Who's Going To Win The Presidential Election...?
Josh Robinson
2012/06/15 19:17:38
SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) - In a revolt against Romney, at least 40 more
national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a
lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney
said hundreds more may soon follow suit.
The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued
the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in
the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote
for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican
National Convention, including the first.
The delegates claim
the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty
affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he
is not yet the official nominee.
They also claimed that state
party chairmen are fixing elections at state conventions and changing
ballots so that all votes cast count for Romney.
"When
nominating someone for a federal office, all delegates must be free to
vote their conscience," Richard Gilbert, of Gilbert & Marlowe,
attorney for the delegates, told Courthouse News in an interview
Thursday.
"They don't want to be bound to any candidate, or even
be forced to vote for the nominee," Gilbert said. "To have a real
convention, the delegates must have free will so that when they meet,
they can persuade each other and then decide who to vote for."
Gilbert
said that the public is unaware that the party is rigging elections and
committing voting fraud. But he said he has more than 100 signed
affidavits from delegates to support these allegations.
"Some campaigns act like organized crime syndicates - and I mean organized crime, no doubt about it," Gilbert said.
"In
Arizona, the voting machines were rigged so that Ron Paul votes were
counted as Mitt Romney votes. It was so intentional that a Romney
delegate refused to certify the vote count, and for that he got thrown
off the convention."
The Party's Rule 11 prevents changing rules
within 30 days of a convention, but Gilbert said that chairmen and
organizers often change rules the day before a convention - and
sometimes in the middle of one - to deny a quorum or rig an outcome.
The
delegates say in their complaint that the defendants threatened
violence against those who don't support Romney, and had men in dark
clothing come to conventions and physically remove people who refuse to
vote for him.
"I have nothing against Romney's politics, it's
his behavior," Gilbert said. "He's the one who chose to run his campaign
based on intimidation and violate federal law."
Gilbert said this is the first time in 30 years that the issue has been brought before the court.
"It's
really serious," he said. "People don't realize that delegates aren't
chosen on the Tuesday primaries like they think.
"For example,
Ron Paul got 16 of the 19 delegates in Massachusetts, which is a pretty
serious vote of no-confidence in Romney from his own state, but I know
that my friends and family aren't aware of this."
Gilbert said
he wants to get the case heard as soon as possible so that all
rightfully elected delegates are seated at the National Convention in
August, and are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.
"The
hour is late and short, but we won't just stand by and let the
Republican National Convention get away with disenfranchising voters,"
Gilbert said.
"I'd love to line up all the criminals and take them on a perp walk through court."
The
case will be heard by U.S. Judge David Carter, though no hearing dates
have been set because more than 100 defendants need to be served.
Gilbert described Carter as a strict judge, who is fair and honest.
"If
the judge rules in our favor, I won't be surprised if three or four new
candidates, say Sarah Palin, jump in and say they want to be
considered," Gilbert said.
"It will be the most interesting national convention in my lifetime if the judge rules for us on this."
Legally,
the case may hinge on whether the judge accepts the plaintiffs' claim
that the nominating convention is a "federal" election. Courts have
traditionally given the two major political parties considerable leeway
in managing their own affairs, for instance, in whether state parties
may hold open or closed primaries.
national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a
lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney
said hundreds more may soon follow suit.
The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued
the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in
the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote
for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican
National Convention, including the first.
The delegates claim
the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty
affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he
is not yet the official nominee.
They also claimed that state
party chairmen are fixing elections at state conventions and changing
ballots so that all votes cast count for Romney.
"When
nominating someone for a federal office, all delegates must be free to
vote their conscience," Richard Gilbert, of Gilbert & Marlowe,
attorney for the delegates, told Courthouse News in an interview
Thursday.
"They don't want to be bound to any candidate, or even
be forced to vote for the nominee," Gilbert said. "To have a real
convention, the delegates must have free will so that when they meet,
they can persuade each other and then decide who to vote for."
Gilbert
said that the public is unaware that the party is rigging elections and
committing voting fraud. But he said he has more than 100 signed
affidavits from delegates to support these allegations.
"Some campaigns act like organized crime syndicates - and I mean organized crime, no doubt about it," Gilbert said.
"In
Arizona, the voting machines were rigged so that Ron Paul votes were
counted as Mitt Romney votes. It was so intentional that a Romney
delegate refused to certify the vote count, and for that he got thrown
off the convention."
