Category Archives: Civil Complaint

Strzok v Barr DOJ documents released, Peter Strzok lawsuit, Attorney General Barr motion to dismiss, “grave risks to the Bureau’s institutional interests and basic integrity.”

Strzok v Barr DOJ documents released, Peter Strzok lawsuit, Attorney General Barr motion to dismiss, “grave risks to the Bureau’s institutional interests and basic integrity.”

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

 

From Peter Strzok v. William Barr Attorney General.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT ONE AND COUNT TWO, AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT THREE

Filed November 18, 2019.

“Yet, as the FBI was placing enormous trust in Plaintiff and giving him substantial authority over some of the most important investigations in recent memory, he committed a series of serious and sustained lapses in judgment. In particular, a Department of Justice (“Department”) Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) investigation found that Plaintiff had exchanged over 40,000 text messages with an FBI attorney (“Government Attorney” or “GA”) on their government-issued phones, among them texts written in 2016 in which Plaintiff called the President—at that time, still a candidate for President—a “disaster” and suggested that “[w]e’ll stop” him from taking office. And in a text he wrote in 2017—after the President had taken office and during Plaintiff’s tenure as a lead investigator for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team—Plaintiff described his
own “sense of unfinished business.” As he wrote to the Government Attorney in that text: “I unleashed it with [the Clinton email investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it. . . . Who gives a f*ck, one more A[ssistant] D[irector] . . . [versus] [a]n investigation leading to impeachment?”

“The statements made in those and similar text exchanges involved matters of public concern. But when made by an FBI Special Agent—especially a member of the Bureau’s senior leadership—in the context of active investigations over which that Special Agent had official responsibility, these messages posed grave risks to the Bureau’s institutional interests and basic integrity. The lapses in judgment embodied in those messages and others like them risked undermining public confidence in two of the Bureau’s highest-profile investigations. And even
more broadly, those lapses in judgment risked damaging the public trust in the FBI as a nonpartisan, even-handed, and effective law enforcement institution—trust that is essential to the FBI’s ability to vigorously enforce the nation’s laws without fear or favor.”

““As I considered the facts associated with the adjudication of your case, I could not recall another incident like yours that brought such discredit on the organization. In my 23 years in the FBI, I have not seen a more impactful series of missteps that has called into question the entire organization and more thoroughly damaged the FBI’s reputation. In our role as FBI employees
we sometimes make unpopular decisions, but the public should be able to examine our work without having to question our motives.” ”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16020887/strzok-v-barr/

Read the released documents if you can stomach it.

This is some of the most disgusting, biased and yes evil wording I have witnessed.

https://www.scribd.com/document/435752237/Strzok-v-Barr-DOJ-DE-30-5

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Matt Couch new attorney Eden Quainton, Rich v Butowsky Matthew Couch, et al, Couch discoverable information list very interesting, Tide turning?

Matt Couch new attorney Eden Quainton, Rich v Butowsky Matthew Couch, et al, Couch discoverable information list very interesting, Tide turning?

“I would say explosive and I would say, for people at the highest levels of the FBI and at the highest levels of the Justice Department–more important at the Justice Department–it’s going to be devastating. It’s going to ruin careers, it’s going to make people have bar problems”…Joe diGenova on OIG FISA report

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”…Edmund Burke

 

In AARON RICH

v.

EDWARD BUTOWSKY,
MATTHEW COUCH
AMERICA FIRST MEDIA:

New filing this AM.

Eden P. Quainton of Quainton Law is the new attorney for Matthew Couch.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.90.0.pdf

The Matt Couch disclosure list filed October 31, 2019 is very interesting.

DEFENDANT MATTHEW COUCH’S RULE 26(a) INITIAL DISCLOSURES.

