Category Archives: Lawsuits

Seth Rich saga: Butowsky v. Gottlieb et al amended complaint, Fox News Ellen Ratner relayed information from Julian Assange to Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich role in transferring emails to Wikileaks

Seth Rich saga: Butowsky v. Gottlieb et al amended complaint, Fox News Ellen Ratner relayed information from Julian Assange to Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich role in transferring emails to Wikileaks

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

 

From Attorney Ty Clevenger July 15, 2019.

“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.

Although Ms. Ratner appears on Fox News, she is by no means a Republican or a conservative, and her role in the Seth Rich saga (like that of journalist Sy Hersh) obliterates the Democratic narrative that right-wing zealots fabricated the story about Mr. Rich leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee.”

“45. Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Rattner [sic], 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. Rattner’s brother, the late Michael Rattner, was an attorney who had represented Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Rattner, 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. Rattner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Rattner 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. Rattner asked Mr. Butowsky to contact the Rich family and relay the information from Mr. Assange, apparently because Ms. Rattner 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:

BUTOWSKY [7:10 a.m.]: “Why don’t [sic] you speaking up about email hack?”

RATTNER [9:28 a.m.]: “I have”

Ms. Rattner 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. Rattner also informed Fox News producer Malia Zimmerman about her meeting with Mr. Assange.

47. On December 17, 2016, at the instigation of Ms. Rattner, Mr. Butowsky finally contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and he relayed the information about Ms. Rattner’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.

48. On December 29, 2016 at 1:51 p.m., Mr. Butowsky sent an email to Ms. Rattner from his iPad: “If the person you met with truly said what he did, is their [sic] a reason you we aren’t reporting it ?” At 3:48 p.m. that afternoon, Ms. Rattner responded as follows: “because— it was a family meeting—- I would have to get his permission– will ask his new lawyer, my sister-in-law.”

The complaint also mentions an interesting development in my ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI. The feds claimed they had no information pertaining to Seth Rich, but they appear to be changing their tune.”

Read more:

http://lawflog.com/?p=2210

WOW!

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

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/

 

 

 

 

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“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 May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

On September 1, 2017, Attorney Ty Clevenger made a FOIA request to the U.S. Department of Justice:

“I request the opportunity to view all records and correspondence pertaining to
Seth Conrad Rich (DOB: January 3, 1989), who was murdered in the District of
Columbia on or about July 10, 2016. This request includes, but is not limited to, any records or correspondence resulting from any investigation of his murder.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017.09.01-Seth-Rich-FOIA-request.pdf

On March 14, 2018 Attorney Clevenger filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

“This morning I filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that asks a federal judge in Brooklyn to order the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to release records concerning the murder of former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich.

Back in October, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Justice ordering the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to release records about the murder, but since that time not a single record has been produced.  Around the same time, the FBI refused to search for records in its Washington Field Office, even though that is where the records are most likely to be found.  The lawsuit notes that the FBI has a history of trying to hide records from FOIA requestors and Congress.”

http://lawflog.com/?p=1912

From the lawsuit:

“The Plaintiff submitted the FOIA request electronically and/or via facsimile to the following specific components of DOJ: the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys(“EOUSA”),the Criminal Division,and the Office ofInformation Policy(“OIP”).

7. In a September 13, 2017 letter, the EOUSA indicated that it would not release records without proof of Mr. Rich’s death. The Plaintiff immediately filed an administrative appeal, and OIP reversed EOUSA’s decision on October 2, 2017, directing EOUSA to search for responsive records. As of the date of this Complaint, however, EOUSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.

8. In a September 19, 2017 letter, the FBI indicated that its search produced no responsive records: Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the Central Recordf System. We were unable to identify main file records responsive to the FOIA. If you have additional information pertaining to the subject that you believe was ofinvestigative interest to the Bureau, please provide us the details and we will conduct an additional search.

9. On September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an electronic appeal of the FBI’s decision with OPI, writing as follows: The September 19, 2017 letter that I received from the FBI indicates that it only searched the “Central Records System” and that it was unable to identify “main file records” responsive to the FOIA. My request was not limited to the Central Records System nor to main file records. Any responsive records likely would be found in emails, hard copy documents, and other files in the FBI’s Washington Field Office. In my experience, the FBI often does not search email accounts in response to FOIA requests, and it appears that it did not search email records in this instance. The FBI should be directed to conduct a thorough search, to include emails and other records in the Washington Field Office. The administrative appeal was denied on November 9, 2017. As of the date of this Complaint, other DOJ components have not responded to the Plaintiffs FOIA request.

