195 votes

Massachusetts Delegates Strike Back

The Massachusetts Delegation has filed a challenge with the Committee on Contests. The 16 challenges were filed in order to restore the elected status of the MA delegation.
The Massachusetts Contestants’ Statement of Position can be seen here, along with all of the proof that will be presented to the RNC.

http://www.malibertycaucus.com/rnc-committee-on-contests/

While we have been admonished for not doing enough here in MA, we have been busy working around the clock on a number of different ways to reseat our delegates. This is a major step to reinstating our people.




Comment viewing options

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

"Filed A Challenge"

About as effective as a hunger strike at Auschwitz.

My thoughts and prayers are

My thoughts and prayers are with you. I am glad you are standing up for truth, no matter what. That those challenges came from Boston, is a horror, to me.

Regarding the posts below:

Affidavats and contracts signed under DURESS can not be upheld.

Also:

Rule 37B.

Rule 38.

There is reason that the opposition is afraid and trying to lock us out. We are winning.

Paul was not asked to speak at convention. So what. Romney wasn't either. If Paul has his states, he will speak. I have told you before not to pay attention to msm rhetoric. They may be distracting the viewers, but should have no effect on us or the delegates.

Stay focused.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

You either sign like everyone or you're OUT

The GOP by-laws are the by-laws to keep infiltraitors OUT.

If signing a loyalty oath cause you duress, politics may not be for you, and you should remain OUT.

Yes, they are rightfully afraid, and have every right to protect themselves. We have every right to get those seats and over take them, but we do not have the right as outsiders, to make demands, that their rules apply to those who will not sign a lotalty oath to the party.

As a committee person, whose committee is filling with Ron Paul Republicans I can see this to our advantage. More Ron Paul Republicans need to take committee seats is the solution.

It's not hard to do. Take some time and effort, but it's Sooooo worth it.

Interesting response.

"The GOP by-laws are the by-laws to keep infiltraitors OUT"

1. Apparently that did not stop the socialists from infiltrating the gop.

"If signing a loyalty oath cause you duress, politics may not be for you, and you should remain OUT"

2. I will NEVER sign anything that is not in MY interest. Politics not for me? There's a new kid on the block and that is me. I am only getting started.

"we do not have the right as outsiders"

3. You are wrong. I have EVERY right. Read 1.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Signing an affidavit does not enforce any legal obligation...

You signed it under duress and were compelled to sign it?

Its not legally binding...

Signing a piece of paper will do nothing. They can do nothing if you vote another way just remember that.

They became the inside

And they did it by outting the conservatives, they set them up to knock them out with charges abetted by MSM as homosexuals, theives, while they twisted and even had people falsely acused and imprison, which they still do.

They signed those oaths, and it took them decades to get to where they are. Their problem is they don't have new blood. WE ARE THE FUTURE. If we don't take tjhis party, we will have a global government that is modeled like Communist China's, and you can say "Well I didn't vote for that, BUT YOU DID, because you couldn't see past your narrow scope.

As for not signing anything not in your interest.. that's a very narrow scope, and the shame is you miss goal the big picture.

It's not about Ron Paul being president. It's about being an heir to Ron Paul's message and materializing it.

If I thought that my vote was FOR Romney, then I would be an idiot. My vote is FOR Ron Paul Republicans to give them a future. THAT is far more important to me than Romney.

You will do what you feel is right.

And I will do what I know is right.

I do not have narrow scope. My efforts work, and they are the truth.

What you miss is this:

We must fight all the way to Tampa for Ron Paul and our movement. If we do not, and instead look to Mitt or GJ, then we will NEVER be taken seriously. We must be a force so strong that even if we are replaced, in whatever office you or I hold, others will take our place. We MUST be the inspiration for others to follow, otherwise there is no hope.

You have many good qualities and a very, very good heart. However, you have much to learn.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

This is NOT a movement

Ron Paul calls it a rEVOLution and to me, that's what it is. It is a movement to people who don't get it.

Are you on a central committee?

As for doing what is right.. what is right is empowering the GOP with Ron Paul Republicans, THE heirs to Ron Paul's message.

THE FORCE is with those committee seats we took, not in the general election. That's just a show. Look what the committees did to qualified duly elected delegates.. that is power.

You don't seem to understand why that POWER is so important to getting a committee seat and empowering it is THE GOAL. It doesn't matter who is president, it matters who is seated on those committees.

That's why the RNC gave us Rand... WE ARE WINNING, and we are going to win.

