Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
On Tuesday, June 13, 2017, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the DNC fraud lawsuit filed a Motion for Order of Protection to the U.S. District Court in Florida following three disturbing incidents that recently occurred in orbit of the lawyers and plaintiffs involved in the ongoing, high-stakes litigation.

The lawsuit, a class action filed by Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee Beck last summer, seeks damages for Democratic Party donors and voters duped by the party's fraudulent 2016 primary. Counsel for the Democrats argued on April 25, 2017 in favor of their Motion to Dismiss, insisting that Federal Judge William J. Zloch throw out the case because the Party has the right to choose its nominee behind closed doors, in smoke-filled rooms, regardless of the results of primary contests.

In addition to the Party, the lawsuit names disgraced former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a Defendant. Following her resignation as DNC chair, Schultz has been the subject of intensifying scrutiny related to this lawsuit and another blasting the DNC's grotesque compensation practices under her leadership. D.C. Capitol Police are also investigating a massive data breach committed by her former IT staffers, who have since fled the country. Meanwhile, uncertainty lingers as the homicides of DNC data director and potential witness Seth Rich, and Miami Federal Prosecutor Bheranton J. Whisenant Jr. remain unsolved.

The Events of June 1

On Thursday, June 1, approximately six weeks following the release of transcripts from the oral arguments, a staff member at Plaintiffs' firm Beck & Lee received a mysterious call that was programmed to falsely identify on caller-ID as the contact number of Wasserman Schultz's local office. The caller sought information related to the case using a voice-altering application, and would refuse to disclose his or her identity.


Notice of Filing E-Mail
Though the nature of the conversation seemed casual, the call was subsequently reported to the Court by Plaintiff's attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck that day, in order to document potentially unsolicited contact from the Defendant. At that time, it would remain to be seen if Wasserman Schultz' office would confirm or deny the call originated from their office as the number appearing on caller ID appeared to indicate.

The Events of June 2

Wasserman Schultz's office responded to the report promptly to advise the Court that the office number identified on the call was from a former office location no longer in use by the Congresswoman, and advised that the call "[did] not appear" to have originated with "that office". The Democrats and Wasserman Schultz's counsel would advise that "no one on Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz's staff, including the Congresswoman herself, has any knowledge of any such call being made, nor was any such call authorized", (emphasis added).

While the particular wording of the statement did not unequivocally deny the call may have originated from within Wasserman Schultz's network, counsel for the incumbent Florida lawmaker added that they were "very concerned" to hear of what must have been a spoofed call, and alerted D.C. Capitol Police as a precaution given the Congresswoman continues to serve in the House representing Florida's 23th congressional district.


Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ June 1, 2017 Notice
Over the course of June 2, attorney Cullin O'Brien, who represents the Plaintiffs along with the Becks, would himself receive three mysterious calls, each from an unidentified number. In the first, the caller introduced himself as "Chris", before asking for O'Brien by name, and if O'Brien was working on the "DNC Fraud Lawsuit". O'Brien requested the caller put all communication in writing, and the caller hung up.

20 minutes later, O'Brien received another call, and identified the caller as "Chris" again by voice. This time, a series of threatening rants ensued in which the anonymous caller made reference to the recent murder of Miami U.S. Attorney and Federal Prosecutor Bheranton J. Whisenant Jr., and threatened that "this is bigger than you and your family and your law partners," and he would "play the law firms off each other."

A third call would come in that night from another unknown number that Mr. O'Brien would not answer. The caller, presumed the same as the two previous calls, left a 4-minute voice message. The message was sealed and submitted to the Court as evidence in connection with the Motion for Order of Protection.

