Judge dismisses Nader lawsuit against Democrats

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina has dismissed a lawsuit by Ralph Nader that accused the Democratic Party of conspiring to keep him off the ballot in 2004. Nader ran as an independent candidate for President this year. The Associated Press story is here.

10 Responses to “Judge dismisses Nader lawsuit against Democrats”

  1. kay sieverding Says:

    A. Rule 16©(2) limits matters for consideration in pretrial conferences. Nader’s complaint was |”pre trial” wasn’t it, since there was no jury trial? Therefore, Rule 16 is controlling isn’t it?

    Rule 16©(2) (p) requires “just determination”.

    “In civil matters conferred on the district courts ….for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication [jurisdiction] shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States… ‘give the rule the effect which the plain meaning of its language and the legislative history require…. if the rule is to be amended…it must be done by those who have the authority to amend the rules, the Supreme Court and the Congress . . . . It is not for us as enforcers of the rule to amend it under the guise of construing it”.... “civil litigants in federal court share equally the protections of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause”. Green v. Block Laundry Machine Co. 490 U.S. 504 (1989) (05/22/89)

    Did anyone see anywhere Judge Urbina quoting a Rule 16 category?

    I personally had a bad experience with Judge Urbina. He found res judicata without an evidentiary hearing or a Rule8© answer and with very little subject overlap. He threatened to sick the Marshals on me if I represented myself in court. ( Did you know that the Marshals have transformed themselves into a force that attacks citizens on orders from the Courts that skip the laws and DOJ? They issue warrants that don’t go through the DOJ WIN system.)

    My defendants sent me their bills and in them Judge Urbina’s “chambers” called the defense counsel and they talked for 15 minutes.

  2. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    I was the target of police brutality at the UCSD USDSVA Hospital on November 28th. The staff screwed up so much that they issued a formal letter of apology. The security nazis told me to stand back,——and then arrested me for loudness. In California, any public entity, school districts, water boards, must have a channel for complaints, and the employees can not restrict efforts to complain——unless you have a beat down stick and a badge!

    Upon being sprung from the holding cell, I and my companion headed for the [so called] patient advocate. Only to be [illegally] stopped and told [again, illegally] to leave.

    Ziech Heil!

  3. Maynard Says:

    Yes, I can see how that terrible ordeal would lead one to compare it to a regime that killed eleven million people in a dispassionately inhuman manner.

  4. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Look Nazi and fascism up in the dictionary. One tiny drop of distilled water is the very same formula as a gallon of same! Duh! One dead victim is JUST as killed as millions, just as life less.

  5. Maynard Says:

    Oh, no doubt you’re right about that one, Donnie. You should have a homeland of your own created by UN fiat.

  6. Roscoe Says:

    And if Nader won the remedy would have been to “do over” the 2004 election? Goody, goody!

  7. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Maynard Poo [“Work!”]: No doubt you are right bout that one! How ever I would settle for Not A Yokohama Momma Obama getting the [so called] United Nations out of NYC! 2008 is NOT 1948!

  8. Frankie Says:

    I thought that the Nader lawsuit had an…ineresting theory behind it, but probably did not have much of a legal foundation to it.

    Unfair ballot and debate access rules are widely seen as being entirely fair and proper. To change them, a broad based movement will need to be created that wins the support of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

  9. Esprit64 Says:

    Wow. The point of this lawsuit seems lost on most responders here. Isn’t using courts to further plans of political hijinks to stop fair elections is wrong.

    When a fair playing field is kept fair, voters hear from all serious contenders for office. When voices, thru hijinks, are kept silent, elections are corrupted. It’s much like the bully keeping intelligent people from speaking by beating that person in a back alley. The bully rules by fear of his power—not—by the “right” of his message.

    If we let the bullies rule, our country will continue breaking down. Look around you. Has anything much changed for America’s people over decades of two-party rule? Everything around you is crumbling or toxic. Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our schools are not internationally competitive, our disabled are left to fend for themselves, our foods and waters are toxic from factory farming and poisonous pesticides.

    Many people have been so beaten back by our two-party bullies, we actually don’t expect anything better. We should. Not enough money? Nonsense. There’s enough money in America’s government, provided the most of it wasn’t handed over to special interests without any limits in how it’s spent (our recent financial industry bailout?). The money is going into the special interests’ pockets, who have a vested interest, in controlling our elections—in part, by filing lawsuits against third parties, thus keeping “choice” off many ballots, ensuring—they win.

  10. ETJB Says:

    Wow. Well, I doubt that anyone was too surprised at the outcome of this particular decision. As a class, non-major party Americans are disfavored by the legal system. Few people have much interest in the rights of political minorities.

    Also, the USSC has upheld harsh ballot and debate access rules in the past and few State Courts have been willing to find greater civic rights in a State Constitution.

    The solution? Non-major party Americans should come together and create a professional lobbyist association that can win over the support of Democrats and Republicans.

Leave a Reply