10. In response to an unrelated FOIA request submitted by the Plaintiff, the FBI produced documents on January 12, 2018 indicating that Peter Baker, the former general counsel for the FBI, attempted to hide certain records from FOIA requestors. In that request, the Plainiiff sought records concerning laptop computers examined by the FBI as part of its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to the records produced on January 12, 2018, the FBI agreed to take custody of the laptops from two lawyers for purposes of the investigation, but it further agreed to deny that it had custody of the devices for purposes of FOIA requests. See Ty Clevenger, January 12, 2018,”Document dump provides more evidence that FBI was playing politics,” http://lawflog.com/?p=l832. Also during Mr. Baker’s tenure, the FBI withheld records sought by another agency until that agency signed a non-disclosure agreement to prevent the records from being released to Congress. See September 25,2017 Letter from Senator Charles Grassley to FBI Director Christopher Wray, https://www.grasslev.senate.gov/news/news-releases/watchdog-agencv-made-sign-nQn- i disclosure-agreements-get-information-fbi.

11. With respect to Mr. Rich’s murder, the Plaintiff is reliably informed that FBI agents assisted the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department in its investigation, specifically assisting the local police as they sought information from Mr. Rich’s electronic devices. Given the FBI’s history of trying to conceal information from FOIA requestors and Congress, the Plaintiff must wonder whether the FBI entered an agreement with the Metropolitan Police to withhold records related to Mr. Rich’s murder.

12. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with NSA that sought, among other things, the following: All correspondence received from or sent to any member of Congress (or anyone representing a member of Congress or Congressional committee) regarding Seth Rich, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Kim Dotcom, Aaron Rich, Shawn Lucas, Kelsey Mulka, Imran Awan, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, and/or Rao Abbas.

13. In a letter dated February 14, 2018, the NSA indicated that it searched for responsive records but was still reviewing the records to determine whether to release them. As of the date of this Complaint, NSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018.03.14-FOIA-lawsuit.pdf

The last court record in the lawsuit was Friday, June 7, 2019.

“ORDER: Defendants’ counsel writes, with plaintiff’s consent to request an extension of time for service of defendants’ summary judgment motion. ECF No.24 . This is defendants’ second request. The request is granted. The Court adopts the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff by July 22, 2019. Plaintiff shall serve his response on defendants’ counsel by August 22, 2019. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their reply on plaintiff and file the fully briefed motion for summary judgment by September 12, 2019. A courtesy copy of the fully briefed motion for summary judgment shall be delivered to chambers by that same date. Defendant is reminded that Local Rule 56.2 requires special notice to a pro se litigant regarding a motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 6/7/2019. ”

You can view the lawsuit’s progress through the court and status here:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23965120/Clevenger_v_US_Department_Of_Justice_et_al

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Bauman v. Butowsky et al, Dismissed, Circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved, Bauman “Democrat crisis management person”

Bauman v. Butowsky et al, Dismissed, Circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved, Bauman “Democrat crisis management person”

“On March 1, 2017, Wheeler told Butowsky that he (Wheeler) had independently acquired some “dynamic information” from one of his sources, the “lead detective” on the Seth Rich murder case. Wheeler also claimed that he had learned and knew who was “blocking the [murder] investigation”…Butowsky Vs Folkenflik, NPR, et al

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

The ruling by judge Richard J. Leon was filed on March 29, 2019 dismissing the case against Ed Butowsky.

Heard much about this from the fake news media?

Heard much in the fake news media about the lawsuits Ed Butowsky has filed against those making false allegations against him?

Perhaps they are too busy trying to keep the false Russian Narrative alive and trying to obfuscate the Seth Rich murder story and possible link to the DNC leaks to Wikileaks.

From the ruling by judge Richard J. Leon on Bauman v. Butowsky, et al.

“While there is, of course, no real comparison to be made between the public debate over the Kennedy assassination and Seth Rich’s murder, this case does share much with Lane. Like the Kennedy assassination, the circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved. Compl. at ¶¶ 2, 29. Perhaps this would be a different case if the murderer had been caught, tried, and convicted and the motive made public; the present state of play, however, effectively precludes a factual determination as to the falsity of Butowsky’s statement. See Campbell vCitizens for an Honest Gov’tInc., 255 F.3d 560, 577(8th Cir. 2001) (“[w]hile we are not aficionados of conspiracy theories, we suppose that if [defendant’s] assertions are true, there would be inherent difficulties in verifying or refuting such a claim”). To be sure, my decision in this case in no way condones Butowsky’s conduct. But our Circuit Court has said that “where the question of truth or falsity is a close one, a court should err on the side of non-actionability.” Moldea II22 F.3d at 317. I will heed that admonition.

