On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders.
The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles.
Part of the lawsuit claimed that the DNC illegally favored Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over Sanders and were in violation of the DNC charter as a result. The judge assumed that the allegations were true but dismissed the case on the grounds that the supporters who felt defrauded should redress their grievances ...
She was accused of not scheduling many debates between the candidates because of the damage that the debates did to Clinton in her campaign against Barack Obama; much like in 2016, she began as the party favourite and slowly lost ground to an insurgent candidate. During the 2008 nomination process, there were 26 debates, compared to only six debates in the 2016 nomination campaign. Schultz also enacted a rule that said candidates could not participate in unsanctioned debates and lifted a ban on donations from corporate lobbyists and PACs that allowed the DNC to run the Hillary Victory Fund, a fundraising committee organised in collaboration with the Clinton campaign, which Politico reported to be laundering money into the Clinton campaign.
On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate.
The lawsuit was filed to push the DNC to admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated. On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC ...
In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders.
This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.
Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, “I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.”. He added that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did.
While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”.
Jared Beck , one of the leading attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told The Observer, “The standard governing the motion to dismiss requires the Court to accept all well-pled allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion.
In a response brief, DNC representatives claimed that the DNC had no established fiduciary duty “to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent.”. Defense counsel also claimed that Sanders supporters knew the process was rigged. As the Becks argue:
The petition filed by Elizabeth and Jared Beck says that though the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal, they “found the DNC donor plaintiffs (although not the Sanders donors) did satisfy the elements … for the fraud-type claims.”. That has allowed the Becks to appeal to the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Beck told Consortium News:
That has allowed the Becks to appeal to the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Beck told Consortium News: “Appeals to the Supreme Court are not automatic. You do not get to appeal just because you lost in the Court of Federal Appeals. The Supreme Court has to accept your appeal.
During the DNC Fraud Lawsuit’s proceedings, defense counsel filed a response brief claiming that primary rigging is protected by the First Amendment, arguing that, “To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party’s nominee for public office.”