30 votes

LAGOP joins forces with RNC to fight "frivolous" lawsuit

They do know that we have video tapes, don't they?

June 20, 2012
Contact: Jason Doré

Lawsuit Filed Against LAGOP

The Republican Party of Louisiana announced today that a lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court in California's Central District by more than 100 Ron Paul supporters and self-proclaimed delegates to the Republican National Convention.

The suit, filed against the Republican National Committee and Chairman Reince Priebus and many state Republican parties across the country along with their respective chairmen, including Louisiana, alleges that the binding of national convention delegates is illegal under federal law and claims numerous violations of party rules.

The Republican National Committee has agreed to provide a joint defense for all parties listed in the suit. "We view the suit as completely frivolous but one to which a serious response must be made," said RNC Chief Legal Counsel John R. Phillippe Jr..

"We have joined with the RNC to fight this ridiculous, frivolous lawsuit. This is just another feeble attempt by Paul supporters to undermine the rules and systems in place, and we are going to take this very seriously," said LAGOP Executive Director Jason Doré

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Maybe they need a few "frivolous" broken fingers and...

cracked ribs. Haven't I been saying that, before this is over, the elites will be BEGGING for the protection of the law?

The Louisiana GOP is just as

The Louisiana GOP is just as corrupt as the Chicago DNC....

But those days are soon to be over...the video evidence will speak for itself. Thank you, delegates...thank you, New Media, and thank you Steve Jobs....without your innovation and creativity, I would would not be typing these words...nor would we have video evidence.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

You know I'm not much of an

You know I'm not much of an Apple fan but I will also thank Steve Jobs. :)

desperate animals are the most dangerous!

The rnc is full of animals and they grow more desperate everyday to shut out liberty. Keep up the fight, but proceed with caution.

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.” - Norm Franz

Silver Coin Candles: https://www.etsy.com/shop/ScentSavers

northstar's picture


Are they from France?

Real eyes realize real lies

We want our country back

Every year is a year for Ron Paul!

They have coneheads and three buttocks!


No--they are from Louisiana, but now they are hiding out in

Los Angeles at the home of George Clooney eating bon bons. wtf


northstar's picture

George Clooney?

He's got quite the dirty laundry list.


I guess that's why the GOP is hanging out with him, to get tips on how to stop Ron Paul.

Real eyes realize real lies

We want our country back

Every year is a year for Ron Paul!

Just another attempt by Ron Paul supporters

to violate or thwart the RNC rules in place...THAT'S RICH..Oh the irony and the outright hypocracy...The RNC is doing their best to beat down Ron Paul delegates with private arrests, broken bones, false arrests...BECAUSE these delegates were following their (RNC) owns rules to a tee, and the RNC was having it's hat handed to them after they were knocked senseless. Am I nuts or has the world gone insane ??

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

The world has gone insane.

The world has gone insane. You are not nuts. The GOP is nuts to endorse Mitt Romney. They may as well give Obama another 4 years. Do they want to lose? They knew Romney was weak 4 years ago, and he has only grown weaker over time.

You are smart, the GOP is dumb and dumber.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

WHICH LA GOP? The one our delegates voted out, as in video?

It is important that this go viral so Ron can be nominated onto the floor at convention:

Ron Paul is entitled to a speech as nominee into consideration at the convention, when Louisiana delegates, where he WON the caucus in a landslide, are counted. Noises are being made that maybe they won't be counted, but let those who know parliamentary procedure watch the video synopsis I post. Note the first 2:15 is boring, being motions and points made which the self declared chair ignored contrary to Roberts Rules of Order -- making him subject to removal by the body. The actual removal comes after that. The newly elected chair, a recent hip replacement recipient was driven to the ground despite shouts that he was handicapped, and was taken away by ambulence. The rules chair you see in the video, who objected to a false rules chair giving a false rules committee report had fingers broken by the security hired by the party establishment, as he was dragged off. The second video shows Henry Herford, there is a third video with the rules chair assault. In fact the whole thing is on video. Please spread this, as Romney's folks now deny they said they would support the Ron Paul delegates in credentials committee to be seated. With Louisiana, Paul has five states to be nominated at convention.


Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

It's different in Lousiana.

The GOP leadership is not chosen at the convention like other states.

Any elections at a convention are just for the convention.