This election is between Romney and Obama. Either way, we take power now under Romney or 4 years later, either way, WE ARE THE FUTURE.

It takes a good heart to know another, and I see yours and respect yours. I was once like you, for over 30 years I thought and believed as you do. Now that's I'm on a committee, I have accomplished more, than 30 years of hard work as an activist.

Join us.

Just curious...what has your committee done so far?

I know the question sounds sarcastic, but I'm REALLY curious to what all of the committees have done so far.

Vetted delegates for Tampa for one

Before the primary ballot in June we had several issues to vet, Library Tax (No), Tax for CR Starr center (No), ending plastic bags at stores (No), Laura's law (No).

Prop 32 was on our last minutes, I sent it back to committee, and found out about a very powerful group called Bay Area Council.

We welcomed 4 new Ron Paul Republicans to our last meeting.

This weekend is the CA State convention so we had discussed state ballot issues and who wanted to be a delegate, what seminars they were going to take, if they had the money, if we needed to raise funds.

We discussed our tabling at the county fair, Women's Republican Club involvement, and where we were going to have our headquarters for the general election.

We talked about who and what busiensses had the means and the interest to be hosts to future fundraisers, who wanted to chair those events.

Filling committee seats for the central committee and the board of supervisors.

We talked about the tea party hosting the constitutiuonal sheriffs meeting and who wanted to represent us.

We talk about board of supervisors, government in general, state parks finding 32 Billion dollars, we talk about any law or bill that will face our county, vote for or against it, you can write resolutions and have the committee vet it, then send it to state as a short cut, and we talk about pending seminars for anyone who wants to be a Republican candidate so we know how many are interested, I am, maybe now there will be more.

Next meeting will be report form the CAGOP convention, we will be issued state laws and bills to read and prepare to vet on the next meeting...

Stuff like that.

For example

It was the MA state committee that removed the 17 people (who were either delegates or alternates) because they didn't sign the affidavit (that the state committee came up with last minute) fast enough.

Also, it was the state committee that chose to not count the provisional ballots which would have resulted in two more liberty-minded delegates.

Now, there were some on the state committee who tried to get those ballots counted. But there just weren't enough state committee members who were liberty friendly.

That, or they didn't bother to show up. And it pretty much goes without saying that it's a shame to do all this work to get delegates elected and people on the state committee if they don't show up when it counts. Isn't that right joeu?

Yeah.. and they have the right to do that

It's why it's so important to get a committee seat, or know someone on the committee. You can do all that work (which is the same work it takes to get a committee seat BTW) You are actually representing THE committee!!! That's why they have the right to out folks.

The conventions were a mess because many Ron Paul Republicans didn't introduce themselves to the committee.. they didn't know. So no one really knew who was going to show up, once they have the papers, they go through the pile...

" Ok, this one is.... John Doe. John Doe. Anyone here know John Doe, county district 2. John Doe, county district 2."

The replys, no, no, nope... umhhhh..

"This John Doe is in your district Charlie. You know him?"

"I can't say I do.. "

"Ok, well, then you got a guy to replace John Doe? Yeah yeah, sure,, Mrs Smith, she could use the party and she's got the money to go, wouldn't cost us anything.. she said something about wanting to meet Bachmann..."

"Bachmann?!, Oh geese.. Crist Charlie she's a tea partier?"

"Hell if I know, Jack, and frankly I don't care. She gives us plenty of money, we use her barn for fundraisers so don't go off on Mrs Smith. It's not like you don't have tea partiers.."

"Ok Ok you gonna call her and get the papers together?"

"I guess, when are they due?"

"Uhhh.. Auguest 6Th."

"Auguest 6th! Shit, Deep sigh, well I had plans, but man, this is old doing this stuff, I think we dhould just let those Ron Paul guys take this ship anyways"

"Now don't talk like that Charlie you'll piss the guys who paid their dues off."

"I know I know... Well, sure sure.. I'll call her. I'll get it done."

"Ok, Now we have a Robbie Jones.. Robbie, Jones, county district, 3.. Anyone know Robbie Jones?"

Well...

We think they didn't have the right to do some of the stuff they did because it violated the rules. They can't break the rules. They can change them but then they have to stick with them until they change them again.

People did introduce themselves. It didn't matter. Why? Because people on the state committee read the Daily Paul. You can image the kinds of things they would have read that scared them out of trusting any liberty-minded Republican.

