22 votes

Does Ron Paul support the LawyersforRonPaul lawsuit?

The lawsuit sounds like a good idea to me. However, I have read several comments in various places that the good Dr. does not support the lawsuit. I read a comment on RonPaul Forums last night alleging that Dr. Paul is not happy about it. I am not a troll or trying to start anything. Just want to get clarification if anyone knows or has info. Seems to me he would support it as the lawsuit is individuals taking things into their own hands and fighting for truth, justice and liberty. But, since he didn't mention anything about it in his message of last evening, just wondering if anyone has info on his thoughts about it. Some claim to know in their "comments" on various site.

Comment viewing options

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

Ron Paul said

"If they ask my advice, I’m going to say don’t."

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Just One Question, Good Samaritan

There are Mormons 4 Ron Paul, Christians 4 Ron Paul, Lawyers 4 Ron Paul, etc. That is totally legitimate because it means some people from a group are for Ron Paul

My question is based on what Do0ug Wead said about you have to be careful about how your name is used. Legally is it not one thing to be *a group of* Lawyers 4 Ron Paul and quite another to file law suits as Lawyers 4 Ron Paul when the campaign has a group of lawyers. To me this is implying alliance where there is none.

Further, the lawsuit implies that Ron Paul delegates are suing. Some are. Some are not. Those who are not are clearly associated in the law suit with those who are not.

At one time the Lawyer(s) 4 Ron Paul make it ALL about Ron Paul, ie he won't win without us. Another time it is a lawsuit for *everyone* aimed at fair elections.

There are legal restraints for using a political candidate's name in ways that *might* thwart his intentions and efforts and also portray him as a part of something that he is (a) not involved with and (b) has not sanctioned his name to be used on.

Further I would say that despite any good intentions PaulFest is doing the exact same thing. I would have no problem if the lawsuit was called something accurate like delegates to the RNC sue for convention fraud. Likewise, given that many of us agree that Libertarian and libertarian views are two different things I would suggest that there is Liberty and liberty views. A broad spectrum is covered. A Liberty Fest in honor of Ron Paul where it is stated by so many that, in effect, it is a Goodbye Tribute to Ron Paul and a passing the torch to someone from another party who does not agree with some of his most fervent planks, is disheartening at best.

fonta

GoodSamaritan's picture

That's an important distinction

The name "Lawyers for Ron Paul" should merely identify a group that shares a common interest in supporting Ron Paul.

Using that particular name for a group that has filed a lawsuit on behalf of certain delegates blurs the line between common interest and legal representation. I would guess that was done deliberately considering the early claims you pointed out, such as stating Ron Paul won't win without them or they're taking over the campaign.

I can't give a legal opinion but I agree with you that such a name implies alliance with the Ron Paul campaign where there is none.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Another Question, Good Samaritan

This is the stated purpose of the RON PAUL Money Bomb:

Paul Festival is a fund raising project of the Liberty Unleashed PAC. All proceeds go to support efforts to elect liberty candidates. Not endorsed by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Some say it is to support delegates and yet they state on their website something totally different (above). To me, to add insult to injury (and I do mean injury) ...they put the disclaimer that it is not endorsed by any candidate and yet use a candidates name without his permission to raise money for *any* candidate they they say is a *liberty candidate* whatever that means. Never mind if Ron Paul would like to raise money for that candidate.

fonta

GoodSamaritan's picture

The purpose of that money bomb

is to raise $300,000 for supporting Paul Festival.

See http://www.paulfestival.org/moneybomb?view=campaigns

However, according to the homepage "[a]ll proceeds go to support efforts to elect liberty candidates." The only way this could be true is if they interpret Paul Festival as an effort to elect liberty candidates - which it is not.

The other interesting thing is the page with the organizational chart at http://www.paulfestival.org/planning-committee/organizationa... where it states, "In an attempt to keep our event, and organization completely transparent we will be frequently updating these pages." Except that no personal names are listed, only team names and descriptions. Not exactly "completely transparent".

I'm not passing judgment...just making a couple of observations.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I Will Drop It

....I am clearly in the minority. I'll watch from the sidelines now and hope I see the errors in my critical thinking.

Good Luck to all you "We Are Ron Paul" people. Perhaps I have been confused for the past eight years...I'm 63 so I guess I am just a useless eater.

I'll take my thoughts elsewhere as I don't have much to contribute here.

fonta

Jesse Benton.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/politics/RNC-calls-frivolous-lawsui...

“We have nothing to do with it and do not support it,” said Paul adviser Jesse Benton.

Good.

I see that Benton is 100% in agreement with Ron Paul, just like always.

Ron said he didn't have a take either way in tonights interview

with Wolf Blitzer.
http://www.dailypaul.com/241064/ron-paul-to-be-on-cnn-at-4pm...

