86 votes

here is how to stop the cheating and disenfranchisement...small claims court.

We have all seen the outright and blatant fraud by the gop establishment as they try to ram their annointed candidate down our throats. I have seen many posts on DP calling for the campaign to step up and fight the corruption. People ask why the campaign isn't setting loose a cadre of lawyers to sue the many election fraudsters out there. We don't need the campaign to do that!

Many on the DP have been a delegate at a district caucus, county caucus/convention, or a state caucus/convention. In order to become a delegate it takes time, energy, and money, i.e., capital. All of these caucuses/conventions have rules that are supposed to be followed. The delegates spend their capital under the assumption that the rules will be followed and they will be allowed their input into the process without being defrauded or disenfranchised by the people that wrote the rules or are supposed to be the keepers of the rules.

If you, as a delegate, have been cheated out of the capital you invested into the process because the people running the caucus/convention you attended didn't follow the rules...sue them in small claims court!!!! That would make the courts rule on whether or not the rules were followed or if they were run by a bunch of cheaters, and it doesn't take much money or effort to do it in small claims court.

I'm not sure what it takes to sue someone in small claims court in other states throughout the country, but in California it takes less than 100 dollars and you have to fill out some pretty simple paperwork.

Then, you would have a forum to air your grievences before a judge. You could present any evidence you have - such as video, first hand witnesses, and copies of the rules of your particular caucus/convention. You could subpeona the corrupt chair that ran the fraudulent caucus/convention, as well as anyone else in charge that was supposed to make sure the rules were followed.

Although it would be cool to make them pay with money out of their pockets, it's not even what this would be about. It would be a way to hold those that have corrupted the process accountable, as well as, a way to bring attention to all the corruption that has taken place.

The best part, is that one need not rely on some big organization - such as the Paul campaign or a bunch of expensive lawyers - to make this happen. It is relatively easy to take someone to small claims court. Sue them for the dues you paid, the time you spent, any delegate fees paid, or any other expenses related to the whole process that you expected to be fair, but was just a big, fraudulent, ruse.

If the caucus/convention you attended was run fairly and your candidate didn't win because of lack of turnout or lack of organization, then so be it. But, if you were kicked out of a room by a scumbag like Lori Sotelo because she didn't like the chairperson you fairly elected...sue. If you attended the Oklahoma convention and the rules were blatantly disregarded, disenfranchising you as a delegate...sue. If you were in Arizona and a screen was pulled out to shut you out of a vote or no one did anything about the fact that the ballots boxes were fraudulently being stuffed, etc...sue. If you were at a caucus/convention where you were goaded out of the building and then locked out of said building so you couldn't vote...sue. If you were at a caucus/convention where the establishment allowed uncredentialed delegates to enter the voting area and participate in voice votes...sue.

I think you get the point, and it's an easy way to bring the fraud and corruption to the forefront. If you, as a delegate, invested any type of capital into the process and you have reliable proof that the process was corrupt, you can sue for your loss of capital in small claims court. GO GET 'EM.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Four (more) states...

and how the defendant transfers out of small claims to a higher court:

NEBRASKA ---------------

Transfer of Cases from Small Claims Court

A defendant in a small claims court action may remove the case from small claims court and have it considered as a regular civil case on the county court docket. The defendant or defendant’s attorney must request the transfer at least two days before the hearing time and must pay the difference in fees between the small claims court and the regular docket of county court. When this is completed, the case is automatically transferred by the court

**complete a form, pay some money, bam!, auto-transfer out of small claims


COLORADO ---------------

How Does a Case Get Transferred?

The law establishing the Small Claims Court gives the Defendant an opportunity to be represented by a lawyer if the Defendant wants an attorney. Therefore, the rules provide that a Defendant may request that a case be transferred to the County Court



Massachusetts Uniform Small Claims
Rule 4: Transfer

(a) To Regular Civil Docket. The court may, upon request of a party or upon its own motion, transfer a claim or counterclaim begun under the small claims procedure to the regular civil docket pursuant to G.L. c. 218, § 24.

