Delegate Lawsuit Update: Bilateral or Partisan?


“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

James Madison

This news is a few days old, but I’m sure that anyone who is following the delegate lawsuit is aware that an opposition to the RNC’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on Wednesday, July 18th. The PLAINTIFFS‘ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTSMOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT cites the reason of opposition to be that the RNC’s counsel did not correctly follow court procedure to Meet and Confer under Civil Rules section L.R. 7-3. You can read the Plaintiff’s Opposition here:

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION

Here are the letters that were included in the motion; these are correspondence between Gilbert and Marlowe and the RNC Counsel. (I have to mention at this point that these are ONLY Gilbert and Marlowe’s letters, not the responses from Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, LLP, counsel for the RNC.)

Exhibits with Opposition

I decided to go ahead and do a little research into the Civil Rules and to read the section that the opposition motion is based upon. The section referred to in the motion states that an initial Case Management Order MAY (not will) establish deadlines for many things, including:

(5)  Counsel to meet and confer to prepare joint final pretrial conference statement and proposed order and coordinated submission of trial exhibits and other material; 

(You can click on the above text to access the Civil Local Rules).

Now, here’s the rub. The motion to oppose includes Gilbert and Marlowe’s letters, but not the responses from the RNC. Those are public record, so I will publish them so you can read them for yourself. Pay attention in particular to the fact that Gilbert wants all correspondence in writing. Gilbert also says, in the June 29th letter, that he “received your letter dated June 28, 2012, wherein you acknowledge receipt of all of my Meet and Confer letters.” However, if you look at the letter dated June 28th, there is no mention of that. In fact, most of the letter deals with a reprimand for violation of the California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100 (A) from the other counsel. I’ll let you make your own judgments…I have my opinions as to the professionalism involved, but it’s not for me to say…I am not an attorney. Here is a link to the file, and I will attach images of the letters for you to peruse as well.

Correspondence

 

Remember that old adage, “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar”? I’m not real sure how a “refusal to speak on the telephone”, as per one of the letters above, shows a willingness to Meet and Confer, but again, that’s only my opinion. I’m interested to see how this plays out. I think that ALL of the letters should have been included in the exhibits, because it paints a better picture of what is actually going on between the parties’ counsel. Once again, I invite you to read and come to your own conclusions. Other motions have been filed…I’ll try to post more as this progresses and keep you up to date.

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?” 

Thomas Jefferson

Advertisements

About angiedavidson75

mama,political activist, cat lover, free thinker
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Delegate Lawsuit Update: Bilateral or Partisan?

  1. Barb Denofa says:

    Thank you Angie.. appreciate that you have shed light on this subject, the complete story is what we all need to know.. You cannot make a clear judgement unless you know all the facts, transparency is quit an eye opener..

    • Thanks for stopping by to check it out, Barb. I agree that transparency is important…a lot of people don’t realize that these things are public record. I remember hearing someone mention that they “wouldn’t see any documents unless the attorney posted them.” That’s silly and totally untrue…it’s out there for anyone to see, as long as you know where to look.

  2. Michelle Martin says:

    Thank You for providing a look into this lawsuit that isn’t being provided elsewhere. Transparency is key – if there is anything we have all learned in our fight for Liberty and Ron Paul – it is that we must look further than what we are told, we must seek truth and transparency – even if we do not like what we find. These letters are pretty eye opening, as are the motions involved. Seems it isn’t exactly a slam dunk like we were told in the beginning. I don’t deny that great injustices have been done or that we have been wronged in almost every primary and state convention and that the system is rigged,…I just think there is a more effective way of handling it – that might actually get results rather than one big over reaching lawsuit. Everyone has to make up their own minds about whether or not this suit is a good or a bad thing – but it would seem to me that can’t be done without looking at ALL the information – how many have actually gone out and retrieved these documents and looked at it all? Given I haven’t seen the FULL scope of documents and motions presented elsewhere, I have to wonder, what people are basing their opinions on? Half the story?:

    • I believe so. I think that some people rely on spoon-feeding from those involved, rather than doing the research for themselves. I agree…transparency is not only key, but it is imperative.

  3. Kaitlin Sparks says:

    Is THIS the lawyer that claims to have “taken over the ron paul campaign”???
    He sounds like a real professional – NOT. People can’t actually be supporting him, can they?
    NO WONDER ron paul advised against this suit – who in the world would want this man representing them??? I hope they have not done any damage to ron paul’s chances in tampa, or they will have many to answer to.

    • I’m going to reserve my opinion on the attorney personally, but let’s just say you have some good points.

    • SRQ Tad says:

      Katlin, In the same sentence that RP “advised against” the suit, he also stated that if someone had documented evidence, that if they believed they had a legit case, they should persue it.

      • “…but if they were to ask my advice, I would say don’t.” -Paul

        Same sentence.

      • SRQ Tad says:

        “If they have a legitimate argument that they can make and that’s what they want to do, I’m not going to say ‘don’t do it’. If they ask my advice, I’m going to say ‘don’t’ – I didn’t motivate them to do it…”

        That statement, the second sentence, is no more than Dr. Paul insulting himself from being accused of having been the impetus or encouragement for the suit. He wasn’t born yesterday and he knows if he were to recommend for it, he would be accused of having caused it.

