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.

From Ben Swan's Facebook:

From Ben Swan's Facebook:

Massachusetts RNC delegates.. do not sign any affidavit!

I posted last night a letter that has gone out reportedly to Massachusetts delegates requiring that they sign an affidavit stating that they will vote for Romney at the RNC or risk "the pain and penalty of perjury." This is a VERY serious issue. Massachusetts delegates need not take this lightly. I was emailed these quotes by Alison Wright. These are comments by Jerry Davis at Lawyers for Ron Paul:

"1. "It IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE ANYONE TO VOTE ANY CERTAIN WAY...PERIOD!!!!"

2. "ALL of the 'binding' IS under civil constitutional law....VERIFIABLY...ILLEGAL."

3. "We are not even going the rule 38 route, ANY means of manipulating a vote, whether by proxy or by unit, is illegal."

4. "The RNC's use of these rules in their very nature, are illegal, but no-one has brought this to the table yet."VOTE ANY CERTAIN WAY...PERIOD!!!! ALL of the "binding" IS under civil constitutional law....VERIFIABLY...ILLEGAL."

07 Daytona 675
Don't Tread on Me!

Republican nomination is

Republican nomination is party nomination of candidates. You go to caucus to elect delegate,not to elect nominee. You give ...delegate that right to chose a nominee. You chose delegate, in delegate you trust. Delegate chose a nominee. In nominee we trust...USA is build on trust...on the end In god we trust. We don't send affidavits to God...GOP should be ashamed with this out of American way affidavit.

Don't Sign It!!!

Do not sign it!!!

Legality?

The letter says that IF they sign they will be required on pain of PERJURY.

First of all, how do they have the authority to make this threat? What auspices? What would be the penalty?

Second, I don't see anything that says what happens if they DON'T sign?? They were legally elected–How could they be unelected by the establishment?

Seems to me that ALL of the delegates should contact each other and refuse to sign, as a matter of principle.

Can someone explain

the point of sending a bound delegate to a convention where the outcome is predetermined? If the delegate's vote is known before the election occurs, why not just send a post card with the totals and only send unbound delegates? If it is all based on primary votes, why select delegates at all? If the unbound delegates don't amount to enough to change the result, why have a convention?

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

"76 Trombones in the Big Parade!"

      "76 Trombones in the Big Parade!"

[Crowd gathers on main street. Children gleeful as they anticipate the coming of the town parade. Women sporting sun-dresses & new bonnets spread out sitting mats. Men place wagers on floats winning awards.]

[Victrola plays The Music Man "Seventy-Six Trombones" (finale)] 712K views. 3 minutes.

Drum Major: Yes, yes. I know it is all for show. ... It's a parade? ... If you just want to order something, see your Sears Catalog ®. ... Ehhh? ... Can't hear you... The trombones... Hand signals?

[Run along side of the marching band. Gesture a man racking a dog on the roof of a parked car; band continues marching down Main Street.]

Drum Major: Dog on roof? ... Glove? ... Mitt?! ... He's not in the Sears Catalog yet. ... Maybe as it gets closer to Christmas... [Band turns corner & marches out of sight; 76 Trombones gleefully blast onward toward City Hall with Drum Major in lead.]

Vintage Baseball Mitt for sale.

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

There are other votes that a delegate takes...

... in addition to the one for Presidential nominee. These include:

1. Chairman of Convention
2. Platform amendments and adoption
3. VP nominee
4. Procedural votes, such as whether to seat a disputed delegation

The only vote on which a "bound" delegate is bound is the vote for Presidential nominee (and, typically, only on the first ballot). On all other votes, a delegate is completely free to vote as he wishes.

Our Liberty delegates will have a powerful influence at National even if Dr. Paul does not win the nomination. I encourage each and every one of them to go to Tampa, and I encourage our DP community to help them pay their way.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Not true

"The only vote on which a "bound" delegate is bound is the vote for Presidential nominee (and, typically, only on the first ballot)"
What you are saying is simply not true. Read Rule 38 of the RNC. It does not get any planer than that. Now your state might try and lock you up on some trumped us BS but you can walk on that Convention floor and vote RP first ballot and it will stand because of Rule 38. I will vote RP and then deal with the state when I get home.

Delegate ...if can"t cast his

Delegate ...if can"t cast his vote for president on first roll than he can't have right to that mandate. Bounding of delegates is unconstitutional because is affecting civil liberties. Reason why delegates are not legally bound in all states,but by party rules is that they can be challenged by law .5 states who legally bound delegates have ongoing litigation. Bound by party rules means that is voluntary ,not legally enforceable.MA don’t have legally bound delegates by state law which law can be challenged,and here party rule has been tried to rise to the level of state rule by voluntary acceptance of the delegate.

To clarify, I am not seeking to wade into the discussion...

