229 votes

Lawyers Confirm All Delegates Are Unbound!

Lawyers Have Confirmed What We Knew The Whole Time! All Delegates Are Unbound!

http://youtu.be/SkNO90HPaw0



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

We're in the middle of a race where they want Romney to win

I think it would be beyond ridiculous to expect and honest answer when it would work to Dr.Paul's advantage. They haven't been fair to date.. no reason to think they would do so now.

I would bet that your link isn't the original letter. I'm going to ask Ben Swann if he has it. I'll post it if so.

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.

but their interpretation

is going to be what matters quite a bit at the national convention. So even one would argue that they're biased, it would be helpful to the Liberty movement to get clarification on how the rules will be interpreted.

This Mike Ridgway who posted the letter was a member of the Utah State Republican Committee at the same time as Nancy Lord. He is a Ron Paul supporter (check http://www.facebook.com/mikeridgway if you don't believe). I think Nancy Lord might be as well. They clearly know each other well. I think the letter that was posted is pretty much the full letter, cut and pasted into a single document. I don't see any incentive for him to make it up or lie. Of course, maybe the person who posted it is faking his name and the letter is a complete fabrication. That's doubtful, though.

Actually if it's proven there is a clear precedence

then we have ammo.. I'm not one to just take their word for it.

No proof whatsoever that He's a Ron Paul supporter and he might have just fucked up or that he's working for their side..

There is plainly something missing in the letter you've posted so it's not the original.. That makes the argument pointless until we have solid proof of the original conversation.

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.

but so far..

But so far, while people have tried to come up with a clear precedent showing an unchecked ability to break binding, they haven't done it. There's especially not an example of someone strategically abstaining or breaking binding at a time when the vote actually mattered. All the examples so far are of tiny numbers of true unbound delegates who abstain or who vote for a random candidate at a time when there's a near unanimous nominee.

You really don't think his Facebook page is strong evidence that he's a Ron Paul supporter? It would be a pretty elaborate fake if not.

There's also not plainly something missing in the letter. It might just be a single punctuation mark. And the letter as posted is still a good indication of their position, while the made-up quote about delegates being free agents is not.

I didn't know that facebook was the new

RP litmus test.

Actually fooling people is very easy.... Millions upon millions are fooled everyday.

There is something plainly missing.. The paragraph doesn't make sense and it ends abruptly.

BTW nobody has come up with clear evidence to the contrary.

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.

really?

I think Facebook gives a great indication of who a person supports politically. Half of this guy's posts are pro-Paul or anti-Romney. I guess he could be faking it, though.

The clause you're claiming is missing from the letter isn't really even that relevant to the overall point. But technically yes, there could be a huge section missing that the guy pretending to be a Ron Paul supporter removed.

I wish you good luck in trying to convince the RNC to allow delegates to vote for whoever they want, no matter what state rules say. Ultimately, even if this is successful, the numbers aren't anywhere near close enough to stop a Romney nomination, unless you have about 600 more secret delegates than anyone realizes. The current number of Ron Paul supporters who have gained spots as Romney delegates is relatively small, and even the Ron Paul campaign believes the number is in the double digits.

Yes really.

"I guess he could be faking it, though."

That's the only sensible thing you've said in awhile.

Then you say this..

"The clause you're claiming is missing from the letter isn't really even that relevant to the overall point. "

Then sensible again.

"But technically yes, there could be a huge section missing that the guy pretending to be a Ron Paul supporter removed."

Or that could be all he had and I have to ask.. How did he get it? Wouldn't you want to know that too? Was it given to him by his neocon buddy?

"Ultimately, even if this is successful, the numbers aren't anywhere near close enough to stop a Romney nomination, unless you have about 600 more secret delegates than anyone realizes. The current number of Ron Paul supporters who have gained spots as Romney delegates is relatively small, and even the Ron Paul campaign believes the number is in the double digits."

Don't believe everything you read. BTW Steve Parent is a moron that's going around with this same line of "proof" that we may wind up in jail.. yada yada..

I recently outed his ass with 100% proof that he's got more felonies than an entire cell block at your local jail.

https://mycase.in.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=6730878
https://mycase.in.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=6730878

Many more links on his stuff.. He's got shit coming up so far as late as 2003. He calls himself a "parliamentarian" lol.. He's crooked as fuck.. Everyone makes mistakes a deserves a second chance but when you keep doing the same shit..

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.

the most sensible thing

The most sensible thing to assume is that this guy isn't faking this whole thing. But yes, I'll retain a 0.0001% chance that he is.

