UPDATE: DNC Fraud Lawsuit ! ! !

While many in media will not cover this case, it is still ongoing. Candidates running for office under the DNC banner certainly can’t discuss it and even those who are claiming to be progressives linked to the DNC can’t talk about it either.  So here are the facts: The DNC admitted to Giving Hillary Clinton and overwhelming amount of support to defeat Bernie Sanders. What that support looked like and how it materialized is still under investigation, concealment, and denial. All these factors also exist in the race between Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Tim Canova. The criminal act of destroying ballots have yet to result in any criminal charges.  Here is an article on that. 

https://ivn.us/2018/10/31/debbie-wasserman-schultz-danger-losing-seat/ 

The nation-wide DNC primary used funds derived from State and Federal taxes for execution.  The primary is legally bound to be fair, or neutral as defined by the US Constitution. Fair elections are the law.  By legal requirement, a voter must declare a party to participate in a primary. This declaration excludes ones’ ability to participate in any other primary. This creates a contract by exclusivity and is legally binding. It can result in voter fraud charges which are a felony any time a federal seat is on the ballot. To date no State or Federal agency has asked for its money to be returned or sought relief for the DNC’s biased handling of the Primary. Their taxpayers paid for the primary under the assumption that the election was actually an election, as law requires it be.

So, the DNC claims as a private entity it can pick the PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE without any input from voters.  The DNC has testified that it actively worked to make Hillary the nominee. It has also been proven that the same DNC actively worked to elevate Candidate Trump into a favorable lead position.

The case was dismissed and an appeal was granted. Oral arguments to move forward have been heard. As of this writing we do not have the decision. Request for live steaming these proceedings where denied and the audio can be found here: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?title=&field_oar_case_name_value=wilding&field_oral_argument_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=&field_oral_argument_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bmonth%5D=

The judge asks about the nature of injury.  The injury is that the lost of faith of the law of fair elections. Democracy its self is injured.  The very fabric of democracy which is dependent on voting and is intrinsic to the peaceful of transfer of power. Listen to the interaction. It is fascinating that the DNC claiming to be a private organization can sue others for a reduction in their campaign dollars, yet it holds no responsibility to its self to have devalued itself by rigging the election for Hillary.

On tape the judge questions that any person who joins a party that it should have a fiduciary responsibility. Why is that questionable? All organizations which collect money have a fiduciary responsibility to do with the money as publicly presented in its bylaws and filing with the federal government for a tax ID number.

The Judge refers to precedence. At no time has a case of this nature been substantiated. There is no precedence. While rigging has been going on, no one knows how long or how many candidates have been cheated as was Bernie.  The system propagates the belief that one should accept a loss graciously and did Hillary. Hillary tried to insist that Candidate Trump concede in the face of her certain win… which did not happen. Even the President of the United States  Barack Obama publicly claimed an election could not be rigged.  Magically overnight millions of dollars more than she had to campaign with flowed to Jill Stein. Stein then called for recounts in states which the Hillary losses were the smallest. That recount effort revealed more fraudulent votes for Hillary and was dropped from the media coverage and ended abruptly. The status of that money can be found here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-happened-to-jill-steins-recount-millions . While the 7 million dollars raised is a serious issue it pales in comparison to the fact Green Party members have no idea what is going on. Candidates running Green have gotten almost no support nationally.

Everything about modern elections has given the advantage to the two major parties.  People have no idea how difficult running for office has been made for an independent or any candidate not supported by the local two-party system.  They also forget that the two parties have elected positions on the ballot as delegates, some even produce judges.  

All elected positions have a fiduciary responsibility.  Why would it be a question if the organizations they report to has that same responsibility toward legal, ethic, moral, and financial responsibilities?  It seems just as the lawyer for the DNC would not admit in the affirmative anything in the hypothetical offered by the judge, a court would also be hesitant to verbally paint itself into a corner.

This case could be an estimated 900 million dollars in damages. This is a civil case. Criminal charges for actual election fraud have not been filed. The public keeps hearing the tern voter fraud which is on purpose. Election fraud is committed by individuals in charge of elections. Voters fraud is when a voter individually casts an illegal ballot. A case of a voter who unknowingly voted illegally is here sentence 5 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/30/texas-woman-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-voting-while-on-probation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d395690d0bcd

Here is the contrast of another voter who knowingly voted twice got two years probation: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2017/07/07/iowa-woman-charged-voting-twice-trump-pleads-guilty/459718001/ 

Many voters believe the clams of political organizations and give money based on those claims. How is it different from any marketing of any product? The fact that it is very different in execution is indisputable.  No elected official can be forced to represent their constituency it is legally required by oath.  They have sworn to do so to a higher authority as the oath of office records.  Accepting money for preferential treatment and access is bribery and is illegal. It is that simple.

What is on trial here is not just if the DNC can collect money and disregard the voter. It is a question of legal obligation to present any claims with a responsibility to follow through.  It will be interesting to see how the courts rule.  Many of the seats at this level are appointed. No appointment happens without first winning the offices and thus a majority through a public election.  Elections remain our means to remove corruption from power. That is why all the fuss about elections being fair is valid.  The public is supposed to have the legal capability and right to remove any ineffective representative. That right and that choice is on trial.

I am Allen J. Cannon and I am Anti-Corruption.