The governing bodies of the LAGOP are the State Central Committee and the various Parish Executive Committees.

Each of those are elected by the general membership at the Presidential Preference Primary. This year, that was in March.

We won some seats on the SCC and a few here and there in some of the Parish Committees, but we certainly do not control the party here - yet.


is backing themselves into a corner and they will LOSE.
They have poked a wasps nest and will be STUNG.

They will be lucky to escape with a dollar left in their pockets, after all this is what they are really protecting, right?

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

They Will Not Lose, because the Delegates are using a

certified BAR card-carrying attorney to present the case, and that one element alone puts them, in the eyes of the court, in the TRUSTEE position of their relationship with RNC.

The court will view all Delegates as "incompetent wards of the STATE" who have no standing, because they didn't bring the suit as shareholders/investors/beneficiaries of the public trust, and will instead let the judge/RNC presume them (Delegates) into the trustee position of the suit.

I posted it here in Current Events yesterday, but was quickly pushed to the "Off Topic" section of the site.


Just goes to show, it's not the relevance of the information brought forward that's the GAME CHANGER, as much as it is WHO brings the information.

Had Michael Nystrom posted this thread, it would have 1500 up votes and been on the front page; it would have been THE game changer.


quit spamming every thread with this nonsense.

It was voted DOWN and doesnt belong on the front page or every thread.
you have been doing this for a week.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Has anyone thought about doing this privately ??

Insuring (indemnifying) their court petition and filing affidavits in default and asking for a summary judgment.......WHY ARE WE GIVING SOME JUDGE (IN BANKRUPTCY) DISCRETION OVER THIS PROCEEDING ??????? Has anyone here not listened and learned anything about what Ron Paul means when he said this credit is created and the banks use it first and get all the benefit ?????? Where do you think this credit emanates from ??? Is anyone here remotely familiar with trust law ??? Are you guys ever going to wake up ??

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

They won't wake up till it's over.

Then they'll go back to my post concerning this Trust Law issue and will do the FACE PALM and finally realize what happened, and why it happened.

It's like telling a child "One day when you grow up you'll understand why I spanked you for shoplifting". The child of course knows more than his father and continues on his shoplifting spree until he reaches 18. At that point he ends up in prison, and while he's sitting on his bunk, he'll do the FACE PALM, and say "Why the h3ll didn't I listen?".

Sometimes lessons are hard to learn, but let it not be said that no one said anything at all; that they weren't warned.


Please---what is a certified BAR card-carrying attorney?

What are we using and what is the BAR card-carrying attorney?


"BAR" stands for "British Accreditation Registry"

They all take an Oath to the Queen of England; they have a superseding Oath of loyalty to the Queen that outweighs their loyalty to the citizenry.

I get it after just now spending an hour and a half reading

.but even Bush/Kerry went to regular court with non BAR card-carrying attorneys.

So in another universe your way is probably correct, but now that everything is so reversed in reality we have to use the attorneys admitted to practice in US states.


Attorneys cannot be

Attorneys cannot be practicing Attorneys in the US without passing the BAR. All US Attorneys are BAR Attorneys that is the point.

I believe he meant they needed to have passed the barrister

exam of the UK.

As far as "the BAR" ..in the US, we've got the ABA, but in California we have non-ABA and ABA attorneys, depending on the school they attended. I believe Richard Gilbert attended a NON-ABA school.


The BAR Association has never been, and never was an

"Act of Congress" ... It's a sham; a shadow attorney's group sent by the Queen herself (or the King) to infiltrate the government; pass statutory laws, rules and regulations that of no relevance to non 14th Amendment citizens.

Your proposed "in another universe" is exactly what the judge is going to say (beneath his breath) when these Delegates show up as trustees instead of shareholders/beneficiaries/investors trying to convince the court they should be heard.

NOTE: For the record, I'm not saying the attorney's wont get it done, because sometimes the fraud is so blatant the court has no choice but to allow a win, or the people would revolt. They don't want the people to revolt and figure out they're getting railroaded on a daily basis in the courts, so they must allow a few wins here and there.

The truth of the matter is: The entire court system in this country runs off Trust Law ..... Period!

I hope the moderators will put my original post back in Current Events; the con of the century is exposed in that thread. The video seminars are posted in the comments of that thread.

