For what it's worth, I went to the office of Gilbert and Marlowe
Submitted by gibson on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 15:56Mr. Gilbert's office is within walking distance of my house so today I popped by not knowing what to say or how to ask but hoping I could glean some kind of sense as to whether he is sincere or working for Romney or even Obama. I spoke with the woman in his office who listened to my concerns as I explained there has been so much fraud, propaganda and lies we don't know who to trust anymore. She asked "who's we?" and I said "Ron Paul supporters". I also mentioned the fact, we know there is no real difference between Romney and Obama. She then asked me to wait in the other room as she went to see if Mr. Gilbert would speak with me, even though I had not yet asked. She came back, apologized and explained he only speaks with the delegates of which I had already told her I wasn't. I thanked her for her time, shook her hand and as I left I told her how we all love this country and it's getting very, she jumped in and finished my sentence... "scary" and I said "yes" and while she obviously can't speak for Mr. Gilbert she did say he was sincere and coming from a good place. I have nothing to add to this because there isn't anything to add other than I left feeling a bit more positive than I did before I went in.
- Login to post comments
Even if these Lawyers are the Devil
They've written a pretty good argument that is public.
Anyone else can build on this and file their own lawsuit if they don't like the way these fellows are going about it.
The Under-Lying Truth
Anti-Panda Propaganda Systems
--------------
Ron Paul: "If you ever can bring about revolutionary changes two things would be required: young people... and music."
Man....some people sure are going OVERBOARD
...to try to discredit an effort that the vast majority of Ron Paul grassroots supporters have already massively approved on the original thread.
And...it's always the same 3-4 posters/posers.
Things that make you go "hmmmm...."
"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."
Hmmm...Sweeping Statements
..."vast majority" ..."massively approved" ...Lawyer4RONPAUL..RONPAUL delegates...PaulFest.
There is beginning to be like 3-4 of YOU posters. You are losing the battle. Truth IS an absolute defense against con-games.
Those disenfranchised wanted hope they could believe in and bought a lottery ticket because they couldn't afford an attorney.
Steve Dickson's case in Oklahoma. Sounds like done right...real law firm...integrity. Bet it turns out waaaay better.
fonta
Here's another thing to make you go hmmm,
Ever notice how there are people like yourself, who truly believe that the campaign screwed you over, and so when the first walking, talking, typing Lawyer-Bot shows up, echoing your sentiments, you automatically fall in love with them, and become a moth-to-the-flame type spambot, who will downvote anything critical of the holy lawsuit, without reading, without comprehending, without doing your OWN due diligence, and also offer nothing of substance as a rebuttal, other than:
“we love you Lawyers for Ron Paul!!!!”
-flying too close to the damn light bulb to even bother noticing that
there's only ONE FREAKIN' LAWYER!!!
you ever notice that, Steve? Hmmmm...
'All for one and one for all'
You ever heard this one before? :)
Only You Would Surmise That
Things have changed...People are becoming more aware...your hollow analysis is becoming less and less credible....so don't gloat.
....It's bound to be your undoing.
p.s.
I would have mentioned you in my comments below;
...but you're part is that of a bit-player in a cheap sitcom...
..Hardly worth mention.
"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!
If only R. Gilbert, Esq, et al, had called L4RP somethingelse.
And, had they not used terms like "takeover", or "mutiny", etc, I wonder would we be spending all this time making so much noise it's hard to even hear one's self think... if they'd just called themselves something more fitting, like, I dunno, Lawyers Against RNC Disenfranchisement, Lawyers For Voters' Rights, anything but L4RP.
Supposedly, their goal is to expose all election scandals and to represent all delegates-not just RP's. And to show the court the widespread misuse and absuse by the RNC, not only of its own rules, but Ferderal law, and then to get an injunction to prevent further abuse in Tampa.
