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:

Comment viewing options

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

The prerogative writs originated from England!

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.

No, Gilbert filed for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition to compel the trial court judge to comply with applicable procedures so as not to affect a possible appeal after the entry of a final judgment.

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

Since the prerogative writs originated from England, I would expect a Brit who considers himself/herself to have a legal education to understand the difference between seeking review by an appeal and by a prerogative writ.

The judge is asking for clarification on the appeal that Gilbert

filed. Without seeing what he filed no one can know what he is requesting an Appeal on, including the Judge. That was the reason for The Order to Show Cause by the Judge.

The judge is obstructing consideration of the complaint.

The judge is obstructing consideration of the complaint by creating non-existent procedural hurdles to frustrate appellate review. Lower court judges should not punish those who seek review rulings by the appellate courts. Carter's actions here are punitive and vindictive.
(See my post below.)

Lower court judges should not be permitted to retaliate against litigants for seeking review in a higher court. That is exactly what Carter is doing with his order. He is just another arrogant judge in a judicial system that is broken, largely because there is not enough supervision of arrogant lower court judges who act like petty tyrants carving out their own little empires.

Judge: "(Gilbert's are like) filings of unrepresented prisoners"

(This comment is reposted from http://www.dailypaul.com/249868/bet-mitt-and-his-peeps-are-s... where more discussion and some wicked satire regarding this topic can be found)

An excerpt from this most recent order from Judge Carter:

"...The few courts to address similar mixed messages from plaintiffs have done so exclusively in the context of filings from unrepresented prisoners..."

This fiasco has been a long trail of "mixed messages" from Gilbert and his cheerleaders. But Carter's message is crystal clear. Gilbert's practice of the law is on par with the filings from unrepresented prisoners.

Where are all of Gilbert's apologists today?

They used to swoop in like a swarm of locusts to throw flames on and down-vote every DP "troll" who dared to question the validity of this lawsuit or the competency of their fearless leader.

There is no appellate authority for Carter's assertions.

He cited only other District Court opinions for this point, which is not a binding precedent in any circuit. Carter is mixing apples with oranges here; an interlocutory appeal is not the same as a final appeal. Ultimately, it is for U. S. Court of Appeals to determine if an interlocutory appeal is appropriate, not the District Court judge.

Carter is attempting to make the interlocutory appeal moot by reversing his previous order to allow an second amended compliant solely because the plaintiffs had the audacity to request interlocutory review in the Court of Appeals. Carter is an arrogant pr1ck. In a properly functioning court system, lower court judges should not be meeting out punishment to litigants who attempt to appeal their decisions.

The plaintiffs paid the filing fee and should not be treated as jail house lawyers litigating and using the courts at taxpayer expense. Anyone who believes in liberty should find this judge's actions offensive, unless he/she believes that federal election law for nominating a major party candidate for the office of president of the United States is a frivolous issue like an inmate suing over the color of his prison uniform.

"In a properly functioning court system..." ???

You seem surprised that this lawsuit is not speeding successfully through "a properly functioning court system".

Where can we find one fast?

Or... We have a few days left. Let's mount a chip-in drive and reform the Federal court system ASAP. If we can do that in three days or less, we can stick it to that arrogant Judge Carter and rub his nose in the reality that Gilbert is still the savior of the Republic.

I am surprised at the hostility towards Gilbert's efforts.

Since I don't believe that we have a properly functioning court system, I am not at all surprised that the plaintiffs have encountered hostility from the establishment. I respect the fact that Gilbert has taken the Herculean task of confronting the establishment.

People are slowly awakening to how corrupt the U.S. system of government has become, but three days is hardly a realistic time frame to petition for the discipline of a judge who is attempting to obstruct justice by retaliating against litigants who have invoked the right granted by Congress to seek a prerogative writ from a higher court.

NOW - imagine somebody trying to accomplish all of that…

…while also being an idiot, and then you may be well on your way to vanquishing your sense of “surprise” at peoples’ hostility towards Dr. Gilbert.

