HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Briefing in bogus DNC fra...

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:14 PM

Briefing in bogus DNC fraud lawsuit appears to be complete

This lawsuit is a piece of crap filed by some attorneys who want to sell a book. The trial court dismissed this case due to lack of standing for the plaintiffs and other valid reasons http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdf

This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction. 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. 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, and for the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.

The Court concluded
“Federal Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over cases where the parties lack standing.” Florida Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2012). Because Plaintiffs do not allege a causal link between their donations and the DNC’s statements, they lack standing to assert the fraud-type claims in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the First Amended Complaint (DE 8). Their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count V relies on a harm far too diffuse to constitute an injury in-fact in federal court. And their negligence claim in Count VI is buffered by too many layers of speculation and conjecture to create the immediacy of harm necessary to unlock this Court’s jurisdiction. That being so, Plaintiffs have not “present[ed] a live case or controversy,” and the Court “must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id.

In the original petition, the idiot lawyers who filed this lawsuit did not understand the federal rules of civil procedure and how to plead for diversity jurisdiction for a class action case. The court allowed these idiots to fix this defect. The fact that the idiots who filed this case were not aware that there are special pleading rules for class actions in federal court says a great deal about their competence.

I had fun reading the briefs and it is clear that the plaintiff attorneys are idiots. The plaintiff's brief was weak but amusing http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1-19-18-Initial-Brief-1.pdf

I love this footnote in the DNC's brief http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2-20-18-Ds-Response-Brief.pdf
Demonstrative of Plaintiffs’ desire to use this litigation for political purposes, Plaintiffs have used social media to present their version of this litigation, to peddle conspiracy theories and to disparage Defendants. See DE 26 pp. 8-10, 27-3, 27-9. For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants. DE 27-3. He has also repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs’ process server in an attempt to bolster attention for this lawsuit. DE 27-8 & 27-9; see also Appellants’ Br. at 4.

One of the dumbest claims in the plaintiff's original complaint was that the sanders donors were consumers under the DC consumer protection act. When I read this in the first petition, I laughed. The DNC had fun pointing out how stupid this claim is.
D. Plaintiffs Are Not “Consumers” and Cannot State a Claim Under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (Count III).
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements for bringing a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), because neither political donors nor members of a political party are “consumers” within the meaning of the statute. See D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(2) (defining a consumer as “a person who, other than for purposes of resale, does or would purchase, lease (as lessee), or receive consumer goods or services, including as a co-obliger or surety, or does or would otherwise provide the economic demand for a trade practice”). Plaintiffs did not purchase any goods or services from either Defendant. See Slaby v. Fairbridge, 3 F. Supp. 2d 22, 27 (D.D.C. 1998) (“Plaintiff . . . does not allege that she purchased, leased or received consumer goods or services from defendant . . . and therefore fails to establish any consumer-merchant relationship to bring it within the scope of the [statute].”); see also Howard v. Riggs Nat’l Bank, 432 A.2d 701, 709 (D.C. 1981) (limiting the application of the CPPA pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(3) to “the merchant, or another merchant further along the supply chain”).

I am glad that the briefing is done in this appeal. I am still not impressed with the work of the plaintiff attorneys.

The best that the plaintiffs can hope for is a chance to re-plead this case. I am hopeful that the court should do the right thing and dismiss this piece of dreck.

25 replies, 4641 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Briefing in bogus DNC fraud lawsuit appears to be complete (Original post)
Gothmog Apr 2018 OP
Scurrilous Apr 2018 #1
still_one Apr 2018 #2
BoneyardDem Apr 2018 #10
still_one Apr 2018 #12
comradebillyboy Apr 2018 #3
Gothmog May 2018 #22
lapucelle Apr 2018 #4
Gothmog Apr 2018 #7
Gothmog May 2018 #23
Gothmog May 2018 #25
Cha Apr 2018 #5
sheshe2 Apr 2018 #6
George II Apr 2018 #8
Gothmog Apr 2018 #13
R B Garr Apr 2018 #9
BoneyardDem Apr 2018 #11
Gothmog Apr 2018 #14
BoneyardDem Apr 2018 #15
Gothmog May 2018 #18
Gothmog May 2018 #21
FSogol Apr 2018 #16
Gothmog May 2018 #17
mcar May 2018 #19
Gothmog May 2018 #20
Gothmog May 2018 #24

Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:31 PM

1. Good news!

Looks like a group of certain radicals won't be getting their imaginary donations to the DNC back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:34 PM

2. Those who are behind this bullshit are the same self-identified progressives who not only refused to

vote for the Democratic nominee, but did every thing in their power to distort, lie, and undermine the Democratic campaign against trump.

If for no other reason, this is why the Democratic nominee for 2020 needs to be someone who was not one of the nominees in 2016, the animosity from 2016 is not going away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 10:38 AM

10. obvious, no?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BoneyardDem (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 10:45 AM

12. It should be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:36 PM

3. The suit was so frivolous even the plaintiff didn't take it seriously enough

to hire competent lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comradebillyboy (Reply #3)

Fri May 4, 2018, 07:37 PM

22. A number of the plaintiffs are members of JPR

This lawsuit is being pushed by some idiots attorneys who trying to sell a book to the idiots who post on JPR. No one else would be stupid enough to buy such a book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:40 PM

4. That was fun to read!

What does it mean that "briefing is done"? What are the next steps?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:48 PM

7. The next step is oral arguments and then a ruling

This will take a while

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #4)

Fri May 4, 2018, 07:57 PM

23. BTW, oral arguments are only allowed if the court decides

As of now, the court has not ordered oral arguments and there is a decent chance given the merits of this case that there will be no oral arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #4)

Mon May 7, 2018, 04:07 PM

25. There will be oral arguments in this case

The JPR idiots will no doubt be posting links


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:42 PM

5. Thank you, Goth.. Great news!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 07:44 PM

6. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 08:38 PM

8. Glad we have a lawyer among us to wade through all that legalize and draw a sensible conclusion.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 10:54 AM

13. The briefs were amusing

The lawyer for the plaintiffs are idiots. The DNC briefs are well done

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 08:53 PM

9. Piece of crap lawsuit is being kind! Can they be labeled vexatious litigants

and barred from further litigation for submitting such garbage and tying up the court? Or is that for the quantity of lawsuits. This is really, really bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 10:42 AM

11. One can dream about the slap down the courts decision will include

 

the use of social media to try their case in a one sided manner (to the public), rarely has any effect of the judges. Just makes them look super stupid to all who where exposed to their attempts, when the official ruling veers off in a different direction than the one they are trying to direct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BoneyardDem (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 10:56 AM

14. The plaintiff attorneys are selling a book to the JPR idiots

The idiots on JPR support this bogus lawsuit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 11:02 AM

15. When has JPR actually done anything to thward Trump?

 

Everything they say, do and support is to support that moron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BoneyardDem (Reply #15)

Fri May 4, 2018, 06:59 PM

18. You are correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BoneyardDem (Reply #11)

Fri May 4, 2018, 07:35 PM

21. This lawsuit is not getting any attention from the regular legal blogs

None of the real legal blogs are covering this lawsuit. The only discussions of this lawsuit you will see are on JPR and twitter. The original petition was so bad that I laughed. The idiot attorneys who filed this case failed to do the normal pleadings necessary to show diversity jurisdiction in a class action lawsuit.

I am still amazed that the the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are claiming that the District of Columbia deceptive trade practices act applies. Such law only applies to consumers and donors are not consumers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2018, 11:06 AM

16. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Fri May 4, 2018, 06:59 PM

17. From the idiots who filed this stupid lawsuit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Fri May 4, 2018, 07:25 PM

19. An excellent summation

Looks like a bogus suit, Gothmog. What a waste of time, effort, and money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #19)

Fri May 4, 2018, 07:32 PM

20. Yes it is a totally bogus lawsuit

I am curious to see if the court of appeals will order oral arguments on this piece of shit lawsuit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Original post)

Mon May 7, 2018, 04:06 PM

24. I am disappointed-the 11th Circuit ordered oral arguments in this shitty case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread