Sanders Supporters Get Their Day In Court Against Wasserman Schultz

[Gothmog]

159. Real lawyers do not think that this lawsuit is that meaningful

Last edited Sun Apr 30, 2017, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

This lawsuit may be a big deal on JPR but many if not most posters on JPR are idiots. Here is the petition that was posted on JPR http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1-CLASS-ACTION-COMPLAINT-6-28-16.pdf Again you are defending the petition without actually reading it. I have read the original petition and it is dreck. When I read the petition, I actually looked up the DC consumer protection law and saw that it did not apply. Re-read your posts on this issue and you will see why I was so amused by your claims.

I don't know if that claim is in there. I also don't know whether it's crazy.

Last edited Sat Apr 29, 2017, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

The first thing one thinks of in "consumer protection" is misrepresentations made by a defendant who's selling stuff -- "Please give us your money and we'll give you this atomic pencil sharpener." If the statute is worded broadly enough, however, I wouldn't be surprised to find that it could cover misrepresentations made by a defendant who's soliciting contributions -- "Please give us your money and we won't give you anything but we'll use the money for our political goals."

It seems to be undisputed that the DNC, based in DC, solicited money, that it made representations in the course of doing so, and that at least some of the plaintiffs, although primarily Bernie backers, also contributed to the DNC. Without having even read the statute, let alone any regs interpreting it or decisions applying it, I'm not prepared to agree that the claim is crazy.

If you have read the statute, you would have seen that the allegation is stupid. Again, please read the actual petition and then tell us that there is merit. There is a clear definition of the term "consumer" in that statute that makes clear that this law does not apply to political donors. I would not have attempted to defend this claim without reading the actual statute. The petition cites this statute but does not provide the actual definition of consumer

I am not impressed with the videos being posted on JPR of the idiot lawyer who brought this suit. I understand that JPR posters love this idiot lawyer but I live in the real world and this particular lawyer is not impressive at all.

Again, I do not post on JPR for a reason but I am amused by the content on that site. I am not impressed with this lawsuit or the lawyer who brought it. Please read the petition before defending it.