Plaintiffs' complaint is insufficient. The only version before the Court is now the current one (previous versions are wiped out by an amendment). I challenge anyone to find any incident in the new complaint where anyone of the Defendants on any specific date did anything that was a violation of federal law. It isn't there. That is why the next step is dismissal with prejudice -- which means it is over.

    By the way, these standards are virtually identical to those required in state court. This is a question of basic competency.
    the complaint asks a ruling on whether the act applies to the RNC. The complaint refers to the attorney's on the record statement (fact) saying the act does not apply to the RNC. Then the complaint argues law.

    I would like a lot more facts on the multistate pattern and practice of fraud and abuse shutting out Ron Paul delegates, but even if he acted incompetently, and it doesn't fly, that only BRINGS US to the question of what we'd do. Clearly, the court doesn't have to let anything happen but the court didn't have to stay up to midnight getting his ruling out with mega detail to help Gilbert on the complaint either. I notice you don't say the court is UNABLE to allow another amendment, and I am discussing what might make the court want to do so.

    But that is where asking someone who doesn't hate the case to look at it comes in.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 08-09-2012 at 10:36 PM.
    "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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #1121
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    there was a rule change since 2008 making it a plurality. But in our states we have a majority, anyhow, unless credentials committee pulls outrageous shenanigans and we don't have enough altogether.
    Thanks, but that was really an aside to the rest of my post.

    Using the Privacy Act as an analogy, Gilbert may just be asking the court to order the RNC to inform the delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act. Using this approach, no wrongdoing needs to be proved. Again, using the Privacy Act analogy, no company has to be shown to be violating it to be required to notify its customers of their rights.

    So long as the judge agrees that the VRA supercedes any party rules or state laws, it is merely a formality to require notification.

    At least that's my read on it. It's like he's chosen the path of least resistance.
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  15. #1122
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_dub View Post
    Thanks, but that was really an aside to the rest of my post.

    Using the Privacy Act as an analogy, Gilbert may just be asking the court to order the RNC to inform the delegates of their rights under the Voting Rights Act. Using this approach, no wrongdoing needs to be proved. Again, using the Privacy Act analogy, no company has to be shown to be violating it to be required to notify its customers of their rights.

    So long as the judge agrees that the VRA supercedes any party rules or state laws, it is merely a formality to require notification.

    At least that's my read on it. It's like he's chosen the path of least resistance.
    I agree that is what his intent seems to be.
    "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. #1123
    sailingaway -- A fact is something a Defendant did to a Plaintiff. A statement of a legal position is not wrongdoing by definition.

    Assume that I state in Court that it is my client's position that contracts are voidable with respect to parties over 50. Would that allow for a lawsuit? No. A Plaintiff could only sue if my client failed to honor a specific contract of someone over 50. Then, they could sue for that specific act.

    Courts don't deal with hypothetical situations. They deal with concrete wrongs. Again, look through the amended complaint and identify one specific situation with a specific date and location where a specific Defendant did something of legal consequence to a specific Plaintiff. You won't find one.

  17. #1124
    I don't know.
    Last edited by lawdida; 09-10-2012 at 12:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    Righteous mutiny - RPF is taking over the lawsuit.
    Boom:

    Are we just playing around?

    The Grand Shi Strategy

  18. #1125
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    sailingaway -- A fact is something a Defendant did to a Plaintiff. A statement of a legal position is not wrongdoing by definition.

    Assume that I state in Court that it is my client's position that contracts are voidable with respect to parties over 50. Would that allow for a lawsuit? No. A Plaintiff could only sue if my client failed to honor a specific contract of someone over 50. Then, they could sue for that specific act.

    Courts don't deal with hypothetical situations. They deal with concrete wrongs. Again, look through the amended complaint and identify one specific situation with a specific date and location where a specific Defendant did something of legal consequence to a specific Plaintiff. You won't find one.
    While the hypothetical you laid out may not be grounds to sue for damages, the fact of having such a policy could be challenged if there is an over-arching law that prevents you from having such a contract clause. Could you not be made to notify your customers of any change in policy resulting from such a challenge? That seems to be the crux of what Gilbert is asking for, though it is not neatly laid out.
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  19. #1126
    Did you guys take a look at the amended complaint yet.

    http://electionfraudremedy.com/2nd_a...lant_4DJIR.pdf
    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

  20. #1127
    The question is that of binding and that of an action in the future. How do we approach this? The current harm to the delegates is the binding, but that is in reference to a future act.

    The case that SteveT referenced earlier (sample VRA case) delt with voting in the past of a county that amended the state constitution.

