Latest Breaking News

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

15. What's your basis for alleging that "they never contributed to the DNC"?

Sat Aug 26, 2017, 12:19 AM

Aug 2017

Fraud is a pretty serious charge, and one I hadn't heard before in this connection. Certainly there's nothing in the judge's decision that even hints at such a thing. At this stage of the litigation, he was required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint, and that's what he did.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC [View all] stevebreeze Aug 2017 OP

Yes shenmue Aug 2017 #1

This should not be a surprise to anyone with a basic knowledge of law. stevebreeze Aug 2017 #2

An emphatic and unambiguous decision. As it should be. George II Aug 2017 #3

The lawsuit was ridiculous, as is the claim that the DNC somehow rigged the primaries. (eom) StevieM Aug 2017 #4

... sheshe2 Aug 2017 #5

Good ruling. brer cat Aug 2017 #6

About time! murielm99 Aug 2017 #7

Good. nt Maven Aug 2017 #8

Good. It was a idiotic lawsuit. nt SunSeeker Aug 2017 #9

This message was self-deleted by its author rwsanders Aug 2017 #10

That was the stupidest lawsuit ever BainsBane Aug 2017 #11

What's your basis for alleging that "they never contributed to the DNC"? Jim Lane Aug 2017 #15

What evidence do you have to indicate they did? BainsBane Aug 2017 #16

Their allegations are evidence. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #17

"Their allegations are evidence" obamanut2012 Aug 2017 #31

Just curious, what is your understanding of the meaning of the term "evidence"? (n/t) Jim Lane Aug 2017 #38

I love correspondence law schools. joeybee12 Aug 2017 #44

I allege that Jim Lane dented my jeep door causing $1000 in damage FSogol Aug 2017 #45

Just curious, what is YOUR understanding of the meaning of the term "evidence"? (n/t) Jim Lane Aug 2017 #46

Where's my $1000, Attorney Jim? FSogol Aug 2017 #47

Read the first paragraph of #17 and get back to me. (n/t) Jim Lane Aug 2017 #54

Did you read the opinion Gothmog Aug 2017 #57

Yes, I read the opinion. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #59

Go read this motion Gothmog Aug 2017 #60

Here is the transcript: ehrnst Aug 2017 #85

As I said in another post, I haven't paid any attention to the motion for protection. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #91

You don't want to see the motion. I get it. Would make it pretty hard for you to defend them ehrnst Aug 2017 #99

Denial is not just a river in Africa Gothmog Aug 2017 #105

Straw man again. SO tiresome. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #110

Using Seth Rich's death is really sick Gothmog Aug 2017 #107

Sick lawyers. Sick motives.(nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #112

Read the opinion or have someone read it and explain it to you Gothmog Aug 2017 #63

Constantly repeating an assertion doesn't make it true. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #65

Reread the opinion Gothmog Aug 2017 #67

Good luck with convincing him of that... (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #72

This poster has not read the pleadings or the DC statute he is trying to discuss Gothmog Aug 2017 #73

But....but....but money being involved helps the "fraud" accusations. ehrnst Aug 2017 #76

I am amused by these ignorant claims Gothmog Aug 2017 #82

And this in particular just made me spit out my coffee: ehrnst Aug 2017 #84

I am laughing at these ignorants claims Gothmog Aug 2017 #104

Your statement about my posts is an outright falsehood. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #92

Post removed Post removed Aug 2017 #103

What statement about the petition have I made that was false? Jim Lane Aug 2017 #106

You really like being wrong Gothmog Aug 2017 #109

"Not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNCs charter or heard the statements they now ehrnst Aug 2017 #52

I was addressing the issue of contribution, not reliance. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #53

Read the petition Gothmog Aug 2017 #64

+1000 (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #77

Well said. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #25

Post removed Post removed Aug 2017 #34

Because DWS resigned means the lawsuit has merit? BainsBane Aug 2017 #35

LOL! Plucketeer Aug 2017 #37

Agreed Gothmog Aug 2017 #62

This is why I hate many Bernie supporters but love Bernie. Hamlette Aug 2017 #12

I would vote for Bernie if he was the nominee in 20...but honestly I don't care for him. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #23

agree Hamlette Aug 2017 #55

The bank thing could not happen and that is part of it. No doubt we need regulation but Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #87

