It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

South Florida Judge Dismisses DNC Fraud Lawsuit Against Debbie Wasserman Schultz

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I've waited for someone else to post this, but I haven't seen it posted here yet.
I have not read the judicial order in it's entirety, so I will wait to add commentary until I read it all.
It is 28 pages long and I have to leave shortly.

If I put this in the wrong forum, Mods, please move it.

South Florida Judge Dismisses DNC Fraud Lawsuit Against Debbie Wasserman Schultz


Today, federal Judge William Zloch dismissed the suit, stating in a judicial order that — even assuming the allegations are true — it's impossible to test any "fraud" claims against the DNC in federal court. Zloch wrote that the Becks and their plaintiffs claimed the DNC leak proved Wasserman Schultz's conduct hurt DNC donors, especially those who donated to Sanders, and possibly exposed DNC donors to identity theft by getting hacked.


Importantly, Judge Zloch actually didn't rule that it's impossible to sue the DNC for fraud — just that the Becks likely didn't do enough to prove their case. Importantly, Zloch wrote that the 100-plus plaintiffs claiming to be a single "class" of aggrieved voters, did not meet the basic legal guidelines for a class-action suit. Reporter and law student Walker Bragman argued this same point in June.


Here is the dismissal




posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

So, the Plaintiffs need to hire a better lawyer and tighten up their case.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Can they file again after this ruling? I know nothing about this kind of stuff.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It only takes one crooked judge to break the system, and we've got a stacked deck!

Completely dismiss the case before looking at evidence.

A year ago I would have assumed bribery or black mail, but these days people are totally happy to overcome all reason to help politicians get away with murder.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Sounds like maybe just maybe the lawyers did it like they did with most of the Obama BC cases.

They omit just enough to get it out of court and therefore, "people" automatically think nobody's guilty.

The perfect way.



+3 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71


The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has announced her resignation on the eve of the party’s convention, dealing a blow to hopes of demonstrating unity in the face of the threat from Donald Trump.

Schultz said she would step down after the convention. She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.

www.theguardian.com...

This is the actions of someone guilty A.F of the allegations leveled against her.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Here are a few excerpts from the dismissal



Through its Charter and Bylaws, the DNC has obliged itself to a policy of neutrality among Democratic presidential candidates. To that end, as it pertains to the “Presidential nominating process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.” DE 8, ¶ 159 (emphasis supplied in Complaint). Wasserman Schultz and other DNC officials touted this policy in public statements during presidential primaries.

Plaintiffs attribute the following quotes to Wasserman Schultz or other DNC staff:
• “I count Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden as dear friends, but no matter who comprises the field of candidates it’s my job to run a neutral primary process and that’s what I am committed to doing.”
• “the DNC runs an impartial primary process.”
• “the DNC runs an impartial primary process, period.”
• “the Democratic National Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules.”
• “even though Senator Sanders has endorsed my opponent, I remain, as I have been from the beginning, neutral in the presidential Democratic primary.”



This Order does not concern who should have been the
Democratic Party’s candidate for the 2016 presidential election; it does not concern whether the DNC or Wasserman Schultz generally acted unfairly towards Senator Sanders or his supporters; indeed, it does not even concern whether the DNC was in fact biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.



The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial.


This is some dry reading material



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   

especially those who donated to Sanders, and possibly exposed DNC donors to identity theft by getting hacked.


This is why.

Exclusionary rules.

Evidence obtained illegally inadmissible.

However.

The DNC is not a person.

It's a corporate,union entity.

They can be sued.

A case can definitely be made.
edit on 26-8-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: abago71
a reply to: Gryphon66
Can they file again after this ruling? I know nothing about this kind of stuff.



Civil suits can be filed a number of times until a decision. No double jeopardy in suit for damages, per se, to my knowledge.

Filing frivolous lawsuits is a problem, however.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Sanders was a life-long Independent before and after ... except when he decided to use the machinery of the Democratic Party to support his candidacy. Imagine that a political party would support a life-long member.

(Of note, I like Senator Sanders and agree with him on some issues ... but he should have ran as an Independent.)

The majority of the "preference elections" in the US are Primaries ... and Primaries are administered by the several State governments. It is absurd to claim that WS or the DNC meddled in the actual elections.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic party,” Sanders said in a statement, adding that the party leadership must “always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race”.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Their cause of action is premised on a security breach of the DNC’s computer servers, which Plaintiffs allege was perpetrated by two Russian hacking groups having “a long history of successfully targeting sensitive government and industry computer networks in both the United States and other countries, often using ‘sophisticated phishing attacks.’” DE 8, ¶ 164. A computer hacker known as “Guccifer 2.0" claimed credit for the security breach and posted several documents from the DNC’s servers online.