    We are dealing with a threat to the freedom to vote in the future, binding.
    "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

  21. #1128
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    Did you guys take a look at the amended complaint yet.

    http://electionfraudremedy.com/2nd_a...lant_4DJIR.pdf
    Yes, I read it.
    "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



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #1129
    I think the only "help" we might be to the current complaint is adding more concrete evidence to how binding threatens the delegates ability to vote freely.

    Plantiffs are the Who is harmed.
    Defendants are the Who are causing the harm.
    Binding is the what is being done to Plantiffs by Defendants.
    When is 2008 to present, during the rules committe and voting on the rules.

    is this a start?
    Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 08-09-2012 at 11:18 PM.
    "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

  24. #1130
    By MATT REYNOLDS

    SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) - A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing the Republican establishment of thwarting Ron Paul's bid for the party's presidential nomination, but left the door open for an amended complaint.

    U.S. District Judge David Carter rejected allegations by delegates to the Republican National Convention and other Paul supporters that the party establishment used underhanded tactics to undermine Paul's bid to secure the nomination.

    Though he found their claims vague and mostly unintelligible, he gave them a "third and final opportunity" to amend their complaint.
    Paul's supporters had claimed that the Republican National Committee and state GOP operatives violated the Voting Rights Act by misusing state bylaws, threatening voters, and using election fraud to prevent voters and delegates from casting their votes for the libertarian icon.

    They claimed that a gun had been used to "threaten a plaintiff to vote as ordered" and that "bones have been broken," among other allegations.

    In his 20-page order, Carter granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, saying the claims were unintelligible and lacked plausibility under the Voting Rights Act -- the same law Paul voted against reauthorizing six years ago.
    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/09/49160.htm

  25. #1131
    See, I knew they were going to mention that (the same law Paul voted against reauthorizing six years ago) since it was stated in the dismissal by the judge.
    "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

  26. #1132
    Any comments on post #1128? I'm trying to get a ball rolling, but first need a ball
    "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

  27. #1133
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveT1736 View Post
    sailingaway -- A fact is something a Defendant did to a Plaintiff. A statement of a legal position is not wrongdoing by definition.

    Assume that I state in Court that it is my client's position that contracts are voidable with respect to parties over 50. Would that allow for a lawsuit? No. A Plaintiff could only sue if my client failed to honor a specific contract of someone over 50. Then, they could sue for that specific act.

    Courts don't deal with hypothetical situations. They deal with concrete wrongs. Again, look through the amended complaint and identify one specific situation with a specific date and location where a specific Defendant did something of legal consequence to a specific Plaintiff. You won't find one.
    If you were suing only for the determination of the specific federal question of whether contracts were voidable for those over 50 that the attorney for the other side stated their legal belief to the contrary, prior to an event where your rights would be irrevocably damaged if your contract were voided, it might. But I don't know because I am not a federal litigator whether it is sufficient pleading. Regardless, the parts of the case that were more attractive to me personally involved the multistate pattern and practice of fraud and abuse to disenfranchise Ron Paul delegates. So I would like to see that in there. But you aren't trying to help fix it, you are trying to get people to give up, and didn't like the suit before you ever saw the complaint.

    It isn't like we can erase what Gilbert is doing. We would like it better directed and we would like some representation of the interests of the delegates who are plaintiffs who didn't have someone to represent them.

    So our discussion should be about if there is a way to get that here, and just tearing down what has already been filed, without statements how to fix it, is not helpful.
    "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

  28. #1134
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    I think the only "help" we might be to the current complaint is adding more concrete evidence to how binding threatens the delegates ability to vote freely.

    Plantiffs are the Who is harmed.
    Defendants are the Who are causing the harm.
    Binding is the what is being done to Plantiffs by Defendants.
    When is 2008 to present, during the rules committe and voting on the rules.

    is this a start?
    It is a start to what Gilbert is getting at, I think, because you are right, this is more declaratory judgement than suit for damages for past acts, past acts are relevant mostly to show the PROCLIVITY of defendents to act badly thereby giving rise to the need for the declaratory judgment and the statement by the attorney is what Gilbert is using instead, to show that proclivity.

