156 votes

MA delegates asked to sign affidavit that they will vote for Romney on first ballot

UPDATE & DISCLAIMER:To the delegates who are affected directly by this communication: DO NOT take any advice listed in the comments without first consulting with the Official Campaign directly. As with all free advice on the internet, you get what you pay for.

- - -

Massachusetts delegates to the RNC in Tampa have received a letter and affidavit that they are being asked to sign and return, affirming that, under the pain and penalty of perjury, they will vote for Mitt Romney in the first round of voting.

Below is the text of the letter and affidavit, transcribed by me, as it was read to me over the phone by an elected Massachusetts delegate. What should they do?

- - - - - L e t t e r - - - - -

Dear Massachusetts Republican Delegates and Massachusetts Republican Alternate Delegates,

Under the rules of the Massachusetts Republican Party Plan for the Selection of Delegates and the rules of the National Republican Party, the Avocation Committee charged with certifying Massachusetts delegates for the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida requires each elected delegate and alternate to sign, under the pains and penalties of perjury, the herewith enclosed affirmation, and to be returned on or before 3pm May 29, 2012 to the Massachusetts Republican Party at 85 Merrimack Street, Suite 400, Boston MA 02114.

Electronic delivery, in any form, will not be accepted. Your failure to duly and timely remit the enclosed affidavit will put your status as a delegate in jeopardy.

Sincerely

Ed McGrath
Allocation Committee Chairman

- - - - - A f f a d a v i t: - - - - -

I ________ residing at _______ in ________ MA, was elected at the ________ Congressional District Caucus held in _______ MA on April 28, 2012 as a National Delegate / Alternate Delegate to the 2012 Republican National Convention. In accordance with Sections 70b and 70i, Chapter 53 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Republican Party Plan for the selection of delegates to the Tampa Florida 2012 National Convention and Rule 15 of the Rules of the Republican Party, I certify under the pain and penalty of perjury, that on the first ballot at the 2012 Republican National Convention, I will affirmatively Vote for Mitt Romney, the winner of the 2012 Massachusetts Presidential Primary.




Comment viewing options

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

Perjury: Limited to court testimony under oath. Lawyer schooling

Bailiff: All rise. The honorable Judge [Redacted] enters the court.

Judge: [Read summary judgment] "I certify under the pain and penalty of perjury..." - prelude of statements made in court proceeding. Oft included in affidavits related to the aforementioned court proceedings.

Perjury is legally enforceable in court during testimony under oath. Period. [Nod in sympathy toward defendant. Scowl at plaintiff]

Perjury is make-believe outside of court proceedings... Except in the minds of those making you believe it ain't so. "Pain of perjury," is an abstract legal concept. It has no bearing outside of court. Many ill formed forms end with, "signed under the pain of perjury" or some such nonsense. Admitting your signature under duress is not proper. Not good form.

Your defense to eliminate such nonsense may include, "signed under duress."

Perjury is limited to court testimony under oath!

[Nod to defense.... Stare at plaintiff in disgust. Pound gavel.] Case dismissed!

Bailiff: All rise...
===========================================================================

Perjury: legal definition w/ statues citations.

A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.

The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.

The punishment for perjury in most states, and under federal law, is the imposition of a fine, imprisonment, or both. Federal law also imposes sentencing enhancements when the court determines that a defendant has falsely testified on her own behalf and is convicted. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the court is required to automatically increase the defendant's sentence.

Two federal statutes govern the crime of perjury in federal proceedings. Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1621 codifies the Common Law of perjury and consists of the elements listed above. In 1970, the scope of section 1621 was expanded by the enactment of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1623. Section 1623 changes the definition of intent from willfully offering false testimony to merely having knowledge that the testimony is false. In addition it adds to the definition of perjury to include the witness's use of information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material she knows contains a false material declaration, and includes proceedings that are ancillary to any court, such as affidavits and depositions, and Grand Jury proceedings. Section 1623 also contains a retraction defense. If, during the proceeding in which the false statement was made, the person admits to the falsity of the statement before it is evident that the falsity has been or will be exposed, and as long as the falsity does not affect the proceeding substantially, prosecution will be barred under section 1623.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

They denied having approached any agent to corrupt him - Defense

MARK TWAIN A PLAINTIFF.
HE SEEKS TO PREVENT THE SALE OF ONE OF HIS BOOKS [Huckleberry Finn] AT A REDUCED PRICE.

[From The New York Times, 15 January 1885]

"They denied having approached any [book seller] agent to corrupt him." - Signed affidavits for the defense, 1885.

