Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Attorney Richard Gilbert goes after Romney, upcoming Tampa Convention, & more

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I have decided to be big fan of this guy, really wanted to get the vids out and see what people think. His moves here has a direct impact on the upcoming Tampa convention, hence why I posted this in Breaking Political News. It seems breaking to me, hopefully I am correct. I did search by this attorney's name but found nothing direct to my post here. Anyway, here are the videos.

In video 1, Mr. Gilbert first goes over the purpose of the suit, explains the fraud events (in great detail), then goes to talk about the Internment Camps that Romney endorses.

www.youtube.com...

In video 2 he continues the explanation of the IC's, and digs into Romney's criminal history, incl. many juicy details about that.

www.youtube.com...

Love this guy, that's about all I can say. I can't wait to see your replies folks.




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Very good, however the guy is a little over the top.

I also noticed that he sticks to only a few issues like the camps and the voter fraud.

I'm afraid most people are so brainwashed that they will treat those issues like they can't possibly be true.

Its so sad so many Republicans bought the Romney card after he was crammed down their throats.
Most Republicans had another candidate they preferred.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I wimped out, sorry. I started with the second film and watched five minutes before I became convinced he was not a good source.

As an example, he held up a piece of paper and said he was committing an act of civil disobedience by showing us that sheet of paper. He said over and over that it was classified. If it was classified, it wouldn't be civil disobedience, it would be a crime. But what was it? It was only the title page of a report which may or may not have been classified. There were none of the necessary markings on it to show it was classified, The words "Confidential," Secret," or "Top Secret" are nowhere on it.

It's hard for me to accept a guy, a lawyer, who would say this. Maybe he's got something valuable somewhere, but I've got doubts.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
This is another example of how RP supporters attempt to evade the system and bypass the desire of the people who support other candidates. RP supporters attempted to control many of the caucuses by attacking the rules rather than getting out to support their candidates. Essentially, these lazy a$$es didn't want to beat the streets but rather beat their chest amd make loud noises.

Now we have another ass attempting to defeat the rules by saying the rules don't apply.
When a delegate in a primary pledges to vote for the candidate, they are advertising their intent. They cannot later change their mind until after the first floor vote in the convention. Then they can support whoever they want.

The rule here is that if a delegate advertises their intent to support a candidate on the first vote, they are bound to that intent. It is a contractual agreement between the delegate and the voters.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


That's total bs.

Ron Paul's message is what got him delagates. It's also why he does so well in open caucasus.

Paul's delagates played by the rules.
edit on 8-8-2012 by IndieA because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


-"This is another example of how RP supporters attempt to evade the system and bypass the desire of the people who support other candidates. RP supporters attempted to control many of the caucuses by attacking the rules rather than getting out to support their candidates. Essentially, these lazy a$$es didn't want to beat the streets but rather beat their chest amd make loud noises. "

Were you awake during this election season? Because if you were, you would notice Paul got more public support then Romney could ever dream of. Look at the sizes of the crowds these two bring in.
Tell me Romney draws a bigger crowd than Paul does, and I will repond with some fact checking.

Romney bought his votes. Paul earned his.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


You're nutty. I think you mean RP's people took over caucuses because they overwhelmed them with Ron Paul supporters and actually knew the rules. There are way more actual Paul supporters getting out and supporting their candidate than Romney supporters! I have seen one, ONE, Romney yard sign. He has no supporters. He has gop members voting not for him, but against Obama. You were delivered Romney be fraud and the media he wasn't chosen by the people. Get a clue.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
So you are all saying that RP was cheated in every primary and caucus and he should have all the delegates that Romney has? Seems kind of delusional to me.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
OMFG. All the stuff the attorney says is one thing, BUT the military internment manual he directs you to is another thing entirely. There is some seriously scary stuff in there. Read this note for example:




Note. If protected persons are detained as spies or saboteurs or are suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the state or occupying power, they may be interned or imprisoned. In such cases, they retain their status as a protected person and are granted the full rights and privileges of protected persons.


There is great detail about the category of detainee known as a CI, which is a "civilian internee." Do you see above in the note the "or occupying power."? What the hell???!!! So if you, me or any civilian is even "SUSPECTED OF" a hostile act to the "security of the state or occupying power" the military can lock you up in the camp.

That this document can even be crafted and distributed by our DoD means the Constitution is already dead.

I am a pretty balanced person (except when it comes to evangelicals), but this document puts the "conspiracy" that many have discussed to rest. It ain't a conspiracy when the manual is there in black and white.

READ IT and freak.
edit on 8-8-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 



Originally posted by Nite_wing
So you are all saying that RP was cheated in every primary and caucus and he should have all the delegates that Romney has? Seems kind of delusional to me.


You speak in absolutes. Stop being such an utter tool.
edit on 8-8-2012 by IndieA because: added quote



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


he gave a link to the document. I followed the link and you can read the doc for yourself. You will crap in your pants as I am still doing.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
forget the whole RP vs. Romney thing. That's not what's significant here. READ the doc he mentions via the website he mentions.

This will scare you crapless.
edit on 8-8-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
OP, you've screwed the pooch by drawing attention to the RP/Romney pissing match when you should have focused the thread on the internment camp manual he points to.

