Tag Archives: Dismissed

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.


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:



More here:




Judge David O Carter, Orly Taitz, Captain Pamela Barnett V Barack Obama , Update, October 29, 2009, Dismissed, Judge Carter a coward?, Obama not natural born citizen, Citizen Wells challenge to Judge Carter

I recently called Bill O’Reilly of Fox a Coward for his remarks about Orly Taitz. I called O’Reilly a coward for the manner in which he made his statements, for his lack of knowledge about the eligibility issues and for not covering the eligibility issues surrounding Obama.

Ex Marine or no ex Marine, Judge David O. Carter, is there any reason I should not refer to you as a coward for taking the easy way out and with using flawed logic and understanding of the US Constitution to join the ranks of those giving the usurper Barack Obama a free ride.

Today, october 29, 2009, Judge David O. Carter dismissed the case brought against Obama by Captain Pamela Barnett, et al. The lawsuit alleges that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

There is a preponderance of evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen, from his father being Kenyan and a British citizen, to absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Here is the crux of Judge Carter’s decision:
“Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”

Read ruling:

I posted the following on this blog earlier:
“There is at least one critical flaw in Judge Carter’s logic and ruling.

“One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be
removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process.”

The statement above is true.
However, only as it applies to the POTUS.
And, to be POTUS, one has to be eligible.
Winning the popular vote.
Winning the electoral college vote.
Getting the approval of Congress.
Being sworn in by a Supreme Court justice.
None of the above alone makes one POTUS.
First and foremost, one must be constitutionally eligible.
Therefore, Carter’s rational is incorrect.
Obama, as an illegal usurper, traitor and possible illegal alien
can be removed and arrested.”

Judge Carter is wrong. He could issue an order today for discovery to ascertain whether or not Obama is a usurper. Upon finding Obama ineligible, Judge Carter could issue an order for Obama’s arrest.

Judge Carter, are you a coward?

Is there some other excuse?

You might respond with “State election officials or party officials could have vetted Obama.”

They did not. That is why we have a system of checks and balances.

You might ask, “Who are you to question a judge?”


A natural born citizen of the US.

An expert by training and many years of practice in logic.

I have prepared a motion, filed the motion, opposed an attorney and won.

Besides that, this is not rocket science.

Obama is not POTUS.

No tradition,

No ceremony,

No magic incantation,

Changes that.

Judge David O. Carter, you have the power and the constitutional obligation to ascertain if Obama is eligible.

If not eligible, you have the power and obligation to remove him.

Citizen Wells