Ron Paul Lawsuit --- Now a "SURE THING" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Lawsuit --- Now a "SURE THING"


Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 07:18
The Paul sites are all abuzz. The lead guy from "The Lawyers for Ron Paul" has ensured that he cannot lose with this video.


Richard Gilbert Takes on Romney - Romney supports NDAA, Detention of US citizens, Drones over US sky - YouTube

With a guy like this leading the charge, how can he lose.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/rofllarge.gif

You have to watch the whole thing to catch the concentration camp references and the threat to Mitt Romney's children.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 08:30
I guess we just throw the votes of millions of American voters in the trash can?

The American voter has overwhelmingly REJECTED Ron Paul and EVERYTHING he stands for.

Go home Ron Paul, and leave the election of the next president to the American voter.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 08:36
You have to watch the whole thing to catch the concentration camp references and the threat to Mitt Romney's children.


The only thing missing from that video is the obligatory statement, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message".

Obama has to be loving crap like this....:rofl:

ponders
07-29-2012, 08:40
I guess we just throw the votes of millions of American voters in the trash can?

The American voter has overwhelmingly REJECTED Ron Paul and EVERYTHING he stands for.

Go home Ron Paul, and leave the election of the next president to the American voter.



i thought he stood for absolute freedom? american people are against that?

and for getting rid of gun laws and ending the fed reserve?

did i miss something? i thought he was a good guy,,,, maybe i did miss something:dunno::embarassed:

amazon
07-29-2012, 08:45
He may be a "good guy" on some issues. But being a pawn and allowing Obama's opposition to continue to splinter, he's either stupid, or so butt hurt about not being the nominee he doesn't care.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 08:53
i thought he stood for absolute freedom? american people are against that?

and for getting rid of gun laws and ending the fed reserve?

did i miss something? i thought he was a good guy,,,, maybe i did miss something:dunno::embarassed:


Have you ever heard the old saying, "If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is"?

Ron Raul is a phoney who pushed all the right buttons and said all the right things to a growing number of people upset with American national politics.

Every plank of his so-called "political platform" was only possible in a perfect constitutional utopia, not in real life.

Ron Paul's name can now be added to the same list that contains names like Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy.


..

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 09:35
I guess we just throw the votes of millions of American voters in the trash can?

The American voter has overwhelmingly REJECTED Ron Paul and EVERYTHING he stands for.

Go home Ron Paul, and leave the election of the next president to the American voter.

Seems Ron Paul himself is not behind this, and does not support it. The movement is on autopilot.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 09:36
i thought he stood for absolute freedom? american people are against that?

and for getting rid of gun laws and ending the fed reserve?

did i miss something? i thought he was a good guy,,,, maybe i did miss something:dunno::embarassed:

Absolute freedom? That would be anarchy. The American people are not anarchists, well, most of them.


He is a good guy, and much too reasonable to be for absolute freedom.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 09:50
Seems Ron Paul himself is not behind this, and does not support it. The movement is on autopilot.


Now, about this swamp land I've got for sale down in south Florida?

I also have a bridge out in Arizona that I can let go cheap.
Only one previous owner.

G29Reload
07-29-2012, 09:58
i thought he stood for absolute freedom?

Only so long as it agrees with his idea of it.

Lawsuits, great, seek legislation from the bench like a democrat. :upeyes:

No one wants him, maybe a tiny minority, overwhelming direction otherwise has already been resoundingly decided, so try make things difficult by suing.

What's your point? You're not gonna be president. Ever.

G29Reload
07-29-2012, 09:59
Seems Ron Paul himself is not behind this, and does not support it. The movement is on autopilot.

You mean, tinfoil hat. That's the only of his core that's left.

Stang_Man
07-29-2012, 10:08
i thought he stood for absolute freedom? american people are against that?

and for getting rid of gun laws and ending the fed reserve?

did i miss something? i thought he was a good guy,,,, maybe i did miss something:dunno::embarassed:

I'd vote for Ron Paul. He's leaps and bounds better than Obama and Romney.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 11:06
Now, about this swamp land I've got for sale down in south Florida?

I also have a bridge out in Arizona that I can let go cheap.
Only one previous owner.

I get the feeling that the official campaign is trying to hold onto money and they know the game is over. The diehards have staged a mini-mutiny. It's not uncommon to see an attitude of "Ron Paul will be the Nominee, he just doesn't know it yet".

I may be wrong, but like most things involving large groups, I'm seeing more chaos and individuals looking out for personal goals than I am seeing a diabolical mastermind in Ron Paul.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 11:09
You mean, tinfoil hat. That's the only of his core that's left.

Well, many of the people I see posting on paul sites do tend to subscribe to one or more hard to believe theories.

jakebrake
07-29-2012, 11:13
Seems Ron Paul himself is not behind this, and does not support it. The movement is on autopilot.

having seen some of them? at this point, i expect fountains of stupid.

jakebrake
07-29-2012, 11:33
No one wants him, maybe a tiny minority, overwhelming direction otherwise has already been resoundingly decided, so try make things difficult by suing.



ohn, no g29...watch the video...according to the one comment, the convention willl be a sea of tinfoil as 1 million ron paul supporters converge.

well, get the F&^%^%$g butterfly nets out!

i supported ron paul....i now feel the need for a long shower.

countrygun
07-29-2012, 11:53
The only thing missing from that video is the obligatory statement, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message".

Obama has to be loving crap like this....:rofl:


Helping Obama is the only purpose it can serve.

jakebrake
07-29-2012, 12:47
Helping Obama is the only purpose it can serve.

and the useful idiots , armed with tin foil hats will march along screaming about how ron paul is freedom.

look at your hero now...just a sore loser, and you, the dupes that still sing his praises.

countrygun
07-29-2012, 13:19
and the useful idiots , armed with tin foil hats will march along screaming about how ron paul is freedom.

look at your hero now...just a sore loser, and you, the dupes that still sing his praises.


I am still left to wonder, with so many positions that were so apealing to liberals why Ron Paul didn't run as a democratic challenger to Obama.

I think they were trying the liberal tactic of redefining conservatism and at the same time getting Obie another term. Really the politics were more liberal, but whenever you talk to a paulbot they were like used car salesman who didn't have anything near what you wanted on the lot so they would try to tell you that a Ford van was what you really wanted instead of a Chevy sedan.

I still think that his whole campaign must have been just a dog and pony show to distract folks.

If the paulbots are sure Romney isn't the best Republican candidate then they shouldn't have been accomplishing nothing with Paul and should have been working for an ELECTABLE candidate that was better than Romney. Ron Paul never hid the fact he knew he couldn't win, or at least never did a good job of hiding it.

The whole RP mess has done nothing but further discredit a third party or a darkhorse candidate, and it sounds like some folks aren't satisfied with that damage, they want to do some more.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 13:43
Where's all the Ron Paul supporters?

Four months ago they were flaming me good for criticizing and making fun of Ron Paul.

Now, their silence seems to be the loudest noise in the room.

jakebrake
07-29-2012, 14:35
yes, country. it's safe to say that the paulbots lord and master has just run their third party dreams assunder once and for all.

Harbour
07-29-2012, 15:44
Where's all the Ron Paul supporters?

Four months ago they were flaming me good for criticizing and making fun of Ron Paul.

Now, their silence seems to be the loudest noise in the room.

Here is a former Ron Paul supporter checking in.

That guy in the video seems to be quite the dork. He lost all credibility with me when he said that John McCain, and shrub, and Poppy Bush were "honorable men."

I believe there was election fraud against Ron Paul. And here is why I am a "former" Ron Paul supporter...he didn't even request a second, impartial review into those suspicious results. He slunk away with his tail between his legs. Nobody has ever pissed away as many Pro Constitution voters (and money) as Ron Paul.

So now, your wet dream has come true, and you have Mittens representing everything your "new republican" party stands for. Obama should send you a Thank You Note.

The Republican Party belongs to people like you. And that is exactly what it deserves. If you hear a sound in the background, that is The Constitution getting off your bus.

countrygun
07-29-2012, 15:57
Here is a former Ron Paul supporter checking in.

That guy in the video seems to be quite the dork. He lost all credibility with me when he said that John McCain, and shrub, and Poppy Bush were "honorable men."

I do believe there was a lot of election fraud against Ron Paul. And here is why I am a "former" Ron Paul supporter...he didn't even request a second, impartial review into those suspicious results. He slunk away with his tail between his legs. Nobody has ever pissed away so many Pro Constitution voters as Ron Paul.

So now, your wet dream has come true, and you have Mittens representing everything your "new republican" party stands for. Obama should send you a Thank You Note.

The Republican Party belongs to people like you. If you hear a sound in the background, that is The Constitution getting off your bus.


What a pity party bottle of whine.

"Nobody has ever pissed away so many Pro Constitution voters as Ron Paul."

Well you got that part right, but your feelings are all hurt because he dumped on you and you still cannot accept the fat that he lost, you actually blame him for not fufilling your fantasies , so you come up with this,

"So now, your wet dream has come true, and you have Mittens representing everything your "new republican" party stands for. Obama should send you a Thank You Note."


