The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
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.

Damnit, learning-resistant Apfel

I've told you 20+ times:
your ≠ you're



You're, You're, You're. You are correct.


....Gilbert and "Lawyers For Ron Paul" are inept and are actually hurting the cause?

No..... : /

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

A prerrogative writ was requested in the US Court of Appeals.

Gilbert has requested the intervention of the U.S. Court of Appeals by writ, not by appeal. The All Writs Act is here:

The procedure is different than an appeal and is supervisory in nature. Gilbert is requesting the appellate court to compel the trial court to follow the correct procedures. Appellate courts rarely grant such writs, but it is clearly not an appeal by statute from a final judgment as the trial judge has mischaracterized it. The plaintiffs/applicants merely need to show the appellate court that granting the writ is in aid of the Court of Appeal's potential jurisdiction, i.e., that it could affect an appeal from a final judgment. The lower court judge is retaliating because the plaintiffs have requested supervision by the higher court.

Don't hold your breath for this legal goobledegook.

The RNC has squashed Ron Paul, again. They're in full control. Rand Paul won't even make a ripple in effort to reform America. Sure, they're throwing him a bone to keep the Paul people quiet. Sadly, Ron Paul didn't enlist the services of hard nosed professional campaign people. He could have captured America by exposing the exploits of the RNC in Iowa. His staff couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag. Jesse is all about money and being in the "game", he's not about ideals, and maybe Ron Paul just didn't see it. Go back to sleep, we won't see another Ron Paul for a long time.

alan laney

Tell me about it...

Please whatever you do don't hold those responsible accountable and blame each other... it's worked out great so far as a "strategy."

Uh, could you roll're snoring.

Sorry, I had to say it :)

I, for one, will never sleep again, and I am waking up as many people as I can.

No more sleep.

This country will be restored, to it's Constitutional roots, one way or another.


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Let's just wait

Case hasnt been thrown out yet. The judge is going to rule he just wants the lawyer to hurry up that's all.


The judge wants this the lawyer to shut up and get out if he can't follow the rules.

Guy is an embarrassment.

Eric Hoffer

"Guy is an embarrassment. "

I think that was the intent.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

don't forget this one little oft-overlooked tidbit:

Once the case is dismissed with prejudice, it can never again be tried in United States Federal Court.
Wh, wha, what??
But Dr. Gilbert said that he crafted this case to “Do No Harm”...
And he did. It will do no the RNC.

P.S. ~good to see you rp4


What does that mean exactly?

Suppose some of the same plaintiffs, with a competent attorney, file a new complaint that cites specific acts by specific defendants, based on a coherent legal theory. Other than having some of the same plaintiffs that new complaint would have *nothing* in common with the l4rp debacle, so how could it be dismissed as the same case?

The defendents cannot be retried.

For the defense, it is equivalent to being found Not Guilty.


Not guilty OF WHAT?

The complaint was so vague the judge couldn't figure out what the L4RP was claiming any defendant had actually *done* or what legal theory was being applied, with one exception. The amended complaint is even worse, it makes *zero* specific allegations against any of the defendants. So the defendants are going to be essentially found "not guilty" ... of what?

Damnit you added your comment

When I was in the middle of correcting my spelling f-up ("defendants"), I hate that.
Anyhow, a Dismissal With Prejudice is a final judgement, and is as such res judicata (“a matter already settled”).
None of the Plaintiffs in this case may again file a case in the matter of the election-related allegations set forth in either the FAC, (along with the content of the affidavits, possibly), occurring prior to June 11, 2012, against any of the Defendants listed in the complaint.


If so it's far worse than I realized

Wow, the damage from this lawsuit is even greater than I realized. So even though the complaint doesn't allege a single act of wrongdoing by any defendant against any plaintiff, and in fact some of the defendants were not in any tangible way connected to anything mentioned in any of the affidavits, etc., a dismissal with prejudice will make it impossible to pursue any of the defendants on charges within a extremely broad scope of election-related allegations? Wow.

Is there no protection for plaintiffs in cases of incompetent representation? Suppose a plaintiff thinks they are being adequately represented, they are told over and over that things were going well and don't have the legal expertise to know otherwise, and then all of a sudden they find out that the case is dismissed because the complaint their attorney filed was complete rubbish, and the attorney turned in an old shopping list instead of writing a valid amended complaint and then . The plaintiff is just SOL?

Basically (and unfortunately) that is exactly the case.

They could report him to the State Bar Association (who Richard attempted to sue before, twice), but that does nothing with respect to the pending virtual blanket immunity for any of the actual offenses committed by the 50 states’ Republican Parties and/or Republican National Committee’s Reince Priebus, et al. against any of the innumerable plaintiffs to this case.


So in addition to keeping the delegates from pursuing

other legal remedies prior to the convention that might have had more chance of success, it virtually ensures that any efforts after the convention will fail because the long list of defendants will all end up with immunity from new lawsuits. And it did all of this with a complaint and amended complaint so poorly executed that there was close to zero chance of it hurting any of the defendants, with a procedurally inept appeal thrown in at the end just to be sure. Wow.

