Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

[stevebreeze]

Source: Washington Post

A year-long legal battle over the Democratic National Committee’s handling of the 2016 presidential primary came to an end Friday, with a federal judge in Florida dismissing a class-action suit brought by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary,” Judge William Zloch, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dismissal. “To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so . . . the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/florida-judge-dismisses-fraud-lawsuit-against-dnc/?utm_term=.764c2e35efae

[shenmue]

1. Yes

[stevebreeze]

2. This should not be a surprise to anyone with a basic knowledge of law.

It is hard to find any real harm in the actions of the DNC against Bernie.

[George II]

3. An emphatic and unambiguous decision. As it should be.

[StevieM]

4. The lawsuit was ridiculous, as is the claim that the DNC somehow rigged the primaries. (eom)

[sheshe2]

5. ...

[brer cat]

6. Good ruling.

[murielm99]

7. About time!

Now I hope these people go home and sit their asses down someplace. They have already caused enough damage to our country and our party. This is no time for divisive bullshit.

[Maven]

8. Good. nt

[SunSeeker]

9. Good. It was a idiotic lawsuit. nt

[BainsBane]

11. That was the stupidest lawsuit ever

Promoted by people whose IQs don't approach insects. The imbeciles couldn't figure out that they didn't have a case for fraud when they never contributed to the DNC. They submitted fraudulent documents to the court, which should at the very least get their lunatic lawyer disbarred.
Their entire argument and fabricated "evidence" was based on Kremlin propaganda, which they contnue to promote in order to further and support the fascist regime they and their Nazi soulmates put in power.

Note they took their lies to Alex Jones where they insisted the DNC had murdered Seth Rich to cover up who the fuck knows what. Their embrace of Jones shows where they stand politically.

[Jim Lane]

15. What's your basis for alleging that "they never contributed to the DNC"?

Fraud is a pretty serious charge, and one I hadn't heard before in this connection. Certainly there's nothing in the judge's decision that even hints at such a thing. At this stage of the litigation, he was required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint, and that's what he did.

[BainsBane]

16. What evidence do you have to indicate they did?

None. People like that have spent the last few years trashing the DNC. The organization raised a total of 75 million in 2016, most of it after July. How many Info Wars fans do you suppose are among those donors? Of course they never contributed to the DNC. They treated that organization as their servants. From the moment Sanders entered the race, before a single vote was cast, they complained about how the DNC were rigging the vote. One former DUer was very specific in how that "rigging" was achieved: by women and people of color participating in the party. She insisted "corporations" had sent us into the party to divert it from its purpose if representing the "working class, " revealing a conception of WC that includes only the most affluent Americans and not the immigrants, people of color and women who do the vast majority of low- to median-wage work in this country. The reason people like that are so eager to ally with Alex Jones and the Nazis is because they are exactly the same in EVERY way.

When do you suppose they sent in donation checks? Before they spread lies about the debate schedule? In between insulting black activists on Twitter, or right after their campaign to deprive the poorest women in America of healthcare as they partnered with the GOP in seeking to defund Planned Parenthood? Or was it after they succeeded in helping Texas reach its status of the highest pregnancy mortality rate in the developed world?

I am not interested in hearing yet another defense or those Trump-humping fascists. I'm thorough dealing with evil. They and their allies can rot in hell. And no, I am not interested in unifying around White Supremacy and bourgeois entitlement. I am not interested in capitulating to narcissists determined to regain the Democratic Party of Jim Crow.

[Jim Lane]

17. Their allegations are evidence.

To a lawyer, "evidence" doesn't mean "something that conclusively proves this is true." It means only that it's relevant to determining the truth. If someone states in a federal court filing that he or she made such a contribution, that's evidence.

There's also a negative inference here. The DNC has full access to records of contributions it received. If it had never actually received a contribution from any of the representative plaintiffs, then it would certainly have determined that and it would certainly have publicized their fraud.

I almost never practice in federal court, so what I'm about to say is based on the law in New York state courts, but it's probably very similar nationwide. There's such a thing as a "missing documents" charge. If a party (like the DNC) has control of a document (like the contribution records) that would be relevant, but doesn't produce it, then the jury is entitled (although not required) to infer that the document, if produced, would not support the position of the party that has control of it. This case never reached the jury stage but it was certainly being "litigated" in the court of public opinion. If the DNC had documentary evidence proving the plaintiffs to be liars and proving their lawyer to be committing a fraud upon a tribunal, we would have heard about it by now.

This is even aside from the basic principle that, if you accuse a lawyer of fraud, you should, as a matter of intellectual integrity, have something to go on other than "What evidence do you have that he didn't commit fraud?"