As if you wish to remain ignorant of the primary process and how a candidate it actually chosen (of course being a Paul fan that would be a foriegn concept) I have yet to meet a whole lot of people who were big fans, but most of this primary was decided way east of my State. Romney is the presumptive nominee because he got the most votes. MOST of the intelligent folks realize that is how it works and the Party then supports that candidate.

Sorry you bought a ticket to the wrong Party, but drowning your sorrows in a bottle of whine, in public, is tacky.

jakebrake
07-29-2012, 16:11
the primary was obviously fixed by the republicans and the media...they have a secret cabal to make sure that republicans get elected. obama is just a smokescreen.

(do we throw the new illuminati into the conspiray theory?...i mean, it'd sell better that way.)

Harbour
07-29-2012, 16:23
I have yet to meet a whole lot of people who were big fans, but most of this primary was decided way east of my State. Romney is the presumptive nominee because he got the most votes. MOST of the intelligent folks realize that is how it works and the Party then supports that candidate.

Sorry you bought a ticket to the wrong Party, but drowning your sorrows in a bottle of whine, in public, is tacky.


We'll see how that "not a big fan but I'm voting for him" thingey works out for you.

Your loss is going to result in the death of the Republican Party....and the birth of new, conservative movement.

G19G20
07-29-2012, 16:41
Where's all the Ron Paul supporters?

Four months ago they were flaming me good for criticizing and making fun of Ron Paul.

Now, their silence seems to be the loudest noise in the room.

We're busy doing more productive things than posting on the internet 24/7, like getting people elected to office and preparing for Tampa. I only pop in here every few days now to see what the latest non-issue that has everyone all riled up is. Usually something racial or religious, never policy. Yawn. :yawn:

Law suit is progressing through the court so we'll see what happens. I doubt there will be a ruling before Aug 27 though.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 16:47
Here is a former Ron Paul supporter checking in.

That guy in the video seems to be quite the dork. He lost all credibility with me when he said that John McCain, and shrub, and Poppy Bush were "honorable men."

I believe there was election fraud against Ron Paul. And here is why I am a "former" Ron Paul supporter...he didn't even request a second, impartial review into those suspicious results. He slunk away with his tail between his legs. Nobody has ever pissed away as many Pro Constitution voters (and money) as Ron Paul.

So now, your wet dream has come true, and you have Mittens representing everything your "new republican" party stands for. Obama should send you a Thank You Note.

The Republican Party belongs to people like you. And that is exactly what it deserves. If you hear a sound in the background, that is The Constitution getting off your bus.

I'm thinking you are making that part up. I honestly cannot think of anyone other than 1200 that was rooting for Mittens. If they are out there, pull up some links to posts of the strongly pro-Romney guys. Most of us opposed him, and lost just as badly as the Paul guys in that regard, none of us got what we wanted.

Barring a cosmic shift in politics, either Mittens or Barry will be president in about 6 months. We all have some choices to make, and it is truly our individual choice. The chips will fall where they may. It's likely to be an interesting ride.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 16:49
We're busy doing more productive things than posting on the internet 24/7, like getting people elected to office and preparing for Tampa. I only pop in here every few days now to see what the latest non-issue that has everyone all riled up is. Usually something racial or religious, never policy. Yawn. :yawn:

Law suit is progressing through the court so we'll see what happens. I doubt there will be a ruling before Aug 27 though.

Did you watch the video????

If you are basing your hope on this guy's performance in court, that's gonna be interesting.

Have you signed your affidavit yet? Or have you been bumped off the roster?

G19G20
07-29-2012, 16:54
Nope, didn't watch the video. Gilbert is just another attorney so I don't take anything good or bad from stuff like that. Doesn't have much bearing on how good a litigator he is. He is litigating the suit fully and a motion to dismiss will be ruled on in the next week.

Still no affidavits. Wouldnt sign it even I did since it has no legal authority. I can only sign a contract for future performance. Affidavits are for attesting to past conduct.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 17:03
Nope, didn't watch the video. Gilbert is just another attorney so I don't take anything good or bad from stuff like that. Doesn't have much bearing on how good a litigator he is. He is litigating the suit fully and a motion to dismiss will be ruled on in the next week.

Still no affidavits. Wouldnt sign it even I did since it has no legal authority. I can only sign a contract for future performance. Affidavits are for attesting to past conduct.

Still no chance you would post the state you are a delegate of, that would allow us to look up whether or not paulbot trojan horse candidates are being booted or not.

The lack of that piece of information is highly conspicuous.

Anyway, have fun in Tampa.


You should really watch the video if you have any hopes about this lawsuit at all, watching the video will sink those right away.

ChuteTheMall
07-29-2012, 17:08
Nope, didn't watch the video.

Yet you are commenting on it.:tinfoil:

The only thing missing from that video is the obligatory statement, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message".

Obama has to be loving crap like this....:rofl:

http://i49.tinypic.com/99gkld.jpg

:animlol:

G19G20
07-29-2012, 17:21
Yet you are commenting on it.:tinfoil:

Oh hey look, it's Captain Disingenuous. No where on this thread did I comment on the video. You want to point out where I did, you pathetic liar?

Still no chance you would post the state you are a delegate of, that would allow us to look up whether or not paulbot trojan horse candidates are being booted or not.

The lack of that piece of information is highly conspicuous.

Nope, Ill be happy to share after the RNC. My state GOP is actually working with us, not against us. They saw the writing on the wall at the state convention where we made up a sizable portion and are all under 40, while the rest of the convention was blue hairs on oxygen tanks.

At least the Paul campaign is now formally challenging the illegal and fraudulent "booting" of duly elected delegates by butthurt party officers clinging to their last vestiges of power. Kinda reminds me of when dictators are close to be ousted in coups. They start getting really violent and pull out the WMD and stuff as a last resort.


Anyway, have fun in Tampa.

You know it! Thanks.


You should really watch the video if you have any hopes about this lawsuit at all, watching the video will sink those right away.

Im watching where it matters, the actual legal filings.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 17:29
So now, your wet dream has come true, and you have Mittens representing everything your "new republican" party stands for. Obama should send you a Thank You Note.

The Republican Party belongs to people like you. And that is exactly what it deserves. If you hear a sound in the background, that is The Constitution getting off your bus.


You were wrong about Ron Paul, and you're wrong about Mitt Romney.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 17:33
...



Nope, Ill be happy to share after the RNC. ....

At least the Paul campaign is now formally challenging the illegal and fraudulent "booting" of duly elected delegates by butthurt party officers clinging to their last vestiges of power. Kinda reminds me of when dictators are close to be ousted in coups. They start getting really violent and pull out the WMD and stuff as a last resort.


You have no idea how silly you sound commenting on something you are refusing to watch. I guess that says something too.


Im watching where it matters, the actual legal filings.

With that guy leading the charge, I'm sure you are in good hands. :rofl:

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 17:34
At least the Paul campaign is now formally challenging the illegal and fraudulent "booting" of duly elected delegates by butthurt party officers clinging to their last vestiges of power.


Can you direct me to where I can read more about this "formal challenge"?

If it's formal then it's a matter of public record.
I'd like more information please.

Harbour
07-29-2012, 17:36
I'm thinking you are making that part up. I honestly cannot think of anyone other than 1200 that was rooting for Mittens. If they are out there, pull up some links to posts of the strongly pro-Romney guys. Most of us opposed him, and lost just as badly as the Paul guys in that regard, none of us got what we wanted.


So let me see if I understand.....you are against Mittens....and you are also for him.

That is so very "Mittens like." :cool:

G19G20
07-29-2012, 17:38
Can you direct me to where I can read more about this "formal challenge"?

If it's formal then it's a matter of public record.
I'd like more information please.

Im sure Cav has all that info from his clandestine spying operations on Paul sites. Ask him.

G19G20
07-29-2012, 17:43
You have no idea how silly you sound commenting on something you are refusing to watch. I guess that says something too.

Can't possibly sound any sillier than you basing your judgments on YT videos while NOT reading the legal filings. Last I checked, judges rule based on legal filings, not Youtube videos.


With that guy leading the charge, I'm sure you are in good hands. :rofl:

He's a character for sure, but that doesn't translate to anything in the courtroom for or against.

Harbour
07-29-2012, 17:44
You were wrong about Ron Paul, and you're wrong about Mitt Romney.

Little w...Amnesty John McCain....and now Mittens.

The Republican Party is dying. And people like you who support "conservatives" like these are the reason why.

countrygun
07-29-2012, 17:44
We'll see how that "not a big fan but I'm voting for him" thingey works out for you.

Your loss is going to result in the death of the Republican Party....and the birth of new, conservative movement.

Are you young, or ignorant or both?

This sounds like your first Presidential election.

You need to really study the history of the election process in America. IF you knew much at all, you would know that some of our best Presidents have been elected by a voting bloc that wasn't exactly thrilled by voting for them. But they went on to greatness. You are obviously too young to recall Reagan's first election. Not terribly dissimilar to what we face today.

I have yet to see anything that suggests the Country, much less the Republican Party should elect someone who didn't win the primary.