True

There were crimes that should have gone to county and state courts. But there was far more misunderstanding about how to become a delegate. Delegates are usually from the central committees.

What Ron Paul tried to tell us is that there are seats open. My county has 11 seat available, so the few seats find repacements..

Instead, there were all these people who showed up to the conventions and many committee people though maybe other committee people knoew tham, but as word got round that Ron Paul had a delegate plan, some of these folks reacted inappropriately.

It's got to be hard to watch YOUR party being taken over.

What I mean by introduce themselves, I measn attend committee meetings, and while it may not have mattered, it may have in many cases.

I don't know how much was from reading DP. My committee is still upset about the CA primary convention and how Ron Paul people ruined it.

Paying it forward

I vote for the cause. I feel incumbent to share my idea on how we can ensure Dr. Paul make it to office...

http://www.dailypaul.com/246662/you-cannot-can-an-idea-whose...

The time is now. It's all about good vibrations! :)

Dr. Ron Paul for 2012!

So be it.

"I guess it comes down to a simple choice. Get busy living or get busy dying." - Andy Dufresne, 'Shawshank Redemption"

Dr. Ron Paul for 2012! Restore America Now. Not 2016.

So be it.

Hmm

Jesse Benton being instrumental in formulating the legal case makes me very uneasy. I trust him as much as a thief at night.

Gives me concerns as well.

Gives me concerns as well.

The problem is not legal strategy,,

..but political action. Ron Paul supporters/delegates fighting to attend Tampa to vote for Romney, which is a Benton plan, is just plain wrong.

You're just making things up and insulting Paul in the process.

Did Paul tell you he has a plan but can't execute it because Benton has other plans?

Honestly, if Paul can't take charge of his campaign (as you insinuate), then how can he take charge as president?

Every time you make these kinds of claims, you insult Dr. Paul.

And, frankly, you insult our intelligence as well. I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night.

By the way, how is the Great Learned Counsel Attorney Richard C. Gilbert, Esquire working out for you? Are you ready to admit he is a charlatan and complete embarrassment to the Liberty movement?

Did you take the time and effort to create a Federal........

Injunction Lawsuit on behalf of thus far approximately 400 Plaintiffs for Ron Paul as Richard Gilbert and the L4RP did? I fully realize alot of RP supporters do not particularly care for Gilbert and his rhetoric, however, at least he and the L4RP are engaging in a very difficult effort at the Federal level in hopes of positive changes which would benefit not just Dr. Paul but all of his supporters as well. I am aware that in 2008, Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Council for the RNC, stated in a legal brief that no National Delegate is obligated, legally or otherwise, to cast his or her vote on the first balllot (or any for that matter) for a specific nominee and that he or she is free to cast his or her vote for anyone he or she chooses whether his or her nominee choice is on the ballot or not. In other words, he or she may vote his or her conscience.

If you believe what she said then why bother with the lawsuit?

The fact is, time and effort was spent keeping Gilbert and his bullies away.

Is he doing something? Yes. Is it harmful? Yes. Does the fact that he's doing something make up for the harm he's causing? No.

It will be a great disappointment if you are right...

... and another, final, nail in the coffin of a movement with great potential should Ron Paul want the Mass, and other, delegates to vote for Romney and ignore their conscience.

That would be an insult to his many supporters and I haven't seen any statements by him to that end.

Hey Mr. Self-Righteous

Paul wants them to do right thing: honor the pledge they made at the caucus.

Paul is not interested in winning by lying.

You may be OK with cheating but the MA delegates are not and neither is Dr. Paul.

Paul wants his supporters to get active. He wants to have a presence at the convention show how the movement is growing. If voting for Romney in a foregone convention is how some of his supporters do it, so be it.

At least the MA delegates are showing up like Paul wants.

You couldn't be bothered to show up to a State Committee meeting to get them to count the provisional ballots. You are one of the few people who had the power to stop their election rigging but you couldn't be bothered.

Why don't you take your smug, self-righteousness somewhere else.

Slandering is not helpful

Voting for delegates that promote war monger Romney, and by at least one ‘delegate’ candidate who had previously even announced contributions to Romney’s campaign at a state committee, was a mockery of everything that Ron Paul stands for.

I would be very surprised and disappointed if Ron Paul instructed anyone to not at least consider, if not follow, their conscience, quite the contrary to what the campaign staff is instructing people to do. This is a far cry from lying and cheating.