[obamanut2012]

31. "Their allegations are evidence"

[Jim Lane]

38. Just curious, what is your understanding of the meaning of the term "evidence"? (n/t)

[joeybee12]

44. I love correspondence law schools.

[FSogol]

45. I allege that Jim Lane dented my jeep door causing $1000 in damage

As evidence, please see the allegation in the subject line.

Jim, please contact me for my address so you can send the 1k.

[Jim Lane]

46. Just curious, what is YOUR understanding of the meaning of the term "evidence"? (n/t)

[FSogol]

47. Where's my $1000, Attorney Jim?

[Jim Lane]

54. Read the first paragraph of #17 and get back to me. (n/t)

[Gothmog]

57. Did you read the opinion

I an at WDW and was ablebto read it. Donors have no standing

You are defebding a crap lawsuit fliked by a really stupid attorney

Did you read the cry baby attorney motion for protection? That motion was truly stupid.

[Jim Lane]

59. Yes, I read the opinion.

In posts in this thread and in another thread on the subject, I've discussed the opinion in some detail. I await your comments on any specific point that I actually wrote. In contrast, I've written nothing about the motion for protection (because, no, I did not read it), so your disparagement of that motion is something you'll have to take up with other posters.

[Gothmog]

60. Go read this motion

It is truly stupid and i have no doubt that the judge took the stupidity of the counsel onvolved in reaching his decision

The concept that donors are consumers is truly stupid

[ehrnst]

85. Here is the transcript:

of the motion for protection:

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/57-D.E.-57-Ps-Mtn-for-Ord-of-Protection-6-13-17.pdf

Invoking Seth Rich's death, as per FoxNews conspiracy theory. Gives you an idea of how foil hat these lawyers are.

[Jim Lane]

91. As I said in another post, I haven't paid any attention to the motion for protection.

If your argument is that these lawyers made a motion that relied on conspiracy theory, therefore the lawyers are foil hat, therefore the complaint that they drafted must necessarily be without merit, then I beg leave to point out that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

[ehrnst]

99. You don't want to see the motion. I get it. Would make it pretty hard for you to defend them

as being competent, and wouldn't look good.

Not wanting to see something that actually works against the credibility of those whose legal work you are defending is understandable.

For instance, I understand that the lawyer who got the fraud investigation going into Jane Sanders' actions at Burlington College is a GOP muckracker.

I assume that the motives or history of the litigators will not affect your view of that lawsuit, either, or render the entire motive behind it questionable whatsoever.

Right?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1977245

[Gothmog]

105. Denial is not just a river in Africa

[Jim Lane]

110. Straw man again. SO tiresome.

You want to get into a knock-down, drag-out fight with the plaintiffs' lawyers or with someone who agrees with them on every point. Unfortunately for you, no one like that is posting on DU, so you have to try to put words in my mouth. Why don't you go over to JPR and argue with the people who think Judge Zloch was on the take?

In this post in the other thread I said that the plaintiffs' lawyers were "sloppy". I know that doesn't fit your narrative that I'm totally in their corner but facts are facts.

[Gothmog]

107. Using Seth Rich's death is really sick

[ehrnst]

112. Sick lawyers. Sick motives.(nt)

[Gothmog]

63. Read the opinion or have someone read it and explain it to you

Donors have no standing. The opinion is clear on this. You are contesting a non issue

[Jim Lane]

65. Constantly repeating an assertion doesn't make it true.

The decision by Judge Zloch did not address the question whether the DC Code provision is applicable to donors to a political party or a political campaign. I answered you in detail in this post in the other thread.

Making a donation doesn't give the donor the right to dictate the actions of the party or the campaign. That's obvious. What's also obvious is that that's a completely different issue from the question whether false statements to induce such donations are prohibited by the DC Code provision. The latter question is one that Judge Zloch did not address.

[Gothmog]

67. Reread the opinion

You are totally wrong. Donors are not consumers and have no standing to sue

I have read the pleadingd. I literally laughed at the claim that donors are consumers. Only sn idiot would mske this claim

[ehrnst]

72. Good luck with convincing him of that... (nt)

[Gothmog]

73. This poster has not read the pleadings or the DC statute he is trying to discuss

I am amused. I have read the pleadings snd the DC consumer ptotection law being cited. Donors are not consumers. Donors do not seek goods or services when they donate

These posts are very amusing to real lawyers

[ehrnst]

76. But....but....but money being involved helps the "fraud" accusations.

Without that angle, what case would they have trying to get the courts to say that the DNC rigged it with their mean office email gossip???? Especially when the "most damning" mean comments came after June 6....