Although the Eleventh Circuit has held that a party who has actually suffered identity theft as a result of a data breach has standing, it has expressly left open the question whether the mere threat of future identity theft creates Article III standing.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So this means it may not be over yet?



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Debbie Wasserman Schultz ha she never committed any act not in perfect harmony with liberal dogma...

Progressives are incapable of holding their own responsible...

Morality is a foreign concept...

Honestly, is this the behavior of an innocent or the behavior of a narcissistic megalomaniac who believes she can do no wrong???

My wild guess is the latter as the former means you have a non-fascist liberal lawmaker...
To be non-fascist and liberal is impossible...both exist as an extension of the other...
Legislate every aspect of life and industry...

If someone gets in your way then crush them...o
Or threaten them in this manner:



PS: liberal dogma requires progressive leaders to be fascist while all the while ginning up their base to scream that anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist...

-Chris



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

Their premise was wrong.

Wasn't an external breach.

It was an internal breach.

See the conviction of Imran Awan.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Here's a link to a post I made yesterday about DWS. It was at the end of a dying thread. I probably should have started a new one.


Wasserman Schultz’s ‘Islamophobia’ Claim Prompts Angered Marine To Go Public On Awans


A Marine who provided key evidence in the FBI case against Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s former IT employee said he is appalled by her claim that Islamophobia led U.S. Capitol Police to frame the former staffer.


“It pisses me off,” said Taggart, a black Marine who says he votes Democrat. He believes Wasserman Schultz is crying wolf and devaluing the meaning of genuine discrimination, while also exposing herself and the nation to risks.

Wasserman Schultz claimed Imran Awan is being “persecuted” by the Capitol Police and FBI after she was told that he is suspected of “data transfer violations,” even as she lamented the seriousness of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Wasserman Schultz was chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee when its IT network was hacked in 2016.

Taggart said he made the decision to no longer be anonymous because he is concerned that his fellow Democrats are making a grave mistake by ignoring a scandal with serious criminal and national security implications. “I’m absolutely disgusted with everything going on in the country right now, mostly because of right-wing conservatives, but with respect to this situation, political affiliation is irrelevant,” Taggart said.

“Him, his wife, his brother, all working down there — there’s no way they could do this without help. If we can drag Trump and his wingnuts through the mud for the Russia influence that they are having, then it’s only fair that we also expose this s–t,” Taggart said.

Here is another article about DWS and the Awans..
Wasserman Schultz meets the press over Imran Awan case
In this article she talks how he was persecuted.
She also touches on confederate statues and a few other current hot topics.



Data transfer violations. First i've heard of that.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

There Vill Bee Konsequenzzzes




posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yet all I here from the left is how we conservatives are Nazis despite historical facts...



Nazi=National Socialist Party

PS: I don't call anyone a Nazi because it is an inconceivable equivocation given the behavior of the Nazi regime...
It's offensive to my American sensibilities that anyone would equate political leanings to a war hungry nation-state bent on world domination...
But to expect a leftist to be educated is a dream...socialism is the refuge of the mentally feeble...
The place where dreamers go to die in a government mandated commune of equals rather than competitors..

Sidebar: Why does my yard have better landscaping than some of my neighbors and not as good as others??
Competition...I win some, I lose some...but the goal with everything in capitalism is inherent competition which is not evil...
In fact, we are genetically program to compete...and it's mostly healthy...
Democrats would legislate out humanity's inherent need to strive above the man to ur left and right..

-Chris
edit on 26-8-2017 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone




Yet all I here from the left is how we conservatives are Nazis despite historical facts...


Because it's the clueless and leading the hopeless with alt left so called facts.




posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   


Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.

Adolf Hitler, Sunday Express, 28 September 1930; cited. in The Rise of Fascism by F.L. Carsten, p. 137




I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it would be by a State functionary—providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private initiative.

A private statement made on March 24, 1942. Cited in Hitler's Secret Conversations. Translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. 1953. p. 294 [13]


Gosh ... you'd almost think Hitler was a lying politician or something ... I guess, like all politicians, he said whatever he needed to achieve the most POWER.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join