Lawyers for Ron Paul Suit dismissed [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Lawyers for Ron Paul Suit dismissed


Goaltender66
08-08-2012, 07:31
I've attached the dismissal order. A few thoughts:

The discussion starts at page 6. In a nutshell, Judge Carter is highly skeptical of Gilbert's claim. Gilbert's brief opposing the dismissal motion was plagued with errors...for instance, the Judge said he never addressed the arguments in the Motion and instead focused on procedure. Page 7 is also kind of an indictment of Gilbert's competence:

With one exception, Plaintiff's allegations are not sufficiently intelligible for this Court to even analyze whether they can state a claim.

Gilbert also tried to introduce DVDs as part of his opposition action, contra established case law and procedure...another knock against his competence. Page nine goes into detail.

The meat of the ruling comes around page 13:

Political parties have a limited right to exclude people from membership and leadership roles.

The First Amendment is mentioned to support this rather plain fact.

Page 17:

Plaintiffs interpret the phrase “intimidate, threaten, or coerce” in Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act to include a political party’s conditioning of delegate status on a promise to vote for a particular nominee.

Carter wonders where Gilbert's argument is supporting such an assertion...indeed, he says "Plaintiffs make no argument in their Opposition." Another whiff by Gilbert.

Page 17 again:

No authority supports Plaintiff's interpretation of the Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act
Something people on this very board have been saying since the beginning....

Carter is being nice though, since he dismisses without prejudice and offers Gilbert "a third and final opportunity to attempt to sufficiently plead a violation of Section 1971(b) of the Voting Rights Act." Deadline for the amended complaing is August 20.

Back to the drawing board, Gilbert.


ETA: I also thought this was interesting from Page 20:

To avoid this decision being misused, the Court emphasizes what this case is not. This is not a case in which Defendants’ conditioning of delegate status is based on a racial motive or has a disparate impact on minority voters. This is not a case alleging abuse of government officials’ authority. This is not a case where Defendants’ acts were accomplished through violence or economic coercion, given that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding broken bones and guns are inadequately pled. Finally, this is not a case alleging a violation of a specific law (other than 42 U.S.C. 1971(b)) or specific party rule, given that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding unspecified “State Bylaws” are unintelligible. Thus, the Court’s extremely narrow holding in this case leaves unscathed both the Voting Rights Act and political parties’ First Amendment right of association.

JBnTX
08-08-2012, 08:22
Ron Paul.....:rofl:

His entire campaign was about as effective as a fart in a hurricane.

G19G20
08-08-2012, 16:25
His entire dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) ruling lays out exactly what he wants to see in order to rule on the merits of the case itself and possibly issue an injunction before the RNC. (Amended complaint being filed in the next few days according to Gilbert. scratch that, amended complaint is now filed....Gilbert must have had it ready to go already.) Case is far from over. The judge is fair but obviously wants to do something with this case otherwise he would have dismissed with prejudice. Gilbert just needs to be more specific with his complaint and I said in previous threads about this suit that I agreed with that sentiment.

countrygun
08-08-2012, 16:35
His entire dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) ruling lays out exactly what he wants to see in order to rule on the merits of the case itself and possibly issue an injunction before the RNC. Amended complaint being filed in the next few days according to Gilbert. Case is far from over. The judge is fair but obviously wants to do something with this case otherwise he would have dismissed with prejudice. Gilbert just needs to be more specific with his complaint and I said in previous threads about this suit that I agreed with that sentiment.


Hey, Matlock, did you ever see a situation like this, in which, a motion is put forward that is so loosely written that if a Judge were to dismiss with prejudice it would be such a broad dismissal, because of the broadness of the motion, that it would likely be grounds for a return anyway.

If the Judge give specific instruction and dismisses without prejudice then the attorney has no real choice but to "clean it up", be more specific and bring it back so a dismissal, with prejudice, can render the better identified points irrelevant.

Goaltender66
08-08-2012, 16:45
His entire dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) ruling lays out exactly what he wants to see in order to rule on the merits of the case itself and possibly issue an injunction before the RNC. Amended complaint being filed in the next few days according to Gilbert. Case is far from over. The judge is fair but obviously wants to do something with this case otherwise he would have dismissed with prejudice. Gilbert just needs to be more specific with his complaint and I said in previous threads about this suit that I agreed with that sentiment.

That is a very delusional statement which totally misreads Judge Carter's statements. It's almost as if you either didn't read the ruling or didn't comprehend it.

That you're trying to sell as a positive the idea that Carter is instructing, however tacitly, Gilbert in what form complaints and filings need to take is such weak tea that it might as well be air.

What remains to be seen is if Gilbert will continue to embarrass himself or not. As for your statement, you've been wrong about this every step of the way, so you lack credibility on the issue.

Cavalry Doc
08-08-2012, 18:10
His entire dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) ruling lays out exactly what he wants to see in order to rule on the merits of the case itself and possibly issue an injunction before the RNC. Amended complaint being filed in the next few days according to Gilbert. Case is far from over. The judge is fair but obviously wants to do something with this case otherwise he would have dismissed with prejudice. Gilbert just needs to be more specific with his complaint and I said in previous threads about this suit that I agreed with that sentiment.

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


Dude, I almost hate to say it, but I gotta.

I told you so.

G19G20
08-08-2012, 22:20
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/rofllarge.gifhttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/rofllarge.gifhttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/rofllarge.gifhttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/rofllarge.gif


Dude, I almost hate to say it, but I gotta.

I told you so.

Big fonts and gifs always make for a solid argument :upeyes:

You've been nearly invisible on the lawsuit threads other than to drive-by bash and then disappear when the actual legal discussions have gone on. Get off it. You haven't told anyone "anything" since you're ignorant of anything court or law related.

Ive read the dismissal. I invite anyone to read the order attached above. If the judge didn't want to mess with this case anymore, found it frivolous (you going to admit it's not frivolous now Goaltender66?), or otherwise a waste of the court's time he would have dismissed with prejudice and not written an order giving one last opportunity BEFORE the RNC to file what he's looking for. Btw, countrygun you sound like a fool with that post above.

The real problem with this case is that so much fraud, corruption, abuse, assault and theft that has been undertaken by so many players in the states and national Republican party that it's proving difficult to reach the level of specificity required of a federal civil suit. Getting the exact names of stooges that miscount votes and steal ballots out the back door isn't an easy task. It's a lot of information to sift through and that's not including the saboteurs who have also tried feeding Gilbert disinfo. No doubt some of them reside on this forum. Even if the case is dismissed again, I'm sure you'll all feel satisfied knowing that you're sticking up for the cheaters, liars, thieves, assaulters and con artists running the party (for now). I know I'd be proud. Jesus would be proud too....

Case isn't over. What tickles me is the lengths the GOP is willing to go to push out duly elected Paul delegates in favor of the pro-choice, anti-gun liberal from Massachusetts. Someone is terrified of letting us have a voice on the convention floor. It warms my heart.

G19G20
08-08-2012, 22:48
As of 5 hours ago PT, the final amended complaint was filed. Case goes on. We'll see what happens.

countrygun
08-08-2012, 23:32
As of 5 hours ago PT, the final amended complaint was filed. Case goes on. We'll see what happens.


Coming from you, the opinion that I look like a fool is a badge of honor.

G19G20
08-08-2012, 23:38
Coming from you, the opinion that I look like a fool is a badge of honor.

Wear it proudly. Btw, Matlock won his cases. Just sayin...

countrygun
08-08-2012, 23:58
Wear it proudly. Btw, Matlock won his cases. Just sayin...


Matlock was as fictional as the reality you live in

Just sayin

walt cowan
08-09-2012, 05:53
you guy's! keep on burning those bridges! lol! hey and don't forget, you can't win without us. oh yeeeee suckers! LOL!

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 06:04
you guy's! keep on burning those bridges! lol! hey and don't forget, you can't win without us. oh yeeeee suckers! LOL!

