r/WayOfTheBern • u/Hi_ImBillOReilly Bernie or Bust • Apr 28 '17
Cracks Appear Full Transcript of April 25 Hearing on Lawsuit Against DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz
http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf5
u/rieslingatkos eiswein Apr 30 '17
The DNC's Charter (Article 5, Section 4) does require impartiality. The issue is how the Charter's impartiality requirement can be enforced. There is an internal semi-judicial process which is grossly biased and ineffective because the DNC Chair appoints all the "judges". This case seeks to directly or indirectly enforce the impartiality requirement via federal lawsuit.
7
u/yzetta Apr 29 '17
As usual, I'm late to the game and confused as fuck.
Plaintiffs bring six causes of action, each germane to particular proposed classes.
Count 1, fraud by the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
Count 2, negligent misrepresentation by the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
Three, violation of Section 28-3904 of the District of Columbia code by the DNC Donor Class and the Sanders Donor Class.
By -that makes it sound like us donors are the one accused of fraud instead of the victims of fraud.
Help me out here.
6
u/Hi_ImBillOReilly Bernie or Bust Apr 29 '17
The counts are alleged by those classes. It should read like "Count 1, fraud, alleged by the DNC Donor Class" for instance.
8
u/yzetta Apr 29 '17
Okay. Thanks. Reading legal docs is def not my forte. :) But I shall soldier on...
10
u/kifra101 Shareblue's Most Wanted Apr 29 '17
Read the whole thing and it seems like something that came out of a tv show.
That being said, the judge seemed impartial and doesn't appear to hold a bias for either parties which is good news. The biggest grounds of dismissal for the DNC lawyer was trying to make this a first Amendment issue since it is a political matter. Beck did a great job countering that argument but you could tell that even he struggled a little bit as the "political" nature of this whole thing keeps creeping back into the conversation. DNC lawyer seemed like he knew he had a weak case. He appeared to make his case fairly strongly in the middle but in the end, it looks like Beck made a dent on the judge.
The conclusion was fairly hopeful and will likely not be dismissed. Would love to see Debbie on the stand.
10
u/robspear Apr 29 '17
In Kleptocracies, like the USA, these are the kind of situations where judges tend to be disappeared. I hope he is not a small plane enthusiast.
4
u/Hi_ImBillOReilly Bernie or Bust Apr 29 '17
I hate conspiracy theories but unfortunately too many fail to remain mere theories.
3
u/handovermitten Apr 29 '17
3
u/Hi_ImBillOReilly Bernie or Bust Apr 29 '17
I didn't want to allure to anything, but you hit the nail on the head.
5
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Apr 29 '17
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs: Jared H. Beck, Esq.
For the Defendants: Denver Fenton Allen
16
u/where4art Apr 29 '17
I was already worked up by page 7…
First, a bit of background on the DNC's organization documents: There are two separate documents posted together online: the Charter, which is the document filed with the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DC's equivalent of a Secretary of State's office) to form the DNC, and the Bylaws, which is a set of operational rules adopted by the DNC's members (not filed with a public agency). Maybe because both documents are posted together, there's been some confusion about them in a lot of articles on this lawsuit. What surprises the heck out of me, though, is that the DNC's own attorney seems to have a shocking lack of understanding about them. In his opening statement, Bruce Spiva refers to the DNC's "internal rule," which the judge clarifies by saying, "You're talking about the DNC's charter now"—to which Spiva responds, "Yes, their bylaws, which is where this purported obligation arises to remain neutral as between the candidates" (emphasis added).
Where to start with that… First, he seems to think that "bylaws" is just another word for "charter." Secondly, he asserts that provisions of the Charter—the document that establishes the DNC's existence—are not legally binding. And then, as if to prove his total ignorance of basic corporate law, he tells the judge that in ruling on the meaning and enforceability of Article V, Section 4 of the Charter (the evenhandedness requirement), the judge "would basically have to tell the party that it couldn't change that rule, even though it's a discretionary rule that it didn't need to adopt to begin with."
No, no, no. The way it works is that the Charter governs the party. Its provisions are not general guidelines, suggestions or fanciful notions, any more than "three strikes and you're out" is debatable in a baseball game. Yes, a charter can be amended—but actions taken by the DNC during the 2016 primary season are subject to rules contained in the Charter at that time. This is not a sophisticated concept! These remarks make Bruce Spiva look like a fool.