        He continues: “… but sometimes they do, I mean, sometimes they’re — In the states there’s been times when — You know, I want people to act dignified and not try to cause a ruckus and break — and disrupt things but at the same time I tell them ‘you don’t have to get pushed around’. If they’re not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules and I think, for the most part, these winning caucuses that we have been involved in, we have followed the rules and the other side has, at times, not followed the rules.”

        http://youtu.be/hNf_TvBJhhg – Pick it up at 3:45
        Dr Paul does not break mid-sentence with an “uh”, “ahh” or a stutter because he’s befuddled. He does it because he’s choosing his words very carefully.

  4. SRQ Tad says:

    Tell you what I think… While I don’t always care for Gilbert’s aggressive style, he is going for the throat and, given the blatant fraud, he should be. The RNC people, while sounding oh-so-professional, are useing nothing but stall and divert tactics. It is critical that this case be ruled on before the convention and, if I was directly involved, I would require ALL communication in writing, also. Let’s face it the RNC, many local GOP’s and the Romney campaign have pulled some pretty nasty and illegal stuff. I am beginning to have a much better appreciation for what Gilbert & Co. are doing. After looking at all that graphed election return data..? Somebody needs to be going to prison for a very long time.

    • AW says:

      I completely AGREE with you!

    • The problem is, when you require everything in writing and refuse to talk to the other counsel in any other way, you’re violating the terms of the ADR. I go through this crap with my husband’s ex wife (won’t talk unless it’s by text), so I understand how frustrating it can be for everyone involved. Demanding will get you nowhere, and I doubt that a judge will look favorably upon it either. However, you can be aggressive without being caustic. Again, only my opinion.

      • SRQ Tad says:

        Since when does ADR apply in this case or, for that matter, in any Federal case or any other case that has not been sent to mediation or where mediation is a factor? This case is not about a personal dispute. It is about wheather or not Federal election law applies and whether or not that law has been pproperly enforced, given the violations.

      • SRQ Tad says:

        OK, fine and dandy… ADR still does not include phone conversations. All of that is done in front of a mediation panel or in session with a private mediator. In other words NOwhere is it done outside of having a credible witness involved, even though anything said in mediation is not admissable as evidence if the case is not settled out of court. Arrangements for mediation are ALWAYS done in writing and any lawyer that would accept a phone conversation as counting as a legit mediation conference isn’t worth much.

      • Local rule 7-19.1:
        It shall be the duty of the attorney so applying [ex parte] (a) to make reasonable, good faith efforts orally to advise counsel for all other parties, if known, of the date and substance of the proposed ex parte application….

        I have the next set of motions…I’ll try to get them up tomorrow.

      • SRQ Tad says:

        That “presumptive” participation in ADR presumes that a settlement may be able to be attained between the litigants. I think it’s safe to say; since the only way to settle it, without the judge deciding the case, is for the RNC, et al, to admit/agree that Fed law does apply to the primaries, caucuses and the convention AND admit/agree that there has been fraud, as defined by those laws AND admit/agree that there’s been no enforcement of those laws which HAS caused harm to delegates/potential delegates AND admit/agree that ALL delegates are, in fact NOT bound due to that binding being in direct violation of those Federal election laws; is something along the lines of, “Yeah!… That’s gonna happen”.

        Therefore, Gilbert’s report will probably be quite specific in that ADR isn’t going to cut it. As long as the judge agrees with that assessment, it goes to court. If not, a half-hour of mediation will prove it.

        If you can think of another way to settle it, I’m all ears.

      • SRQ Tad says:

        … AND, the time-sensitive nature of this case should be enough to eliminate the use of any ADR.

    • LilStar the Patriot says:

      SRQ Tad, THANK YOU!!!! Thank you for standing up and saying what I believe! He is cut throat, but imagine if he budges just ONE inch. If he budged just ONE inch to meet in person and talk, number one there is no written record of what was said. Number two, if he budged on that one small thing, they might start to think that he will budge on other things.

  5. LilStar the Patriot says:

    Also, they are just trying to stall them and waste time. I read that clearly in their request for an extension. We’re running out of time here. The RNC HAD to know that action would be taken. We are not stupid like they think we are and obviously we see what’s going on. We have been awakened and enlightened and we WILL do what’s right. Even if we were not to succeed with this lawsuit, we have shown them we’re not willing to go down without a fight.

  6. Barb Denofa says:

    The law is blind to your “emotional” opinions.. Had to know this and had to know that, had to know exactly what would happen.. Of course they asked for extension .. And If you can find me any court that will listen to the plaintiffs argument and not allow the defense their argument via actual witness testimony.. I’d appreciate you providing that information..
    To think that Richard has all the answers all the proof, is some kind of Super Hero lawyer that has found the key to unlocking the courts and by passing all other required venues prior to a date with judge, please provide a link.. It would be very interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s