16 votes

Let's Ask the "Lawyers for Ron Paul" - Legitimate Questions Only Please

UPDATED: I myself was slightly opposed at the start of this thread... now back to neutral as I am seeing statutes and titles/codes which need to be looked up and see if they apply to our situation.

Stand by: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPt2nlyfmfc&feature=player_em...

End Update

I think a post needs to be started to actually ask legal questions to the "Lawyers for Ron Paul" before we give them our list of delegates. That list is QUITE valuable. We should consider the importance of making sure we are getting CONSIDERATION for our value when we are making deals with - IMO only - the Devil.

Maybe these lawyers are different. I'm happy to give them the benefit of the very small sliver of doubt in the front of my head...

So to start with here's a question: The Lawyers only need ONE delegate as a plaintiff who is bound that doesn't wish to be bound... in order to make their case.

Why do they require "as many as possible to sign up?"

Submitted by FreedomIsAbsolute

2 part question: 1st part, What/who has given you the authority to take over the Ron Paul2012 campaign,

2nd part, Where can I find a statement by Ron Paul himself acknowledging the fact that you guys are in fact/have already taken over his campaign?

Submitted by An Abandoned

I would like to see the following questions answered officially by both the legal team and by the Ron Paul campaign. Personally I will not agree to be a plaintiff until I receive satisfactory answers for these:

1. Does Ron Paul approve of this lawsuit?
2. Can the plaintiffs be held responsible for the legal fees of the defendants if the case is lost?
3. Can the Republican Party exclude/ban people from the party if they are party to a lawsuit against them?
4. Will plaintiffs be called on to testify in court?

NOTE: I only want written and/or voice recorded answers from the legal team and from the campaign.

Thank you freedom and abandoned for the legitimate questions which I have pulled out of the chatter. I'm curious why how it takes less time for people objecting to this thread to keep telling us to listen to the audio when if they know the audio answers our questions... they don't just type the answer?

I'm not interested in an emotional appeal. I want "Black Ink on White Paper" as Rod Class likes to say it. Show me the congressional records, tell me what statute we're talking about... what precedent are you running off of here? What are your requirements of the delegates? Do you need ONE delegate? 20? Or do you need them ALL? Don't just cheer rahh rahh and tell me you can do it. That's what you HAVE to say in order to get our money or our names. What these people here want to know is HOW you're going to do it.

Now please - if you want our support - just start answering. The audio does not answer the paragraph of questions I've listed above.

Sorry I just get started asking and I have this URGE to KNOW MORE!

Comment viewing options

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

I would want to ask 2

I would want to ask 2 questions:
1. Have you EVER had a single case before in your lives?
2. What Cracker Jack box did you get your degree from?

I will come back to this string later tonite

It appears as though you are trying to taint the questions and posters with fact less information. Are you really seeking honest questions that are un-influenced?
Example:

I'm happy to give them the benefit of the very small sliver of doubt in the front of my head... Not very neutral

I'm not interested in an emotional appeal. Yet you inject emotion into the title piece

we are making deals with - IMO only - the Devil. That is not emotion?

Your Question and those you posted are valid.
The Lawyers only need ONE delegate as a plaintiff who is bound that doesn't wish to be bound... in order to make their case.

Leave it at that and remove the comments that are tainting the audience because of the lack of Neutrality in the title post.

Let trolls feel free to down-vote the facts of the matter I posted above.

Until you correct the misleading, emotional portions of the title post, I retract my initial up vote of this string. Currently stands at 14. For those trolls below it will go to 12 because my original up vote is a positive, by reversing my vote it does bring it back to a 12 as I am now voting the string DOWN. that makes my vote a NET NEGATIVE. Consider yourselves "watered" for the day. 8)

You need a hobby, my friend…

…like, say…Xanax

haha

hahaha thats funny

ron paul 2012

What is the plan

if/when the RNC decides that people engaged in legal litigation against the RNC cannot represent the Republican Party as delegates in their Republican Party Convention?

How is this going to be counter-acted?

Finally, somebody else is asking the same question

that I've been asking for 4 weeks, to no avail.
Actually, to tell you the truth, I'm not surprised that it's you, T.

Legitimate Question re Fees and Costs...

...in the event of a loss.

In the event the plaintiffs are on the hook to pay court costs and defense's legal fees, the question was posed: were the plaintiffs advised of this risk.

The answer from TexUncensored was that the attorney's would hold a money bomb.

However, a money bomb
1) occurring after everyone said they were working for free and there WERE NO potential liabilities seems like a case of misadvertising at best and downright fraud at worst and
2) money bomb or no money bomb it does not relieve the plaintiffs of their PERSONAL liability
3) who will get and control the money from the money bomb
4) will 100% of it go to the plaintiffs in the event they are saddled with this liability
5) what will happen to the lawyers who generated these liabilities for the liberty community paid for by the money bomb when this was such a "sure thing" with "no downside".

Something is fishy here. WERE THE PLAINTIFFS ADVISED OF THE RISKS OR NOT?

I want an answer to that question.

A money bomb, if any, is to pay court costs.

Sowing lots of doubts, Mr. FBI. What is your purpose for these fabrications?

Can you please answer the questions posed?

Thanks.

May be a dumb question but, here it goes..

I have read that a court date has not been set because so many have to be served.

Question: How can you serve people without a court date?

