Network For #StrongerTogether: Democratic National Committee

Focused Read in 3 minutes,

a bit more if you hit the link...

"Trump Policies Hurting Hardworking Americans:"

A Memo from the DNC!

MEMORANDUM

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: The Democratic National Committee

DATE: September 1, 2017

RE: Trump Policies Hurting Hardworking Americans

As we celebrate Labor Day this weekend and take time to honor the contributions workers have made to our country, here is a look at some of the many ways Donald Trump has turned his back on hardworking Americans.

Trump said he would fight for all Americans, but he has repeatedly taken steps that would reduce wages, hurt workers and consumers, and make it more difficult for working families to get ahead and stay ahead.

3.

Americans work too hard to have a president who limits their opportunities and stands in the way of their success. As Donald Trump continues pushing an agenda that hurts middle-class families, Democrats will keep fighting to protect workers and consumers, and expand opportunity for all Americans.

The Trump administration announced that it would halt a rule designed to address pay discrimination by not requiring businesses to report data on how much they pay workers based on gender and race.

Trump’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration – charged with protecting workers on the job – erased data on worker deaths from the home page of its website, and changed its policy to disclose fewer fatal accidents in the future.

Trump’s Department of Labor is planning to repeal a rule that prevents employers from pooling workers’ tips, which would mean that tipped employees would take home less of the money they earned.

Trump’s Department of Labor is seeking to delay the deadline for financial advisers to fully comply with the fiduciary rule, designed to protect consumers’ retirement savings by requiring brokers, financial advisers and insurance agents to act in their best interest. Delaying this rule could cost $10.9 billion in lost retirement savings over 30 years.

The Trump administration terminated an infrastructure program that would have brought opportunity to cities and created thousands of high-quality jobs, especially in low-income and minority communities.

The Trump administration ended a program that helps people save for retirement who did not have access to workplace savings plans.

9.

The Trump administration took steps to undo a Department of Labor rule that extended overtime pay to 4.2 million workers. Undoing this rule could cost $12 billion in earned wages lost over 10 years.

10.

Trump’s Education Department threw a lifeline to more than 800 programs that failed to meet the Obama-era gainful employment rule, which required for-profit colleges to prove their graduates’ loan payments didn’t exceed 20 percent of their income or 8 percent of total earnings. This would cut into the $4.2 billion taxpayers could save from this rule over 10 years.

11.

Trump signed an executive order that revoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order that provided protections for workers and women workers in particular.

12.

The Trump administration rolled back a rule designed to protect contract and franchise workers from mistreatment.

13.

Trump repealed a rule that helped protect LGBT workers from employment discrimination.

14.

The Trump administration looked to exclude construction and shipyard workers from protections against exposure to beryllium, a toxic material that can cause lung disease.

15.

Trump’s Justice Department switched sides in a Supreme Court case regarding an employee’s rights to bring class-action lawsuits against their employer, dropping its previous support for workers.

16.

The Trump administration reversed a scheduled ban on a pesticide that is harmful to farm workers. Following the reversal, many farm workers fell ill from the pesticide.

17.

Trump’s budget would slash the Labor Department’s budget by $2.4 billion – or roughly 20 percent – and targeted more than half of the cuts at job training programs.

18.

Trump’s budget would cut job training programs by almost 40 percent.

19.

Trump’s budget would eliminate job training programs for older Americans and disadvantaged youths.

20.

Trump’s budget would eliminate a job training program for farm workers.

21.

Trump’s budget would cut funding for grants to train workers in dangerous jobs.

22.

Trump’s budget would disband a Labor Department office that polices discrimination among federal contractors.

23.

Trump’s budget provides funding to reinstate a Bush-era office designed to audit large international unions while imposing severe cuts to a division that helps ensure workers around the world are treated fairly.

24.

Medicaid cuts from Trump’s healthcare repeal would put rural hospitals at risk, which could then hurt local jobs, property values and even schools.

25.

Under Trump’s healthcare repeal, states – particularly those that expanded Medicaid – would have experienced severe jobs losses and deep economic declines.

You can find relevant media quotes and links here

Focused Thought in 15 seconds

Focused Action 30 seconds

You can share Joy Reid's Tweet here

You can go directly to the 9:01-minute video clip here

→ Direct sources for Democrats:

* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )

The Democratic Party Website

The Democratic Party on Facebook

The Democratic Party on Twitter

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Website

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Website

C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))

→ Some of my favorite, most informative

follows on Twitter include:

Malcolm Nance

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC

Kurt Eichenwald

⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author

Ari Melber

⭐⭐⭐ Political/Gov. Legal Opinions | MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent | Emmy-winning reporter | Host of The Beat With Ari

Ari Berman

⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones

→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:

✔ Mother Jones

✔ The Washington Post

✔ The New York Times

✔ News And Guts on Facebook

→ Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:

✔ Rachel Maddow on MSNBC

✔ AM w/Joy Reid on MSNBC

✔ The Beat With Ari on MSNBC

✔ Velshi & Ruhle on MSNBC

Thank you for Networking for Democrats today!

(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.

It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."

You can read the Platform here

(Remember 2018...)

Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!

( You can also find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GKMTNtwits )

You can find Vote411 here

Thank you for focusing!

g., aka Democrat

Focused Read 3 minutes
more if you choose to read the document in full

(There is no thought for the day and the only action suggested to take today is to inform yourself as to the details of this lawsuit so you can correct #BigLies, as needed...)

~ Personal Commentary

If you really want to know what the “Final Order of Dismissal” of the lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz says, you'll have to read it.

Spoiler Alert: The bottom line is those who were suing did not have standing to sue and the lawsuit was dismissed.

