“Losing would be painful, but not as painful as knowing there was something else you could’ve done.”
Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
The third-party delegate lawsuit, filed by Richard Gilbert in California, has been dismissed for the second time, this time With Prejudice.
Dismissal With Prejudice means that a case is finished completely; cannot be argued again. An appeal can be made to a higher court; however, the case cannot be started over from scratch and brought to court again.
Two Order(s) To Show Cause were previously issued by the judge, the Honorable David O. Carter of the California Central District. In these orders, the judge asked Gilbert to give reasons why the Court should not dismiss the case once and for all. From this ruling, we see that Carter did not find Gilbert’s response sufficient enough to let the case move forward.
Additionally, the Republican National Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss as well.
Gilbert responded to the RNC’s Motion to Dismiss with an Opposition. You can read that here. While we can agree that the RNC’s actions throughout this election cycle have been despicable, we cannot help but wonder if, written differently, this Opposition might have had impact. Unfortunately, when one insults the court, one must accept the consequences. Some highlights from the Opposition:
“It is fatal error to have failed to serve the Court of Appeal with this Motion
The RNC and the District Court are well aware that this issue is pending in the Court of Appeal. The failure to serve the Court of Appeal is an affront to the dignity of the Court of Appeal. The RNC Motion is filed with no meet and confer. It appears to be responsive to the District Court’s OSC re dismissal. Merely reading the RNC”s Motion renders just how weak the notion is that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed.”
“Plaintiffs are not asking for merely an “advisory opinion.”
Rather, Plaintiffs, after actually reading the Voting Rights Act, are requesting pursuant to the actual terms of the Voting Rights Act, an Injunction based on a clearly pled claim, which the RNC acknowledges its clear understanding of, in it’s incorporated Points and Authorities on page 5 thereof, that the RNC is refusing to apply the US statutes cited in the Complaint, and is refusing t0 allow delegates to vote in accordance with the rights enumerated in the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act by it’s own terms specifically confers Jurisdiction on the District Court to issue an Injunction when a claim is made upon the Voting Rights Act.”
“The majority of reasonable people even without a formal education would have no problem reading the Second Amended Complaint and understanding that the Federal Question is whether the enumerated rights set forth in the Voting Rights Act must be applied to the “Federal Election” commencing Monday in Tampa commonly known as the Republican National Convention.
So clearly does the RNC understand the Second Amended Complaint that they now are moving up the Nomination Vote to Monday. The failure to serve the Appellate Court with these documents, all of them, is fatal error and an affront to the dignity of the Appellate Court.”
(I am allowing the spelling errors to remain, much as it irritates me.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-0927 DOC (JPRx) Date: August 24, 2012
Title: DELEGATES TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, ET AL. -VREPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera N/A
Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: None Present
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AS MOOT
This Court previously ordered 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 August 20, 2012, Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 46).
As the Court explained in that Order to Show Cause:
[T]he 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.”).
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).
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
In addition, on August 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48). The next day, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (Dkt. 49).
Because the Court dismisses with prejudice, the Court DENIES AS MOOT that Motion.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this
It is the author’s opinion that, rather than bringing this kind of grievance to Federal court, fraud should be dealt with immediately and competently at the state level. To allow Big Government to make these decisions is indeed a fatal error, and one that is not in line with Ron Paul’s beliefs.
While another blow to liberty, this lawsuit can be a lesson for the future. Liberty minded people need to work from within the party to change it, rather than rely on the government to make things right. Asking a Federal Court to rule on a matter so dear to our hearts is the antithesis of the tenets of the Liberty Movement.
Though Ron Paul supporters are loyal to him, they are also loyal to the ideas that he espouses: personal liberty, sound money, and less government.
Our revolution will not happen in Federal Court. It will happen at the grassroots level.
“Spontaneous combustion of grassroots politics is the future.”