That is the norm. Every time

That is the norm. Every time a complaint is filed, all defendants must be served with notice of the suit and complaint. Generally no court dates are set until after service of the complaint and summons, and defendants have filed and answer. Then court dates are generally coordinated with the court and counsel to accomodate their schedules.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Also

the rules require proof of service and certificates of service filed with the Court. "Proof" varies from place to place even within the same state. Generally, you have to make multiple attempts to serve notice if you can't locate parties to the suit.

If all delegates are unbound

does that mean it's basically brokered and someone like Jeb Bush could swing by and put himself forward?

Will the 5 state rule be voided too?

The delegates are also

the voting contingent for rule changes and other things happening at the convention. If we have the majority of people there, even in stealth mode, we can affect or maybe carry things our way, and possibly also stop the motion of somebody like Jeb Bush being put in by waiving the rules and nominating him.

They are desperate to not have our large presence there, for a variety of reasons. And the thing you mention might even be one of the reasons.

thinking about it now

if A.N.Other(s) did get on to the ballot then it would affect Romney's core (or lack of it) more than Ron's and might take it to a second ballot.

The main thing I think is if Ron won on the second ballot they'll cry foul and do everything to subvert it but if Jeb won it would be democracy talking or some such nonsense.

Anyway cheers for the clarification

Best question so far... The

Best question so far... The lawyer said many more candidates could jump in.... does this mean they are challenging the 5 state plurality rule?

If they really are challenging so much how in the world do they ever expect to have a ruling before the convention? Does anyone know if a court date has been set?

Also, is this reference to being "Ron Paul's Lawyer"

a journalistic mistake, or is Richard Gilbert now calling himself this in interviews?
OCWeekly, Fri Jun 15, 2012
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/06/mitt_romney_ro...

The RNC and Paul campaign, which previously advised its delegates to lay low before the convention, are so far maintaining stony silence on the complaint.
UPDATE, JUNE 15, 1:24 P.M.: At least 40 more Republican National Convention delegates are seeking to join the lawsuit filed by 123 others who claim they are being pressured to vote for Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul's lawyer claims hundreds of more delegates may want to do the same.

Agreed.

This is an interesting question - different topic though...

Not clear how it's a different topic

Anyway as a deliberately partial-answer to one of the questions above, regarding the consequences of the lawsuit, as I posted here => http://www.dailypaul.com/239370#comment-2556860
California Republicans can be kicked out because of a Conflict of Interest for being involved in litigation where the Republican Party is listed as a respondent.
This is one example, and my fear from the get-go (this whole lawsuit topic started around 5/27) was that it would put the delegates in jeopardy with the Committee on Credentials. The fact that those posts were, let's just say contentious, and never answered, didn't exactly ease my mind.

In that case...

It would be in the judge's hands to rule it out.

Legitimate Questions only - Or Answers to those Questions

Please folks... let's start over here...

***************************************************************

No more extra words or distractions above this line... okay?

As a student of law, I have

As a student of law, I have some familiarity and experience with both legal research and writing. The complaint is not as replete with spelling and grammatical errors as one poster has insinuated, but it would have certainly benefited from some proof-reading--especially given the importance of the lawsuit.

"The casualty of partisanship is objectivity."

The case has been filed. The judge has been assigned.

The trolls are coming unglued. The radio interviews clearly show that patriot lawyers and 100s of election violations are documented. Ron Paul isn't filing, he knows about it, and seems pleased. No army can stop an idea whose time has come. Brushfires in the minds of men are not put out easily. It takes more than a couple of generations. Election fraud where GOP was putting in zeros- can get them orange suits. The suit will make the GOP follow their own rules and federal statues. Sorry, you're not going to hear the RonPaul campaign on this one. The lawyers are not the campaign, but the people they represent are.

Cases are Filed and Judges are assigned

Every day. Can we try to skip the emotional appeal in the responses on here... I'd like to stick with the facts.

Questions

I would like to see the following questions answered officially by both the legal team and by the Ron Paul campaign. Personally I will not agree to be a plaintiff until I receive satisfactory answers for these:

1. Does Ron Paul approve of this lawsuit?
2. Can the plaintiffs be held responsible for the legal fees of the defendants if the case is lost?
3. Can the Republican Party exclude/ban people from the party if they are party to a lawsuit against them?
4. Will plaintiffs be called on to testify in court?

NOTE: I only want written and/or voice recorded answers from the legal team and from the campaign.

Ron Paul and his campaign CANNOT answer question 1).

ANY association with the lawsuit at all. Any communications to the plaintiffs or attorneys or to others regarding the lawsuit could allow defense to make Ron Paul or the Presidential Election Committee a party to the lawsuit.

That is the last thing Ron Paul wants.

Therefore, he and the campaign MUST maintain the "stony silence" referenced in the OC blog "article" people have been referring to as news.

You FINALLY

post one "FACT" correctly. I am impressed. Good for you.

I find it curious that you post on DP

from your military email address. I would think the military would require you to use a personal address unless you were "on the job" - which begs the question - why are you here while on the job with the military?

8)

FYI, let me interject a "fact". A fact is something that you are not used to being exposed to.

My retirement date was 1 June 2010.

Is there any other FALSE, MISLEADING, Erroneous, MIS-INFORMATION that I need to correct for you "BOY"!

I am sitting on my couch, in my living room in Cedar Park, Texas (few miles north of Austin).

What more can I do for you before I log off to go play my favorite on line game?

us.army.mil

So then explain how you emailed me from that address. And isn't it interesting how you admit you live outside of Austin where DARPA conducts it's internet presence pilot programs.