Steps you can take...and the case AGAINST L4RP
If party rules were violated:
READ the Rules of the Republican Party, Rules 20, 22, and 23. FILE a challenge in the correct manner with the Committee on Contests, prior to July 27th. DOCUMENT what happened and prepare your challenge.
Yes, some of you believe this is a futile gesture sure to lose. I disagree. There are many RNC members who are not Ron Paul supporters, but they aren't Romney supporters either. If they are presented with hard logical evidence by people willing to work within the party (US) then they may rule in our favor. We also maintain the high road in regards to the PR side of this. Don't forget, if there are 30 states with legitimate challenges - and I believe there are - that has a huge impact.
If state law was violated:
PRESS CHARGES. Document the crap out of it, and file civil lawsuits as well, using local attorneys that YOU pick. Each state has different rules and laws, and what applies in one state does not necessarily apply in another. Know the Law, know the Rules, know your attorney. Violating Party Rules may or may not be legal in your state - you'll have to check.
Regarding Lawyer for Ron Paul (seems to be only the one):
There are TWO ASPECTS of this lawsuit - the CASE and the LAWYER.
CASE, PART 1 - UNBINDING DELEGATES: this may or may not be relevant, but is certainly not the most pressing issue. I believe this has been settled, and you should go see what McCain-bound Arizona delegates did in 2008 so they could vote for Romney. The RNC has ruled on this already, so it's a moot point. More important than UNBINDING is VACATING AND REPLACING improperly elected or selected delegates (my state of Oklahoma, Massachusetts, etc.). If won, this will have minimal impact at the convention with the current makeup of delegates.
CASE, PART 2 - TITLE 42 (Civil Rights Act): It will be argued by the RNC and the State Parties that this does not apply to a private group's conventions, but only to the actual primary, runoff and general election voting. They will argue that Freedom to Assemble gives the party leeway in how they conduct voting and organization of their membership. To my knowledge, THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE TO APPLY THIS LAW TO PARTY CONVENTIONS. That lack of precedence will certainly delay things tremendously. If it is won it will be after numerous appeals - and therefore way, way, way too late to win things. In caucus states, there is a better case to be made for applying this law, and I would encourage those states to investigate the issue and pursue it - individually - if they find it applies. Using attorneys from your state, filing in your federal district court.
LAWYER: First, I know of only one lawyer involved in this. His name is Richard Gilbert, and he is in California. His website (http://www.gilbertandmarlowe.com/dynamicattorneys.htm) shows education here: Western State University College of Law, Fullerton, California, 1977; Whittier College School of Law, California and Areas of Practice here: Constitutional Law; Criminal Law; Custody & Visitation; Family Law; Personal Injury – Defense; Personal Injury – Plaintiff; Toxic Torts. His LinkedIn profile (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-gilbert/12/290/754) lists Western State and HARVARD. I would like to know, did he go to Harvard? If so, when did he graduate and/or attend?
There are some articles about him from the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/richard-c-gilbert) mainly covering a couple of things: a surrogate mother case, which the Orange County Bar Association criticized him for making “improper personal attacks” on a judge after losing a highly publicized case regarding surrogate mothers (NBCUNIVERSAL Archive for purchase, Phil Donahue Show appearance of this case, link http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/5112547625_s...) and the 2.5 pound marijuana bust at his house when a silent alarm went off. I really don't care about the marijuana bust, but you can be sure the Establishment will use this against him. I would very much like to know what cases he has tried related to election law, and at what levels. I have seen no presentation that he has any experience in these matters.
The point is he will be dismissed - and I am not saying this is an ethical thing to do, just that it WILL happen - because of his personal and professional past. He will be labeled as a pot smoking personal injury attorney, and if they can dismiss HIM, it hurts his (already weak) case.
I believe this has been the wrong effort by many people who are very committed to the cause of Liberty. Many - including my friends - have been taken in by this. We have had fights, we have had arguments, and we have splintered over something that EVEN IF WON WINS NOTHING.