Nader case against DNC loses on statute of limitations

Ralph Nader ran for President of the United States as a Green Party candidate in his first campaigns, and in 2004 and 2008 as an independent.

from Ballot Access News
Nader Case Against Democratic National Committee Loses on Statute of Limitations Grounds
June 9th, 2009

On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, ruled that Ralph Nader’s lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee for its work to keep him off the ballot in 2004 should have been filed earlier than October 2007. Here is the 19-page opinion. It concludes by saying, “Whatever the Democrats tried to conceal, Nader’s own complaint reveals his constructive knowledge of ’some evidence of wrongdoing’ by each current defendant more than three years before he filed his suit. Because Nader’s complaint is thus untimely on its face, we affirm on this limitations ground without addressing the district court’s decision or the ultimate merits of Nader’s theory of the case.”

11 thoughts on “Nader case against DNC loses on statute of limitations

  1. Michael Cavlan

    No, that is expected.

    Why one might even assume that the system is fixed, rigged.

  2. Andy Craig

    Regardless of where your sympathies lie in this case, there’s a good reason you have to be prompt when filing a lawsuit. You can’t hold a lawsuit over someone’s head for years after the alleged wrong took place- you have to either file one of lose your chance to do so. It’s a sound legal principle, and Nader simply screwed up by waiting this long to file.

  3. Richard Cooper

    The court said “Because Nader’s complaint is thus untimely on its face, we affirm on this limitations ground without addressing the district court’s decision or the ultimate merits of Nader’s theory of the case.”

    That is the proper decision.

  4. Donald Raymond Lake

    The establishment [ESPECIALLY insurance officials] procrastinates and procrastinates and then blames the victim[s] for dawdling. Life in the real world.

    My ‘in pro per’ verses the [California] Department of Veterans Affairs, which sailed through it’s ’12 [b] 6 require[s], was killed in a hearing which I was purposely kept ignorant of.

    My original appeal was lawfully filed in state court, was illegally bounced back to the [most corrupt county in the state] local buddies of the infamous Barstow court house gang!

    Courts are merely another piece of government!

  5. Gary Julian

    Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died for the right of the ruling parties to keep other parties off the ballot. Home of the Free? Yeah, right.

  6. Professor Joe

    The question is not when he filed the case. The question is when did he acquire the last piece of collusive information that provided enough evidence to file a case with a “heavy presumption” of validity within the petition. The chronology of the uncovering of evidence is the key to any statute of limitations. The D.C. Circuit held that the suit should have been filed immediately after the election. They did not even bother to look at the evidence and said as much within the dismissal. It is as though they said “our minds are already made up…don’t try to confuse us with the facts. ” Just like the 19th century case that applied the concept of personhood to the railroad companies (still the ruling precedent), the decision is based on a results consideration instead of allowing due consideration for the evidence of the claim and Mr. Nader’s rights of redress. The truth is that Nader is absolutely right about the duopoly. Republicans and Democrats are the same thing. They are rich individuals with cushy jobs that will do anything they can to get elected and continually re-elected, all by virtue of the two-party one-party system. And the ruling is…”we ain’t ruling. Now get out of here, Mr. Smarty Britches.” They don’t call Ralph “the Gadfly” for nothing. It looks to me like the American version of the Guardian Council.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.