A Ron Paul Vote is Not a Wasted Vote

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” 

George Washington

Just filled out my ballot today. I made sure to make a copy, even though I know my vote will count in Iowa. I actually called the Secretary of State’s office as well as the county auditor, just to make sure it counts.


I keep hearing on Facebook that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote, and that if I were a true Libertarian, I would give my vote to Gary Johnson. Actually, Johnson is constantly pounded into my head, endorsed on my wall, and filling up my email. A couple of things, folks.

I am not a Libertarian.

I may have some Libertarian leanings. I could care less about gay marriage, however , I think that comes more from atheism than anything else. I don’t care who you love or sleep with; it’s not my business. I am married…a “gay” marriage doesn’t threaten my marriage, nor do I have a religious issue with homosexuality. While it is not my preference, I simply do not care. I think we have more important issues to be concerned with. Which leads me to the next subject…

I am NOT pro-choice, at least not in the sense that liberals are. While I don’t feel that it’s the governments’ business to interfere with an individual’s decisions, I am a mom, and abortion is something that I cannot condone. Now…do I think it should be outlawed? No. Why not? Outlawing abortion will not make it go away, but it will make it less safe. Women have been doing it for thousands of years; that is not going to change. But, while it is legal it is supervised. And, we have some control. We can demand education on adoption as a viable alternative. Outlaw abortion, and you will see just what the consequences are in terms of the lives of beautiful children. Rather than performed in a medical setting, you will lose women to back alley abortionists and unwanted babies to dumpsters. Education and prevention is key.

Gary Johnson is purported to support continued drone attacks on Pakistan and Yemen. I have friends in Pakistan that worry about their children walking to school every single day. Americans are the boogeyman because we are BOMBING them, not because the Imam is preaching against us. We can’t seem to learn that being the bully is not the solution…under whatever “humanitarian” guise we try to label it.

Israel? Not my problem. Not my business. Johnson believes that we need to maintain aid and alliance with Israel. I say I would rather that my neighborhood have a new pool, my neighbors and I pay lower taxes and my kids get a better education. Israel should pay for Israel.

Iran? The most ridiculous lie of them all, straight from the establishment Look at Saddam, look at Gaddafi, look at GOLD, and then look at Iran. Pretty easy to put together, and guess what? It does not involve WMD.

So…back to my ballot. We may have lost the race, but we have not lost sight of the goal. I am GOP…I will not change. Giving up is giving in.

You own your vote; I own mine. Neither one of us have a chance in this election. However, I suggest that you be selfish. Vote for YOU. And get involved locally and at the state level. 2012 may be a lost cause, but 2014 and 2016 are not. Promote liberty as you see fit, but don’t come down on others for making choices that are different from yours, if it’s all aligned to the same goal.

Vote Gary Johnson or vote Ron Paul…vote according to what YOU believe, not what others are telling you to do. It’s your decision, and the consequences are yours as well, Just be sure that you are willing to accept them

I am honored to be a part of this movement with all of you, whatever your decision may be. Together, we change the course of our nation, even if it is with baby steps.

In Liberty,


“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”

John Stuart Mill

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

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

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 27 Comments

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
E-mail: Anthony.OBrien@doj.ca.gov
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

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 24 Comments