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:

8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR
SACV12-927 DOC (JPRx)

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

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B42o0yg7D7tcYlRNTWtCWWNKdFE

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!

http://www.dailypaul.com/239370/lawyers-for-ron-paul-civil-r...

Comment viewing options

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

Unless he is " Incompetent"

..There's your answer..it's been heralded here in numerous posts,and the response was:
1-Threats of a Subpeona by Gilbert upon the DP, and Mike Nystrom.
2-Threats of retaliation by this "ambulance-chaser"
3-Non-Stop Spamming by his band of sock-puppet operatives
4-Arrogant,Derisive Comments by this "Officer-of-the-Court.
5-Misleading and False Info:
a- This is the ONLY Remedy
b- There are HUNDREDS of LAWYERS...there was only one.
c- This will be a slam-dunk
d- The case will be settled in time for RNC Tampa.
e- Federal Marshalls will be there to ensure nomination.

Zsh Ninja was right!
And another thing:
WHERE DID THIS GUY APPEAR FROM?
Lawyer "For"....FOR WHO?

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

"Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. However,"

"IV. Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third
and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the
Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,
1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial [16].
Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
DATED: August 7, 2012"

From what I gather in reading through the 8-7-12 filing, the court is asking for the testimony and complaint to be more specific about allegations in particular mentioned areas. Therefore, this allows L4RP a third chance to submit the filing (maybe 3rd times a charm?).

One advantage that I see here. It appears that this Order and it's disposition gives specifics on areas that the court considers applicable for this case. So it appears that the explanation given by the court here seems quite helpful to the L4RP group to know where to focus their arguments if they are to attempt a third filing, which they appear to have intentions to do and I would encourage.

Many might respond saying, "Why didn't the lawyers know specifically what to submit in the first place??" Well, if one takes some time to go over the testimony, one would also find that there's allot of information being given to be considered. Also there's no telling what the judges are or aren't going to accept as far as arguments. So a lawyer can take a really good guess and effectively throw the spaghetti on the wall, to see what sticks???

Although many in this forum take the stand that this lawsuit is a bad idea, my opinion differs. From what I can see, here we have an opportunity to document election fraud testimony possibly into case law from our court system?

So I must ask the question, Could favorable reception by the court on any of the evidence on the vote rigging be basis for filing other, more directed lawsuits which the L4RP group has stated already is their intention?? For example, let's say testimony including proof of vote flipping with the voting machines is accepted and discussed briefly to help drive another point that is considered relevant to the case, but for other purposes doesn't bring forth a deciding factor in the issue as to whether there was intimidation, harassment of delegates to warrant the requested remedy of state chairs informing delegates that they are free to vote their conscious, but it does support the allegation that "defendants have altered the voting ballot results..." Could this type of argument also effectively lead the courts to decide in a later case filing that delegate selection cannot be based on voting machine results??? Could this type of argument also be a basis for another case to get the voting machines banned, and to disallow states to enable the campaigns to choose delegates based on the straw votes in say, at least primary states?

Getting voting machines banned and disallowing states to allow candidates to choose delegates based on evidently rigged voting machine straw vote results would be a huge win for the liberty movement in my opinion, since there is a large consensus that voting machine results can be manipulated and evidently are not the answer to counting ballots in our elections. From what I can see, the rigged straw vote results have also been the driving cause for Ron Paul delegates not winning seats at major state conventions, which has effectively resulted in Mitt Romney being allowed the majority of delegates up to this point.

Finally, I get the idea that this suit, on it's face may seem unnecessary to many, since allot of delegates I believe do know their rights when it comes to voting at the national convention. But it also seems there are more serious undertones going on here that can be useful given the courts response to each, to be considered for future cases. Plus the fact that this lawsuit is getting some press coverage, I believe causing more people to rethink how elections are being handled in this country, seems to be a victory in itself...

-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...

I Almost Missed Your Comment

I don't know if you are the same as "Apple". In any case, you said it much better than me. The dismissal decision has provided a valuable guideline for future action. Even if Gilbert is not able to successfully utilize the data, it will be available to the public where others can take the ball. I would go further and say that the decision was an interesting mini law school lesson.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

No I Am Not "Apple" - We Aren't Affiliated

... Regarding your comment, yes I always try to take the side of looking at the glass as half full, and I am looking forward to seeing what will be submitted next.

-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...

that's a nice spin on it from Richard Gilbert

The judge is openly mocking him throughout the decision for his complaint being "unintelligible". He's kind of saying "maybe there's something good in there but I couldn't tell because it was so poorly written, so I'll give you one last chance to try again". He appears to have shot down Richard Gilbert's main argument about the connection of the Republican National Convention to the Voting Rights Act, though.

Shazad: So Right!

..And I had posted a response to the early "assessment" of his "Motions", their (un)intelligibility,and clearly faulty areas.

I outlined the "value" of a well-written Legal brief/motion/action and how that is the foundation of a successful argument before any court.

It is a "given" an absolute, because in later appeals, the facts are coherently and logically on paper...not in "oral transcripts".

This lawsuit was doomed from the get-go, and the possible repercussions and backlash were blatantly visible.

see:
http://www.dailypaul.com/247885/paulfestjohnson-2012-l4rp-an...

Details the "swaying of opinion"...from 1956, and how a hoax was perpetrated on the literary "establishment".

