Gilbert Falsely Claims Settlement, Removes Several States from Lawsuit

“Truth fears no questions.”


Richard Gilbert, the attorney that has sued all 50 states in an effort to force write- in votes to be counted, has asked the court to remove several states as defendants from his suit.

Gilbert and his followers have claimed “settlement” with these states on Facebook and Twitter, taking credit for write- in votes being counted in the upcoming election. Here is that document, which was filed in the U.S. Central District Court of CA. You can click on the photo to see the original:

However, here’s the rub: These states are those in which write- in votes are ALREADY counted, either without conditions, or by registration within a certain time period. Here are those laws, state by state:

Rhode Island: There is no declaration requirement to run as a “Write-In” candidate for any office, including President. You are able to view state code, an FAQ, and other

Richard Gilbert Oct. 22, 2012
Breaking News –
The State of RHODE ISLAND has just completed a Resolution with Plaintiffs to Count All Write In Votes (via Facebook)

information pertaining to elections at the State of Rhode Island‘s Board of Elections website.

Maryland: Voters follow special instructions for electronic voting to vote for someone who is not on the ballot. While Maryland requires candidates who intend to run as a write- in candidate to file a Certificate of Candidacy ,(which is due the Wed. before the election) a voter may write in a name on the ballot and that is sufficient enough to be counted. You can view that information here.

Oregon: There is no procedure for write -ins in Oregon in order for votes to be counted. From the Oregon code on elections:

254.548 Individual nominated or elected by write-in votes; form; rules.(1) An individual nominated or elected to a public office by write-in votes shall sign and file a form indicating that the individual accepts the nomination or office before the filing officer may issue a certificate of nomination or election. The Secretary of State by rule shall prescribe the form to be used under this section.

(2) In the case of an individual nominated or elected by write-in votes to a public office:

(a) Not later than the 30th day after the election, the filing officer shall prepare and deliver the form described in subsection (1) of this section to the individual;

(b) Not later than the 45th day after the election, if the individual accepts the nomination or office, the individual shall sign and file the form with the filing officer; and

(c) Not later than the 50th day after the election, if the individual files the form by the deadline specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the filing officer shall prepare and deliver a certificate of nomination or election to the individual and, if applicable, issue a proclamation declaring the election of the candidate to the office. [1991 c.719 §56; 2005 c.157 §1]

Wisconsin: Initially, WI law states that a write- in candidate must file a Declaration of Candidacy along with a list of 10 electors by October 23rd, (yesterday), however, there is a clause that allows for getting around that date:

Compliance with this subsection may be waived by the board but only if the results of the general election indicate that a write-in candidate for the office of president is eligible to receive the electoral votes of this state except for noncompliance with this subsection. In such event, the write-in candidate shall have until 4:30 p.m. on the Friday following the general election to comply with the filing requirements of this subsection.

In effect, those votes would be counted as well. For more information, you can visit Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board website.

New Hampshire: There is no procedure for write- in votes in New Hampshire. There is a space included on the ballot for write- ins for President. Those votes are counted.

Washington DC: DC is not actually a state, so their laws are a bit different, and they are limited to three electors. They allow write- in votes for all offices.

Maine: Congressman Ron Paul is officially on the ballot as a write- in candidate in Maine. Maine registered for him to be a write in candidate in September.

Oct. 17, 2012
Breaking News – Exclusive
The State of Washington has reached a full Agreement just now with Plaintiffs to the Write In Case.
Washington Agrees to permit Unconditionally any Write In Vote and will declare the Write In the winner of the State if the Write In gets the most votes without any restrictions.
Spread the word! (via Facebook)

Washington: In this state, write- ins are allowed, and you can file to be declared as a candidate. However, even if you have not filed, the votes will be counted if they are sufficient enough to determine a change in the outcome of the race. You can view that information here, as well as on the Secretary of State’s website.

Wyoming: According to the Voter’s Guide for Wyoming, if you want to vote for someone whose name does not appear on the ballot, you can simply write the name of the individual in the space provided and blacken the oval next to the name.