**The court/judge can transfer you with the defendant or litigant even requesting. The judge could say to the RP supporter, "Wow, this is serious! It is worth $100,000! Transferred! Muhahahaha! Go hire a lawyer! >;) "


OREGON -----------------

55.095 Counterclaim; procedure; fee; transfer of jurisdiction. (1) The defendant in an action in the small
claims department may assert as a counterclaim any claim that, on the date of issuance of notice pursuant to ORS 55.045, the defendant may have against the plaintiff and that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claim filed by the plaintiff.

(2) If the amount of the counterclaim asserted by the defendant exceeds $10,000, the justice of the peace shall strike the counterclaim and proceed to hear and dispose of the case as though the counterclaim had not been asserted unless the defendant files with the counterclaim a motion requesting that the case be transferred from the small claims department to a court of appropriate jurisdiction and an amount to pay the costs of the transfer. After the transfer the plaintiff’s claim will not be limited to the amount stated in the claim filed with the justice of the peace, though it must involve the same controversy.


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~



thanks man


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

And I quote...

Submitted by lonmoore07 on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 12:04. Permalink

defendents in small claims court have no right to escalate into superior court and make the plaintiff fight in superior court...that's the point of small claims court

you're right

i bet you can't find one for california though

If You're the Defendant ... Responding to the Lawsuit - CALI

In Cali the defendant merely makes a counterclaim in excess of $7,500. BAM!


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


but that is a countersuit. as said before, anyone can sue anyone anytime.


the counterclaim in this instance is how you transfer the case out of small claims. *sigh* :p

Not everyone can file a counterclaim. There has to be an initial claim against you. Something to "counter".


1) You go file a claim against somebody for $7,499
2) the defendant counterclaims for $7,500

done. Your small claims case is now in a higher court.

On a positive note, you seem to be filled with boundless energy. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

A cursory review of the web..

....seems to indicate that in CA, defendant's can appeal a small claims judgement to a court of superior venue (plaintiff's cannot). Perhaps that is how defendants "escalate" a small claims case in CA.



seems to be the most commonly used term to move your case out of small claims.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

To FBI_Exposer

Regarding the LAGOP situation, you are flat out wrong. Us RP supporters did not "take over the party". Far from it, the old guard rigged the infamous May 17th 2008 meeting (I think that was the date, maybe the 14th) with a fake "Parliamentarian" (read: stooge brought in from neighboring Ventura county) and blatant disregard for a number of Robert's Rules. This is par for the course for this crowd. I have multiple emails full of wild accusations and bald faced lies about some of us "new blood" from these people.

Now to some extent this can be expected whenever a group that has become stagnated suddenly sees a surge of strangers trying to "take over" their party. But there was no excuse for the most blatant thing of all - not recognizing Robert Vaughn's ascendance to chair from 2nd Vice Chair after the Chairman and 1st Vice Chair resigned to (supposedly) leave the Chair position up for a vote... not so fast! Robert should have been voted on right there, and he would have won, and he would have been President of the GOP in the \ most populous county in the country, and he would have run the rest of the meeting, not some dude from another county that nobody knew and who was a "famous parliamentarian". What a crock.

We, on the other hand, always played by the rules, 100%.


And the suit by the plaintiffs was for what?

And when the RPers lost how much were they on the hook for?


The old guard filed suit. In this case we are the ones filing suit for breach of contract by a few people that decided to break all the existing rules. FBI i see you and your friend have a good team going on here. Lol

No our guys filed suit.

Ask Robert.

For one thing

The plaintiffs were the old guard if I remember correctly. Robert took over the existing website and started posting content in his lawful role as Chairman. The old guard then filed suit over this.

But even if I'm wrong, there are other differences.

That was a high profile case that started in five figures and went into six. It was between two artificial entities. One of them had all the right connections, and they were DETERMINED NOT TO LOSE.

In a mano a mano small claims situation, it's much more likely that the judge will see the two people as equals (which is true since they're both dues paying members of the same organization). This would tilt the scales into the RP camp, especially if he/she is smart enough to never mention Dr. Paul or Romney and just stick to the facts.

It's like if you have two employees, and one accuses the other of stealing - you rule in favor of the one you trust to be telling the truth.

