Latino-led PAC Wants to Intervene in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Nevada Ballot Access Lawsuit

Posted on by June 9, 2024

On June 6, the Somos PAC asked to intervene in the Robert F. Kennedy ballot access lawsuit in Nevada.  The Somos PAC describes itself as “Latino-led.”  It argues that it has a right to intervene, on the grounds that it is working for President Joe Biden’s campaign, and that if Kennedy is allowed to get on the ballot in Nevada, then the PAC will need to spend additional resources campaigning against Kennedy.  It also alleges that if a third candidate gets on the ballot, “voter confusion and uncertainty will result, and that will reduce voter turnout.”

The Somos PAC is represented by the Elias Law Group, which is the leading law firm that represents the Democratic National Committee.

Comments

Latino-led PAC Wants to Intervene in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Nevada Ballot Access Lawsuit — 50 Comments

  1. It also alleges that if a third candidate gets on the ballot, “voter confusion and uncertainty will result, and that will reduce voter turnout.”

    This has to be one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard to keep someone off the ballot.

  2. It’s true. They should add Trump to the lawsuit. He could also confuse some Latinos, and causes Somos to have to spend money. Imagine how easy their job would be if only Biden is on the ballot.

    Historically, looking over the entire history of Latin America, it can be conclusively demonstrated that the highest turnout, and most unanimous, morale building, and super easy to understand results occur when there is only one candidate and one party on the ballot. Its time to bring that kind of innovative thinking to los estados unidos.

  7. It’s important to make the many millions of newcomers who came to this country under Joe Biden and are now voting in their very first US Presidential election feel at home by reducing the number of choices, ideally to one.

  8. Democrats Saving Democracy bring up a good point. Newcomers already face a dizzying choice as to which of the hundreds of genders in their new country to transition to. We should not confuse them with a choice of presidential candidate’s on the ballot.

  9. The very term “Democratic” Party, as that party is currently led, is Orwellian doublespeak.

  10. You probably think that because you don’t know democratcy has a t in it.

  11. PACs shouldn’t even exist lmao. They should not be allowed to have a voice.

  13. The United States has always had a non-written philosophy that too many candidates or parties on the ballot will confuse voters and that is harmful to DUM-OCRACY. Imagine if any other country on this planet said that about its voters that they are dumb and ignorant and choices have to be restricted to tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee candidates and very restrictive and hard ballot access is necessary and very good. Might as well say that its necessary to tax the hell outta Americans and send free money overseas to Ukraine and Israel and Puerto Rico because Americans don’t spend it well or don’t know what to do with it. Wait a minute. They already do that!

  17. Let’s stop all USA elections and minor parties/candidates from getting on the ballots because the PACS are crying and want special privileges.

  18. I’m here to keep you guys honest. OK?

    When there are 2 candidates, there is no possibility for strategic voting.
    When there are 3 candidates, there is such thing as strategic voting:
    Voting for your second choice can sometimes make the worst candidate less likely to win.
    It could change the outcome of the election!
    Should you vote your conscience, or should you vote for the lesser of two evils?
    Voters aren’t always sure. You could even say that they’re… CONFUSED.

    Is eliminating that confusion a state interest?

  19. ONE HACK PARTY CHOICE = LESS *CONFUSION* ???

    SANCTIONS ON THE HACK LAWYER ???

  20. If we want to eliminate “that confusion” (which is a stupid/corrupt thing to want), then we might as well become a dictatorship.

  23. ROSSI NEED TO BLOCK THE INTERVENTION.
    BOBBY NEED TO FILE A statement as cover under NRS 41.193 & NRS 41.195 in any of the Nevada District Courts.

  24. PRICE OF BANANAS GOING UP/DOWN/SAME WITH ALL THE FOLKS FROM BANANA REPUBLIKS INVADING THE USA —

    IE FEWER FOLKS TO HARVEST REAL BANANAS IN SUCH REPUBLIKS ???

  25. “It argues that it has a right to intervene, on the grounds that it is working for President Joe Biden’s campaign”
    That should be enough reason to throw the entire suit out.

    “and that if Kennedy is allowed to get on the ballot in Nevada, then the PAC will need to spend additional resources campaigning against Kennedy¨
    Yes, and?

    “It also alleges that if a third candidate gets on the ballot, ‘voter confusion and uncertainty will result, and that will reduce voter turnout.'”
    Uh-huh. More like Soros PAC, amirite?