I think it's pretty obvious how he got the letter. He was on a committee with this woman at the time of the controversy in Utah in 2008 and at the time she received the letter. I'm sure she shared it with many people.

As for delegate counts, I definitely don't believe everything I read, and I've been researching the numbers pretty extensively for many months. I've got my own counts and I'm not going by what I hear in the media.

And what is your obsession with Steve Parent and why are you associating me with him? I don't know him or anything about him, and can't comment on whether or not he is a moron or crooked. I honestly don't care.

"The most sensible thing to assume is that this guy isn't faking

That's why the things you say are suspect. You think making an assumption is sensible and you'll probably argue why it's justified to do so, when it's not, dealing with people, especially.

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.

another assumption I am making

is that you are not Ann Romney with an elaborate plan to pretend that you are a Ron Paul supporter on an online forum with some ultimate goal of subverting the Ron Paul campaign. There's likewise a tiny tiny chance that this assumption is incorrect, but I'm going to go forward with it.

What is going to happen

When you realize the guy you are supporting is no different then Obama? And in many cases, worse. At this point, Obama isn't hiding the fact that he is a socialist. Romney has basically flipped and flopped his entire career. However, we all know he is not a conservative and won't push a conservative agenda. For pete's sake he doesn't even know how to interpret the constitution and has proven so in debates. I know that you are full on board with him..that's fine. But what if he does win and you realize that we are just as screwed as we were with Obama? Are you going to come back here and admit that we were right? I just can't believe that you are still pulling for this guy after spending so much time on the DP. I am starting to think that you may actually be an operative as you seem like a sane person....and no sane person can possibly believe Romney is our answer.

I can provide proof of that, though.

It's still an assumption but I knew you'd justify it in your mind. That's what people that have trouble with logic are guilty of.

It's okay, the world is chocked full of people like that.. Logical thinking ones are much rarer.

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.

And so can he

But let's just assume he's a phony.

This conversation has been all over the place.

This is

H
o
w

y
o
u

k
n
o
w

I
t

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

a

g
o
o
d

d
e
b
a
t
e

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 was being facetious.. There is no proof other than us meeting

that would tell you that.

I'm not assuming anything.. that's the point.. I won't assume he is a RP supporter and I won't assume that he isn't. I said it's a possibility. Huge difference.

Conversations flow sometimes.

When the original letter surfaces.. we can talk again.

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.

Here's the whole thing

ARTICLE XVII
National Convention
Section A. Delegates to the National Convention.
On or before October 1 of the year before the year in which the national convention is to be held, the Oregon Republican Party State Central Committee shall adopt and certify and file with the Republican National Committee special rules to provide for the selection of delegates and alternate delegates to the Republican National Convention. These special rules shall
(1) be consistent with the Bylaws of the Oregon Republican State Central Committee; and
(2) adhere to the most recent rules adopted by the Republican National Convention.
Such special rules for the selection of Delegates to the Republican National Convention shall be enacted in the same manner as Bylaws and that procedure shall conform to Article XXVI. These special rules for the selection of delegates to the Republican National Convention shall only be in effect for the convention for which they were enacted. Section B. Delegate Conduct at the Republican National Convention.
Candidates for delegate and alternate to the Republican National Convention must state which Presidential Preference Primary candidate they favor, and will be listed as running for one of the delegate positions assigned to that presidential candidate. Each person selected as a delegate or alternate shall sign a pledge that he/she shall vote at the National Convention for the candidate for the President of the United States he/she favors until the candidate is:
(1) nominated;
(2) receives less than 35% of the votes for nomination at the convention;
(3) releases the delegate from the pledge; or
15
(4) until two convention nominating ballots have been taken.
Should a delegate or alternate refuse to cast his/her vote in accordance with this pledge, as required by both the Bylaws of the Oregon Republican Party Central Committee and the Oregon Revised Statues, the Chairman of the Oregon delegation to the National Convention shall report to the convention floor that delegate’s vote in accordance with such laws and rules until such time as that delegate is released from his/her pledge.

A:These special rules shall
(1) be consistent with the Bylaws of the Oregon Republican State Central Committee; and
(2) adhere to the most recent rules adopted by the Republican National Convention. (Number two sates that the rules adopted by the RNC which was stated that they do not recognize a states binding.)

B: "the Chairman of the Oregon delegation to the National Convention shall report to the convention floor that delegate’s vote in accordance with such laws and rules until such time as that delegate is released from his/her pledge."

Nothing in that states that their vote won't count Steve.

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.

I'm not sure about that.