Iowa: Iowa counts write -in votes as long as they are cast for a real person. I confirmed this with my county auditor, as well as the Secretary of State’s office and the Office of the Attorney General. In fact, Iowa specifically asked to be removed from this lawsuit; a fact that Gilbert has not advertised. Here is a copy of the correspondence that Gilbert received from the Iowa Attorney General‘s office:

What is disconcerting is that Gilbert’s claims of a “successful settlement” with Iowa is an outright fabrication. Iowa has always counted write- in votes unconditionally and that has not changed with this legislative session. Gilbert was asked to remove our state, which he is doing, but any claims of settlement or resolution are entirely false.

Gilbert posted on Facebook:

“The purpose of our Write In Case is to promote the strength of the Liberty Movement and make the nation witness the Liberty Movement’s power in bringing down a Presidential candidate, in this case Romney.

This will blast open the door for a Liberty Candidate to win the nomination in 2016.

The Two States of importance to deny Romney a path to victory will be Wisconsin and Iowa.

We have Settlement/Resolution Agreements with both to permit our Write In Candidate of choice and have the votes counted.

Romney is leading in the Gallup poll by 6 points. Even if Romney wins the popular vote with our case plan of defeating Romney in Iowa and Wisconsin the Electoral College will defeat Romney with these votes roughly:

277 — 206″

Another post from the previous day:

Richard Gilbert

Friday, October 19 at 11:36pm

“Analysts Consulting with US Intelligence Agencies have predicted that the States of Iowa and Wisconsin will play a pivotal role in the Presidential Election.

Plaintiffs for the Write In case have successfully resolved with both Wisconsin and Iowa that All Write In Ballots will be counted.

In the months leading up to the Organized Crime Convention in Tampa I stated many times:

“No one, and I mean No one, pushes around a Ron Paul Delegate and politically survives.

1. No Party Unity

2 No Unanymous Nomination

3. No Romney Presidency”

These statements, in my opinion, are outright lies. You can reach the Attorney General offices of both of these states to confirm at the links below.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen

It is also important to note that it is the offices of the Secretary of State, NOT the Attorney General’s office, that handles elections.

Here are links for those offices:

Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Iowa

Wisconsin Secretary of State, Doug La Follete

All ten of these states that Gilbert and his team are claiming that they have reached settlement or resolution with to count write- in votes already do so, or have Ron Paul listed as a write in candidate.

Therefore, any claims of settlement or resolution by Gilbert with Maine, Rhode Island, Iowa, New Hampshire, Washington D.C., Maryland, Oregon, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Washington are fabrications.

Note: Content published on Facebook through a public setting can be used by anyone as long as it is attributed to the source.

Note: Some folks have been told that the court documents that have been included in these blogs have been stolen from Richard Gilbert or his private groups. I am not a member of any of their groups; nor have I “stolen” information. Court documents are public record, and for a fee, may be accessed through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER system:

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service.

You may sign up for an account with PACER at this link: Public Access to Court Electronic Records

“Let a man’s zeal, profession, or even principles as to political measures be what they will, if he is without personal integrity and private virtue, as a man he is not to be trusted.”

John Witherspoon

About angiedavidson75

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

27 Responses to Gilbert Falsely Claims Settlement, Removes Several States from Lawsuit

  1. K.M. says:

    Thank you for bringing forth the truth. It is much appreciated. RG has caused so much friction in the Liberty movement for months now. I personally see him as a nasty boil.

    • I really just wish that so many people had not fallen for the scheme. I am very angered at what happened with the first case and the rules changes made at the Convention. The timing coincided quite perfectly.

  2. Pingback: Gilbert Falsely Claims Settlement, Removes Several States from Lawsuit « LittleMargaretNan

  3. robertfallin says:

    Gilbert seems to personify that old joke, “What do they call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff? A good start.” Honestly, can ANYONE take this guy seriously anymore?

  4. Angie,

    All your hard work on this is deeply appreciated. Gilbert originally called himself one of the “Lawyers for Ron Paul,” which lent him credibility, because there was a group of lawyers (including deans of law schools, as I recall) who announced their intention to campaign for Paul. At one time there was an official announcement about it on the RonPaul2012 website.

