3 votes

Who to believe - Doug Wead or Richard Gilbert?

See article, RNC Faces Suit From Paul Backers, at http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rnc-faces-suit-from-...

"Richard Gilbert, an attorney representing the Paul delegates, said he hopes that a judge will issue court orders protecting delegates from coercion. Gilbert said he had been in touch with Paul's campaign, and that while one official urged him not to file suit, another Paul adviser -- Doug Wead -- told him to 'go for it.'"

Down in the comments section, Doug Wead responds:

"I have not met the lawyer mentioned in this article, nor did the author of this article contact me to confirm my quote which was used above. If she had I would have pointed out that lawyers for the Ron Paul Campaign speak for us on all legal matters relating to delegates."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Well Mr. Wead

that is exactly what this fight is about. Are delegates free agents or not?

If they are, then the Ron Paul campaign does not own them, similarly Romney would not own Nevada delegates who might support Paul, end result is that the Paul campaign's internal lawyers do not represent Delegates bound or unbound to Ron Paul. The delegates represent themselves and the people in their home states that voted for them.
They could join Gilbert's legal quest if they wish, without the campaigns approval.

By the way, some of this is already settled law, The SCOTUS already said that delegates cannot be bound from open primary states. Basically saying if a political party opens their primary to any voter, Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc., a delegate from that primary cannot be bound.

I trust RP and his campaign completely

Ron Paul has not lied to me, nor has his campaign that has been awesome to work with.

If you didn't do what Ron Paul asked ALL of us to do, you're not for Ron Paul, you're for Obama and probably working for the Clintons.

At this

point I don't believe a word coming from the "official" campaign.
I feel that Ron and all of his supporters have been sold down the river. The biggest hoot would be for Jesse to send an e mail asking for more money.

Formerly rprevolutionist

SteveMT's picture

Actions speak louder than any words,....

like the Massachusetts ousting of Ron Paul supporters was an action. That action has to met with another action, not just more words. "Patience, Peace, and Unity" just went out the window, IMO.

In my world, its always

In my world, its always easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. Lawyers for Ron Paul are essentially asking for permission. If the answer is no, then the delegates are cut off at the knees. They should take a play from progressive politicians who pass unconstitutional laws intentionally and leave it to the courts to MAYBE strike down what they've done. This case should have never been filed.

I don't agree

L4RP are not asking for permission. They claimed to have pulled a mutany.

Taking a play from Neoliberals AKA progressies only fuels the drive to a NWO. It does not restore America to constitutional government.

GoodSamaritan's picture

You are correct

and I have warned about this in other threads where such comments get voted down by swarms of lawsuit cheerleaders. Far too many people are assuming that just because a lawsuit was filed, and we're the good guys, it's a given that the judge will rule in our favor on both the binding issue and charges of harassment, etc.

The binding issue should have been left out considering that:

a) we have RNC decisions going all the way back to 1961, and as recent as the last presidential election cycle, that clearly indicate state binding rules are of no effect at the convention and therefore national delegates can vote their preference, and

b) if the court decides against us, that delegates must vote according to their state binding rules, there could be hundreds of delegates who support Ron Paul but will have to vote for someone else. They'll be "cut off at the knees", as you said.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Im not so sure about that

I am a National Delegate from a bound state from talking to other delegates from 2008 heres what I know. In 2008 no one was allowed to vote , the chairman of the delegtion merely reads off that all votes go to mccain. You may say thats because Dr Paul was not on the ballot. Our state gop has required us to sign pledges claiming we will vote for romney on the first ballot. I do not think they intend to let us vote .

Did you join the lawsuit?

Please join the lawsuit against the GOP to secure your vote for Ron Paul if you haven't already.

