This case had no merited

More fodder for their delusions of the DNC being this all-powerful organisations whose only goal is to stymie Bernie Sanders, no doubt.

From pp. 15-16 of the decision:

As a lifelong Democrat, I'm mortified that my party even made this argument. The DNC position was: We can promulgate these high-sounding rules, assure people that that's how we conduct our affairs, get them to contribute money based on that image, and keep their money even though we were shamelessly lying to them all along. That's the kind of sleaze I'd expect from the Republicans. It's good for our entire political system that the judge rejected it.

BTW, the judge didn't rule that the plaintiffs were conspiracy nuts. He dismissed the case because he concluded that there was no federal jurisdiction. That's why he expressly stated the dismissal to be without prejudice. I'm sure the plaintiffs' lawyers are thinking about whether they should bring a case in state court or in the District of Columbia court.

to begin with. Their guy came up short by millions of votes so they go around filing nuisance lawsuits? It makes a pretty strong case for closed primaries, as I would guess many of them were not registered Dems.

And, yes, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs are most definitely conspiracy nuts. Their twitter feeds are all about pizzagate and Seth Rich. They retweet alt-right characters all the time, and they've been on Infowars to talk about this lawsuit.

Obviously, their alt-right activities outside the courtroom are irrelevant to the legal case, which is why the judge didn't consider that as part of his ruling. But, yes, they are conspiracy nuts.

And you're wrong that the case was dismissed only because of jurisdiction. That was only one of many reasons. The judge also found that none of the plaintiffs could show that the promises of impartiality induced contributions. And also that donating money doesn't automatically give a person a legal interest in the management of an organization. And the harms they claimed were not significantly concrete to warrant legal action. And so on.

As far as the one argument that the judge rejected, it makes no difference. There only needs to be one valid reason to throw out a case, and the judge found several. The duty of the DNCs lawyers is to represent their clients, and they did that very well.

One thing I agree with you on: I'm sure the plaintiff's lawyers are up all night trying to find other ways to harass the DNC and help Republicans get elected. But fortunately, this lawsuit is no longer one of those ways.

You write:

Judge Zloch wrote:



(Decision, pages 8-9 (emphasis added))

After explaining his reasoning in detail, he wrote the following as the decretal paragraphs:



(Decision, page 28)

So, yes, it was dismissed only because of jurisdiction. That's why the dismissal was without prejudice.

Side note on "prejudice": As a general rule, litigants don't get to endlessly re-litigate the same issues, hoping that if one court disagreed with them, maybe a different court will rule for them. If Judge Zloch had found that the case was without merit, then his decision against the plaintiffs would bar a subsequent action on the same theories in a different court, such as a District of Columbia court of general jurisdiction. He wrote "without prejudice" to make clear that his decision was not on the merits and therefore did not have such preclusive effect.

I referred to "a District of Columbia court of general jurisdiction" because the cornerstone of Judge Zloch's decision was his adherence to the well-established rule that "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction...." (Decision, page 10) By contrast, every state court system (and for this purpose DC is like a state) has a court of general jurisdiction. That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see a new case brought in DC.

The issues you mention that he discussed were all in the context of federal jurisdiction, and specifically whether the allegations showed that the case fell under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the applicable statutory provision concerning the jurisdiction of federal district courts.

I haven't read the plaintiffs' complaint. Judging from the decision, however, the lawyers were somewhat sloppy in drafting it. For example, you write, "The judge also found that none of the plaintiffs could show that the promises of impartiality induced contributions." In fact, he "found" no such thing, as indeed he could not on a motion to dismiss. As he correctly stated, "In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true...." (Decision, page 2)

The problem wasn't in the proof, but in the pleading. The judge summarized the plaintiffs' legal theory on the fraud claim this way: "According to Plaintiffs, the DNC knew or should have known that those promises of neutrality were false and intended to induce members of the DNC Donor Class and Sanders Donor Class’s reliance." (Decision, page 7) He then explained why the plaintiffs failed on this point -- not because of a failure of their proof (he was assuming everything in the complaint to be true), but because of a failure in the wording of the complaint itself:



That a fraud plaintiff must allege and prove reliance has been part of American law since before there were primaries. To me, as a lawyer, the failure to make a proper allegation is a worse offense than giving an interview to Alex Jones!

My guess is that these plaintiffs didn't allege reliance because they couldn't do so truthfully. IIRC, if the court had ever reached the point of evaluating proof, the defendants were ready with evidence that at least some of the plaintiffs had been publicly blasting the DNC's obvious non-neutrality well before any internal emails were released. It was obvious to me personally, before even the first debate, that the DNC was not being neutral. Some people don't like this legal requirement of reliance as an element of a fraud claim, but it is the rule, not one conjured up to defeat Sanders supporters: If someone lies to you but you don't believe the lie, you have no cause of action for fraud. "Defendants are despicable liars" may be true but it's not a claim that a court will address.

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.

As you can see from that paragraph, my correction of your erroneous attacks on these plaintiffs doesn't mean I'm on their side. My current opinion, without having done a lot of research, is that the DNC acted wrongfully but not in a way that will support any legal remedy relating to the 2016 cycle. I hope that Judge Zloch's smackdown of the DNC's "smoke-filled room" argument will have some beneficial effect on its conduct in future elections.

The idiot who filed this law suit is a cry baby who asked the judge for US marshal protection. That motion was so stupid that it was funny and judge was kinder than he needed to be when responding to such a stupid request

This was a motion to dismiss and the court found no standing or cause of action. The opinion is well done but your attempt at analysis was amusing. Please tell me that you were not on law review

This idiot lawsuit relied of fraud of the market analysis for standing and was based on the moronic claim that donors are consumers under the DC consumer protection act You are defending a truly stupid lawsuit filed by a very stupid lawyer

If it makes you feel any better, my casenote was on the D.C. Circuit's decision in Pacifica Foundation v. FCC (the "seven dirty words" case). My conclusion was that the court's 2-1 majority had been correct in ruling that the broadcast of George Carlin's monologue was protected by the First Amendment. After my note was published, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit in a 5-4 decision. Thus, in disparaging me you have the consolation that the United States Supreme Court said that I was wrong, a distinction few lawyers can claim (although the decision didn't cite my note). But, hey, would you rather win with Rehnquist or lose with Brennan?

