DNC lawsuit: Caveat Donator

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 1:29pm

Lots of legal issues to unpack in the dismissal order, but the crux of the judge Zloch's argument rests on a specious and wholly unsupported legal theory of consumer protection that places an unconscionable burden on political donors to prove they actually heard a politician say he or she was honest, before the donor can sue the politician for being dishonest.

Standing (the right to sue) includes a requirement that the plaintiff show a causal connection between the injury and the fraud. The donors claim the causal connection lies in the fact that they gave money to the DNC under the false pretense that the party would run a clean primary. Pretty straightforward legally and probably the strongest of the plaintiff's arguments satisfying the causal connection requirement.

Judge Zloch, however, ruled that unless the plaintiffs allege they actually heard the DNC and/or officials claim the primary was fair and impartial and cite specific statements to that effect, the donors cannot show that the donation was caused by the fraud such that they have standing to sue.

Here's the relevant language (P. 13):

As to the fraud-type claims Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs fail to allege any causal connection between their injuries and Defendants’ statements. The plaintiffs asserting each of these causes of action specifically allege that they donated to the DNC or to Bernie Sanders’s campaign. See DE 8, ¶¶ 2-109. But not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC’s charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations. And not one of them alleges that they took action in reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the First Amended Complaint (DE 8). Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.

The court is basically saying that it's not enough for the DNC bylaws, charter, and various DNC officials to all publicly declare multiple times that the primaries are fair and impartial. In order to sue, the donors must show that they actually heard or read these statements before making their donations.

It's important to note that Judge Zloch cites no caselaw as precedence for his novel theory of consumer non-protection (Lujan is simply foundational authority and not apposite on this issue). Not surprising, since it makes absolutely no sense to require specific knowledge of statements of honesty by a fraudster before the victim is allowed to sue for the fraud.

That's like saying only people who actually heard Bernie Madoff say his Ponzi scheme was a legitimate investment vehicle are allowed to sue him for stealing their money.

Under this logic, people who donate money to political candidates are not allowed to assume those politicians are acting in good faith. On the contrary, under the Judge's rationale, donors must assume politicians are acting in bad faith, and must have acquired knowledge of specific assurances of good faith prior to donating before they can sue.

IOW, you need to actually hear the con man say "Trust Me' before you can sue for getting conned.

What makes this all even more nonsensical is the fact that the plaintiffs cite multiple statements in the founding documents and by DNC officials claiming that they WERE acting good faith. So even though the DNC made a public display of their good intentions, the donor class is still under the obligation to assume the DNC were acting with bad intentions unless the donors can show they actually read the documents or heard the statements.

It's like saying that software users can't sue unless they can show they actually read the Terms of Service Agreement. Yet unlike a software ToS which LIMITS the liability of the software publisher, the DNC ToS enumerates and establishes specific organizational obligations under which donors CAN sue - obligations that exist independently of whether the donors actual read those documents or not.

Judge Zloch's rewriting of consumer protection laws to require political donors allege actual notice of a politician's good faith before suing for fraud is sure to be a key issue in any appeal. Should this decision survive, it will set a dangerous precedent that says politicians can lie with absolute impunity when soliciting donations, so as long as the donor doesn't actually hear the lie.

Caveat Donator.*

*latin h/t: TheOtherMaven

Tags:

DNC Lawsuit

Judge Zloch

Motion to Dismiss

fraud

Vote

Comments

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 1:58pm

I think you mean "Caveat donator"

since the "Caveat" portion is where "Let (him, her, them) beware" comes from. "Emptor" means "buyer".

I haven't forgotten all my Latin.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 2:16pm

How do you say 'hat tip' in Latin?

@TheOtherMaven @TheOtherMaven

TY: Will make the change.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by Shahryar on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 1:15am

@Not Henry Kissinger at-hay ip-tay

@Not Henry Kissinger at-hay ip-tay

Submitted by Hillbilly Dem on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:00pm

Me neither. Just watch this....

@TheOtherMaven ........ Britannia est insula.

—

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:54pm

@Hillbilly Dem "Fog in the Channel.

@Hillbilly Dem "Fog in the Channel. Continent isolated."

