Gilbert’s New Lawsuit Without Merit, Motion to Dismiss Filed on Behalf of All 50 States

“It is unfortunate, considering that enthusiasm moves the world, that so few enthusiasts can be trusted to speak the truth.”

Arthur Balfour

Richard Gilbert, the attorney responsible for the fiasco that was the third-party delegate lawsuit, is at it again. This time, he filed with intent to take on ALL 50 states, a move that has his adherents elated, but skeptics view the lawsuit as an attempt at subterfuge once again.

The date assigned for the hearing is AFTER the election; the Ninth Circuit has scheduled it for December 17th. Gilbert’s motion to expedite was DENIED.  Gilbert claims that he has entered into resolutions or “settlements” (his words) with several states to count all write in votes unconditionally. Several people, including myself, have called county officials, the Secretary of States’ offices, as well as the offices of their State Attorney general, and all so far have reported that they have not heard anything about this lawsuit. Could it be because Gilbert has not entered into settlements with anyone, and that it’s all an elaborate scheme? I will let you be the judge.

Gilbert claims that he doesn’t want to “force” the court into a ruling…a smokescreen for the fact that the courts have already set a date for the hearing, well after the election. His newest schemes are outlined in a post from Facebook:

“We must have a conversation to discuss what is in the best interests of the Liberty Movement and our case.
It is possible the Court could make a Court Order that could dissolve our Resolutions with the many States we succeeded with.
From the beginning I have explained that the Courts will not help us because the Supreme Court has already ruled a State may limit it’s ballot access, so, we must tr
y to help ourselves and we did beyond my expectations.
I believe we should protect our achievements by not giving the Court the chance to make any Rulings.
This way our Resolutions remain binding.
Most important we have Agreements with enough battleground States such that if Ron Paul supporters vote the Liberty Movement will be responsible for defeating the Criminal Romney who rigged almost every State Convention and broke bones before going on to the Organized Crime Convention.
If we defeat Romney, the Liberty Movement will
become a powerhouse force and we will go after Obama.
Our next case is a lawsuit against the President to limit Executive Orders and declare Police State Executive Orders Unconstitutional.
We have Romney cornered and we can defeat him. We should take our gains and not risk them with the Court in my opinion. Let me know your opinion.” Richard Gilbert

However, the court date has already been chosen. You can view that here:

DAG Motion to Dismiss detailing

Gilbert’s claims of individual state settlements is false, according to the other motion to dismiss document, which states that the Department of the Attorney General in California has the authority to move on the behalf of all 50 states:

Defendant State of California’s Notice of Motion and
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
for Injunctive Relief
Attorney General of California
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 232650
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 323-6879
Fax: (916) 324-8835
Attorneys for Defendant, State of California
AMERICA, et al.,
Case No. 08:12-cv-1602-SVW-JPR
Date: December 17, 2012
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 6
Judge: The Honorable Stephen
V. Wilson
Trial Date: None
Action Filed: September 21, 2012
Case 8:12-cv-01602-SVW-JPR Document 16 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:216

Defendant State of California’s Notice of Motion and
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
for Injunctive Relief
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 17, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 6 of the above-entitled court,
located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, defendant State
of California (“California”), shall move, and hereby does move this Court for an
order pursuant to rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure dismissing the First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief
(“complaint”) by Plaintiffs Pepper Draper, et al. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).1
California moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted because the claims against defendants are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), California also moves to
dismiss this action, on the ground that any alleged limit California places on the
casting of write-in votes for President or Vice President at the General Election do
not amount to a violation of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1971).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), California also moves to
dismiss this action, on the ground that any alleged limit California places on the
casting of write-in votes for President or Vice President at the General Election do
not amount to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Additionally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), California
moves to dismiss the entire complaint on the ground that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this
1 Defendant State of California files this motion only on its own behalf, and
not on behalf of any other defendant named in this action. As such, this motion
should not be construed as an appearance on behalf of any other defendant.