... about whether "bound " delegates will truly be bound in Tampa (I do not have the legal expertise to make an informed comment on that, and I doubt that anyone else who has been opining on that here on DP has such expertise). My intent, in responding to Weirami's comment about how pointless it would be for a truly "bound" delegate to even go to Tampa, was to show that it is not pointless, that, even if a delegate is truly "bound," there are other important votes for him to take.

Hope that clears it up. Thanks.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Andrew

can you freaking read? If you can then read rule 38 of the RNC. I mean I am no attorney and even I can understand that. Even the RNC attorney said that states could not bind delegates. I swear I do believe you are a Romney plant.

The General Laws of the CommonWealth

of Massachusetts state:

Section 70I. If there is a roll call vote for president at the national convention of a political party, all delegates and alternate delegates whose selection is subject by party rule to the approval of a presidential candidate shall vote on the first such roll call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidate.

“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”
― Milton Friedman

They are no legaly bound

They are no legaly bound delegates.

Contact The Law Firm Below... This Sh#t Stops Now!

This isn't funny anymore...

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/

With All Due Respect. . .

Since William Olsen, the attorney at this website, is in VIRGINIA, not MASSACHUSETTS, he may not be the best authority on this matter. Methinks this requires the expertise of a MASSACHUSETTS lawyer who specializes in election if not criminal law.

Right you are, LadyHawk...

... It is worth noting that sometimes an out-of-state attorney will be involved in an "of counsel" relationship with an in-state attorney. For example, a local Massachusetts attorney might be very proficient with Massachusetts election law, but decide to bring in a law firm from the Washington, D.C. area (which includes Northern Virginia) that specializes in Federal election law.

As it happens, the Olson law firm has been retained by the Paul campaign to help resolve the "parking lot delegation" situation in Oklahoma (which probably explains why the poster to which you were responding would link there); they are likely to be a good resource, especially if they become "of counsel" to a competent local Massachusetts attorney. You were sharp to notice, however, that the firm itself was not in Massachusetts. Thank you!

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

A.J., I learn from U! Here's another important piece of info

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...!

In the last minute of the video, Mr. Parent (Parlimentarian) talks about state bylaws and about the possibility of abstaining. This may be the way for Massachusetts delegate to go: sign the affidavit and abstain in the role call vote. But somebody every delegate from every state needs to read their own state's bylaws about the potential ramifications (i.e., penalties and possibly losing one's position within the Republican Party -- PERMANENTLY). Watch the video!!!! Read your own state's bylaws if you are a delegate!!!! Do the homework!!!!

THIS IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF RNC RULE #38 AND RNC RULE#11

THIS IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF RNC RULE #38 AND RNC RULE#11. THE ENFORCEMENT RULE IS RNC RULE #16.

They should cross out the "vote for Romney" and insert "ASSERT my rights as an UNBOUND delegate under RNC RULE #38:
"No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule."

TRANSLATION: ALL DELEGATES ARE UNBOUND AND FREE TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE REGARDLESS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS OF THEIR CORRESPONDING STATES. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Delegates PLEASE assert your rights and VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE AND VOTE RON PAUL on the first ballot!!!!!!! This rule applies to state and national convention elections.
Ben Swann:
RNC Delegates Are 'Free Agents' Not Bound At All
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IojBZhl2z9M
RNC Legal counsel, Jennifer Sheehan plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, 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.""
Matt Larson:
RNC Cheats Ron Paul and "The Unit Rule" UNBINDS ALL DELEGATES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTlAusSVZiI&feature=related

This same action should be duplicated in Arizona where the same violations (plus ballot stuffing) occurred. Are there any attorneys who wish sue similarly to what the Virginia firm of William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at letter filed against the Oklahoma GOP (see the post at the end of this article)?

that Jennifer Sheehan quote is fictitious

She never said that, or included any similar sentiments, in her letter to Nancy Lord. In their correspondence, it was established that states were allowed to bind delegates. Somehow that false quote made its way into a blog post about the letter. The full letter has been posted and argues against the points you are trying to make.

Perjury is only applicable in judicial matters

First, I am not an attorney and am not in any way offering legal advise to any individual. With my disclaimer out of the way, here are a couple of points from a technical perspective -

1 - Perjury only applies to statements given in a judicial proceeding. As far as I'm aware, there are no laws in the state of MA that require delegates to a political convention to vote in any specific manner, so the "under penalty of perjury" is a hollow threat at best, since there can be no judicial proceeding where this affidavit would ever be presented.

2 - An affidavit signed under duress can not typically be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding. There is a very clear threat of penalty or loss if one were to refuse to sign. Additionally, notice that there is no affirmation statement in the affidavit - typically you will see something like "I affirm that I am signing this affidavit willingly and not under duress".

3 - The RNC rules should, in most cases, override any state party rules which are in conflict with RNC rules, especially in matters regarding the RNC convention. Since the RNC is a higher level body, short of violating US or MA law, it's the RNC's rules that will apply.