Blitz:
What is your reaction to this lawsuit Congressman?

Paul:
Well I've heard a little about it but it's not part of our campaign. There certainly have been times when we felt like we came up short in the process, but not extremely so, and it hasn't ever motivated me to file a lawsuit. But you know at times, when we've been pushed around, it's because the other side hasn't followed the rules, you know, and they've closed down conventions on us, and they've done things to try and prevent us. But that has not motivated me to file a lawsuit.

Blitzkrieg:
Are you okay just being associated with some of your supporters who have filed this lawsuit?

Big Paul:
Am I associated with them?

Bebop Blitz:
No, are you okay being associated, because these are all your supporters who've actually filed the lawsuit?

Big Tall Paul:
Well, if they have a legitimate argument they can make, and that's what they want to do, I'm not going to say don't do it. If they ask my advice I'm going to say no, I didn't motivate them to do it, but sometimes they do...

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

Send your question to

Send your question to @wolfblitzer on Twitter and maybe he will ask Dr. Paul directly.

Of course my input is irrelevant, but without answering the Q

I can only ask another question and leave a general opinion.

If we take your post and apply it to other situations, we might be able to discern a possible answer.

Vans got lost and never arrived with votes in Iowa. (Ron Paul said nothing therefore he believes vans got lost because he never said anything)

Ron Paul counties in New Hampshire and Maine did not have their votes counted. (Ron Paul said nothing therefore he agrees that they should not have been counted)

A properly elected Chairman in Louisiana gets his hip dislodged and fingers broken. (Ron Paul said nothing therefore Ron agrees the man was wrong and should have been injured)

A improper adjournment of the Oklahoma convention reconvenes properly in the parking lot but is not recognized as legitimate. (Ron Paul said nothing so everything is ok in OK, because the old party in OK says so).

I guess I could go on and mention the Nevada, Washington, Alaska, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado and a few other anomalies, but you get my drift.

Because we know Ron Pauls natural stand to STAY OUT of State Rights and Individual Liberty issues, one can draw a possible conclusion that Ron Paul is taking that same position in this case and the cases mentioned above.

Of course

as I stated above, he remains neutral.

Because we know Ron Pauls natural stand to STAY OUT of State Rights and Individual Liberty issues, one can draw a possible conclusion that Ron Paul is taking that same position in this case and the cases mentioned above.

A very good question!

A very good question!

Of course not.

Why do you think they're calling it a "mutiny"?

Doug wead

giggled and said "go for it".
It's in his 'question and answer' video.

It's caucus votes that were 'IN YOUR FACE' stolen and subverted. It's the delegate's lawsuit now. REP Paul doesn't want anyone to be punked, with cheating and broken bones etc. GOT IT?

Stop the nonsense.

RP said "don't let anyone walk on you"

Understand? Now let it go. We have nobama/orobmymoney trolls putting that STUPID idea into liberty peeps head. It's all foolishness. Liberty peeps have a right to stick up for themselves and have their votes counted. Enough now. Stop hashing this out. It's a non issue. The lawyers are going in on behalf of the liberty peeps WHO PLAYED BY THE RULES AND WERE ATTACKED AND IGNORED and that's that. NO ONE WILL STOP THEM. WE ARE ATTACKING ELECTION FRAUD HEAD ON AND DO NOT NEED ANYONE'S APPROVAL. If the person's/delegates votes were stolen we do not need anyone to approve a lawsuit. Got it? This is the delegates VS oromney election fraud and not anything else. It's not about REP Paul. Got it? Stop reading the troll posts dogging this and distracting us from our goals. Trolls wants to cause infighting. Cut them off.
THIS GETS A DOWN VOTE NURSE NANCY. LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE.

Keepin' it real.

Hey TeaCup, not only is the attorney

“fighting fraud”, but he's been COMMITTING FRAUD by posting on here as a rival attorney Scott A. McMillan (La Mesa, CA) under the username: nebolaw, “praising” Richard Gilbert on week-old threads. Caught the bastard red-handed today, by sending a fax to the REAL attorney. BOOM.
Dr.K.Research is refusing to answer repeated questions regarding this, and if this was known by him, while setting-up this “executive committee”. Get off your lazy a$$ and get clued-in, this lawsuit's attorney will likely be having to deal with a lawsuit himself for committing fraud. Stay tuned my real fellow Patriots, (the free-thinkers), along with everyone else whose self-applied rose-colored glasses are too thick to allow them to see wtf is really going on.
Peace.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Just so I understand...

you're saying there's a real attorney named Scott McMillan but Richard Gilbert is pretending to be Mr. McMillan under the username nebolaw?

