18 votes

UPDATE: Richard Gilbert deals (another) devastating blow to delegate case!

It's worse than I suspected. The judge upon receiving the response to the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, states that the Second Amended Complaint is worse than the First Amended Complaint. It lacks any factual pleas and reads more like a press release than a legal complaint with any standing.

As a result, he has given Gilbert a further 24 hours to again SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not be dismissed altogether, otherwise it will be dismissed.

Gilbert seems to be asking the court to render an opinion on the Voting Rights Act, which the court has no power to do.

--------------COURT MINUTES--------------------

This Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this Court should not construe Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal as a desire to stand upon the First Amended Complaint and treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction.
See August 20, 2012, Order (Dkt. 43). As the Court explained, Plaintiffs “cannot pursue an appeal from the Court’s order and simultaneously treat this matter as ongoing by filing [a] second amended complaint.” Id. (quoting Ingram v. Warden, CIV.A. 10-4151 NLH, 2011 WL 318300, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011)).

In their Response, Plaintiffs state that they did not intend to file an appeal and, instead, they wish to continue to litigate with the Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading.
See Response (Dkt. 44).

Thus, the Court DISCHARGES the August 20, 2012, Order to Show Cause and will treat the Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading.

Because Plaintiffs maintain that they have not filed an appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiffs’ Second Ex Parte Application (Dkt. 37).

The Court DENIES the Ex Parte Application.

However, in the spirit of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application, this Court will seek to expedite the resolution of this case. “Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity
as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding dismissal for “failure to say which wrongs were committed by which defendants”). Here, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint because the vast majority of the pleadings were unintelligible and Plaintiffs’ sole intelligible allegations failed to state a claim. In Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, they appear to have removed all
factual pleadings and instead request an impermissible advisory opinion from this Court about the scope of the Voting Rights Act. U.S. Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993) (“[A] federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.”).

Thus, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), or for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a complaint that is so confusing that its “true substance, if any, is well disguised” may be dismissed sua sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8); Omar v. Sea- Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with [Rule 8] may be dismissed with prejudice[.]”).

Plaintiffs shall electronically file a Response on or before August 23, 2012. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, this Court shall dismiss with prejudice. In addition, if Defendants wish to file a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response, they must do so on or before 1 p.m. on
August 24, 2012.

--------------------------END COURT MINUTES--------------------

Words escape me!

====================END UPDATE===========================

This lawyer really should have brushed up on procedural rules. It appears that he filed both an amended complaint and an appeal to the previous ruling at the same time!

Judges generally are displeased when they see blatant attempts to subvert or bypass the rules (not to mention it's appearance of hypocrisy in this particular case).

As a result Gilbert, et al have been given 24 hours to show cause or the court will rule on the previous complaint WITH PREJUDICE, which means any chance of ever arguing this case before a federal court is nil!


Alternate link:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Open Letter to Reince Priebus and Mitt Romney

Your answer lies near the end of that document.

Got a link for that? Hook a

Got a link for that? Hook a Patriot up will ya :-)

It Certainly Is!

...and it goes deeper than that. But oh well.


I forgot who signed on to

I forgot who signed on to that letter and can't find it. But I remember thinking I should keep track of them. There's so many front organizations it would be smart of us to keep a list of known fronts. These freaking people are organized like the mafia. Hell,,,they put the mafia to shame.

Way Back There Were A Few

...of us who did some research that *almost* scared us. When you think back most "dirty politics" operative moves are so ridiculous sounding that most fluff them off as amateurish.

And, in almost all cases there is some money to be made by those who put them into play. I think Leonardo pointed out that the beginning point is the result you want. Then you work backwards to make it happen. And, the "end justifies the means" so anything goes. The more of a web involved the more difficult it becomes to connect the dots. However, once you start connecting...it's like WHOA.

It is not just a funny joke by a lunatic with a few people picking up some pocket change. Wish it was. However, it has just about played out now. I am about ready to forget it.

I learned the dark side of politics. I wish I had not.


To The Historic Federal Delegates Case, I bid thee




..and to you fond friend, Renaissance Man.

Perfect requiem for the occasion!

All foul things must come to an end as evil dissipates having served its master(s).

However, like the Phoenix, the octopus is in play to arise again and move the new "Liberty Movement" into the 4th dimension.