  26. To follow the case go to PACE and look up the following case:

    TEAM KENNEDY v. AGUILAR,
    2:24-cv-01027-JCM-MDC

    For the issue in the Neveda District Courts, filing must take place as to the statement under NRS 41.193 & NRS
    41.195.

  27. The uncle of RFK Jr. Was murdered in Dallas, Texas on 22 November 1963 who was a POTUS that never had a lawful autopsy under Texas Law. That was because at gunpoint by secret service on Dr. Earl Rose they body was removed in violation of law from Texas.

    Forty years prior to the murder of POTUS Kennedy on 2 August 1923, POTUS Warren G. HARDING died in San Francisco, California after being poisoned st the Fairview Inn, Talkeetna, Alaska. No autopsy took place either. It is time that these autopsy take place in California and Texas.

    JFK was shot from two direction in Dallas, TX on 22 November 1963. Warren G. Harding was with a prositute at the Fairview Inn at Talkeetna, AK after placing the Gold Spike at the Alasks Railroad circa 17 July 1923. Ray the prositute was the wife of the Mayor of Fairbanks, AK who pimped her out to Warren G. Harding the following day after said mayor gave him a dog collar.

    With RFK Jr. help it is hoped that the autopsies will happen.in both California and Texas respectively soonest.

  30. US- RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE — 11(c) — SANCTIONS

    Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
    Primary tabs
    (a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.

    (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

    (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

    (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

    (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

    (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

    (c) Sanctions.

    (1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

    (2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.

    (3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

    (4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

    (5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

    (A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

    (B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

    (6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

    (d) Inapplicability to Discovery. This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.

    Notes

    (As amended Apr. 28, 1983, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)

  31. It also alleges that if a third candidate gets on the ballot, “voter confusion and uncertainty will result, and that will reduce voter turnout.”

    We can reduce voters confusion even more by not having any candidates on the ballot.

  33. Walter Ziobro, we need to have one and only one candidate on the ballot, to give Latinos a chance to turn out and show their unanimous enthusiastic support.

  36. I recall the Jackson lawsuit in September, 1964 to keep Barry Goldwater off the ballot in California
    because Melvin Belli attorney of Jack Ruby (who shot Lee Harvey Oswald), because the Treaty with Mexico did not name Goldwater being born in Phoenix, AZ in 1909 as a Citizen. This may because in 1862 Arizona was declared a Territory of the CSA.

  37. It looks like Somos PAC want the court to have forward a Hobson’s Choice.

  38. @MS,

    Warren G Harding was state treasurer of Texas. He was succeeded by Jesse James, who in turn was succeeded by Ann Richards and Kay Bailey Hutchison. All true.

  39. Jim Riley,

    We are discussing two different Warren G. Harding’s. The one in Texas was about two in age when POTUS Warren G.Harding died in San Franciso, California on August 2, 1923. Which was several days after being poisoned at Talkeetna, Alaska.

    Also my concern was about the body of
    POTUS John F. Kennedy and not Secretary of the Navy John P.Kennedy.

  40. JR –

    ANY OF THE RELATIVES OF THE 1836 TX HEROES IN THE BATTLES OF THE ALAMO AND SAN JACINTO AROUND TO LIBERATE TEXAS AGAIN ???
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  41. AZ,

    If you recall the source of the “stick” seen out of the book depository came from the sister in law of the deputy director of the CIA.

    A good question to ask where was Warren G. Harding in Dallas on November 22, 1963, since Jim Riley raised the issue.

  42. “A good question to ask where was Warren G. Harding in Dallas on November 22, 1963, since Jim Riley raised the issue.”

    That thought crossed my mind, as well.

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  45. If the body of JFK is returned to Dallas for its legal autopsy unter Texas Law. It will show that one of the bullet came from the grassy knoll.

    Since Warren G. Harding was the Treasurer starting in 1950 and was in
    Dallas at the time the sister in law of the CIA Deputy Director and the only witness that seen a “stick” (purported rifle out of the book depository window) it seems what Hillel Silverman hear from.Jack Ruby the location of Warren G.
    Harding more interesting.

  46. Also Hillel Silverman had a habit in sugar-coating statement of Jack Ruby as to the why on what he heard from him about Wallace. Rabbi Hillel Silverman was a friend and it hurt me a lot that he had an extra marrital affair, which caused his removal from Sinai Temple in Los Angeles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.