It's okay, some of us, have long memories.


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.


Kinda hard not to at least entertain the idea of some clever political strategist thinking of this as a desired end result, and then working backwards.


I still can't believe that

For one thing, the G-Man showed up with enough red flags to decorate a dozen used car lots. Nothing that has happened since the lawsuit was filed is really all that surprising if you look at his history. If there hadn't been such a concerted effort to squash anyone who revealed those red flags (thanks for trying, zsh) the whole thing could easily have played out differently. The idea of a lawsuit, or multiple lawsuits was good, and there was plenty of evidence to work with; in the hands of competent attorney(s) it could have been a very significant factor going into the convention.

And Perhaps What Was Needed

...was an attorney known to be very competent at being incompetent.


^^^ this ^^^


I'm gonna toot my own horn here a bit. :)

I did warn people as did others that there was something potentially dangerous to Liberty in that guys approach. People were so bent on getting the RNC, I think they ignored the red flags.

That guy is erratic and has been so in previous cases, as a few have pointed out. I hope people err on the side of caution from now on. We'll get nowhere if we continue to be gullible as a group.

Good to see you too. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Yes, we were among the 1st to sound the alarm...

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess:
you never received your ‘15-day’ subpoena, either, lol.
And from what I remember, you even asked him to send it express!


All he'd find is some proxy.

I NEVER use my own internet either. :)

Notice too, the way he threatened everyone on DP, as well. That's rational, I tellya! We'll get you all!! lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The Judge wants Gilbert to make a choice between fighting on the

First Amended Complaint (Appeal) or Second Amended Complaint (Trial Court) at this time. I have not seen the Appeal so it is impossible to know what Gilbert is appealing. But, an Interlocutory appeal is not outlandish. Gilbert is trying to make the Judge make a fast decision and not blow off the case until after the Convention. The Judge does have a point, but without seeing the appeal and the question of law that Gilbert wants answered he might have no choice but to drop the appeal until after the case is over.

Is there a link to the appeal or notice of appeal?

Interlocutory Appeal Definition
Interlocutory actions are taken by courts when a Question of Law must be answered by an appellate court before a trial may proceed or to prevent irreparable harm from occurring to a person or property during the pendency of a lawsuit or proceeding. Generally, courts are reluctant to make interlocutory orders unless the circumstances surrounding the case are serious and require timely action.

Interlocutory appeals are restricted by state and federal appellate courts because courts do not want piecemeal litigation. Appeals courts generally review only cases that have reached final judgment in the trial courts. When a court administrator enters final judgment, this certifies that the trial court has ended its review of the case and jurisdiction shifts to the appellate court.

Interlocutory appeals are typically permitted when the trial judge certifies to the appellate court in an interlocutory order that an important question of law is in doubt and that it will substantially affect the final result of the case. Judicial economy then dictates that the court resolve the issue rather than subject the parties to a trial that may be reversed on an appeal from a final judgment.

Appellate courts have the discretion to review interlocutory orders. The federal courts of appeal are governed by the Interlocutory Appeals Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1292). This act grants discretion to the courts of appeal to review interlocutory orders in civil cases where the district judge states in the order that a controlling question of law is in doubt and that the immediate resolution of the issue will materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation. State appellate courts are governed by statutes and court rules of appellate procedure regarding the review of interlocutory orders.

When an appellate court reviews an interlocutory order, its decision on the matters contained in the order is final. The court enters an interlocutory judgment, which makes that part of the case final. Therefore, if a case proceeds to trial after an interlocutory judgment is entered, and an appeal from the trial court judgment follows, the matters decided by the interlocutory judgment cannot be reviewed by the court again.

Interlocutory orders may be issued in a Divorce proceeding to prevent injury or irreparable harm during the pendency of the lawsuit. For example, an interlocutory order may require one spouse to pay the other spouse a designated weekly sum for support, pending a decision on Alimony and Child Support. This prevents the spouse and children from being without income during the action.

Courts may also issue interlocutory orders where property is about to be sold or forfeited and a lawsuit has been filed seeking to stop the action. In this type of case, a court will enter an interlocutory Injunction, preventing the transfer of property until it has made a final decision. To do otherwise would cause irreparable harm and would complicate legal title to the property if the person contesting the transfer ultimately prevailed.

Thus, though the courts value finality in most proceedings, interlocutory orders and appeals are available to protect important rights and to enhance judicial economy.

Fighting the First Amended complaint is not an option

The Judge says that if Gilbert is standing on that complaint, it will be stricken out.

So his choice is to essentially ask the court for grace, forget any appeal, and hope his seconded amended complaint can hold muster and that he hasn't miffed the judge too much to get a consideration before it too is thrown out.

Gilbert essentially asked for an appeal which would remove the current court's jurisdiction whilst at the same time asking the court to consider the amended amended complaint.

Something one might expect from a lay person with no legal training or as referred to by the judge "unrepresented prisoners".

An alternative to the MSM Machine
Ron Paul friendly news: