220 votes

Ben Swann Update on Affidavit: Do NOT sign!

From Ben Swann's Facebook page:

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."

https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck

edit: RELATED http://www.dailypaul.com/235514/what-should-they-do-ma-deleg...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Do You Want to Support Ben Swann and Keep Him on the Air?

A message to everyone who supports Ben Swann (he's a hero of mine): Don't just watch his videos on YouTube. The advertising money will go to some random person.

Instead go straight to the source! The link below links directly to the reality check main website on Fox 19. That way the ad money goes directly to his station, and the owners get a MUCH better idea about just how many people watch him (due to the large number of website hits)!

http://www.fox19.com/category/208878/reality-check-with-fox1...

You can also sign up for the email list so that they send you an email every time there is a new reality check. This way, if the station faces increasing pressure to cancel his show, they will be making enough extra money from ad revenue that they will reconsider.

If you really want to support Ben Swann, please do it this way!

reedr3v's picture

bump

.

Once again, human beings change their minds all the time.

So, for example, a person might intend to vote for Romney and then be persuaded to vote for Ron Paul and their conscience would not let them do otherwise once so enlightened.

No piece of paper or signature can place prior restraint on someone conscience. No judge would uphold that.

That said, a predominance of those signed sheets could be taken as evidence by the delegation chairman to cast the votes from the state as a block for Romney.

But then you have the RNC rules about the unit rule (which shall not be enforced) and the ability to correct one's vote.

Exactly, and this is all

Exactly, and this is all color of law anyway, as for exactly the reasons you mention the law does not consider future performance as something that can be perjured, only current facts.

That's the law, and it's been decided on and reads that way throughout America. Only need to go online and check it out if you need to.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

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.

Here's the Latest Hot Off the Press. . .

John Maige at FB group "Lawyers for Ron Paul" just posted this:

"The way I see it there are 2 options for the delegates:

"1.) The delegates can print and create their own Affidavit of certification document, sign and hand deliver to the town clerk risking the allocation committee's denial of certification to which they can challenge in court and if they win can also i believe start another lawsuit to have their lawyer fees repaid by the offending body.

"or

"2.) Sign the phony affidavit sent to them and immediately move to contest in court to have the part about "the oath to vote for Romney in the first round" Struck Out of the contract as it violates their civil rights.

"See Blue-Pencil Severance Definition: Striking out an offending part of a legal document, such as a contract or a statute.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/BluePencilSeverance...

"I believe either of these options would be successful, but the 2nd option may be the safer as it guarantees the delegates will get certified on time, and a judge can decide if the affidavit or parts of it were unlawful and strike them out citing coercion/intimidation as the reason for signing."

I have no idea who John Maige is. I've been following him for the past several days, and he seems legit. My prayers are with the Massachusetts delegates to intuitively make the correct move. Blessed be!

Oh, P.S. . .

I am the person who constructed the above 4-point list that Ben Swann is quoting. It was I who synthesized and posted a series of Jerry Davis's comments from the FB "Lawyers for Ron Paul" web page. Alison Wright copied and emailed my post to Ben Swann.

I can assure you that I created the above 4-item list by pointing out that there's a typo in it where I accidentally copied the words "VOTE ANY CERTAIN WAY...PERIOD!!!! ALL of the "binding" IS under civil constitutional law....VERIFIABLY..." in items number 1 and 2 and inadvertently repeated it in item 4. Now this has been quoted in its entirety all over the Internet and has become gospel. That's how it happens.

My heart is with you guys, the delegates. I just want to do my best to make sure all of you have the latest and most thorough information, Go Ron Paul 2012!

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...!

Stop with the STEVE PARENT...

He is banned (forced to quit?) from the best site in the world for a reason. Don't make me bust out more links.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2499143

OK, Thanks!

I have just sent the link you offered to Jerry Davis at "Lawyers for Ron Paul"; so that folks there will know to watch out for Steve Parent. Genuine appreciations!