The remaining statements—that Bauman is a “Democrat crisis management person” “assigned” by the DNC to act as the Rich Family spokesperson, Compl. at ¶ 53—are not defamatory. To be defamatory, a statement must not only be capable of injuring the plaintiff “in his trade, profession or community standing” but also goes beyond mere offensiveness to “make the plaintiff appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous.” Competitive Enterprise150 A.3d at 1241 (internal quotation marks omitted). As with falsity, whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning is a threshold question of law for the Court. Jankovic vInt’l Crisis Grp., 494 F.3d 1080, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The pleadings in this case make clear that Bauman is a public relations specialist, see Compl. at ¶¶ 14, 22, 51, and Bauman does not appear to dispute that his work often relates to Democratic Party causes, see Def. Butowsky’s Mot. to Dismiss at 5-6 [Dkt. # 12]; Mem. in Supp. of Def. Heavin’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1 [Dkt. # 14-1]; see generally Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Heavin’s Mot. to Dismiss; Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Butowsky’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 23]. Thus, an accusation of being a “Democrat crisis management person” would hardly harm Bauman professionally. Indeed, it could be easily viewed by many as a badge of honor. Nor would the assertion that Bauman had been tasked by the DNC to handle communications on a matter of public interest that had quickly become politicized make him appear odious.

Of course, defamatory meaning need not be express. White vFraternal Order of Police909 F.2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990). A statement may be defamatory by implication  if “a reasonable person could draw a defamatory inference” from the statement. Parnigoni vStColumba’s Nursery School681 F.Supp.2d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2010). “In other words, defamation by implication evolves from what a statement reasonably implies.” Id. Here, the overarching defamatory inference that Bauman presents is that Butowsky’s statements form part of a larger narrative accusing him of working alongside the DNC to conceal criminality “at the highest echelons,” to cover up Seth Rich’s murder, and to impede law enforcement’s investigation into the murder. Compl. at ¶¶ 4, 59, 75, 129. But defamation by implication requires “an especially rigorous showing,” as the publication “must not only be reasonably read to impart the false innuendo, but it must also affirmatively suggest that the author intends or endorses the inference.” Guilford Transportation IndustriesInc., 760 A.2d at 596 (quoting Chapin vKnight-Ridder993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993)). In the article on which Bauman relies, Butowsky certainly states his opinion that the DNC is engaged in nefarious activities, and he suggests that Bauman appeared at the DNC’s behest and that his role is deserving of suspicion. SeeCompl. at ¶ 53. But the facts alleged are insufficient to show that Butowsky intended, or affirmatively endorsed, the implication that Bauman’s job was, as the complaint puts it, to “execute the DNC’s plan to cover up Seth Rich’s murder.” Id. at ¶ 4; see also id. at ¶ 129(b) (“assigned and paid by the DNC to serve as the Rich family spokesperson so that he could obstruct the  investigation into Seth Rich’s murder”). Accordingly, Butowsky’s statements, although clearly hyperbolic, are not actionable in defamation.

 As Bauman has not met the first element of a defamation claim, I need not address Butowsky’s argument that Bauman is a limited purpose public figure under the First Amendment. ——–

b. Remaining Causes of Action

Bauman also brings claims for defamation per se and false light against Butowsky. For the reasons stated above, Bauman has not stated a claim for defamation per se, which occurs when a defendant falsely accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime or other unlawful act. Seee.g., Guilford TranspIndus., Inc., 760 A.2d at 600. Additionally, “[w]hen a false light claim is based upon the same factual allegations as a defamation claim, the two are analyzed identically.” Parisi vSinclair845 F.Supp.2d 215, 218 n.1 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Blodgett vUnivClub930 A.2d 210, 223 (D.C. 2007)). Bauman therefore also has failed to state a false light claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Heavin’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Butowsky’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim are hereby GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED as to those defendants. A separate order consistent with this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.196850/gov.uscourts.dcd.196850.35.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Seth Rich murder and possible involvement in DNC leaks to get witness testimony?, Butowsky Vs Folkenflik and NPR, et al scheduling order revelations

Seth Rich murder and possible involvement in DNC leaks to get witness testimony?, Butowsky Vs Folkenflik and NPR, et al scheduling order revelations

“On March 1, 2017, Wheeler told Butowsky that he (Wheeler) had independently acquired some “dynamic information” from one of his sources, the “lead detective” on the Seth Rich murder case. Wheeler also claimed that he had learned and knew who was “blocking the [murder] investigation”…Butowsky Vs Folkenflik, NPR, et al

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Citizen Wells May 5, 2019.

“Seth Rich murder investigation lives, Ed Butowski lawsuits Ty Clevenger efforts, Court docs ref Seymour Hersh statements Fake News Media lies, Wild cards: Assange knowledge & Barr investigations”

https://citizenwells.com/2019/05/05/seth-rich-murder-investigation-lives-ed-butowski-lawsuits-ty-clevenger-efforts-court-docs-ref-seymour-hersh-statements-fake-news-media-lies-wild-cards-assange-knowledge-barr-investigations/

From the Scheduling Order.