California also requests that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice, as
Plaintiffs cannot cure the defects in their complaint to state a claim for relief. In addition, since the defenses raised in this motion by California equally apply to the
other defendants, California requests that the Court exercise its authority to sua
sponte dismiss all defendants from this action, regardless of whether they have
appeared in this matter.
This motion is made following a conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3
which took place on October 3, 2012, and again on October 15, 2012.
This motion shall be based upon this notice of motion and motion, the
accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings and papers on
file herein, and upon such further evidence, both oral and documentary, as may be
offered at the time of the hearing.
Dated: October 22, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
Attorney General of California
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/s/ Anthony P. O’Brien
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant
State of California
Case 8:12-cv-01602-SVW-JPR Document 16 Filed 10/22/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:218
Case Name: Draper, Pepper, et al. v. The 50 States, et al.
Case No. SACV12-1602-SVW (JPRx)
I hereby certify that on October 22, 2012, I electronically filed the following document
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:\
Defendant State of California’s Notice of Motion and
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
for Injunctive Relief
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will
be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 22, 2012 at
Sacramento, CA.
L. Carnahan /s/ L. Carnahan
Declarant Signature
Case 8:12-cv-01602-SVW-JPR Document 16 Filed 10/22/12 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:219

Here is the document:  10.22 DAG motion to dismiss including sua sponte dismiss for all other defendants.pdf

Here is a breakdown of the timeline of this new lawsuit:

9/21 case filed

10/2 case assigned

10/9 DAG Cali request extension and pro hac vice (to represent or waive all other states to come to Cali) but noted that motion to dismiss will be filed by 10/17

10/10 Gilbert opposes DAG to extend time

10/10 Judge orders waive of pro hac vice allows DAG Cali to represent ALL defendants for ‘motion to dismiss’ proceedings ONLY.

10/12 Gilbert files an amended complaint
(because he can never get it right the first time – now the time frame is pushed back)
“Plaintiffs allege that ten (10) States pennit their registered voters to Write-In the name of 2 any person the voter elects to vote for and will count their votes. The ten States are identified as 3 Alabama, California, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Vennont, 4 Delaware, and Rhode Island.”

10/12 Gilbert submits proof of service on Cali ONLY.

10/15 Gilbert files motion to expedite – and supplement (proof of service to DAG on ex parte motion)
“After notifying counsel for Defendants yesterday, October 15,2012, of my intention to file an ex parte request for the court to shorten time on a Motion for Expedited Trial, at
approximately 2:35 p.m. today I caused an email to be sent to counsel for Defendants, Anthony P .. O’Brien, Deputy Attorney General for California, who filed on behalf of all Defendants a Motion for Waiver of the Pro Hac Vice Requirement as well as a Motion to Extend Time on behalf of all Defendants combined with a request that a Ruling on California’s Motion to Dismiss be applied to all Defendants which the Court granted as to all Defendants, notifying him that ….”

10/16 DAG files opposition to expedite – noting that Gilbert’s use of the 10 day time frame does NOT apply as it only applies to racial voting issues AND that Gilbert filed an amended complaint – therefore moving the deadline back – but assuring the court their answer/motion to dismiss will be filed well before 10/25 anyhow.

10/17 Gilbert files an opposition to the DAG opposition to expedite

10/19 – Judge denies gilbert’s motion to expedite on the basis that it is merit-less and the 10 day rule is inapplicable to this case.

Yet another judge that seems to bluntly point out gilbert’s errors in his filing and application of the law he is trying to use:

“ The plain language of subsection 1971(e) demonstrates that this case does not fall within its ambit. First, this action is not brought by any Attorney General, so it is not a “proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (c).” Second, as the Fifth Circuit has recognized, subsection (e) “comes into play only upon a finding that persons have been deprived of rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C.A. § 1971(a) on account of race or color and that such deprivation was or is pursuant to a pattern or practice.” United
States v. Mayton, 335 F.2d 153, 160 (5th Cir. 1964). There is no allegation in this case that any plaintiff has been deprived on account of their race or color any rights or privileged protected by subsection (a).

Accordingly, the 10-day adjudication rule simply does not apply here.

Plaintiff’s basis for ex parte relief is meritless; the Application is DENIED.”

(timeline posted by Michelle Liberty Martin)

Add in today’s motions, and it looks like we’ve got ourselves another dismissal coming up. Yet, Gilbert tells a different story when he posts for his “plaintiffs” to see on Facebook. He has claimed “victory” in the form of “settlements” with several states:








Most, if not all of these states have been contacted by calls to the Attorney Generals’ offices. No one seems to have heard of this case.

Gilbert claims that his next move is to sue Obama, as evidenced by the post from Facebook. Is there no end to this loop? Many feel that the dismissal of the delegate lawsuit on the Friday before the Republican National Convention opened the door for the outrageous rules changes that bound all of the delegates; a move that was prompted by the court’s refusal to touch the delegate unbinding.