Check out this comment I read on the contact page of www.ronpaul.com =>

Submitted by Mary Wilson on July 14, 2012 at 11:24 am
“I have voted for Ron Paul everytime he has ran for office…… HOWEVER…..Some idiot named Richard Gilbert of the California Bar Association has just convinced me NEVER TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL….. Too bad, he had some wonderful ideas…. BUT THANKS TO RICHARD GILBERT, NEITHER MYSELF OR ANY OF MY FAMILY OR FRIENDS WILL EVER VOTE FOR RON PAUL AGAIN …”

Thanks Gilbert. Not only did he piss off some random voter, but he pissed them off enough for them to go to RP's website and leave a message about it. In CAPS.
As an aside, here's a funny thing about people —> if 1 person feels/says/experiences something, then due to their overall statistical insignificance, it typically translates into hundreds of thousands of people (at minimum) feeling/saying/experiencing the same thing.


Imagine a CIA type propaganda/disinformation campaign...

It would have paid shills posting on Internet forums attacking the person attempting to compel compliance with federal law through a federal lawsuit as an idiot. They would make irrational, emotional arguments that they won't support Ron Paul because of something that private individuals have done. Statements would include making declarations for other people's voting intentions, which they are incapable of stating or predicting. The goal is to influence the opinions of weak minded individuals by projecting "group think".

Somehow, that doesn't appear to be working on this site.

Hahaha! You up-voted yourself. Weak.

Around here, your little Liars For Ron Paul group is considered on-par with the Central Intelligence Agency with respect to disinformation, appeals to emotional thinking, shills, spambots, cheerleaders, and the shameless propaganda that ensnares weak-minded or naïve individuals into joining whatever group-think orgy you automatons are promoting this week.
What happened to “the Lawyers for Ron Paul have tentatively won the case based on the historic law”?
Oh wait, let us just check the lawsuit-bot homepage at Election Fraud Remedy. They will surely tell us the Truth:

Judge Has Ruled in Favor of the Delegate Lawsuit
Posted on August 17, 2012 by Admin
“Well Folks … it looks like the Judge has ruled in favor of the Delegate Lawsuit concerning the validity of Historic Law that was used…”



I remember things a little differently.

1. When I suggested we work with the LP, GP, RP and CP to have them alter their rules to guarantee Ron Paul was on the ballot and to prevent GOP sabotage, the response was "Trust the campaign".

2. When I suggested those who were not delegates support Americans Elect and its efforts to place Ron Paul on the ballot in all 50 states, the response was "Trust the campaign".

3. When I complained when their was no damage control over the "racist newsletters" issue before Iowa, the response was "Trust the campaign".

4. When I warned that Ron Paul's foreign policy be addressed before South Carolina, the response was "Trust the campaign".

5. When I proposed Ron Paul's attorney sue Bill O'Reilly over misrepresentation and libel of Ron Paul's foreign policy, the response was "Trust the campaign."

6. When I suggested criminal and civil complaints against Romney, the RNC and state GOP organizations over rule violations back as early as March, the response was "Trust the campaign".

7. When I urged delegates to accept Richard Gilbert and the "Lawyers for Ron Paul" organization pro-bono help, the response was "Trust the campaign".

I am not particularly impressed with Richard Gilbert, but he is spot on regarding the consequences of the NDAA. Meanwhile, those of you campaign apologists and naysayers of ANYONE who attacked EVERY effort to ensure Ron Paul's placement on the ballot in all 50 states outside the GOP and who kissed Jesse Benton and Rand Paul's backside in hopes of a successful 2016 have only yourselves to blame for us now depending upon Richard Gilbert's efforts, however questionable or arming ourselves in anticipation of civil war, as predicted by Max Keiser and Gerald Celente, among others, in 2013.

There are a lot of those that were not

"Trust the Campaign".. I remember giving out many different answers that in some cases leaned toward, "Those fuckers can't be trusted".. As in specifically #2 and #1 and definitely NUMBER 7!

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

I remember #7 a lot differently

I grant you that you are using the paraphrase "Trust the campaign" rhetorically. Nevertheless, I never remember those words to be used once or the sentiment that they represent used at all to describe the main thrust of concern of the dozens of commentators who questioned the Gilbert lawsuit throughout hundreds of thousands of words published in the various posts on this subject.

Most contributors warned that Gilbert was not being vetted thoroughly and offered their findings from their own investigations. He seemed to have no track record as a Ron Paul supporter. Yet, he and many of his cheerleaders were deceptive, arrogant, demeaning and threatening to any detractors who questioned his motives or his expertise. Yet, his professional credentials and history were highly questionable and verifiable.