The "right not to be deceived" in politics argument was equally laughable. Especially when they hadn't even read the charter they said "deceived" them.

[Gothmog]

82. I am amused by these ignorant claims

Last edited Mon Aug 28, 2017, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Iliterasly laughed at the claim that donors are consumers when i first read this petition. The petition wad posted on the JPR website

[ehrnst]

84. And this in particular just made me spit out my coffee:

"It shows the creation of an aura of inevitability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy that the DNC pushed into the media and, essentially, in our view, crushed the Bernie Sanders campaign."

They really wanted the court to rule that the DNC, DWS in particular had that kind of power to "create an aura." With no evidence whatsoever that any action was taken to "crush Bernie Sanders campaign."

(Sounds very much like someone blaming an election loss on someone other than one's own campaign, ironically enough.)

and this:

"This is a case -- and I have to make this point again and again, because I think this really gets back to the technical issues that your Honor identified at the outset, which is that we have standing here because there was payment of money in reliance on a false understanding that was created by these defendants."

Especially after reading that none of the plaintiffs had actually read the Charter that they said was the proof that they were "defrauded."

As to the "aura of inevitability" that was apparently so powerful it "crushed" Sanders' campaign, and fooled people who would otherwise vote against her into voting for her...

Anyone with any knowledge of political campaigns (which apparently is not applicable to a whole lot of people) knows that to keep the White House in a party after two consecutive terms in highly unlikely, which means you have to start laying the groundwork for such a campaign to keep it two years in advance. So YES the DNC had been thinking about this back in 2014, and as the candidate who came within 1% of Obama in 2008, HRC was an obvious choice, and likely frontrunner. Any candidate opposing her would have known that.

More:

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

[Gothmog]

104. I am laughing at these ignorants claims

[Jim Lane]

92. Your statement about my posts is an outright falsehood.

You claim that I'm "trying to discuss" the DC Code provision. I am not. Although I've made numerous posts about Judge Zloch's decision, there is not one single post in which I contended that the DC Code provision covers political donations. Judge Zloch also did not address that issue.

You'll note that his dismissal of the case was "without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." (Decision, page 28) The "without prejudice" part means that these plaintiffs could file a new case in a DC court of general jurisdiction in which they could again allege a cause of action under the DC Code provision. Such a case might produce a ruling about whether political donors are within that provision.

Then again, it might not, because the plaintiffs would presumably still be faced with the "reliance" argument that was fatal to their federal case. IOW, one possible outcome of such a new case would be that the DC court, like Judge Zloch, wouldn't even reach the issue of the scope of the DC Code provision. That court might instead hold that there's no remedy for deceptive practices unless the plaintiff can show that he or she acted in reliance on the deception, and these plaintiffs haven't alleged reliance, therefore their complaint fails to state a cause of action even if we assume that the DC Code provision covers political donations.

If, on the other hand, the issue of the scope of the provision is decided, I have expressed no opinion and continue to express no opinion about which way the decision would go.

[Jim Lane]

106. What statement about the petition have I made that was false?

What statement about the DC Code provision have I made that was false?

Please go beyond your usual glib "You're defending this lawsuit." If you think I'm such an idiot, it should be easy for you to provide a specific verbatim quotation from one of my posts and then explain the error in what I actually wrote.

[Gothmog]

109. You really like being wrong

Your feeble attempts at analysis are completely wrong because you do not understand the concepts being discussed. This may work on JPR but will not work with real attorneys

Again read the pleadings and the DC code. Read the definition of consumer set forth in the DC statute. Tell me how a donor is seeking goods or services

Until you understand the concepts being discussed you will continue to provide me wil a source of amusement

[ehrnst]

52. "Not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNCs charter or heard the statements they now

claim are false before making their donations,” Zloch wrote. “And not one of them alleges that they took action in reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the First Amended Complaint. Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/florida-judge-dismisses-fraud-lawsuit-against-dnc/?utm_term=.557bc2fc6bff

[Jim Lane]

53. I was addressing the issue of contribution, not reliance.

In a thread like this, you have to pay attention to context:

* In #11, BainsBane wrote: "The imbeciles couldn't figure out that they didn't have a case for fraud when they never contributed to the DNC. They submitted fraudulent documents to the court...."

* In #15, I asked, "What's your basis for alleging that 'they never contributed to the DNC'?"

* In #16, BainsBane responded, "What evidence do you have to indicate they did?"

* In #17, I explained, "Their allegations are evidence." For simplicity's sake I was sliding over the technical details about verification of pleadings. The general point is that the complaint does allege that they made contributions (below I quote from the detail in the decision).