BOSTON, Jan. 14. – Judge Colt heard, this morning, in the United States Circuit Court, the case of Samuel L. Clemens (Mark Twain) against Estes & Lauriat, publishers, in this city. The complainant wished to enjoin Estes & Lauriat from issuing a catalogue offering Mark Twain's unpublished book, "Huckleberry Finn," at a price less than the subscription rate, and also from collusion with the subscription agents, so as to obtain the books at a price less than their agreement allowed. George L. Huntress and S. Lincoln appeared for Mr. Clemens, and S. J. Elder for Estes & Lauriat. Mr. Huntress explained the difference between the "subscription" method of sale and the "trade" method, and declared that the custom has always been that subscription books should not be sold to the trade and should not be sold at prices less than the rate set by the publishers. He cited the case of Prince Albert against Strange. The latter obtained plates of a private book of etchings of Prince Albert and the Queen and advertised the etchings for exhibition. He was restrained not only from exhibiting the etchings but also from advertising them. Mark Twain's book will not be ready for four or five weeks, yet last month Estes & Lauriat advertised in their catalogue the book as then ready for sale at the price of $2.25, instead of $2.75, the subscription rate. They based their advertisement on the probability of causing some agent to break his agreement by selling to them at reduced rates. The affidavit of Charles L. Webster, of New-York, publisher for Mark Twain, stated the agreements which every agent had to sign, agreeing not to sell the book to booksellers or to any one except subscribers. The affidavits of Charles E. Lauriat, Dana Estes, and others connected with the firm offered testimony substantiating the declarations of counsel. They denied having approached any agent to corrupt him. Mr. Elder stated that out of courtesy the firm would not send out any more catalogues, but good faith with their customers required them to fulfill the orders already received and to be received. Upon the convening of the court in the afternoon Mr. Lincoln made his argument for Mr. Clemens, and Mr. Elder cited certain authorities bearing upon his side of the case, and the court took the papers and reserved decision.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Whoever - coerces - with the right -.to vote - shall be fined -

Reader Digest Summary Version
Whoever... coerces... with the right ... to vote as he may choose... any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia... at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 USC & 594 Intimidation of Voters
Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. - Posted by W1945 DailyPaul member, as a reply to this forum.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Now, why would they need to sign anything,

if it's a rule that they must. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Hog Wash! Vote you conscience!

I worked for the Federal Government. Anytime they sent you a form asking you to give up a right, they ASKED or requested certain info as necessary.

If there was a Statute that had penalties, they quote the title, section, paragraph & verbatim quote the Law and state you will be subject to criminal prosecution with a maximum sentence of 5 years and/or a fine not to exceed $10,000.

In other words, they CLEARLY Threaten you into compliance.

Like wise I got request letters with threats but no teeth, (no CLEAR specific cited law to back it up) and when I ignored them nothing happened.
Sometimes I got followup phone calls asking for 'requested info' but I knew such submission of info was VOLUNTARY. But u have to weigh how much power they have to make your life miserable & pick your battles.
This 'request' shown above is Lawyer sneakiness. Just because they ask for your signature and make it look intimidating, DOES NOT mean you HAVE to sign it!

BUT if you DO sign it, IT IS A CONTRACT and you will be held to uphold that contract.

Seek legal advice, CREDIBLE legal advice (In my own experience 9 out of 10 attorneys will lead you astray whether deliberately (working for the other guys)or are simply inept & lazy).

Hog wash is far more useful.

Hog wash will clean pigs.

Government threats will leave you to wonder.

Thank you for your most helpful insight & reply.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

RNC Legal Counsel: Delegates are unbound, Ron Paul poised to win

"In what may be the most stunning revelation of the ongoing GOP presidential nomination process, it has been discovered that in 2008, the RNC Legal Counsel legally interpreted the RNC rules and concluded that all delegates, regardless of state party rules, could vote for whomever he or she chooses at the Republican National Convention. This legal inquiry by the RNC was the result of a delegate's desire not to vote for a candidate who did not represent his principles. The significance of this legal interpretation by the RNC lawyers is that all delegates are free to vote for any candidate regardless of any such “binding”. Because the RNC was the organization that conducted this legal examination, THEIR RULING TRUMPS ALL STATE GOP RULES."

http://www.examiner.com/article/rnc-legal-counsel-all-delega...

Here's What I Would Do -- We Seem to Have this Wrapped Up

From John Maige (on "Lawyers for Ron Paul FB page):

"It may be possible to simply draw a line through the phrase 'I certify under the pain and penalty of perjury, that on the first ballot at the 2012 Republican National Convention, I will affirmatively Vote for Mitt Romney, the winner of the 2012 Massachusetts Presidential Primary,' and place your initials next to the crossed out section to certify that you do not agree to that part of the document. Then sign the document and hand deliver to the town clerk before 3pm May 29th. This should definitely quantify a legal solution that is absolutely defendable in court. DO NOT USE WHITE OUT as the statement that you "strike through" should still be visible to be read by a judge.

Delegates should certify themselves either through a custom legally formatted affidavit, or by using the "Strike-through" method for contracts and affidavits on the MASS GOP phony affidavit (easiest method). Any detraction will not be upheld in court based on case history placing the delegates in the advantage. As defined by USC 42 1971-1974 AND 1983 Voting Rights - The delegates must have freedom of choice all the way through the nomination process! The State GOP is held accountable to the Constitution and as it pertains to Civil Rights.

Violations of individual liberty/civil rights can result in Civil proceedings against the offending body. In which case the Ron Paul delegates hold the advantage in all matters of the court regarding their voting rights!

