Posted on 06/01/2017 5:38:54 PM PDT by dontreadthis
-snip- Transcripts released from the hearing Friday expose numerous shocking revelations presented by the Democrats’ counsel arguing in support of the Motion to Dismiss regarding the way the Democratic Party views its obligations and responsibilities in conducting the primary nominating process. -snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
The defense is essentially saying the DNC does not control the state parties and, in fact, some states do not have formal party organizations.
The plaintiff has a really flakey theory based upon consumer legislation in DC. Carrying the plaintiff’s notion forward, the Bernie bots essentially expected pay-to-play for their donations.
This case will go no where, IMHO.
Hope the lawyers collected a very large retainer at the front-end. The performance and delivery looks remarkably mediocre.
...so fraud is ok if you’re in the DNC, right? Got it, loud and clear...
Seven Jaw-Dropping Revelations From Hearings on the Motion to Dismiss the DNC Fraud Lawsuit:
1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.
2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor a candidate without any legal repercussions.
3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats’ interest to obscure the guarantee of the Party’s impartiality clause.
4. The Democrats insist that “impartial” cannot be defined, so the DNC’s impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that it can not be guaranteed.
5. DNC’s legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct individual primary nominating contests.
6. The Democrats’ lawyers take the position that while the Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly, they did, in fact, conduct the 2016 primary fairly.
7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge emphasized: “Democracy demands the truth”.
Once again, certain democrats are not accountable to anyone.
Very interesting piece — thank you for posting it.
It answers the issue of standing that I have been very curious about: the Plaintiffs claim standing as contributors to the Sanders campaign and/or the Democrat Party. I think the DNC/Party contributors’ claim is much the stronger (Contributing directly to Sanders does not impose requirements on a third party, in this case the Dem Party to which he does not even belong). It is clear from the Judge’s questions that he sees the box the Dems are in. Their charter and by-laws specifically require that they run a fair and balanced primary process. If they did not, they either acted fraudulently, inadvertently, or for other reasons. Certainly seems like the Plaintiff should have access to discovery and depositions to determine which. If Plaintiff is allowed discovery into the way DW-S/Hillary manipulated distribution of party funds in Hillary’s favor, much less into the goon squads, and dirty tricks they played against Sanders, the stonewalling and appeals will be massive.
When the Dems’ lawyer claimed that the Party has the right to pick favorites and select whomever they please as their nominee, I wish the Court had asked: “Then why did the Democrat Party put the exact opposite in their governing documents?”
I am thinking that Hillary never did think all this would take place when she got her wish for Trump to be her opponent.
Which brings us into the corporate world. If a corporation has bylaws and willfully violates them, can the shareholders sue?
I’m not a lawyer, but I strongly believe that the answer is yes.
Yep, I believe the existence of an impartiality clause will be a pivotal point in if/how the case goes forward.
Seems that the bylaws would constitute a binding contract vis-a-vis the donors.
The first defense is that the bylaws of the DNC are the DNC's internal affair not enforceable by a court of law. But an association's bylaws constitute a contract between its members and is enforceable as are all written contracts in a court of law.
So where does the “jaw dropping” come in?
Most emphatically. The standard nonprofit corporation act of 2010, which has been adopted in most states, and in particular is the law applying to entities organized in the District of Columbia, provides:
Upon petition of a person whose status as, or whose rights or duties as, a member, delegate, director, member of a designated body, or officer of a corporation are or may be affected by any corporate action, the Superior Court may hear and determine the validity of the corporate action.
(b) The Superior Court may make such orders in any such case as may be just and proper, with power to enforce the production of any books, papers and records of the corporation and other evidence that may relate to the issue. The Superior Court shall provide for notice of the pendency of the proceedings under this section to all persons affected thereby. If it is determined that no valid corporate action has been taken, the Superior Court may order a meeting to be held in accordance with § 29-401.21.
(c) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply if a nonprofit corporation has provided in its articles of incorporation or bylaws for a means of resolving a challenge to a corporate action, but the Superior Court may enforce the articles or bylaws if appropriate.
Just my laymen’s reading.
Are the plaintiffs members of the DNC (national) or members of a state-level group?
Giving money to the national DNC does not generate a membership card.
I do not think this fishing expedition has a net that will catch anything.
Thanks, sounds like it could go either way then...if I read that correctly.
Maybe Seth Rich’s laptop could provide data on this topic...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.