G19G20
07-29-2012, 17:49
Did you just compare Romney to Reagan???????

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 17:49
Can't possibly sound any sillier than you basing your judgments on YT videos while NOT reading the legal filings. Last I checked, judges rule based on legal filings, not Youtube videos.



He's a character for sure, but that doesn't translate to anything in the courtroom for or against.

OK, just two points & a question?

One, this video will be seen by the judges.

Two, you've not been in a court when you weren't the defendant very often have you??



Would you hire this guy to represent you personally in court?
(you'll have to watch it all to get a good sense of him)

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 17:52
Im sure Cav has all that info from his clandestine spying operations on Paul sites. Ask him.


But I'm asking you.
You're the one who brought it up.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 17:53
The Republican Party is dying...


Now you're just being silly.

:rofl:

countrygun
07-29-2012, 17:57
Did you just compare Romney to Reagan???????


You'd have to be pretty dim to think I did (but then again, AS WAS MY POINT Republicans in general were no all that hot on Reagen)

I was obviously comparing the election circumstances

G19G20
07-29-2012, 17:58
OK, just two points & a question?

One, this video will be seen by the judges.

Pure speculation. And there's only one judge in this case.


Two, you've not been in a court when you weren't the defendant very often have you??

You have no idea how wrong you are but I don't have the inclination to waste my time explaining it to you or give out personal information.


Would you hire this guy to represent you personally in court?
(you'll have to watch it all to get a good sense of him)

In a civil suit, sure I'd have no qualms about it since his briefs are solid and oral arguments are rarely persuasive in federal district court. Like Ive been trying to tell you, it's the filings that matter in cases like this. Truth be told, I'd prefer to represent myself in civil litigation anyway.

He doesn't have any criminal defense background that I'm aware of so I wouldn't hire him for that, no. That has nothing to do with his personality though, just his areas of practice.

But I'm asking you.
You're the one who brought it up.

Im past the point of doing the homework for the peanut gallery here. You want to know, go look it up yourself.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 17:59
Im sure Cav has all that info from his clandestine spying operations on Paul sites. Ask him.

If you think google and the internet are "clandestine", you have a lot to learn about what sneaky really is.

Go ahead and answer the man. I also am curious about your answer.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:02
Pure speculation.



You have no idea how wrong you are but I don't have the inclination to waste my time explaining it to you or give out personal information.



In a civil suit, sure I'd have no qualms about it since his briefs are solid and oral arguments are rarely persuasive in federal district court. Like Ive been trying to tell you, it's the filings that matter in cases like this. Truth be told, I'd prefer to represent myself in civil litigation anyway.

He doesn't have any criminal defense background that I'm aware of so I wouldn't hire him for that, no. That has nothing to do with his personality though, just his areas of practice.



Im past the point of doing the homework for the peanut gallery here. You want to know, go look it up yourself.

Anyone else notice an unusual amount of avoidance in this one?

Double oh zero strikes again.

G19G20
07-29-2012, 18:02
You'd have to be pretty dim to think I did (but then again, AS WAS MY POINT Republicans in general were no all that hot on Reagen)

I was obviously comparing the election circumstances

Here's something funny. It was Reagan's third time running for President. Republicans in general weren't too hot on him. Sounds more like Ron Paul than Mitt Romney....

Anyone else notice an unusual amount of avoidance in this one?

Double oh zero strikes again.

I answered your question. You just have no reply.

If you think google and the internet are "clandestine", you have a lot to learn about what sneaky really is.

Go ahead and answer the man. I also am curious about your answer.

coastie says hi.

jakebrake
07-29-2012, 18:04
didn't newt actually win a couple of states.... and ron...oh...nevermind....







he lost.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:07
I answered your question. You just have no reply.

You are tap dancing around answers. But I have yet to see anything substantial that would actually support your version of events.

Have you watched the OP video yet?

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:08
coastie says hi.

You are editing your posts pretty frequently.

Who or what is a coastie?

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:12
http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/6e51xhfyv41ppmqj/images/2-eb1c0e5e68.jpg



He sounds unlike any attorney I've dealt with. Odd, but not quite professional.

G19G20
07-29-2012, 18:12
What were you expecting? Latin?

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:21
What were you expecting? Latin?

I'd have at least expected him to cite the law or laws being violated, so that it would act as an actual notice.

But that's just me. :cool:



He might as well have just said he would call them "poopy heads" if they didn't stop being meanies right this second. :crying:

G19G20
07-29-2012, 18:23
I'd have at least expected him to cite the law or laws being violated, so that it would act as an actual notice.

But that's just me. :cool:

Pretty sure the defendants already know what laws they're being accused of violating, seeing how they're in a lawsuit over it already. I kinda like his candor actually.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:29
Pretty sure the defendants already know what laws they're being accused of violating, seeing how they're in a lawsuit over it already. I kinda like his candor actually.

How well does "pretty sure" hold up in court? I'd consider it a necessary part of a notice of violation and demand to cease and desist.

Like I said, I've seen a few of these too, and the letter seems to fit his presentation style in the video, and that does not bode well for the case in my personal opinion.

I guess we will see, and since the hearing will likely happen after the convention.... It will be interesting if the court takes him seriously.

Harbour
07-29-2012, 18:37
Are you young, or ignorant or both?

You are obviously too young to recall Reagan's first election. Not terribly dissimilar to what we face today.



Reagan's main competition for the 1980 Republican nomination was former CIA Director George H W Bush.

Clearly, most conservatives supported Reagan over Bush. They did not have to vote for "the lesser of two evils." Of course, that was in the long ago days when a constitutional conservative could actually win a Republican nomination.

When given a choice between a real conservative vs Jimmy Carter, America elected Reagan in a landslide.

That is terribly, terribly dissimilar to what is coming this November.

G19G20
07-29-2012, 18:38
There's no requirement to include legal citations in a cease and desist letter. Gilbert can write "STOP BREAKING THE LAW!!!" diagonally in blue crayon and mail that if he wants. It carries as much legal weight as a 20 page letter full of legal citations.

The motion to dismiss is set for oral arguments on Aug 6. The judge can issue a preliminary injunction before the RNC and that is what has been requested. Good chance that would come at the same time as the ruling on the dismissal, if the case isn't dismissed outright. An actual final hearing on the case itself probably won't happen until after the RNC.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:42
There's no requirement to include legal citations in a cease and desist letter. Gilbert can write "STOP BREAKING THE LAW!!!" diagonally in blue crayon and mail that if he wants. It carries as much legal weight as a 20 page letter full of legal citations.

The motion to dismiss is set for oral arguments on Aug 6. The judge can issue a preliminary injunction before the RNC and that is what has been requested. Good chance that would come at the same time as the ruling on the dismissal, if the case isn't dismissed outright. An actual final hearing on the case itself probably won't happen until after the RNC.

Might have well used the crayon. It'll have the same effect.

Well, if it isn't dismissed outright, we'll have to wait and see. I'd love to see a televised hearing though, just to lighten up the day.

G19G20
07-29-2012, 18:47
Oral arguments in federal civil cases are usually very short and judges don't rule on it on the spot so it would be a pretty boring video. That's why filings are so important. Oral arguments just reinforce what's in the filings, nothing more.

edit: I misspoke here. Judges do rule on motions to dismiss at conclusion of oral arguments since the filings are what they base rulings on. Got carried away with my comments.....
(notice my edits don't change my posts, just add to them)

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 18:49
Oral arguments in federal civil cases are usually very short and judges don't rule on it on the spot so it would be a pretty boring video. That's why filings are so important. Oral arguments just reinforce what's in the filings, nothing more.

OK, any chance you have a link to the filing? Or is that classified the same way your home state is?

countrygun
07-29-2012, 19:00
Reagan's main competition for the 1980 Republican nomination was former CIA Director George H W Bush.

Clearly, most conservatives supported Reagan over Bush. They did not have to vote for "the lesser of two evils." Of course, that was in the long ago days when a constitutional conservative could actually win a Republican nomination.

When given a choice between a real conservative vs Jimmy Carter, America elected Reagan in a landslide.

That is terribly, terribly dissimilar to what is coming this November.


The "Actor/Governor" was a "lesser of" choice for many. and if you will look at the Democratic competition in that election, you might note some similarities .

Reagan was viewed with a lot of scepticism in Republican circles and the polls were not a big whopping confidence builder either,

G19G20
07-29-2012, 19:07
OK, any chance you have a link to the filing? Or is that classified the same way your home state is?

There's a link somewhere with some of the filings but I don't read them through that. I look them up through the federal court case management website. Quick google will get you the link.

ChuteTheMall
07-29-2012, 19:14
Oh hey look, it's Captain Disingenuous. No where on this thread did I comment on the video. You want to point out where I did, you pathetic liar?
.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gifhttp://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gifhttp://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif
TOS violation reported.

It's a thread about a specific video; keep editing your posts.
Hijacking the thread merely reinforces our very low opinion of you and your fellow Ronulans For Obama.