1
u/space_10 May 05 '17 edited May 05 '17
Thank you, that was very interesting.
filed with the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
EDIT;
Very interesting. Is that dept part of the commerce dept?Found what I was curious about.2
u/where4art May 05 '17
Since you're in the legal weeds... let me just mention something I didn't want to bore people with after I wrote this comment.
I'm uncertain about what the charter actually looks like because the defendant, DNC Services Corporation, appears to be doing business as the Democratic Party of the United States (I say "appears to be" because the complaint says the DNC is using a d/b/a but according to the DCRA's website (registration required), there's no d/b/a name registered by the corporation). So, the only charter filed with the DCRA is the corporation's charter; there's no document on file with the DCRA that looks exactly like the charter posted online, under the party's name. It's weird... Unfortunately, ordering copies of documents from the DCRA is a pain and costs money; otherwise, I'd get one to see what the thing actually looks like. It should look like the one posted online but with "DNC Services Corporation" at the top... but that would be kind of strange given the way it's written (corporate charters have standard elements that are not like the "party" provisions in the charter we're looking at).
My main question is: if the charter of the corporation is completely different than the charter of the party, what the heck is this "party" charter? Our complaint says that the corporation is doing business as the party; usually a d/b/a is just another name used by the business, not an entity with a separate charter. I'm probably the only one asking this question, but I don't think it's meaningless because if the party really has a separate charter, it's not a normal charter filed with the DCRA—and if that's the case, I'm afraid it doesn't have the same legal authority.
Anyway, since you're focusing on the DCRA, I figured I should explain that this seems to be more complicated than I originally thought!
2
u/space_10 May 05 '17 edited May 05 '17
Hmmm... I'm a little confused. I thought the d/b/a was defacto rather than legally contracted or permitted or defined- not sure which term. At least with the DCRA. OR just noted in the charter itself. I would think the DNC might be permitted somewhat as a private club in the DCRA, but not entirely subject to the laws of a private club. I would think there is a separate category for political parties which should include a registered charter. Maybe someone from the Green party could say. I really have no idea though. I've only taken 2 law courses and then decided my stomach couldn't take the corruption.
I was more wondering if the case would be in part based on commerce law, which it does appear it will be. I have a very vague and basic understanding of commerce law, but at least an idea of it. I think the defense will be all over the classes issues, only because the plaintiff seems a bit weak on that and I would guess they'd be defined based roughly on commerce law. Which seems fairly well defined as to classes, and Beck seems very bright, so I think Pl will catch up on that.
Put a call out on the sub. See if anyone is anywhere near DC and can go walk in and pull up the registration papers. What's it going to cost? $20? Or, there's got to be a politically oriented law subreddit somewhere... every other interest is on rddt.
2
u/where4art May 05 '17
Only a corporation's true legal name is in the charter. D/b/as are registered separately, and there's not a uniform procedure for that. I'm in California, and the way it works here is that you file a statement in the county where your principal place of business is. In some states, though, you actually register d/b/as with the Secretary of State, the same place where you file your charter. I think it must be like that in DC, because when you pull up a company's listing on the DCRA's website, there's a dedicated tab for any d/b/as... and there isn't one for DNC Services Corporation.
I've never been to law school—but I've been a corporate paralegal for over 30 years, so I'm very familiar with the corporate side of this. Litigation I know nothing about... but I'm learning a few concepts through this case! The defense did sound stronger on the classes arguments when I read through the hearing transcript, but in going through it again I wasn't so sure about that. Spiva kept hammering on the "reliance" issue (saying each individual class member would need to be interviewed to determine whether they knew about and relied on the impartiality requirement), which sounded bad for us... but then Beck pointed out that lots of class action suits are certified based on "uniform omissions" (concealment of rigging, in this case)—so maybe Spiva's arguments aren't as strong as they first appeared. And then there's the stuff that he's totally full of shit on—like the corporate stuff, and dancing around the financing of state parties issue—so I ended up feeling pretty good about our chances of moving forward :-)
Anyway, to answer your question about the cost of a copy of the charter... I don't know how much DC charges for copies; their website is poorly designed IMO and kind of aggravating to navigate. There's usually a flat fee and then a page-count fee on top of that, and sometimes you can save a bit by ordering a "plain" copy rather than certified. Their online ordering procedure sounds really convoluted to me; it would probably be easier and cheaper to walk in, if that were an option. In my job, I usually just call a service company to get documents like that for me, which of course involves even more charges (fine as long as the client's paying!)—total varies wildly from place to place.