I guess we will see. You have to admit, there is a long history of Paul desciples declaring they have more influence over the final outcome than they have been able to muster.

For the most part, the republicans have never had the votes of the Paul camp guys, it's not a net loss to lose them.

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 06:09
Big fonts and gifs always make for a solid argument :upeyes:

You've been nearly invisible on the lawsuit threads other than to drive-by bash and then disappear when the actual legal discussions have gone on. Get off it. You haven't told anyone "anything" since you're ignorant of anything court or law related.

Ive read the dismissal. I invite anyone to read the order attached above. If the judge didn't want to mess with this case anymore, found it frivolous (you going to admit it's not frivolous now Goaltender66?), or otherwise a waste of the court's time he would have dismissed with prejudice and not written an order giving one last opportunity BEFORE the RNC to file what he's looking for. Btw, countrygun you sound like a fool with that post above.

The real problem with this case is that so much fraud, corruption, abuse, assault and theft that has been undertaken by so many players in the states and national Republican party that it's proving difficult to reach the level of specificity required of a federal civil suit. Getting the exact names of stooges that miscount votes and steal ballots out the back door isn't an easy task. It's a lot of information to sift through and that's not including the saboteurs who have also tried feeding Gilbert disinfo. No doubt some of them reside on this forum. Even if the case is dismissed again, I'm sure you'll all feel satisfied knowing that you're sticking up for the cheaters, liars, thieves, assaulters and con artists running the party (for now). I know I'd be proud. Jesus would be proud too....

Case isn't over. What tickles me is the lengths the GOP is willing to go to push out duly elected Paul delegates in favor of the pro-choice, anti-gun liberal from Massachusetts. Someone is terrified of letting us have a voice on the convention floor. It warms my heart.

So, in your world, the dismissal is a win for Gilbert because he didn't screw up as badly as he could have?

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, but it is a prognostic indicator.

I'm glad he'll get another bite at the apple, It's an opportunity for future humor. If he doesn't suddenly become matlock, you're likely going to have to vote for Romney before I am, unless you end up outside the convention.

That's funny.

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 06:11
Coming from you, the opinion that I look like a fool is a badge of honor.

This site had reputation meters, I'd give you a bump for that alone. :supergrin:


:thumbsup:

Goaltender66
08-09-2012, 06:31
:chatter:

You know what that screed reminds me of? This guy: (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109686/)

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a girl like you and a guy like me... ending up together?

Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...

Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

Mary: Not good.

Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

http://www.lawlz.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/so-youre-telling-me-theres-a-chance-dumb-and-dumber-lloyd-christmas-meme-600x324.jpeg

Judge Carter flat out said Gilbert's interpretation of 1971(b) was faulty. He didn't even have to parse it, because Gilbert made no argument to support his interpretation of it. Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, that's reason enough to shoot it out of the water. That's the entire thrust of the ruling.

In other words, contra the faulty logic you've shown, one cannot show an argument to be frivolous when the plaintiff has made no argument at all.

Inre the rest of your rant, interesting how your paranoia ("No doubt some of them reside on this forum.") and unsupported assertions ("the cheaters, liars, thieves, assaulters and con artists running the party") overrides the clear thinking and factual requirements necessary to, you know, make an actual argument. Also fascinating how you just *had* to toss in a little religious bigotry as well ("Jesus would be proud.")

Mainly, you seem to be coming unhinged and spending time in the Ron Paul echo chamber is merely reinforcing the delusions you've displayed in your recent posts.


ETA: This is actually kind of amusing. First you say:

The real problem with this case is that so much fraud, corruption, abuse, assault and theft that has been undertaken by so many players in the states and national Republican party that it's proving difficult to reach the level of specificity required of a federal civil suit.

Then, a mere thirty minutes later:

As of 5 hours ago PT, the final amended complaint was filed. Case goes on. We'll see what happens.

In other words, in the time between the dismissal and (according to you, which is grounds enough for skepticism) the filing of the SAC (which, by my count, is less than a day) Gilbert found the requisite specificity that he couldn't find either before he filed the initial complaint on June 11 or in the time between the first filing and the August 6 hearing (almost two months...).

And somehow the SAC is supposed to cure the deficiencies in the complaint? Really? Is that's what you're going with?

Gundude
08-09-2012, 10:16
For the most part, the republicans have never had the votes of the Paul camp guys, it's not a net loss to lose them.That depends on how many of the Paul camp guys start to mean business by voting for Obama instead of some write-in or third party, and which states they live in.

You might find that pushing them from "not having their votes" over to "having them actively vote for the real opposition" may have an effect after all.

As you always say, let the chips fall where they may. Not long left. We'll see soon enough.

jakebrake
08-09-2012, 14:43
I guess we will see. You have to admit, there is a long history of Paul desciples declaring they have more influence over the final outcome than they have been able to muster.

For the most part, the republicans have never had the votes of the Paul camp guys, it's not a net loss to lose them.

i see sales of nike sneakers and kool aid ramping up in the near future.

countrygun
08-09-2012, 14:48
That depends on how many of the Paul camp guys start to mean business by voting for Obama instead of some write-in or third party, and which states they live in.

You might find that pushing them from "not having their votes" over to "having them actively vote for the real opposition" may have an effect after all.

As you always say, let the chips fall where they may. Not long left. We'll see soon enough.

And it will show what screwheads they are, and do to the Libertarian party what it did to Ross Perot's political career.

We will have the Libertarians permantly removed from the political scene, by their temper tantrums, as they take the blame for the disater that would be an Obama second term.

In the long run it will make a conservative Republican party look even better that the disaster that the neo-liberals will create.

Win for the Republicans.

G19G20
08-09-2012, 14:57
Matlock was as fictional as the reality you live in

Just sayin

That must make me fictional too since you called me Matlock. Though your apparent affinity for Matlock tells me a lot about you. Do you have gray hair? Bad eyesight? Oxygen tank nearby? No wonder you're so angry at the young Paulites. You're the exact people we're working to overtake.

I guess we will see. You have to admit, there is a long history of Paul desciples declaring they have more influence over the final outcome than they have been able to muster.

For the most part, the republicans have never had the votes of the Paul camp guys, it's not a net loss to lose them.

The GOP didn't have our votes in 2008 either and look how that worked out. Now we're even bigger. Do you expect a better outcome this time? lol

G19G20
08-09-2012, 15:12
Judge Carter flat out said Gilbert's interpretation of 1971(b) was faulty. He didn't even have to parse it, because Gilbert made no argument to support his interpretation of it. Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, that's reason enough to shoot it out of the water. That's the entire thrust of the ruling.

And so his response is to tell Gilbert that and give him the chance to fix it? You suggest Im the one grasping at straws but you're watching the judge literally TELL Gilbert what he wants to see in order to rule in our favor, give him chances, and we're the ones that are grasping at straws? Look, no matter how much you hate us, this judge clearly wants to rule on the merits of the case itself and is even asking the DNC to pipe in since such a ruling affects them too. Hopefully Gilbert can give him what he wants.


In other words, contra the faulty logic you've shown, one cannot show an argument to be frivolous when the plaintiff has made no argument at all.

Keep avoiding the question. Is the judge calling the case frivolous in any manner whatsoever? Are you going to admit you're wrong?


Inre the rest of your rant, interesting how your paranoia ("No doubt some of them reside on this forum.") and unsupported assertions ("the cheaters, liars, thieves, assaulters and con artists running the party") overrides the clear thinking and factual requirements necessary to, you know, make an actual argument. Also fascinating how you just *had* to toss in a little religious bigotry as well ("Jesus would be proud.")

If the shoe fits. You've read the complaints right? THE ALLEGATIONS ARE ALL TRUE. Who cares what you think about it? They are true and you are supporting it. Period.


Mainly, you seem to be coming unhinged and spending time in the Ron Paul echo chamber is merely reinforcing the delusions you've displayed in your recent posts.