Getting back to the DNC case, you say that my analysis was "amusing" but you don't elaborate. I'd be interested in anything more specific that you have to say. (Whether the provision of the District of Columbia Code applies to donors to a political party is a subject that Judge Zloch didn't address and that I haven't examined, so it wasn't part of my post.)

The fact that you think that this lawsuit had any metit amuses me

As far as I can tell from Judge Zloch's decision, nothing related to Seth Rich was before him in connection with the motion to dismiss. Nothing related to Seth Rich is mentioned in his opinion. Nothing related to Seth Rich is in my discussion of that opinion.

Gothmog, having alleged that my "attempt at analysis was amusing," apparently has no interest in adducing any specifics. Anyone who wants to charge into that breach will have to point to something other than Seth Rich.

Legal obligations to their members in a case is silly. Of course their first legal defense is going to spell that out. That's what lawyers do. I think the lawsuit was just another attempt to shame Dems, same as the Seth arich crap the same people are peddling and it's not fooling most of us.

I confess I don't follow the sentence that begins in your subject line. You may be suggesting that the DNC's odious argument about smoke-filled rooms was nothing more than correctly "explain{ing} their legal obligations to their members...." If that's what you mean, you're wrong, at least in Judge Zloch's view. He specifically rejected that defense. He wrote:

(Decision, page 16)

If the DNC wants to dispense with primaries and have a few party insiders pick the nominee, or if it wants to keep the primaries but allow the insiders to put a heavy thumb on the scales, fine, let it amend its rules to provide for such a procedure. That would be open and honest (albeit undemocratic). What it can't do, according to the judge, is lie -- that is, publicly posture as neutral while covertly favoring one candidate.

They could skew things, they were told that wasn't the right thing to do. People asked for more debates and got 90% of what they asked for, so the DNC were fairly responsive and open to change.

Dems voted and that's how we got our nominee, same as always. That some don't respect the voters choice is no reason to sue. And those that sued are nutty conspiracy theorists who pushed the Seth Rich bullshit. We're not here for those assholes.

You write, "People asked for more debates and got 90% of what they asked for...." The DNC, or an inner body of only some DNC members, or Wasserman Schultz acting all by herself but falsely representing otherwise (I'm not clear on exactly who did it), promulgated an exclusivity rule, which had never before been part of the nomination process. Along with that was a drastically reduced schedule of debates. The effect was that the number of debates was reduced by more than 75% compared to 2008.

I don't know who supposedly "got 90% of what they asked for...." I've never heard that claim before. Some people thought the whole rule should be scrapped, and of course it wasn't. Maybe someone else asked for a small increase and got 90% of that much lesser request? Your assertion could do with a link.

In any event, none of this is relevant to Judge Zloch's decision. Contrary to what some posts on DU insinuate, the legal theory asserted by the plaintiffs was not that they were unhappy at Clinton's nomination. Obviously they were unhappy but they didn't rest their case on that. Furthermore, contrary to what some other posts on DU insinuate, the decision does not exonerate the DNC from the charge of violating its rules. Judge Zloch assumed that the DNC did violate its rules. He certainly did not find, as some would have it, that the neutrality rule was complied with.

Debaters after the first or second one. The last of the four was cancelled since it was over. I've never heard anyone raging on the DNC acknowledging they added the damn debates. Why is that? Because people are looking for any excuse to slag the DNC. Comparing the amount of debates to the one year they had more than double the average- which was a mistake? It's total bullshit to pretend 2008 was the standard.


https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4206828/democratic-debate-new-hampshire-scheduled/%3fsource=dam

You're not exactly refighting the primary, you're refighting the debate about the primary debates. Your link doesn't support your "90%" figure. What's relevant to this thread, though, is that Judge Zloch's decision didn't depend on determining the truth of the plaintiffs' allegations that the DNC was biased.

I personally think the DNC was biased in establishing a new exclusivity rule, in limiting debates as it did, and in scheduling them when it did. You think 2008 isn't a valid comparison? Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, although you might note that the first debate of the 2004 cycle was held in May 2003, not in October 2015 as it was this time. The point is that Judge Zloch's decision didn't turn on the question whether the DNC violated its neutrality rule. The judge made no finding on that point.

and not on your interpretations of what he didn't say.

The judge has no obligation to go on any tangents. He was very clear.

I've written several lengthy posts today that were filled with verbatim quotations from the judge's decision. Each quotation was accompanied by a page citation so that anyone who thought I was some evil racist misogynistic BernieBro liar could go check my assertions for themselves.

In posts disagreeing with me, by contrast, quotations from "what the judge actually said" have been noticeably sparse.

sidebars don't match the decision.

I never bought the crap about when they were scheduled.
It's no easy thing to pick times and places that would make all seven candidates happy- that's why they usually just shut up and show up.

And of course it's completely invalid to compare the number too debates to the one outlier year that had more than double the average amount! It's not a baseline comparison- it's deliberately deceptive.


I'm not taking about the primary contest here- I'm talking about the DNC doing a decent job of creating the structure for the primary. I'm not the one claiming the primary was bungled in some way- you are. I'm fine with it, am arguing the case against the DNC was as much crap as the Seth rich story- silly conspiracies both!

Judge Zloch's decision didn't turn at all on whether the DNC was being rigid and unfair. Plaintiffs said the DNC was unfair in that it violated its own rule of neutrality; defendants said that the DNC had been neutral; and Judge Zloch didn't take a position on the question (or, as lawyers usually say, he didn't reach that issue).

That's why, although you and I differ in our evaluation of the DNC's actions vis-a-vis the debate schedule, that difference has no bearing on the analysis of Friday's decision. Note that Judge Zloch makes no reference at all to the debates in the 2016 cycle. In fact, the word "debate" doesn't even occur in his decision except when, in analyzing federal rules concerning standing, he discusses a couple cases that were brought concerning the debates in the 2000 cycle.

Last edited Mon Aug 28, 2017, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)

You are wrong yet again

Read the DC deceptive practice act. Your posts are wrong because you do not understand the court's ruling

Specifically about the amount of debates. You unfairly compared it with the one year they'd doubled the average number of debates- what a deceptive number to use as a baseline. They were correcting a previous mistake. I don't have a problem with that or sanctioning debates- I think shit has been going way off the rails and people want to make up their own rules as they go along. I don't honk that's a great thing.

You're quite right that Judge Zloch didn't reach the issue of whether the DNC was neutral. He didn't say they were and he didn't say they weren't. That's why, as I pointed out in #28, you and I can argue about the debate schedule all we want, but "none of this is relevant to Judge Zloch's decision."

non-Democrats to run in any presidential primaries and except in states like California which have a different system...any primaries for any office. You want to be 'independent' or a Green than run for office as one.

I don't know enough about the applicable rules to know whether the DNC could implement the rule you suggest even if it wanted to. I raised the question here but got no answer. Many DUers besides you have endorsed this idea. If you can help me figure out if it would even be possible, I'd be grateful for any learning you can provide.

have different laws in different states. They can keep non-Democrats off the ballot and they should in 20. A person who is not a member of the party can run as an independent. It would probably be less damaging in the long run.

You say there are different laws in different states. I agree. But state laws aren't made by the parties; they're made by the state legislatures. If a state's law says that anyone submitting 1,000 petition signatures can be listed on the Democratic primary ballot, and someone who's not a Democrat meets that requirement, then the state official who prepares the ballot will follow state law, not the dictates of the DNC. Thus, it's not true that the parties are in charge of the primary process, at least not completely.

As for a run as an independent, I don't think that would be less damaging, and I think President Gore would agree with me.

The DC statute only applies to consumers. The court ruled that donors are not consumers. Read the statute and the pleadings. The DC statute has a narrow definition of consumer that does not apply to donors. Read the statute

Your claims are totally wrong

The idiots who are so stupid that they post on JPR felt that this lawsuit had merit but no one in the real world believed that this lawsuit had any merit. The idiots who post legal analysis on JPR arefun to laugh at. I loved the the fact that JPR was posting videos from RWNJ sources such as Alex Jones.

The idiot plaintiff claimed that donors are consumers under the DC deceptive trade practices act. That claim was adressed by the court when it ruled that donors have no standing. Only an idiot would make that claim. Reread the opinion. The court's finding that donors have no standing was a polite way of stating that this claim was too stupid to address. I literally laughed when i read this in the pleadings. Do you really believe that tnis claim has merit?

Thank you for the amusement

You write:

Your argument is that the DC Code section doesn't apply to donations to a political party or to a campaign. Judge Zloch didn't rule on that question.

You can't just say that the judge was merely being polite, use that characterization to dismiss the judge's actual reasoning, and substitute your own view of the law.

What Judge Zloch actually said:
* "In order to maintain a class action lawsuit, the class representatives——as distinct from the putative class members——must establish their standing to sue...." (Decision, page 12) He went on to cite federal precedents because, even in a case that alleges a violation of a state statute (or, as here, a DC Code provision), standing in a federal district court is tested under federal rules.
* There are "three basic elements of Article III standing:" (1) "an invasion of a legally protected interest";
(2) "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of . . . .”; and (3) a likelihood "that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” (Decision, pages 12-13)

Your argument about the DC Code provision goes to the first point. If the Code doesn't apply to political donations, then the DNC's actions didn't violate the Code and therefore didn't invade a legally protected interest. What you want, to support your view, is for Judge Zloch to go on and say exactly that.

But he didn't.

In the actual opinion, he had no need to consider that first element, and with it the scope of the DC Code provision, because he went right to the second element, causation:
* "Plaintiffs fail to allege any causal connection between their injuries and Defendants’ statements." (Decision, page 13) In that regard, Judge Zloch based his decision on the inadequacy of the complaint. The putative causal connection was that defendants' false statements, which violated the DC Code, caused the plaintiffs to make their donations. The complaint, however, while alleging that they made the donations, didn't adequately allege this element of reliance.

Consider an analogy. An automobile manufacturer publishes an ad in a DC newspaper in which it makes false claims about its cars. (You describe the DC Code provision as a "deceptive trade practices act" so I assume you agree it would apply to a newspaper ad for a consumer product.) This particular ad runs only in the DC area. Someone in DC reads the ad and buys a car; on the same day, someone in Seattle, who has not seen the ad, also buys one of these cars. Does the Seattle resident have standing to sue in federal court for the violation of the DC law? No, because that Seattle buyer didn't rely on the false statements in the ad and therefore wasn't injured by them. The DC law applies to this ad, so there is "a legally protected interest", but there's no causal connection between the violation of the DC law and any injury suffered by that particular plaintiff.

That's the problem the plaintiffs here had. The equivalent of seeing the misleading newspaper ad for a car would be reading the DNC charter that contains the neutrality provision. Judge Zloch ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because "not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC’s charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations." (Decision, page 13)

Did such false statements violate an interest that's legally protected by the DC Code provision? Judge Zloch didn't say Yes and he didn't say No. On either decision concerning that first element of the standing test, the plaintiffs would fail the second element, and that failure was enough to require dismissal of the case. Therefore, he didn't waste time trying to interpret the DC law.

You ask me if I think the claim under the DC Code provision has merit. I don't know. I haven't even read that provision, let alone any caselaw that it might have generated, so I'm not qualified to opine. What I can say is that, even if (as is probable) the drafters of the law weren't thinking about whether or not they were covering donations to political parties or campaigns, it's quite possible that they used broad language that would extend that far. This case could be covered even if that wasn't their intent. Leave originalism to Scalia and his ilk. A conservative friend of mine once groused to me, "The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say anything about busing." No, it doesn't. Courts ordered busing anyway.

Last edited Mon Aug 28, 2017, 10:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Thank you for the amusement. The fact that you do not understand the court's riling is amusing[d. The finding that donors are not consumers or have standing kills this ignorant claim

I have read the pleadings sbd the DC law. The idiot lawsuit relied on the claim that donors are consumers. I also read the DC satute which defines consumers as someone eho seeks goods or services. What setvices or goods did these donors seek?

Read the complaint and the law before you make silly claims

Thank you for the amusing posts.

I'm not a lawyer. What I meant is that it wasn't just thrown out because of issues related to the residences of the plaintiffs and the defendants (my incorrect, non-lawyerly interpretation of the term "jurisdiction" ). I meant that there were also several other problems, besides that one, with the case that the plaintiffs brought. But sure, all those others could also be jurisdictional -- maybe, for example, in a DC court, contributing money to an organization does in fact give you a legal interest in how that organization is run. That I don't know.

And with regard to my comment that "none of the plaintiffs could show that the promises of impartiality induced contributions," you are again correct. But still. What actually happened is (as you pointed out) that the plaintiffs didn't even bother to allege a causal connection, which, from the point of view of the plaintiffs' argument, is even worse. It's not that the plaintiffs brought evidence to show this and the court found it unconvincing. It's that the plaintiffs couldn't even find any such evidence to begin with.

I have no idea what the jurisdictional distinctions between a DC Court and Federal Court would be, that is above my non-lawyer head. But it wouldn't surprise me either if they try again, because they aren't really trying to win a case here, what they are trying to do is raise negative publicity about Democrats in order to help Republicans win elections. The whole thing is a circus, using the courts for political objectives rather than legal ones.


Because when you boil it down, even if we accept the whole conspiracy-against-Bernie thing, it seems absurd to try and make a fraud case out if it. I mean, nobody believes that DWS was trying to get people to donate to Bernie -- if anything, if she was actually biased against Bernie, she would want the exact opposite. And it's not like DWS got any of that Bernie contribution money, there wasn't any personal enrichment going on. What we have, at the very worst, is a situation where person A goes on TV and says something false, and then person B decides to give person C some money.

Last edited Sun Aug 27, 2017, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The term “jurisdiction” encompasses two issues. One is personal jurisdiction – can this defendant be compelled to litigate here? The other is subject matter jurisdiction – is this case of the type that this court can hear?

Personal jurisdiction obviously relates to residence. You can’t force people to defend a case in a state where they don’t live and have no contacts. The tricky point is that, for federal courts (as opposed to most state courts), subject matter jurisdiction can also relate to residence. That’s why Judge Zloch got into the question.

You write, “I have no idea what the jurisdictional distinctions between a DC Court and Federal Court would be, that is above my non-lawyer head.” The answer is that DC courts are, in a sense, federal courts, but that’s because of the federal government’s control of the District (the “nation’s capital, nation’s colony” situation). For many purposes, the District is treated as if it were a state. When Judge Zloch wrote that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, he was referring to the federal courts that are “really” federal in the sense of being governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the statutory provision concerning federal district courts around the country. In the District, as in every state, there’s a federal district court that’s subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but there are also courts run by the DC government that are analogous to state courts and are not subject to that statute.

You write, “What we have, at the very worst, is a situation where person A goes on TV and says something false, and then person B decides to give person C some money.” That’s applicable to what Judge Zloch called the Sanders Donor Class Plaintiffs, but there were also DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs. These were people who, in your terms, alleged that person A had said something false and they had then given person A some money. That’s a classic fraud claim. I don’t know enough about the law of fraud to opine about whether person A can be liable for inducing donations to person C.

Yes, that's correct, I forgot about the DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs. They are in an A-lied and A-got-the-money situation, which would be classic fraud. Though I still don't know if it's what I would consider fraud. For these purposes, lets assume that the DNC was biased against Bernie, and they did so purposefully and knowingly, and also lied about it purposefully and knowingly.

First question would be, do the lies the DNC told have to have been made with the intent of inducing donations? I'm trying to think of a hypothetical. Let's say I'm the head of a Christian charity which has as part of its bylaws that the officers can't be having affairs because that's non-Christian. And I'm having an affair. And I lie about it, not to trick donors, but because I don't want my wife to leave me. Am I defrauding donors to my charity?

Or, maybe a better one, let's say I run a charity that donates to schools. The bylaws say I donate based on need and so on, and not based on how good their basketball teams are. But I'm a basketball nut so I secretly discriminate towards good basketball team schools. Not to get more donations, just because that's my preference, is that fraud?

Second question would be, does everyone who donates to the DNC become part of the class action? Or only people who donated due to the false statements of the DNC? Like in my second example, do people who donated to my charity, but either don't care or actually support my basketball bias, do they get their money back too?

You write, "First question would be, do the lies the DNC told have to have been made with the intent of inducing donations?" As a general rule, "intent" at law means purpose or knowledge. Put another way, a person is presumed to intend the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequences of his or her actions. If you, while running the charity, lie about your adulterous affair, and you know that people will rely on your lies to donate to your charity, then that would fulfill the requirement of intent, even if your sole or principal motivation was to stay out of divorce court.

