30 votes

(Updated w/ Filings 8-23-12) Delegates to the Republican National Convention v. Republican National Committee (Court Documents)

Greetings all,

I was asked to make a separate topic discussion for the sake of posting pertinent documentation to the Federal Case for delegates.

I will update as the documents become available in the PACER site. There is some speculation that this lawsuit is a ploy to uncover delegates. I am not as paranoid as some and simply do not have enough facts to put form an opinion. I will post the documentation. Please keep this thread from turning into a flame war and only post constructive questions or comments. I will update when more information is available.

Case numbers:

SACV12-927 DOC (JPRx)

*Updated with filings up to 8-23-2012* Litigation documentation (Google Docs - Download for index, No Sign-In Required):


Interview Richard Gilbert:

8-8-12: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jeenyus-corner-radio/2012/08/08...

PollMan has another thread going on that captures what I am trying to as well. Better to have more than one person on this!


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Will post later

Case dismissed with prejudice.

Article: New Developments in Lawsuit

New Developments in Third-Party Lawsuit, Judge Again Threatening to Dismiss with Prejudice


From a facebook poster: "Judge David Carter is stating that he does not have jurisdiction to rule on the voting rights act brought before him by Richard Gilbert, the lead attorney for "Lawyers for Ron Paul". Therefore, we may have no ruling on the unbinding of delegates prior to the RNC convention next week."

Update 8-23-2012

47 Filed & Entered: 08/22/2012 Response (non-motion)

Update 8-22-2012

Updated with:

46 Filed & Entered: 08/22/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

Update 8-21-2012

Updated with:

41 Filed & Entered: 08/10/2012 Transcript Order Form (AO-435)
43 Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012 Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held
44 Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012 Response (non-motion)
45 Filed & Entered: 08/20/2012 Proof of Service (subsequent documents)

Cannot obtain:
39 Filed & Entered: 08/10/2012 Transcript (CV)
40 Filed & Entered: 08/10/2012 Notice of Filing Transcript (G-46)
42 Filed & Entered: 08/13/2012 Transcript (CV)

Can you provide a "nutshell" version of

exactly what was amended, without having to try to compare the lengthy documents to figure it out? What wording changes were made?

Nutshell Version


I am not a lawyer and can only provide an educated guess into the differences of the complaints.

The first complaint had many deficiencies because it was too broad e.g. trying to prove state level election fraud . The complaint should have had one objective from the start, to present a Federal Question as it pertains to the law that the lawyer is trying to invoke. That law being 11 CFR § 100.2(e) that defines a national convention as a "Federal Election" and 42 USC § 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)that addresses the binding of delegates. The Second Amended Complaint does just that.

The Federal Question presented is whether the VRA applies to the National Convention of the Defendants to be held in Tampa commencing August 27, 2012.

If the Judge finds that the VRA applies, delegates are unbound. If not, we proceed with RNC rules (keep in mind that the RNC may not recognize binding anyway).

Recited law:

11 CFR 100.2(e)- Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.

42 USC § 1971(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt 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, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

Update 8-10-2012

Updated with:

Ex Parte Application to Expedite
Proof of Service (subsequent documents)

Update 8-9-2012

Updated with:

Amended Complaint from 8-8-12

After reviewing the Courts response

and no insult intended, I don't believe this lawyer is up to the task.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

You may be right.

But, the Judge seemed to know quite a bit about Ron Paul's career.

Gilbert needs to get another lawyer (pro bono)

to the do the re-write. I'm sure there are plenty of competent, libery-minded, Paul-supporting federal attorneys who would be happy to oblige.

The Court's ruling

pretty much outlined how Gilbert has to plead the complaint. There is no excuse for Gilbert not to get it right. The fraud claims must be pled with specificity. Pull it together, Gilbert! Don't be a jackass.

Thanks For the Productive Comment

As you said, the decision has supplied the formula that Gilbert needs to put this thing into play. Let's see how well he follows these step by step instructions before anymore name calling.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.


Good think he's a lawyer and all, otherwise he might have known the proper steps beforehand... I mean... err... that's not right...

Eric Hoffer

He needs a different lawyer to draft

the re-file. The wording he uses is extremely unprofessional - I don't know if he's that incompetent or just wants to throw the case under the bus.