Y'all are the ones coming unhinged. Never seen so much effort go into fighting such a "frivolous" action or so much effort to keep a few "irrelevent" Paul supporters off the convention floor. We're just doing what we can to win. You're doing everything you can to LOSE.


ETA: This is actually kind of amusing. First you say:



Then, a mere thirty minutes later:



In other words, in the time between the dismissal and (according to you, which is grounds enough for skepticism) the filing of the SAC (which, by my count, is less than a day) Gilbert found the requisite specificity that he couldn't find either before he filed the initial complaint on June 11 or in the time between the first filing and the August 6 hearing (almost two months...).

And somehow the SAC is supposed to cure the deficiencies in the complaint? Really? Is that's what you're going with?


Im going to assume he was working on a better complaint the whole time, as any decent lawyer would have been. Im not his paralegal so I don't know what exactly his strategy is but it sounds like more of that legal strategy I mentioned before. You're making it a negative that he's on the ball? Strange. I like that he had a new one ready to rock.

PawDog
08-09-2012, 15:14
That depends on how many of the Paul camp guys start to mean business by voting for Obama instead of some write-in or third party, and which states they live in.

You might find that pushing them from "not having their votes" over to "having them actively vote for the real opposition" may have an effect after all.

As you always say, let the chips fall where they may. Not long left. We'll see soon enough.

From what I've read posted by most of the Paulatarians here, a vote for Obama was their plan all along.

jakebrake
08-09-2012, 15:16
From what I've read posted by most of the Paulatarians here, a vote for Obama was their plan all along.

reason number next i'm done with the paulbots...basically, it's a suicide pact.

countrygun
08-09-2012, 15:19
That must make me fictional too since you called me Matlock. Though your apparent affinity for Matlock tells me a lot about you. Do you have gray hair? Bad eyesight? Oxygen tank nearby? No wonder you're so angry at the young Paulites. You're the exact people we're working to overtake.



The GOP didn't have our votes in 2008 either and look how that worked out. Now we're even bigger. Do you expect a better outcome this time? lol


OMG it's the "Don't trust anyone over 30" crowd all over again.

They have been kept ignorant by the educational system and don't even realize they are just a rerun being manipulated by the aging hippies who failed the first time around.


"Do you have gray hair? Bad eyesight? Oxygen tank nearby? No wonder you're so angry at the young Paulites. You're the exact people we're working to overtake"

Ahahahaha:rofl:

Hey paulbot, 1968 called, they want all their slogans back. they say you don't have their permission to say "Far out" or "Groovy"


They really are emotionally stunted adolescents.

G19G20
08-09-2012, 15:37
So, in your world, the dismissal is a win for Gilbert because he didn't screw up as badly as he could have?

Sure, it's a win simply because the judge told him what he wants to see in order to rule on the merits of the case and gave him the chance to do it. Whether Gilbert can meet it is a different issue entirely.


Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, but it is a prognostic indicator.

Maybe he should sign an affidavit. Oh wait, those are for past performance, not future performance. :supergrin:


I'm glad he'll get another bite at the apple, It's an opportunity for future humor. If he doesn't suddenly become matlock, you're likely going to have to vote for Romney before I am, unless you end up outside the convention.

That's funny.

Wouldn't possibly be any more funny (to me) than the repercussions of that. Yeah go ahead and boot me out of my slot. That'll surely make me work to elect Romney. :whistling:

G19G20
08-09-2012, 15:40
OMG it's the "Don't trust anyone over 30" crowd all over again.

They have been kept ignorant by the educational system and don't even realize they are just a rerun being manipulated by the aging hippies who failed the first time around.


"Do you have gray hair? Bad eyesight? Oxygen tank nearby? No wonder you're so angry at the young Paulites. You're the exact people we're working to overtake"

Ahahahaha:rofl:

Hey paulbot, 1968 called, they want all their slogans back. they say you don't have their permission to say "Far out" or "Groovy"


They really are emotionally stunted adolescents.

So basically that long-winded response means that I'm right, since you didn't actually refute anything. Old guy that doesn't want to give up what he thinks is his "god given right" to control a political party.

G19G20
08-09-2012, 15:42
From what I've read posted by most of the Paulatarians here, a vote for Obama was their plan all along.

Actually, it was a vote for Ron Paul. We don't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome like most of you folks do.

reason number next i'm done with the paulbots...basically, it's a suicide pact.

Yet you keep posting in the Paul related threads....

427
08-09-2012, 15:43
That depends on how many of the Paul camp guys start to mean business by voting for Obama instead of some write-in or third party, and which states they live in.

You might find that pushing them from "not having their votes" over to "having them actively vote for the real opposition" may have an effect after all.

As you always say, let the chips fall where they may. Not long left. We'll see soon enough.

Yeah, they go from the wrapping themselves in the flag "Constitution" "Small Gov't" I-believe-in-freedom-and-all-the-rest-of -you-non-Paul-supporters-dont, to supporting a Communist endorsed President and candidate!

This is why the Paulites have no credibility. None.

The best part is how righteously indignant they are!!!

countrygun
08-09-2012, 15:45
So basically that long-winded response means that I'm right, since you didn't actually refute anything. Old guy that doesn't want to give up what he thinks is his "god given right" to control a political party.



You are a sad tool that has been used and you don't have the intelligence to realize it.

Go ahead, say something else frivilous and immature, you've been groomed for it well.

countrygun
08-09-2012, 15:47
Yeah, they go from the wrapping themselves in the flag "Constitution" "Small Gov't" I-believe-in-freedom-and-all-the-rest-of -you-non-Paul-supporters-dont, to supporting a Communist endorsed President and candidate!

This is why the Paulites have no credibility. None.

The best part is how righteously indignant they are!!!


The smart ones realized they were being used and manipulated and distanced themselves from it. The only ones left are the manipulators and the really dim-witted.

G19G20
08-09-2012, 15:48
Yeah, they go from the wrapping themselves in the flag "Constitution" "Small Gov't" I-believe-in-freedom-and-all-the-rest-of -you-non-Paul-supporters-dont, to supporting a Communist endorsed President and candidate!

This is why the Paulites have no credibility. None.

The best part is how righteously indignant they are!!!

Some may consider Obama to be the lesser of two evils for various reasons. You guys spend so much time explaining (sorta) why Romney is bad but he's better than the other guy. That same mantra can go the other way if one's vote is purely principle and strategy. Then there's some Paul folks that just want to burn this corrupt party to the ground and start over because it's beyond repair. Only us folks involved in the inside process would know about all that though so don't worry your lil head over it. Just keep marching to the polls every four years and press the button like you're told to.

You are a sad tool that has been used and you don't have the intelligence to realize it.

Go ahead, say something else frivilous and immature, you've been groomed for it well.

Naaa, I think your replies about summed it up for everyone.

427
08-09-2012, 15:52
The smart ones realized they were being used and manipulated and distanced themselves from it. The only ones left are the manipulators and the really dim-witted.

You're right, I should've said rabid, fanatical Paulites to separates hypocrites from the rest. They know who they are.:wavey:

jakebrake
08-09-2012, 15:54
Only us folks involved in the inside process


okay....now i'm game. explain please.

427
08-09-2012, 15:57
Some may consider Obama to be the lesser of two evils for various reasons. You guys spend so much time explaining (sorta) why Romney is bad but he's better than the other guy. That same mantra can go the other way if one's vote is purely principle and strategy. Then there's some Paul folks that just want to burn this corrupt party to the ground and start over because it's beyond repair. Only us folks involved in the inside process would know about all that though so don't worry your lil head over it. Just keep marching to the polls every four years and press the button like you're told to.


Whatever you say, son.

How many times have your predictions been proven wrong, again?

G19G20
08-09-2012, 16:02
okay....now i'm game. explain please.

How many county, district, and state conventions have you attended? How many polls have you worked for candidates? How many dinners, meetups, and other internal party functions have you participated in? If the answer is none, and Im betting it is, then I don't have the time to explain "politics" to you. Get involved with the party directly and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do more than watch tv, go vote, then go home until the next election. Until then you're just sitting far out in left field thinking you know what's going on in the dugout.