From the beginning of organizing delegates in Massachusetts, as I helped do, I made it clear at every opportunity that making a blanket pledge to Romney was wrong and went against the fundamentals of Paul’s domestic and foreign policy messages. The directions from the campaign were quite the opposite-promote Romney and be prepared to vote for him in Tampa. It was, and is, a repugnant message.

As you know not all the Mass delegates/alternates who won are going to Tampa-some because of the refusal to sign the official pledge.

If there is any question of character faults in the Mass delegate process it lies with those who led Ron Paul supporters to vote at caucuses while themselves believing and promoting the idea that Ron Paul would not be nominated. Spin it anyway and you want but RP voters did not attend the caucuses to have delegates go to Tampa and vote for Romney who stands for everything that Ron Paul opposes. No one would have attended the caucuses for Ron Paul if an "honest" message, that they were really there for Romney, were given.

Justin Raimondo explains well the problems facing the Ron Paul movement and why the campaign’s jumping into bed with Romney is counterproductive.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/07/31/nothing-succee...

Shazad's post is spot on

It's very simple: When you pledge to a caucus, before they vote, that you will vote for Romney on the first ballot (assuming he's on that ballot), then you are lying and cheating if you do otherwise. I think there is an implied reasonable assumption that the delegate could be excused from not voting for the candidate he is pledged to if new and devastating unknown information is revealed (the candidate has a cocaine addiction, etc.). But otherwise, people expect you to vote for the guy.

Just because you are "following your conscience" doesn't mean you're not lying and cheating.

Some of the the Mass delegates/alternates originally refused to sign the "affidavit" but they all made a pledge at the caucus - explicitly or implicitly - to vote for Romney on the first ballot. If they were at the caucus and allowed their name to be placed into nomination (not withdrawing it) or if they were not at the caucus but later accepted the election, then the pledge is implied.

It's not enough for them to say "I never made any verbal pledge. I just sat there silently while nominations were made, gave my speech without pledging, and won." If they want to claim they haven't made a pledge, then they either had to have explicitly said I am not pledging to vote for Romney before the caucus voted or they must decline the nomination/election win. Otherwise, they are deceiving the caucus voters.

The phone script used to get the voters out to the caucus was clear that the strategy was to get Paul supporers in place to increase Paul's chances of winning the nomination in the event of a second ballot.

That was the honest message given them and you know what? That could still happen. There still could be a second ballot. It's very unlikely, but it's possible.

Furthermore, there are other benefits to having (sane) liberty-minded delegates going to the convention. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be criticizing people on this topic.

Have you seen the videos of your nut-job lawyer yet? How do you feel now about endorsing this man and his plan? I made it clear to you from the beginning that the guy is unethical, unprofessional, and incompetent. Are you willing to admit what a huge mistake it was for you to be associated with him?

pledging to vote for Romney was a requirement....

All along, everyone involved in the process knew, or should have known, that the winning delegates in the caucuses, no matter who their preferred candidate was, would be voting for Romney in Tampa. The delegates who ran knew that a prerequisite for running was to pledge to Romney. There was obviously a hope for the voters there that Ron Paul would do well enough in other future primaries to gain enough delegates to stop Romney from reaching 1144, thus leading to a 2nd round of voting, in which these MA delegates could vote for Ron Paul. Those who were following the state by state results closely would have known that the chances of the tide of the race changing so dramatically were quite small, but those paying attention would have also known that there is a lot that delegates could do even if Romney eclipsed the threshold (thus plenty of reason to vote for Ron Paul delegates). But if some had the mistaken impression that the caucuses existed as a means of overruling the primary results, they were misinformed.

Don't blame the delegates for following the rules they agreed to (and to which there was not an option of not agreeing). Don't get mad at them because you had a mistaken impression of how the process worked and what their role as delegate would be. And don't pretend that Ron Paul is trying to get delegates to break the rules but that he has lost control of his campaign staff who have sold out to Romney.

"All along, everyone involved

"All along, everyone involved in the process knew, or should have known, that the winning delegates in the caucuses, no matter who their preferred candidate was, would be voting for Romney in Tampa."

No. Most, if not all, RP caucus voters would not have attended if they believed they were effectively voting for Romney delegates.

"There was obviously a hope for the voters there that Ron Paul would do well enough in other future primaries to gain enough delegates to stop Romney from reaching 1144, thus leading to a 2nd round of voting, in which these MA delegates could vote for Ron Paul."