No it's not.

Defendants in small claims have the right to escalate the case to a court of superior venue in order to preserve and exercise their right to legal counsel AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING except dropping the case and settling.

If you happen to LOSE the case, you are potentially liable for your OPPONENTS legal costs and court fees.

So, no it's not a "slam dunk" in small claims at all. Misleading patriots to believe that places them at risk and is legal MISadvice.

I'm not saying NOT to do it. I'm saying that to NOT advise people of the RISK of the approach is LEGAL MISADVICE.

Small claims court typically

Small claims court typically does not involve lawyers. You represent yourself.

Alternately, there could be a case for a class-action suit instead of hundreds or thousands of small claims cases (aka "death by a thousand cuts").

Please read before responding.



defendents in small claims court have no right to escalate into superior court and make the plaintiff fight in superior court...that's the point of small claims court

Your reply constitutes legal MISADVICE.

First of all no one said "superior court", you made that one up yourself.

And ALL defendants DO have the right to counsel and the right to escalate their small claims court case into a court of SUPERIOR VENUE to small claims where they can engage counsel IF DEFENSE SO CHOOSES.

And there's nothing the plaintiff can do but either engage in that new venue or drop the case and settle.

Your OPINION on the matter is IRRELEVANT. Those are the facts easily verifiable by anyone here with their own court system where they live.

your opinion is irrelevant

a lot of talk with no proof of what you say.

a defendant cannot escalate a case to any other venue.

why don't you verify it...because you can't.

superior court is the next highest venue after small claims court.

So many errors you make.

Not in all states is superior court the court of the next highest venue.

Also, THE PROOF WAS PROVIDED by weebles in responses below. You CHOSE not to read it! But it's there for anyone to read.

Additionally, people can check for THEMSELVES (and not rely on YOU or me) as to the veracity of this fact.

Personally, I HAVE verified it because I've been through the process multiple times in multiple states AND YOU HAVE NOT.

I have been to small claims court about 5 times. Each time

I had to sit and wait for "my turn" and in doing so I had to listen to other "cases" being presented.

In my state, no lawyers may assist the parties.

I have to say all in all if you bring in the evidence showing you were wronged, it is pretty easy.

I suppose what the poster above is saying can happen....but I don't think it happens much. Small claims is about helping people who deserve help and the judges have seen just about everything. I say go for it. I bet 99% chance it goes easily and smoothly for you.

There is another website called Justanswer.com They will give you a legal opinion for $25 or $30 online from a lawyer in your state.

I don't even understand the reasoning of the person above of why you would not at least TRY. My own view it WAS a piece of cake.


We're you suing..

a political party that controls the most powerful nation in the world and that is filled to the brim with attorneys and lots of $$$?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Serious difference

Attorneys that look like mobsters and could reach over and rip your head from your shoulders. Yes, been there done that.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.



~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I used to work for a garbage company

The biggest in the world. They were all hired on from Chicago,Lol. friggen scary stuff man!

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I lived in Chicago...

from 1964-67 as a wee lad. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

It doesn't change the fact that...

... defendants have the right to counsel should they so choose. While it is not permitted in small claims, it *IS* permitted for defense to elevate the case to a venue where they can engage counsel and there is nothing you can do to stop that other than drop the case and settle.

Further, once counsel is engaged, as you can imagine, costs skyrocket. If you LOSE, you are potentially liable for all costs the defense has accrued.

It's as simple as that.

My issue with this thread is not the assertion that small claims court could be used. My issue with this thread has been is posters and repliers with no legal experience are NOT ALSO providing information about the RISKS of the approach they are advocating. That constitutes legal MISADVICE.

just because

your life is so chaotic that you've had to go to court a bunch of times doesn't make you a legal expert.

defendents cannot escalate a case into superior court and make the plaintiff fight it in superior court...that would totally defeat the idea of small claims court.

i'm no expert either, all i'm saying is if you think you have a case, do what you think you need to do to handle it...don't listen to a few naysayers because they have a negative outlook. and certainly don't think anyone posting anything on the internet is true. just planting the seed.