EDWARD BUTOWSKY v. DAVID FOLKENFLIK, ET AL.

“DEADLINES

March 27, 2019 Deadline for motions to transfer.

May 1, 2019 Deadline to add parties.

July 1, 2019 Disclosure of expert testimony pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b) on issues for which the
party bears the burden of proof.

July 15, 2019 Deadline for parties to file amended pleadings.
(A motion for leave to amend is required.)

September 16, 2019 Deadline for motions to dismiss, motions for summary
judgment, or other dispositive motions.

September 30, 2019 Disclosure of expert testimony pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b) on issues for which the
party does not bear the burden of proof.

6 weeks after disclosure Deadline to object to any other party’s expert witnesses.
of an expert is made Objection shall be made by a motion to strike or limit expert
testimony and shall be accompanied by a copy of the expert’s report in order to provide the court with all the information necessary to make a ruling on any objection.

October 6, 2019 Deadline to file any evidence that is solely contradictory or
rebuttal evidence to another party’s expert disclosure.

October 6, 2019 All discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by
this date.2

November 29, 2019 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.

December 13, 2019 Notice of intent to offer certified records.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.57.0.pdf

The final pretrial conference is scheduled for January 31, 2020.

The Ed Butowsky lawsuit filed June 21, 2018 is loaded with facts and allegations regarding Seth Rich and his possible involvement in the DNC leak.

From the lawsuit:

“65. On March 1, 2017, Wheeler told Butowsky that he (Wheeler) had independently acquired some “dynamic information” from one of his sources, the “lead detective” on the Seth Rich murder case. Wheeler also claimed that he had learned and knew who was “blocking the [murder] investigation”. Wheeler texted Butowsky as follows:

Wheeler told Butowsky that he was meeting with “2 inside contacts” on March 2, 2017.”

“69. In the interview, Wheeler claimed that he had been investigating the murder of Seth Rich over the “past three weeks”.
“[T]here has been a lot of reward money that’s been offered for any information. No one has come forward. So here is the thing that is so important to realize whenever you have a lot of reward money, in this case it is over $125,000, and you don’t have anyone coming forward with information. Then what that tells you as an investigator is that maybe you need to start looking at another cause or another reason as to why this guy was killed and that’s what we’re doing now. We’re looking at uh possibly of course a street robbery, but it could, and I underline the word could, it could have been related, his death to his job, it could have been related to something else. what I don’t think it was related to though Allison is this Russian hacking thing.”
(Emphasis added). After the interviewer pointed out to Wheeler that people were “hinting at the fact that perhaps Seth Rich may have given some documents [to Wikileaks]”, Wheeler, voluntarily and of his own free will, stated as follows:
“Well a lot of people have made that same observation and you have to ask yourself what is the motivation behind a person wanting to get involved and offer reward money, maybe he’s just a good guy and he has a lot of money laying around so this how he wants to spend his money, but you have to be careful though when you start throwing out these conspiracy theories, they actually don’t help the investigation at all… I haven’t found one shred of evidence at all that indicates that Seth’s death is the result of any Russian hacking or anything like that. I do think it’s possible and I underline the word possible that it could have been related to his job to some degree or relationships with the job, don’t know that for sure but for investigators we have to go down every path until we can determine who was responsible for his death”.”

“WHEELER: Absolutely, yeah, and that’s confirmed. Actually, I have a source in the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said ‘Rod we were told to stand down in this case and I can’t share any information with you’. Now that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the Chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the Mayor’s office and the DNC, and that’s the information that is going to come out tomorrow.”
(Emphasis added). When asked by a Fox 5 DC anchor whether there would be “evidence” to prove the statements made by Wheeler, Marraco stated as follows:
“MARINA MARRACO: … Rod Wheeler, the investigator, assures us Fox 5 and assures Fox News that there’s a full report that contains information that will show how many times Seth Rich made contact with Wikileaks and will show exactly when this communication took place.””

“128. In an audio recording published on July 11, 2017, Hersh provided the following statement:

“What I know comes off an FBI Report … The kid [Seth Rich was] … a nice boy, twenty-seven. He was not an IT expert, but he learned stuff. He was a data programmer … Here’s what nobody knows … when you have a death like that, DC cops … have to get to the kid’s apartment and see what you can find … so they get a warrant … They go in the house and they can’t do much with his computer … They have a cyber unit in DC, and they’re more sophisticated. They come and look at it. The idea is that maybe he’s had a series of exchanges with somebody who’s said ‘I’m going to kill you, you motherfucker’ … and they can’t get in … So, they call the FBI cyber unit. The DC … Washington Field Office is a hot shit unit … There’s a cyber unit there that’s excellent … The Feds get through and here’s what they find. This is according to the FBI Report … What the Report says is that sometime in late Spring … early Summer, he [Seth Rich] makes contact with WikiLeaks. That’s in his computer … They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents … juicy emails from the DNC … He [Seth Rich] offered a sample, an extensive sample … of emails, and said I want money. Later, WikiLeaks did get the password. He had a … protected dropbox … He also, and this is in the FBI Report, he also let people know with whom he was dealing … The word was passed, according to the FBI Report, ‘I also shared this box with a couple of friends, so if anything happens to me, it’s not going to solve your problems’ … WikiLeaks got access before he was killed.””