1. Edward Butowsky
c/o Counsel
Mr. Butowsky has knowledge of certain facts and circumstances alleged in the
complaint.
2. Cassandra Fairbanks
Address unknown
Ms. Fairbanks has knowledge about statements made by Julian Assange
relevant to the leaking of DNC, Clinton campaign and/or John Podesta-related
emails and attachments (collectively, “DNC emails”).
3. Michael Isikoff
Address unknown
Mr. Isikoff has knowledge about the podcasts he has produced relating to,
among other things, Aaron Rich, Matt Couch, the alleged DNC hacking and
investigations and news reports relating to the foregoing.
4. Malia Zimmerman
c/o Dechert LLP
Ms. Zimmerman has knowledge about her investigation of and the article she
wrote about the leaking of the DNC emails to Wikileaks and the FBI’s report
relating to the leaked DNC emails.
5. Joel Rich
c/o Massey & Gail
Mr. Rich has knowledge of his communications with Mr. Butowsky, Mr.
Wheeler and Aaron Rich.
6. Mary Rich
c/o Massey & Gail

Ms. Rich has knowledge of her communications with Mr. Butowsky, Mr.
Wheeler and Aaron Rich.
7. Rod Wheeler
14006 Silver Teal Way
Upper Marlboro, MD 20744
Mr. Wheeler has knowledge relating to his communications with Aaron Rich,
Mr. Butowsky, Mary Rich, Joel Rich and other persons with knowledge of
matters alleged in the Complaint.
8. Kelsey Mulka
Address unknown
Ms. Mulka has knowledge about her communications with Aaron Rich relating
to Seth Rich.
9. Dr. Tore Linderman
Address unknown
Dr. Landsman has knowledge about communications between Aaron Rich and
Kelsey Mulka relating to Seth Rich.
10. Donna Brazile
Address unknown
Ms. Brazile has knowledge about her interactions and communications with
Aaron Rich and circumstances surrounding the murder of Seth Rich.
11. Seymour Hersch
Address unknown
Mr. Rich has knowledge of the leaking of the DNC emails to Wikileaks and the
FBI’s report relating to the leaked DNC emails.
12. Ellen Ratner
Address unknown

Ms. Ratner has knowledge of her communications with Julian Assange relating
to the leak of DNC emails to Wikileaks by one or more DNC insiders or
affiliated persons.
13. Christopher Steele
Address unknown
Mr. Steele has knowledge relating to the role of internal DNC operatives in the
alleged hacking of the DNC and the communication of the DNC emails to
Wikileaks.
14. Aaron Rich
c/o Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Mr. Rich has knowledge of the facts alleged in the complaint.
15. Julian Assange
Belmarsh Prison, UK
Mr. Assange knows the identity of the individual or individuals who leaked the
DNC emails to him. Mr. Assange knows the identity of the individual or
individuals to whom payment was made for the DNC emails.
16. Joseph DellaCamera
Metropolitan Police Department of Washington D.C.
300 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001
Mr. DellaCamera has knowledge about the murder of Seth Rich.
17. Kevin Doherty
Nottoway Correctional Center
Schutt Road Burkeville, VA. 23922
Mr. Doherty has knowledge of the murder of Seth Rich.
18. Pratt Wiley
Address unknown

Mr. Wiley has relevant information relating to Seth Rich and Aaron Rich
derived from conversation with both prior to Seth Rich’s murder.
19. District of Columbia Chief Medical Examiner
OCME
Dr. Roger A. Mitchell
401 E. St. SW
Washington D.C. 20004
Mr. Mitchel has knowledge about the autopsy performed on Seth Rich and the
cause of death.
20. Dimitri Alperowitch
Chief Technology Officer
Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc.
150 Mathilda Place, Suite 300
Sunnyvale, California 9408
Mr. Alperowitch has knowledge of certain matters alleged in the Complaint.
21. Shawn Henry
President of CrowdStrike Services and Chief Security Officer
Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc.
150 Mathilda Place, Suite 300
Sunnyvale, California 9408
Mr. Henry has knowledge of certain matters alleged in the Complaint.
22. Kim Dotcom
Address unknown in New Zealand
kim@kim.com
Mr. Dotcom has information on the leaking of the DNC emails to Wikileaks.
23. Craig Murray
Address unknown in the United Kingdom
Mr. Murray has information on the leaking of the DNC emails to Wikileaks.