Will you give us a break and go spread this crap some where

else. What do we have to do write it in freaking blood? 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.
Steve Parent you can kiss my home sick a**. I am a delegate at the National Convention and I am voting Ron Paul first ballot. Now if you are the Republican GOP do not like that then screw you. The RNC says you can not bind delegates the freaking law says you can't. What we have is the States trying to shove the Primary votes aka beauty contest down the delegates throat. Kiss off.

My Hat Is Off to You As a Delegate. Bravo! Oorah! Well done!

My only concern is that each and every Ron Paul loyalist shows up and gets seated at the RNC. We are in uncharted waters here, and there is no telling what the Stepford GOP is going to try next. I admire your spirit, your piss and vinegar attitude. All the Power to YOU!

FYI - FROM MASSACHUSETTS REPUBLICAN PARTY PLAN FOR THE SELECTION OF DELEGATES:

Section 4.4 requires that delegates "certify [their] qualifications to participate in the caucus by signing statements including their names, addresses, and Republican affiliation."

4.5 Each nominee for election as a pledged Congressional District delegate or alternate delegate shall express a commitment to a qualifying Presidential candidate and agree to be bound to vote for that candidate on the first such roll-call unless released by such candidate, as required by law. c. 53 § 70(I)

Show 'em how it's done.

Oh, P.S. . .

I am the person who constructed the above 4-point list that Ben Swann is quoting. It was I who synthesized and posted a series of Jerry Davis's comments from the FB "Lawyers for Ron Paul" web page. Alison Wright copied and emailed my post to Ben Swann.

I can assure you that I created the above 4-item list by pointing out that there's a typo in it where I accidentally copied the words "VOTE ANY CERTAIN WAY...PERIOD!!!! ALL of the "binding" IS under civil constitutional law....VERIFIABLY..." in items number 1 and 2 and inadvertently repeated it in item 4. Now this has been quoted in its entirety all over the Internet and has become gospel. That's how it happens.

My heart is with you guys, the delegates. I just want to do my best to make sure all of you have the latest and most thorough information, Go Ron Paul 2012!

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!!!!

Although this has been talked

Although this has been talked about endlessly, and don't want to bring up the same points again

- it actually forces you to lie in a sense if you sign it as a alternate - because alternates do not vote usually. You are certifying what you can not do.

Just one example of how badly it is worded.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

OMG People!

Did you ever heard photoshop? Remove the part that talks about voting first ballot sign. Get a lawyer to deliver and get certification.

the Texas Delegation to the RNC

doesn't even get to vote the first ballot...the vote is just announced according to the primary and the binding... see this post here http://www.dailypaul.com/235928/texas-delegation-to-the-nati...

I am Ron Paul.

The RNC convention does NOT

The RNC convention does NOT follow state rules!

To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!

YOU NEED TO READ THE RNC RULES

Not the TX state party rules as once the convention convenes and credentialled delegates are on the floor, RNC rules go, not TX state party rules.

READ THE RULES

Oh Boy

Everyone makes such good arguments. The problem is that time is ticking away. They have already proven over and over again they will blatantly violate their own rules to keep the Ron Paul people out. Why?

There is a good chance this will end up a brokered convention. How will you all feel if you are not there to vote Ron Paul?

I know how frustrating this is. I mean who do these SOB's think they are but you are paying way to much attention to this stupid little battle that means nothing and missing the chance to be part of the real battle that will win this war.

We have all fought so hard and long to get here. Please don't throw it all away. There is more to do at the convention than just vote Ron Paul. We are turning the republican party on their heads. They are terrified.

Has the RP campaign given

Has the RP campaign given advice on this subject? Of COURSE a lawyer is going to say don't sign it, and that may be very educated advice, but I'd be more interested in what the campaign, which has money to hire good lawyers and consider the advice in the context of all the details or secrets of the campaign, has to say.