An actual sign on the English side of the Channel. LOL!

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Shahryar on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 1:16am

@Hillbilly Dem Agricola in casa est

@Hillbilly Dem Agricola in casa est

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 2:19pm

Wonder where it will go from here.

gg published a video by Nikko House. I don't know what his background is, but he was very positive about what the judge did. Called him a guardian angel.

I haven't heard optimism from other quarters.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 3:45pm

Dismissed without predjudice...

@dkmich @dkmich

means they can file a new complaint changing the legally deficient language and the process starts again. The problem with amending the complaint here, however, is that the plaintiff must accept the judge's terms for rewriting.

So great, you find some donor somewhere who actually did read the bylaws and will testify that he/she donated to the DNC after being convinced the elections were fair. How many people fit that class? Maybe find ten if you're lucky?

It's tempting to rewrite the complaint but you do so at the risk of losing your class certification, which would be game over anyway.

Better, I think, to explore the possibility of an interlocutory appeal, so a higher court can consider whether politicians are under any obligation whatsoever to act in good faith when accepting money from the public.

Because under this decision, they are not.

—

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:25pm

Thanks for explaining.

@Not Henry Kissinger

I had a boss that I always made go on record. I never challenged his authority, but I made him say it. I think we have to make the courts say it. If US elections are under no obligation to be honest, what is the point of having them?

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by GreyWolf on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:27pm

Appeal! Appeal!

@Not Henry Kissinger
Thanks for writing this.

To me, this links to UCC § 2-314. Implied Warranty or something similar. The DNC is selling a product, a functioning and fair primary.
Similar to a functioning gun.

Judge:
"Did the salesman specifically say the gun wouldn't explode in your hand?"
Injured plaintiff:
"Well no, but isn't it implied that guns weren't designed to blow up in your hand?"

Judge:
"Did the DNC specifically say the Party wouldn't screw you in the end?"
Injured plaintiff:
"Well no, but isn't it implied that Parties weren't designed to screw you in the end?"

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 11:46pm

No need for implied. It's Expressed.

@GreyWolf @GreyWolf

Judge:
"Did the salesman specifically say the gun wouldn't explode in your hand?"
Injured plaintiff:
"Yes he did. He said it on television and had a poster in his shop that said so."
Judge:
"Did you see or hear any of those statements before you bought the gun?"
"No."
Judge:
"Case dismissed."

There's no need for an implied warranty. It's an express warranty. The DNC expressly stated that it held free and fair elections not once but multiple times in multiple places.

But in order to claim your rights under that warranty, you have to prove you actually read the warranty and relied on its statements before making your purchase.

Honestly. Who does that?

—

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 7:34pm

@Not Henry Kissinger

@Not Henry Kissinger

Since US elections, certainly since Bush 2 seem to routinely involve cheating, especially regarding depriving voters of their vote one way or another, if previously this obviously so on only the Republican side, the judge might have a point about (educated) voters never assuming that primary races might be legitimate either... but that'll be the voter's fault for not voting the way TPTB want them to...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by GreyWolf on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 10:28pm

nice FixedThatForYou/Me ;->

@Not Henry Kissinger
@Not Henry Kissinger

But yeah, I'm agreeing with you, that having to prove they even read it (or heard it) is absurd beyond belief, why would anybody ever even say they heard it ...? (That's what makes it so absurd that the judge demand that it be proved [i.e. you walked in here? on feet? do you have an affidavit that you used feet to walk?])

This whole thing is Catch-22 or Theater of the Absurd level stuff.
cheers ;->

Edit: Yeah, I guess that it's implied and in their bylaws is what makes it doubly absurd to me.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:10pm

Please delete

wrong @ reply

—

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 3:08pm

Do not look at the corruption behind the curtain

Yes they lie and they cheat...but come on...they're politicians (including the judge). Case dismissed!

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 3:54pm

How About Trump's Wall?

Not to be a buzz killer, but for some odd reason Trump cannot compel Mexico to pay for his wall. Can we prove that Trump was deceitful? Is it reasonable for any informed person making a donation to either party to actually believe any politician is honest?

Can a politician or Political Party be required to write enactment legislation on all Party Platform Planks and make a good faith effort to pass the legislative bill?