24. Andrew McCabe
Address unknown
Mr. McCabe has information about the alleged hacking of Seth Rich’s gmail
account by foreign operatives and the FBI’s investigation of Seth Rich’s
computer.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.89.18.pdf

It is apparent that due to the revelations from Attorney Sidney Powell in the Flynn case, intensified investigations by Attorney General Barr and John Durham as well as other revelations, that the tide is turning.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Amended Scheduling Order means no revelations from this case before 2020 election, Seth Rich fake news media narrative

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Amended Scheduling Order means no revelations from this case before 2020 election, Seth Rich fake news media narrative

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

Ed Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik, et al will be settled out of court, in mediation or at trial at such a late date that the major revelations from witness testimony will not be revealed before the 2020 election.

At least in this case, the fake news narrative perpetuated by NPR and the rest of the fake news media will prevail regarding Seth Rich and his alleged involvement in leaks to the DNC, until after the election.

From the Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Amended Scheduling Order filed August 21, 2019.

“April 30, 2020 All discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by
this date.
June 1, 2020 Deadline for motions to dismiss, motions for summary
judgment, or other dispositive motions.
July 27, 2020 Date by which the parties shall notify the Court of the name,
address, and telephone number of the agreed-upon mediator,
or request that the Court select a mediator, if they are unable
to agree on one.

August 10, 2020 Notice of intent to offer certified records.
August 10, 2020 Counsel and unrepresented parties are each responsible for
contacting opposing counsel and unrepresented parties to
determine how they will prepare the Joint Final Pretrial Order
(See http://www.txed.uscourts.gov) and Joint Proposed Jury
Instructions and Verdict Form (or Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law in non-jury cases).
August 10, 2020 Video Deposition Designation due. Each party who proposes
to offer a deposition by video shall serve on all other parties a
disclosure identifying the line and page numbers to be offered.
All other parties will have seven calendar days to serve a
response with any objections and requesting crossexamination line and page numbers to be included. Counsel
must consult on any objections and only those which cannot
be resolved shall be presented to the court. The party who filed
the initial Video Deposition Designation is responsible for
preparation of the final edited video in accordance with all
parties’ designations and the Court’s rulings on objections.
August 31, 2020 Mediation must occur by this date.
August 31, 2020 Motions in limine due.
File Joint Final Pretrial Order. (See http://www.txed.uscourts.gov).
September 18, 2020 Response to motions in limine due.3

September 18, 2020 File objections to witnesses, deposition extracts, and exhibits,
listed in pre-trial order.4 (This does not extend deadline to
object to expert witnesses) (Provide the exhibit objected to in
the motion or response). If numerous objections are filed the
court may set a hearing prior to docket call.
File Proposed Jury Instructions/Form of Verdict (or Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law).
Date will be set by court. If numerous objections are filed the court may set a hearing
Usually within 10 days prior to to consider all pending motions and objections.
the Final Pretrial Conference.
October 2, 2020 Final Pretrial Conference at 9:00 a.m. at the Paul Brown
United States Courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in
Sherman, Texas. Date parties should be prepared to try case.
All cases on the Court’s Final Pretrial Conference docket for
this day have been set at 9:00 a.m. However, prior to the Final
Pretrial Conference date, the Court will set a specific time
between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for each case, depending on
which cases remain on the Court’s docket.

To be determined 10:00 a.m. Jury selection and trial at the Paul Brown United
States Courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in
Sherman, Texas. A specific trial date will be selected at the
Final Pretrial Conference.5”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.70.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order August 19, 2019, Additional time is necessary for completion of discovery

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order August 19, 2019, Additional time is necessary for completion of discovery

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Ed Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order dated August 19, 2019.

1. On March 21, 2019, this Court entered a Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 57), which set forth various deadlines up to an including a Final Pretrial Conference on January 31, 2020. Pending before the Court at that time were Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed on October 16, 2018 (Dkt. # 25) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on March 15, 2019 (Dkt. 53). On April 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied (Dkt. # 58), and on August 7, 2019, the Court adopted that Report and Recommendation and denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and additionally granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. # 65).