Perfect example of trolling.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gifhttp://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif

This incompetent lawyer serves to remind everyone that voting for Ron Paul is/was absurd. Lest we forget.:tinfoil:

G19G20
07-29-2012, 19:16
Stop lying and I won't have to call you out for being a liar. Pretty simple principle, no law school needed.

I obviously don't care what your opinion is of me. In fact, if you had a high opinion of me then I'd have to reconsider most everything in my life!!!

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 19:22
There's a link somewhere with some of the filings but I don't read them through that. I look them up through the federal court case management website. Quick google will get you the link.

I found it. No link necessary.

http://www.toolsforjustice.com/1_COMPLAINT_SACV-12-00927-DOC%28JPRx%29.pdf


First glance, although I read all of his arguments...... I wouldn't bet a $1 that he's going very far with this.

ChuteTheMall
07-29-2012, 19:27
Stop lying and I won't have to call you out for being a liar. Pretty simple principle, no law school needed.

I obviously don't care what your opinion is of me. In fact, if you had a high opinion of me then I'd have to reconsider most everything in my life!!!

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif

Quoted for posterity.

I won't be drawn into any name-calling with you because that would violate the TOS.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif

So, of those who have actually read the first post in this thread, how did you enjoy the video of the lawyer for Ron Paul? Ready to place any wagers on it?

:whistling:

ChuteTheMall
07-29-2012, 19:53
Gilbert repeatedly claimed that there are more than 800 concentration camps, built by Halliburton, on US soil intended for US citizens to be held indefinitely without charges or trial, blah blah blah.

OK, where are at least 801 of them?

Do they have physical locations on US Soil, or are they ficticious?

Gilbert also claimed an un-named Romney operative illegally pulled a gun and threatened an un-named Ronulan in a school in Alaska, so where are the criminal charges?
Or is this allegation of criminal behavior ficticious?

:tinfoil:

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 20:00
Gilbert repeatedly claimed that there are more than 800 concentration camps, built by Halliburton, on US soil intended for US citizens to be held indefinitely without charges or trial, blah blah blah.

OK, where are at least 801 of them?

Do they have physical locations on US Soil, or are they ficticious?

Gilbert also claimed an un-named Romney operative illegally pulled a gun and threatened an un-named Ronulan in a school in Alaska, so where are the criminal charges?
Or is this allegation of criminal behavior ficticious?

:tinfoil:

He does seem rather, shall we say, eccentric?

The Hair (must not like his own ears), the giant jar of lotion in the background :wow:, his mannerisms, the fact that his tie is from the 70-s, and he forgot to button his cuffs...... The wild accusations, the tinfoil hat theories...... It all adds up to something less than a polished image. Reportedly, he is hard at work on some more videos, and we will all get to see more of him. Must have more free time that G19G20 does.......

Ringo S.
07-29-2012, 23:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IGZOGmsQc4&feature=player_embedded#!
This may shed some light on why Ron Paul wants forced psychiatric drugging of our school children STOPPED! A caring and competent Michigan mother refuses to let child services take her very normal child and forcibly drug her with psychiatric medications. The reaction from the state was to bring in the swat teams and a tank for a day long stand off.

G19G20
07-30-2012, 03:10
He does seem rather, shall we say, eccentric?

Im pretty sure he's a Paulite and his team is too. Or at least he's great at playing that role sometimes. :supergrin:

Taking the beaten path never changed much in history. Food for thought.

eta: that video above is proof positive of why people support RP as fervently as we do. THIS is the police state that's closing in if you don't stop it somewhere. This is what is happening in a "free" country. Not many things will get someone fired up more than bad experiences with child protective services and juvenile courts.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 04:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IGZOGmsQc4&feature=player_embedded#!
This may shed some light on why Ron Paul wants forced psychiatric drugging of our school children STOPPED! A caring and competent Michigan mother refuses to let child services take her very normal child and forcibly drug her with psychiatric medications. The reaction from the state was to bring in the swat teams and a tank for a day long stand off.

Worthy of its own thread I'd say. Kind of off topic here.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 04:39
Im pretty sure he's a Paulite and his team is too. Or at least he's great at playing that role sometimes. :supergrin:

Taking the beaten path never changed much in history. Food for thought.

eta: that video above is proof positive of why people support RP as fervently as we do. THIS is the police state that's closing in if you don't stop it somewhere. This is what is happening in a "free" country. Not many things will get someone fired up more than bad experiences with child protective services and juvenile courts.

If you find anyone that would support using swat teams to forcibly medicate normal young girls, you let me know and I will chastise them with you.

But that doesn't have much to do with Gilbert and the lawsuit. One step at a time. If the delegates remain bound they can't nominate him from the floor, if he can't make his 15 minute speech, he can't sway all the delegates, and he can't get the nomination, and then he can't single handedly save the country. It's good to keep the long term goals in mind, but if you don't focus on the short term enabling goals, all is lost.

Bren
07-30-2012, 06:22
The only thing missing from that video is the obligatory statement, "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message".

Obama has to be loving crap like this....:rofl:

Crazy as you can be, you are dead right about that.

ChuteTheMall
07-30-2012, 06:58
OK, where are at least 801 of them?
:tinfoil:

Can we locate just 700 of them?

I mean, since Gilbert knows Halliburton built over 800 of them on U.S. soil, he must know where they are. Go ahead and keep over a hundred of them secret, just show us at least 700 of them.

Time to put up or shut up, Reynolds Rappers.:tinfoil:

countrygun
07-30-2012, 11:18
Im pretty sure he's a Paulite and his team is too. Or at least he's great at playing that role sometimes. :supergrin:

Taking the beaten path never changed much in history. Food for thought.

eta: that video above is proof positive of why people support RP as fervently as we do. THIS is the police state that's closing in if you don't stop it somewhere. This is what is happening in a "free" country. Not many things will get someone fired up more than bad experiences with child protective services and juvenile courts.




There is such a thing as "taking one for the team" but that, ahem, "gentleman" Has walked into the prison exercise yard, dropped trou, bent over an yelled "come and get it"

GAFinch
07-30-2012, 11:50
Did you just compare Romney to Reagan???????

Reagan was a moderate on abortion when he was first governor and supported legalizing abortions in California for emergencies, only to later become solidly pro-life when he noticed a huge number of "rape-related" abortions occurring. Romney also started out moderate on abortion and changed his stance when exposed to the issue as governor. Reagan increased the amount of gun control, while Romney has so far decreased the amount of gun control by weakening the Mass. AWB. Reagan supported amnesty for illegals, while Romney had the toughest anti-amnesty position of all the candidates. Romney has vocalized the importance of long term budget balancing by cutting and/or de-federalizing programs and has been critical of both Dems and Reps for focusing on short term budget numbers. Reagan wasn't as conservative as he's now made out to be, and Romney isn't as liberal as he's been accused of being.

countrygun
07-30-2012, 11:55
Reagan was a moderate on abortion when he was first governor and supported legalizing abortions in California for emergencies, only to later become solidly pro-life when he noticed a huge number of "rape-related" abortions occurring. Romney also started out moderate on abortion and changed his stance when exposed to the issue as governor. Reagan increased the amount of gun control, while Romney has so far decreased the amount of gun control by weakening the Mass. AWB. Reagan supported amnesty for illegals, while Romney had the toughest anti-amnesty position of all the candidates. Romney has vocalized the importance of long term budget balancing by cutting and/or de-federalizing programs and has been critical of both Dems and Reps for focusing on short term budget numbers. Reagan wasn't as conservative as he's now made out to be, and Romney isn't as liberal as he's been accused of being.


well said

jakebrake
07-30-2012, 14:48
There is such a thing as "taking one for the team" but that, ahem, "gentleman" Has walked into the prison exercise yard, dropped trou, bent over an yelled "come and get it"

okay....that's just funny

G19G20
07-31-2012, 01:37
Reagan was a moderate on abortion when he was first governor and supported legalizing abortions in California for emergencies, only to later become solidly pro-life when he noticed a huge number of "rape-related" abortions occurring. Romney also started out moderate on abortion and changed his stance when exposed to the issue as governor. Reagan increased the amount of gun control, while Romney has so far decreased the amount of gun control by weakening the Mass. AWB. Reagan supported amnesty for illegals, while Romney had the toughest anti-amnesty position of all the candidates. Romney has vocalized the importance of long term budget balancing by cutting and/or de-federalizing programs and has been critical of both Dems and Reps for focusing on short term budget numbers. Reagan wasn't as conservative as he's now made out to be, and Romney isn't as liberal as he's been accused of being.

So you're calling Reagan a liberal and Romney a conservative. Weird campaign strategy.

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 05:39
So you're calling Reagan a liberal and Romney a conservative. Weird campaign strategy.

That's not what he was saying at all. Of course you knew that, but what the heck, Paul didn't like Reagan enough to leave the party over him.

Both were more liberal when they were younger, that's what he was saying.

We will have to see if Romney really is as conservative as he is saying at the moment, or not. Guess it depends on if Ron Paul gets the nomination instead...

series1811
07-31-2012, 07:50
Both were more liberal when they were younger, ....

And, really, who isn't? The real world has a way of changing those views for most people.

Utopia is nice, but it's not utopia for nothing.

