2016 presidential campaign is not yet brought to court – literally.
As a trump administration, a controversial command the attention of the media, to play a little-noticed series of lawsuits against the democratic party continues, the challenge in the courts – including the coordination with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders amounted to electoral fraud.
The case to be heard in a Florida court room dates back to last summer, when the Democrats were thrown into turmoil after the leak of documents that apparently reveal some DNC officials trying to primary undermine Sanders in the party. Jürgen Beck, a Harvard law expert, shortly thereafter, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of residents from 45 States against the DNC and former Board members Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The DNC has tried for months, the matter dismissed, and achieved a temporary victory last year, when it was decided that the plaintiff had not properly paperwork submitted.
Beck has been fighting the DNC every step of the way, and calls the party back to the people and Sanders to repay supporters for contributions during the election due to embezzlement of funds.
“If we can’t trust to lead the two political parties, the election in a fair manner, can we trust?” Beck told Fox News.
SANDERS-INSPIRED THE LOOKING EXCITED ABOUT PELOSI
During the recent hearing on the 25. April in front of a judge in the southern district of Florida, the DNC legal reasoning – one that certainly would have rankled Sanders supporters.
Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC is specified, argued to dismiss in its motion, the party holding the right to choose their candidate selected path and is not bound by the promise of fairness.
“We have voluntarily decided that” Look, we go back into the room, like they used to and smoke cigars and choose the candidate that way.’ This is not the way it was made. But you could have. And that would also argue, your right,” Spiva.
Although the article 5, section 4, of the Democratic party’s Charter provides that it will work with the total neutrality during the Democratic primaries, the DNC’s lawyer argued that the promise was binding.
“And there is no right, not from your candidates at a disadvantage, or they would have preferred another candidate. There is no contractual obligation here,” he said.
“This process has nothing to do with policy or political disagreements within the DNC. In this case, every concern should, because it goes to the heart of the democratic institutions of the country,” Beck told Fox News.
A victory of Beck could have a profound effect on how the democratic party operates the business in the year 2020 and beyond. However, those who say familiar with the election law, it is a climb.
“I don’t think it’s a lot,” said Michael Toner, a lawyer with Wiley-a former legal adviser for the Republican National Committee.
“The courts do not usually get in the middle of intra-party disputes, and while I’m sure that the DNC will not appreciate, to fight this lawsuit, the judges are very cautious in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the policy,” Toner said.
The DNC’s lawyers also claim that the suit is meritless, arguing most of the Sanders donor does not even support the claim.
“The vast majority of those who do not share almost certainly the plaintiff’s political views—have no realistic possibility of disassociating from this action brought on your behalf against the party that you probably support,” the DNC’s lawyers wrote in their motion.
Toner said the risk for the DNC would come when the lawsuit, the discovery phase occurred, which is why a related case, the DNC claimed to not pay overtime compensation represents a potentially greater threat.
The DNC this week filed a motion to dismiss the second class action that alleged workers at the Democratic National Convention and the election were not paid a minimum wage, while others were payment of overtime hours refused guaranteed by Federal and state law.
2016 democratic platform, the current Federal minimum of $7.25 is characterized on a per-hour as “a pittance, and must be increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty.”
The lawsuit also names the Pennsylvania Democratic party and other parties in the party’s 2016 national convention, the in the suit. The Pennsylvania democratic party did not return calls for comment.
“During the DNC, the employer was not in this case, the DNC, the employment and the wage-laws as follows, to ensure that everyone who works a full-time job, receives a fair wage,” DNC spokesman Michael Tyler said in a statement to Fox News.
Although the affected participated in party-building activities, such as the registration of voters, to knock volunteers, and doors, argues, the national party, they were not officially DNC employees.
Justin Swidler, the lawyer behind the suit, told Fox News: “We believe in fair pay for fair work. The lawsuit seeks, and only that. We believe that these ideals are in line with the platform of the DNC.”
According to individuals familiar with the case, the DNC filed to dismiss another motion this week, but none of the two sides expect a prompt resolution of the case, given the court’s full docket.