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

[affa]

It's bad PR because GOP insiders who want us and our ideas to go away will use it against us with other party members or even independents who might otherwise would have been interested in working with/joining us.

I'm amused by your "bad PR is good" strategy and applaud you for going for such a bold position. I still disagree, but people will have to judge for themselves I suppose.

C'mon. You're being ridiculous.

"Oh, honey, I was considering supporting Ron Paul but then, just last week, I heard some of his delegates were filing a lawsuit because they felt they'd been unfairly treated by the RNC! Screw them, I'm voting for Romney!"

The media has a field day with misrepresenting Ron Paul, outright lying about Ron Paul, and belittling and ridiculing his supporters. And you think this lawsuit is somehow going to be the straw that convinces people not to support Ron Paul. Ridiculous.

[libertylastchance]

So 1 lawsuit gainst RNC is creating bad blood but your suggestion for hunderts of lawsuits in every state will not create bad blood???? 1 is bad PR and another is good????????????????????????????????
You made your point. I dont agree with it. Stop stuffing your ideas down my/peoples throat/s. I am not going to stop supporting it, it will only make me not like you. If you start a project regarding this issue I will be glad to help.....

I was for this lawsuit from begining and I did read all documents because I am interested in this. I am aware of flaws in lawsuit and I am aware of Richard Gilberts personality and his flaws(I got 1 too(EVIL); RonRules is ineffective; LibertyEagle doesnt have sense of humor). I told him (them) that openly. All this doesnt change simple fact: This lawsuit is right thing to do. We all make mistakes and we cant be best friends with everybody but that doesne mean we must sabotage each others efforts to get Ron Paul elected, promeote liberty etc.

I am also aware of problems on this forum and that current way of gathering information for LFRP is flawed but I stick with it because it is right thing to do (even if we do it with flawed methods).


Should we make a posts about collecting these inforamtion on Twitter, facebook, Dailypaul.com, RonPaul.com etc.?
How will privacy of people giving information be protected?
Who will do a "need to do" list?

Nobel effort, will be interesting to see how much of "who, where, when " you can actually gather.. certainly you can use the plaintiffs listed , as they are the ones who would have to provide the "proof"...
And how will this be of any benefit to RG as he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment? Certainly he has done "all" of this, as the judge was very clear, anticipating reading the final amendment

[RonRules]

he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment?

Don't assume that. Cooler heads have had a discussion.

[RonRules]

Entertainment interlude:

http://aboutmittromney.com/libertarians.htm

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[No1butPaul]

The case proves they're a bunch of liars.

Now that fictional conversation sounds like it took place on a playground.

(Told you they couldn't keep up their end.)

[libertylastchance]

So 1 lawsuit gainst RNC is creating bad blood but your suggestion for hunderts of lawsuits in every state will not create bad blood???? 1 is bad PR and another is good????????????????????????????????
You made your point. I dont agree with it. Stop stuffing your ideas down my/peoples throat/s. I am not going to stop supporting it, it will only make me not like you. If you start a project regarding this issue I will be glad to help.....

I was for this lawsuit from begining and I did read all documents because I am interested in this. I am aware of flaws in lawsuit and I am aware of Richard Gilberts personality and his flaws(I got 1 too(EVIL); RonRules is ineffective; LibertyEagle doesnt have sense of humor). I told him (them) that openly. All this doesnt change simple fact: This lawsuit is right thing to do. We all make mistakes and we cant be best friends with everybody but that doesne mean we must sabotage each others efforts to get Ron Paul elected, promeote liberty etc.

I am also aware of problems on this forum and that current way of gathering information for LFRP is flawed but I stick with it because it is right thing to do (even if we do it with flawed methods).


Should we make a posts about collecting these inforamtion on Twitter, facebook, Dailypaul.com, RonPaul.com etc.?
How will privacy of people giving information be protected?
Who will do a "need to do" list?

Nobel effort, will be interesting to see how much of "who, where, when " you can actually gather.. certainly you can use the plaintiffs listed , as they are the ones who would have to provide the "proof"...
And how will this be of any benefit to RG as he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment? Certainly he has done "all" of this, as the judge was very clear, anticipating reading the final amendment

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[tod evans]

Lawdida,

I can see the logic of your position to an extent...