Sometimes the things that people like ehrnst Aug 2017 #83

Good point. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #86

The judge also smacked down the DNC's most idiotic defense Jim Lane Aug 2017 #13

It was designed to end the court nonsense, and it did. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #24

No, it didn't. Did you read the decision? or even the excerpt I quoted? Jim Lane Aug 2017 #26

I read it...and expected it to be rejected without regard to merit as it never should have been Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #30

+1000. (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #40

Thanks ehrnst...I can't believe some who claim to be Democrats wasted the DNC money Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #42

+1000 (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #81

But the plantiffs said they hadn't read the DNC charter. ehrnst Aug 2017 #71

Yet again you're confusing two different issues. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #96

So, if someone wanted to allege that they took a job ehrnst Aug 2017 #98

You ask, "Do I have that right?" I think not but I'm not sure. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #100

Fiduciary duty ehrnst Aug 2017 #101

Yes, I understand that breach of fiduciary duty was one claim against the DNC. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #108

The nonsense will be continually put forth by those who reeeeeeaaaalllllyyyy ehrnst Aug 2017 #79

The DNC is not responsible for the outcome of 2016 no matter how many wish it was so... Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #88

The are accused of being all powerful, and at the same time inept and out of touch. ehrnst Aug 2017 #89

Thank you. potone Aug 2017 #41

That's nice and so helpful...to Repugs. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #43

So you think that there were significant Democrats that would not have donated ehrnst Aug 2017 #48

You're misstating the question. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #61

So, there was no finding of fact. The Court dismissed the case.(nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #69

That's absolutely correct. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #93

Sounds very much like the question is pretty much relevant: ehrnst Aug 2017 #70

It seems to me you're agreeing with what I wrote. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #94

The reliance issue pretty much says it all. ehrnst Aug 2017 #97

You never read the pleadings and so your analysis is wrong Gothmog Aug 2017 #75

Post removed Post removed Aug 2017 #66

Actually.... ehrnst Aug 2017 #68

I agree with your analysis Gothmog Aug 2017 #78

Those plantiffs didn't even read the DNC charter that they claimed to be deceived/defrauded by. ehrnst Aug 2017 #80

Whatever ends an expensive, frivolous, pointless lawsuit earlier is sometimes what you have to do. ehrnst Aug 2017 #50

You are wrong Gothmog Aug 2017 #74

The judge ruled that this particular DNC defense was wrong. Jim Lane Aug 2017 #95

Reread yhe opinion. Gothmog Aug 2017 #102

"Voter Fraud" Doug the Dem Aug 2017 #14

This was the clear definition of a frivolous lawsuit riversedge Aug 2017 #18

I wonder how much money, which could have been spent supporting Tanuki Aug 2017 #19

My thoughts exactly. Lawsuits cost thousands of dollars. Very expensive. Honeycombe8 Aug 2017 #21

Exactly. (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #39

Bravo! Outstanding! (Thank you, Judge Zloch!) NurseJackie Aug 2017 #20

I knew it...this case never had any merit. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #22

Waiting for the conspiracy theorirs over this obamanut2012 Aug 2017 #27

Good mcar Aug 2017 #28

won't happen obamanut2012 Aug 2017 #32

Happening on this very thread... (nt) ehrnst Aug 2017 #49

So I see mcar Aug 2017 #51

Jesus. NurseJackie Aug 2017 #56

It never had any merit - much like those who filed it. n/t Lil Missy Aug 2017 #29

They did use the ballot box. Hope they are happy. Nt BootinUp Aug 2017 #33

That's a funny way to caucus with Democrats. nt ucrdem Aug 2017 #36

Go read the cry baby attorney motion for protection Gothmog Aug 2017 #58

Fucking sore losers liquid diamond Aug 2017 #90

Facts are needed: Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders. elleng Aug 2017 #111