When I read the B part you mention I take it to mean the Chairman shall vote for the delegate if the delegate votes for someone other than the candidate the delegate is pledged to. I could be wrong but I think your missing A MORE IMPORTANT ITEM in what you posted and that is A 2 where it states the state special rules MUST ADHERE TO THE RNC RULES, I repeat THEY MUST ADHERE TO THE RNC RULES. In this case I speak of Rule 11 which clearly states Romney and the RNC can not work together or if they do then Romney is disqualified from being eligible for the nomination which would release the delegate from the pledge they made to that candidate. While Ron Paul's campaign tried to cover up for Romney and the RNC by stating they agreed to let Romney and the RNC break this rule back in early April when they started to break this rule I can bet you there is no proof any such agreement existed back then plus I doubt they had any authority to override and ignore this rule which is why the campaign came out later and made it OFFICIAL by declaring that Ron Paul was no longer campaigning in the primaries which from that date forward made Romney and the RNC in compliance with Rule 11. But that doesn't get Romney and the RNC off the hook for what they did when they broke Rule 11 prior to the campaigns later official declaration.

In other words if a delegate or delegates hired a lawyer to declare Romney ineligible due to Rule 11 and won than the state couldn't force the delegates to vote for an ineligible candidate and the delegates would be released to vote for whomever they choose on the first vote. Delegates in all states should be looking into this to be released from voting for Romney if the state is trying to force them to vote for Romney. Each state can hire at least one lawyer to file and fast track this issue so it's resolved in the delegates favor prior to the convention. There is plenty of proof showing Rule 11 was broken, the RNC and Romney would have to show PROOF, NOT SOME ALLEGE CONVERSATION FROM JESSE BENTON, that Rule 11 wasn't broke. If they can't show actual PROOF that Rule 11 wasn't broke then Romney would no longer be eligible for the nomination and the delegates would be released in accordance to both RNC and the state rules mentioned above. This is where everyone's attention should be, having money bombs to hire lawyers in each of these states to disqualify Romney due to Rule 11. If one lawyer in one state wins and gets Romney disqualified it would likely have a domino effect in the other states. Why is this issue of Rule 11 being ignored when the evidence is own our side. Ron Paul spent money campaigning in these primary states while the RNC and Romney were breaking Rule 11 so they would have a hard time proving there was any agreement at that time like Jesse Benton suggests now. As far as I care Jesse Benton is just covering for Romney and the RNC so Romney doesn't become disqualified. But Jesse doesn't speak for the delegates or their attorneys.

If everyone wants to get all these delegates unbound from voting for Romney then they need to put their effort into getting Romney disqualified because of RNC Rule 11. This would trump all these state rules and you have months to accomplish the task. I'm not saying make this our only option, I'm just saying MAKE IT AN OPTION, because it's one which could easily get Ron Paul the nomination. It's obviously a serious threat to the RNC and Romney otherwise Ron Paul and his campaign wouldn't have come out and with the statements they did a couple weeks ago which all pertained to this Rule 11 in one way or another.

Actually, if you'll notice I had "A:" which pointed to

the adherence rule which is why the second state rule I listed was negated as far as I'm concerned. The state party has NO jurisdiction in Tampa. The RNC does..

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.

it does say so, quite clearly

The only place where the RNC says that they don't allow states to bind delegates is in a phony quote on a random blog. The actual letter shows that they do allow states to bind delegates and that they don't want people to interpret Rule 38 to say the opposite. There is nothing in RNC rules that disallows Oregon's method of binding delegates. It is extremely clear in Oregon's laws and party rules that their delegate announcement at the convention (on the first 2 ballots) will be in accordance with the proportions of the popular vote. It is explicitly stated that they will overrule any delegate that votes out of line. The penalty isn't a firing squad or 40 lashings - it's that your vote doesn't count.

Give the RNC a call and ask them if states are allowed to bind delegates. Let me know what they say. Stop using the made up quote to prove that they are going to disallow binding by individual states.

And who is Steve?

The actual letter shows that even though the quote might be

incorrect the meaning is the same.

Asked by Lord..
"3. Do the RNC Rules allow a national delegate to cast their vote for anyone they choose at the national convention, regardless of any vote-binding rules in their state or regardless of whether or not that "candidate" has been officially nominated under the RNC "majority of delegates from five states" rule?

Answer by Sheehan...

"3. Yes - see #1 above."

"1. You are correct - the answer is no. The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not."

Here's the question that was asked by Lord..
"1. Do the RNC Rules require a state's delegation to follow its state laws or state party rules in the matter of binding of their national delegates to vote for a particular candidate?"