Suing the ATF because of a rogue agents actions is obviously futile.

I have no idea, but I would hope that there's proof of a larger conspiracy in the instant case. There have been too many similar incidences from one state to the next to discount the possibility.

Interstate collusion when combined with corrosion is enough to reach the bar of federal jurisdiction.

As far as alienating the rank-n-file GOP , from my personal perspective they exist in another reality and short of a Ron Paul presidency can serve no useful purpose to me. (I've said time and again that dems/repubs are just a new head for the same monster)

Again only my opinion......I have absolutely nothing for either political party, it's Ron Paul who I've chosen to support and even if this Gilbert fellow is a flake he is making a ruckus to try and get Paul delegates to the convention unmolested...

I'm kind of a fatalist in that I really don't see anything left of the America I grew up in much after this election let alone 2016...Even if RP is elected by some miracle he won't have much to work with to try and get our country back on track...

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[TheGrinch]

Holy $#@!, in the 2 days since I last read this thread, it's doubled in size to 42 pages (the reason I set it to 20 posts a page or it's doubled to 82 by now!)

Anyone got a cliffsnotes version of what's happening or did a troll fight just break out?

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[robertwerden]

finally

[ClydeCoulter]

Can we get the hivemind to look into this case? The judge is clearly stating that it relates to the case:
"But this is not to say that more complete briefing by Plaintiffs could not elucidate a governmental interest. Indeed, in Lopez Torres, the Supreme Court observed that “the State can require” and courts have previously “permitted States to [undermine] ‘party bosses’ by requiring party-candidate selection through processes more favorable to insurgents.” See Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 205 (2008)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...._Lopez_Torres

http://demo.tizra.com/08-205-Citizen...ion-Opinion/45

http://demo.tizra.com/08-205-Citizen...on-Opinion/166

The District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Second Circuit held in favor of Lopez Torres, finding that the voters and candidates possessed a First Amendment right to a "'realistic opportunity to participate in [a political party's] nominating process, and to do so free from burdens that are both severe and unnecessary.' New York's electoral law violated that right because of the quantity of signatures and delegate recruits required to obtain a Supreme Court nomination at a judicial convention..., and because of the apparent reality that party leaders can control delegates...."[4]

Anything there look familiar?
edit: Hang on, have to read more, the Supreme Courty overruled....etc......more to come...

[torchbearer]

finally

would be weird if the guy was posting between 8am-5pm everyday. like it was his job to troll.

[asurfaholic]

Yes, that misrepresentation of my position is ridiculous.

It would be more like:

"Did you hear what happened at the caucus a few months back? A lot of the Ron Paul supporters were trying to cause problems and overturn the will of the voters by forcing their way into delegate positions. Good thing the party didn't let them get away with their shenanigans. They were replaced with delegates who are respectful and follow the rules."

"Really? I thought I heard that they were just trying to be active and that some of them were even abused in the process."

"Oh no, they were crying fowl about fraud and abuse and, get this, they even tried to sue the entire party in the liberal 9th circuit. Not only did they try to say they were abused, they tried to get the judge to force the party to let them vote however they wanted at the convention and, you won't believe this, give them armed federal marshal escorts! lol!"

"No way, you're kidding me."

"I'm not kidding! You can't make this up! Of course the judge threw the whole thing out. Even a liberal judge isn't going to go along with these Paul crazies."

"Wow, I didn't know about that. I'd heard that some of Paul's views were a little extreme but I liked some of his ideas and I was glad to see more people in the party becoming active."

"Yeah, well, the party doesn't need more crazy people making all kinds of claims, trying to get a liberal judge to hijack it for them and..lol...armed federal marshals?! lol!"

"Well, I know some people who are Paul supporters and they don't seem that bad."

"They must be the exception. This case was filed by hundres of Paul supporters across the country. They accused party leaders in all the states and at the national level. But like I said, even the democratic-appointed judge wasn't buying it."