Read more:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/EdButowsky.pdf

This lawsuit will probably be settled out of court.

However, it is significant because in a legal document, filed with the court, unsealed, in the light of day, we have extensive allegations of the attempts made by the Fake News Media, the DNC, et al to cover up the truth behind the murder of Seth Rich and his possible involvement in the DNC leaks.

Heard much about this from the Fake New Media?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Seth Rich murder investigation lives, Ed Butowski lawsuits Ty Clevenger efforts, Court docs ref Seymour Hersh statements Fake News Media lies, Wild cards: Assange knowledge & Barr investigations

Seth Rich murder investigation lives, Ed Butowski lawsuits Ty Clevenger efforts, Court docs ref Seymour Hersh statements Fake News Media lies, Wild cards: Assange knowledge & Barr investigations

“The Mueller report perpetuates the Russian narrative, states “Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks “implied falsely” that Mr. Rich had been the source of the emails” and did not investigate it.
The fake news NY Times participates in the charade (Lie) by regurgitating the Mueller statement.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Gateway Pundit May 4, 2019.

“Fake News Media Suffers Body Blow on Case Linked to Seth Rich Murder

A big, old, giant Sequoia has been knocked down in the mainstream media forest of lies and none of the fake news media are commenting on this development. Ok. Got your attention? The anti-Trump media playbook is to smear anyone who dares deviate from the Trump hatred meme. Up to this point the media has not been punished or held to account for their reckless use of lies to besmirch good people. Now meet Ed Butowsky, a Texas financial advisor ruthlessly attacked by NPR reporter, David Folkenflik. A Texas Judge has ruled in a case Mr. Butowsky brought against Folkenflik and NPR:

This is an action for defamation, business disparagement, and civil conspiracy filed by Plaintiff Ed Butowsky (“Plaintiff” or “Butowsky”), a Dallas investment advisor, against National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR”),1 its senior media correspondent, David Folkenflik (“Folkenflik”), and certain former and current executive editors at NPR.2 According to Plaintiff, the defendants published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff online and via Twitter between August 2017 and March 2018 – statements Plaintiff alleges injured his business and reputation.

NPR and Folkenflik filed a motion to dismiss. The Judge said no. The case will go forward:”

Read more:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/05/fake-news-media-suffers-body-blow-on-case-linked-to-seth-rich-murder/

(Thanks to commenter hapnHal for the heads up.)

Why is this important to the ongoing resolution of the Seth Rich murder and who leaked the DNC files to Julian Assange and Wikileaks?

First of all, straight out of the playbook of “1984”, Mueller, despite evidence to the contrary, perpetuated the false narrative of Russian Hacking and Fake News Sites like the NY Times regurgitated the lie and the lie that Mueller’s report ruled out Seth Rich as a leaker.

From the Ed Butowsky lawsuit against David Folkenflik, NPR et al:

1. Folkenflik Misrepresented Butowsky’s Involvement
57. Before he wrote his first Article, Folkenflik knew that Butowsky’s role
and involvement in the investigation of Seth Rich’s murder was limited.
58. In early 2017, Butowsky contacted the family of Seth Rich to help the
family investigate their son’s unsolved murder. Butowsky graciously offered to pay for a private investigator. [https://soundcloud.com/siriusxm-news-issues/ed-butowsky-sethrichs-death].17
59. On February 23, 2017, Butowsky contacted Wheeler via text message to
see if Wheeler would be interested in investigating the murder. Butowsky did not know Wheeler, but had seen him on television. Wheeler appeared to be a competent investigator.
60. Wheeler entered into a contract with the Rich family (specifically, with
Aaron Rich, Joel Rich and Mary Rich) to investigate the murder of Seth Rich. As
Wheeler stated to FetchYourNews on May 22, 2017: ”

