UPDATE: Richard Gilbert deals (another) devastating blow to delegate case!
Submitted by Britons4Paul on Tue, 08/21/2012 - 05:21UPDATE:
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--------------------
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND
DISCHARGING PRIOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
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!
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7pGfd5cF6HTN09PaTdxclZQLUE/...
EDIT
Alternate link:
http://freedombroadcastingnetwork.com/8.20_civil_minutes.pdf
- Login to post comments
Why not do it now?
If you believe that stuff, why not go in yourself and say the magic words and watch the judge flee the court, etc.? Can you get it to "cruise through" before the convention?
My favorite "success" video, which one DPer has posted many times, shows one of these guys in court saying the magic words about his birth certificate and whatever, and the judge stands up and leaves so he then declares victory. Hurrah.
Only if you read the comments he admits that what happened afterward was that a judgment was entered against him and he was ordered to go in for psychiatric evaluation, which he declined to do so he lost his license. He could have gotten the exact same "victory" by standing in front of the judge and singing "I'm a little teapot, short and stout, this is my handle, this is my spout ..."
"You decide." -- Judge Napolitano http://youtu.be/D5J84fWqEK0
lol
Yes, and the Queen rules all! Free man on land! Free man on land!
Eric Hoffer
http://gplus.to/jamesrmoore
That's not really what the hang-up was
.
☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧
USA_Patriot_Press@USA_Free_P
WARNING.....have a barf bag nearby before proceeding beyond this point.
************************************
USA_Patriot_Press@USA_Free_Press
It appears our Trial Judge does not wish to Rule on the merits of the case. I expect the Judge to likely dismiss the case on Friday.
USA_Patriot_Press@USA_Free_Press
We still have a glimmer of hope with the Appellate Court. I have tried my best. I will continue the fight to the very end
Translation:
You are all royally screwed!
An alternative to the MSM Machine http://freedombroadcastingnetwork.com/
Ron Paul friendly news: http://www.newsetal.com/
Maybe the judge
Is steering the complaint so that it can't be reversed before the convention.
It has to be perfect. Maybe the judge does agree with the law that's why he hasnt dismissed the case.
The problem is the lawyer isn't a constitutional expert and just can't get the legal definition right.
The judge wants to rule there is just nothing right now he can really rule on.
I don't know why but the Judge is itching to rule.
The lawsuit uses section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as one of the key points. Section 1971(b) states:
“No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President.”
The Delegates appear to be suing the RNC to nullify the RNC's Binding of Votes Rule as a violation of section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Delegates are duly elected and are Free to vote their conscience. No Political Party Rule can override and nullify the the election for these duly elected delegates. If the Straw vote was binding then there would be no need for Delegates to be elected. The straw vote is just one of the pieces of information that the Delegates must take into account when choosing a Presidential nominee.
Therefore, Delegates can not be bound and the RNC Binding Rule is a nullity.
Yeah, yeah we know that Apple
The problem with the premise is that binding >>>rules<<< are considered to be neither intimidating, a threat, nor coercion.
Instead of cut & pasting these stupid Federal Laws, why don't you try looking up the definition of “party” a/k/a “Political Action Committee”.
☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧
Oh Ye of Little Faith,
what dear Apple is trying to point out is that we are dealing with a Federal Law. Dr. Gilbert's master plan has been revealed- by copypasting this law into his legal filings (AKA brilliant nuggets of Freedom), he is preventing the judge from dismissing the case. You see, the judge (in secret lawyer code) is telling Dr. Gilbert that this historic case is tentatively won. In 300 years our descendants will be able to walk into a public restroom, and see 42 USC 1971 scratched onto the wall, and will remember those early days in school where they were taught about the Historic Law, and Dr. Gilbert, who wielded it mercilessly until the judge was forced to rule that C.B. Romney can never be the President!
Argh – I just remembered, I'm not a lawyer.
That must be why I can't understand what Judge Carter was saying.
So we're like —> this close to winning, right?
I'm gonna be poppin’ that $2000 bottle of 1971 Cristal tonight, I can just feel it...
☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧
da Vinci,
if you are trying to bind someone to do something against their conscience, that is coercive.
If Gilbert wrote it as clearly as that (above post), then we could get a ruling. Written that way it seems pretty straight forward. It defines who is suing who for what and why it is wrong.
Then the Judge can rule.
Except that no, it isn't coercive
A political party doesn't even have to elect delegates nor do they have to hold a convention.
They could have a contest to see who could eat the most Twizzlers®, if that's how they chose to select their Presidential nominee. Can you tell me why that is? No, because you didn't look up the term “political committee”, and the 1st Amendement Rights extended to such. Disappointing, because a Ron Paul supporter should have a better understanding of the Constitution than most, or so I would have thought...
☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧
You see,
if you write a complaint simply then the Judge can answer the question. You, da Vinci, believe the RNC can do whatever they want and the Federal law does not apply. Now let's now see if the Judge has the balls to answer the question.