I almost can't wait to see what

plot Stone & the Coen Bros. come up with next time!
But no matter what Fargo-esque script they manage to dream-up and set into motion, people should be glad that there are those here, like yourself, fonta, with the experience, intelligence, and curiosity to keep a watchful eye on the entrance door, ready to sound the alarm on the next false shepherd who arrives, promising to lead the Liberty-minded masses to the banks of the Euphrates.
Perhaps then, more people will have learned their lesson, and will be more apt to listen, to those who've raised their hands to sagely remind everyone that: a “shepherd” also means “a person who rears sheep”.




...and as it plays out, it becomes even more apparent. Dr. K is hilarious as well now agreeing with Peter S. that Paul Fest was a
divisive venture. His webites backed Paul Fest. Unbelievable.

And look at how the new Liberty websites are coming to play. So obvious. Funny stuff!

Sheep. And, it does not bode well. High theater of the absurd.


I'd laugh if it was Romney

or the RNC, or Obama. It's almost surely not, but I would most definitely laugh if it was a fake out by Gilbert coordinated with someone else.

Shazad, Curtain Call

.......your job is done. And, you did it very well.

You have shown your true colors lately. But you had me going for awhile..............



You may be taking this different than I had intended. Sorry for offending. I just think I would have to say I was extremely impressed if this whole lawsuit was thought up by "the enemy" and Richard Gilbert was part of some larger plot. Not that I actually hope or think that is the case, or that it would be a good thing at all if it was. But that they had gotten away with something like that and had gotten so many to fall for it would have been an amazing piece of political jiu-jitsu.

Imagine just 60 people who share the same IQ score as yourself.

Now imagine that they have power, a near endless supply of money at their disposal, and over a century of combined political experience, along with the resultant jadedness and borderline-personality characteristics.
And that they are all friends with one another.
Oh, and they get paid $$$ for this.

Occam's Razor demands a near-total reservation of judgement about anything that occurs in the political theatre.


No His Supporters Were Just His Props



This is Your Assignment

...Renaissance Man, if you choose to accept it.

Having a far better understanding of such things than most of us, will you represent us all in exposing that blurry line between farce and truth on the Fourth Dimension?



Forget Your Assignment

...feels like "game over."


The Problem From the Beginning

Courts like to talk of "slippery slopes" - of cases or situations where they get involved in that can lead to ever increasing litigation and ever increasing reliance between legal solutions to situations that would be best be left outside the realm of the courtroom - intraparty politics of a political party choosing candidates is a prime example of such an area - the courts do not want to get overly involved in this process - otherwise how will they draw a line - every time a political faction or campaign loses an internal fight within their party, the inclination while passions are high would be to bring suit - the courts don't want to do this because political parties should be the free association of people under the 1st Amendment - if you don't like the process you are free to leave the party and go elsewhere.

Voting Rights acts may require them to get involved in cases of proven vote fraud but they will be reluctant to do so and unless you can decisively prove fraud which is not an easy thing to do, then they will not get involved. That is Richard Gilbert's problem - he can't present the level of proof needed to prod a reluctant court to action so he makes all sort of wild claims would never move the court to action.

I think that Ron Paul would be the 1st to agree that party politics should be settled outside the court room.

It's not 1912. There is no real way to bolt & create a new party

[T]he courts don't want to do this because political parties should be the free association of people under the 1st Amendment - if you don't like the process you are free to leave the party and go elsewhere.

If it were still possible to leave the GOP to create a new party, I might agree with you. The problem is that the courts have not found that the ballot access laws are unconstitutional infringements of the right to freedom of association and the right to have a meaningful election. They have consistently upheld the right of states to "regulate" ballot access to other parties and independents.

So, washing their hands of the matter now, as you suggest, does nothing but permit the party bosses to control the nomination process without real competition for votes in November. We are left with a corrupt two party duopoly in which many voters perceive that they will have no choice but to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I also don't see were proving "fraud" is necessary. The issue is one of the supremacy of federal law "vote your conscience" law in the nomination process. From what I read, Gilbert, et al., have made the case for conflict between party rules and federal law. I don't see where proving fraud is necessary. The M$M has brainwashed the masses into believing that the party bosses can bind delegates at the national convention and the judge doesn't want to rule contrary to the M$M propaganda.

Specific wrongs are required when filing a lawsuit

in Federal Court. What you are talking about is Gilbert asking the Judge for what is known as an advisory opinion, which a Judge cannot give. Judges deal with specific entities (whether individuals or groups), whose specific actions in some way wrong certain other individuals or classes of individuals.
Judges can not rule on hypothetical “what ifs”.


The constitutional requirement is a "case or controversy"

You are implying that no case or controversy exists when state or party law conflicts with federal election law, which is what has been alleged in the complaint. The plaintiffs are specific parties attempting to exercise the federal right of voting for the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. The RNC and state parties which have specific rules and policies contrary to federal law, thus the lawsuit, are also specific parties.