“61. Butowsky was not a party to the contract between Wheeler and the Rich
family. He has never seen the contract.
62. Although Folkenflik made it appear that Butowsky orchestrated and
directed Wheeler’s murder investigation, in truth Butowsky did not participate in Wheeler’s investigation and had very little communication with Wheeler. Folkenflik knew that Butowsky’s involvement was limited.
63. Wheeler publicly confirmed Butowsky’s limited involvement in the
investigation. On May 16, 2017, Wheeler represented to Sean Hannity that “I was hired by the family, Joel and Mary Rich. They signed the contract. Now, the financial benefit, if there were any financial benefit and by the way there wasn’t much, that was actually paid for by a third party [Butowsky] that I have had very little communication with at all, Sean”. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuRJDKEVxHY (emphasis added)].
64. Folkenflik misrepresented Butowsky’s actual involvement in Wheeler’s
investigation. Folkenflik made it appear as of Butowsky was at the center of the
investigation, directing Wheeler and telling him what to do. Folkenflik falsely portrayed Butowsky as a puppet master, feeding “tips” to Wheeler and telling Fox what to do. Far from the truth.”

“7. Folkenflik Disregarded Seymour Hersh’s Recorded Statement
128. In an audio recording published on July 11, 2017, Hersh provided the
following statement:

“What I know comes off an FBI Report … The kid [Seth Rich was] … a nice boy,
twenty-seven. He was not an IT expert, but he learned stuff. He was a data
programmer … Here’s what nobody knows … when you have a death like that,
DC cops … have to get to the kid’s apartment and see what you can find … so
they get a warrant … They go in the house and they can’t do much with his
computer … They have a cyber unit in DC, and they’re more sophisticated. They
come and look at it. The idea is that maybe he’s had a series of exchanges with
somebody who’s said ‘I’m going to kill you, you motherfucker’ … and they can’t
get in … So, they call the FBI cyber unit. The DC … Washington Field Office is
a hot shit unit … There’s a cyber unit there that’s excellent … The Feds get
through and here’s what they find. This is according to the FBI Report … What
the Report says is that sometime in late Spring … early Summer, he [Seth Rich]
makes contact with WikiLeaks. That’s in his computer … They found what he
had done. He had submitted a series of documents … juicy emails from the DNC
… He [Seth Rich] offered a sample, an extensive sample … of emails, and said I
want money. Later, WikiLeaks did get the password. He had a … protected
dropbox … He also, and this is in the FBI Report, he also let people know with
whom he was dealing … The word was passed, according to the FBI Report, ‘I
also shared this box with a couple of friends, so if anything happens to me, it’s not going to solve your problems’ … WikiLeaks got access before he was killed.””

Read more:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/EdButowsky.pdf

The lawsuit is loaded with examples of media dishonesty and lies as well as references to Seth Rich.

This could lead to testimony and witnesses to corroborate statements made about possible Seth Rich involvement.

Furthermore, Attorney Ty Clevenger, a counsel for the plaintiff in the above, filed another lawsuit for Mr. Butowsky on March 12, 2019.

Edward Butowsky v Michael Gottlieb, et al.

“1. Late in the summer of 2017, the lives of Edward Butowsky, his family, and his
co-workers were upended by false allegations that he conspired with White House officials to divert attention away from earlier (and equally false) allegations that President Donald Trump “colluded” with the Russian government to “steal” the 2016 Presidential election from Hillary Clinton. On August 1, 2017, New York attorney Douglas Wigdor and his partners filed a bogus lawsuit alleging that Mr. Butowsky, Fox News reporter
Malia Zimmerman, and Fox News itself had fabricated a false story that a former
Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) employee – not the Russian government – was responsible for stealing DNC emails and giving them to Wikileaks.
2. The bogus lawsuit portrayed Mr. Butowsky as a ruthless political operative of
President Trump when, in reality, he never had (and never has) met President Trump nor spoken with him. In fact, Mr. Butowsky supported three candidates other than Mr. Trump in the primary, and in 2007 he donated $2,700 to the campaign of President Barack Obama.
3. Mr. Wigdor, et al. nonetheless made the false allegations because they knew
that most American journalists were (and are) consumed with hatred of President Trump, and they knew that most American media would publish or broadcast nearly anything – with little concern for accuracy – so long as it portrayed President Trump (or anyone tangentially connected to him) in a negative light. As detailed below, Mr. Wigdor, et al. planned to use the false allegations and the resulting negative publicity to extort money
from Fox News.
4. Mr. Butosky is by no means the only victim of the anti-Trump confirmation
bias in American media. On February 20, 2019, for example, the parents of 16-year-old Nick Sandmann sued The Washington Post for $250 million in damages because the newspaper smeared him with false accusations of taunting an elderly Native American veteran following a pro-life rally. The high-school student had made one unforgivable mistake: he wore a “Make America Great Again” (or “MAGA”) hat that is affiliated with President Trump’s political campaign. Based on that alone, the Post and other media comfortably assumed that he was a prejudiced white elitist. Within a day of the incident,
however, video emerged that proved Sandmann had not taunted or harassed anyone, and on March 1, 2019 the Post belatedly admitted that its previous coverage of Sandmann was inaccurate. Similarly, left-wing media breathlessly trumpeted allegations from actor Jussie Smollett that he had been assaulted on January 29, 2019 by men wearing MAGA hats and uttering anti-gay and racial slurs. Because of their confirmation bias, most journalists ignored immediate and obvious evidence that Smollett was lying, i.e., they
were so eager to believe that Trump supporters would assault a gay black man that they forgot to ask why it would have happened at 2 a.m. during a blizzard in overwhelmingly Democratic Chicago. Smollet’s story soon unraveled and on March 8, 2019 was indicted on 16 felony counts for lying to police and fabricating a hoax.
5. In Mr. Butowsky’s case, the disinformation campaign has taken much longer to unravel. Unscrupulous left-wing journalists and attorneys have perpetuated a myth about a myth, i.e., that Mr. Butowsky pushed a fictitious story about the stolen emails in order to divert attention from the fictitious story about “collusion” with the Russian government. In reality, the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory is the only myth, and Mr. Butowsky’s statements about the stolen emails were accurate.
6. As a result of the lies fabricated and perpetuated by the Defendants, Mr.
Butowsky and his family received death threats, he lost one third of his business clients, rocks were thrown through the windows of his home, his automobiles were burglarized, his computers were hacked, he lost friendships, and he lost the opportunity to host a planned television program. Left-wing extremists even posted a clock on the internet counting down the time until Mr. Wigdor’s son would return for classes at Vanderbilt University, implying that Mr. Butowsky’s son would be harmed when he returned. As a result, Mr. Butowsky had to hire a bodyguard for his son.
7. The Defendants’ smear campaign never should have begun, and it has lasted for far too long. Now it’s time for the Defendants to answer for the lies that they spread and the harm that they caused.”

