“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”
You can see the original document here.
Some folks are asking what this means, and there is a lot of misinformation being passed around on Facebook and on YouTube. It’s fairly simple; it means that this lawsuit is over. Nothing else can be filed. The court will not take any more filings related to the case at all. Everything is DENIED.
Interestingly, Gilbert did not inform his Facebook fans right away that the writ was denied. On September 6th, in response to a question about why the court had not yet ruled, he replied, “I believe the Court is writing a very historic decision. This Appellate Court has only had the case 25 days. Their work needs to stand up to the United States Supreme Court.”
However, the decision was filed and in the court’s electronic system on September 5th. Why did Gilbert mislead those who were waiting for the ruling? A response to the above comment was posted on the same thread. Seems that not everyone is so trusting of Gilbert:
“The appellate writ was denied. Straight from the ECF filed by the judge on 9.5.12.
Straight from the court’s electronic system. strange you wouldn’t have this Richard Gilbert it was filed 9-5-12, electronically, well before you commented back. Beginning to think we should verify everything you say – this isn’t the first time I have seen you say something that isn’t quite up front.” name withheld
Gilbert’s track record isn’t exemplary. In 1990, he was criticized by the Orange County Bar Association for making “improper personal attacks” on the judge of a high-profile case that he lost. The case dealt with a surrogate mother who wanted to retain parental rights of the baby she gave birth to.
The presiding judge, Court Judge Richard N. Parslow Jr., rejected the claim and awarded full custody and parental rights to the natural parents.
In response, Gilbert made a remark to the media that the judge “was not bonded to his brain.” This outraged several attorneys, who complained to the Bar association. In response to the complaint, the Bar association passed a resolution that said, ” lawyers who disagree with a judge’s rulings should confine their criticisms to the case at hand and refrain from personal attacks on the judge.”
Newport Beach attorney Stuart P. Jasper, a member of the Bar association’s board of directors, was very offended. In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, Jasper called Gilbert’s remark a “cheap shot” and said that Gilbert “is an embarrassment to the 8,000 lawyers in Orange County who have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the profession–and the public’s respect for it.”
Jasper said that he abstained from the vote on the resolution, because Gilbert’s partner (and wife) Diane Marlowe, called him to ask for a deposition in a suit that was being filed against him
You can read the article here.
After losing a second surrogate mother case, Gilbert sued the State Bar of California in order to be able to practice law without being a member of the Bar.
Gilbert filed suit in the U.S. District Court, with the contention that he should not be obligated to belong to an organization that advocated “the flesh-peddling of human babies for profit.” He said that his case would “Bring down the State Bar.”
The Bar’s president, John M. Seitman commented, “Mr. Gilbert can wish what he wants. . . That issue has been debated for years, and members (of the Bar) have consistently demanded that there be a unified Bar.” You can read that story here.
The most bizarre of these cases, however, has to be Smelt v. United States, in which Gilbert was a key player. Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer retained Gilbert to sue the government, alleging that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the U.S. Constitution. Smelt and Hammer were married in CA but lost their same-sex rights under Prop 8.
Hammer and Smelt wanted ALL states to recognize their marriage, which was legal before Prop 8, under the laws of California. It’s a case that sounds pretty above-board until you figure out what Gilbert’s plan was…
“We’re hoping to use the case in court as a springboard to get a proposition on the ballot that will break up California into two states,” said Gilbert “We think if we can get this proposition on the ballot, we think we’ll win.”
Yes, folks. Gilbert thought that his case would divide California into two separate states; one where those who believed in marriage equality could live (New California), and to the south, the other, which would remain California.
Gilbert likened his client’s situation to Dredd Scott and the decision in 1857 that contributed to the start of the Civil War. “We don’t want a civil war,” Gilbert said. “We just want to have civil division in our state between people who are willing to respect the rights of all people and those who are not.” You can read the article here.
The order dismissing this case can be found here.
In 1994, Gilbert was the defense attorney in the case of Cynthia Medina, a woman accused of torturing and sexually abusing her 10-year-old nephew. Gilbert called for dismissal of all of the charges against Medina, saying that California’s laws on torture were too vague and that they were unconstitutional.
Medina was accused of burning the child’s tongue with heated knives and whipping him with electrical cords. Authorities alleged that in one incident, she seared his tongue again for playing with her marijuana cigarettes and then beat and sodomized him with a miniature baseball bat, causing severe internal injuries.
Gilbert complained that under the state’s torture statute almost anyone could be charged with the crime. He also accused the district attorney’s office of singling out his client.
Medina pleaded not guilty, and was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation, after the court denied Gilbert’s request for dismissal of all charges. Medina was charged with three counts of felony child abuse and one count of torture. The former elementary school playground supervisor was also accused of abusing her own 9-year-old son.
Gilbert said that he consulted with a therapist that concluded that Medina was not competent to stand trial. You can read about that here.
Medina was judged sane. Gilbert conceded that she had abused the boy. However, he argued that she was innocent because she didn’t know right from wrong, even though she had been found to be competent and to understand that what she did was wrong.
“The level of anger within people is so great about this case that I think it would be difficult for any jury to evaluate the issues dispassionately,” Gilbert said.
“It’s like trying to seat a dispassionate jury to try Adolf Hitler,” he said. “It just can’t be done.”
Medina was given a life sentence. She was the first person in Orange county to be convicted of torture. Gilbert argued that the torture charge was too harsh. “This case was child abuse–very serious child abuse,” Gilbert said. “I do think this is a case of over-reaching.”
Investigators said the case was among the most wrenching they have dealt with, and that the boy may never recover emotionally. You can read about this decision here.
Gilbert has been a key player in several high-profile cases and has lost most of them. However, his next scheme is to take on all 50 states to change the election laws on write-in candidates. Here is his latest video:
I am personally concerned that some have gone too far in their pursuit of a federal response. While the lawsuit may have had merit (if it had been presented and argued correctly), attempting to subvert the will of the states on election laws is completely against what Ron Paul believes. I am uneasy about the fact that while Gilbert’s heart may be in the right place, he has been disrespectful to our elected officials, has been censured by the California Bar, and has lost several very prominent cases due to irrelevant or incomplete arguments and evidence. This raises a very large red flag, in my opinion.
Ron Paul has stated that he will not run third-party. Deadlines have passed in most states to be considered as a write in candidate, and I’m not so sure that Dr. Paul planned to do anything beyond the convention. While I would sincerely be grateful to see him as our President, I am realistic. I believe that Ron Paul passed the torch to those of us who are intent upon uniting under the liberty banner…not to sue in federal court for something that he most likely doesn’t want, and to further divide among ourselves.
Rather than focusing on what we cannot change, I believe that we should prepare ourselves for continuing the fight at the state and local levels. Fighting in a federal court does not change what has happened, and will not change it, as evidenced by these dismissals. The tenets of the liberty movement do not include, “so sue them.”
My fight for liberty will continue at the grassroots level, not in a courtroom.
“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson