, 34 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter
1/x This thread attempts to explain as neutrally as possible what happened in the #DNCFraudLawsuit
2/x As I go through I will post link to various court documents in the case. My point here is not to make political or moral claims.
3/x. Plaintiffs are a class of voters who sued the dnc, alleging that it failed to live up to its bylaws to be neutral in the primaries
4/x. In their complaint, and this is very important, they did not raise any claims grounded in federal law.
5/x. Rather all their claims were based on state law. Here is a link to the complaint:
6/x. As you'll see the basic theory of the case is that the dnc committed fraud, misrepresentation and other consumer-type claims not just
7/x when it allegedly favored Clinton but also because it failed to protect voter information in the dnc hack.
8/x When you sue in federal court using state law claims, the only way the court has jurisdiction is if there is diversity.
9/x the long and short of diversity is that plaintiffs and defendants must be citizens of different states. Also in order for the court to
10/x have jurisdiction over the case the plaintiffs must have standing. This means plaintiffs must show that defendants harmed them in a
11/x specific way that is not general to all members of the public and that the court can issue an order that will fix the harm.
12/x the dnc never answered the complaint. In other words they neither admitted nor denied what plaintiffs alleged in any way.
13/x. Instead they moved to dismiss on several grounds, including jurisdiction, standing and others. Here is brief jampac.us/wp-content/upl…
14/x. Again what is important to understand is that at this stage of the process, what the dnc did was to ask the court to do the following
15/x. Assume for the sake of argument that everything plaintiffs says about the facts is true, they still do not win because the law says so
16/x. In the interest of completeness here is the plaintiffs brief. jampac.us/wp-content/upl…
17/x. Again reading the briefs carefully you will note plaintiffs put their best factual narrative forward and ask the court to accept it.
18/x. The court does just that. Since dnc has not answered the complaint, the rules of procedure require the court to accept the facts.
19/x. So in its order dismissing the case the court says that it assumes everything the plaintiffs say factually as true.
20/x. Here is the court's opinion. jampac.us/wp-content/upl…
21/x. The court says several things. First, there is not complete diversity. Second, plaintiffs lack standing for many of the claims.
22/x but most importantly reading the opinion it is clear that the court could not find solid precedent for the argument that primary voters
23/x could sue a political party using essentially consumer fraud and consumer protection type claims. Here is why this matters.
24/x Courts in general and federal courts in particular live and breathe on precedent. When a party asks a court to do x the court is first
25/x foremost going to look for past cases that are similar or somewhat analogous. If there are no such cases then you are asking the court
26/x to make new law. Sometimes court do that but most trial courts do not jump at the chance to do it. This is what happened here.
27/x plaintiffs asked a federal trial court to issue a ruling against a political party in a contested primary using a case theory for which
28/x there was no precedent and in which the complaint had quite a few holes. The court in essence said no thank you.
29/x. So far I've seen tweets claiming the court said the case had merits but it dismissed it on technical grounds. That is untrue.
30/x Instead the court *assumed* but did not decide that the facts of the complaints were true and then held the law was not there.
31/x If you are inclined to believe with absolute certainty that the dnc committed fraud, neither this thread nor the court opinion itself
32/x will convince you otherwise. And I expect that some of the replies I will get will be of the variety that I am a shill of some sort.
33/x For my part I don't intend to get into a rehashing of the primary. My only point is that if we are going to discuss this,
34/34 let us at a bare minimum be clear about the procedural posture of the case and what the court opinion says and does not say.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to aderson francois
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!