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:30pm

Campaign promises are totally different from

@Meteor Man

assuring free and fair elections in a democracy. Every reasonable person knows politicians are liars. They also expect elections to be on the up and up and to have election fraud punished.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 5:22pm

I Completely Agree

@dkmich
I suspect that all of the Bush conservative judges that sailed through confirmation and all the Obama judicial appointments that were blocked have created a new normal for political fraud.

I saw that three cases about election fraud against Texas were upheld on appeal and are probably going to SCOTUS. The time to complain about election fraud was 10 or 20 years ago. Maybe longer.

We all remember V.P. Nominee Lieberman stabbing Florida voters and Al Gore in the back on the recount of military votes that were not properly postmarked.

This was the heavy price he paid:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/18/joe-lieberman-fbi-frontrunner-2...

A person familiar with Wednesday’s meeting said Trump bonded with Lieberman, and the president left leaning towards the former Connecticut senator, who retired in 2013. Trump has not signaled otherwise that anyone else is the favorite, aides said, and has told one adviser he wants to make an announcement before he leaves Friday on his first foreign trip.

Trump told reporters Thursday afternoon “we're very close to an FBI director” and that the pick would be announced soon. When asked whether Lieberman was among the finalists, he replied yes.

I have to wonder why and Democratic Party contributer has any expectations, unless they are financial racketeers who want continuing political favors.

When was the last (or first) honest American election?

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:56pm

@Meteor Man I believe there is a

@Meteor Man I believe there is a difference between not being able to make good on a campaign promise and electoral fraud.

I have no reason to believe that Trump didn't want Mexico to pay for the wall, nor that he didn't try to get them to do it.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 5:54pm

See above

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Will SCOTUS uphold appellate decisions against election fraud in Texas?

Here's a precedent to consider:

Subsequent developments

On September 5, 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report finding that, ten years after the Adarand decision, federal agencies still largely fail to comply with the rule in Adarand. Specifically, the Commission found that the Departments of Defense, Transportation, United States Department of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, State, and the Small Business Administration, do not seriously consider race-neutral alternatives before implementing race-conscious federal procurement programs. The Commission found that such consideration is required by the strict scrutiny standard under Adarand and Court decisions. Commissioner Michael Yaki dissented from the Commission's report, arguing that the Commission was taking a "radical step backwards" from the "race-progressive policies" of the past.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adarand_Constructors,_Inc._v._Pe%C3%B1a

Race progressive decisions of SCOTUS are ignored.

And Shaw v. Reno:

Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives.

The decision:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court, which reversed that of the District Court. She described the shape of the new district as "bizarre" and said such a district "bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid."

The Court found that if a redistricting map is "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'," that a claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is available to plaintiffs. Such redistricting will be held unconstitutional if it is found to be intended to segregate voters by race and this segregation cannot be justified under a standard of strict scrutiny.

The dissent:

Dissents

The dissenters noted:

(1) that the case was brought by white voters challenging the district. Its boundaries had enabled the district's majority of black voters to elect the majority-white state's first black representatives to Congress since 1898,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_v._Reno

Is SCOTUS more conservative or more liberal now? How hard will Atty. Gen. Jesse Helms fight for affirmative action or against election fraud? Are the political parties governmental organizations or more like private enterprises? Are political parties corporate persons?

Damned if I know.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 9:50pm

Jesse Helms?

@Meteor Man You mean a very Jesse Helms-like Jeff Sessions?