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

bigmikedude's picture

Ralph, the "without prejudice"

part (Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges) is great and dandy.

but "the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16)." blows it out of the water for an expedited hearing, which means that basically the likelihood of it being heard and resolved before the convention is about NIL.

This was the problem with this whole case from the beginning - Lawsuits take years. Never Days.

Lawyers know how to drag them out with filings and motions to neuter cases or cut them off at the knees, and this is what the RNC lawyers have done. Once the convention is upon us the suit becomes pointless.

The convention is now 20? days away. 6 of those days are Saturdays and Sundays - Leaving at the most - 13 business days to schedule and hear this case and resolve it, because the convention starts on the 14th business day.

It's toast.

He has to refile that, too.

The judge could not grant that motion to expedite, because after he granted the motion to dismiss, there was nothing to be expedited.

The judge is well aware of the time-sensitive nature of the case, and if gilbert refiles a valid complaint, along with a motion to expedite (note that the defense will also likely file another motion to dismiss, which the complaint must this time survive or die), I think the judge will hear it in time.

Not refiling

OK, I got it twisted a bit. From someone watching the proceedings, the judge said he will not grant a motion to expedite, even if it were refiled. What he did say he will do - if the complaint were refiled, and meets the requirements to proceed, he may possibly issue injunctive relief before the convention.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380736-MAJOR-ANN...

What is the Text?

I don't have access to Pacer. Can anyone post the entire decision? All I read are useless interpretations saying that the Plaintiff's lawyer does not know how to write a claim. Nobody survives in the litigation business for thirty years if they do not know how to write a claim.

I would like to see it myself.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Update 8-7-2012

Updated with:

Notice of Lodging
2x Order on Motion to Dismiss Case

Language from the Order on Motion to Dismiss Case below.

"After reviewing the moving papers and oral argument, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), but dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial (Dkt. 16)."

thanks for the update

.

Ok...

Well, now that that huge waste of time is over, who wants tacos?

Eric Hoffer

bigmikedude's picture

Translation -

Case be Toast.

Translation Gilbert gets one more time at bat but must file

by 8/20/12 but yeah looks like toast anyway since the "Honorable Judge Carter" denied Expedited Trial. Like I said when I found out this was the Obama case judge,the case was going to get stuffed.I actually did a post on what a POS this judge is here when I found out he was "picked randomly":
http://www.dailypaul.com/241904/the-strange-case-of-judge-da...

IV. Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
However, the Court dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will afford Plaintiffs a third
and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the
Voting Rights Act. See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,
1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court also DENIES
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Expedite Trial [16].
Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint, if at all, on or before August 20, 2012.
DATED: August 7, 2012

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Bump for info.

.

Newborn: Has anything been posted to Pacer yet?

Many would like to read the outcome of the hearing. Thanks for any links you can provide.

Motion to Dismiss hearing

Greetings all,

The Motion to Dismiss hearing should be today. Hopefully, we can get some results in pacer by end of business today.

Update 7-31-2012

Updated with:

Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
Proof of Service (subsequent documents)

Thank you for the continued updates...

I can't stand the suspense. I am not a naysayer by any means, but the defending lawyers seems to have a better grasp on the legal vernacular and extensive research for case law to apply to this situation.

I'm praying the judge will lean our direction.

Thanks!

Thanks for the recognition. I really appreciate it! I will have to agree with you about the Defense Lawyer. He threw enough case law in order to stall the case a bit. Also, lacking a lawyers interpretation myself, his claims didn't seem to be too outlandish.

The hearing for the Motion to Dismiss will be heard a week from Monday. Hopefully, we can get a sense of where the case is really at.

Update 7-26-2012

Added:

Reply (Motion related)
Objection/Opposition (Motion related)

Update 7-25-2012

Documents added (Download the document for index):

Motion Related Document
Motion Related Document
Notice of Manual Filing (G-92)
Declaration (Motion related)
Proof of Service (subsequent documents)
Motion Related Document

Update 7-23-2012

Updated with:

Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
2x Notice of Lodging
2x Notice of Manual Filing (G-92)
Reply (Motion related)

7-20-2012 Update

Updated with Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Ex Parte Application to Expedite.

7-17-2012 Update

I have contacted to Law Offices of Gilbert & Marlowe and spoke to Hector. He informed me that they are going to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by the deadline of noon on Friday, July 20, 2012.

Thank you for the clarification

This should be on the front page.

betty

From what I have gathered

Greetings all,

I am not an attorney but this is an educated guess of what is going on.

The Plaintiffs have until noon on July 20, 2012 to reply to the Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint but it did not add any new allegations or legal theories, only more Plaintiffs. Because of this, the Motion to Dismiss applied to the original complaint and the first amended complaint. If the Plaintiffs reply by noon on July 20, 2012, the Defendants must reply by noon on July 27, 2012. If these criterion are met by both parties,the hearing for the motion will be held on August 6, 2012. If the Plaintiffs reply and the Defendants do not reply by the given date, the Motion to Dismiss is dismissed. If the Plaintiffs do not reply by noon on July 20, 2012, the entire case gets dismissed.

The first page of schedule is confusing

and it should be explained in layman's language and updated. I really don't understand what is going on.

If I don't, then I'm sure others don't as well. There needs to be clarification of what things mean on the schedule, in other words, what is it really saying and there needs to be a clear simple update on the case.

betty

Updated!

Updated with court filings up to 7/12/2012!