"Hmmm....I didn't know that."

"Yeah, you just can't trust these Paul people. I admit, I liked Paul's strong stance on economic issues. But it doesn't matter now because he's retiring. I hope his followers will retire. The case proves they're a bunch of liars. And what were they thinking suing everyone in the party's leadership? Even if some mistakes were made, you don't just attack the entire party like that. No, they can't be trusted. We need to make sure they don't try to highjack the party, or as their lawyer liked to call it, the "crime syndicate" run by "thugs." lol."

I don't know where you've been the entire election, but the media has been nothing but hostile and unfair in its treatment of Ron Paul, and the MEDIA is responsible for the divide in between liberty republicans and the old guard. This lawsuit, or the lack of it, is NOT going to change that.

Edit - you have my permission not to respond to this..

[ClydeCoulter]

I don't know where you've been the entire election, but the media has been nothing but hostile and unfair in its treatment of Ron Paul, and the MEDIA is responsible for the divide in between liberty republicans and the old guard. This lawsuit, or the lack of it, is NOT going to change that.

Edit - you have my permission not to respond to this..

Well, you did it, you just "compelled" lawdida to repond.

edit: if everyone could quieten down just a minute, and reponspond the my next post please

[torchbearer]

Well, you did it, you just "compelled" lawdida to repond.

edit: if everyone could quieten down just a minute, and reponspond the my next post please

he only gets paid to troll til 5pm central.

[ClydeCoulter]

RonRules posted links earlier to case law that the judge referred to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Board_of_Elections_v._Lopez_Torres

The Supreme Court's Decision

A nearly unanimous court in "Lopez Torres" overruled the Second Circuit and upheld the constitutionality of New York's judicial election system. The Court explained that although a political party has a First Amendment associational right to choose its candidates, that right is circumscribed when the party is given a role in the state's election process. Parties that are formally involved in the election process, for example, may be required to comply with a primary process and may be prohibited from maintaining racially discriminatory policies (which could become impermissible state action).

However, the Court explained, the political parties' associational rights were not at issue in the case; rather, the "weapon wielded by these plaintiffs is their own claimed associational right not only to join, but to have a certain degree of influence in, the party."[5] In refusing to acknowledge the existence of such a right, the Court explained that nothing in the law prohibited the candidates from attending the convention and lobbying the delegates, and nothing in the law compelled the delegates to vote for their parties' preferred candidates. As the Court explained, "Our cases invalidating ballot-access requirements have focused on the requirements themselves, and not on the manner in which political actors function under those requirements. . . . None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination."[6]

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the existence of entrenched "one-party rule" rendered the general election uncompetitive. As the Court noted, candidates could obtain a place on the ballot, without party affiliation, via New York's general petition-signature requirements.

Any lawyers or law school students to comment on this?

[Veteran Citizen]

I'm not seeing a positive angle on this.

[Veteran Citizen]

WhistlinDave, thanks for YOUR sacrifices. I will see you at the next hearing and I'm bringing an army with me.

Just be sure to scream that you are not armed when the jack boots show up at your door tonight.

[tod evans]

RonRules posted links earlier to case law that the judge referred to:



Any lawyers or law school students to comment on this?

Not I..........I'm just some dumbass out in the sticks...

[CPUd]

RonRules posted links earlier to case law that the judge referred to:



Any lawyers or law school students to comment on this?

I'm neither, but I do know this is the exact case that the defense used to build their main argument. I had also mentioned when they filed their motion to dismiss, that Gilbert would have to address how they use this case to have any chance at not getting dismissed.

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Court has accepted for filing and filed the Amended Complaint

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Amended Complaint, 90 % of which was completed 2 months ago, is being delivered to Court. RNC admits it violates it's own Rules.

Looking for a copy of this...

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[Revolution9]

Yes, that misrepresentation of my position is ridiculous.

It would be more like:

"Did you hear what happened at the caucus a few months back? A lot of the Ron Paul supporters were trying to cause problems and overturn the will of the voters by forcing their way into delegate positions. Good thing the party didn't let them get away with their shenanigans. They were replaced with delegates who are respectful and follow the rules."