2. The parties have exchanged written discovery, but have mutually agreed that in light of the number of witnesses who must be deposed, several of whom are non-parties outside the control of any party, additional time is necessary for completion of discovery, the deadline to file dispositive motions, and trial. In addition, Plaintiff wishes to further amend his pleadings, based on events which occurred after the current Scheduling Order’s deadline to amend pleadings. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that portions of the March 21, 2019
Scheduling Order be modified, as set forth below.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.68.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Ed Butowsky v. Michael Gottlieb et al, Amended Complaint July 31, 2019, Seth Rich leaked DNC emails, Julian Assange told Ellen Ratner who notified Butowsky, Joel Rich revealed Aaron role

Ed Butowsky v. Michael Gottlieb et al, Amended Complaint July 31, 2019, Seth Rich leaked DNC emails, Julian Assange told Ellen Ratner who notified Butowsky, Joel Rich revealed Aaron role

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Ed Butowsky v. Michael Gottlieb et al, Amended Complaint:

“42. The DNC employee responsible for the leaks was Seth Rich, and he was
assisted by his brother Aaron. Mr. Butowsky does not know exactly when the DNC figured out that Mr. Rich was the source of the leak. On July 10, 2016, however, Mr. Rich was fatally shot while walking home in Washington, D.C., and the murder has not been solved. Mr. Butowsky does not know whether the murder is related to Mr. Rich’s role in leaking DNC emails.
43. Shortly after the murder, the interim DNC chair at the time, Donna Brazile,
reached out to Mr. McCabe and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser for help in dealing with the political consequences of the murder. Ms. Brazile knew suspicions would soon arise, fairly or unfairly, that the murder was connected to the email leaks. D.C. police allowed the FBI to unlock Seth Rich’s electronic devices, and the FBI obtained data showing that Mr. Rich had indeed provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks. At Mr. McCabe’s direction, however, that information was kept secret with orders that it not be produced in response to any Freedom of Information Act request. For her part, Ms. Bowser directed D.C. police not to pursue any investigative avenues that might connect the murder to the email leaks. At her direction, local police blamed the murder on a “botched robbery” even though Mr. Rich’s watch, wallet, and other belongings were not removed from his body.
44. On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks began publishing thousands of email that had
been downloaded from the DNC’s servers by Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron. Those emails showed how the campaign of Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had corruptly taken control of the DNC for the purpose of sabotaging her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. Per their game plan, the Clinton campaign and the DNC immediately claimed that the emails had been obtained by hackers working for the Russian government.
45. Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Ratner, a news
analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News,
contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr. Assange. Ms.
Ratner’s brother, the late Michael Ratner, was an attorney who had represented Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Ratner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean embassy. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich was responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder.
46. Upon her return to the United States, Ms. Ratner asked Mr. Butowsky to
contact the Rich family and relay the information from Mr. Assange, apparently because Ms. Ratner did not want her involvement to be made public. In the two months that followed, Mr. Butowsky did not attempt to contact the Rich family, but he grew increasingly frustrated as the DNC and #Resistance “journalists” blamed the Russian government for the email leak. On December 16, 2016, Mr. Butowsky sent a text message to Ms. Ratner:”

“Ms. Ratner subsequently told Mr. Butowsky that she had informed Bill Shine, who was then the co-president of Fox News, about her meeting with Mr. Assange in London. Ms. Ratner also informed Fox News producer Malia Zimmerman about her meeting with Mr. Assange.
47. On December 17, 2016, at the instigation of Ms. Ratner, Mr. Butowsky finally
contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and he relayed the information about Ms. Ratner’s meeting with Mr. Assange. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr. Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak, but he and his wife just wanted to know who murdered Seth. Mr. Rich said he was reluctant to go public with Seth’s and Aaron’s role in leaking the emails because “we don’t want anyone to think our sons were responsible for getting Trump elected.” Mr. Rich said he
did not have enough money to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay for one. Mr. Rich accepted the offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email.”