If it were me, I'd probably sign and then disregard. If asked, I'd state that I signed under duress.

Well thank God all mighty

there is finally some one on here with a head full of brains. I am a National Delegate from GA. I had to sign one of those forms saying I would vote for Newt, he was still in the game at the time. I simply signed and and said nothing because I knew what I was going to do. You are absolutely right about the affidavit. It is nothing more than smoke.

THIS IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF RNC RULE #38 AND RNC RULE#11.

THIS IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF RNC RULE #38 AND RNC RULE#11. THE ENFORCEMENT RULE IS RNC RULE #16.

They should cross out the "vote for Romney" and insert "ASSERT my rights as an UNBOUND delegate under RNC

RNC RULE #38:
"No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule."

TRANSLATION: ALL DELEGATES ARE UNBOUND AND FREE TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE REGARDLESS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS OF THEIR CORRESPONDING STATES. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Delegates PLEASE assert your rights and VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE AND VOTE RON PAUL on the first ballot!!!!!!! This rule applies to state and national convention elections.

Ben Swann:
RNC Delegates Are 'Free Agents' Not Bound At All
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IojBZhl2z9M

RNC Legal counsel, Jennifer Sheehan plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, 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.""

Matt Larson:
RNC Cheats Ron Paul and "The Unit Rule" UNBINDS ALL DELEGATES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTlAusSVZiI&feature=related

Something about this just struck me

All the media is proclaiming Romney as being the nominee. Suppose this maneuver is copied in all the states and some type of "emergency" caused the cancellation of the convention. They would have all these documents in hand and claim they amounted to an overwhelming endorsement of Romney thereby negating the need for a Convention. Nahhh...they would never attempt that, would they?

If not us than who?

New

New Hampshire,Arizona,Georgia,Oklahoma,Tennessee and Puerto Rico have state laws binding delegate vote.
All other delegates are not legally bound.Most of them are bound by local party rules.
All of abowe binding by state law or local party rules is unconstitutional abuse of civil liberties.

NOT TRUE! RNC Rule #38 OVERRIDES state RULES & UNBINDS delegates

RNC RULE #38:
"No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule."

TRANSLATION: ALL DELEGATES ARE UNBOUND AND FREE TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE REGARDLESS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS OF THEIR CORRESPONDING STATES. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Delegates PLEASE assert your rights and VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE AND VOTE RON PAUL on the first ballot!!!!!!! This rule applies to state and national convention elections.

Ben Swann:
RNC Delegates Are 'Free Agents' Not Bound At All
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IojBZhl2z9M
RNC Legal counsel, Jennifer Sheehan plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, 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.""
Matt Larson:
RNC Cheats Ron Paul and "The Unit Rule" UNBINDS ALL DELEGATES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTlAusSVZiI&feature=related

Listen

They cannot enforce the Unit rule. That means they cannot bind all the delegates to vote for the chosen candidate. They can get around this rule by delegating a few that are not bound. This is how they do it, and it is legal.

So I go to the National Convention

and I am so called bound to a candidate. Two hours before I vote I find out that the candidate was just charged with child molestation. So by what you are saying I still have to vote for the scum bag. Rule 38 says no state can bind delegates. It does not say they can unbind a couple and then bind the rest. What rule 38 says is, they can not bind their delegates period. Show me where any charges have ever been brought against any delegate at any National Convention. I don't think you are going to find any.

A vote by force of law seems to be an oxymoron.

We are all erring creatures, and mainly idiots, but God made us so and it is dangerous to criticise.
- Mark Twain, Letter to the President of Western Union, New York, 1902

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

funny how they show their poor cards

Apparently they fear big time there that the delegates will vote whom they really want to vote for or that they will at least abstain.
The "Affadavit" (there is nothing about such an "affadavit" in the "Massachusetts Republican Party Plan for the Selection of Delegates" nor an "Avocation" committee "charged with certifying Massachusetts delegates") looks to me being a legal nonsense - how can one "certify" (maybe certify him/herself deranged?) something taking place in the future, moreover in the case of a Ron Paul supporter clearly against his/her conscience and notabene as a suggested result of a non-binding primary? Isn't an "affadavit" even if it would be an affidavit in the legal sense, made against conscience and will and under substantial threats null anyway?
And isn't the letter by "Ed McGrath" stating i.e.: "Your failure to duly and timely remit the enclosed affidavit will put your status as a delegate in jeopardy." a startling example of mailing threat?

What if the certification

is written in the District by laws. I'm not saying it is but it would seem to me that a call to the Mass republican committee would clear this up.

What is this document?
Show me the law?
Most importantly is Have you chosen and notified the delegates who are the bound and unbound. My guess is they will notify the RNC in Tampa, and not let the delegates know who they are so all the delegates think that they have to vote for Romney on the first ballot.