#4.2 Will SCOTUS uphold appellate decisions against election fraud in Texas? Here's a precedent to consider: Subsequent developments On September 5, 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report finding that, ten years after the Adarand decision, federal agencies still largely fail to comply with the rule in Adarand. Specifically, the Commission found that the Departments of Defense, Transportation, United States Department of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, State, and the Small Business Administration, do not seriously consider race-neutral alternatives before implementing race-conscious federal procurement programs. The Commission found that such consideration is required by the strict scrutiny standard under Adarand and Court decisions. Commissioner Michael Yaki dissented from the Commission's report, arguing that the Commission was taking a "radical step backwards" from the "race-progressive policies" of the past. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adarand_Constructors,_Inc._v._Pe%C3%B1a Race progressive decisions of SCOTUS are ignored. And Shaw v. Reno: Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. The decision: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court, which reversed that of the District Court. She described the shape of the new district as "bizarre" and said such a district "bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid." The Court found that if a redistricting map is "so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race'," that a claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is available to plaintiffs. Such redistricting will be held unconstitutional if it is found to be intended to segregate voters by race and this segregation cannot be justified under a standard of strict scrutiny. The dissent: Dissents The dissenters noted: (1) that the case was brought by white voters challenging the district. Its boundaries had enabled the district's majority of black voters to elect the majority-white state's first black representatives to Congress since 1898, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_v._Reno Is SCOTUS more conservative or more liberal now? How hard will Atty. Gen. Jesse Helms fight for affirmative action or against election fraud? Are the political parties governmental organizations or more like private enterprises? Are political parties corporate persons? Damned if I know.

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 11:52pm

That's The Guy

@Alligator Ed
Hard to keep track of all the White ~~Southern Racist~~ Southern Cultural Heroes named Jesse straight.

Out of curiosity I googled "Jesse Helms" and got several pages about his free Enterprise center and medical center(s) and hospital(s) etc. named after him before I got to a WaPo link about dead Jesse Helms stirring up trouble.

DuckDuckGo was way more helpful with links about Jesse Helms racist S.O.B. Very interesting.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Meteor Man on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 1:09am

That's The Guy

@Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed
Hard to keep track of all the White ~~Southern Racist~~ Southern Cultural Heroes named Jesse straight.

DuckDuckGo was way more helpful with links about Jesse Helms racist S.O.B. Very interesting.

(Edit for additional link) Voter Suppression In Kansas:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57175/kansas-voter-s...

Also mentions Idaho whack job politician:

In April, Snyder took to Charisma to warn of a vision that he said a nine-year-old boy had seen of an asteroid hitting the Atlantic Ocean followed by a nuclear war. "Yes," he wrote, "the most challenging times in all of human history are coming. But for the people of God it will be the greatest chapter of all as multitudes come into the Kingdom even in the midst of all the shaking." Just yesterday, Snyder wondered if an injured bald eagle found in Washington was sent by God as a warning about things like government regulations destroying American freedoms.

Because Muslims hate our freedoms.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 3:57pm

Time to pull out the old technique of taking this to the extreme

So, according to this, I'm allowed to collect whatever donations I want in the name of a political party, and as long as nobody FULLY reads my terms and conditions, I can use the money to buy whores, tequila, expensive cars, and spend the rest foolishly...

I can even say I'm an honest person, but if my little charter says differently, I can totally just walk away with the cash, if nobody can PROVE they read it.

Is it just me or is this a ruling that screams "Pay off"?

If I were in the IRS, I'd start watching this judge. Very, very carefully. Where DID they get that extra money to buy a house? Inquiring governments would like to know.

Heck with it, there HAS to be a tax code violation on this. Fuck the courts, get the deep state to think that they're being ripped off by the DNC. THAT will get some action pretty fucking fast.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:11pm

I'm not ready...

@detroitmechworks to say the judge is corrupt.

More like just kicking the can upstairs on a case way above his pay grade.

—

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:14pm

According to the judge's own ruling...

@Not Henry Kissinger Unless told otherwise, I must assume that ALL politicians are corrupt.

Judges are Politicians.

Q.E.D.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Meteor Man on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 5:58pm

Exactly

@detroitmechworks @detroitmechworks

Couldn't have said it any better myself, or I would have.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 10:10am

Which is basically...

@detroitmechworks

I must assume that ALL politicians are corrupt.

what Judge Zloch says too.

—

Submitted by gustogirl on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 7:18am

Well, IANAL

@Not Henry Kissinger and the decision is inexplicable to me. There is some seriously twisted logic, so it is natural to think something is amiss. But to think the IRS will keep an eye on him seems to keep alive the hope that our government is functioning the way it is supposed to.

I have not heard whether there are plans to re-file or appeal or whatever is necessary to keep this case alive. Since I'll never donate to a politician again, maybe I can donate to a just cause such as the lawsuit.