If that's true, I wonder what Mr. McMillan would think of that.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

He's posing as the La Mesa California attorney Scott A. McMillan, whose office is on Nebo Dr.
He's been doing this to make it appear as though an attorney with actual credibility supports Mr. Gilbert (himself).
What's funny (not actually), is that someone left a review talking about how Richard was pretending to be someone else.
http://lawyers-in-us.com/ca/Santa%20Ana/Gilbert%20&%20Marlow...
http://www.insiderpages.com/b/15238109282/gilbert-and-marlow...

GoodSamaritan's picture

Then it would be helpful if

someone (you?) could speak with Mr. McMillan about this. A cyber high-five to you or anyone who can get him to sign into the DP and post a thread stating who he is and that he is not user nebolaw.

That first link is particularly revealing about attorney Gilbert.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

No, he does not

I defy you to find anything linking the campaign to "lawyers for Ron Paul."

They are operating in direct opposition to the stated wishes of the campaign, which has said repeatedly that delegates ARE bound, and will observe the GOP rules. The campaign has also repeatedly rejected calls for lawsuits of all kinds, either because there's no case, or because a lawsuit would damage the movement, or both.

"Lawyers for Ron Paul" operates out of a website called www.toolsforjustice.com This website hawks what can only be described as tax evasions schemes.

From their homepage:

"Is your pay for work somehow connected to the federal government?
If not, then is the IRS requiring you to declare your pay as federally taxable income?

If so, then the IRS may be misapplying federal employment taxes against you in violation of IRC Section 7214(a), a felony crime.

Through criminal prosecution of the IRS, you can beat the illegal taxation of your pay, including IRS tax lien, levy or withholding activity being conducted under color of law.

Tools for Justice will show you how to stop IRS tax lien, levy or withholding, by filing a criminal complaint against the IRS to stop the illegal taking of your pay, and to obtain a judgment ordering the return of your pay for the last six years."

Meanwhile, the website contains no contact information whatsoever, no way to verify who these people are. The website is also hosted anonymously.

Some person claiming to be a lawyer working with this organization was on the DP a few weeks ago making a tremendous fool of himself. He was making threats to sue DPers for defamation, as well as generally conducting himself in a manner (e.g. terrible spelling, incoherent statements) that one would not expect of a plumber, let alone a lawyer, let alone a lawyer that's supposedly going to fight the RNC in federal court on our behalf!

Also, the lawsuit itself ( http://arizona.lastchanceforliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2... ) comes off as amateurish in the extreme. It just repeats various lame-brained theories about Rule 38 et al that have been floating around the DP for weeks. Its claims are, as far as I can tell, entirely spurious. It claims that the RNC attorney letter declares all delegates unbound: exactly what folks on the DP have been preaching (without actually reading the letter), but if you read the letter (which is provided in the lawsuit as exhibit A) it CLEARLY states the opposite! Did these lawyers not read their own "evidence?" In other words, this is a joke of a case. At best it achieves nothing, at worst it gets a bunch of delegates disqualified and stuck with court fees.

Bad. News.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Don't forget the $1,000,000 “fine”

You promise to pay (“for your own protection” - love how they added that right after I brought up that joke of a clause here on DP 3 weeks ago) should you violate the TOS by “sharing the one-of-a-kind Legal Tax Document Templates”.

LOL...indeed

I wish they hadn't deleted that old thread, as it would be obvious to any sentient being who read it just what "lawyers for Ron Paul" is and is not.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

sharkhearted's picture

This is not about Dr. Paul.

This is about correcting wrongs made on one of the most sacred natural rights we possess: that to vote!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Yes, but Lawyers for Ron Paul

Yes, but Lawyers for Ron Paul also state they are taking over the campaign, and I have wondered how Dr. Paul must feel about that from the git-go.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

I'm sure someone knows the video

Where Dr Paul was questioned about the fraud allegations and his answer was from memory so not exact wording He had no proof himself but those who did should take action on it. Think it was in Maine maybe New Hampshire

This might be the one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtHiA7TJUV0&feature=related

It applies to everything else as well, as he rarely, if ever, actually tells us what to do. He kind of just expects it.

Yes that has the audio from the clip I saw

right there near the start of this one. Answers the question for sure.

If the campaign doesn't like

If the campaign doesn't like the lawsuit, I'd give them the finger and continue to support the suit. If Ron Paul doesn't like the lawsuit, I'd give him a big hug, tell him that I love him and continue the suit. But that's just me.

sharkhearted's picture

Right on, sovereignjanice!

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

So far...

We have one guy WHO SAYS he's a lawyer and has a foundation or whatever saying "we" as in he... has taken over the Ron Paul Campaign and is suing in a lawsuit which has been filed and nobody has read it but the few who have are not happy with it.

Any lawyer who's going to publicly state that "we the people" are taking over someone's election campaign - that's... I'll stop there.