Whatever you say, son.

How many times have your predictions been proven wrong, again?

Why don't you tell me? Looks like I'm 1 for 1 today judging by that F&F thread.

jakebrake
08-09-2012, 16:03
How many county, district, and state conventions have you attended? How many polls have you worked for candidates? How many dinners, meetups, and other internal party functions have you participated in? If the answer is none, and Im betting it is, then I don't have the time to explain "politics" to you. Get involved with the party directly and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do more than watch tv, go vote, then go home until the next election. Until then you're just sitting far out in left field thinking you know what's going on in the dugout.

which election, hotrod? i now welcome you... to my ignore list, population: you

G19G20
08-09-2012, 16:05
which election, hotrod? i now welcome you... to my ignore list, population: you

Why would it matter which election? Any election.

countrygun
08-09-2012, 16:07
How many county, district, and state conventions have you attended? How many polls have you worked for candidates? How many dinners, meetups, and other internal party functions have you participated in? If the answer is none, and Im betting it is, then I don't have the time to explain "politics" to you. Get involved with the party directly and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do more than watch tv, go vote, then go home until the next election. Until then you're just sitting far out in left field thinking you know what's going on in the dugout.



Why don't you tell me? Looks like I'm 1 for 1 today judging by that F&F thread.


Hey, "highspeed" how long have you been in college majoring in Political Science?

It took me 6 years because I was working for a living.

How about you?

427
08-09-2012, 16:09
How many county, district, and state conventions have you attended? How many polls have you worked for candidates? How many dinners, meetups, and other internal party functions have you participated in? If the answer is none, and Im betting it is, then I don't have the time to explain "politics" to you. Get involved with the party directly and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do more than watch tv, go vote, then go home until the next election. Until then you're just sitting far out in left field thinking you know what's going on in the dugout.



Why don't you tell me? Looks like I'm 1 for 1 today judging by that F&F thread.

Didn't you try to lecture me in on how primary delegates worked, and then Paul, himself, came out and flatly stated that he doesn't have enough delegates to get the nomination? I seem to remember that.

427
08-09-2012, 16:12
which election, hotrod? i now welcome you... to my ignore list, population: you

Don't put him on your ignore list, you might miss a highly entertaining post. :wavey:

jakebrake
08-09-2012, 16:22
Don't put him on your ignore list, you might miss a highly entertaining post. :wavey:

when someone pills the "i'm important, you've never done anything" crap, and they were handing out ballots at a polling place, they show how shallow and disingenous they really are. sorry, i have worked polls dating back to bush 41. some self-important whiner isn't worth the time spent reading the inanane drivel. poignant as a comic strip.

ron paul lost fair and square... get over it.

people like him make me regret supporting paul in the first place.

sorry i didn't respect cartman's authoritah.

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 17:43
That depends on how many of the Paul camp guys start to mean business by voting for Obama instead of some write-in or third party, and which states they live in.

You might find that pushing them from "not having their votes" over to "having them actively vote for the real opposition" may have an effect after all.

As you always say, let the chips fall where they may. Not long left. We'll see soon enough.

LIBERals or LIBERtarians. Not much difference.

Now there are a few here that I respect, that show a sincere desire to want things to get better than they are now. I admire their idealism, but I'm still going to stick to pragmatism.

There are some radical paul guys, some dudes are way out there, even without the smoke, they are tripping. Fork them.

:dunno:

ChuteTheMall
08-09-2012, 18:00
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4877/1344556331177.gif
:tinfoil:

Gundude
08-09-2012, 18:45
Yeah, they go from the wrapping themselves in the flag "Constitution" "Small Gov't" I-believe-in-freedom-and-all-the-rest-of -you-non-Paul-supporters-dont, to supporting a Communist endorsed President and candidate!

This is why the Paulites have no credibility. None.
How do you explain fiscal conservatives, pro-lifers, pro-RKBA, anti-illegal-immigration people voting for Romney then? No credibility either?

Barey anybody in this election is voting for the candidate they want. Everybody's voting against the other guy, period. It cuts both ways.

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 20:19
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4877/1344556331177.gif
:tinfoil:

I'll wait for it.

Till then, thanks for the laugh.

427
08-09-2012, 21:28
How do you explain fiscal conservatives, pro-lifers, pro-RKBA, anti-illegal-immigration people voting for Romney then? No credibility either?

Barey anybody in this election is voting for the candidate they want. Everybody's voting against the other guy, period. It cuts both ways.

I'm not referring to anybody else but the self-proclaimed "patriots/constitutionalists" who rabidly supported Paul but are now supporting Obama for no other reason than Paul not getting the nomination.

Go join the Communists in supporting and voting for Obama.

Cavalry Doc
08-10-2012, 04:35
How many county, district, and state conventions have you attended? How many polls have you worked for candidates? How many dinners, meetups, and other internal party functions have you participated in? If the answer is none, and Im betting it is, then I don't have the time to explain "politics" to you. Get involved with the party directly and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do more than watch tv, go vote, then go home until the next election. Until then you're just sitting far out in left field thinking you know what's going on in the dugout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 427
Whatever you say, son.

How many times have your predictions been proven wrong, again?


Why don't you tell me? Looks like I'm 1 for 1 today judging by that F&F thread.

1 for 1 today?

How's your 90 day record? 1 in 50?

Goaltender66
08-10-2012, 06:01
[edited] more of the same...
Gotta say, after reading that latest outpouring, I consulted with an expert to get her take on your latest screed:

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/files/mckayla-is-not-impressed_454x374.jpg

Nope, McKayla Maroney is *not* impressed.

First, I'm not wrong. Before an argument can be considered frivolous, there has to actually, you know, be an argument. Judge Carter was very clear that there wasn't one in the complaint. Heck, it's the very basis by which he dismissed it. Vague assertions like "bones were broken" do not a complaint make.

Second, the meme that somehow the Judge is guiding Gilbert to the Promised Land is similarly inane. The legal system is an adversarial one and judges do not "help" either party in crafting their arguments. Judges are not sitting there to serve as a law professor to the Plaintiff.

Third, your spin is transparent. An explanation of why something is wrong (or, in Gilbert's case, evidence of incompetence) is just that...an explanation of why the complaint was dismissed. You also fail at context. When a girl says she would only go out with you if there were a nuclear war and every other man on Earth is dead, that doesn't mean she's telling you what's needed before she'll go out with you. Similarly, when the judge tells you there's no authority to support your interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, that doesn't mean you need to go out and find the authority to support your interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.

Fourth, you float a new spin that Gilbert was working on a (presumably) "better" complaint this whole time. That's idiotic on its face, especially when read in the context of your earlier statement that the documents are the important thing in a case and orals are irrelevant. If you are correct, then Gilbert half-assed it (which supports everyone's contention here that Gilbert is a clown). Further, from the latest 40 pages of pablum that Gilbert offered, I'd say he is more interested in More Of The Same instead of focusing on what any 1L knows (or should know...) must be in a complaint.

Heck, if the end game here is (as you suggested, IIRC) to get an injunction, then Gilbert at the best possible reading is wasting his client's time, not to mention the Court's. If anything, Gilbert is flailing around and muffing this so he and his clients can add "corrupt judiciary" to their enemies lists.

So let's see. Off the top of my head, you said Gilbert is "pretty good." He isn't. You suggested the filing of stupid (and incorrect) documents was part of a grand legal strategy to try and bankrupt the RNC as opposed to evidence of his incompetence. It wasn't. And on Monday (at 3.35 pm Eastern) you said the case was *not* being dismissed and the judge said something was going on that needed to be investigated, when in reality the orals started at ~11:00 am eastern and were trailed to start again at 7:00 pm Eastern after which the judge issued his dismissal the next day. In other words, you posted an account where the time stamps clearly show you were talking out of your nether orifice.