You're correct that the complaint doesn't allege that the donors relied on the promise of neutrality, but that's a separate issue from whether they were donors at all. I went into more detail about the failure to allege reliance in my post in another thread about this case.

Relevant to BainsBane's totally unsupported charge of fraud, here's the passage from Judge Zloch's decision that I relied on (I haven't read the complaint itself):

Finally, with respect to their negligence claim in Count VI of
the First Amended Complaint (DE 8), the six named DNC Donor Class
Plaintiffs claim they suffered an injury-in-fact from the data
breach of the DNC’s servers. Two of them, Cridde and Berners-Lee,
donated to the DNC “by check.” DE 8, ¶¶ 108 & 109. Two others,
Lynch and Young, allege they contributed to the DNC “online,” but
do not specify where. DE 8, ¶¶ 105 & 106. Davis donated money to
the DNC in “various ways, including online at www.democrats.org.”
DE 8, at ¶ 107. And Cork gave to the DNC but does not specify
where or how.

(Decision, page 19) The paragraph references are to specific numbered allegations in the complaint. I'm comfortable with assuming that Judge Zloch's statements about the allegations are correct.

[Gothmog]

64. Read the petition

Donors have no standing. The claim that donors were consumers under the DC deceptive trade practices act is a truly stupid claim. What goods or services did these donors seek? I literaaly laughed when i read this in the petition. Yes I have read the petition and so should anyone who wants to understand the isdues discussed by the court

Read the complaint. It is very funny. Only an idiot would have filed this piece of dreck

[ehrnst]

77. +1000 (nt)

[Demsrule86]

25. Well said.

You rock.

[BainsBane]

35. Because DWS resigned means the lawsuit has merit?

Well. Please. Go provide this valuable evidence to the court and explain how the fact a DNC chair resigned means those Alex Jones fans are owed financial remuneration for funds they never gave the DNC in the first place. And by all means, explain how emails doctored by the Kremlin prove how the DNC forced 16.9 million in Americans to vote for a competent, qualified candidate with substantive policy positions.

Yes, the match was fixed. The electorate was comprised of Democrats. It was fixed by the 20th amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

DWS was widely viewed as a bad DNC chair, even before the Kremlin released its propaganda through Wikileaks. Those views were held by DNC members, who unlike the plaintiffs are not enamored of Alex Jones and NeoNazis. If. You think that constitutes evidence that the plantiffs were denied their birthright to determine the party nominee without consent of the electorate, that is your problem.

And you are right to point out that my comments were unduly harsh on insects.

[Plucketeer]

37. LOL!

Well then - you should feel good about having given insects a bit of a pass.

[Gothmog]

62. Agreed

Only idiots thought that this lawsuit had merit. The morons on JPR are so stupid that they decided that this case had merit

[Hamlette]

12. This is why I hate many Bernie supporters but love Bernie.

Many have lost any sense of history, politics and decency.

[Demsrule86]

23. I would vote for Bernie if he was the nominee in 20...but honestly I don't care for him.

I respect those who do ....I just don't see what they do.

[Hamlette]

55. agree

his interview in NYPost was the end for me. He was asked how he would break up the banks, one of his big issues, he said he'd have the Treasury secretary do it. When told Treasury didn't have the power he said he'd find someone who did. No one has that power. There are some things that could be done, by law, to encourage banks to break up or be more stable (make them retain more cash) but it was clear he had never thought this through.

And his legislative history is pretty wanting. What has he ever done?

Sorry, I like him "personally" but he might have been a disaster.

[Demsrule86]

87. The bank thing could not happen and that is part of it. No doubt we need regulation but

millions have 401k's that will replace pensions...bad idea but what can you do? I prefer the pension system. Thus hurting Wall Street and banking only hurts middle class Americans...and any Dem who did it would be booted out the next election. We need regulation. And maybe Glass-Steagall might help, but I don't see it being passed again.

[ehrnst]

83. Sometimes the things that people like

are things that would make someone less than effective in the Oval Office.

[Demsrule86]

86. Good point.

I am hoping for a fresh face in 20 but right now concentrating on 18

[Jim Lane]

13. The judge also smacked down the DNC's most idiotic defense

From pp. 15-16 of the decision:

For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” . . . the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.

It's unfortunate that the DNC even made that cynical argument. Yes, the party would have the right to pick its nominee in a smoke-filled room, or, for that matter, by holding a lottery. Nevertheless, once it promulgates internal rules concerning the procedure, it should be deemed to be obligated, morally and legally, to follow its own rules. The DNC's contention to the contrary did nothing except give ammunition to its critics.

[Demsrule86]

24. It was designed to end the court nonsense, and it did.

Those who support this lawsuit...have already made up their mind about the Democratic Party...so I don't care what they think...I wonder how many are Democrats (if any) and how many are Greens and GOP types.