GAFinch
07-31-2012, 09:02
So you're calling Reagan a liberal and Romney a conservative. Weird campaign strategy.

Not liberal, just somewhat moderate. He's remembered as a right wing conservative because that's how the monolithic liberal media portrayed him. Nixon is viewed as a right wing monster, but he was actually a straight up RINO who didn't do anything worse ethically than what Zero has been doing. The conservative sites we have now are very recent and give us more useful insider insights which makes it easier to nitpick over candidates' conservative qualities. The big problem we have now is Ron Paul people masquerading as regular conservatives and spreading false, demoralizing commentary on Republicans, reinventing dead ones as conservatives or libertarians and every single living one as a neocon liberal.

GAFinch
07-31-2012, 09:05
And, really, who isn't? The real world has a way of changing those views for most people.

Utopia is nice, but it's not utopia for nothing.

Having a rock solid party affiliation where others with experience share their opinions on issues certainly helps also.

Almost everyone who's spent 4-8 years in college and has watched tv and movies growing up needs years of deprogramming to completely figure out what was conservative or moderate and what was straight up Marxist propaganda.

countrygun
07-31-2012, 10:11
Not liberal, just somewhat moderate. He's remembered as a right wing conservative because that's how the monolithic liberal media portrayed him. Nixon is viewed as a right wing monster, but he was actually a straight up RINO who didn't do anything worse ethically than what Zero has been doing. The conservative sites we have now are very recent and give us more useful insider insights which makes it easier to nitpick over candidates' conservative qualities. The big problem we have now is Ron Paul people masquerading as regular conservatives and spreading false, demoralizing commentary on Republicans, reinventing dead ones as conservatives or libertarians and every single living one as a neocon liberal.


Too true. The generation(s) that have grown up believing the whitewash and the stereotyping of Nixon as an example of a "right wing" President have been led down a primrose path strewn with falsehoods. It is one of the revisionist fables told to obfuscate history and allow the pliable young minds to bent bent in the direction desired by the tellers of the fable.

It is yet another example of the educational system being corrupted to leave people in ignorance while all the time telling them they are "well educated"

Goaltender66
07-31-2012, 14:04
If anyone cares, the case number is 8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR

I've checked in on where the case is. Thought some of these tidbits were interesting:

6/28, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to intervene (with what appears to be new charges/allegations...). That application was denied by the judge on July 6. I'll quote from the Judge:

This Ex Parte Application has many defects. First, Rule 24 is not the correct rule under which the Plaintiff should have moved. Rule 24(a)(2) provides for intervention in relevant part where "disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest." Rule 24(b) provides in relevant part that "[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who...has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Here, in contrast, the parties that Plaintiff sees to add simply appear to be additional Plaintiffs to the present action.

In other words, you can't pile on. The ruling also schools the Plaintiffs on the appropriate use of Ex Parte.

The plaintiffs were then required to file an amended complaint, presumably based in something other than wishcasting. :) That amended complaint was filed 7/10. Judge said opposition to motion must be filed by 7/20, which was done in typical Ronulan overexuberance (I count seven different actions from the Plaintiffs on 20-July).

Meanwhile, on 7/5 the defendants entered a motion to dismiss which is still in play.

As it sits now, decision on the motions will probably happen on August 6. There are a slew of applications from the Plaintiffs to expedite trial too. Unlikely those will go anywhere.

Kablam
07-31-2012, 14:34
If anyone cares, the case number is 8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR

I've checked in on where the case is. Thought some of these tidbits were interesting:

6/28, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to intervene (with what appears to be new charges/allegations...). That application was denied by the judge on July 6. I'll quote from the Judge:

"This Ex Parte Application has many defects. First, Rule 24 is not the correct rule under which the Plaintiff should have moved. Rule 24(a)(2) provides for intervention in relevant part where "disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest." Rule 24(b) provides in relevant part that "[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who...has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Here, in contrast, the parties that Plaintiff sees to add simply appear to be additional Plaintiffs to the present action."

In other words, you can't pile on. The ruling also schools the Plaintiffs on the appropriate use of Ex Parte.

The plaintiffs were then required to file an amended complaint, presumably based in something other than wishcasting. :) That amended complaint was filed 7/10. Judge said opposition to motion must be filed by 7/20, which was done in typical Ronulan overexuberance (I count seven different actions from the Plaintiffs on 20-July).

Meanwhile, on 7/5 the defendants entered a motion to dismiss which is still in play.

As it sits now, decision on the motions will probably happen on August 6. There are a slew of applications from the Plaintiffs to expedite trial too. Unlikely those will go anywhere.

This shows you that it takes more than ideology and emotion to play in this game. Same thing is happening to progressive left. There needs to exist a certain amount of maturity, capability, and pragmatism in order to succeed. Just because one wishes something to exist or happen isn't enough.

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 14:46
This shows you that it takes more than ideology and emotion to play in this game. Same thing is happening to progressive left. There needs to exist a certain amount of maturity, capability, and pragmatism in order to succeed. Just because one wishes something to exist or happen isn't enough.

Pragmatism and paulbot are antonyms.

Kablam
07-31-2012, 15:38
I hear ya.

G-19
07-31-2012, 16:13
Can we locate just 700 of them?

I mean, since Gilbert knows Halliburton built over 800 of them on U.S. soil, he must know where they are. Go ahead and keep over a hundred of them secret, just show us at least 700 of them.

Time to put up or shut up, Reynolds Rappers.:tinfoil:

I would be interested in seeing 50 of them.

Kablam
07-31-2012, 16:23
So you're calling Reagan a liberal and Romney a conservative. Weird campaign strategy.

You just made that up. :wow:

G19G20
07-31-2012, 16:57
If anyone cares, the case number is 8:12-cv-00927-DOC-JPR

I've checked in on where the case is. Thought some of these tidbits were interesting:

It is a pretty unique case worth watching, even if you have no dog in this fight.

6/28, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to intervene (with what appears to be new charges/allegations...). That application was denied by the judge on July 6. I'll quote from the Judge:



In other words, you can't pile on. The ruling also schools the Plaintiffs on the appropriate use of Ex Parte.

The plaintiffs were then required to file an amended complaint, presumably based in something other than wishcasting. :) That amended complaint was filed 7/10. Judge said opposition to motion must be filed by 7/20, which was done in typical Ronulan overexuberance (I count seven different actions from the Plaintiffs on 20-July).

The amended complaint was to add the additional Plaintiffs to the action, as well as to add the additional (and ongoing) grievances done by the party after the original complaint was filed. This is what the motion to intervene was seeking to do but as you pointed out, the judge denied it and instructed Gilbert to just file an amended complaint with the new info.

This shows you that it takes more than ideology and emotion to play in this game. Same thing is happening to progressive left. There needs to exist a certain amount of maturity, capability, and pragmatism in order to succeed. Just because one wishes something to exist or happen isn't enough.

Not sure what this has to do with the case. People have been harmed in various ways, including financially and physically, by the conduct of the state and national party committees. Are you saying they're not entitled to have a court hear their claims and should be "mature" and "pragmatic" and just take whatever they're given by the party, even when they sustain damages?

You just made that up. :wow:

Maybe but that's sure what it sounded like. Someone just attempted to put Romney to the right of Reagan, at least as a candidate.

Kablam
07-31-2012, 17:24
It is a pretty unique case worth watching, even if you have no dog in this fight.

Not sure what this has to do with the case. People have been harmed in various ways, including financially and physically, by the conduct of the state and national party committees. Are you saying they're not entitled to have a court hear their claims and should be "mature" and "pragmatic" and just take whatever they're given by the party, even when they sustain damages?



Nope not saying that at all. "They" can try to have a court hear whatever "they" want. "They" need to prepare properly, and submit a well written legal brief so the judge doesn't have to make "them" look unprepared or amatueurish. I watched the OP video, and between that and the judges finding quoted above, "they" sound like "they're" going to court with histrionics as they're case instead of solid legal standing. I'm not saying "their" case is right or wrong. Just commenting no how it looks. And it looks ridiculous..."they" won't take no for an answer even if that's the answer from the RNC and it's voters. Let's go to court even though we all hate the court becasue it's full of unpure not real conservatives appointed by RINOs.

As to the party, why do you care what the party does? The RNC has the right to run their deal how they see fit. If they want to commit political suicide, they certainly have that right. Also, if the RNC is so messed up, and I agree that it is, why are the "socially superior" libertarians even trying to associate with it? Makes no sense to me.

And before you start jumpin' ugly, I did not support Romney in the primary, I'm not a "blue dog" as accused prior to this, and I certainly do not (and never have) support the inept fool in there now.

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 17:38
Oh, some stuff you just can't make up.

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/241093/slide_241093_1283736_free.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 17:40
It's OK to consider voting for Romney, after all Dr. Paul himself is still thinking about it.