Pull it together, man!



-LibertyG ... 2 Corinthians 2:16-17 "To some we are a scent of death leading to death, but to others, a scent of life leading to life. And who is competent for this? For we are not like the many who make a trade(for profit) but as those with sincerity...

Anyone considered that the

Anyone considered that the attorney is a Romney pawn, who was hired to file a bogus complaint knowing it would be dismissed and so no other attention would be given anywhere else?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I said the whole complaint

I said the whole complaint was ridiculous to begin with, and this is what happens when you get an attorney who can't write a proper complaint. This is unfortunate.

I mean, seriously, how was he gonna pay to serve 100 defendants, and put up perhaps millions to get an injunction? Was this thought through? You can have all the best intentions in the world, but if you don't do it right, it is all for nothing.

You just can't write, "defendants" did this and defendants did that, without specifying who and what the ACTUALLY did and what law they violated.

The WORST part of this, is that this is the SECOND time they filed a complaint after the court dismissed the first one. They didn't even pay attention to the first ruling.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

could've stepped up if you knew something about the law

i thought we were all here to each contribute our own expertise.. not to just sit by and watch somebody else foul it up

You are right, I should have

You are right, I should have called the attorney and told him how to file his complaint, as if I knew ahead of time he didn't know what he was doing. That's assuming I knew who it was, but my psychic powers aren't that good lately.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Good point

That's not the job of the lawyer filing the idiotic suit in the first place after all.

Eric Hoffer

Here is the actual document

Here is the actual document of the order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

That's it, case dismissed.


Blessings )o(

Thanks for Taking the Time To Post It

I appreciate it -

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Here are Gilbert's posts from facebook describing the ruling

The Court has Ruled. We have a ruling that States the Court believes it is possible to state a claim that The Voting Rights Act (vote your conscience) may apply to The Convention. The Court requires an Amended Complaint to state the claim. We will both file an Amended Complaint as well as file An Appellate Writ at the same time to seek the guidance of both Courts.

Do not be confused by the technical language of granting the motion "without prejudice" to us. It means the case has survived

The Judge stated on the record that he believes that the Voting Rights Act does apply to the Convention but reserves his right to change his mind

"Do not be confused by the

"Do not be confused by the technical language of granting the motion "without prejudice" to us. It means the case has survived"

BARELY it survived. Your complaint has to be pretty bad for it to be dismissed in Federal Court which is not a fact based pleading court system, but a claim based.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

yep - he's got a long way to go...

in order to make lemonade out of this lemon. The judge says that he has to accept as true any well-pled factual allegations and construe any inferences in a positive way toward the plaintiffs. But then he points out that the claims aren't clear, and he can't figure out which defendant did what to which plaintiff, and what the harm was. After listing off the complaints, he has this to say (which is somewhat harsh):

"These allegations are all riddled with the same error. For example, Plaintiffs’ vague reference to “State Bylaws” gives this Court no inkling as to which of the 50 states and which of the millions of pages of bylaws Plaintiffs refer. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ use of the passive voice renders it impossible to discern who broke the bones of whom, who pointed a gun at whom, and whether any of the more than 100 Defendants were even involved. Finally, Plaintiffs’ vague allegations of voting ballot fraud occurring somewhere at sometime and apparently committed simultaneously by all “Defendants” lacks plausibility. While Plaintiffs make an oblique reference to a voting machine somewhere in Arizona, the lack of clarity in this allegation is insufficient to raise it to a level above mere speculation.

Thus, this Court does not accept these allegations as true. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint where lower court reasoned that complaint failed to “clearly and concisely explain[] which allegations are relevant to which defendants” and noted that the “purpose of the court system is not, after all, to provide a forum for storytelling or political griping, but to resolve legal disputes”)."

He needs some affidavits

He needs some affidavits and/o declarations from the people who were there SPELLING OUT WHAT HAPPENED and THEN make the complaint.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

He has at least 100 affidavits

and they have been all over this site for months trying to get even more. What's the point in doing that if he isn't even putting them in the complaint?

You have to ask the attorney.

You have to ask the attorney. Usually, IF you know what you are doing, you formulate the complaint AFTER the FACTUAL allegations in a declaration. Unless he is incompetent or a Romney pawn..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...