Speaking of donations, I got one of those phony surveys that are just a cover for asking for donations from the ACLU recently. Every other question included the assumption that we all know Trump is evil and vile and working terrible mischief that they must fight. I checked yes I would donate and did not include any money, but inserted a note asking where I could find the survey results when completed before I sent anything.

In answer to one survey question I asked - "Where were you when the unconstitutional Patriot Act was passed and later continued by congress?" They were instead worried about white supremacists and LGBT rights and women's rights and such. It seems to me that there are some much more pressing constitutional challenges as our rights and freedom drip drip drip away, but hey.

Is anyone at all on our side anymore?

Submitted by gustogirl on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 7:20am

Well, IANAL

Is anyone at all on our side anymore?

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 08/29/2017 - 2:49pm

@detroitmechworks So, according to this, I

@detroitmechworks So, according to this, I'm allowed to collect whatever donations I want in the name of a political party, and as long as nobody FULLY reads my terms and conditions, I can use the money to buy whores, tequila, expensive cars, and spend the rest foolishly...

Can I come along?

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by lunachickie on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:12pm

I don't know about this

It should be clear--and it's hard to see yet, because as you note, there is a LOT to unpack--but the sentence "Plaintiffs fail to allege any causal connection between their injuries and Defendants’ statements." is only because the class of "plaintiffs" was not strictly defined.

The bottom line really ought to be that the judge left the door wide open for anyone to re-file the case, with a strictly-defined "class".

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 9:51am

The dismissal order...

@lunachickie

The bottom line really ought to be that the judge left the door wide open for anyone to re-file the case, with a strictly-defined "class".

defines the class extremely narrowly. Far too narrowly IMO.

—

Submitted by lunachickie on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:13pm

Also,

he didn't "re-write" anything. The case was dismissed. It was not a "decision". That is a very important distinction.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 9:47am

A DWP is indeed a final decision...

@lunachickie The case was dismissed. It was not a "decision".

which allows for interlocury appeal in most jurisdictions.

Plenty of caselaw on this particular procedural issue.

he didn't "re-write" anything.

You misunderstand. It is up to the plaintiff to rewrite the original complaint and refile as an amended complaint that conforms to the judge's requirements laid out in the dismissal order. As I say above, there are reasons filing an amended complaint may not be the best move at this time.

—

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 4:53pm

Well said.

Even if it were less specious than it is, it rests on a notion that is almost unprovable. Like I said elsewhere, how can you prove that you were acting under a belief?

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 08/27/2017 - 11:58pm

People were accusing them of rigging the debates

and we were told time after time that they weren't doing that. Then we found out in one of the Wikileaks' emails that the DNC and Clinton's campaign did collude to change the number of debates in order for Hillary to be able to win the primary easier. This was decided in 2014 before she declared that she was running for president.
Would this count for the judge's decision?
This is another thing that should have disqualified Hillary from running was that she was still giving paid speeches and that was against election laws.
There is an article that states that her paid speeches did help cost her the election.

BTW, her new book has been released and I'll find the article on it that I read this morning.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by WaterLily on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 5:53pm

Damn, no customer reviews yet!

@snoopydawg I highly anticipate those. I'm no fan of Amazon, but in certain circumstances ...

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 6:00am

I'm waiting for the entire lawbook to be invalidated

All they really need to do is increase the burdens of proof upon the plaintiffs, and practically any crime can be made unpunishable.

—

"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 08/28/2017 - 10:22am

The judge's reasoning...

@Cassiodorus

is reminiscent of the S CT ruling in McDonnell that says that you can't convict politicians under bribery statutes unless there is an stated agreement to accept cash/rolexes/trips/etc. for political favors.

It basically legalizes bribery with a wink and a nod so long as the politician doesn't actually say anything explicitly incriminating to the briber.

Overall, the courts seem to be adopting a dangerous standard that makes it harder and harder for anyone (even prosecutors) to hold politicians accountable for their corruption.

The way the courts are going, they might as well simply define a protected class of elected officials who are entitled to racketeer without consequence as long as they keep their mouths shut.

Call it the 'Omerta' class.

—