More than that. At the time of the caucus there was a belief based on Ron Paul's statements that he would fight for the nomination right up to the convention. It was on this basis that most attended the caucuses.

"Don't blame the delegates for following the rules they agreed to (and to which there was not an option of not agreeing)."

Not doing that so much as pointing out they should at least examine their conscience when they do vote and criticizing the promotion of Romney instead of making it clear they are holding their noses if they do vote for him.

"And don't pretend that Ron Paul is trying to get delegates to break the rules but that he has lost control of his campaign staff who have sold out to Romney."

I don't know the answer to that for certain but I don't believe Ron Paul would encourage people to break the rules (unless the rules were ruled invalid) or that he would tell people to place their consciences on a shelf. Of the two apparent options, an incompetent manager being taken advantage of by his staff or a behind the scenes manipulator who has no problem supporting a man who stands for everything he opposes, I can only hope it is the former.

No. Most, if not all, RP

No. Most, if not all, RP caucus voters would not have attended if they believed they were effectively voting for Romney delegates.

Anyone who was nominated had to be nominated as a Romney delegate. It was in the caucus administration script. Those who voted were given notice that they were voting for a Romney delegate. Whether or not some people understood this before arriving at the caucus is debatable. However, those who did understand it still went because a liberty-minded Romney delegate could become a Paul delegate on the second round of voting. A liberty-minded delegate could also get onto a committee and is not bound on the VP vote. Finally, a liberty-minded delegate will have opportunities to speak to the press to promote liberty-minded issues.

More than that. At the time of the caucus there was a belief based on Ron Paul's statements that he would fight for the nomination right up to the convention. It was on this basis that most attended the caucuses.

Paul is still fighting for the nomination. Stop spreading lies about him. Filing the challenges is fighting for the nomination. Helping his delegates get to Tampa is fighting for the nomination. Has he released his delegates and dropped out? No. He's trying to get them there and get them seated.

However, he is smart enough to recognize he do doesn't have a chance at winning unless Romney drops out.

Finally, your last paragraph sets up a false dichotomy. Telling your people to get involved but to follow the rules doesn't necessarily mean you're an incompetent manager or a behind the scenes manipulator supporting your ideological opposite.

I asked this before but you didn't answer: Do you pay taxes (which fund wars that kill innocent children)?

.

Then they were misinformed or just weren't paying close attention to the rules and to what was happening in the election. Even if they didn't know, they should have. Did you contribute to this misperception by some of the caucus voters?

Your comment also actually highlights a reason that not many Romney supporters showed up. Outside of the fact that these caucuses were completely unadvertised and so a tiny portion of the population even knew they were happening, those who did know and care about the outcome also knew that the statewide winner had already been decided in the primary. They didn't much care whether Johnny or Suzie was the one to cast the ballot in Tampa for Romney. I tried to get a few friends who are huge Romney supporters to attend with me, but they didn't think it would make much difference so they didn't come.

By the time the caucus was occurring, Santorum had dropped out of the race, and it had been announced that Gingrich would drop out the following week. The outcome of the primaries was no longer in doubt, once Santorum was gone and Romney got 60-70% of the vote in the April 24th primaries. If Santorum's voters had gone elsewhere and hadn't voted for Romney, then there may have still been a race, though Romney would have still had a massive lead. But with his lead and with voters going for him in such large numbers, the outcome was inevitable. It was like Romney was passing Kenmore Square in the Boston Marathon and everyone else in the race was way back, passing the screaming girls at Wellesley College. Santorum had already stepped off the course and given up. Gingrich stopped and got distracted by the girls, and was probably just going to stay where he was. Ron Paul was still running and was motivated by the cheers, but also knew that unless Romney pulled out of the race (for whatever reason) or unless he could pull a Rosie Ruiz and take the Green Line to the finish, he was not going to win.

So sure, Ron Paul was going to fight up to the convention to get as many delegates as possible. But he knew that he wouldn't even possibly come close to stopping a Romney nomination. I personally think it was pretty clear for a while that the Paul campaign knew this and wasn't seriously thinking they were going to win the nomination, but had defined success in this race differently. They've been trying to tell people that over and over again, each time being a little more adamant (with the email to delegates a few weeks ago being the strongest statement). He is fighting to get as many delegates seated as possible, but he doesn't want them to break the rules. He knows that even if they all did break the rules, he'd still lose by a huge amount. There would be no upside, but there would be the downside of him at least partially losing his reputation as a "by the book" guy.