Excerpts follow below.

(The full document is linked below...)

I encourage those who are interested in the case to read the document, as the court fully explains the reasoning behind its decision. This blog highlights self-selected key points and does not provide all of the information and or the context as is provided by the court.)

* Please note: Complaints filed in lawsuits are assumed to be made in good faith, i.e. to be true, while being tested for legal standing in a court of law -- THAT is PROCESS...determining legal standing based on law and in this case the law rejected legal standing, i.e. the complainers did not make a case worthy of proceeding in the court!

Lawsuit claiming the DNC, Chaired by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz rigged the 2016 Presidential Election against Senator Sanders is dismissed Due to “Lack of Standing”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 16-61511-CIV-ZLOCH

CAROL WILDING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DNC SERVICES CORP., d/b/a/

Democratic National Committee and

DEBORAH WASSERMAN SCHULTZ,

Defendants.

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The Court has carefully reviewed said Motion, the entire court file, and, with the benefit of oral argument, is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

This case, in short, involves allegations that the Democratic National Committee was in cahoots with the Clinton campaign and sought to tip the scales in her favor in the Democratic primaries...

Plaintiffs discovered what they believe is evidence of that bias after the DNC’s computer servers were penetrated by hackers.

In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—

Plaintiffs assert several fraud-type claims.

But they do not allege they ever heard or acted upon the DNC’s claims of neutrality.

Plaintiffs also assert a tort claim on behalf of all registered Democrats, even though the harm they allege impacted all Democratic-primary-eligible voters——and under heir theory, the entire body politic——the same way.

And finally, Plaintiffs claim that donors to the DNC are at an increased risk of identity theft as a result of the computer hack. But they do not allege that the DNC regularly keeps the type of information necessary to facilitate identity theft or that the hackers targeted, much less obtained, that information.

The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct——the keys to entering federal court.

The Court holds that they have not, which means the truth of their claims cannot be tested in this Court.

The DNC’s bias, according to Plaintiffs, came to light after computer hackers penetrated the DNC’s computer network. An individual identified as “Guccifer 2.0"took credit for the hack and posted several documents purportedly taken from the DNC’s servers on a publically accessible website.

As a result of the information “Guccifer 2.0" released, Plaintiffs conclude that “the DNC was anything but ‘impartial,’‘evenhanded,’ or ‘neutral’ with respect to the Democratic nominating process.” And all while Wasserman Schultz was the DNC’s chair. Plaintiffs bring six causes of action on behalf of three proposed classes.

The DNC and Wasserman Schultz have moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on various grounds. The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims, that they have insufficiently pled those claims, and that the class allegations must be stricken as facially deficient.

This Order does not concern who should have been the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 2016 presidential election; it does not concern whether the DNC or Wasserman Schultz generally acted unfairly towards Senator Sanders or his supporters; indeed, it does not even concern whether the DNC was in fact biased in favor of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. At this stage, the Court is required to construe the First Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and accept its well-pled allegations as true.

This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech——not through the judiciary. To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so, and for the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.

It is readily apparent that this Court lacks jurisdiction under § 1332(a), for the Parties are not completely diverse.

Putting aside these pleading deficiencies, it is also apparent that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert each of the causes of action raised in this putative class action. In order to maintain a class action lawsuit, the class representatives——as distinct from the putative class members——must establish their standing to sue...

The Supreme Court has made clear that “[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006) (internal marks omitted). To effectuate this limitation, Lujan laid out three basic elements of Article III standing:

“First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’——an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) ‘actual or ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’’” Lujan, 504 U.S. At560 (citations omitted).

“Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of . . ..”

“Third, it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’”

As to the fraud-type claims Counts I, II, III and IV, Plaintiffs fail to allege any causal connection between their injuries and Defendants’ statements.

Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing.

(“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”).

The act of donating to an organization does not, of itself, create a legally protected interest in the organization’s operations.

...donating to the DNC or to Bernie Sanders’s campaign does not entitle Plaintiffs to challenge the manner in which the DNC has conducted its affairs.

Grave questions regarding the DNC’sright of association would undoubtedly arise if this Court were to enjoin the DNC to a particular manner of governance. And those same concerns would arise with respect to any award of damages,which would impose liability for the DNC’s alleged decision to associate with a particular standard-bearer in a manner not otherwise prohibited by law.

And even if the Court assumed that the DNC did store the named DNC Donor Class Plaintiffs’ sensitive personal information on the hacked servers, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint still would not make out an injury that is “certainly impending.”

… none of the DNC donor Plaintiffs have suggested they were the victim of a failed identity theft attempt. And unlike Pisciotta and Galaria, these Plaintiffs do not allege that their personal information was targeted for the purpose of future criminal misuse. The First Amended Complaint instead paints a picture that hackers were generally rummaging the DNC’s files for information pertinent to the presidential election. The named DNC Donor Plaintiffs do not allege that hackers targeted their information, took it, or would be able to make use of it to inflict some harm in the future.

Conclusion

“Federal Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over cases where the parties lack standing.”

Because Plaintiffs do not allege a causal link between their donations and the DNC’s statements, they lack standing to assert the fraud-type claims in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the First Amended Complaint.

Their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count V relies on a harm far too diffuse to constitute an injury-in-fact in federal court. And their negligence claim in Count VI is buffered by too many layers of speculation and conjecture to create the immediacy of harm necessary to unlock this Court’s jurisdiction.

That being so, Plaintiffs have not “present[ed] a live case or controversy,” and the Court “must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Accordingly, after due consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 25th day of August, 2017.

WILLIAM J. ZLOCH

Sr. United States District Judge

You can read the document in full here