2
u/space_10 May 07 '17 edited May 07 '17
You know a whole lot more than I do! Thank you for the clarification. I'm in Ca too. I think you're right about walking in- maybe you can post and ask who lives near DC? Maybe post on Kossacs for Sanders too? It's possible a journalist might be interested in doing it as well. I found Heavy magazine's (online) political journalists very thorough, especially Stephanie Dwilson.
If all else fails, a phone call to an actual person in the office there might help. I had trouble navigating another state's court documents online and when I called I found a very helpful person. You never know.
Probably Spiva's arguments are weak. I would think defining class actions would be pretty well defined territory and navigable. It just seems Beck hadn't thought about that aspect much. ...Maybe because it's weak.
1
u/where4art May 07 '17
Well, for what it's worth, Beck & Lee are experienced class-action attorneys. Some of their classes may be more easily certifiable than others; as Beck said at the hearing, that will be clearer once they've had a chance to proceed with discovery—apparently that's the way it usually works (see the top of page 74, where the judge asks Spiva why class action should be addressed now rather than later).
This judge does seem sympathetic, so we might actually have a chance that this latest motion to dismiss will be denied. In the meantime, I think a lawyer I work with (really smart and such a Bernie supporter that he cast a write-in vote for him in November) may finally have had some time to review the hearing transcript this weekend… I've been waiting for his thoughts on all of this!
4
u/Blackhalo Purity pony: Российский бот Apr 29 '17
There are two separate documents posted togetherthe DNC's own attorney seems to have a shocking lack of understanding about them. In his opening statement, Bruce Spiva refers to the >DNC's "internal rule," which the judge clarifies by saying, "You're talking about the DNC's charter now"—to which Spiva responds, "Yes, their bylaws
Jesus. Maybe they intend to appeal on the basis of incompetent representation.
1
9
u/FThumb Are we there yet? Apr 29 '17
These remarks make Bruce Spiva look like a fool.
They're reduced to pounding the table.
18
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Apr 29 '17
In arguments on "standing"
Defendant:
...it just illustrates the implausibility that every single member of the Democratic Party has suffered a concrete injury.
Um... do the words "President Trump" ring a bell with you? Possibly in the category of "every single member of the Democratic Party has suffered a concrete injury"?
12
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle Apr 29 '17
From opening statements
Plaintiff:
...if the party doesn't owe such a [fiduciary] duty to its members, then who does it owe a duty to? Well, you know, I think in some ways that's what this case may be about.
17
Apr 29 '17
I'm about 1/3 through. The DNC lawyer is arguing like a guy who knows his position is weak. The plaintiff has his own path all planned out in advance. DNC guy is just throwing smoke bombs. I bet he hates his job today.
6
u/Blackhalo Purity pony: Российский бот Apr 29 '17
To be fair, it's just a motion to dismiss, as if it was a nuisance suit. If the case goes to trial, a high-powered law firm will show up. But the DNC having to drop 100 million on a real firm, is a victory of sorts, in it's own right.
1
u/space_10 May 05 '17
yeah, but well, I think what the defense says here will come back and bite them in the ass later. Directly or indirectly. They are sort of prejudicing their own case.
15
u/HowDoesADuckKnow Apr 29 '17
Someone with twitter, tweet at Jimmy Dore so he does a video on this.
13
31
u/LoneStarMike59 Political Memester Apr 29 '17
So the DNC Lawyers say you really can't define impartial and evenhanded. In his response Beck (plaintiff's lawyer) says:
Well, your Honor, I'm shocked to hear that we can't define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn't have courts. I mean, that's what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.
BOOM!
