Latest Breaking News

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

38. Just curious, what is your understanding of the meaning of the term "evidence"? (n/t)

Reply to obamanut2012 (Reply #31)

Sat Aug 26, 2017, 11:26 AM

Aug 2017

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