Posted on 11/24/2001 4:40:19 PM PST by ChaseR
As of today, Nov 24th, 2001, we all have leaned of the re-filing of the Loral Shareholders case in Federal Judge Lamberth's court. It is with great delight that I now change the title of these ongoing McAuliffe threads. In fact, with this thread number 18 - the change has been made. And quite deservedly so.
I'm highlighting one of the key defendents, Terrance McAuliffe - because he is now Chairman of the DNC. Previously, on MSNBC Hardball, one of their guests was McAuliffe and just before he went off the air -he quickly made sure every viewer heard - that it was the Republicans who did not allow Campaign Finance Reform to make it to the Floor for a vote. But, let's all take notice; let's all look very closely at Terry McAuliffe as he - is now - a key defendent in the Loral Shareholders aiding and abetting espionage case??
Let's also ask, which party readily accepted 1.4 million in cash from Bernard Schwartz, the head of Loral? The DEMOCRAT PARTY! And which President allowed Johnny Chung, John Huang and Charlie Trie into the White House with hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Communist Chinese Army?? President Willaim Jefferson Clinton!
So, let's not delay. Let's not let McAuliffe and the DNC get away with fooling the public about - who took/takes the cash!
(With the statute of limitations about to run out, I appeal to everyone to post and/or bump these informative threads as often as you can.)
."It would be interesting to see what Web Pacer has on the court document regarding this."
Funny that you should ask!
The official court records show that the original suit -- 98-CV-2859 -- was filed on 11/24/98 in D.C. federal district court with the jurisdictional basis being question (i.e., RICO). There were some ancillary state law claims such as a shareholder's derivative suit. The Plaintiffs were W. L. Meng, S.S. Jones, and Roy and Joan Gillison against Defendants Loral, Scwhartz, both Clintons, Terry MacAuliffe, and others. There appears to have been no substantive activity in the case.
In the fall of 1999, the Defendants started to file Motions to Dismiss. There were lots of pleadings back and forth about the dismissal for about a year. Finally, on 9/25/00, Judge Lamberth dismissed the federal (RICO) claims with prejudice (meaning that they could not be re-filed) and dismissed the state court claims without prejudice.
I believe that Bayourod posted Judge Lamberth's memorandum opinion which stated that he believed that the same reasons which caused him to dismiss the RICO claims would in his opinion also cause the state court claims to be subject to dismissal. But he advised the Plaintiffs to go back to state court and file their state law claims, if they wished, and that the state court would have to rule upon them. The court dismissed the case and closed the file.
I think that it was you, Deport, who posted the press release from JW in which Tom Fitton stated that JW would file an appeal of Judge Lamberth's dismissal of the RICO claims and would refile the remainder of the case in state court. But they did neither.
.On 10/10/00, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the Court did not rule upon. I am not sure if there is a period of time in federal court after which such a motion is overruled by operation of law or if the mere filing of the motion can keep the case active through infinity.
On 7/9/01 Judge Lamberth denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment. On 8/7/01 the Plaintiffs filed an appeal.
Also, on 8/8/01, Plaintiffs filed another suit based on their state law claims -- not in the applicable state as Judge Lamberth had instructed, but in federal district court for Washington, D.C. The reason for jurisdiction this time was not federal question (i.e., RICO), but diversity, meaning that the dispute was about state law but between citizens of different states (forgive me, Deport, for being so condescending -- I know that you know all of this stuff but I am trying to be informative for our non-lawyer Freepers).
Because some of the Plaintffs were citizens of the State of Virginia, all of the original Defendants who were citizens of the State of Virginia had to be dropped. This includes, among others, TERRY MACAULIFFE, WHO IS NO LONGER AND NEVER WILL BE A DEFENDANT IN ANY LORAL SHAREHOLDERS SUIT OR IN ANY CIVIL SUIT REGARDING THE SELLING OF OUR NATIONAL SECRETS TO THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS. [I don't have the heart to break this to ChaseR -- can one of you do it?]
As to why Larry Klayman would refile this case in a court where the judge has already stated that he doesn't think that even the state law case has merit, you would have to ask Mr. Klayman. I think that I know the answer [$$$$$$$], but I would like for Mr. Klayman to explain it for himself.
As to the new case (01-CV-1715), it has taken four months for people to get served and make an appearance. Nothing substantive has been done. The latest activity is that on 11/16/01 the Defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings until the appeal on the related case is resolved.
And, no, I do not know how long it will be before Judge Lamberth dismisses this case as he did the first one.
Howlin:
"Also, on 8/8/01, Plaintiffs filed another suit based on their state law claims -- not in the applicable state as Judge Lamberth had instructed, but in federal district court for Washington, D.C."
So, we are at least past the point where Mr bayourod and myself - will have to argue if this has been refiled. (bayourod, ck you mail-I just left you my mobile phone number, your welcome to call me/please do)
Howlin:
"The reason for jurisdiction this time was not federal question (i.e., RICO), but diversity, meaning that the dispute was about state law but between citizens of different states..."
"diversity" - deport, or someone, can you please post what "diversity" means here when used in this court case please, thank you.
Howlin:
"Because some of the Plaintffs were citizens of the State of Virginia, all of the original Defendants who were citizens of the State of Virginia had to be dropped. This includes, among others, TERRY MACAULIFFE, WHO IS NO LONGER AND NEVER WILL BE A DEFENDANT IN ANY LORAL SHAREHOLDERS SUIT OR IN ANY CIVIL SUIT REGARDING THE SELLING OF OUR NATIONAL SECRETS TO THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS. [I don't have the heart to break this to ChaseR -- can one of you do it?]"
It's O. K. Howlin, after I figure out the what the specific charges are in this particular refiling and how the key word "diversity" applies in this case, I will be dropping McAuliffe's name from all future McAuliffe threads - and start thread #19 - with a new title, no big deal - and I thank you Howlin and Iwo Jima for drawing to my attention to the fact that McAuliffe is now - at this time - not a co-defendent in this latest Loral filing.
Howlin:
"As to the new case (01-CV-1715), it has taken four months for people to get served and make an appearance. Nothing substantive has been done. The latest activity is that on 11/16/01 the Defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings until the appeal on the related case is resolved."
I won't be posting anywhere but here in this thread while I'm out of town...thanks to everyone who I've pinged here (for their participation) for any contributions they have made or might make in the coming days.
Howlin:
("And, no, I do not know how long it will be before Judge Lamberth dismisses this case as he did the first one."
For the sake of the Rule of Law, let's all hope that this latest filing proceeds - as fast as possible.")
(JimRob, I read your thread yesterday about should Free Republic go away, and I see that FR will be starting their next quarterly fundraiser in a week. I will post right now that I will triple my last donation of $25 - and I will be donating $75...wish I could do more)
(now, back on the road I go in this uncomfortable rental car...lol)
What is neat about discovery is that it does not limit you as to who to depose under oath. While other named defendants are served written interrogatorries, McCauliffe may be deposed for questioning regardless. He may be dropped as a defendant but if he is caught lying under oath his a$$ is in trouble. Now that should be interesting!
As for the issue about federal question and "diversity", here's my input. There is "diversity" and then there is "diversity of citizenship" which means that under the U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2, jurisdiction of the federal courts to extend cases between citizens of one state and citizens of another state may be extended but there has to be some requisites met. See Title 28 United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) Sec. 1332 pertaining to the outcome test. Go find this site at the law library.
Check back with you later.
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.