“33. As indicated above, this case is the consequence of a conspiracy theory,
namely that President Trump “colluded” with the Russian government to swing the 2016 Presidential election in his favor. That conspiracy theory (hereinafter be identified as the “Russia Collusion Hoax” or “RCH”) has been crumbling of late, as U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr admitted in early February that there is no evidence to support it. That has not deterred unscrupulous political activists like the Defendants herein, however, because they are emotionally invested in the RCH. Most of them have spent more than two years demonizing and defaming anyone who dares to question the RCH.
34. A key date in the Russia Collusion Hoax is July 22, 2016, when Wikileaks
began publishing thousands of email that had been stolen or leaked from the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”). 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. The email release proved damaging to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and, in an effort to shift blame, Mrs. Clinton, the DNC, and the administration of President Barack Obama soon alleged that
Russian hackers had stolen the emails to help the Trump campaign.
35. According to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, however, the emails were not procured from Russian hackers. Mr. Assange plainly inferred that the emails came from Seth Rich, a DNC employee who had been murdered on July 10, 2016 in what Washington, D.C. police described as a “botched robbery.” Wikileaks offered $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Mr. Rich’s killers. This deeply offended antiTrump activists like the Defendants herein, because it undermined the Russia Collusion Hoax.”

Read more:

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019.03.12-Original-Complaint-stamped.pdf

Mr Clevenger, though busy with his full time job, has maintained his blog, LawFlog and has filed FOIA requests with the DOJ, NSA, etc. He has received a limited response from the NSA regarding files On Seth Rich and others.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

“The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”…Thrivent v. Perez Sept. 29, 2016

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“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

 

From Bloomberg  Sept. 29, 2016.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans is accusing the Department of Labor of exceeding its statutory authority by attempting, with its new fiduciary rule, to force all disputes into federal court rather than allowing for alternative dispute resolution methods (Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Perez, D. Minn., 0:16-cv-03289, complaint filed 9/29/16).

Thrivent’s lawsuit, filed Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, takes aim at the rule’s “best interest contract” (BIC) exemption”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-joins-fray-in-challenging-dols-fiduciary-rule?context=article-related

From the lawsuit.

“Thrivent’s Member Dispute Resolution Program
42. Thrivent’s MDRP is incorporated into all of Thrivent’s fraternal insurance contracts through the open contract provision by which Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are incorporated into all Thrivent insurance contracts, as required under state law. The MDRP Bylaw was adopted by Thrivent’s Member-elected Board of Directors as a part of Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws in 1999 (at which time Thrivent was known as AAL). In so doing, Thrivent’s Board of Directors determined that the MDRP is in the best interests of Thrivent’s Membership.

43. The MDRP Bylaw, which is Section 11 of Thrivent’s Bylaws, requires binding, mandatory arbitration for any Member disputes with Thrivent. Section 11 “applies to all past, current and future benefit certificates, members, insureds, certificate owners, beneficiaries and the Society. It applies to all claims, actions, disputes and grievances of any kind or nature whatsoever. It includes, but is not limited to, claims based on breach of benefit contract[.]” Bylaws, § 11(b). “No lawsuits or any other actions may be brought for any claims or disputes covered by” Section 11. Id. § 11(c).