It's clear you don't have the first clue as to what's actually going on here.

RC-RAMIE
08-10-2012, 07:24
I'm not referring to anybody else but the self-proclaimed "patriots/constitutionalists" who rabidly supported Paul but are now supporting Obama for no other reason than Paul not getting the nomination.

Go join the Communists in supporting and voting for Obama.

I may have miss some post but I haven't noticed any ex Paul now pro Obama? Most I have seen have been in support of Gary or voting Mitt. Is there a thread you can point me to?


....

427
08-10-2012, 11:02
I may have miss some post but I haven't noticed any ex Paul now pro Obama? Most I have seen have been in support of Gary or voting Mitt. Is there a thread you can point me to?


....

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18802976&postcount=7

If you click on the arrows next their names, you'll go to the original thread/post. Note the date.

countrygun
08-10-2012, 11:08
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18802976&postcount=7

If you click on the arrows next their names, you'll go to the original thread/post. Note the date.


Don't bother. He is just trying (and failing) to be glib and exercise wilfull ignorance

Gundude
08-10-2012, 11:38
I'm not referring to anybody else but the self-proclaimed "patriots/constitutionalists" who rabidly supported Paul but are now supporting Obama for no other reason than Paul not getting the nomination. I know you're not, because referring to anybody else would reveal your hypocrisy. Saying Paul supporters who vote Obama lack credibility, yet supporting those who vote Romney even though he represents the antithesis of everything they stand for, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. They're voting for Romney simply because Obama is his opponent. That's no more "credible" than voting for Obama simply because Romney is his opponent. You're the same as the people you mock. Either you have no credibility yourself, or their reasons for voting Obama are as valid as yours for voting Romney.

427
08-10-2012, 12:21
I know you're not, because referring to anybody else would reveal your hypocrisy. Saying Paul supporters who vote Obama lack credibility, yet supporting those who vote Romney even though he represents the antithesis of everything they stand for, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. They're voting for Romney simply because Obama is his opponent. That's no more "credible" than voting for Obama simply because Romney is his opponent. You're the same as the people you mock. Either you have no credibility yourself, or their reasons for voting Obama are as valid as yours for voting Romney.

More nonsense. Whatever dude. Say whatever silliness you need to say support your ever changing position/justifications.

You made your position and reasons quite clear months ago and so did your little buddies BTW, no other presidential candidate supporters wrapped themselves in the flag and the Constitution, like rabid Paul supporters. So yeah, they are hypocrites turn and profess to vote for a Commie endorsed president. And like you, those peopler deserve mocking.

Join the Communists - Support and vote for Obama!

427
08-10-2012, 12:23
Don't bother. He is just trying (and failing) to be glib and exercise wilfull ignorance

Maybe, but I've really nothing to loose but wasted key strokes.:wavey:

ChuteTheMall
08-10-2012, 19:14
Everytime another Ronulan admits that he will vote for Obama, our permanent opposition to the Ronulan hoax is validated.
:okie:

countrygun
08-10-2012, 19:20
Everytime another Ronulan admits that he will vote for Obama, our permanent opposition to the Ronulan hoax is validated.
:okie:




:number1:

Not one bit of doubt

G19G20
08-11-2012, 03:26
Everytime another Ronulan admits that he will vote for Obama, our permanent opposition to the Ronulan hoax is validated.
:okie:

I guess it's better to be right than win. The Republican Party has become it's own worst enemy.

Strangely we suffer from the same disease. I don't expect you to comprehend what I mean but I know some will.

Goaltender66
08-11-2012, 06:52
I guess it's better to be right than win.

Another non-credible opinion from you, as you apparently have no direct experience with either.

Cavalry Doc
08-11-2012, 08:25
Another non-credible opinion from you, as you apparently have no direct experience with either.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2622801796_ec215df82b.jpg
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Cavalry Doc
08-11-2012, 08:27
Look on the bright side G12G20, at least a Paul is on the ticket.

countrygun
08-11-2012, 11:45
Another non-credible opinion from you, as you apparently have no direct experience with either.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

jakebrake
08-12-2012, 08:43
Another non-credible opinion from you, as you apparently have no direct experience with either.

careful, goaltender. he's high up in the paul campaign.



he handed out leaflets at a primary that ron paul lost.

now, let him tell you how ron has really won all of the delegates, and mitt romney stole them.

G19G20
08-12-2012, 20:00
Another non-credible opinion from you, as you apparently have no direct experience with either.

How did that McCain vote work out for you? I'll go ahead and scoot over so you can join me on the loser train again. He who lives in a glass house shouldnt...

Look on the bright side G12G20, at least a Paul is on the ticket.

Yeah Im thrilled. TARP loving, bailout happy, police stater like Paul Ryan is exactly what Romney needed. Can't wait for the SNL "ambiguously gay duo" cartoons coming next month.

careful, goaltender. he's high up in the paul campaign.


he handed out leaflets at a primary that ron paul lost.

now, let him tell you how ron has really won all of the delegates, and mitt romney stole them.

Which Im going to bet was 100% more than you did in the primary in support of a candidate. Watching Fox News 10 minutes before going to push the button must have been tough work! I stand in awe of you. :yawn:

Some of us aren't strong enough to let the media and bankers pick who our masters will be. I must be one of those domestic terrorists I keep hearing about.

jakebrake
08-12-2012, 20:08
it really does make the site more enjoyable....good suggestion, folks

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2012, 09:01
Have they dismissed Gilbert's second try yet?

Goaltender66
08-21-2012, 11:55
Yesterday the judge in this case issued an order (attached). In a nutshell:

The Judge would like Gilbert to explain if he's appealing, filing a new Complaint, or what.

As our growing-more-impatient judge lays out, first Gilbert speed-files the Second Amended Complaint, but then he drops some documents off on Friday which look an awful lot like an appeal. Trouble is, you can't have both a Complaint and an Appeal (pretty sure they taught this in law school, but maybe Gilbert was absent the four months they taught Civil Procedure....).

Anyway, the Court is asking Gilbert to make up his mind. If Gilbert can't or won't, then the Court is going to modify its dismissal order from August 7 to a final judgement of Dismissed With Prejudice (meaning they can't amend the complaint) and Gilbert has to file his appeal with the Appellate Court.

Interesting portion from the order:

Because Plaintiffs filed both an amended complaint and a notice of appeal, this Court can not discern whether Plaintiffs wish to: (1) treat the August 7, 2012, Order as a final judgment divesting this Court of jurisdiction; or (2) continue to litigate in this Court.
The one thing that is certain is that Plaintiffs can not do both. Plaintiffs “cannot pursue an appeal from the Court’s order and simultaneously treat this matter as ongoing by filing [a] second amended complaint.” Ingram v. Warden, CIV.A. 10-4151 NLH, 2011 WL 318300, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011). Plaintiffs “cannot ‘hedge [their] bets’ by hoping that either continuing proceedings before this Court or . . . before the Court of Appeals [will] yield a favorable result; rather, [Plaintiffs are] obligated to make an exclusive election.” Id.

My emphasis...and laughter.

jakebrake
08-21-2012, 14:50
this man passed a bar exam? this is, at best, an embarassment.

Snowman92D
08-21-2012, 16:11
I guess it's better to be right than win. The Republican Party has become it's own worst enemy.

Strangely we suffer from the same disease. I don't expect you to comprehend what I mean but I know some will.

I imagine you're correct on that. There's bound to be some America-haters and stoners out there. Too bad Judge Carter wasn't one of them, though, eh?
:rofl:

G19G20
08-22-2012, 03:06
I imagine you're correct on that. There's bound to be some America-haters and stoners out there. Too bad Judge Carter wasn't one of them, though, eh?
:rofl:

There's a joke in there about premature and your ability to ejaculate while rolling on the ground but I'll leave it to the imagination. Btw, case still ongoing. No ruling yet. Goaltender66 cherry picks his commentary. Maybe read more and roll less?

