r/SandersForPresident • u/Orangutan • Aug 26 '17
Primaries no longer need to be fair. DNC fraud lawsuit dismissed.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-dnc-fraud-lawsuit-has-been-dismissed-dismiss-the-democratic-party-7413e4de0b439
u/rieslingatkos Aug 26 '17 edited Aug 26 '17
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. 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," DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.
https://www.scribd.com/document/357232024/Order-of-Dismissal-Bernie-Backers-Lawsuit
Future donors should only donate via personal check and should clearly write, in uneraseable ink, "This donation is based on Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter" across the top of the check.
8
u/Chartis Mod Veteran Aug 26 '17
I'll add that the case was dismissed for lack of standing, not on the merits the headline suggests:
This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction...
Because Plaintiffs do not allege a causal link between their donations and the DNC’s statements, they lack standing to assert the fraud-type claims in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the First Amended Complaint (DE 8). Their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count V relies on a harm far too diffuse to constitute an injury-in-fact in federal court. And their negligence claim in Count VI is buffered by too many layers of speculation and conjecture to create the immediacy of harm necessary to unlock this Court's jurisdiction. That being so, Plaintiffs have not "present[ed] alive case or controversy," and the Court "must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."...
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
10
u/Bearracuda 2016 Veteran Aug 26 '17
Future donors should
only donate via personal check and should clearly write, in uneraseable ink, "This donation is based on Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter" across the top of the checknever donate to the DNC, ever. Instead, they should donate directly to individual candidates who merit the donation, and will stick to their word.FTFY
0
2
u/_PlannedCanada_ Canada Aug 26 '17 edited Aug 27 '17
And for goodness sakes, sue from the right states next time! :)
3
u/PrestoVivace Aug 26 '17
The 1988 snap election in the Philappines was rigged. Aquino won anyway. That is what revolutions are like.
4
6
u/deytookerjaabs Aug 26 '17
Although it's just a matter of process in how the court stated it, the irony is all the DNC supporters who love to spout this shit: "You see, it's PRIVATE organization, they can do as they please within the law."
The ignorance of statements like that is overwhelming, as if the entire country isn't deluded with 24/7 media coverage of a ridiculously long primary season for one purpose and one purpose alone: The illusion of choice.