I strongly urge you to read the entire complaint:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.188353/gov.uscourts.txed.188353.101.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News appeal, Seth Rich murder investigations and reporting, Appeal of Rich’s failed lawsuit almost unreported

Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News appeal, Seth Rich murder investigations and reporting, Appeal of Rich’s failed lawsuit almost unreported

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Unfounded links between Clinton and the Rich killing predate the July 13, 2016, “bulletin” and coverage of it by a sketchy site called WhatDoesItMean.com. What’s more, the “hit team” story, which Sines says was repeated several weeks later, wasn’t the primary Rich-related conspiracy that gained traction.”…Washington Post July 9, 2019

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

This is possibly the most unreported important news story I have ever encountered.

Joel and Mary Rich lost their lawsuit against Fox News in 2018 and on September 27, 2018 filed an appeal.

First, their lawsuit results.

From the Federalist Papers.

“Fox News Wins Seth Rich Lawsuit; Judge Dismisses

A New York City judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Thursday that asserted Fox News Channel colluded with the White House to propel a false, politically-biased narrative about Rich’s death.”

“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes,” but Fox evidently did not intend to inflict emotional distress, Judge George Daniels wrote in his decision.”

“Daniels also dismissed a second and separate lawsuit brought forth by Rod Wheeler, a private detective who was also a Fox News contributor and hired by the Rich family to investigate their son’s death. In it, Wheeler accused Fox News and Zimmerman of misrepresenting his analysis of Rich’s death in their story, and Butowsky of defaming him on Twitter after the story was published, according to reports by The New York Times.

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” Wheeler was quoted in the Fox News article.”

Read more:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fox-news-wins-seth-rich-lawsuit-judge-dismisses

The appeal.

From Jennifer Taub, law professor and author.

“NEW: I just attended oral argument for the appeal brought by Seth Rich’s parents against Fox News

1/

The Riches sued Fox for intentional inflection of emotional distress. This case is related to a conspiracy theory broadcast by Fox News that in 2016 Seth, a DNC staffer, had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks prior to being shot and killed”

“4/

At oral argument today, Judge Calabresi told Rich’s counsel Arun Subramanian “You have to convince us that this is outrageous to the parents. .not to the son. The defamation case died with the son.” Also that the propensity for parents’ vulnerability and defendants’ awareness

5/

Judge Calabresi suggested that the outrageous conduct here involved interfering with the parents’ investigation including by planting a person from Fox News (Wheeler) to pretend he was working solely for them “

“11/

Judge Calabresi interrupted and said that if Seth Rich were in a coma, then couldn’t a defamation suit brought by Seth proceed regardless of first amendment claims. And then also, couldn’t this separate cause of action be brought by parents?

12/

Judge Calabresi added that the only question then would be whether New York recognizes this separate cause of action — whether there was “outrageous conduct” by Fox with respect to the parents

13/

Attorney Terry says New York Court of Appeals has rejected claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress with more outrageous facts (Note that NY CT App is the highest court in the state of New York and though this case is in federal court, New York law applies)”

“18/

Attorney Terry returned to the main argument he is making on behalf of Fox News “a defamation claim cannot be restyle as an intentional infliction of emotional distress case.” He also said, that the conduct should not be recognized as outrageous as a matter of law

19/

Terry said that NY courts have dismissed intentional infliction of emotional distress cases e.g where reporters told rape victims their names would not be published then publishing them. He said that wasn’t treated as outrageous conduct, so this should not

20/

Terry added that Seth’s parent must also prove that Fox’s conduct was INTENDED to cause them harm

21/

Judge Calabresi said that in order to prove intent, “wrecklessness” would suffice. He also suggested that perhaps given this “odd situation” the 2nd circuit could certify to the NY Court of Appeals this question of whether these facts amounted to “outrageous conduct.””

