Third Party Ron Paul Delegate Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice


“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.)

Rather than go into a lengthy explanation, I will let the Order to Dismiss with Prejudice speak for itself. You can also view it here online.

Case No. SACV 12-0927 DOC (JPRx) Date: August 24, 2012
Julie Barrera N/A
Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter


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
with prejudice[.]”).

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.”

Dick Morris

About angiedavidson75

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

16 Responses to Third Party Ron Paul Delegate Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice

  1. …and there it predicted. The culmination of incompetence…

  2. Pingback: Third Party Ron Paul Delegate Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice | THE JEENYUS CORNER « The Jeenyus Corner

  3. Pat Jack says:

    This sets “precedence”, and in general weakens the Voting Rights Act and sets the stage for private organizations to exercise more illegal and unlawful control over our voting rights. The corporatists and the FASCIST pigs WIN!

    IGNORANCE and fear have ruled the day, a desire to assassinate the messenger and the hero, born of jealousy and pure ignorance has ruled the day. You have served your masters well.

    Richard Gilbert is a one out of a MILLION lawyer who fought valiantly under withering fire from all corners for our right to vote our conscience and NOBODY else has any solution other than to bow to the whims, in one form or another, to the Republican Party and now, she wants money for assisting in chopping Gilbert to pieces and gleefully sides with those that destroyed him, with the government’s judge, and with the perps themselves.

    Ignorance rules the day. But hey, those who opposed and maligned Gilbert, the judge, the GOP, and all those brilliant liberty patriots can only be summed up with one phrase, “I am great”.

  4. Emperor Constantine says:

    To the commenter Pat Jack (who is on the Executive Committee for the Lawyer For Ron Paul, whatever that means):
    You are right about one thing, ignorance does rule the day, but the ignorance lies with you and the other lawsuit bots. Any literate 8 year old in the country can read over Gilbert’s appallingly bad complaint(s) and see the fatal errors. And even an illiterate person would know that when a Judge gives you explicit instructions on how to FIX your incompetently drafted legal filing (by including the particularity required to have it heard in Federal Court), you should probably listen to those simple instructions. Richard did not. Instead, amazingly, he files a 2nd amended complaint with even less specificity than the 1st complaint!
    The end result was utterly predictable to anyone with a brain. Otherwise, Mr. Jack, would you care to explain how so many of us knew this result 3 months ago and verbally emphasized that this was going to happen? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t clairvoyance! It was Gilbert’s track-record as an attorney who meddles in areas in which he has no competence (e.g. gay marriage/DOMA where he thought that by winning the Smelt’s case, it would cause California to be split into two states, one gay-friendly, one not; Judge Carter dismissed it because it was filed wrong, Richard appealed until The US Supreme Court dismissed it in 2009). He was arrogant and hostile right off-the-bat to those who asked for information, got basic legal concepts wrong and has lied to the plaintiffs (e.g. “litigation privileges” and “we’ve tentatively won!”), and was posting pro-Obama, pro-ObamaCare messages on his Twitter feed (@USA_Free_Press) as late as the 2nd week in May.
    I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

  5. Did the parking lot Delegates hire this guy?

  6. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General says:
    • Draw for Liberty says:

      Very interesting! Applaud your work and integrity too. And Gilbert? I could not find him on second link but I was focused on judges… wow. Is that common in most states and I’ve just never heard of it?

      • Dave J says:

        So what do you know of someone’s integrity from a weird ass comment to a blog? And what makes you capable of evaluating his/her “work”. It looks less like work and more like the product of a non-legally trained shut-in with too much time on his hand. How mch you wanna bet that this high-integrity libertarian is either living with mommy in her basement, or milking a disability/work comp claim so he/she can write fantasy legal pleadings for his fantasy law court? Now wouldn’t that smack of integrity? Hmmm?

      • I am going to assume that you are referring to Gilbert…who is actually an attorney, though a terrible one.

  7. Jimmy says:

    Our country is in peril. The court should be a transparent, unbiased, unaffiliated, & unemotional vehicle for justice. That the court is offended shouldn’t be an issue. Oppression reigns when good men do nothing or fail to act towards freedom.

  8. WinterWind says:

    “…three core beliefs…” have not been in the Republican Party for decades though I understand your belief in the party platform they pushed on us year after year. The grassroots of Americans will be what saves the country.

    You just need to read a great book out about Americans standing up to federal tyranny (corporate political parties) & end up starting the 2nd American Revolution. Kind of like what happened in 1776. I recommend it cause it’s so real of today’s events. http://www.booksbyoliver. It’s a must read.

    Last year I contacted my state Republican Party headquarters to find out how I could try to run as a national delegate. The packet arrived and all it asked me was how much money I have donated and how many hours I worked for republican candidates in the past 10 years. Well, so much for the ‘little man’ getting involved in the party & it showed how little I really mean to the Republicans unless I gave money.

  9. Ron K says:

    Hit every fraudster in the RNC with a Commercial LIEN for 1 Billion dollars for damages to freedom of choice, they will start acting lawful real quick. It is very easy and cheap to do and no judge can close it until the bastards pay up or the one who put the lien closes it or they wait 99 years.

  10. Pingback: Freedom Feens Blog » Hey Republicans, I TOLD YOU SO! Ha Ha!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s