[Jim Lane]

26. No, it didn't. Did you read the decision? or even the excerpt I quoted?

The defense of "We can publish rules that look official and then ignore them" did not end the lawsuit. It was instead specifically rejected by the judge. In fact, his ruling didn't address the merits at all, which was why the dismissal was without prejudice.

[Demsrule86]

30. I read it...and expected it to be rejected without regard to merit as it never should have been

brought in the first place...complete waste of money and time...that could have been spent fighting Trump and electing Democrats.

[ehrnst]

40. +1000. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

42. Thanks ehrnst...I can't believe some who claim to be Democrats wasted the DNC money

for things like maybe elections on a frivolous lawsuit that was never going anywhere.

[ehrnst]

81. +1000 (nt)

[ehrnst]

71. But the plantiffs said they hadn't read the DNC charter.

What does that say about the plantiff's motivation for a lawsuit stating that they made decisions based on a statement in the charter?

“Consistent with our precedent and First Amendment, states may maintain fraud actions when fundraisers make false or misleading representations designed to deceive donors about how their donations are used.”


https://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/the-dnc-fighting-democratic-donors-in-court-88933/

Sounds like the fraud allegations are pretty much based on the donors saying the DNC charter decieved them - when they actually didn't read the charter. Of course stating that money was involved was a way to get a fraud charge - despite the fact that they weren't informed enough to be "defrauded."

The thing is - yes, you want to focus on DNC not following it's charter. You've made that clear. But these "plantiffs" were not the victims of fraud, as per their lawsuit claimed. So the lawsuit makes attempts to hammer on that look foolish now.

Yes, there is the nuisance about data security with the server being hacked, which was likely to further the conspiracy theories about DNC information being leaked deliberately. Well, I suppose that as someone who got a security clearance, I should sue our government for the security clearance database being hacked, but I'm not someone who feels like misusing the legal system simply to hammer on those tasked with keeping that data safe.

The point of this lawsuit was to drain the DNC coffers and further conspiracy theories, which clearly benefit others. But they failed, and trying to eke a moral victory out of the court not finding the DNC to be spotless is desperate at this point.

[Jim Lane]

96. Yet again you're confusing two different issues.

Issue (1): Did these plaintiffs rely on the DNC's representations in making their donations?
Issue (2): Assuming for the sake of the argument that these plaintiffs did rely, is the DNC nevertheless entitled to have the case dismissed anyway, because it can make false statements to the public with impunity?

The DNC argued both these points. The judge specifically disagreed with the DNC on issue (2):

For their part, the DNC
and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise
of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political
promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal
courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s
governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that
the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms
like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that
way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has
committed itself to a higher principle.

(Decision, pages 15-16)

I was responding to the contention by DemsRule86 in #24 that this defense by the DNC ended the case. It did not. It would have ended the case if the judge had accepted it, but he did not.

What actually ended the case was that, on issue (1), the plaintiffs had the burden of alleging and then proving reliance, and the allegations in their complaint did not sufficiently allege it.

[ehrnst]

98. So, if someone wanted to allege that they took a job

in a PAC, and were told specifically by a Politician forming that PAC, that a "Jeff Doe" would not be working on the PAC, then they find out that indeed "Jeff Doe" was going to be supervising, could they sue for income lost from jobs they could have had, but turned down?

According to your argument, no, because that would go to that politician being able to dismiss the fiduciary injury, because he is able to make false statements to those staffers about the involvement of "Jeff Doe," without impunity.

Do I have that right?

But if those staffers wanted to have "Politician lies to loyal staffers about the involvement of Jeff Doe, in order to get them to take the position, then expects them to stay," all over the headlines, that would certainly be a desired outcome for someone angry at that politician.

I was positing the motivations behind the lawsuit. "What does that say about the plantiff's motivation for a lawsuit stating that they made decisions based on a statement in the charter?"

Certainly the conspiracy-theory prone lawyers that were clearly the only ones who would dare take this poorly written case to court have motives beyond money. They have a Seth Rich murder mystery to keep in the public eye. And the people who agreed be the plaintiffs? I'm sure there are absolutely other motives than to make right any "fiduciary injury" done to them.

[Jim Lane]

100. You ask, "Do I have that right?" I think not but I'm not sure.

First, I appreciate your at least asking if you've correctly stated my argument. I'm really sick of all the straw men here.

As to your question, though, I don't completely understand. You brought in a reference to "fiduciary injury". An employer making a hiring decision (like your hypothetical Politician and his PAC) doesn't owe a fiduciary duty to any of the applicants, so that confuses me.