Ron Paul: I 'Have Not' Decided If I'll Vote for Romney (http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-not-decided-ill-vote-romney-220843599--abc-news-politics.html)

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 17:57
Oh dear. You should check out this guys twitter feed. This is just the last 24 hours.


https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2149314785/A_1_Richard_Law_School_002__2_.jpg

https://twitter.com/usa_free_press

USA_Patriot_Press
@USA_Free_Press

Here Today Tomorrow's News_ Politics +News = Intelligence_ Science, Military, Law, Conservative, Tea Party, Survival_Christian GilbertandMarlowe.Com

NY*DC*California

Tweets
50m USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"1913 wasn't a very good year. 1913 gave us the income tax, the 16th amendment and the IRS." Ron Paul
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite



1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

“I'm trying to think, don't confuse me with facts.” Plato
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

3:36 PM - 31 Jul 12 via web Details
1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen." Aristotle
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

3:32 PM - 31 Jul 12 via web Details
1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law." Aristotle
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"To find yourself, think for yourself." Socrates
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"Let him that would move the world, first move himself." Socrates
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"All wars are undertaken for the acquisition of wealth" Is it Ron Paul or Socrates? (A: Socrates)
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"The nearest way to glory is to strive to be what you wish to be thought to be." Socrates
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

1h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Socrates
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite



7h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@Sickhed -You try to focus with all these gorgeous women talking liberty and freedom all day.
View conversation

Reply
Retweet
Favorite




8h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@joey_numbaz Congrats to Joe Bellucci. He is engaged to Miss Universe
View conversation

Reply
Retweet
Favorite



8h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@joey_numbaz oh sure Joe, go ahead and rub it in
View conversation

Reply
Retweet
Favorite



8h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

okay, back to work. these Ron Paul women are burning up my screen. What's with this guy Ron Paul? Is it something he says?
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite





8h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Okay, what does this Ron Paul guy have that we don't have?
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite




8h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

anyone else notice the Ron Paul women are both gorgeous and highly intelligent? I mean really gorgeous!
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

I have looked the enemy directly in their eyes and I see fear
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

When I see those who say it is impossible. It cannot be done. I often see the same people take credit for its' success when it is done
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Our journey is to climb the mountains and blaze the trail so that our children will be free to judge our work
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

If our descendants are free to judge our work than we have succeeded
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"The time is not far off when young people might have to say I have to participate in civil disobedience" Ron Paul
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite



9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Dr Paul is the best candidate since George Washington. He has the heart for liberty & freedom & the wisdom of Socrates.
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Surrounded & outmanned. We are outgunned. Yet, once again, the Constitution survives. Freedom & Liberty still lives although tattered
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

The battle is fully engaged. Front line troops at the ready. We have been fighting since winter & the enemy has failed to defeat us
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"It's a beautiful morning" The Rascals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyooCErXdMI …
View video

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

National Anthem Leann Rimes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeYLSIDic7g …
View video

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

I never underestimate. I just wake up everyday and think what the Founding Fathers & Continental Army did & realize I have no excuses.
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

15h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Carol Paul Quote "Carol Paul says it's wonderful to have this lawsuit and lawyers fighting against the vote fraud that has been going on!"
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

16h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

National Anthem By Military http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETrr-XHBjE …
View video

Reply
Retweet
Favorite



17h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@tweetAmiracle Thank you for all your hard work
View conversation

Reply
Retweet
Favorite


17h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"The potential for the disasterous rise of misplaced power exists" President Eisenhower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY …
View video

Reply
Retweet
Favorite


18h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"Beware of the industrial military complex" President Eisenhower
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

18h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"All the gold which is under or upon the earth is not enough to give in exchange for virtue." Plato
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

18h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Plato
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

18h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them." Aristotle
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

18h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

"Fear is pain arising from the anticipation of evil. " Aristotle
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

18h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Our fight may seem impossible to many-If it is impossible then we must do the impossible if our children are to be free to live with liberty
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

18h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

Only 1/3 of the colonists supported the American Revolution. Be brave, for it is you who will save our freedom and liberty. It is you!
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

19h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

The Police State has begun. Future generations will judge us on how we respond to it. We will be remembered for what we now do.
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite






http://sdrdesign.com/maloofRocker.jpg



Well, he's not on it, so he must be......

countrygun
07-31-2012, 18:04
It reads like Kozinsky's "Manifesto" with references to cheesecake thrown in

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 18:06
It reads like Kozinsky's "Manefesto" with references to cheesecake thrown in

I get the feeling he is typing with one hand. :shocked:

Goaltender66
07-31-2012, 19:38
It is a pretty unique case worth watching, even if you have no dog in this fight.



The amended complaint was to add the additional Plaintiffs to the action, as well as to add the additional (and ongoing) grievances done by the party after the original complaint was filed. This is what the motion to intervene was seeking to do but as you pointed out, the judge denied it and instructed Gilbert to just file an amended complaint with the new info.

Gee, thanks for restating what I've already written. :upeyes:

For a guy whose briefs you think are "solid," filing an improper ex parte application sure seems to be such an elementary error.

As for it being "unique," I disagree. Frivolous suits are filed quite regularly.

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 20:08
http://www.ppartchive.com/content/wallpaper/thumbs/wp_N0V4_wallpaper[thumb].jpg

Terminator2
07-31-2012, 20:36
Anyone but Barry or Flip. He's big on 2nd amendment, too.

G19G20
07-31-2012, 21:21
Nope not saying that at all. "They" can try to have a court hear whatever "they" want. "They" need to prepare properly, and submit a well written legal brief so the judge doesn't have to make "them" look unprepared or amatueurish. I watched the OP video, and between that and the judges finding quoted above, "they" sound like "they're" going to court with histrionics as they're case instead of solid legal standing. I'm not saying "their" case is right or wrong. Just commenting no how it looks. And it looks ridiculous..."they" won't take no for an answer even if that's the answer from the RNC and it's voters. Let's go to court even though we all hate the court becasue it's full of unpure not real conservatives appointed by RINOs.

I guess that's a fair enough reply, though most anyone with legal experience will tell you that attorneys file motions or make allegations or use inappropriate case law or a bunch of other tactics to get the upper hand in a case. It's the opposition's job to point it out to the judge and the judge rule accordingly. Like politics, the law profession is an ugly game. Having a motion denied doesn't usually reflect as incompetence on the part of the filer. It's just part of the game.


As to the party, why do you care what the party does? The RNC has the right to run their deal how they see fit. If they want to commit political suicide, they certainly have that right.

The state GOP and the RNC don't have a right to charge people money to participate in the process then screw them out of that participation whenever they think it's politically expedient. That would be considered fraud in most any situation. Or physically injuring people (see Louisiana state convention) that don't stand by and take it while laws and rules are broken. Those are just a couple examples of what's being alleged.


Also, if the RNC is so messed up, and I agree that it is, why are the "socially superior" libertarians even trying to associate with it? Makes no sense to me.

Way too long of a topic to get into but a couple points are:
-3rd parties are purposely excluded from the election process so it's a waste of time trying to win as a 3rd party.
-Libertarianism is a branch of conservatism and is actually more like the old right than what passes for conservatism today. Sorta like how the evangelicals were just a branch when Reagan was Pres. Evangelicals have since taken over a big chunk of the party and made their voices louder. Libertarians are doing the same thing.


And before you start jumpin' ugly, I did not support Romney in the primary, I'm not a "blue dog" as accused prior to this, and I certainly do not (and never have) support the inept fool in there now.

That's fine. If that's the case then we're mostly in the same boat.

G19G20
07-31-2012, 21:29
Gee, thanks for restating what I've already written. :upeyes:

For a guy whose briefs you think are "solid," filing an improper ex parte application sure seems to be such an elementary error.

See my reply to Kablam above regarding legal maneuvering. Denial of a motion isn't exactly a ground breaking development in federal court.


As for it being "unique," I disagree. Frivolous suits are filed quite regularly.

We'll see in a few days. You are aware that frivolous means entirely without merit and the filer is sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit. When no sanctions are handed down, will you stop claiming it to be frivolous?

JBnTX
07-31-2012, 21:36
We'll see in a few days.


:popcorn:

Goaltender66
08-01-2012, 06:19
See my reply to Kablam above regarding legal maneuvering. Denial of a motion isn't exactly a ground breaking development in federal court.
Your reply basically says that lawyers try all kinds of unethical things to get the upper hand in a case. I am convinced you know nothing about the legal profession outside of what you've seen on Ally McBeal. Lawyers (well, good lawyers) don't try to snow the court because a) it doesn't reflect well upon their clients and b) because in the extreme (as you're selling) it makes one vulnerable to sanction or disbarment.

Besides, this was an ex parte application to intervene. Thought you knew this, being that you wrote a paragraph on what it meant. That is, unless you were parroting someone. Anyway, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make it quite clear when it's appropriate to bring something ex parte as opposed to bringing something that requires oral argument. This leads me to believe Gilbert is either lazy or ignorant. There's very little grand strategy that can be met through an incorrect filing. Sheesh, under the Rules a Defendant can't even object to a motion to amend the complaint, which is what Gilbert should have done in the first plact.




We'll see in a few days. You are aware that frivolous means entirely without merit and the filer is sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit. When no sanctions are handed down, will you stop claiming it to be frivolous?