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2012, 04:42
Goaltender has a lot more credibility on the subject, cherry picked or not, that's a scathing rebuff. That's like me cherry picking a large cancer in a patient and telling them they have a serious problem, because THEY HAVE a serious problem.

Oh well, we understand, this isn't the first time you've placed an unreasonable amount of faith in an elder and been unwilling to acknowledge their shortcomings.

Goaltender66
08-22-2012, 06:00
Btw, case still ongoing. No ruling yet. Goaltender66 cherry picks his commentary. Maybe read more and roll less?

When you accuse someone of cherry-picking, you are making the argument that salient facts are being omitted which, if included, change the premise upon which the commentary is based.

What salient facts did I omit in my post about how the judge is confused about Gilbert filing both a Complaint and an apparent Appeal?

I'll also point out that I attached the full order from the Judge, so feel free to point to the specific passage in the order which rebuts my post. In fact, if anything I went kind of light. For instance, in the order the Judge writes the following (with my emphasis):

The few courts to address similar mixed messages from plaintiffs have done so exclusively in the context of filings from unrepresented prisoners and have reached different, ad hoc solutions. See e.g., Id. (ordering pro se plaintiff to “make an election by either filing his second amended complaint or by filing his notice of appeal”); Fields v. Mitchell, CIV. 08-CV-810-MJR, 2009 WL 2705423, *1 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2009) (holding that pro se plaintiff’s notice of appeal divested district court of jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s pending motions).

In other words, "similar mixed messages" have come from people already in the pokey who are both ignorant of Civil Procedure and have no legal representation to guide them, putting Gilbert on a par with those folks.

Snowman92D
08-22-2012, 06:49
There's a joke in there about premature and your ability to ejaculate while rolling on the ground but I'll leave it to the imagination.

Sorry, Skippy...my "imagination" doesn't roll in the gutter like yours does. You seem to live in a world where men don't stand tall and shake hands when they meet, but instead sniff each other's asses like dogs. One supposs that'd qualify you to be a top ambassador for Ron Paul and his alter ego, Obama. :rofl:

ChuteTheMall
08-22-2012, 06:58
In other words, "similar mixed messages" have come from people already in the pokey who are both ignorant of Civil Procedure and have no legal representation to guide them, putting Gilbert on a par with those folks.

That's the polite way to call Gilbert a failed jailhouse lawyer.:tongueout:

Goaltender66
08-22-2012, 12:17
The latest in the Gilbert-created drama.

Gilbert filed a response to Judge Carter's order claiming that oh, gee, we didn't *mean* to sound like we were appealing, nope, nothing to that Friday filing, nosireebob. So in some kind of odd strategery, Gilbert says he wants to continue with the Second Amended Complaint and please please please forget about that whole "appeal" thing (hint...if you are arguing a case before a Judge, don't ever ever hint that you have an appeal waiting in the wings...Judges don't cotton to that kind of pressure.).

The Judge then turned around and denied Gilbert's Ex Parte seeking an expedited hearing. Based on the documents filed so far, Gilbert wanting to expedite things rings hollow when he's wasting time with dumb filings and insisting all communications between himself and the Defendants are done so via letter. But whatever.

That said, I'll let the Judge talk (my emphasis):

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

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

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


Remember when the argument was that the dismissal of the FAC was a great win because the Judge was telling Gilbert exactly what needed to be done to go forward? Yeah, good times. Apparently, if the Judge were playing Law Professor, he picked an idiot for a student. Instead of following Judge Carter's (alleged) blueprint, Gilbert instead "removed all factual pleadings and instead request[ed] an impermissible advisory opinion from this Court about the scope of the Voting Rights Act."

What fantastic strategery. Again, more support that Gilbert remains ignorant of the basic tenets of Civil Procedure.

Lastly, that little bit at the end about filing the response electronically? That's because Gilbert's appeal-but-not-an-appeal filing wasn't done electronically, which creates a bit of a headache for the clerks. Good lawyers use the CM/ECF system like they are supposed to, in order to minimize the wasting of time of both their clients and the Court. Dumb lawyers dont.

countrygun
08-22-2012, 12:32
I just have to point out, that when I posted the following, in an attempt to simplify the issue for our resident short-bus'er

 

 

"Hey, Matlock, did you ever see a situation like this, in which, a motion is put forward that is so loosely written that if a Judge were to dismiss with prejudice it would be such a broad dismissal, because of the broadness of the motion, that it would likely be grounds for a return anyway.

If the Judge give specific instruction and dismisses without prejudice then the attorney has no real choice but to "clean it up", be more specific and bring it back so a dismissal, with prejudice, can render the better identified points irrelevant."

This most intelligent and experienced political scientist and expert on the law replied,

 

"Btw, countrygun you sound like a fool with that post above".


 

I stick by what I said then,

 


"Coming from you, the opinion that I look like a fool is a badge of honor."


That badge of honor grows in weight by the minute,

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2012, 12:53
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

And the hits keep coming.

Sam Spade
08-22-2012, 13:33
Me, I'm just a cop. Rarely get involved behind the scenes of legal dramas, and I don't think I've ever dealt with an issue like this.

But one thing I do know---when judges start tossing out Orders to Show Cause, you're breakdancing in a minefield.

jakebrake
08-22-2012, 16:15
Me, I'm just a cop. Rarely get involved behind the scenes of legal dramas, and I don't think I've ever dealt with an issue like this.

But one thing I do know---when judges start tossing out Orders to Show Cause, you're breakdancing in a minefield.

yeah, pissing off a judge usually does not bode well. being an incompetant schlub about it is just icing on the cake.

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 06:14
Yep. Gilbert was rude to everyone, didn't accept help, and was quick to hijack our movement for himself to be the hero.

What happened? We wasted a lot of time hoping an incompetent, pompous jerk would win the case. A bunch of "coulda woulda shoulda's" here, but this is a major disappointment. I think a lot of us saw it coming, but still....

That is a quote from a Ron Paul forum. It mirrors the sentiment that Gilbert was an incompetent gadfly publicity hound that was in way over his head.

So, to the Trojan horse delegates, what else ya got?

countrygun
08-23-2012, 10:18
That is a quote from a Ron Paul forum. It mirrors the sentiment that Gilbert was an incompetent gadfly publicity hound that was in way over his head.

So, to the Trojan horse delegates, what else ya got?


http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/Miracle.png

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 11:08
I've indicated this before but the named plaintiffs really are at considerable risk. This is clearly going to be deemed a frivolous lawsuit. I think they are likely to be held liable for the other side's attorney fees and costs. The further this goes the higher those are going to be.


Another interesting wrinkle.... Bwuhahaha. :rofl:

That would be funny right there.

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 11:08
G19g20, how big do you think your share of the expenses will be?

G19G20
08-23-2012, 19:49
yeah, pissing off a judge usually does not bode well. being an incompetant schlub about it is just icing on the cake.

You do know the judge ruled in favor of Gilbert on the Show Cause, right? I didn't see anyone mention that. At this point it just looks like there will be no final ruling before the convention.

@Cav, Im not a plaintiff so my guess would be....$0? There seems to be some speculation from certain people (probably some that frequent this site and have been posting on Paul related sites) that the judge will order RNC legal fees paid but I don't see that happening based on the events so far. Ill take my lumps for being wrong if it happens but Im just bummed the judge isn't going to do SOMETHING before the RNC to finish this case one way or the other. Im honestly more concerned with the weather at this point. This is all moot if the convention gets moved or rescheduled due to hurricane and that screws a lot of people over, Paul delegates and statist delegates alike.

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 20:29
You do know the judge ruled in favor of Gilbert on the Show Cause, right? I didn't see anyone mention that. At this point it just looks like there will be no final ruling before the convention.