It's illegal to use coercion - in this case, the coercion being that the GOP (a.k.a. "the unofficial Romney campaign") required delegates to sign a pledge for Romney. And according to Richard Gilbert (the lead attorney), they got the best judge possible. Check this video for more info:
National Delegate Case: Lead attorney Richard Gilbert talks about Mitt Romney and the RNC (YouTube link)

Not really true

I have been a national delegate before and your state will do something called polling the delegation. It is basically a vote to see which candidate each delegate supports. It only matters when they announce each states vote totals live on TV. But, what is not televised is actual votes by the entire body of the convention, if Paul is put into nomination that's when they cannot stop you from voting for him or at least abstaining. What are they going to do, spank you because you signed a pledge. Their pledges are worthless, you can say you were drunk when you signed it :)

They don't intend to let you vote

and that's why you follow Steve Dickson and do what he did, take the compalint to a state court.

I've also learned that you

I've also learned that you can't tell anybody anything if they don't want to hear it.

Sad but true

People rarely let facts get in the way of their preconceptions.

My brother screamed "I saw that plane crash into the Pentagon, WITH MY OWN TWO EYES!"

Now regardless of whether one is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or not, there is DEFINITELY no video evidence of a plane crashing into the pentagon, but my brother to this day has not recanted.

Wow, Richard leaves a comment under Doug's saying that

he never said that he was in contact with the campaign, despite what they quoted him as saying? So it was just a journalist's error?
That's nice, too bad he's lying. He said the same thing here a month ago, before he became the Lawyer part of the ‘Lawyers for Ron Paul’, and before anybody was talking about a lawsuit, does anyone remember?
It would otherwise be easy to dismiss this allegation, as one cannot locate this comment on the DailyPaul any longer, owing to the fact that Richard's May 27th ‘Federal Case To Seat All Ron Paul Delegates -- Heres the info’ thread (the very first mention of a lawsuit) was 86'd by the MODS after one week.
But, here's a quick hack using Google, that will let you see the comment anyway.

Submitted by Patriot Press_U… on Fri, 06/01/2012
What these trolls fail to undserstand (sic) is that this case is already National, backed by national RP organizations with the blessing of Doug Wead.

Did He Also Retract

...the big announcement that *we* are taking over the campaign and the call to *mutiny*???

This all seems so childish to me. I don't understand any lawyer making these kinds of statements and I don't understand filing lawsuits using someone's name without authorization. Ron Paul: "Am I associated with them?" How can you get any more clear than that?


No conflict

The only conflict occurs when people think that Lawyers for the delegates are officially taking over the Ron Paul campaign, which is idiocy. There is no conflict between Wead and Gilbert. The author of the article misquoted both of them. Typical lazy journalism. Wead is referencing that the campaign has its own lawyers that ALWAYS have legal input into any statements that the campaign makes concerning delegates and delegate counts.

Trying to stir up the crap????

Ummm . . . why didn't you also post Gilbert's response to Doug Wead? Which is plainly stated in the comments below the article ~

"For the record, I did not say I contacted the Paul campaign. The quote, "Go For It" comes from Doug Wead's Facebook conference video where in response to question about his thoughts on the lawsuit Doug Wead did say "Go For It." I was clear that I do not represent the Ron Paul Campaign or Dr Paul. I made it clear I represent the Delegates who are Plaintiffs. Richard Gilbert"

Blessings )o(

GoodSamaritan's picture

No, Gilbert's response DIDN'T EXIST

at the time I posted this thread. Go back to the comments section and you'll see that there was a significant time gap between their posts.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I believe Gilbert---because

if you watch Doug Wead's last video to us, I believe he was encouraging of us "going for it", going for the delegates, and raising he--ll (in a legal way). That was my sense of things. It seemed at the time (not more than a week or so ago) that Doug was a bit at odds with Benton and stepped out on a limb in that last video clip. Recognizing the pain we were all in, he responded! He gave us all encouragement, unlike Benton.

Still, I know Ron Paul has stated prior that he doesn't like lawsuits (in general), but I have to disagree with the good doctor on that account. There are times when a lawsuit is useful in serving different purposes. I'm not an attorney, nor do I know of any attorneys personally, but logic tells me that when you have an entity, the GOP, trying to run you out of business (the campaign) by illegally rigging elections, and you have the MEDIA, defaming & denigrating your business at every turn in the road chance they get, then, it seems to me when we have the very nation's survival at risk, that THAT is the time you do something, albeit with evidence. WE HAD A LOT OF EVIDENCE from state to state, from video clip to video clip.