Most Gilbert detractors voiced their support for those delegates who choose to seek relief from the courts. Most suggested that, if that is the route one chooses to go, then, be smart, be informed, get the best representation one can and to do nothing that would be counter-productive to Ron Paul's efforts. Most warned that the Gilbert lawsuit does not fill this bill.

GoodSamaritan's picture


This is a sad, slow-motion train wreck that was totally avoidable.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

The Ron Paul campaign

Is us and has always been us.
It Is up to us to keep this thing alive.
The only thing I see wrong here is nobody else filed complaints to the court system.
Ron Paul has 2 million + supporters
All of us should have filed our own complaints.
You can't throw out 2 million separate court cases can u?

Final weeks?

We have less than one week.

All of us should've filed our own complaints, but we didn't, and no one ever suggested it until now (at least that I know of). We were supposed to trust the campaign, anyway, right?

Oh yeah, and then bash anybody that actually tried to do something, like make a short film with their own money or file lawsuits.

Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

The two most important days in your life are the day you are born...and the day you find out why. -Mark Twain

I'm not so sure...

Maybe it's just me, but somehow I have never imagined that the last and greatest opportunity to turn our iceberg-headed ship of state around in 2012 would be RP supporters asking the courts to force compliance of arcane political party rules.

I am almost sad that the Federal and state courts are being looked to by so many of us as our last gasp for success this election cycle -- especially in these final weeks leading to a convention where Dr. Paul still has well-earned standing.

I am leaning more towards the notion that in the future improvements will be more likely to come from a cultural approach rather than strictly a political one.

A Radical change in culture

A Radical change in culture is needed. Fastest and maybe only way to do that, legalize plants. RP people in my opinion need to take hold of the 2012 consciousness shift. see how now is the time to keep changing minds, loving idiots, and moving towards an anarchist society. Turn off TV. Ron Paul is MY President. Its my reality. Terence Mckenna

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy...." Adams. http://ronpaulgirl.com http://blogtalkradio.c

Like I said many times

Like I said many times before, the guy either works for Romney or he is incompetent.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

bigmikedude's picture

Link won't load.



I am having no problems accessing the link. Can you try again, perhaps in a different browser?

If others can confirm its not working I will put the docs on another server and provide an additional link.

Alternate link:

An alternative to the MSM Machine http://freedombroadcastingnetwork.com/
Ron Paul friendly news: http://www.newsetal.com/

3D Chess

Ah, but what you have to consider is that gilbert is playing 3d chess; clearly the judge has not yet recognized this strategy for its brilliance and precision of executution, but we should see this for what it really is - VICTORY for our delegates! Don't be confused by the legal language in the court papers, if you're not a lawyer, you won't understand and will be confused.

The judge has no choice but to rule in our favor, he just doesn't know it yet. The RNC has fired all of its ammo and has nothign left. Dr. gilebert is now free to deal the knockout punch.


I think you are in for a rude awakening.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

All is being revealed!!

Dr. Gilbert is at this time preparing to throw his knockout punch so that the judge can recognize that he must rule in favor of Liberty and not in favor of the Organized Crime Convention. Here is his latest message:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Fireworks in Court at 9 am. We are positioned exactly a planned. High Risk. High Reward

By 10AM, we should be able to declare that the RNC delegates are tentatively unbound, which means a WIN! But we can't stop there- Dr. Gilbert will then enlist the help of his 4 Million twitter followers to save the planet from imminent destruction as the Van Allen belts are in danger of collapsing unto the Earth.

He was relayed this classified information by a dentist named Frank Vidal, who does a bit of acting on the side- see for yourself:


I think you got trolled.

At least I'm hoping you did. God help him if he's serious. Poe's law is just ruthless.

Eric Hoffer

Ah, Poe's Law, a most interesting social psychology phenomenon

For those who might not have heard of it,
Poe's Law states that as an exaggerated parody of extremism becomes more accurate, it becomes increasingly difficult if not impossible to differentiate from an actual, true example of such extremism.
Also, with respect to the internet, it's often used to express the fact that people often cannot distinguish sarcasm from sincerity when reading online, if the text is absent certain telltale signs, like a winking emoticon, for example. ; )
As a kind of sub-thesis to Poe's Law, I have postulated that – when exposed to an accurate parody of extremism, approximately 50% of people will perceive it as exaggerated satire, while the other 50%, will see it as sincere.

see for instance: