Sanders Supporters Get Their Day In Court Against Wasserman Schultz

[Gothmog]

150. You are wrong again

Last edited Sat Apr 29, 2017, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Your understanding of the arguments made is not accurate. If you really are a member of the bar, you should understand alternative arguments and what is normally argued in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. This is rather basic. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, one assume that the fact presented are accurate and then presents the argument why these facts do not give rise to liability or state a cause of action. This is really somewhat basic and the fact that you do not understand this concept is almost as sad as the claims you made about the DC consumer protection law (I had looked at this law back when I first read the petition) and it is not hard to find. Back a long time ago, I edited several law review articles on a similar law. None of the consumer protection laws that I have seen would allow this ignorant cause of action in that none of these laws would allow a donor to be defined as a consumer..

I have actually read the petition and the lawyer who filed it is an idiot. The fact that you lack an understanding as how motions to dismiss are argued does not help you case. Again, we are at the motion to dismiss stage which means that the plaintiff has not proven anything but for the purposes of the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. This is rather basic federal civil procedure.