Here's the dilemma, which caused this conundrum-L4RP-whose attorney's, unfortunately find themselves as much on the defense as offense, starting at 56 min. exactly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrB5BicEWDk
It would be tragic if the judge throws the case out based on the name of the group that brought the suit rather than it's merits-the serious legal questions involved.
"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina
Based on a Name?How About a Reputation?
It's tragic that the judge will throw the case out based on the ineptitude of the group that brought the suit rather than it's merits.
It's not about the name...it's all about Richard and his PR Trolls.
It's been filed in a state (California) with ZERO PLAINTIFFS.
The fact that it will have a change of venue, that being jurisdiction to be awarded to Massachusetts will strip the Lawsuit of most of it's points.
The fact that the Lawyer (singular) wasn't "up-to-snuff" on recent changes in the judicial system enacted late in year 2011 is not only tragic...it's downright out-and-out fraud considering the false bravado of competency that he ballyhooed here on the DP as a cheap PR Stunt.
I get a feeling that an Un-Holy Trinity consisting of:
Gilbert, Stone,and Rove will surface....Dr K will be the Judas goat.
And if it is ridiculed, thrown out,it will be because of the less than honorable methods used to initiate this fiasco.
Just my Opinion...Thanks for yours also.
"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!
Now the opposition below is alleging that Rove is involved.
Where is the proof of these wild allegations? Or is it just propaganda to stop delegates from participating?
I think you nailed it.
"propaganda to stop delegates from participating."
I know for a fact that is my intent.
I don't want the delegates to participate in this.
I think it is a very risky decision to get involved in this.
That list can survive for decades and if they ever want to continue to be a force in the party then they are putting that at risk.
Thank you for clarifying that for me.
God Bless.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Have you listened to the interview with Gilbert?
http://www.toolsforjustice.com/audios/LFRP-PRCallJune-27-201...
Yes or no?
November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul
Almost all of it.
I skipped through about 20 minutes.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
You insinuate that Karl Rove is somehow behind the lawsuit to
prevent trauma, coercion, and disenfranchisement of our delegates. Other than the fact that the objectives of the suit are the polar opposite of the motives of Rove, what evidence do you have for this claim? Or, is it just rumor-mongering?
Your handle is Rhino. Are you a Romney Republican?
Never saw him post anything that didn't sound like a...
RINO.
"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."
I don't think I ever insinuated that.
A guy asked someone to provide possible motives for the lawsuit and I provided them.
I did insinuate that Rove was too smart to have hired idiots as operatives.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
You don't remember what you posted?
"I'll give that one a shot ...
Submitted by rhino on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 01:07. Permalink
1. Paid by RNC and/or Karl Rove to acquire a list of Ron Paul delegates in order to prevent them from being credentialed at the convention."
Whether somone asked you or not, it is still an insinuation and a wild one at that. The point is why would anyone support the lawsuit if it was thought that Rove was behind it? We would all go against it. You've already admitted that your objective is to sow propaganda.
If you are a spreader of propaganda, why are you even on this site?
The RNC is not happy with this suit. It would not sue itself to get a delegate list. Your statement could not more ludicrous.
Whether this lawsuit is right or wrong: why spread rumors? Here is another one: "...or part of a Romney strategy...or part of a Gary strategy...", including " Libertarian motives to gain fundraising lists for Gary Johnson.." You know Ron Paul supporters would run the other way if they were led to believe these things.
Do you have any proof of any kind for these statements? I'm waiting.
Obviously this is out of context.
This was a reply to Apple in which he requested what the possible motives were for this law suit if it wasn't to help get Paul elected.
And in my reply ... the very first statement I made was , "I'll give a shot at that one."
This whole thing could have really been a rally cry and you probably would have gained tremendous support if you didn't make so many stupid mistakes.
1. Saying you are taking over the Ron Paul Campaign.
2. Calling yourselves Lawyers for Ron Paul, a play on the legitimate "Attorneys for Ron Paul".
3. Absolutely no transparency with respect to who you and yours are.
4. Trolling on here for names of delegates.
5. Shitting on Benton and the rest of the campaign staff.
These are just the ones that concerned me. Others here have other concerns.
Finally, it is very clear from my additional statements that I insinuate that this is all probably being done for money, with no real hidden conspiracy, but the problem I have with that motive is that if you settle this case and the RNC gives you a nice pay off, they will insist on a complete list of plaintiffs.
That scares me.
Let's say this lawsuit has nothing but pure intentions.
1. There is 100% chance that it gets dismissed.
Now what?
Well, if I were the RNC I would be calling these lawyers and explaining to them their zero chance of success, but that we were willing to settle the whole matter before the judge gets a chance to rule for an honest amount, but in return we need a copy of the list of plaintiffs. I know if I was a lawyer and representing the RNC, that would be my next move, just before the judge dismisses the case, because I know that that list has some value to the RNC.
I don't know if you are simply being played by these lawyers or if you are "in" on this game, or even the "lawyers" haven't figured out the eventual end result on this one because they are idiots, but the outcome is not going to be beneficial to the R3volution.
God Bless.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Do you have any proof of any kind for your statement, as follows
" it is very clear from my additional statements that I insinuate that this is all probably being done for money, with no real hidden conspiracy, but the problem I have with that motive is that if you settle this case and the RNC gives you a nice pay off, they will insist on a complete list of plaintiffs."
I'm waiting.
Well ...
if you simply scroll down, it has been sitting in this thread. In fact it is in this exact subthread.
Carry on.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Rhino, has admitted his angle.
"propaganda to stop delegates from participating." The Keyword propaganda. Thank you, your honor, no more questions.
Yes .... I agree.
A large part of my speculation is to enter propaganda into the market place of ideas so that people can judge for themselves what is accurate and what is not accurate.
I don't know why the word propaganda has such a negative connotation.
It simply means putting ideas into the arena to persuade public opinion toward a specific goal.
You are doing the same thing and I don't have a problem with what you are doing.
I think you have a problem with what I am doing because you are short on completed sign up sheets.
Carry on.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Are you sure about your definition?
Yours: "persuade public opinion toward a specific goal."
Modern definition: "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc."
You saw where the above says "to harm" a "movement."
So, yes, correct, let people make up their own minds regarding which definition applies to you.
Yet, how does saying that the lawsuit is run by Rove, Romney, or Johnson operatives serve any real purpose here, except to scuttle this effort? And how does deliberately spreading rumors to "harm" us help us?
Yes.
My intention is to scuttle this effort.
I have not hidden my motives.
The downside for the delegates is way too risky ...
especially if they want to continue to be force within the party long after this election cycle is over.
You are right. My intention is to do harm to your effort.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
You GO Apple!!!
I'm loving you!!!
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Do they have a court date
Do they have a court date yet? Time is running out. With so many people named in this complaint it is hard to believe that even if the hearing started today it would be ruled by August.
YES, court date is scheduled
YES, court date is scheduled for some time between the second week of July according to Ben Swann's facebook page.
Never be afraid to ask simple questions.
how can a court date...
...be "between" one week?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
This lawsuit must be killing the opposition
by the comments of the opposition below. No other subject on DP has this type of passionately wild unsubstantiated allegations made by posters.
By the way opposition, "What's the hidden motive of the LFRP?", please spell it out. I'm all ears.
I'll give that one a shot ...
1. Paid by RNC and/or Karl Rove to acquire a list of Ron Paul delegates in order to prevent them from being credentialed at the convention.
2. To settle the suit before the convention with an RNC payoff (money).
3. To highjack the campaign (original claim) in much the same way the Tea Party movement was highjacked in 2008 in order to fundraise and win elections.
4. A sick joke.
5. Libertarian motives to gain fundraising lists for Gary Johnson.
Take your pick. Shall I go on?
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
You forgot
(the lawsuit could work) to discredit Ron Paul in the SAME WAY the newsletters discredited him with liberals: namely, by borrowing his good name and using it for nefarious purposes.