You write, "Second question would be, does everyone who donates to the DNC become part of the class action?" In this case, the judge never reached the question of whether to certify a class at all. When a class is certified, the delineation of class membership is often a significant bone of contention. In the action against the DNC, the plaintiffs and the defendants would each have offered proposed definitions. The judge might accept one or the other or fashion his own.

One consideration would be the problem of proof. If the class were limited to "donors who relied on the DNC's false statements", then there would have to be a separate inquiry as to each individual who donated, to determine whether he or she did in fact rely. That's precisely the kind of tedious case-by-case adjudication that a class action is designed to avert. It's for that reason that there's some reluctance to certify any class in a fraud case. It's not an absolute bar, though. Here's a discussion of the problem as it arises under the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the governing statute in New York state courts:

You can go to the full piece and read seven pages on the subject if you're having trouble getting to sleep. Suffice it to say that answering your second question would have been a significant headache for Judge Zloch if he had denied the motion to dismiss.

But thanks. It actually wasn't that bad. Most of the 9 pages were citations.

Looks like the answer to these questions are "it's complicated."

And yeah, from my slightly-more-legal-knowledge-than before, it really seems like the plaintiffs' attorneys made a mess out of the case, for example by not even bothering to claim reliance. I dunno, maybe some halfway decent attorneys could have gotten it into court.

Seems like all it would have required is one person who claimed to have donated to the DNC based on the promise of impartiality. Even if it didn't qualify as a class action, and even if in court the claim of reliance falls apart, they still would have gotten to put DNC officials on the stand, which was the whole point anyway.

So I guess it's good that the Alex Jones LLP is incompetent. Although that seems weird too, because the lead lawyer not only went to Harvard Law, but apparently also worked at Quinn Emanuel, which to my knowledge has an excellent reputation.

I am enjoying laughing at this lame attempt of analysis you are citing. This case was brought in federal court based in part on a bogus claim of diversity jurisdiction. The was no federal jusisdiction because donors have no standing. This opinion was a complete rejection of the theories underlying the plaintiff's rather lame petition.

This was a complet rejection of some rather ignorant legal claims. Earlier the court laughed at the lame motion filed by the plaintiff attorney demandinf protection. That is the motion that generated the Alex Jones videos played on the JPR site

The judge basically laughed at the diversity jurisdiction claim. This lawsuit was a piece of dreck. The standing arguement killed the rest of this dumb lawsuit. Donors do jot have standing and are not consumers.

Thanks, Jim Lane, for calmly and reasonably dissecting and analyzing the case and decision.



As for those purists downthread who claim that Sandernistas and other independents have no role in the Democratic Primaries, tell me again why the 2000 election (when progressives rallied to Nader in a third party run)was so much better than 2016 (when Sanders made a good-faith effort to work within the Democratic Party primary process, up to and including fully supporting Clinton as the nominee)?

-app

The idiot lawyer hurt his case by asking the judge to protect him from Hillary's assassin. This lawyer is a fool

Did you see the video where the woman goes on InfoWars and starts crying? She truly thought Hillary's assassin squad was going to come after her! LOL.

And yeah, when they actually submitted a legal brief about the Seth Rich conspiracy I don't think that helped their case very much.

I love laughing at the idiots who post on JPR

"cognizable". He basically said it wasn't based in reality which implied they were conspiracies. Wow, how embarrassing.

Sarcasm aside, the opinion makes pretty clear why he found the claims not cognizable. One element of a cause of action for fraud is that the plaintiff relied on the allegedly false statements, which obviously requires that the plaintiff knew about those statements. Judge Zloch stated:

(Decision, page 13)

That weakness in the complaint supports this conclusion:



(Decision, page 15)

There's nothing in this about "conspiracies". That's your word. It doesn't occur anywhere in the decision.

"conspiracies". He said they were not cognizable, which also means they weren't real.

I understood what the judge said just fine, and Gothmog was right that it was very polite.

When a court says that a particular claim is not cognizable, that doesn't mean "this claim is obvious bullshit but I'm feeling nice today so I'll word it more politely." The polite legal terms for bullshit are "without merit" or, in a phrase a judge once used about one of my arguments, "borders on the frivolous." (BTW, he was right, but it was the only argument we had.)

On the other hand, "cognizable" is a specific legal concept. A claim may be meritorious and yet not be cognizable in a particular court or under a particular statute.

In this thread and in the one started by stevebreeze, I've spent a lot of time trying to explain the law to people who were drawing unjustified conclusions from Judge Zloch's decision. For example, in this thread, there's a long subthread in which DanTex (who shares your low opinion of the plaintiffs) and I had a thoughtful exchange of views. By contrast, some of the criticism of the suit has consisted essentially of one-liners and smilies. I'm not willing to do more unpaid legal work to respond to posts of that kind. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

to explain what else "cognizable" means. It also means not perceptible. We all know what that means, too. Everyone has been exceedingly polite about the dismissal of this nonsense case.

My opinion is that it would not be. One reason is that a ruling that claims are not cognizable is different from a finding that the claims are false.

actually said, and not your interpretation of what he didn't say. The first couple sentences in this OP answered your question.

I've gone back to the first couple sentences of the OP and I don't see the answer. Would a new action in a DC court be barred by res judicata? I say it would not be.

BTW, since every discussion of this case brings out straw men in numbers unusual even for DU, let me add: I am saying it would not be barred by res judicata. I'm not saying that it would win. I'm not saying that it should be brought. It would be really nice if anyone who wants to disagree with me would take the trouble to disagree with something I actually say.

i.e., this is just sour grapes. That pretty much sums it up. That is not a straw man. It is exactly what the judge said.

You should focus on what the judge actually said, and not your interpretation of what he didn't say.

Here's the first sentence. Hard to miss:
“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.