Just insert any business name instead of our campaign, like a fast food restaurant like Burger King. How do you think they would feel watching an entity use the Media against them by making MASSIVE NEGATIVE comments against them? How about if another entity (GOP) were to keep them from building in certain locations, so McDonald's could get a leg up?

Well, that's what we have here. And, it wasn't morally right!

A Misunderstanding?

As is usual with such carefully chosen words both of them could be right. Doug Wead of course never "met" him (but did they communicate at all??). And of course Ron Paul Campaign Lawyers would naturally speak for the campaign (but did Doug give some kind of personal opinion?). I wouldn't want to push it. It's clearly a sensitive issue, open to misunderstandings - as may have happened here.

No misunderstanding, just Doug telling the truth and

Richard lying.
Put down your pom-poms for a hot second, and read my comment ^above^.

You cannot just put on rose-colored glasses and see Liberty, when in reality the only thing to see w/r/t/ the lawsuit is an incompetent, publicity-seeking attorney. You know, the kind of lawyer that can say things like “we're taking over the Ron Paul Campaign”, with a straight face. And some people will eat that right up.
Okay, let me see if I have this right…so, a non-Ron Paul-donating, non-Ron Paul-voting, liberal Democrat attorney, announces a “righteous mutiny by real grassroots supporters” and that doesn't raise any red flags???!

Since when

does the Ron Paul campaign dictate to voters and delegates what they can and can't do. It is possible that if the so called campaign did something about the fraud in the early Primary States it may have at least slowed it down some. My God even Carol Paul spoke about it in an interview.

I'm sorry but there has been way too much shit that went on that the campaign ignored to pretend that they knew nothing about it.

Inadvertently this is about RP, but it is directly about our voting rights.

Now before you little Nazi's start voting this down, prove what I am saying is not the truth.

I'm with Doug.

And Doug is with Ron Paul.

I don't know who any of these other people are really with, but "mutinying" from Ron Paul's campaign is NOT something that I'm going to do.


The lawsuit is not a "mutiny" from the campaign but National Delegates trying to save the campaign

If you don't think

it's a "mutiny", then you need to start reading the archives here where the actual word "Mutiny" and "take-over" are used extensively on the threads pushing the L4RP.

You are on the wrong side of this issue. And you had better learn quick if you are a delegate.

This attorney has a dicey history

I did some research on the guy - he is not exactly a blue chip attorney if you know what I mean. Anyone can bring a lawsuit in America - that is one of our problems as a country - there is no penalty per se for bringing a bogus lawsuit except under very limited circumstances - I suspect Richard C Gilbert may be looking for some publicity. I don't expect Ron Paul to ever align himself with the lawsuit as long as this guy is involved.

I don't think that

is what Ron Paul means. I think he knows there is just too much corruption in Gooberment and the legal system right now to be able to get this done.

Not Arguing the Corruption

But this guy - this particular attorney is not someone that Ron Paul would ever be associated with - I am not as dyed in the wool supporter of Ron Paul as some in here are but I did vote for him in my state primary and I respect him immensely. This particular lawsuit by this particular lawyer is simply not his style or in keeping with his character.


Why don't YOU hire your do nothing lawyer to do anything else you could think up. Go put on you peace sign and do your thing. You're so cool.

Doug Wead.

Richard was here lying about having “Doug Wead's personal blessing” back on his May 27 thread. His username (one of them) is `Patriot Press_USA Free Press' (http://www.dailypaul.com/user/55144). I'll try to find the exact comment (tricky, since the thread was 86'd by the MODS around June 1), but the gist of it was someone asked the attorney for proof that the proposed lawsuit was supported by the campaign. Some other user asks, “so who would it take to vouch for this in order to believe (that the attorney was not simply fishing for delegate info)”, to which someone wrote: “Doug Wead”?
So, from then on, Richard went around saying that, ‘oh yeah, Doug Wead gave me his personal blessing’, etc…
Also that he was “in daily contact with thousands of national Ron Paul groups”, which to this day, I still have no clue as to what the hell could possibly be going on in a human being's brain, for them to believe that a statement like that, sounds reasonable (~as opposed to delusional).