The Silenced State of America

Prominent PA GOP Party Members Sue GOP Delegates

2008-04-22T21:53:00.002-04:00

For Immediate Release

Contact: Scott Davis

Tel: (717) 648-9080

Prominent PA GOP Party Members Sue GOP Delegates

Questionable Lawsuit May Result In Criminal Consequences for Prominent PA GOP Party Members

Philadelphia, PA – April 22, 2008 – Chaos ensued in Philadelphia today as 2 prominent Pennsylvania GOP party members filed suit against 8 other GOP delegates. The case, filed by the lawfirm of McNichol, Byrne & Matlawski, P.C., was brought on behalf of Barbara Harvey of Broomall, PA and Alana Cervino of Springfield, PA, both prominent GOP supporters. The suit was brought against GOP Alternate Delegate Rick Lacey also names several other GOP candidates including David K Walter, Michael P. Boyle, Peter J. Manfra, Ryan Hodinka, John Savastio, John Pedley, Bernie Strain, Mike Noonan, and Marianne Loughran. Though none of the defendants were officially endorsed by the Pennsylvania GOP, all were Republican Party members running for Republican Party seats, and most if not all seem to be supporters of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.The official complaint alleges that sample ballot cards printed by the candidates violated campaign finance laws since the cards were not paid for by a political action committee. It is however common knowledge that campaign materials distributed for the purpose of securing a party seat are not subject to the campaign finance laws of a candidate seeking public office.Though an injunction was granted to the plaintiff’s, a Delaware county Judge quickly reversed the decision after the error was brought before the court early Tuesday morning. The reversal was not quick enough however as Delaware county sheriffs improperly confiscated ballots from polls where they were being handed out, and promptly destroyed them without authorization.Though the Ron Paul Campaign has not officially responded to the suit, state co-coordinators for the Ron Paul campaign and defendants have said that they are taking the incident seriously and are considering further legal action against the plaintiffs. They further stated that while a course of action had not been determined, they would not rule out filing criminal charges in the case.

###

For more information on this release or others please contact ronpaulpa.com

PA GOP Endorses John McCain: Republicans need not vote in primary

2008-03-03T10:07:00.000-05:00

On Friday, February 29th, 2008 Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Gleason issues a memo saying “Working together we will be able to expose the Democrats’ spin for what it really is, bringing us one step closer to securing Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes for America’s next Republican president John McCain in November.” Today on the PA GOP’s website the following statement: “After months of watching this contested presidential race unfold, our Party came together recently and endorsed the most qualified candidate for President, Senator John McCain.” These statements and others have left hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters wondering; is there actually a need to go vote in the PA primary on April 22nd?

It would appear that the PA GOP’s answer to that question has been a resounding “NO”. One outraged voter had this to say: “How dare you insult the thousands of Pennsylvania voters who have yet to go place their votes at the polls! I for one will not be voting for John McCain, and let me assure you, I am not alone.” It would appear that he is indeed not alone as another voter wrote in frustration to the PA GOP: “...fake conservative Juan McAmnesty will get crushed by either Hillary or Obama in the general election.”

While the fight for the GOP nomination continues, it is clear that things aren’t quite a unified as the GOP would like them to be. While they continue to announce their endorsement for John McCain, voters continue to be undecided and generally frustrated by the GOP’s lack of support for a real conservative.

Supreme Court Declares Impotence in Landmark Case

2008-02-28T09:13:00.004-05:00

In a landmark decision Monday, the United States Supreme Court declared its impotence and ineffectiveness in upholding its solitary duty in interpreting the Constitution. Like a Viagra patient without their medication, the court once again denied to hear the case of We The People v. United States, and showed that its strongest strength may well lie on the golf green.

The case was first filed in July of 2004, and sought to force the government to address their formal petition for a redress of grievances in regard to income tax, which was filed in November of 2002. In May of 2007 the case was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and brought before the Supreme Court on January 7th, 2008. We the people sought a definition of the duties of Government to its people under the Constitution's petition clause, which had it been heard, would have been a first impression case (meaning the Supreme Court had never previously ruled on such a case).

Having exhausted all other options, Bob Shultz and The We the People Foundation made one final desperate attempt to obtain justice for their cause. On February 1st, 2008, they filed a petition for rehearing. Shultz publically declared the “… Court would be abdicating its duty and committing treason to the Constitution if it fails to [accept jurisdiction and hear this case]”. He went on to say that he made such accusations according to the courts own precedent.

Foreseeing the outcome of their final appeal, The We the People Foundation announced that upon rejection of their final petition, they would turn their attention and resources to the implementation of large scale, wide-spread acts of “civil disobedience”. Delivering on that promise, Shultz announced yesterday that a series of meetings would be held at various locations around the country to begin planning and implementing such actions. Details of exactly what the foundation has in mind have yet to be released. Of only one thing can we be sure, in rejecting a landmark case such as this one without so much as even a single comment; the Supreme Court has indirectly ruled once and for all that it is an ineffective puppet to a tyrannical government spiraling out of control toward a cataclysmic end.