Frivolous does mean without merit but a sanction is not a necessary component of a judge ruling a complaint to be frivolous. The complaint can simply be dismissed as having no merit. In fact, sanctions usually come into play for repeat offenders (you see this most often in tax-related cases).

You aren't trying to set the goalposts such that when the case is dismissed but no sanctions imposed you can save face by saying "hey, it wasn't frivolous because of the lack of sanctions!" are you? Because that would be dishonest.


ETA: I think it's also evident you are posting this without having read the motion to dismiss. You may want to take a look at it. :)

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 06:27
I guess that's a fair enough reply, though most anyone with legal experience will tell you that attorneys file motions or make allegations or use inappropriate case law or a bunch of other tactics to get the upper hand in a case. It's the opposition's job to point it out to the judge and the judge rule accordingly. Like politics, the law profession is an ugly game. Having a motion denied doesn't usually reflect as incompetence on the part of the filer. It's just part of the game.



The state GOP and the RNC don't have a right to charge people money to participate in the process then screw them out of that participation whenever they think it's politically expedient. That would be considered fraud in most any situation. Or physically injuring people (see Louisiana state convention) that don't stand by and take it while laws and rules are broken. Those are just a couple examples of what's being alleged.



Way too long of a topic to get into but a couple points are:
-3rd parties are purposely excluded from the election process so it's a waste of time trying to win as a 3rd party.
-Libertarianism is a branch of conservatism and is actually more like the old right than what passes for conservatism today. Sorta like how the evangelicals were just a branch when Reagan was Pres. Evangelicals have since taken over a big chunk of the party and made their voices louder. Libertarians are doing the same thing.



That's fine. If that's the case then we're mostly in the same boat.


It's obvious from what anyone can see, that this case is being led by a bungling attorney. Check out his twitter feed. :rofl:

The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters in all directions.

series1811
08-01-2012, 08:08
This is why I could never support Ron Paul. He will say or do 19 things that make perfect sense, and that I believe in, and then he will add, "I know because aliens from another planet told me" (just making a point, he didn't really say that) and make you go, "What did he just say?"

This is one of those times.

ChuteTheMall
08-01-2012, 09:35
We'll see in a few days. You are aware that frivolous means entirely without merit and the filer is sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit. When no sanctions are handed down, will you stop claiming it to be frivolous?

I won't.

I got a warning for speeding once.

Doesn't mean I wasn't speeding, just means I got off with a warning.

It's not necessary for every court to punish everyone they possible can, especially those who are naive, sincere, misguided and foolish such as whiny Paultards.

This is still America.:patriot:

Kablam
08-01-2012, 09:44
It's obvious from what anyone can see, that this case is being led by a bungling attorney.

This was actually my point. I wasn't so much commenting on the merits of the action (although I'm still wrestling with that), but more on the tone of the video and the "lawyer letter" that was posted. Gilbert comes across as somewhat of a nincompoop. As I said earlier, it takes more than emotion and ideology to make one's point.

countrygun
08-01-2012, 11:00
This is why I could never support Ron Paul. He will say or do 19 things that make perfect sense, and that I believe in, and then he will add, "I know because aliens from another planet told me" (just making a point, he didn't really say that) and make you go, "What did he just say?"

This is one of those times.


That is very close to my feelings as well.

Not to spin up a debate on the topic (and I don't need a Paulite to try and explain it, I've heard it and it's crap) but I cannot wrap my head around the concept of letting Iran develop nuclear weapons in the name of keeping the peace and minding our own business. I understand he is for free trade as well but how is that going to work when the rest of the world is a Muslim Caliphate?

G29Reload
08-01-2012, 11:49
Anyone but Barry or Flip. He's big on 2nd amendment, too.

garry johnson = vote for obama

G19G20
08-02-2012, 18:22
Your reply basically says that lawyers try all kinds of unethical things to get the upper hand in a case. I am convinced you know nothing about the legal profession outside of what you've seen on Ally McBeal. Lawyers (well, good lawyers) don't try to snow the court because a) it doesn't reflect well upon their clients and b) because in the extreme (as you're selling) it makes one vulnerable to sanction or disbarment.

Sure, everyone hates lawyers because they're all ethical, up-standing citizens that play by the rules, don't lie, embellish or use cheap tactics to help them win a case. People just hate those good guys. In the real world, the slimey lawyers win. (See: B. Obama and most every politician in Congress....any surprise that so many lawyers end up as politicians????)

http://www.murderinglawyers.com/deadlawyerjokes.htm

As for my personal experience, Im going to wager you've litigated at least as many federal civil actions as I have. And if you reply, "nope I haven't litigated any", then you're less experienced than I am. That's all I will say on that.


Besides, this was an ex parte application to intervene. Thought you knew this, being that you wrote a paragraph on what it meant. That is, unless you were parroting someone. Anyway, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make it quite clear when it's appropriate to bring something ex parte as opposed to bringing something that requires oral argument. This leads me to believe Gilbert is either lazy or ignorant. There's very little grand strategy that can be met through an incorrect filing. Sheesh, under the Rules a Defendant can't even object to a motion to amend the complaint, which is what Gilbert should have done in the first plact.

I agree he should have just requested leave to amend but he can strategize however he wants since he's lead counsel. He just cost the RNC money to counter the motion to intervene and still got his amended complaint filed anyway. Looks like legal strategy to me.


Frivolous does mean without merit but a sanction is not a necessary component of a judge ruling a complaint to be frivolous. The complaint can simply be dismissed as having no merit. In fact, sanctions usually come into play for repeat offenders (you see this most often in tax-related cases).

Fair enough. There isn't a requirement for sanctions but if the court rules it frivolous, it will state it as such in the dismissal with prejudice. That won't happen either so even if it's dismissed will you stop calling it frivolous?


ETA: I think it's also evident you are posting this without having read the motion to dismiss. You may want to take a look at it. :)

I read it. It's a typical boilerplate dismissal motion and was entirely predictable before it was even filed. I agreed with some parts of it but the rest is just the standard "throw everything and hope something sticks" dismissal request.

G19G20
08-02-2012, 18:26
This is why I could never support Ron Paul. He will say or do 19 things that make perfect sense, and that I believe in, and then he will add, "I know because aliens from another planet told me" (just making a point, he didn't really say that) and make you go, "What did he just say?"

This is one of those times.

You do realize the Paul campaign has absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit, right?

And that's why I can never support Romney. People that support Romney don't do any research so I'll punish the candidate for what I perceive as shortcomings in his supporters.

(How does it feel when someone applies your standard to yourself?)

Goaltender66
08-03-2012, 05:35
Sure, everyone hates lawyers because they're all ethical, up-standing citizens that play by the rules, don't lie, embellish or use cheap tactics to help them win a case. People just hate those good guys. In the real world, the slimey lawyers win. (See: B. Obama and most every politician in Congress....any surprise that so many lawyers end up as politicians????)

http://www.murderinglawyers.com/deadlawyerjokes.htm

As for my personal experience, Im going to wager you've litigated at least as many federal civil actions as I have. And if you reply, "nope I haven't litigated any", then you're less experienced than I am. That's all I will say on that.
You're too funny. But we'll get into that. Suffice it to say that as an attorney, you make a very good computer technician.



I agree he should have just requested leave to amend but he can strategize however he wants since he's lead counsel. He just cost the RNC money to counter the motion to intervene and still got his amended complaint filed anyway. Looks like legal strategy to me.
You're missing the point. The point isn't that he can totally muff a filing (which he did). The point is that there is no grand strategy served by showing yourself to be incompetent on matters of procedure in front of the judge. You were trying to sell the argument that it is. Besides, any costs are de minimis.

Yes, Gilbert is aiming to bankrupt the RNC by forcing one of its law firms file opposition briefs to frivolous ex parte applications. :upeyes: Do you even know what "ex parte" means? Did you even read the response brief?

What an astoundingly ignorant justification you're making. And dissonant, because on one hand you're saying the suit isn't frivolous, but then you're turning around and suggesting incompetence is frivolity with the application. Make up your mind.


Fair enough. There isn't a requirement for sanctions but if the court rules it frivolous, it will state it as such in the dismissal with prejudice. That won't happen either so even if it's dismissed will you stop calling it frivolous?

Actually, it doesn't even have to specifically say "frivolous." "Claims are without merit" will do.

I thought you litigated Federal cases....? FYI, being named as a defendant in a tax evasion action doesn't count as "litigating."



I read it. It's a typical boilerplate dismissal motion and was entirely predictable before it was even filed. I agreed with some parts of it but the rest is just the standard "throw everything and hope something sticks" dismissal request.

Then I doubt you really read it, since by definition motions to dismiss aren't "boilerplate." They present arguments that are tailored to address the complaint. They are motions for the judge to rule on a matter of law, after all. Gotta make the argument.

But hey...what specific parts did you agree with? What page number, on either the brief or the exhibits?

G19G20
08-03-2012, 16:30
You're too funny. But we'll get into that. Suffice it to say that as an attorney, you make a very good computer technician.