Did he say that this entire case was "just sour grapes"? No, that's your term, not his.

Let me quote the same passage you do, but add a different emphasis from the one you added, and include the next sentence of the decision to give the full context:

(Decision, page 9 (emphasis added)) (not, BTW, Decision, first sentence)

If Judge Zloch had thought that the plaintiffs were merely attempting to "air their general grievances", he wouldn't have needed to write 28 pages. The passage above properly distinguishes between grievances that can be addressed in court and those that can't be.

I'm still not clear on how you answer the question I raised in #75. Would a new action in a DC court be barred by res judicata? I say it would not be.

actually said. The judge said that the courts were not the avenue for redress. That's what he said.

You're obviously deliberately taking the judge's own words out of context to fit some aggrieved narrative. The judge said the courts were not the venue for redress, so -- obviously -- he thought that the plaintiffs were misusing the process. That's why the judge wrote: "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........not through the judiciary."

You should focus on what the judge actually said instead of tangents on what he didn't say.

Did you happen to notice that, immediately after the sentence that you keep emphasizing, Judge Zloch wrote another sentence that you want to ignore?

You write, "The judge said the courts were not the venue for redress...." That's hilarious. Any judge who actually held that should be impeached. What the hell else are courts for, if not to provide a venue for redress? OK, they swear in newly naturalized citizens and admit attorneys to the bar, but mostly they provide redress. What Judge Zloch actually said was that generalized grievances can't be redressed but that specific claims of fraud must be considered. Some fraud claims are meritorious and should be redressed, some fraud claims are not meritorious and then redress should be denied, but he wouldn't have needed 28 pages of analysis if he actually thought that the courts were not the venue for redress.

Any plaintiffs who are "misusing the process" (again, your words, not his) would find their cases dismissed wtih prejudice. Judge Zloch dismissed this case "without prejudice". That's not a "sidebar" of mine. It's a verbatim quotation from page 28 of the Decision.

You are just pushing wishful thinking and twisted interpretations of what the judge didn't say. Everything you are proposing is just a belief of what the judge may have meant based on what he didn't write. LOL.

You should read the plaintiff's complaint.

You should also read what the judge actually said about it.

The judge said the case doesn't belong in court. He backed that up by dismissing the case. The rest is just technicalities on how he got it out of the judiciary. Of course he would write more than one sentence.

If you think either of these facts is important, then please identify and quote from a post of mine in which I made a comment about either the complaint or the Kennedy assassination, and then explain why my post is incorrect.

I've made a couple indirect references to the complaint by referring to what Judge Zloch said about it. As I said in one of my posts, I'm comfortable with the assumption that Judge Zloch's quotations from and paraphrases of the complaint are accurate. If you think that he (and therefore I) said something incorrect about the complaint, please identify and quote from the relevant passage in his decision and/or the relevant post of mine.

Please feel free to quote anywhere I might have said that I was going off on tangents about what the judge didn't write. Please identify and quote where I said that, lol.

And -- obviously -- you are "comfortable" with twisting interpretations of what was not written because you keep doing it.

Donors are not consumers. The DC statute defines comsumera barrowly

Read the pleadings. Donors are not consumers. I have read the pleadings and the statute. you are torally wrong in your attempt at analysis

What good and services are donors seeking?

"Would the case be barred by res judicata" and "Would the case be laughed at" are separate questions. If the "No" in your subject line means that you think it would not be barred by res judicata, then we agree on that point.

Of course, many a case that's not barred by res judicata is, nevertheless, unsuccessful. Some are even laughed at. Some cases that are laughed at nevertheless succeed.

This case was a joke

Collateral estoppel is closely related to res judicata. Here the courts finding that the donors have no standing would also support a finding that donors are not consumers.
The DC statute only applies to consumers. Please read it. Donors were found by the court to have no standing and that reasoning applies to their standing as consumers.

I bave read the DC statute and i actually.understand the court ruling. You have been wrong in all of your attempts at analysis

You write, "Here the courts finding that the donors have no standing would also support a finding that donors are not consumers."

There are at least two possible bases on which a court could find that these donors had no standing:

* One is the argument that you never tire of repeating, that donors are not consumers -- or, to put it in the terms of the federal standing rules, that political donors have no "legally protected interest" under the DC Code provision. (The judge states this general requirement on page 12 of the Decision.)

* The second is the argument that, even if the DC Code provision protects donors, these particular plaintiffs failed to allege "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of . . . .” (Decision, page 13)

The problem with your argument is that Judge Zloch did not rule, one way or the other, on the first point. His decision was instead based on the second point: "Plaintiffs fail to allege any causal connection between their injuries and Defendants’ statements." (Decision, page 13) His decision that the plaintiffs didn't satisfy this second requirement of standing meant that they didn't have standing, period, regardless of the interpretation of the DC Code provision. Therefore, the interpretation of the DC Code provision wouldn't affect his decision one way or the other. Under those circumstances, he followed the standard judicial practice of not ruling on irrelevant matters.

This is one reason he expressly stated that his dismissal of the case was "without prejudice" (Decision, page 28). If he had ruled the way you wish he had ruled, the dismissal would presumably have been with prejudice.

And thank your for the very cogent analysis you have provided in multiple threads on this topic. I see that you have had some very polite, mutually respectful, and informing discussions with DanTex; I enjoyed reading through them, they were enlightening.

You have also unfortunately been under a barrage from a couple posters whose comments bring nothing to the table. Obviously they disagree with you, but have not once made a statement, backed up with facts and excerpts as you have, to advocate their argument. You've been tremendously patient, especially in the face of one glaringly incorrect poster who seems to want to do nothing but attack you.

I for one am very appreciative of your input as well as your patience to continue advocating from a place of intelligience in the face of repeated insults. It is clear you aren't arguing in support of the case, but in an effort to ensure that people dont draw false conclusions and correctly understand and evaluate the arguments being made. Thank you !