"Really? I thought I heard that they were just trying to be active and that some of them were even abused in the process."

"Oh no, they were crying fowl about fraud and abuse and, get this, they even tried to sue the entire party in the liberal 9th circuit. Not only did they try to say they were abused, they tried to get the judge to force the party to let them vote however they wanted at the convention and, you won't believe this, give them armed federal marshal escorts! lol!"

"No way, you're kidding me."

"I'm not kidding! You can't make this up! Of course the judge threw the whole thing out. Even a liberal judge isn't going to go along with these Paul crazies."

"Wow, I didn't know about that. I'd heard that some of Paul's views were a little extreme but I liked some of his ideas and I was glad to see more people in the party becoming active."

"Yeah, well, the party doesn't need more crazy people making all kinds of claims, trying to get a liberal judge to hijack it for them and..lol...armed federal marshals?! lol!"

"Well, I know some people who are Paul supporters and they don't seem that bad."

"They must be the exception. This case was filed by hundres of Paul supporters across the country. They accused party leaders in all the states and at the national level. But like I said, even the democratic-appointed judge wasn't buying it."

"Hmmm....I didn't know that."

"Yeah, you just can't trust these Paul people. I admit, I liked Paul's strong stance on economic issues. But it doesn't matter now because he's retiring. I hope his followers will retire. The case proves they're a bunch of liars. And what were they thinking suing everyone in the party's leadership? Even if some mistakes were made, you don't just attack the entire party like that. No, they can't be trusted. We need to make sure they don't try to highjack the party, or as their lawyer liked to call it, the "crime syndicate" run by "thugs." lol."

You oughta write sitcoms for one of the failing networks with the effortless way you handle drivel as dialogue.

Rev9

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[lawdida]

I don't know.

[sailingaway]

Nobel effort, will be interesting to see how much of "who, where, when " you can actually gather.. certainly you can use the plaintiffs listed , as they are the ones who would have to provide the "proof"...
And how will this be of any benefit to RG as he has already filed his 3rd and final amendment? Certainly he has done "all" of this, as the judge was very clear, anticipating reading the final amendment

My understanding is the complaint has already been filed. We still want to get the facts to him but the complaint format isn't an issue.

lawdida, we can't stop the suit, it is happening. If you really are concerned it could become the one basket that gets thrown away, help us improve it so it is not thrown away.

[sailingaway]

Lawdida,

I can see the logic of your position to an extent...

Suing the ATF because of a rogue agents actions is obviously futile.

I have no idea, but I would hope that there's proof of a larger conspiracy in the instant case. There have been too many similar incidences from one state to the next to discount the possibility.

Interstate collusion when combined with corrosion is enough to reach the bar of federal jurisdiction.

As far as alienating the rank-n-file GOP , from my personal perspective they exist in another reality and short of a Ron Paul presidency can serve no useful purpose to me. (I've said time and again that dems/repubs are just a new head for the same monster)

Again only my opinion......I have absolutely nothing for either political party, it's Ron Paul who I've chosen to support and even if this Gilbert fellow is a flake he is making a ruckus to try and get Paul delegates to the convention unmolested...

I'm kind of a fatalist in that I really don't see anything left of the America I grew up in much after this election let alone 2016...Even if RP is elected by some miracle he won't have much to work with to try and get our country back on track...

Ben Swann says the letter with the new non-rules based 'requirements' for Maine delegates came from Boston. The attorney Romney's campaign sent to the Maine convention was from Boston. (The one in Nevada was from CA.) the guy called 'Charlie Cheater' who was seen in at least two states and video taped in one with a still photo in another, according to witnesses, who was passing fake slates, was told, according to a witness, by that attorney that he had done a good job and that the attorney would be looking for work for him 'Back in Boston'.

For what it is worth.

tod, if you think this needs to go into the stickied thread, let me know.

[sailingaway]

By the way, I'm giving up on this thread. Please don't address me as I will feel compelled to respond.

sorry, didn't see that. We would love your help but don't feel compelled to respond.