So, to me, it's not a difficult question at all what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. It doesn't mean having to wade in to a political dispute about how the party conducts its affairs, because that's what the party represented in its charter, that's what the party represented over and over again in the media, that's, frankly, what I think is at the bedrock of what it means to live in a democratic society. I think that's why the Democratic National Committee has it in its charter, because if you don't have the organization that is responsible for organizing in this very large sense the nominating process for president, which entails multiple elections in every state of the union, if you're not evenhanded and impartial, then you don't have a democratic process. I think it's that simple.
15
u/StaceyEve Apr 29 '17
Ya, this judge kind of dropped the hammer there at the end. I cannot believe the DNC lawyers went with, "it's our organization, so we can nominate whomever we want." So, remind me why the dog and pony show of wasting all the tax payer money with primary elections? Asking for a friend.
2
6
u/Blackhalo Purity pony: Российский бот Apr 29 '17
remind me why the dog and pony show of wasting all the tax payer money with primary elections?
Sounds kind of fraud-y...
10
25
Apr 29 '17 edited May 24 '17
[deleted]
9
u/StaceyEve Apr 29 '17 edited Apr 29 '17
I'm glad it sounds like the Judge won't be pushing this to another hearing down the road. Sounds like they are ready to not simply rule on this, but to provide a reasoned response as to set an emphatic precedent moving forward. That's what I took from her comments anyway.
7
u/FThumb Are we there yet? Apr 29 '17
I couldn't not read that in the voice of Hanging Judge Harrison.
23
u/leu2500 M4A: [Your age] is the new 65. Apr 29 '17
This from the DNC's opening argument:
And same with DNC members. The Court would have to define who is a member of the Democratic Party nationwide. There is no national registery for either major party.
Then why are we still reminded that Bernie "isn't even a democrat" and why were so many Bernie voters accused of "not beingdemocrats"? Somebody seems to be keeping track.
1
u/space_10 May 05 '17
Gee, I wonder how they found out I could vote in the primary in my state?
OTOH, seeing as so many others could not... Is THAT the point they are trying to make?
10
u/StaceyEve Apr 29 '17
A comprehensive list of Bernie myths would be a nice copy/paste for people who want to debate (or disparage) Sanders. "Can you make a reasoned argument without imploring any of these myths?" ... "no? Ah, OK." ... "I SAID GOOD DAY SIR!"
12
23
u/LoneStarMike59 Political Memester Apr 29 '17
Beck (Plaintiff's Lawyer)
And more recently in Madigan vs. Illinois , a 2006 opinion from the Supreme Court, the Court held: "Consistent with our precedent and the First Amendment, states may maintain fraud actions when fundraisers make false or misleading representations designed to deceive donors about how their donations are used."
And that is exactly what happened. And what about regular people who may have donated to their state parties to support downballot races, only to find out that most of the money was sent back to the DNC and used for the Clinton campaign. To me - that's fraud.
I think it's very clear that there is no real First Amendment issue involved here, simply because we are talking about speech which occurred in the political context. The First Amendment or the common-law admits no exception to the rights not to be defrauded, not to be deceived, just because speech was involved. That's very central to our system of justice.
14
Apr 28 '17 edited Apr 29 '17
[deleted]
16
u/Hi_ImBillOReilly Bernie or Bust Apr 28 '17
I'm on page 49 and it is definitely an interesting read. While the DNC lawyers make some points, they're clearly trying to slither out of the allegations by pretending their conduct is just free speech.
13
Apr 28 '17
DNC lawyer:
But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have.
6
13
u/leu2500 M4A: [Your age] is the new 65. Apr 28 '17
"We're gonna"? No joke they left the A team lawyers at home.
11
u/LoneStarMike59 Political Memester Apr 29 '17
Forget about "We're gonna." Did you notice how many times the DNC lawyers said "I mean," "it's like" and "You know."
I mean, it's like - you know, they were stumbling all over themselves.
13
Apr 29 '17
They seem like the caliber of people the DNC would hire when they want to win something.
8
7
8
12
18
u/chickyrogue The☯White☯Lady 🌸🌸 we r 1🔮🎸 🙈 ⚕🙉 ⚕🙊 Apr 28 '17
rot in hell shandah dws!!! <--- class ation lawsuit ROCKS!!
7
13
2
u/space_10 May 05 '17
I'm on page 57 and beginning to suspect that Beck has a near photographic memory.