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.

quote the whole thing

Nancy Lord stated that she got the point from previous correspondence that states were allowed to bind delegates and that Rule 38 didn't prohibit that. She asked a question about whether or not the RNC itself would force states to follow their own rules. The question itself and the context shows that they were both accepting of the fact that states could bind delegates. The RNC only gets involved if it feels like Rule 38 is being violated - but binding delegates doesn't violated Rule 38. The entire conversation and Q&A, though, are predicated on the idea that states are allowed to bind delegates.

Do you know the context of this letter? These weren't bound McCain delegates they were talking about. They were bound Romney delegates who had later gotten released from their binding, and the state was trying to impose a unit rule after the fact and make them all vote for McCain. Jennifer Sheehan was telling them that the state can't force them to do that and that they could vote for Romney if they wanted to. But that's because they were unbound by the rules. It doesn't mean that if Romney had been up for nomination they could have voted for anyone they wanted. Again, both agreed that states could bind delegates if they had rules in place by a certain time and if they fell within the restrictions the RNC had placed. Utah's re-binding to McCain did not, and that's why 2 ended up voting for Romney.

Give the RNC a call and figure out what their interpretation is this time. Let me know what you hear.

What He Said Is Unconstitutional

Sounds like lawyers are not exempt from being victims of a government education. The federal government does not have the right to force the members of the GOP to nominate someone they don't want by invalidating their selection process.

Freedom of speech and freedom of association court cases have already determined that the parties are entitled to their own internal rules and processes.

The legal quotation was all about government-run election processes between candidates, not about the internal process of the GOP in determining who to nominate.

Don't give in to the temptation of having the government force this on the members just because you want it to be true. It is the GOP judicial committee that is the final authority on this issue, and the members who make the bylaws.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

You don't need to consult an

You don't need to consult an attorney. What you need to do is to have a basic understanding of the law. Just because some organization tells me I'm bound to do something doesn't mean I'm legally required to do it.

Obviously there is not criminal penalty, so what does that leave civil penalties? What damages could the GOP claim? The form I signed didn't say what happens if I don't vote as I'm bounded....Well, technically it does, since it says nothing, and that is exactly what happens if you don't vote as bound.

What the hell do you think happens? They throw you in jail for voting for Ron Paul? They sue you for $100,000 because you don't vote for Mitt Romney? Give me a break. Stop being ignorant fools.

It's not just about the GOP organization...

It's about state law as well, and there may be criminal penalties depending on your state. For example, Massachusetts law states "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."

Regarding penalties for failing to perform duties, Mass. law also states a delegate could be "punished by a fine of not less than five nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

I think consulting a competent attorney with election law experience is a good idea if you're planning to vote conscience or abstain, but at the very least a delegate should seriously research pertinent laws in their states as well as the GOP bylaws/rules for their states.

A parliamentarian recently claimed that if no penalties or procedures are mentioned in the GOP bylaws, then there should be none, but you should double-check that.

Of course, if you don't care about the above, then don't do anything. Your call.

Considerations for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race from the Mind of a Political Independent-Use this tool to educate the unconverted and prove support for Dr. Paul among Independents.

Produce a criminally charged case over this.

Produce the Mass bylaw..

Saying there may be is pointless.. There may be a comet that destroys the earth tomorrow.

"A parliamentarian" Yeah you mean Steve Parent? The conman felon?

Someone busted his ass in his chat yesterday on his bylaw theory and we've found out that he has an EXTENSIVE criminal background.

I knew something was up with him, you could hear it in the way he spoke and I was right.

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.

I have no dog in the Parent fight.

Don't know anything about the man. Don't really care. I have no knowledge of what you're referring to regarding him being "busted" in a chat room or regarding his "criminal background."

It's true that he was the parliamentarian that made the comment about penalties. I've cautioned people to substantiate that, not because Parent said it, but because ANYBODY said it. People shouldn't blindly trust what anybody says in an internet forum.

The point of the comment which you replied to is that state law may indicate what penalties or procedures exist even if state GOP bylaws do not.

"Massachusetts State Law Chapter 53 Section 70I" states that "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."

Here are some Mass. laws which may be pertinent regarding penalties for failing to perform duties:

Failure to Perform Duties:

Part I, Title VIII, Ch. 56, Sec. 12, Misconduct of officers; failure to perform duties:

"Section 12. An officer of a primary, caucus or convention who knowingly makes any false count of ballots or votes, or makes a false statement or declaration of the result of a ballot or vote, or knowingly refuses to receive any ballot offered by a person qualified to vote at such primary, caucus or convention, or wilfully alters, defaces or destroys any ballot cast, or voting list used thereat, before the requirements of law have been complied with, or refuses or wilfully fails to receive any written request made as thereby required, or refuses or wilfully fails to perform any duty or obligation imposed thereby shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months."