THAT'S the big story.
edit on 8-8-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 

Dear pajoly,

Thanks for the link to the unclassified, 326 page, document the lawyer is referencing. I have no idea whether it applies to operations in the US. On page 21 a small section reads:

APPEALS AND PERIODIC REVIEWS OF CIVILIAN INTERNEES
1-24. CIs may be interned or placed in assigned residences only when the security of the detaining power
makes it absolutely necessary or there are imperative reasons of security of the occupying power. (See GC,
Articles 27, 42, and 78.) The internment of civilians is a serious deprivation of liberty for the civilian
population. Accordingly, each CI—
􀁺 Is released by the detaining power as soon as the reasons which necessitated his internment no
longer exist (Article 132, GC).
􀁺 Receives an order of internment (in a language the CI understands) as directed in AR 190-8.
This order must be provided without delay, usually within 72 hours of capture/internment.
􀁺 Receives notice (in a language the CI understands) of the right to appeal the internment or placement in an assigned residence.
􀁺 Has the right to appeal the internment or placement in an assigned residence. This appeal should receive proper consideration and a decision should be rendered as soon as possible by an appropriate administrative tribunal.
And there is more detailing the appeals and review process including a mandatory review every six months, just keep reading.

I'm not saying all 326 pages are perfectly harmless, but it looks like a fairly routine manual for dealing with people in other countries.

What did you find to make you soil your trousers?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by IndieA
reply to post by Nite_wing
 



Originally posted by Nite_wing
So you are all saying that RP was cheated in every primary and caucus and he should have all the delegates that Romney has? Seems kind of delusional to me.


You speak in absolutes. Stop being such an utter tool.
edit on 8-8-2012 by IndieA because: added quote


I understand what has happened and what is going on now.
Apparently I am the "sharper" tool.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thanks for the reality check. For some reason I was reading this as a U.S. document for procedures within the U.S.

I seriously jumped to the wrong assumption.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 

Dear pajoly,

We may be taking each other's side here. You may not be wrong at all. Could this manual be used in the US against US citizens? Possibly, I don't know. But it's detailed enough so that if the military was called to do it, they'd probably take a lot from this manual, after making some adjustments. That's why I was wondering what you had found, I only looked at the first couple of dozen pages, I might have missed the good stuff. The one thing I'm sure about is that it wasn't classified.

The problem I had at the beginning was this attorney, who didn't seem credible, and who seemed a little too over-excited for good mental health.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


Apparently you do not. Funny word play, but in this sense of the word, there is no sharper tool. One that would deem themself as such is just missing the point.

No one is saying RP was cheated in every polling place, but there are soo many instances that it is no impossible or even hard to believe he was cheated somewhere in most states. It's not a hard thing when the people running the election are the ones defrauding the vote. There is a huge difference between inter party fraud during the primaries and voting fraud during the actual election. It's much easier. If you want to actually know what you are talking about, as opposed to just talking, look up the list of things the GOP did to ensure RP didn't beat Obama. Then consider the media bias that affected RP's win in the first primary and consider how many instances of fraud when unaccounted for.

It did effect the outcome of this election and RP could have very well made Romney fight for the candidacy, splitting the vote. It was obvious that the media engineered a Santorum surge before the first vote in Iowa to detract from RP because he was set to win it. So Mitt "won," then a month or so later Santorum "won," and then finally after there was no chance it would help Paul anymore it was anounced that he won the state and actually likely won the vote there as well.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
This is another example of how RP supporters attempt to evade the system and bypass the desire of the people who support other candidates. RP supporters attempted to control many of the caucuses by attacking the rules rather than getting out to support their candidates. Essentially, these lazy a$$es didn't want to beat the streets but rather beat their chest amd make loud noises.

Now we have another ass attempting to defeat the rules by saying the rules don't apply.
When a delegate in a primary pledges to vote for the candidate, they are advertising their intent. They cannot later change their mind until after the first floor vote in the convention. Then they can support whoever they want.

The rule here is that if a delegate advertises their intent to support a candidate on the first vote, they are bound to that intent. It is a contractual agreement between the delegate and the voters.


If by " attempt to evade the system and bypass the desire of the people.." you actually meant "follow the rules and laws set forth by the state to duly elect delegates", then yes, RP supporters are guilty as charged.

You must not understand how our delegate electoral process works. I recommend researching this, and then comment. I mean no disrespect but if you think the RP camp broke the rules then you simply were not paying attention to the Romney camp. They broke tons of Federal election laws, and some are going to jail for it (this suit is the beginning, I assure you.)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I wimped out, sorry. I started with the second film and watched five minutes before I became convinced he was not a good source.

As an example, he held up a piece of paper and said he was committing an act of civil disobedience by showing us that sheet of paper. He said over and over that it was classified. If it was classified, it wouldn't be civil disobedience, it would be a crime. But what was it? It was only the title page of a report which may or may not have been classified. There were none of the necessary markings on it to show it was classified, The words "Confidential," Secret," or "Top Secret" are nowhere on it.

It's hard for me to accept a guy, a lawyer, who would say this. Maybe he's got something valuable somewhere, but I've got doubts.


This paper he's talking about was also shown on some Alex Jones a while back (like May I think), so even though it is classified it is still in circulation around the web. Maybe that is why. Regardless, it is worth a read to understand the point. "Confidential" is definitely on it btw.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join