Thread by @ai_jared

Excerpt from transcript of 4/25/2017, Carol Wilding, et al., vs. DNC Services Corp, d/b/a/ Democratic National Committee, et al, Defendants.

MR. BECK: Good afternoon. And thank you, Counsel. Your Honor, we've been accused just now of wielding a political weapon.

We're been accused of posing a threat to the First Amendment. But, in fact the First Amendment is not absolute, and the Supreme Court recognizes that again and again.

And, in fact, the First Amendment yields on many occasions to more ancient common-law rights that precede even the founding of this republic. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are very, very important, but we also have a right not to be defrauded.

We also have the right not to be taken advantage of by a fiduciary. We have a right not be be deceived. There's no exception to those rights just because the fraudulent speech or the fraudulent conduct involved takes place in a political context.

But that's what the defendant want you to conclude in this case. But if you concluded that, your Honor, you would be in direct contravention of what the Supreme Court has said again and again.

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, quote: "Untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake."

The famous Gertz opinion, one of the seminal First Amendment cases, quote: "There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.

Neither the intentional lie or the careless error materially advances society's interest in uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues."

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."

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.

And as to standing, which is the means by which a litigant enters court, standing here is a very, very basic question -- or a very basic issue. And I think it's readily decided in this case, because we are talking primarily about the loss of money.

And federal courts have recognized again and again that loss of money is a valid injury to confer Article III standing.

Just because that money was paid as part of a political process, again, we must get back to the First Amendment, we get back to all those cases that the Supreme Court has decided.

There's no protection of fraudulent speech that comes under the rubric of freedom of speech or freedom of association.

This is not a case about enforcing political promises. They want you to think that, I believe, because they want to paint this case in a line of cases that have been filed throughout the years where candidates may make political promises,

and then disappointed voters bring lawsuits to enforce those promises or seek damages in one form or another. But that's not what this case is about. We're not talking about campaign rhetoric. We're not talking about a campaign platform of any kind.

What we're talking about here is the very core of what our democracy runs on, the very basis of our democracy, which is the conduct of free and fair elections.

That's the basis, that's the bedrock on which the claims of this case take off, because the election-the elections-as American history has developed, the conduct of those elections, for better or worse, has come under the domain of the two major political parties in this country.

And in our case, in getting into the allegations of our case, what we are alleging and what we are very, I think, clearly alleging in this complaint

is that people paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary process for the Democratic nominee--nominating process in 2016 was fair and impartial.

And that's not a bedrock assumption that we would just assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner.

But that's what the Democratic National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can't deny that.

(after a brief interruption)

MR. BECK: I was talking about the charter, because I was making the point that we're not just talking about a bedrock assumption of what it means to live in a democracy

and what formed the bedrock understanding of the plain tiffs in this lawsuit, but it's also in the charter itself, which --

THE COURT: Article IV -- or -- excuse me, Article V, Section 4.

MR. BECK: Correct. Which requires the DNC and its chairperson to act in an even and impartial manner with respect to the presidential nominating process.

THE COURT: Which is in paragraph 159 of your first-amended complaint.

MR. BECK: Correct. And not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee's employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter.

And they said it again and again, and we've cited several instances of that in the case."

-- the full transcript can be found here:

jampac.us/dnclawsuit/

And in "What Happened to Bernie Sanders", published by Hot Books.

More excerpts to come in the future.

You can find the #DNCFraudLawsuit Facebook page here:

facebook.com/DNCfraudlawsuit