Lawsuit filed by conspiracy nuts against DNC is dismissed.

[Jim Lane]

99. Here's where you're wrong.

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.