General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBriefing in bogus DNC fraud lawsuit appears to be complete
This lawsuit is a piece of crap filed by some attorneys who want to sell a book. The trial court dismissed this case due to lack of standing for the plaintiffs and other valid reasons http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdf
The Court concluded
In the original petition, the idiot lawyers who filed this lawsuit did not understand the federal rules of civil procedure and how to plead for diversity jurisdiction for a class action case. The court allowed these idiots to fix this defect. The fact that the idiots who filed this case were not aware that there are special pleading rules for class actions in federal court says a great deal about their competence.
I had fun reading the briefs and it is clear that the plaintiff attorneys are idiots. The plaintiff's brief was weak but amusing http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1-19-18-Initial-Brief-1.pdf
I love this footnote in the DNC's brief http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2-20-18-Ds-Response-Brief.pdf
One of the dumbest claims in the plaintiff's original complaint was that the sanders donors were consumers under the DC consumer protection act. When I read this in the first petition, I laughed. The DNC had fun pointing out how stupid this claim is.
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements for bringing a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), because neither political donors nor members of a political party are consumers within the meaning of the statute. See D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(2) (defining a consumer as a person who, other than for purposes of resale, does or would purchase, lease (as lessee), or receive consumer goods or services, including as a co-obliger or surety, or does or would otherwise provide the economic demand for a trade practice). Plaintiffs did not purchase any goods or services from either Defendant. See Slaby v. Fairbridge, 3 F. Supp. 2d 22, 27 (D.D.C. 1998) (Plaintiff . . . does not allege that she purchased, leased or received consumer goods or services from defendant . . . and therefore fails to establish any consumer-merchant relationship to bring it within the scope of the [statute].); see also Howard v. Riggs Natl Bank, 432 A.2d 701, 709 (D.C. 1981) (limiting the application of the CPPA pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(3) to the merchant, or another merchant further along the supply chain).
I am glad that the briefing is done in this appeal. I am still not impressed with the work of the plaintiff attorneys.
The best that the plaintiffs can hope for is a chance to re-plead this case. I am hopeful that the court should do the right thing and dismiss this piece of dreck.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Looks like a group of certain radicals won't be getting their imaginary donations to the DNC back.
still_one
(92,057 posts)vote for the Democratic nominee, but did every thing in their power to distort, lie, and undermine the Democratic campaign against trump.
If for no other reason, this is why the Democratic nominee for 2020 needs to be someone who was not one of the nominees in 2016, the animosity from 2016 is not going away
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)still_one
(92,057 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,128 posts)to hire competent lawyers.
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)This lawsuit is being pushed by some idiots attorneys who trying to sell a book to the idiots who post on JPR. No one else would be stupid enough to buy such a book
lapucelle
(18,184 posts)What does it mean that "briefing is done"? What are the next steps?
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)This will take a while
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)As of now, the court has not ordered oral arguments and there is a decent chance given the merits of this case that there will be no oral arguments.
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)Cha
(296,726 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Thanks!
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)The lawyer for the plaintiffs are idiots. The DNC briefs are well done
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)and barred from further litigation for submitting such garbage and tying up the court? Or is that for the quantity of lawsuits. This is really, really bad.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)the use of social media to try their case in a one sided manner (to the public), rarely has any effect of the judges. Just makes them look super stupid to all who where exposed to their attempts, when the official ruling veers off in a different direction than the one they are trying to direct.
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)The idiots on JPR support this bogus lawsuit
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Everything they say, do and support is to support that moron.
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)Gothmog
(144,849 posts)None of the real legal blogs are covering this lawsuit. The only discussions of this lawsuit you will see are on JPR and twitter. The original petition was so bad that I laughed. The idiot attorneys who filed this case failed to do the normal pleadings necessary to show diversity jurisdiction in a class action lawsuit.
I am still amazed that the the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are claiming that the District of Columbia deceptive trade practices act applies. Such law only applies to consumers and donors are not consumers.
FSogol
(45,428 posts)Gothmog
(144,849 posts)mcar
(42,276 posts)Looks like a bogus suit, Gothmog. What a waste of time, effort, and money.
Gothmog
(144,849 posts)I am curious to see if the court of appeals will order oral arguments on this piece of shit lawsuit