Another point is that there's no fraud claim when someone changes their mind. If the Politician has decided not to employ Jeff Doe, and so informs the applicant, and then later decides to hire Doe after all, that's not fraud. Fraud requires a misstatement as to a matter of fact. (Depending on the circumstances, there might be a claim for breach of contract, but that's a different issue.)

I gather that your hypothetical is that, at the time of hiring the applicant, the Politician knew perfectly well that he had already signed up Jeff Doe to be the supervisor. Nevertheless, to induce the applicant to accept the job, the Politician just flat-out lied to the applicant about it. In that case, the elements of fraud appear to be present. The Politician made a representation to the applicant concerning a matter of fact, the representation was false, the Politician knew it was false, the Politician also knew that the applicant disliked Doe and would rely on the representation in deciding to accept the job, the applicant did so rely, and the applicant accepted the job. That seems to me to make out a case of fraud. Of course, the Politician could contest these points. For example, suppose the Politician alleges, and the court or the jury finds, that the applicant said, "I don't like Doe, and I hope you don't hire him, but I'm excited about this PAC and I'll take the job with or without Doe." In that case there was no reliance and the applicant would lose.

Let's assume that all the facts set forth above are found in the applicant's favor. He still has the problem that courts are leery about letting chains of causation get out of hand. If the applicant alleges that he spent money to move across country to come to Washington and work for the PAC, and is now quitting and moving back because he's discovered that he'd be supervised by Doe, then my offhand reaction, without doing any research, is that the applicant would be able to recover those out-of-pocket moving expenses. The opportunity cost of not having taken some other job would be murkier. It's conceivable to me that a court would give him relief on that score as well, but it's also conceivable that a court would award him his moving expenses but deny him the rest on the grounds that his other claims were too speculative.

I'm not clear on what any of this has to do with the decision in the DNC case.

[ehrnst]

101. Fiduciary duty

The Beck lawsuit accuses the DNC of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

I was comparing the claim of fiduciary injury and fraud as it would relate to another case.

[Jim Lane]

108. Yes, I understand that breach of fiduciary duty was one claim against the DNC.

Your hypothetical confused me because I didn't see any remote possibility of such a claim against the Politician and his PAC. In the actual case, the plaintiffs' claims against the DNC are not analogous to your job applicant's claims in that respect.

[ehrnst]

79. The nonsense will be continually put forth by those who reeeeeeaaaalllllyyyy

want somebody to say that the DNC did way more than talk mean about somebody in some emails - the most "damning" of which came after June 6.

[Demsrule86]

88. The DNC is not responsible for the outcome of 2016 no matter how many wish it was so...

or believe it. And when a familiar candidate either doesn't run or loses in the 2020 primary, there will be much complaining.

[ehrnst]

89. The are accused of being all powerful, and at the same time inept and out of touch.

Much as Obama was by the Tea Party...

[potone]

41. Thank you.

I find it very disturbing that the DNC made that argument. It shows contempt for the Democrats who donated to the DNC, expecting that all candidates would be treated fairly. I certainly will never donate to them again, only to individual candidates.

[Demsrule86]

43. That's nice and so helpful...to Repugs.

I find it disturbing that money was wasted on this.

[ehrnst]

48. So you think that there were significant Democrats that would not have donated

Last edited Sun Aug 27, 2017, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

the DNC if they thought Bernie might not be the candidate?

Those bringing this lawsuit weren't able to make that case.

"Not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNCs charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations,” Zloch wrote. “And not one of them alleges that they took action in reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the First Amended Complaint. Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/florida-judge-dismisses-fraud-lawsuit-against-dnc/


And it really doesn't make much sense to claim otherwise, outside an attempt to blame a candidate's failed attempt at a nomination on something other than votes.

[Jim Lane]

61. You're misstating the question.

The legal issue is not whether "there were significant Democrats that would not have donated {to} the DNC if they thought Bernie might not be the candidate". Instead, the legal issue is whether there were any donors who would not have donated if they had known that the DNC was violating its own neutrality rule.

Contrary to the various smears on DU, the plaintiffs' legal theory was not that they had right to see Bernie nominated. Their legal theory was that they had a right to rely on the DNC's own public statements about how the nomination fight would be conducted.

Judge Zloch didn't reject that legal theory. Instead, he dismissed the case because the complaint didn't sufficiently allege facts to bring the plaintiffs within their theory. I gave a detailed explanation in this post in another thread about the decision.

