The
ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding
its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants in the
case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers of the case
at a loss for words.
The
document, provided by the law offices of the Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to
argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016
Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the
first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief,
expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives
of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The
Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck’s outspoken
twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation process for
political purposes: “For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel Jared
Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as “shi*bags” on Twitter and
uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants.”
Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First
Amendment at this point in the document.
The
defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed
as: “…Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and
Plaintiffs’ process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit.”
This
author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the
Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to
mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the
litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated
phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained
a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks
hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.
The DNC
defense lawyers then argued that: “There is no legitimate basis
for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt
to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by
individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its
candidate in a presidential campaign.”
Full
report:
Comments
Post a Comment