    One hopes to be able to think the best of people, at least regarding their intentions; but it appears in these cases Gilbert has bitten off more than he can chew, at the very least.

    Thank you, again, for getting to the bottom of some of the questions so many of us have had.


  5. Andy says:

    I think the whole effort is a waste. With Gary Johnson–who’s only real differences with Ron Paul are in style–on the ballot in 48 states (I believe this is the current number) the whole effort should be to make sure write in votes are accepted in those two states and use that as precedent if it’s needed in the future. To split the liberty vote between Johnson and Paul is ludicrous. It makes the movement look every bit as fractured as the major parties believe it is. It also makes it look like it’s all a cult of personality around Ron Paul and not real principles. I think the liberty movement is basically defeating itself if they go through with this. I could understand if the Libertarians were putting Bob Barr back up there they aren’t. They have a real liberty candidate with a successful record and we should support him.

    • Jeff says:

      Gary Johnson is abouty 150 degrees away from Ron Paul. He is seriously a problem. Since he thinks the Federal Reserve is part of the government he is no one I could vote for or support in a zillion years. At least Virgil Goode is running on a sound Party Platform. The Libertarian Party is a Koch Brothers tool.

    • I don’t agree. There are too many people that are involved in this movement that will not stand behind a Libertarian candidate…one that is pro-choice. There are so many different types of folks involved, and the Midwest has a strong social conservative/traditional Republican element that will never vote for someone that is not pro-life. I understand where you are coming from, but I have to remember that not everyone that has the same goals has the same “principles”, and it would further fracture the movement to ask them to vote against those principles.

  6. Will Carpenter says:

    All I can say is… DaYuM!!! A lot of work went into this Op Ed and it is fantastic… thank’s for keeping it real Angie!

    • Thanks, Will! I try to answer comments, but it’s been so insane lately. Glad that you are reading! I am migrating to a self hosted site soon….more freedom with my content. I hope everyone will move with me!

  7. Pat says:

    To be perfectly fair, title is misleading as is the article. He never claimed settlement. He claimed settlement / resolution. Finding that some of the states already had write-ins allowed on the ballot and removing them from the suit is a resolution, not a settlement.

  8. Editor says:

    Whatever your feelings about RG, you can validate your vote by a notarized affidavit. Please review the information here:

    We are the R3VOLution! Make this go viral . . .

    Write in your favorite liberty candidate rather than “the equal of two evils.”

    Ron Paul says this project is “worthwhile” and “welcomed.”

    • Gilbert Richards says:

      No, you can’t “validate” you vote by affadavit, but if you want to help a notary make a living and feel good about yourself, go for it.

      • True! Our ballots actually had affadavits to be signed before you sent them in. As much as I support the idea behind the write in effort, I do those things on my own….

  9. /
    check this out it is legitimit

  10. Hey Angie, thanks for putting this stuff out there. Personally I have been planning on writing in Ron Paul all along, but I have been mostly wary of Mr. Gilbert. There was a time when I did give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I new from the start it was a little bold of him, and no where near accurate, to claim to be “Lawyer from Ron Paul”. At the time it made sense. Ron Paul’s own campaign wasn’t standing up for Ron Paul’s rights, so a grassroots network arose to do it for them. But what we had was two extremes: Ron Paul’s own campaign which dropped the ball several times (we all know about Jesse Benton) on the one hand, and now the Lawyers for Ron Paul guys who act like they are more Ron Paul than even Ron Paul is. I think they are just overzealous people who are now in so deep they can’t pull himself out even if they wanted to. And it comes at the price of looking like kooks but acting like everyone else is.

    • You’re very welcome. I am sorry that I didn’t reply sooner…things have been crazy with the election looming, and well, it’s here. Ron Paul’s campaign WAS doing something, but it was quietly in the background, which made more sense. And I agree…they’re in too deep now. My husband said, “I think Gilbert just picks stuff out of the newspaper to take credit for!”

      • I guess the campaign had its own strategy. But they sure dismayed a lot of people by acting clueless and or dispassionate. I still think good thoughts about some members of the team. But Jesse Benton makes my blood boil.

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