44. The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”

“47. A key benefit of the MDRP is that it preserves the fraternal relationship between Thrivent and its Members by avoiding adversarial litigation that could threaten to undermine the organization’s core mission. Thrivent’s Bylaws provide that no lawsuits or other actions are permitted for claims or disputes covered by the MDRP. Thrivent’s MDRP provides for resolution of disputes on an individual basis, involving Thrivent and the Members. Representative or class actions are not permitted under the MDRP Bylaw, which provides that “no disputes may be brought forward in a representative group or on behalf of or against any ‘class’ of persons, and the disputes of multiple members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries (other than immediate family) may not be joined together for purposes of these procedures.” See Bylaws, § 11(e).
48. The MDRP is consistent with Thrivent’s fraternal nature, consistent with the Christian belief system of its Members, and reflects the careful balancing between Thrivent’s and its Members’ desire for a prompt, fair and efficient resolution of disputes, on the one hand, and the protection of the interests of all Members on the other. As such, the MDRP is an integral part of Thrivent’s governance structure. Experience has shown that the MDRP not only provides a fair and efficient process for dispute resolution, but is also in the best interest of Members.”

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

DOL temporarily stopped enforcing anti-arbitration provision.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans convinced a federal judge in Minnesota to temporarily stop the Labor Department from enforcing the fiduciary rule’s anti-arbitration provision against the nonprofit financial entity.

Thrivent showed the threat of irreparable harm to its business model, both now and in the future, was sufficient to have its request for a preliminary injunction granted, Judge Susan Richard Nelson held Nov. 3 (Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Acosta, 2017 BL 396118, D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-03289-SRN-DTS, order granting preliminary injunction 11/3/17″

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-wins-battle-over-labor-dept-arbitration-ban?context=article-related

Status report January 2, 2018.

“While the administrative process continues forward, it is not yet complete. On November 29, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a final rule extending the transition period and delay of applicability dates for the relevant prohibited transaction exemptions from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. See 82 Fed. Reg. 56545 (Nov. 29, 2017). The Department believes that this administrative delay will provide the Department time to complete its review of the underlying Fiduciary Rule and related exemptions and its intended proposal of “a new streamlined class exemption.” Id. at 56548. The Department believes that both its review and any proposed changes can be implemented before July 1, 2019. See id. at 56552 (explaining the Department’s belief that the additional time “is sufficient to complete review of the new information in the record and to implement changes to the Fiduciary Rule and/or PTEs, if any, including opportunity for notice and comment and coordination with other regulatory agencies”) ”

https://www.dolfiduciaryrule.com/portalresource/ThriventvPerez2018-01-02ECF112JointStatusReport.pdf

Status report July 2, 2018.

“Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2017, the parties submit this joint status report to address whether a continued stay of proceedings is necessary. The parties agree that a continued stay of proceedings is appropriate and anticipate providing a subsequent report to the Court on September 4, 2018.

In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the “implementation and enforcement of the BIC Exemption’s anti-arbitration condition against Thrivent . . . until the conclusion of this litigation or such time as the Court so orders.” ECF No. 111 at 19. The Court also stayed the case, concluding that “[s]taying this matter will allow the administrative process to fully develop, possibly resolving this dispute, and thereby promoting judicial economy.””

https://www.napa-net.org/sites/napa-net.org/files/uploads/thrivent-dol-status-report.pdf

A status report for September 2018 has not been located.

However, the following suggests the Department of Labor is continuing to work on the “Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions.”

RIN Data

DOL/EBSA RIN: 1210-AB82 Publication ID: Fall 2018
Title: Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions
Abstract:The Department of Labor in 1975 issued a regulation defining who is “fiduciary” under section 3(21)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as a result of giving investment advice for a fee or other compensation.  On April 8, 2016, the Department replaced the 1975 regulation with a new regulatory definition.  The new regulatory definition was vacated in toto in Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018).  The Department is considering regulatory options in light of the Fifth Circuit opinion.
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
EO 13771 Designation: Deregulatory
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined     (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002 (ERISA sec. 3(21))    29 U.S.C. 1108 (ERISA sec. 408)
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
Request for Information (RFI) 07/06/2017 82 FR 31278
RFI Comment Period End 08/08/2017
Final Rule 09/00/2019

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=1210-AB82

How will this play out? Who knows.

The NAIC in 2016 stated: “pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”

Hopefully justice will prevail.

***  Update Mar 15, 2019  ***

According to a USDOJ attorney who worked on the lawsuit, it has ended.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/