One thing makes me feel guilty, though. You're praising me for my patience just when it's been pretty much exhausted.

I'm glad that you and others have found the exchanges enlightening. Nevertheless, I've spent way too much time on this subject, and I'm now transitioning to the mode of letting hopelessly wrong posts go unanswered. Maybe I'll go watch some cat videos instead.

Thanks again!

you are just trying to legitimize something that was thrown out for being unfounded and the wrong venue, which is what is hopeless. Like the judge said, redress should be at the ballot box, not the judicial system. Yes, cat videos instead!

Last edited Tue Aug 29, 2017, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

This case has no merit in the real world. The DNC lawyers will argue and sasily win the collateral estopplel argument because donors are not consumers. The same reasoning why donors lack standing applies to this issue. Read the pleadings and the statute and you will see how sill these attempts at arguments are.

Not one of yourattpts at legal arguments have sny merit in the real world

I have read yhe DC statute and you have not.

And thank your for the very cogent analysis you have provided in multiple threads on this topic. I enjoyed reading through them, they were enlightening.

You have also unfortunately been under a barrage from a couple posters whose comments bring nothing to the table. All of your statements are backed up with facts because they come right from the judge's own decision with his direct quotes. You obviously also read the plaintiff's complaint. You've been tremendously patient.

Thank you for continuing to deal in facts and, I for one, am very appreciative of your input as well as your patience to continue advocating from a place of intelligence in the face of repeated insults. It is clear you see that the lawsuit didn't belong in court and was just sour grapes arising from a defeat at the ballot box (which is what the judge also said).

The DC statute is a plain vanilla deceptive trade practices act that is similar to the Texas act. Consumers are the only parties covered and that term has a narrow meaning or definition. A consumer is a person who seeks goods or services. Donors do not meet this defiinition.

The judge was kinder to the idiot plaintiff attorney than I would have been. There are some subtle digs made by the judge that I caught but were too subtle for others. It is clear that this case has no merit

I am stranded at Walt Disney World right now due to Harvey. The houston airports are closed and so I making do with my iphone.

Of course he will follow protocol as it relates to providing explanations, but he was very kind with all of this. Attempting to usurp what he actually wrote with some byzantine methods meant to resurrect a dead issue is just a fool's errand.

Thanks for the info about the DC statute.

And take care with your return home! Sorry you're stranded. And I know -- phone typing is svck!

You two should open a practice together.

Jim has consistently referenced specific pages, lines, and quotes from this case, and provided clear reasoning and explanation for the various elements of the case as it was actually litigated. You two are litigating a seperate case in your heads with arguments that were not made and whose merits simply were not considered by the Judge.

Jim clearly has an intent to not defend the merits of the case, but to disallow false conclusions being drawn from improper analysis of the judgement. It sure seems your intent is merely to say "This case was dumb," (with which I believe Jim may agree) while in pursuit of your primary objective of attacking/insulting the plaintiffs. It doesnt seem as if either of you even understand the analysis Jim is providing, nor his intent.

I am amused by your abilities to convince each other that either of you has a clue as to what you are discussing. In the real world, you'd be chasing ambulances.

(Edit to add, the only insults in this thread have been directed at Jim. I see that none of *his* posts have been removed.)

plaintiff's case or the judge's responses, either. LOL.

You can't "disallow" conclusions that are from the judge's own words. The judge's own words and actions are not strawmen, as Jim tried to say, and they are not "false conclusions". They are now facts as it relates to this nonsense case being dismissed.

Oh, and Gothmog is awesome, no matter how many times you try to say otherwise.

That's basically what you are trying to imply about what the judge didn't write. LOL.

You can go all day making up scenarios about what the judge didn't say. What he did say was that this case lacked merit and standing, and then he threw it out. He said it wasn't a judicial matter. Then he explained why it wasn't a judicial matter.

Part of his explanation was that the case was bogus because it relied on some hacked DNC emails which the plaintiff's obviously thought were some smoking gun gotchas, but they weren't. The judge chided the plaintiffs because they never bothered to read the DNC rules. All that sounds more accurate than your unproven assumption that the judge was trying to leave some crumbs as clues for the plaintiffs to resubmit their case.

So, again, where did the judge say the plaintiff's should resubmit their case.

The judge didn't say that the plaintiffs should resubmit their case. I didn't say that they should resubmit their case. I didn't say that the judge said that they should resubmit their case.

I did say that the judge dismissed the case "without prejudice" (Decision, page 28). That means that they can resubmit their case. As a practical matter, however, starting a new case in a court of general jurisdiction (a state court in Florida or a DC court) would avoid some of the problems inherent in suing in a federal district court, which is a court of limited jurisdiction.

You keep ignoring that the judge said it is not a judicial matter, so there is no case to resubmit. All your efforts are just distractions away from what the judge actually said, which makes it straw.

It's just wishful thinking and more straw to insinuate the judge was leaving a trail of hints about how the plaintiff's should resubmit their case. He said the opposite. There was no case. But you said you didn't read the plaintiffs complaint, so...

You have not. Your claims are totally wrong

Not a proud moment for the DNC

The judge said that for the purposes of deciding whether the case goes to trial, he had to assume that the bias was real. And he determined that under that totally unproven assumption, there was still no case.

The pre-trial judgement didn't take a stance on whether the bias was real. Though I'm sure that it will play out just the way you described in alt-right press. Which was the whole point of the lawsuit: to hurt the DNC and help Republicans get elected.

This wad a motion to dismiss. the judge ruled that even tjis lie wad true, there was till no cause of action. There was no fact finding in this opinion

at the facts in a light most favorable and ASSUMED that all their allegations were true, the case would still be dismissed.