Read more:

https://threader.app/thread/1092478914998484994

It would be nice to have the appeal outcome stated explicitly.

If anyone has this reference, please supply as a comment.

By inference and the fact that it has not been shouted from the rooftops by the fake news media, it could be assumed that the outcome did not favor the Rich Family.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Thrivent fraud allegations and failed appeal, Thrivent fraternal benefit society status immunity?, Fraud must be addressed via dispute resolution? Apparently not

Thrivent fraud allegations and failed appeal, Thrivent fraternal benefit society status immunity?, Fraud must be addressed via dispute resolution? Apparently not

“You don’t need to be Christian to join our team.”…Thrivent job opening ad

“I worked at Thrivent Financial full-time (More than 8 years)”                      “Claims to be based on Christian values but does not adhere to them.”…Former Thrivent employee

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

 

Thrivent believes and maintains that they are not subject to the same insurance laws as other insurers.

That is generally true.

That does not mean that they are immune from all insurance laws or other statutes just because they are a fraternal benefit society.

Their contract states that even charges of fraud must go through their mandated MDRP, Member Dispute Resolution Program.

However, the courts have consistently held that fraud, even without proof, can negate mandated arbitration and allow a case to enter litigation.

Charges of fraud against Thrivent are not as rare as they would have you believe.

“Illinois Insurance Code did not bar Securities Department from investigating VA sales

By John M. Jascob, J.D., LL.M.

The Illinois Securities Department had authority to investigate allegations that a broker-dealer committed fraud in the sale of variable annuities. The Illinois Securities Law authorizes the Securities Department to investigate whether registered broker-dealers and advisers have committed fraud in any business practice, even if that practice involves insurance products. Accordingly, the Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the broker-dealer’s complaint (Thrivent Investment Management Inc. v. Illinois Securities Department, August 28, 2018, Walker, C.). ”

https://jimhamiltonblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/illinois-insurance-code-did-not-bar.html

From the Thrivent appeal.

“ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The Illinois Secretary of State Securities Department has authority to investigate allegations that a registered securities dealer committed fraud in the sale of variable annuities, even though the Department of Insurance has sole authority to regulate the issuance and sale of variable annuities. Oppressive discovery requests do not violate a respondent’s constitutional rights unless judicial discovery procedures will not adequately protect the respondent’s rights.”

“¶ 3 We hold (1) the Illinois Securities Law (Act) (815 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2016)) gives the Securities Department authority to determine whether Thrivent, a registered securities dealer and investment adviser, committed fraud in any of its business practices; (2) the complaint does not allege facts showing judicial processes for discovery will violate Thrivent’s constitutional rights; and (3) the proposed amended complaint does not cure the defects of the dismissed complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint
with prejudice and the denial of the motion for leave to amend.”

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2018/1stDistrict/1171913_R23.pdf

From Thrivent v. Perez.

“28. As a not-for-profit fraternal benefit society, Thrivent is a type of life insurer. It is organized and operating pursuant to Chapter 614 of the Wisconsin statutes, known as the Wisconsin Fraternal Code. The Wisconsin Fraternal Code is a part of the insurance laws of the State of Wisconsin. Section 614.05 of the Wisconsin Statutes specifies that fraternal benefit societies are subject to the requirements of the Fraternal Code, and they are exempt from other Wisconsin insurance laws, except to the extent those other insurance laws are specifically made applicable to fraternal benefit societies.”

“31. A fraternal benefit society’s principal regulator is the insurance regulator for the state of its domicile. Thrivent’s principal regulator is the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (“Commissioner”). The Commissioner is empowered to conduct examinations of Thrivent under Wisconsin Statute Section 601.43 (as Section 614.05 specifies that Chapter 601 applies to fraternal benefit societies to the same extent as mutual insurers). Thrivent’s insurance marketing practices are subject to regulation under Chapter 628 of the Wisconsin statutes and Thrivent is subject to unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes to the same extent as other types of life insurers.”

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Thrivent_Financial_for_Lutherans_v_Perez_et_al_Docket_No_016cv032?1552582945