Here's a question.....regarding all the suits that have been

filed relating to Obama's birth certificate....I remember several stated the citizens bringing the suits did not have "standing". Is this what you are talking about...because if it is, this would finally make sense to me. Thanks.


Exactly !!! .... They Do Not Have Standing, Because ....

These people are showing up in court as the NAME on the Certificate of Live Birth; the legal fiction; the presumption of law; the fictitious-corporate entity, the "corporate employee", the TRUSTEES of the corporation, instead of their true capacity of shareholder/beneficiary/investors.

The whole foreign corp. UNITED STATES is a corporation. The president is the CEO, the congressman and senators; house and senate members are all directors of the board, just beneath the president. The citizens of the country are the "employees"; they are BENEATH all those other directors and the CEO ... at least that's what they've been led to believe, but nothing could be further from the truth.

They do not have standing because they are not approaching the issue and bringing the suit as shareholders/investors/beneficiaries of the public trust. These people keep bringing suits against the CEO of the corporation as employees of that corporation; of course they have no standing to question their boss.

The UNITED STATES is a corporation. The president is the CEO that has been elected by the shareholders/investors/beneficiaries (the people) to carry out their demands; to make them as much money or return on their investment as possible. If the CEO is breaking the rules; not performing; not eligible, etc. the shareholders/investors/beneficiaries of the corporation (public trust) have all the standing in the world to hold a shareholders meeting (Federal Court Case) to discuss their grievances against the CEO and either have him removed or demand he change course.

These people are showing up in the capacity of "employees" trying to sue their boss and are getting the "You Don't Have Standing" hammer slammed across their heads.

The court is correct: They do NOT have standing entering the jurisdiction of the court as "peasants" or "employees", "trustees", but what the court is not telling them is:

If they were to show up with that Certificate of Live Birth in the court filing as proof that they are the beneficiaries of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES, they would finally prevail and get the case heard on it's merits and Obama would be out of office; probably in Federal Prison for fraud.

The people are the ones who put the money into the corporation, not the president (CEO). He's just a trustee the people have appointed to make sure things get carried out the way they want. The people are the investors/shareholders/beneficiaries, and that gives them standing!

What do you think would happen if some shareholders/investors/beneficiaries got together and brought a suit against the CEO of Microsoft for breaching the trust of their agreement; or by fraudulently assuming more power than they granted him and making decisions against their will?

Yep, you guessed it: The CEO would find his a$$ in a real bind and the shareholders would win the case, no questions asked.

That Certificate of Live Birth is the only proof you have that the corporate fictitious NAME that YOU are the agent of, is a shareholder in the common wealth; the corporation. That document is a security instrument; it's written/typed on bond paper, it's a real money maker and that name on that certificate is what funds this corporation; the future labor of that NAME is the name of the game.

Click on my name and go read my other posts about this subject, and most of all go to this link and read it and scroll down to the comments section and watch the seminars.


I am still thinking about this. What possible reason can there

be that the plaintiff attorneys in case after case go into court and lose because of this standing problem? I know "standing" is discussed in law schools as an elementary concept. Why are the attorneys on "our side" not getting this "standng" part down?

Thanks for your diligence in answering.


Ok...now here's the thing...the judges are the ones who have

been saying someone does or does not have standing. The judges in this country and the ABA attorneys in this country attend the same law schools. For this reason, I would think they would both start with an identical definition of "standing".

So in a given case, the attorney is appearing before the judge with his plaintiff. Having attended the same universities in the USA, for purposes of discussion let's pick the University of Wisconsin Law School for no other reason than it is an ABA approved law school.

So the judge went to the U of Wisconsin at Madison Law School and the attorney went to the U of Wisconsin at Madison Law School, an ABA school.

It's not that the judge is a UK barrister graduate of a UK school and the plaintiff attorney is an ABA graduate, it is that they both went to the U of Wisconsin, an ABA law school.

In other works they both have the same definitions of "standing".
This is what I don't understand. It appears that at some point (what point?) the judge starts using UK standing while the attorney is still using ABA school standing.

From my layperson understanding, then, the term "standing" means they have the right to sue. Obviously, the plaintiff's attorney thinks they have "standing" or they wouldn't be in the courtroom. But the judge says the plaintiff does not have standing. Since they both graduate from the same school, then why do they not utilize the identical definition of "standing". What happened? When the attorney became a judge, did he suddently start using UK barristor terminology (I know he did not) but something changed.
What happened to cause this rift in definition?