To Sign or Not To Sign?

John Maige (Lawyers for Ron Paul FB group):

‎- it would seem that not signing is the way to go. but the delegates may need to certify themselves with an affidavit that meets the legal requirements and structure.

- If they sign they need to contest in court to have the unlawful part of the affidavit struck out of the contract.

signing will guarantee they go to tampa, while NOT signing may ensue a bit of a struggle with the courts if they were required to certify themselves before the deadline date.

Perjury: Limited to court testimony under oath.

Perjury: legal definition w/ statues citations.

A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Delegates are NOT bound - OFFICIAL

please look at this thread:

http://www.dailypaul.com/236282/ron-paul-lawyers-confirm-all...

There is no law pertaining to 'bound' delegates. No one has ever been disqualified for voting their will. You can go ahead and toss this affidavit in the rubbish.

umm why can I not access this

umm why can I not access this page, and why is bernanke there

The Law

All delegates need to vote RP on the first ballot at the National Convention. Rule 38 of the RNC says that no state can bind their delegates. Then to back that up we have the law on our side.
18 USC & 594 Intimidation of Voters
Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

They need to start locking up people in Massachusetts for sending out those phony Affidavits along with the threats.

Beware of Steve Parent...

Last election cycle, he and his followers befouled the DailyPaul and other Ron Paul forums with their hostile ways. You've been warned.

I had to sign one

of those stupid things and they notarized it on the spot. So what did that mean to me. NOTHING! I will vote RP on the first ballot. Then my state can get the District Attorney to jump me and then we can watch him get recalled. Nothing out side of death is going to keep me from doing this. Personally I do not think they can do squat. I think it is a bluff, as a matter of fact I know it is a bluff. So I suggest the RP supporters, delegates, pay no attention to the scare tactics. .

IMPORTANT: Everybody Needs to Watch This 13-Minute Video

Steve Parent (Parlimentarian) Warns of Potential Penalties for Romney Delegates Who Vote for Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_zDY1...!

+

This comment needs to be recognized and up-vote.

In The Last Minute of this Video

Steve Parent (Parlimentarian) talks about state bylaws and about the possibility of abstaining. This may be the way to go: sign the affidavit and abstain in the role call vote. But somebody needs to read the Massachusetts bylaws about the potential ramifications (i.e., penalties and possibly losing one's position within the Republican Party -- PERMANENTLY). Watch the video!!!! Read the Massachusetts Bylaws!!!! Do the homework!!!!

Lady Hawk

Don't worry about it. We are the GOP and they will be able to get back to it once we purge these people (RINO) from there. It is just a matter of time. County by county, state by state, day after day. Tick tock tick tick....RINO's be gone

All the Power to You, Crunchy!

Go Ron Paul 2012!

We all know

that the current election system is rigged to the core to benefit the establishement.

But I'm sitting here thinking about why delegate binding is even an issue...?

When did States start binding delegates?

Isn't the caucus process supposed to involve the more politically savvy and well-informed people, by having them to go through the entire convention processes? The whole point of the delegate election process is to allow elected and intelligent individuals to the National Convention and vote their conscoiusnesses, is it not? To avoid electing a president based on "mob" rule (democracy) and popular votes is the reason for the delegate process right?

Stories change, Sh*t happens, candidates fall. Why do states "bind" delegates?

This post may be irrelevant because I probably already know the answers... Just venting, lol.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

northstar's picture

Remember when Romney wanted delegates

...to sign a pledge form not too long ago indicating the signee will support and vote for him? This could be something like that as well, except this time, the GOP is trying to make it 'look' official.

I don't know what to say at this point, but I think I'll stick with Ben Swann's take on it.

Real eyes realize real lies

We want our country back

Every year is a year for Ron Paul!

Threatening Letters

Would someone who has received one of these letters please check with the office of USPS Inspector to determine if this letter constitutes a threat/intimidation against the recipient. If so, it may just be the straw that broke the camels/elephants back.

Voluntary Association + Mutual Cooperation + 110% Personal Responsibility = 100% Individual Liberty

Use common sense

Rule 38 of the RNC says no state can bind their delegates. If they were to try and prosecute some one on this they would be beat before they even got started. No Grand Jury would touch it. No DA would touch it because he would know his head would be on the block if he did. This is nothing more than trying to over ride Rule 38 of the RNC and that they can not do.

I think the goal now is to

I think the goal now is to hit them with a legal shitstorm greater than an F4 twister before the convention so all of their time is occupied with addressing legal challenges. We can do it for the campaign so they don't need to get their hands dirty.

You do not have to hit them with

anything. Just vote Ron Paul. Just don't pay any attention to them.

Fund for Legal Representation

How do we set up a fund for legal represenation for the Mass Delagates? I am ready to donate what I can.

I think we're all champing at

I think we're all champing at the bit to hit 'em where it hurts with a massive legal onslaught.

Am I missing something here?

How can someone be accused of perjury if they haven't taken any sort of oath?