Part I, Title VIII, Ch. 56, Sec. 22, Public officers, election officers, etc.; failure to perform duties:

"Section 22. A public officer, primary, caucus or election officer, director of the count or assistant appointed under section six of chapter fifty-four A, or officer or member of a political committee or convention, upon whom a duty is imposed by law, who refuses or wilfully fails to perform such duty, or who wilfully performs it contrary to law, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

Part I, Title VIII, Ch. 56, Sec. 30, Obstruction of voting:

"Section 30. Whoever wilfully obstructs the voting at a primary, caucus or election shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars."

I don't know if Mass. delegates would indeed be fined or imprisoned for voting conscience or abstaining in the first round; again, it's up to delegates to substantiate that.

I think the article that mclapper333 provided below (http://ivn.us/2012/05/14/gov-romney-worry-less-about-rule-38...) is very encouraging. He claims, "Delegates who vote consistent with RNC Rules cannot be punished by any state law." If that is true, then it's great news!

Considerations for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race from the Mind of a Political Independent-Use this tool to educate the unconverted and prove support for Dr. Paul among Independents.

You don't have a dog in the fight huh... Sure you don't

I bet you come from ronpaultribune.com...

You motherfuckers better get clued into who this guy is.. you had better care. You don't just have an ex-con spearheading this effort giving out false information in an attempt to manipulate you all. You have a habitual career criminal doing it. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy is a paid operative.. He's the kind of person they pick to do dirty work for them.

The above references to Mass bylaws are directed to officials.. go look up on any gop website who are listed as officials and officers.

He got his ass handed to him the other day because he cited Alaska's bylaws as proof for delegate bylaws and tried to tie them to the word officers.. a simple look at any GOP state site would show you who's regarded as officers..

Rule 38 is a smokescreen... They want us to chase a rule that declares nothing.. It states only that the unit rule cannot be implemented.. the real prize is the original letter and statements of Jennifer Sheehan.

That's why you fuckers are over here.. You want us to take our eyes off of any nreal issue and chase something that will be shot down easier in court.

Officers:
Treasurer
Chair committeeman
Chair committeewoman
yadayada..

Here take a look.
http://www.cologop.org/officers/

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.

You can lump people into one category if you insist...

with language like "sure you don't" and "you motherfuckers," but that doesn't make it so. Instead of blanketly incriminating people like a conspiracy theorist nut-job, why don't you just ask people where they stand? It's probably because you don't give a fuck where they stand; you just get-off on labeling people and assuming a bunch of shit you know nothing about. I don't know what you know about Parent (you may be completely right about him), but you don't know shit about me.

I'm not "from ronpaultribune.com." That is where I heard Parent and others discuss these issues, however. I don't know Parent or any of the regulars over there. When all of these delegate issues came-up, everyone on Daily Paul was scrambling to learn the truth. Some posts recommended hearing Parent discuss this stuff, because he's supposedly a parliamentarian, so I, like many others, went over to ronpaultribune.com to see what he had to say. I'm not a lawyer, parliamentarian or other expert in these matters, so I was, and continue to be, eager to learn as much as I can. I then proceeded to create a webpage with links & info. that may be of use to Ron Paul delegates. That's the extent of my involvement. I don't give a shit if you believe that, but I speak the truth for its own sake.

Thank you for the clarification regarding what election officers are. If your claim is correct regarding the Mass. laws I cited not applying to delegates, then that's great news. Even better news is delegates who vote consistent with RNC Rules cannot be punished by any state law; I hope this is true.

My main point is delegates should not blindly trust you or me or Parent or anyone posting online. Given that stance, I can assure you I'm not being "manipulated." You can be educated by what people say, but make sure you substantiate it before acting on it. I've never spoken with authority on this subject. On the contrary, I've always urged people to verify any information I give. Again, "anyone who is a delegate not already bound to Ron Paul, and plans to vote their conscience or abstain, needs to consult a competent attorney with election law experience in their own state before going to the convention." DO NOT TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM ANY WEBSITE.

Considerations for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race from the Mind of a Political Independent-Use this tool to educate the unconverted and prove support for Dr. Paul among Independents.

The truth always presents itself

We just have to pay attention.

We'll see.

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.

Agreed.

.

Considerations for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race from the Mind of a Political Independent-Use this tool to educate the unconverted and prove support for Dr. Paul among Independents.