    MY complaint would be more like, there is a pattern and practice of fraud and abuse over the states generally, 'as demonstrated by acts including without limitation to' and specify Louisiana, Oregon, maybe the initial Missouri caucus in St Charles, Maine and Colorado with the fake slates and the payments by the Romney campaign to the guy who passed those slates, alleging also that the RNC and Romney campaign were acting in an intertwined fashion, note the letters coming to Maine from Boston, the 'victory fund' and 'nominee' stuff, etc. Then I'd say that because of that we have reason to believe they may cheat again in credentials determinations and lay out the cases for our delegates,

    ....and my view would be that the RNC rules aren't 'irrelevant' but that once they as a contract are accepted by people participating in their primary over another to lead to the National Convention, to change those rules to keep delegates duly elected from voting after all contests are over is impermissible. That leaves the 'association' issue it is saying they COULD have framed their association differently but they didn't. It would be saying there is a point where it is disenfranchisement to unilaterally deny duly elected delegates where fraud and abuse has been perpetrated against them in the delegate process under the rules they chose to begin with.

    That may not be very clear because I am getting a bit tired at this point, and I'm trying to work on something else at the same time, but it is the response I can give to that post tonight.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 08-09-2012 at 11:51 PM.
    "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

  29. #1135
    I don't know.
    Last edited by lawdida; 09-10-2012 at 12:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    Righteous mutiny - RPF is taking over the lawsuit.
    Boom:

    Are we just playing around?

    The Grand Shi Strategy

  30. #1136
    Quote Originally Posted by lawdida View Post
    This comment is borderline insulting. I am not attempting to sabotage this case because I think it's the wrong strategy, and I certainly am able to reason objectively.
    That doesn't have bearing on what I said.

    Steve hasn't even said he's against the strategy. He's just giving you his honest opinion about how things have gone and how they'll turn out. I don't recall him saying it shouldn't have been one case in federal court, regardless of who's handling it (my position).
    But when I assumed it in my posts, he didn't deny it, either.
    "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



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #1137
    Righteous mutiny - RPF is taking over the lawsuit.

  33. #1138
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    The question is that of binding and that of an action in the future. How do we approach this? The current harm to the delegates is the binding, but that is in reference to a future act.

    The case that SteveT referenced earlier (sample VRA case) delt with voting in the past of a county that amended the state constitution.

    We are dealing with a threat to the freedom to vote in the future, binding.
    Hasn't this case always been about "Guidance" going forward. The Federal Court's opinion of freedom to vote conscience without coercion or intimidation and the protection Federal Law verses RNC Rules on the matter of voter rights. Binding votes verses freedom to abstain or vote conscience.
    Does fraud and all the other allegations really matter if it is considered, as Gilbert pointed out, that RNC Attorney is on record (evident) that RNC believes they can follow, change, abandon and/or break their own rules to effect the outcome of the election process for the Offices of the President and Vice President of the United States. We know the media supports the positions of the RNC. The question is, does the Federal Court see it differently.
    On record, The RNC prefers their own methods with out regard to existing Federal Law. I see that as thumbing the nose at the Judge. Judges don't like that and that might be what comes into play with allowing the new amended complaint. Maybe there was a wink and a nod that we were unable to see.
    Last edited by TheKnowBuddies; 08-10-2012 at 12:02 AM.

  34. #1139
    Quote Originally Posted by lawdida View Post
    At this juncture, the most productive thing that can be done is to try to get the suit withdrawn. If it's too late for that, then it's too late to do anything else to help this case.

    Then, try to get delegates who have been wronged (and can prove it) to bring their claims in their respective states (too late for the RNC) using competent counsel.

    Remember: Free something isn't always better than nothing. We're beginning to see evidence of that in this case.

    This is my proposal for a fix and not a tear-down of what has already occurred.
    How is withdrawing not a tear down?

    The point is this, we can't withdraw what Gilbert already filed. We might be able to influence it. So withdraw isn't a workable solution. If I were the only plaintiff I might file with a different attorney-- although to be honest, I think I do not agree it should be in multiple states because that dulls the truly shocking multistate impact of the pattern and practice of fraud and abuse across the nation imho. It is as if they COUNT on being able to do it, and where they were most succesful they get away with it because then we don't HAVE delegates to argue about having them seat. That is kind of frustrating, and it being in federal court allows it to be addressed. But no one here is saying with an unfiled case 'go out and hire this guy', we already have him, and can't unilaterally stop him. We may know plaintiffs who can influence him but since other plaintiffs are also involved, I don't see a practical way that withdrawal could occur even if we wanted it to.
    "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

  35. #1140
    I don't know.
    Last edited by lawdida; 09-10-2012 at 12:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    Righteous mutiny - RPF is taking over the lawsuit.
    Boom:

    Are we just playing around?

    The Grand Shi Strategy

Page 38 of 72 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... 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
  •