I do not understand when or where or for what reason the judge now has a different definition of "standing" than the plaintiff attorney does when they have attended the same ABA school.

Is this what is going on?


I didn't know there were two definitions of standing :)

The judges are a notch higher than the attorney's. The attorney's are taught in school that "Judge is Almighty King", he's just had a little more schooling in the con is all. Once he gets his JD, he can now administrate the affairs of others. The attorney can only help lead the victim to his executioner, but is not in a position to administrate.

I sometimes wonder how many of these attorney's really know what truly going on in the courtroom with respect to the Administrator/Beneficiary/Trustee positions or roles. Perhaps more know about it than I believe, but believe you me, the judges know exactly what's going on, and that's why he/she is working overtime to get you to contract with the court.

Something as simple as the judge calling your name, and you stand up and say "Yes, that's me your honor", is all it takes. You just showed submission; you just contracted with the court, and your submission to the court knocked you down from your original "role" as the administrator/beneficiary, to the ever dreaded trustee.

You were in total charge of the court before you said the wrong thing.

What one should probably say instead when the judge calls the name is: "I'm here concerning that matter, I'm the authorized representative for JOHN P. DOE" ... "I'm the living man, not the legal fiction you're referring to though".

Then one might set the record straight so there is no 'confusion' by saying "Are you (the judge) a public servant?".

That's when they go APE SHIT CRAZY! Because you just pulled their con card and exposed them for who they really are. They will more than likely call in 200 Sheriffs at this point, and this is when you say "Excuse me, are these men public servants?" ... Yes they are, they are 'elected' into that position, but they don't even know what the hell their doing in the courtroom; they've just been brainwashed into following the judges orders themselves.

Just tell the Sheriffs to stand down-stand down, I do not give you my consent to touch or arrest me. Trust me if it goes this far, the judge knows damn well you know the con, and he/she knows damn well that you know who you REALLY are in this hearing, and that's the administrator/beneficiary of the legal fiction name. At this point, the whole attitude and demeanor of the judge will change.

Go watch Dean Clifford's seminars in my other posts from the link above or click on my name and get to them from previous posts.

What happens is: The judge is really a public servant; a public trustee, and you are the authorized rep. for the legal fiction name they are trying to bring statutory charges against. But you didn't know there were "TWO" of you in that courtroom, and the the authorized rep. which would be you, is actually the administrator/beneficiary of that legal fiction name, as in you have more authority in the matter than the judge, but he's going to trick you into the trustee position by getting you to contract/submit to the court and that will put him in the administrative seat and the STATE or GOVERNMENT in the beneficiary seat.

That is how the STATE makes it's money. The judge and the STATE are working together to take your life; your money; your time; and your wife and kids; rape your accounts, and unjustly enrich the estate by way of a constructive fraud perpetrated against from birth, the Certificate of Live Birth.

This way they can beat you up and fine you; throw you in jail etc. and you're none the wiser of what just happened. You've just been brainwashed all your life by the public 'fool' system to bow to what you thought was authority.

Your proof that you are the authorized rep. or administrator/executor/beneficiary of the name on the Certificate of Live Birth is your sole ability to get a certified copy of that document without a court order.

No one else can get it but you, short a court order. And no one else can administrate that estate without your written permission either.

Trust me, these people know what's going on; they make a lot of money filling the prison system with their victims in this fraud, and they make a lot of money in fines as well.

Here's what happens when you appoint a judge the trustee in your matter: Watch them squirm ....


Now, watch what happens when this guy assumes his proper role as the administrator of the NAME; the judge gets pretty nasty; calls in the Sheriffs and watch what happens:


These rats are public servants and they damn well know it, but we've been duped all our lives into believing that are our Kings, and it's the other way around. We pay their salary; they are public servants/trustees, and have NO business at all administrating our estates, but if you don't know what's really going on in that circus, they assume the administrative role and take you straight to the cleaners.

Join the Party

We are looking for 3000+ plaintiffs, please join us all district/county and state delegates and alternates are invited.
Or just supply supporting testimony.

go to electionfraudremedy.com and get started now. We got them on the run and need to pile it on!

AZ Delegate results

Her is an very in depth analysis of the vote counting. As you will see it is beyond repair. Additionally the vote counts do not match the official results.