[ehrnst]

69. So, there was no finding of fact. The Court dismissed the case.(nt)

[Jim Lane]

93. That's absolutely correct.

People upset at the DNC's conduct have said that Judge Zloch found as a fact that the DNC violated its neutrality rules. No, he merely assumed it, as the applicable federal rules required him to do. People hostile to the plaintiffs have said that, because he dismissed the case, he must have found as a fact that the DNC did not violate its neutrality rules. That’s also wrong. He (correctly) made no finding of fact at all on that point, either way.

[ehrnst]

70. Sounds very much like the question is pretty much relevant:

"The legal issue is not whether "there were significant Democrats that would not have donated {to} the DNC if they thought Bernie might not be the candidate". Instead, the legal issue is whether there were any donors who would not have donated if they had known that the DNC was violating its own neutrality rule."

As I posted previously:

"Not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNCs charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations,” Zloch wrote. “And not one of them alleges that they took action in reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the First Amended Complaint. Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/florida-judge-dismisses-fraud-lawsuit-against-dnc/

Tell me how they could have refused to donate "knowing that DNC was violating it's own neutrality rule" if they had never read the DNC charter, or even statements about a neutrality rule? Time machine?

[Jim Lane]

94. It seems to me you're agreeing with what I wrote.

You had stated the issue (in #48) as being whether "there were significant Democrats that would not have donated {to} the DNC if they thought Bernie might not be the candidate". My response in #61 was: "Instead, the legal issue is whether there were any donors who would not have donated if they had known that the DNC was violating its own neutrality rule."

Those are two different issues. The quotation you now give is completely supportive of what I wrote in #61 concerning which of those two issues was relevant to Judge Zloch's decision.

You may have misinterpreted my posts. I said that the legal issue was whether the plaintiffs relied on the DNC's representations. I did not assert as a fact that the plaintiffs did rely on the DNC's representations. In the other thread I wrote this about the reliance issue:

To get around this problem, the plaintiffs might have to find additional representative plaintiffs who can allege reliance. That means finding at least one donor who was sufficiently well informed to know that the DNC promised neutrality but who was at the same time so ignorant as not to know that the DNC Chair had been a national campaign co-chair for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign and that she was clearly favoring Clinton this time. There may well be no such donor. If, instead, the same plaintiffs bring a new case in DC, they'll still have this reliance problem. Because of it, they might well survive the motion to dismiss, because that court will have jurisdiction, but then lose the motion for summary judgment (these are two different ways of ending a case before trial), or they might lose at trial.

That still seems to me to be correct.

[ehrnst]

97. The reliance issue pretty much says it all.

And I think that we were inverse situations, but if you need someone else to be wrong, I can't stop you. Clearly.

Their claims are about as realistic as the claims of those who say that "late term abortions" are so common as to need legislation to keep women from suddenly ending a 7 month healthy wanted pregnancy - only to keep the discussion of medical procedures that are referred to in such a way as to make people angry in the public discourse. Not really relevant, or addresses real issues, but it sure gets those anti-choice people riled up, and mad as heck about all these slutty women, and that Planned Parenthood all over again!!! Angry people donate to campaigns.

Frivolous lawsuit and not terribly well thought out:

"Plaintiffs assert several fraud-type claims. But they do not allege they ever heard or acted upon the DNC’s claims of neutrality. Plaintiffs also assert a tort claim on behalf of all registered Democrats, even though the harm they allege impacted all Democratic-primary-eligible voters——and under their theory, the entire body politic——the same way. And finally, Plaintiffs claim that donors to the DNC are at an increased risk of identity theft as a result of the computer hack. But they do not allege that the DNC regularly keeps the type of information necessary to facilitate identity theft or that the hackers targeted, much less obtained, that information."

But hey - it sure gets those anti-Hillary people riled up, and mad as heck at that all powerful and dastertly, mustache twirling "establisment" DNC all over again, as this thread indicates. And that protective request, using "Seth Rich" as a reason to think their lives might be in danger... Jared and Elizabeth Beck certainly flushed any credibility they had down the toilet.

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/57-D.E.-57-Ps-Mtn-for-Ord-of-Protection-6-13-17.pdf

[Gothmog]

75. You never read the pleadings and so your analysis is wrong

[ehrnst]

68. Actually....

All of the Plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true to discover whether there is a legal basis for the suit. There wasn't. There was NO finding of fact. The Court dismissed the case.

"The emails showed that they were doing everything they could to help her win the nomination."

I think you were taken in by your own bias.

None of the thousands of leaked emails and documents show the DNC significantly influencing the results of the nomination.

There’s an email by a finance staffer ineptly trying to play communications staffer. But his suggestion that the DNC attack Sanders over his religion, or lack thereof, died without anyone acting on it.

