close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Lawyers for Ron Paul Suit dismissed

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Goaltender66, Aug 8, 2012.


  1. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66
    Expand Collapse
    NRA GoldenEagle

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    5,169
    1
    Location:
    Under the cultural penumbra of DC
    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:

    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:

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

    Page 17:

    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:

    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:

     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!

    Attached Files:

    #1 Goaltender66, Aug 8, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2012
  2. JBnTX

    JBnTX
    Expand Collapse
    Texas

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    19,575
    3,630
    Location:
    Texas
    Ron Paul.....:rofl:

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

  3. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    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.
     
    #3 G19G20, Aug 8, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012
  4. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17

    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.
     
  5. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66
    Expand Collapse
    NRA GoldenEagle

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    5,169
    1
    Location:
    Under the cultural penumbra of DC
    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.
     
    #5 Goaltender66, Aug 8, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2012
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc
    Expand Collapse
    MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    34,969
    9
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]


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

    I told you so.
     
  7. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    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.
     
    #7 G19G20, Aug 9, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012
  8. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    As of 5 hours ago PT, the final amended complaint was filed. Case goes on. We'll see what happens.
     
    #8 G19G20, Aug 9, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012
  9. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17

    Coming from you, the opinion that I look like a fool is a badge of honor.
     
  10. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    Wear it proudly. Btw, Matlock won his cases. Just sayin...
     
  11. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17

    Matlock was as fictional as the reality you live in

    Just sayin
     
  12. walt cowan

    walt cowan
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    10,597
    1,210
    Location:
    Absurdistan
    you guy's! keep on burning those bridges! lol! hey and don't forget, you can't win without us. oh yeeeee suckers! LOL!
     
  13. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc
    Expand Collapse
    MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    34,969
    9
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    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.
     
  14. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc
    Expand Collapse
    MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    34,969
    9
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    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.
     
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc
    Expand Collapse
    MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    34,969
    9
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    This site had reputation meters, I'd give you a bump for that alone. :supergrin:


    :thumbsup:
     
  16. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66
    Expand Collapse
    NRA GoldenEagle

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    5,169
    1
    Location:
    Under the cultural penumbra of DC
    You know what that screed reminds me of? This guy:

    [​IMG]

    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:

    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?
     
    #16 Goaltender66, Aug 9, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012
  17. Gundude

    Gundude
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    7,379
    469
    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.
     
  18. jakebrake

    jakebrake
    Expand Collapse
    cracker

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    7,923
    8
    Location:
    too close to philly
    i see sales of nike sneakers and kool aid ramping up in the near future.
     
  19. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17
    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.
     
  20. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    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
     
    #20 G19G20, Aug 9, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012