U.S. Courts are empowered by the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 to declare the rights of parties before damages occur:
This is effectively giving an advisory opinion, which you allege is not possible.

The Judge already declared that interpretation to be faulty

Advisory Opinion

The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit. While this doctrine is still in full force, there has been a liberalization of these requirements in recent years.


Since you have this so neatly tied up

Then Richard Gilbert will win and you don't have a thing to worry about - it's a done deal - I stand by my comments - the process will play out and we will see who is right on this one.

The judge is framing the issue as "fraud" not "supremacy".

Gilbert et al., have framed the issue as supremacy, and the trial judge is interpreting it as fraud. Therein lies the problem. It is a distortion of the claim. If the appellate courts continue to follow the trial judge, the case likely gets thrown out. If they admit what is clear from the filings, that Gilbert, et al., are arguing that this is an issue of the supremacy of federal voting law, then a different result is possible. However to address the first amendment right of parties to create their own rules, which you have asserted, they first need to admit that the controversy here is about that issue and not fraud.

The fact is that the trial judge has been ignoring that stated argument. The point does not get adjudicated if it continues to be misrepresented as a fraud claim and otherwise distorted. So yes we do have something to be worried about due to the apparent judicial pettifogging.

Q: why do you write ‘et alia’ after Gilbert's name?

Who are “the others”?


Now THATS the Million Dollar Question

...but apparently you will have to travel to the Fourth Dimension to discover it. Sigh. (Or spend five minutes researching.)


Go read it again

The judge didn't frame it as anything other than what it was, a request for a ruling on whether the VRA should take precedence over RNC rules in a certain way. What the judge *did* do was explain that such a ruling was not permissible under these circumstances, with the citations to back this up.

You claim that the judge could make such a ruling in this case if he wanted to. But you're badly mischaracterizing what the judge wrote, and you're just making a bald assertion, not addressing the judge's legal argument to the contrary in any way.

Hierarchy of the Law

National law trumps state law - the constitution trumps all - if it comes down to any conflict between the voting rights law and the 1st Amendment the voting rights law loses - I imagine that most times when the courts do intervene that there are due process or equal protection issues (code words for protected groups - racial, gender, etc) that allow the federal statute to overcome the 1st amendment issues - I don't think that this is the case here in any way shape or form.



We sure have Romney shaking like a coward with our case


We will not go silently into the night of a police state. Our freedoms will survive. Our Constitution restored. Our children will live free


Just as the Berlin wall came down so to will the Internment Camps be torn down with our own hands


We have served notice at the very top levels of power that we are here. We will not leave. We will not lose the struggle to end tyrrany


Never quit. If we never quit we will win the war and restore our freedoms


It was no different in th etimes of the founding fathers. They acted in spite of the critics noise-They lost most of the battles they fought


For all the noise the critics make they have no plan. They have no wish to win. They only are noise


Our cause is just. Our plan was right. We are the people that will save our nation


Come gather around the campfire I have some things to say


We have two Courts that are both likely to make rulings tomorrow


Everyone thinks we have lost the case


Look for news on the case at 5 pm PacificTime


Our Delegates are caving in to Romney


Tomorrow we will know the future of our nation

3hLiberty Lovin' Lady‏@TwittingLiberty

@USA_Free_Press we gotta pray 4 the judge, pray that the judge listens& follows the Lords will. Give it 2 God &we can't lose either way


We successfully quashed The ability of the RNC to file a Motion To dismiss. So the Judge ordered the RNC to do it. I file papers in morning


The guy is like the loud kid in line at K-Mart.


Eric Hoffer

Yeah, but so help me Lord,

Whenever I peruse the guy's Twitter account, I cannot help but to picture him in a faceless, low-rent industrial building with dim lighting, out in Buena Park, tapping out those Twitter messages with his grease-blackened hands, drenched in sweat, no one around save for the friendly blowtorch, and the trusty socket wrench which lay quietly on the floor by his feet. Photos of a smiling Willard 'Mitt' Romney, torn from the pages of Newsweek and Time, with the words “Crime Boss” scribbled furiously over all, blanket the walls.
Existing on nothing now, but for a breakfast-of-champions diet of Mountain Dew, Marlboro Light 100’s, Ambien, and compulsive re-reading of the book “Of Thee I Speak: A Collection of Patriotic Quotes, Essays, and Speeches”. Damn those plan-less fools to hell; at last, putting the finishing touches on the next Killdozer ...