Balls
The lawsuit was handled in such a way that the judge wasn't even given the opportunity to answer the question. All RG had to do to get to a point where the judge could potentially answer the question was file an amended complaint that addressed the deficiencies pointed out very clearly by the judge. Instead, the original complaint that only had *one* semi-coherent allegation in it was replaced by an amended complaint that had *zero*.
It's as if the amended complaint were written in response to the judge's instructions in such as way as to tie the judge's hands and give him no legal room to let the complaint continue to trial. The judge specifically said that the motion to dismiss made a legally valid point, and he would have to dismiss the lawsuit unless specific allegations against specific defendants were made. And he pointed out the one place where the complaint was vaguely on the right track. And then the amended complaint did the opposite.
What's the judge supposed to do in that case? There was a motion to dismiss that pointed out a very real flaw in the complaint. The judge went out of his way to explain how to remedy that flaw. The amended complaint *made it worse*. And now the judge is suppose to deny the motion to dismiss anyway?
Too bad the delegates were denied a better national lawsuit to get involved with. There were plenty of warnings, back when there was time to do it right, but there was a concerted effort to squash attempts to point out the red flags, and to get as many delegates as possible to join, putting as many eggs as possible into a basket that was clearly broken.
The people who worked so hard to squash those attempts to point out the red flags should stand up and take responsibility for the consequences.
"You decide." -- Judge Napolitano http://youtu.be/D5J84fWqEK0
Gilbert sues owner of Twizzlers
Gilbert : Twizzlers makes mouths happy. It says so on the package. Tongues turned purple.
Judge: WTF?
Gilbert : You must make mouths happy. Twizzlers makes mouths happy. It says so on the package.
Twizzlers Lawyer : We don't literally make mouths happy.
Judge : What am I supposed to do?
Gilbert : He just said he's not gonna make mouths happy. Twizzlers makes mouths happy. It says so on the package. You must order Twizzlers to make mouths happy.
Judge : Nothing says I have to make mouths happy, and even if it did, I have no idea what you are asking. You can't make mouths happy, in the literal sense.
Gilbert : You must make mouths happy. Twizzlers makes mouths happy. It says so on the package.
Judge : see you later, don't come back
Gilbert : Mouths are tentatively happy.
that ... was ... awesome
Nice work
Bravo
☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧
The Judge is giving Gilbert another chance and requiring a
Defendant response all before the Convention. This is unbelievable.
K.I.S.S.
Dayum. The Judge is giving
Dayum. The Judge is giving him ANOTHER chance to show cause? I'm beginning to wonder if Carter doesn't know Gilbert's intention is to get the case dismissed and is just messing with him.
Either that or Carter needs to be nominated for sainthood.
There's another possible reason,
but I don't even want to say it. Hopefully, its not what I fear.
What I Fear
Americasos, so the judge will rule against it. But does he rule that it can be appealed and if it is and pending... Are those delegates represented in the process of suing the Republican Party with a pending case "during" the convention?
If so........ what I fear, ya know.
fonta
so.. who were supporters of this lawyer for ron paul crap
raise your hand.. be a man for once.
Purposefully setting bad
Purposefully setting bad precedent and getting cases thrown out is an age old method for defeating the opposition. Take up the case and sabotage it intentionally. Case closed. The ACLU is expert at this tactic.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
The Rutherford Institute
...has also worked closely with ACLU and CATO on several cases according to WIKI. I am having some flags on "that other" right before the convention event.
I hope I am wrong...and it would not be a very popular topic to bring up...so I won't. (I be checking though!)
fonta
The ACLU
So that's where Richard learned it. Anyone remember what his former connection to the ACLU was?
I remember.
He was the head of the Orange County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union in the early 1980s.
Dr. Gilbert is no longer a member, however.
☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧
That's right
Zsh-Ninja warned us about that. Thank you Zsh, wherever you are!
Oh geez...... I sure wish I
Oh geez......
I sure wish I had more time and some illustrating talent. His twitter feed could have made a hilarious comic strip. Captain Gilbert...Lawyer by Day...Savior of all Humanity by night.
was there a ruling yet?
.
As good as a ruling....
The judge has received Gilbert's response. He has said Gilbert has until the 23rd (tomorrow) to SHOW CAUSE why the case shouldn't be thrown out, or it will be.
Gilbert's only option now is to essentially try in a SHOW CAUSE response, re-write the ENTIRE complaint as it should have been written in his previous two (or three, but who's counting) attempts.
If, and this is a BIG IF, he is able to cobble a coherent response, the RNC has until the 24th to respond to his response.
I suspect that given his previous failed attempts, the court is going to dismiss the entire case and therefore the RNC will have nothing requiring a response.
An alternative to the MSM Machine http://freedombroadcastingnetwork.com/
Ron Paul friendly news: http://www.newsetal.com/