@Cav, Im not a plaintiff so my guess would be....$0? There seems to be some speculation from certain people (probably some that frequent this site and have been posting on Paul related sites) that the judge will order RNC legal fees paid but I don't see that happening based on the events so far. Ill take my lumps for being wrong if it happens but Im just bummed the judge isn't going to do SOMETHING before the RNC to finish this case one way or the other. Im honestly more concerned with the weather at this point. This is all moot if the convention gets moved or rescheduled due to hurricane and that screws a lot of people over, Paul delegates and statist delegates alike.

Really, I'm shocked that someone as committed to Dr. Paul, that was so supportive of the Trojan Horse delegate strategy, and so supportive of RG as you have been would be so passive in your real world support for this issue. That's awful hard to believe. Heck, almost impossible to believe that you would not take the easy step of contacting RG and signing on to the suit.


Hmmmmm. Maybe you aren't as much of a Ron Paul supporter as you have been pretending to be.

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/i-see-what-you-did-there-261.jpg?w=500

Goaltender66
08-23-2012, 20:32
You do know the judge ruled in favor of Gilbert on the Show Cause, right? I didn't see anyone mention that. At this point it just looks like there will be no final ruling before the convention.


Um, I did mention it. I pointed out Gilbert's lame-o response that his appeal filing wasn't actually an appeal and decided to proceed with the SAC which is what the judge was asking...if he was appealing the FAC dismissal or standing behind the SAC.. It isn't the win you seem to think it is. All it means is that Gilbert looks foolish in front of the judge (again) and wasted time while Carter was forced to decipher Gilbert's mixed messages. Besides, that Show Cause Order was the judge basically asking Gilbert what the hell he wants to do. Gilbert having to explain away his dumb appeal-in-all-but-name filing wasn't a winning argument. Your attempt at spin isn't even marginally believable.

And actually, at this point it looks like the case will be dismissed on Friday with prejudice, given that the SAC, at least in the intelligible part, is asking for an advisory opinion which Courts do not give.



@Cav, Im not a plaintiff so my guess would be....$0? There seems to be some speculation from certain people (probably some that frequent this site and have been posting on Paul related sites) that the judge will order RNC legal fees paid but I don't see that happening based on the events so far. Ill take my lumps for being wrong if it happens but Im just bummed the judge isn't going to do SOMETHING before the RNC to finish this case one way or the other. Im honestly more concerned with the weather at this point. This is all moot if the convention gets moved or rescheduled due to hurricane and that screws a lot of people over, Paul delegates and statist delegates alike.
You don't see that happening base on, what, your expert legal opinion? :upeyes:

And, um, you're bummed the Judge isn't going to do something, but the reality is that super legal genius Gilbert hasn't given the judge anything TO do except give remedial lessons in Civil Procedure. In other words, none of this is on the Judge. It's on Gilbert and his incompetence...something we've been trying to tell you for weeks now.

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 21:00
Um, I did mention it. I pointed out Gilbert's lame-o response that his appeal filing wasn't actually an appeal and decided to proceed with the SAC which is what the judge was asking...if he was appealing the FAC dismissal or standing behind the SAC.. It isn't the win you seem to think it is. All it means is that Gilbert looks foolish in front of the judge (again) and wasted time while Carter was forced to decipher Gilbert's mixed messages. Besides, that Show Cause Order was the judge basically asking Gilbert what the hell he wants to do. Gilbert having to explain away his dumb appeal-in-all-but-name filing wasn't a winning argument. Your attempt at spin isn't even marginally believable.

And actually, at this point it looks like the case will be dismissed on Friday with prejudice, given that the SAC, at least in the intelligible part, is asking for an advisory opinion which Courts do not give.



You don't see that happening base on, what, your expert legal opinion? :upeyes:

And, um, you're bummed the Judge isn't going to do something, but the reality is that super legal genius Gilbert hasn't given the judge anything TO do except give remedial lessons in Civil Procedure. In other words, none of this is on the Judge. It's on Gilbert and his incompetence...something we've been trying to tell you for weeks now.

Goaltender66,

If a nincompoop lawyer files a frivolous lawsuit, and it is dismissed with prejudice, and the law team on the other side decides to go after the other side to compensate themselves for their time and trouble, how much chance to find you? If they are awarded damages, that would be cool/

Goaltender66
08-23-2012, 21:15
Goaltender66,

If a nincompoop lawyer files a frivolous lawsuit, and it is dismissed with prejudice, and the law team on the other side decides to go after the other side to compensate themselves for their time and trouble, how much chance to find you? If they are awarded damages, that would be cool/

It happens often enough for me to say it's a possibility here, *if* the RNC decides to pursue it. The precedent is certainly there, and it exists precisely to keep people from filing dumb nuisance suits. I don't think Judge Carter will unilaterally order the Plaintiffs to pay damages and I *really* don't think the RNC will ask for them. The reality is that any damages would ultimately be borne by the Plaintiffs, not Gilbert (who, in my mind, should be liable for them here but the law doesnt work that way). Since the Plaintiffs are Just Plain Folks, there's little upside to the RNC hitting them with damages.

ChuteTheMall
08-23-2012, 21:15
Im honestly more concerned with the weather at this point. This is all moot if the convention gets moved or rescheduled due to hurricane and that screws a lot of people over, Paul delegates and statist delegates alike.

So, you're transferring your pathetic hopes to a rain dance?

http://i49.tinypic.com/2njzedg.jpg

:drowning:

G19G20
08-24-2012, 01:47
Really, I'm shocked that someone as committed to Dr. Paul, that was so supportive of the Trojan Horse delegate strategy, and so supportive of RG as you have been would be so passive in your real world support for this issue. That's awful hard to believe. Heck, almost impossible to believe that you would not take the easy step of contacting RG and signing on to the suit.

I said in the original thread on the lawsuit that I wasn't going to defend the lawsuit itself. I didn't sign up for it. I followed the developments like yall did and posted my thoughts. Sure I wanted it to succeed but some attorney in CA doesn't speak for me. I think he has worked hard and brought some important things to light and Ill not bash him for that. It's an unprecedented case in a very short window of time. There's bigger fish to fry next week so onward and upward.

btw Im well aware that you support corruption and fraud within the party so there's not much point in hashing this out. Romney has moved his attempted coronation to Monday to avoid us and televised embarrassment so I'll consider that a victory unto itself.

Cavalry Doc
08-24-2012, 04:32
It happens often enough for me to say it's a possibility here, *if* the RNC decides to pursue it. The precedent is certainly there, and it exists precisely to keep people from filing dumb nuisance suits. I don't think Judge Carter will unilaterally order the Plaintiffs to pay damages and I *really* don't think the RNC will ask for them. The reality is that any damages would ultimately be borne by the Plaintiffs, not Gilbert (who, in my mind, should be liable for them here but the law doesnt work that way). Since the Plaintiffs are Just Plain Folks, there's little upside to the RNC hitting them with damages.


Well, if the convention gets moved back due to weather, pending legal expenses COULD make some delegates hold onto what money they have, and skip the convention. That's mean and dirty, but what the heck, so is stabbing your neighbors in the back by promising to carry their votes to the convention with no intention of ever doing that.

Cavalry Doc
08-24-2012, 04:38
I said in the original thread on the lawsuit that I wasn't going to defend the lawsuit itself. I didn't sign up for it. I followed the developments like yall did and posted my thoughts. Sure I wanted it to succeed but some attorney in CA doesn't speak for me. I think he has worked hard and brought some important things to light and Ill not bash him for that. It's an unprecedented case in a very short window of time. There's bigger fish to fry next week so onward and upward.

btw Im well aware that you support corruption and fraud within the party so there's not much point in hashing this out. Romney has moved his attempted coronation to Monday to avoid us and televised embarrassment so I'll consider that a victory unto itself.


Me? Corruption and fraud?? You're "exercising your freedoms" while posting again, aren't you.

If fraud, corruption and assault were committed, file the criminal charges and send those responsible to jail. I've always felt that guilty people belong in jail.