"Other emails highlighted by Wikileaks as evidence of corruption in fact show staffers getting guidance from attorneys on how to comply with campaign finance laws and spitballing ways to respond to attacks from Sanders on the integrity of the nomination process. A look at the “inner workings of the party’s financial operation,” The Washington Post said, reveals that “flattery, cajoling, and favor-bestowing [go] into winning rich supporters.” The same could be said of almost any political operation in this country.

Wikileaks’s tweets conjured dark and menacing conspiracies, but these are not borne out by the emails themselves. Take the group’s claim that the “DNC knew of Hillary paid troll factory attacking Sanders online.” The highlighted email isn’t some secret communication laying out nefarious plots. It’s a summary of a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday."

https://newrepublic.com/article/135472/no-dnc-didnt-rig-primary-favor-hillary

[Gothmog]

78. I agree with your analysis

[ehrnst]

80. Those plantiffs didn't even read the DNC charter that they claimed to be deceived/defrauded by.

And no one has demonstrated any actions by the DNC, other than sending emails, that indicated any action was taken to harm a candidate. But it's clear that people have plenty of fictious sources to support their biases and conspiracy theories.

And I'm with you on refusing to donate to the DNC. I've let them know that until Sanders doesn't have a role, Onward Together will get my donations. I know many, many others who have done the same.

[ehrnst]

50. Whatever ends an expensive, frivolous, pointless lawsuit earlier is sometimes what you have to do.

And those who had their minds made up from the start about the "corrupt establisment DNC" aren't going to change their minds, no matter what.

As for me, I refuse to donate to the DNC so long as Sanders is given any role whatsoever. My $$ are going to Onward Together, so you could say that their embrace of this man has "given ammunition" to those in the base who think it's a huge mistake.

I know many, many others who feel this way, and we have let the DNC know in no uncertain terms why those donations are going to support true progressive candidates without going through the DNC that has included Sanders.

I guess we'll see what DNC actions discredit them more among their actual base.

[Gothmog]

74. You are wrong

This was a motion to dismiss. The court made no fact findings

[Jim Lane]

95. The judge ruled that this particular DNC defense was wrong.

You're right that he made no fact findings, as I've pointed out in numerous other posts. There's more than one way to smack down a defense.

The DNC argued that even if it made false representations to the public, it was perfectly entitled to do so. The judge expressly disagreed with that odious assertion.

He did not find as a fact that the DNC had actually made false representations, nor did he find as a fact that it had not. What he said was that the DNC's claim of a right to do so, i.e. to ignore its own rules, was without merit.

[Gothmog]

102. Reread yhe opinion.

You are wrong yet again

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

[Doug the Dem]

14. "Voter Fraud"

A product of overactive wingnut imagination. Gerrymandering, on the other hand...

[riversedge]

18. This was the clear definition of a frivolous lawsuit

[Tanuki]

19. I wonder how much money, which could have been spent supporting

Democratic candidates all across the country and defeating the fascist and racist GOP, had to be spent instead in mounting a legal defense against this mess?

[Honeycombe8]

21. My thoughts exactly. Lawsuits cost thousands of dollars. Very expensive.

I'm suspicious of the lawsuit, its intentions, the plaintiffs.

[ehrnst]

39. Exactly. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

20. Bravo! Outstanding! (Thank you, Judge Zloch!)

[Demsrule86]

22. I knew it...this case never had any merit.

[obamanut2012]

27. Waiting for the conspiracy theorirs over this

And, also: HAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

[mcar]

28. Good

Maybe those who sued will move forward now instead of continuing to whine about the primary.

[obamanut2012]

32. won't happen

[ehrnst]

49. Happening on this very thread... (nt)

[mcar]

51. So I see

Sigh.

[NurseJackie]

56. Jesus.

[Lil Missy]

29. It never had any merit - much like those who filed it. n/t

[BootinUp]

33. They did use the ballot box. Hope they are happy. Nt

[ucrdem]

36. That's a funny way to caucus with Democrats. nt

[Gothmog]

58. Go read the cry baby attorney motion for protection

The attorney in this case anted to devote 100% of the resources of the US marshals to protect him snd the JPR idiots who signed up as plaintiffs

[liquid diamond]

90. Fucking sore losers

[elleng]

111. Facts are needed: Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders.

'On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. Though this assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is inherently taken to be true in a class action lawsuit, the court’s decision reflects a dire state of democracy in this country where the DNC’s own rules in holding primary elections is out of the court’s hands, proving the DNC attorney’s claims that the DNC is within their right to rig primaries.

The court continued, “Tor their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”

The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton’s favor, but the court’s authority to intervene in a court of law is limited.'>>>

http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/