I will try to keep you updated with what is going on, and I will download ALL of the court documents into google docs for your perusal, and give a link.  I will also be speaking with several people who are involved in a write in effort that is totally independent of this Gilbert scheme. Stay tuned.

“People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.”

Otto Von Bismark

About angiedavidson75

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

24 Responses to Gilbert’s New Lawsuit Without Merit, Motion to Dismiss Filed on Behalf of All 50 States

  1. David Bierce says:

    I’m glad someone is following this GIlbert stuff. I need to find a better way to track cases. I can’t find anything from Gilberts Suits or the Gary Johnson v CPD or the Iowa Gary Johnson stuff.

    I’ve been linking to your stuff where it makes sense in hopes to make blogging a better gig for you. Though, my vote can’t be changed, I already did the absentee ballot for Polk County, unlessI we think “Vote Early and Vote Often” is a good motto 🙂

  2. fortheromneycartel says:

    You should stop taking cash from romney and take his dick out of your mouth!

  3. Yet there are still folks out there cheering for this incompetent man (Gilbert)… Boggles the mind…folks are so desperate that they cling to this man, even after having demonstrated his clear ineptitude previously… oh well.

    • David Bierce says:

      I was all excited about the initial lawsuit, and kept following it. Gilbert seemed to have a zeal. He expressed excitement about have Judge Carter. The argument he talked about sounded good. Then I read the lawsuit that was actually filed. Incoherent in describing why the court should intervene, addendums filed late, contained way too many plaintiffs making discovery an incomprehensible mess, made unreasonable demands of the defendants attorney. Then the first dismissal where the Judge spelled out exactly what argument had to be made in order for him to do anything. Then Gilbert tweeting about how he already had a response written and it was a winner! At that point, I lost all faith in the Gilbert suit, then he did a mass blocking of people on twitter, then he got dismissed with prejudice. Then he continues talking about and filing things that just don’t make sense given the reality…. Yeah, people that still cheer him on are listening to his facebook page and twitter feed and ignoring is past major failures….I guess since I can sit down and type a big paragraph about it means I might be kind of bitter. 🙂

    • I read this comment on another blog and it probably needs to be repeated at this point (with my addition in parenthesis): “Fear (and rage) will cause you to run from the devil with his mask off to the arms of the devil with his mask on.”

      I may not be the brightest person in the world; but I am more likely to trust doctors more than lawyers.

      Dr. Paul in 2012!

      • 🙂 Very relevant. I am moving to a new blog, and I have this as a quote on my new site. You might like it: “Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can’t leave their own, hapless subjects alone….” Joseph Scotchie

  4. 4Liberty says:

    Well Done!

  5. KC Ted says:

    IP Address

    Verizon Fios






    DMA Code

    Area Code

    Postal Code

  6. Michelle Martin says:

    THANK YOU Angie Davidson! I know it must be a thankless job – reporting the truth in the face of the troll attacks. Stay strong and…..’speak the truth, even if your voice shakes’.

    People need to wake up – this man is doing a dis-service to the liberty movement.

    I am beginning to wonder if his little following, I am referring to those that defend him viciously even in the face of factual information, are individuals at all….and instead are some sort of paid opposition. I just can’t figure how anyone with a brain cell would STILL be on board with anything he says or does….or believe anything coming out of his mouth.

  7. Lori says:

    First… The fact Richard Gilbert is standing against the party system is a good thing. The documented evidence and televised fraud during the Republican primary was disgusting! You who believe that we should be handed candidates by Goldman Sachs and not have an opportunity to hear from all candidates are delusional! We have been given the illusion of choice. Thank you Richard Gilbert for raging against the machine!

    • I don’t personally associate with anyone who is a Romney or Obama supporter. However, I would think that filing a suit in federal court would be the antithesis of the beliefs of the liberty movement and of Dr. Paul.

    • While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I have to disagree. It is amazing that those who support Gilbert cannot seem to do anything but throw ad hominem around. If you had bothered to read any of the rest of this blog you would realize that I am nowhere near supportive of those “Goldman Sachs” candidates, and never have been. You can also read all about the convention fraud as well as all of the crap that went on during the election cycle on this page. Please check your facts before making assumptions about others…

  8. Pingback: Gilbert’s New Lawsuit Without Merit, Motion to Dismiss Filed on Behalf of All 50 States « LittleMargaretNan

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