Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

[Jim Lane]

17. Their allegations are evidence.

To a lawyer, "evidence" doesn't mean "something that conclusively proves this is true." It means only that it's relevant to determining the truth. If someone states in a federal court filing that he or she made such a contribution, that's evidence.

There's also a negative inference here. The DNC has full access to records of contributions it received. If it had never actually received a contribution from any of the representative plaintiffs, then it would certainly have determined that and it would certainly have publicized their fraud.

I almost never practice in federal court, so what I'm about to say is based on the law in New York state courts, but it's probably very similar nationwide. There's such a thing as a "missing documents" charge. If a party (like the DNC) has control of a document (like the contribution records) that would be relevant, but doesn't produce it, then the jury is entitled (although not required) to infer that the document, if produced, would not support the position of the party that has control of it. This case never reached the jury stage but it was certainly being "litigated" in the court of public opinion. If the DNC had documentary evidence proving the plaintiffs to be liars and proving their lawyer to be committing a fraud upon a tribunal, we would have heard about it by now.

This is even aside from the basic principle that, if you accuse a lawyer of fraud, you should, as a matter of intellectual integrity, have something to go on other than "What evidence do you have that he didn't commit fraud?"