The vote was moved to Monday to get it out of the way. Looks like Paul will have plurality in 3, maybe 4 states. Bummer, even I wanted him to give a speech.

Oh well.

Goaltender66
08-24-2012, 05:51
btw Im well aware that you support corruption and fraud within the party so there's not much point in hashing this out. Romney has moved his attempted coronation to Monday to avoid us and televised embarrassment so I'll consider that a victory unto itself.

:upeyes:

If Mitt Romney ordered white toast for breakfast you'd try to spin that into Romney being afraid of Paul or some kind of victory for the Paul camp.

The reality is, as Doc points out, that with some potential storms on the way it's better to get the main convention business out of the way earlier rather than later. Besides, if your comrades were hoping for televised coverage so they could beclown themselves even more than they already have, consider it a blessing. Even Paul felt the need to write a general letter telling them to behave themselves. That a candidate would need to write such a letter to his delegates is *not* a positive.

Gundude
08-24-2012, 09:10
My question on this whole lawsuit thing is: why do libertarians want the government (the court) to fix the problem?

Apart from a couple isolated and unverified claims of assault (which of course should be prosecuted criminally if they occurred), the majority of complaints seem to be that the Republican party is breaking its own rules. The solution, to me, seems simple: Recognize the party for what it is. Don't support it or vote for its candidate. Convince like-minded people to do likewise. Build an alternative.

Y'know. Do the libertarian thing. Don't go crying to the government to fix it.

G29Reload
08-24-2012, 11:51
His entire dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) ruling lays out exactly what he wants to see in order to rule on the merits of the case itself and possibly issue an injunction before the RNC.


It is important when abandoning the Titanic WHERE the seat cushions are placed in the lifeboats and that the right ones go in the right places. That's the only thing thats important.

:upeyes:

Cavalry Doc
08-24-2012, 16:57
Just some cogent and insightful commentary from the lead attorney on the case, I give you Mr. Richard Gilbert Esquire:






USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
On this final day we litigate in the 4th dimension
View video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Ignore the critics. They are a waste of our time. When they see their loved ones dissappear into Concentration Camps they will know then ...

USA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

We sure have Romney shaking like a coward with our case

48mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

51mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

52mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

54mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

55mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

57mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

58mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

59mUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

Come gather around the campfire I have some things to say

1hUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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

1hUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

Everyone thinks we have lost the case

1hUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

Look for news on the case at 5 pm PacificTime

1hUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

Our Delegates are caving in to Romney

1hUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

Tomorrow we will know the future of our nation

3hLiberty Lovin' Lady‏@TwittingLiberty

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

5hUSA_Patriot_Press‏@USA_Free_Press

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





And the best one......

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

BREAKING: Ron Paul tells delegates he will not accept nomination and will not be nominated from floor -Our case still lives for the moment
Expand





This guy is a class A nutcase.

Cavalry Doc
08-24-2012, 18:46
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

5::05 pm Pacific - Drama builds - No Rulings from either Court



The tension builds

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 07:27
And it's over.

Plaintiffs’ six-page Response to the Order to Show Cause fails to identify a single factual allegation in the Second Amended Complaint about a specific act done by a specific defendant to a specific plaintiff that gives rise to a Voting Rights Act violation,and this Court has found none. See Response (Dkt. 47). In addition, Plaintiffs cite no authority other than one case identified by this Court in its Order to Show Cause. See id.

Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and for violation of a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b).

Maybe.....

The windup:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
The Trial Judge has just sent word that at 7:24 pm he ordered the case dismissed. We next must wait to see what the Appellate Court rules


And the pitch:

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
This is just the begining of our fight to restore liberty. One case does not make a Revolution. We will prepare our next case next week


This guy is going to be a source of unending amusement. :rofl:

Better get those money bombs going.

ChuteTheMall
08-25-2012, 07:47
And it's over.




Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

:bluesbrothers:

PawDog
08-25-2012, 07:56
And it's over.

This guy is going to be a source of unending amusement. :rofl:

Better get those money bombs going.

I wonder what his GT user name is? :dunno:

countrygun
08-25-2012, 11:17
http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/gilbert2.png

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 11:50
I wonder what his GT user name is? :dunno:

Oh, no chance of that. You really need to browse a couple pages of this nutjob's twitter account. He is a verifiable fruitcake. And I mean that in the most respectful and compassionate way that I can muster.

https://twitter.com/USA_Free_Press
(https://twitter.com/USA_Free_Press)



Tweets
12h USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@TwittingLiberty - I only retweeted this because I know you men love looking at her
View conversation

13h Liberty Lovin' Lady Liberty Lovin' Lady ‏@TwittingLiberty

@USA_Free_Press oops sorry :)
Retweeted by USA_Patriot_Press

G29Reload
08-25-2012, 12:15
Why are we even talking about this irrelevance?

RP is done. Over. Life is too short for this pointlessness.

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 12:28
Why are we even talking about this irrelevance?

RP is done. Over. Life is too short for this pointlessness.

Schadenfreude. Months and months of the paulbot flood, and we are where we all knew we would be a year ago.


Not all paul supporters are paulbots. Many had decent reasons and manners about it. I have had many conversations with them, and we still respect each other, well at least I still respect them.

G29Reload
08-25-2012, 13:55
Schadenfreude.

Yeah you're right. Let em twist in the wind a little before cutting em down.

ChuteTheMall
08-25-2012, 20:21
http://i46.tinypic.com/taknjo.jpg

Is it over?

countrygun
08-25-2012, 21:14
http://i46.tinypic.com/taknjo.jpg

Is it over?



"Depends"

Cavalry Doc
08-26-2012, 12:50
Is it time yet for the tribute video?


'RON PAUL' - A Bad Lip Reading SoundBite - YouTube

Cavalry Doc
08-28-2012, 19:17
Looks like the Trojan Horse plan has failed.

Funny that all of the Lawyers for ron paul threads have suddenly disappeared from the paul sites I lurk on.





Find a better candidate, and better luck next time. And I mean that.

Goaltender66
08-29-2012, 13:39
I'm wondering if this dismissal is part of Gilbert's legal strategy. He's a grand master, dontchaknow!

I'm told he's trying an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Not sure what he's going to appeal on...the Judge followed the law and procedure very well here, to the point of almost coddling Gilbert. Undoubtedly we'll start to hear tales about how Judge Carter's great grandfather sold tires to the Nazis, or he once drove past the Trilateral Commission's HQ so he's secretly part of the ruling cabal or something.

Cavalry Doc
08-29-2012, 14:11
I'm wondering if this dismissal is part of Gilbert's legal strategy. He's a grand master, dontchaknow!

I'm told he's trying an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Not sure what he's going to appeal on...the Judge followed the law and procedure very well here, to the point of almost coddling Gilbert. Undoubtedly we'll start to hear tales about how Judge Carter's great grandfather sold tires to the Nazis, or he once drove past the Trilateral Commission's HQ so he's secretly part of the ruling cabal or something.


Maybe he's trying to get to the SCOTUS so he can ask that all the other candidates be disqualified and just have Ron installed as president? :dunno:

countrygun
08-29-2012, 14:17
Maybe he's trying to get to the SCOTUS so he can ask that all the other candidates be disqualified and just have Ron installed as president? :dunno:


Maybe he is going to go for an "In Loco Parentis" ruling for the voter in the US?

countrygun
08-29-2012, 15:21
Hahahah.

I just heard Greg Gutfeld say something to the effect,

"In a surprise move Ron Paul has decided to stick to his principles and is therefore refusing to endorse himself"

ChuteTheMall
09-04-2012, 22:37
http://i50.tinypic.com/282k2a.jpg

G19G20
09-05-2012, 15:14
If the plan is to lose then congrats on a plan well executed! Romney received the smallest ever post-convention poll bump in recorded history.

jakebrake
09-05-2012, 15:22
If the plan is to lose then congrats on a plan well executed! Romney received the smallest ever post-convention poll bump in recorded history.

smeep smeep smeep bleorg.