Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind
|
Not exactly the pothead group people have tried to make them out to be, huh? What a systematically organized group of people. In New Mexico, he picked up 6 delegates with 9 alternates. It was pretty much a vote of no confidence for Paul to pick up so many delegates in Romney's home state, don't you think? I'm not sure he will pick up any delegates in CA. I understand their delegates are selected at the primary ahead of CA state convention.
Now a lawsuit has been filed against the RNC, Chairman Rince Priebus and every state party chairman. 123 delegates and 40 (at last count) additional National Convention delegates have asked to join the lawsuit. They are forcing an injunction to have it clearly stated that they are not bound at the National Convention - RNC rules trump state rules.. They are also saying that by signing onto the lawsuit, delegates will have protection from the law against any further retaliation from the RNC or state parties.
They are also claiming that the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign Romney's loyalty affidavit, and this under threat of perjury. He wasn't even officially the nominee at the time. That makes it illegal. And that action, alone, makes me see how Romney is pushing his own thuggery while criticzing Obama - two peas in a pod. They are also claiming that the election has been fixed at the state conventions by changing ballots so that all the votes cast would count for Romney.
The lawyer representing the case, Richard Gilbert, of Gilbert & Marlowe, is saying that the public is not aware that the party is rigging the elections and commiting fraud. He is also saying he has 100 signed affidavits from delegates that support the allegations.
He also points out that Rule 11 does not allow for the party to change any of it's rules within 30 days of a convention, yet, they have been changing rules the day before, and in some cases, they have been changing the rules in the middle of a convention.
Their complaints also include cohersion, threats and violence by Romney's people - "This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the delegate fails to vote as instructed by defendants rather than vote the delegate's conscience ...Defendants have used threats of violence, including dressing security type people in dark clothing searching out supporters of a candidate defendants do not approve of to harass and intimidate said delegates from voting their conscience."
They want the case heard quickly so that the rightful delegates will be seated in Tampa in August. 100 defendants have to be served, so a court date has not been set. Of course, where it actually stands is that the judge will have to decide, legally, if he will accept the plaintiff's claim that the nominating convention is a federal election. Traditionally the courts give the two parties leeway in managing their own affairs, i.e., whether state parties will decide to hold open or closed primaries.
Aside from the lawsuit, what else is gong on? What the delegates are saying is that they are not legally bound and will not vote for Romney on the 1st ballot. Their point is that you go into the early primary season thinking that candidate A is grand and after months of caucuses/primaries, you realize that candidate B is turning out to be a better candidate and want to vote your conscience and you should be allowed to switch loyalties.
Not voting on the first ballot could shake things up a bit, although, I'm still not sure that it would keep Romney from winning on the first ballot. You have to have won a plurality in 5 states to be on the first ballot and only Santorum has done that. The way the RNC has ramroded this whole election, I'm not sure this lawsuit will go anywhere. I hope that it does, because we saw the election fraud going on. I think it's high time to address it in a court of law, i.e., the illegal loyalty affidavit. That was very strong handed. They didn't follow the awarding of delegate rules in FL, AZ or NV - the winner-take-all needs to be addressed.
Another thing Paul's people want to accomplish, at Convention, is to promote Ron Paul's conservative principles. And I think we all knew that already.
They are planning on urging changes to be made by flooding the ballots. Among the changes - they want to discuss or overturn the Patriot Act, address smaller government, sound monetary policy (greater transparency from the central banks), increased Internet freedom, and of course, limited military intervention/presence internationally.
I'm interested to see what parts of those conservative principles Santorum wants to block by threatening to attend with his delegates to have a floor fight against Ron Paul.
On a side note regarding Rand Paul, he has stated that getting things done, mainly, his bill to audit the Federal Reserve, means he needs to stick with his party as he thinks he has a chance of getting something done that way. I am wondering how he even thought he got that far, with this bill, without his father?
Linear Mode