The Party's Rule 11 prevents changing rules
within 30 days of a convention, but Gilbert said that chairmen and
organizers often change rules the day before a convention - and
sometimes in the middle of one - to deny a quorum or rig an outcome.
The
delegates say in their complaint that the defendants threatened
violence against those who don't support Romney, and had men in dark
clothing come to conventions and physically remove people who refuse to
vote for him.
"I have nothing against Romney's politics, it's
his behavior," Gilbert said. "He's the one who chose to run his campaign
based on intimidation and violate federal law."
Gilbert said this is the first time in 30 years that the issue has been brought before the court.
"It's
really serious," he said. "People don't realize that delegates aren't
chosen on the Tuesday primaries like they think.
"For example,
Ron Paul got 16 of the 19 delegates in Massachusetts, which is a pretty
serious vote of no-confidence in Romney from his own state, but I know
that my friends and family aren't aware of this."
Gilbert said
he wants to get the case heard as soon as possible so that all
rightfully elected delegates are seated at the National Convention in
August, and are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.
"The
hour is late and short, but we won't just stand by and let the
Republican National Convention get away with disenfranchising voters,"
Gilbert said.
"I'd love to line up all the criminals and take them on a perp walk through court."
The
case will be heard by U.S. Judge David Carter, though no hearing dates
have been set because more than 100 defendants need to be served.
Gilbert described Carter as a strict judge, who is fair and honest.
"If
the judge rules in our favor, I won't be surprised if three or four new
candidates, say Sarah Palin, jump in and say they want to be
considered," Gilbert said.
"It will be the most interesting national convention in my lifetime if the judge rules for us on this."
Legally,
the case may hinge on whether the judge accepts the plaintiffs' claim
that the nominating convention is a "federal" election. Courts have
traditionally given the two major political parties considerable leeway
in managing their own affairs, for instance, in whether state parties
may hold open or closed primaries.
















To my knowledge there hasn't been a reported rift in the Paul family at this point.
At this point the people that think Paul is heading to the fall are just sad.
The liberty movement will have to make a decision now what we will be doing post National Convention.
Option A: Join Forces with the Republican Party
Pro's: More Republican Voters will listen to us
Con's: The Republican Establishment only wants our vote nothing more, we can despise them till the sun runs out, but as long as we vote for them they don't care.
Option B: Start a Write-in Campaign for Ron Paul
Pro's: Ron Paul doesn't have to run third party, citizens can do write-in campaign
Con's: First off even if a Write-in candidate wins the popular vote, write-in candidates receive 0 electoral vote (unless we have faithless electors), that's because write-in campaigns are not official campaigns in the mind of the electi...
The liberty movement will have to make a decision now what we will be doing post National Convention.
Option A: Join Forces with the Republican Party
Pro's: More Republican Voters will listen to us
Con's: The Republican Establishment only wants our vote nothing more, we can despise them till the sun runs out, but as long as we vote for them they don't care.
Option B: Start a Write-in Campaign for Ron Paul
Pro's: Ron Paul doesn't have to run third party, citizens can do write-in campaign
Con's: First off even if a Write-in candidate wins the popular vote, write-in candidates receive 0 electoral vote (unless we have faithless electors), that's because write-in campaigns are not official campaigns in the mind of the election bureau, It's considered a cheap way of running for president because you don't need to get on any ballot. So Write-In Ron Paul will be a great way to stand for principle but nothing else.
Option C: Join Forces with a Third-Party Candidate
Pro's: It's not the Republican/Democrat establishment, but if they are on the ballot they still have a chance of winning
Con's: The losing party will hate us for it, and it will disenfranchise the mainstream voters from us post-2012. A third party hasn't won since Lincoln.
Option D: Don't Vote at All
Pro's: It will be less friction from party line voters because we aren't as active.
Con's: We aren't fighting for the cause of liberty in any way, in fact it's nearly the opposite.
All options have a strong negative side to it. Either way Ron Paul won't be elected.
However some have bigger future implications
for example if we do Option A, we do hurt the disenfranchised Democrats but we have a stronger chance at changing the Republican party.
There will be
Tea Party Republicans
Ron Paul Republicans
Christian Conservative Republicans
and Neocon Republicans
The problem is the Neocons and the Christians will probably stick together in not wanting to change the platform, and the Tea Party will want Ron Paul's economic policy but not his foreign policy. So in the end the platform will probably adopt an Audit the Fed platform, as well as Cut Spending.The problem is Romney problem won't follow that platform, but if elected, and he doesn't he's gone by 2016