I find those that brought the lawsuit complete repugnant. What a waste of time and money...cry baby politics.

Before you all come shrieking at me, understand that I DID support Bernie in that primary. Once the convention happened, I worked for Clinton. Like any other primary, once the votes are counted you work your ticket if you want to be called a party member. It isn't always easy, but it is how partisan adults behave.

I do, however, feel that if the bylaws for an organization are in place--and agreed to in advance--those bylaws need to be followed.

YMMV.


Laura

Go to ballot box butjot the court house. This lawsuit was a joke that relied on the premise that political donors are consumers. Only a stupis person would think that this lawsuit had merit

Calling somebody stupid you disagree with is not how adults behave. Insults are tactics used by children and bullies. I assume you are neither, so I'm left wondering why you attacked an opportunity for discussion.

out of office and focus on electing Democrats....not attacking our party. No more independents running for president under the DNC ever...that solves it all. Democrats are the only means of implementing progressive policy and when you attack them as this lawsuit did (sore losers), you attack the entire progressive movement.

Although, I think the bulk of Sanders supporters who were Democrats voted Sec. Clinton.

We are in complete agreement about that!

Understand, please, it is my contention that DNC stated rules were violated regarding no official party action on behalf of a candidate in the Dem primary. I understand that you feel Sanders is not really a Dem. However, I subscribe to the belief (and the legal opinion) that you are whatever party you swear you are when you file that petition to run. I understand that debate exists--it's ongoing, and has been a part of the landscape for about as long as there have been political parties--but that's not what I'm focusing on here.

I felt that we had sworn candidates in the Dem primary and that those candidates should all have full and equal access to party resources. I am curious to see if other people share that same conviction or if it is as outdated as jousting and duels.

Regards!

Laura

allowed to run as Democrats in 20.

If you want to run as a Democrat for any position, be a Democrat. The only mistake the Democrats made last year was not insisting that Sanders do just that, rather than free-loading off the party's infrastructure. I hope they learned from this episode, so that they never make the same mistake again.

Will it be a panel of people deemed to be "real" Dems? Will it be based on a period of time prior to that election where there's an acceptable amount of party activity--kinda like an apprenticeship? If somebody decides they honestly and sincerely support Dem party positions but has never declared a party affiliation before, will they not be allowed to run?

Do you see the danger in this?


Laura

are implying. It's okay to be a Democrat. If someone self-identifies as a third party, then we should believe them and not put up with endless insults towards Democrats.

If a candidate gathers the required number of signatures on petitions to get on the ballot, then I believe they are whatever party they swear they are on that candidate's filing. Imposing some sort of "purity" test on candidates who are willing to run flies in the face of inclusiveness. We have enough problems attracting new people into the party as it stands right now. Imposing some sort of judgement of who is or isn't a "real" Democrat is a mistake, IMO.

I'm just FINE calling myself a Democrat and have done so for a few decades (some of those years while holding public office as a Dem.) I have had people approach me with questions about how they can run and who to talk to within the party. I'm always delighted by that, but I don't believe that would be as common if the Dem party suddenly had some sort of "party purity test" candidates had to pass before they were allowed to run.

THAT is what I'm afraid of.


Laura

know what party they identify with? That is an odd objection to have and difficult to relate to. There is a political reality to becoming a candidate, so if it's that confusing to someone, maybe they should hold off.

And the purity tests are from those who smear Democrats, but there is an unmistakeable trend lately in trying to turn the tables to make it seem that third parties are being ostracized. It's an interesting turnabout.

winnable as an independent or another party member such as a Green should not be allowed.

what it was actually saying -- random people can just collect signatures and then hold Democrats hostage until they decide what is best for them. What?? Who needs that?

not a 'D' as does Angus King. You are either a member of the Democratic Party, or you are not...black and white.

I was a delegate to the national convention. The process was fair. I was ashamed that sanders delegates were so poorly behaved. Some of the sanders delegates decided that it would be fun to call my daughter the c word because she would not try to change my vote. The people complaining about the process are sore losers and cry babies.

This lawsuit was filed in bad faith and was a joke. Donors aren't consumers

I sm working hard to turn Texas blue in the real wotld. I attended a meet and greet for Congressman Joaquin Castro to showthat he jas grassroots support. I helped train 200+ poll watchers who helped fight gop voter suppression efforts in Harris county which helped to turn Harris county blue

Supporting a stupid lawsuit is not the way to show that you care about the party

But lawyers aren't there to provide wisdom.

I agree that the lawyers were not at their best in this case (full disclosure I am NOT an attorney!) I question how there was a class action suit there because I don't think there was a "damage" that can be quantified (unless you count the orange anus living in the Whitehouse--and I'm still not convinced a Dem could have won the general--even had Jesus himself been running--given the strategic help from outside entities...)

Having said that, I am terribly concerned at the idea that somehow our party is at a point where there i even the possibility that our bylaws and accepted rules could be ignored by anybody in our leadership. Further, I am deeply troubled that our party is so divided that we have people who support or even just accept the idea that our rules are "suggestions" rather than rules. If our party doesn't stand for our own rules I can't imagine the rest of the voters will have much confidence in anything any of us say.

How do we, as a party, move forward to a point of function? Any ideas?


Laura

It's not something to screw with in the middle of a primary. A lot of people had no idea how things worked and were upset because they had preconceived notions. That's not helpful. Neither is slagging the DNC for utter nonsense.

This was a motion to dismiss and that argument was valid

But sometimes a client's interests can be harmed by making a legally valid argument.

Some decisions are up to the lawyer and some are up to the client. In this instance, the clients (DNC and Wasserman Schultz) should have said, "No, don't make that argument," and the lawyers should have abided by that instruction.

This case got enough publicity that I'm sure someone at the DNC reviewed the brief before it was filed. That someone should have nixed the argument.