The problem, of course, is if the campaign is going to tell the delegates anything, they may as well announce it to Romney too, the way people will want to share every little secret they shouldn't on here.

A good attorney will take into account his client's objectives

... in formulating his advice. As far as I can tell, our delegates have three choices:

1. Do not sign (and possibly be disqualified from going to National)
2. Sign with the intent of not voting for Romney on the 1st ballot (Perjury?)
3. Sign with the intent of voting for Romney on the 1st ballot (and doing so)

If the delegate indicates that he does not want to be disqualified from going to National, then the attorney will not advise option 1 unless the attorney feels confident that the delegate will not be disqualified for refusing to sign. An ethical attorney is unlikely to counsel option 2 (swearing falsely on an affidavit), so that leaves option 3, which, I suspect, is what the attorney would end up advising.

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

There's one more option.

Sign with intent to vote for Romney and then change your mind.

Isn't that one part of the "delegate strategy", i.e. convincing other delegates to vote for RP?

The same could happen to ANY, READ ANY, delegate.

Human beings change their mind all the time. Are you suggesting that a state party (on a member physically located out of state) or the RNC is attempting to exercise prior restraint on the normal actions of a human being.

What about the Romney and Santorum and Gingrich delegates whom Ron Paul has convinced and who have changed their minds? They are out of luck right now?

Again the FACTS (no legal opinion nor advice here) are that:
1) PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MINDS ALL THE TIME. That is normal human behavior. Often this occurs due to one's conscience of what one knows to be right especially when additional information comes to light
2) IT is extremely difficult to prove intent.

SIMPLE AS THAT!

In a criminal prosecution...

... intent is generally decided by the jury as part of reaching its verdict. Depending on the fact pattern, intent might be very difficult to prove, or very easy to prove. For example, a Defendant is charged with Issuing a Worthless Check, which, in Florida, requires the State to prove that the Defendant knew that the check was bad, but issued it anyway. Consider the following two scenarios:

1. Defendant had a medical emergency which necessitated a large, unexpected expenditure of funds from his bank account. One of the checks bounced. Defendant has since become disabled and has had no apparent ability to make good on the check in the months leading up to trial.

2. Defendant issued a check on an account that had been closed for several months, despite having another, open account with sufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. Despite having ample funds to make good on the check in the lead up to trial, Defendant has refused to do so. Furthermore, Defendant sent an email to a friend in which Defendant brags about how he writes bad checks whenever he wants to, and State has come into possession of that email and intends to introduce it at trial.

Scenario 1 would be hard for State to prove at trial, unlike scenario 2. In the context of a Perjury or Criminal Fraud prosecution against a Massachusetts RNC delegate who signed the affidavit, and then proceeded to vote Paul in Tampa, various factors would determine whether State could realistically hope to prove intent: Does the delegate have a "paper trail" of public statements, phone calls, emails, letters, etc. that show a premeditated purpose to lie on the affidavit? Does there seem to be an organized pattern of Massachusetts pro-Paul delegates swearing to vote for Romney, then not doing so? Can the Paul campaign be shown to have encouraged pro-Paul delegates to vote for Paul, even when bound to Romney?...

Depending on the evidence available to the prosecution, a delegate might be looking good at a Perjury trial, or he might be in a lot of trouble. It is going to be difficult for our Liberty delegates to predict ahead of time how an eventual prosecution would play out, which is why they should get competent legal advice before they cross the bridge into potential criminality.

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

Point taken, counterpoint

So the jury would need to believe that it was intended and Ron Paul's candidacy could not have influenced them to change from what they signed to supporting Ron Paul.

pledge not to vote for Romney

At the start of the convention, at THE REQUEST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, delegates pledge allegiance to the republic, which is the same as pledging not to betray the republic, pledging not to vote for Romney.

Is the Letter Legit?

Has the MA GOP admitted that they were the ones who sent it out and it wasn't some sneak?

All the delegates who

All the delegates who received letters should file lawsuits against the central committee.