What does my current career have to do with anything? I never claimed to be a lawyer. Doesn't mean I haven't represented myself pro se :whistling:


You're missing the point. The point isn't that he can totally muff a filing (which he did). The point is that there is no grand strategy served by showing yourself to be incompetent on matters of procedure in front of the judge. You were trying to sell the argument that it is. Besides, any costs are de minimis.

Yes, Gilbert is aiming to bankrupt the RNC by forcing one of its law firms file opposition briefs to frivolous ex parte applications. :upeyes: Do you even know what "ex parte" means? Did you even read the response brief?

What an astoundingly ignorant justification you're making. And dissonant, because on one hand you're saying the suit isn't frivolous, but then you're turning around and suggesting incompetence is frivolity with the application. Make up your mind.

I honestly don't know what he's up to, whether it's strategy or he's unorthodox or he's just not very good. He is licensed to practice in federal court and he's passed the bar and been a lawyer for a pretty long time already so he can't be too terrible. A long time tenet of litigation is to run up opponent's legal bills to entice a settlement on the issue. Im pretty much done with this topic until Monday's hearing because we're now just arguing for the sake of arguing.


I thought you litigated Federal cases....? FYI, being named as a defendant in a tax evasion action doesn't count as "litigating."

Recant your inaccurate libelous comments. Posting on the internet doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about someone without repercussion. I will give you the opportunity to recant the inaccurate quoted statement.

ChuteTheMall
08-03-2012, 18:45
Recant your inaccurate libelous comments. Posting on the internet doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about someone without repercussion. I will give you the opportunity to recant the inaccurate quoted statement.

Watch out!

Here come the Internet repercussions!!

:outtahere:







http://i48.tinypic.com/9hhmyb.jpg

G19G20
08-03-2012, 19:07
Now see, I can call ShootThemAll an a-hole or a dbag. That's not considered libel since it's impossible for ShootThemAll to prove he/she/it is not one. That's only if I was calling ShootThemAll such things. I'm not. Promise.

Cavalry Doc
08-04-2012, 07:03
What does my current career have to do with anything? I never claimed to be a lawyer. Doesn't mean I haven't represented myself pro se :whistling:

I remember hearing some old saying about representing oneself in court, how's it go again?



I honestly don't know what he's up to, whether it's strategy or he's unorthodox or he's just not very good. He is licensed to practice in federal court and he's passed the bar and been a lawyer for a pretty long time already so he can't be too terrible. A long time tenet of litigation is to run up opponent's legal bills to entice a settlement on the issue. Im pretty much done with this topic until Monday's hearing because we're now just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Quote: Goaltender66
I thought you litigated Federal cases....? FYI, being named as a defendant in a tax evasion action doesn't count as "litigating."



Recant your inaccurate libelous comments. Posting on the internet doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about someone without repercussion. I will give you the opportunity to recant the inaccurate quoted statement.

:rofl: Oh dear, you have GOT to be kidding. You are threatening a libel charge to an Internet account that has already shredded its own credibility in numerous previous threads? How will you show any damages?? Besides that, he only asked a question and pointed out a true fact, as an example.

I am absolutely positive that your opinion of your own legal prowess, and that of Mr. Gilbert is far above what the average poster here would agree with.

Even the thought that Gilbert could run up the price tag a couple of thousand dollars, and that increase in costs could push the RNC to settle, is ignorance on parade. Do you think the RNC would cast aside millions of popular votes and unbind the bound delegates over a couple of thousand dollars? How about a couple of million? Nope, probably not.

While I usually admire positive attitudes, there are times when a dose of reality would do a person better.

QNman
08-04-2012, 08:48
I guess that's a fair enough reply, though most anyone with legal experience will tell you that attorneys file motions or make allegations or use inappropriate case law or a bunch of other tactics to get the upper hand in a case. It's the opposition's job to point it out to the judge and the judge rule accordingly. Like politics, the law profession is an ugly game. Having a motion denied doesn't usually reflect as incompetence on the part of the filer. It's just part of the game.

Yes, but for that tactic to work, the motion must require the opposition to actually do some work to oppose it. That didn't happen here; it just pissed the judge off (not a great tactic, by the way).

The state GOP and the RNC don't have a right to charge people money to participate in the process then screw them out of that participation whenever they think it's politically expedient. That would be considered fraud in most any situation. Or physically injuring people (see Louisiana state convention) that don't stand by and take it while laws and rules are broken. Those are just a couple examples of what's being alleged.

Then file the lawsuit appropriately. Articulate your complaint well, and quantify the damages and restitution prior to filing the motion. None of this was done here.

Way too long of a topic to get into but a couple points are:
-3rd parties are purposely excluded from the election process so it's a waste of time trying to win as a 3rd party.

3rd parties aren't "excluded"; they're unpopular. At least modern examples have proven to be so.

-Libertarianism is a branch of conservatism and is actually more like the old right than what passes for conservatism today. Sorta like how the evangelicals were just a branch when Reagan was Pres. Evangelicals have since taken over a big chunk of the party and made their voices louder. Libertarians are doing the same thing.

Bummer. But what that means is that the Libertarian platform, as it exists, is not as popular as the rest of the party. If the Libertarians would drop their drug stance, they'd garner much more support.

And as to the oft-repeated claim that the Libertarians are more like "the OLD GOP" or "more conservative", "true conservative", blah-de-blah-blah; even if true (which is debatable in and of itself), it doesn't matter. We don't live where we used to live. Our principles remain steadfast, though they evolve with the times. Some folks principles are more popular than others; it sucks, but there it is.

Goaltender66
08-06-2012, 06:08
What does my current career have to do with anything? I never claimed to be a lawyer. Doesn't mean I haven't represented myself pro se :whistling:
You know what they say about people who represent themselves...

So what is the case number? How'd it turn out? :whistling:



I honestly don't know what he's up to, whether it's strategy or he's unorthodox or he's just not very good. He is licensed to practice in federal court and he's passed the bar and been a lawyer for a pretty long time already so he can't be too terrible. A long time tenet of litigation is to run up opponent's legal bills to entice a settlement on the issue. Im pretty much done with this topic until Monday's hearing because we're now just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I can tell you what he's up to, based mainly on his communications included in the Dismissal motion, as well as his Twitter feed...he's trying to grandstand.

Interesting how on one hand you are eager to case all lawyers as jerks who lack ethics, but then you turn around and suggest that because he's a member of the Bar and is able to appear in Federal Court that ipso facto he must not be "too terrible." Make up your mind.

I'm also amused that you're trying to cast Gilbert's incompetence as some kind of strategy to bankrupt the RNC through his filing of frivolous Ex Parte Applications. Really?! The RNC is going to get so tired of filing responses (to Ex Parte actions, no less...) that they are going to just give up and say "yeah, OK, enough...we'll hold all new primaries in a bunch of states just to get you to leave us alone...."

Just wow.

Hey, I thought you read all the stuff and you agreed with (and disagreed with) "some parts" of the Motion to Dismiss. Odd opinion if it's just a boilerplate document. What specifically did you agree (and disagree) with? I notice you didn't answer. Must be having a hard time with that "federal court case management website" that you use to read the filings but won't actually post the link to, huh? :tongueout:


Recant your inaccurate libelous comments. Posting on the internet doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about someone without repercussion. I will give you the opportunity to recant the inaccurate quoted statement.
Libel?

:rofl:

pause....

:rofl:

Feel free to bring suit against me if you think *that* was libel.

Suffice it to say your understanding of libel is as faulty as your understanding of the myriad of other topics you've posted in this forum over the past months.

No, I won't recant. I am very firm in my belief that appearing as a defendant in a tax evasion action is not the same as litigating. I'm pretty sure that's an accurate statement.

G19G20
08-06-2012, 13:35
I didnt bother to read your post above since first reports from today's hearing are that the case is NOT being dismissed and the judge said there's something going on here that needs to be further investigated. Reports are also that Gilbert is a competent attorney in the courtroom. Judge will be issuing an order later today but it will NOT be a dismissal.

wait wait I did catch this:
No, I won't recant. I am very firm in my belief that appearing as a defendant in a tax evasion action is not the same as litigating. I'm pretty sure that's an accurate statement.

So are you stating as fact that I have been the defendant in a tax evasion case? That is a wholly untrue statement and yes, that is libel. Im going to refer this matter to the moderators before this gets out of hand.

countrygun
08-06-2012, 13:56
http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/screwball.png

Goaltender66
08-06-2012, 14:01
I didnt bother to read your post above since first reports from today's hearing are that the case is NOT being dismissed and the judge said there's something going on here that needs to be further investigated. Reports are also that Gilbert is a competent attorney in the courtroom. Judge will be issuing an order later today but it will NOT be a dismissal.
"reports are..."

Let me guess...from the same reports that told you Ron Paul would walk away from the primaries in a landslide. :)

wait wait I did catch this:


So are you stating as fact that I have been the defendant in a tax evasion case? That is a wholly untrue statement and yes, that is libel. Im going to refer this matter to the moderators before this gets out of hand.

If you would like to refer to the moderator(s) my opinion that appearing as a defendant in a tax evasion case is not the same as litigating, be my guest.