Home Lawyers For DNC Argue That Major Rigging Is Protected By First Amendment
Lawyer For DNC Arguing That Main Rigging Is Protected By First Amendment

February 24, 2018 Elizabeth Vos
The ongoing litigation of DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal of his dismissal took a staggering turn yesterday. The defendants in the case, including DNC and former DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a brief response that made many observers lose cases of words.
The documents, which are provided by the Law Offices of Lawyers for Plaintiffs in this case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and seem to argue that if the Democratic Party does not deceive Sanders in 2016 the president's main race, then the actions are protected under the first amendment. short, expressing anger and disgust at claims made by DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz representatives.
The Defense Advisor also believes that due to Jared Beck's overtly twitter post, the plaintiff used the litigation process for political purposes: "For example, advocate Plaintiff Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as" shi * bag "on Twitter and uses other demeaning languages in reference to the Defendants. "Interestingly, there is no mention of the importance of the First Amendment at this point in the document.
The defense also takes issue with Jared Beck for what they call the "... Repeatedly promoting false and highly offensive conspiracy theories about the deaths of former DNC employees and the server plaintiff's process in an effort to raise concern for this lawsuit."
The author was surprised to find that despite Becks' characterization as a seller of conspiracy theorist, the defender failed to mention the motion for protection filed by Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to record the voice-modulated phone calls received by law offices of Becks containing ID- caller in accordance with the legal offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in this case. In light of this context, Becks does not seem to be a peddler of conspiracy theories.
The DNC defense attorney then stated that: "There is no valid basis for this litigation here, which is, in effect, an improper attempt to forge a federal court into a political weapon for use by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selects its candidate presidential campaign. "