Beyond Mr. O'Brien's calls Friday, that very evening the same Beck & Lee employee who answered the June 1 call received a visit to her home by an unidentified, unknown visitor, asking for the employee by name. Her mother would answer the door to inform the visitor that the employee, who wishes to remain anonymous, was not at home. The visitor then left a Florida Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Vote-By-Mail Application to be given to the employee, soliciting her name and contact information, despite the employee not having or seeking any affiliation to the Democratic Party. According to the employee's mother, the visitor carried a stack of these flyers, but drove away without visiting any other residents on the street.


Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
The Events of June 3

While the events of June 1 and 2 occurred near Miami, Florida where the lawsuit was filed, a third concerning event took place overnight in the town of Dassel, Minnesota, about 50 miles west of Minneapolis in central Minnesota.

On Saturday morning June 3, Angela Monson, one of the various Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit and an active member in her local Democratic party, awoke around 5:45am and sought to use her personal laptop computer. After noticing her device was not in the entryway where she last left it, Monson found her laptop in the living room, eerily placed on an end table in comfortable reach for only a right-handed person. Monson, who lives with mild cerebral palsy, has limited use of her right hand, and is exclusively left-handed.

Upon recovering her laptop, Monson noticed the device had been tampered with: according to the affidavit submitted to the court, when she tried to boot up the computer, it made a snapping noise, and did not turn on.

In examining the defective and misplaced device, Monson turned it over, and the back plate snapped off. Noticing the 10 screws holding the hardware together were missing, Monson checked with her sons to be sure neither tampered with the device. Upon hearing neither had, an alarmed Monson realized an intruder must have entered, presumably overnight.

Monson would inspect her home to find a patio door left ajar approximately 3 inches, and another door mysteriously unlocked. Law enforcement who arrived on the scene discovered a third connecting door unlocked as well, unveiling the entry path of an intruder who appeared to have broken into the house, tampered with the laptop til it no longer functioned, and retreated without looting or damaging the home or property in any other way.


Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
The Defendants' Icy Response

The O'Brien calls, the employee's visit and literature drop, and the Plaintiff's home invasion are each alarming in and of themselves, but the fact that each of these events took place less than 48 hours after the original mysterious June 1 call creates an even darker cloud over the ongoing litigation. While the threatening phone calls answered by Mr. O'Brien could have been coincidental harassment inflicted by any one of the millions of onlookers, the solicitation of the employee's contact information via a Florida Democratic Party registration form and the breaking and entering of a Plaintiff's home and ruination of her personal computer appear calculated and highly suspicious.

Since the galling and irreversibly damning oral arguments thrust the utter depravity of the Democratic Party and its contempt of its members into the public consciousness, attorneys Jared Beck, Elizabeth Lee Beck, Cullin O'Brien, and others defending the merits of the lawsuit have already been subjected to constant badgering across social media platforms in defense of the corrupt establishment. The disturbing sequence of events detailed above, and in addition to the increased pressure on a Democratic Party incapacitated by massive ongoing scandals worsening by the day, all the more justify the Plaintiff's attorneys Motion for Order of Protection to ensure safety and privacy for their staff, the plaintiffs, and key witnesses as the case inches toward its next step.

Following Plaintiffs' Motion for Protection on Tuesday, June 13, counsel from the Democrats filed a Defendants' Response to the Plaintiff's Motion two days later on Thursday, June 15, seen below.


Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order of Protection and Request for Hearing
In their response, attorneys for the Democrats take no position to support or oppose the Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Protection. Their icy retort not only notably lacks any measure of respect for the Democratic Party voters involved or concern for how the integrity of the legal process could be compromised by such harassment, but instead volunteers the below:
To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to imply that the Defendants had some role in any of the incidents listed in their motion or had any other inappropriate contact with or harassment of anyone in any way in involved with this case, Defendants wish to make it clear that such an implication is patently false.
Oddly, Plaintiff's Motion did not make any implication or suggestion that the Defendants had any role in the disturbing occurrences that took place; the Motion for Protection simply provided the Court with documentation of the events that took place related to the parties involved in the suit. It is unclear why the Defendants' response would include a preemptive denial, and noteworthy that this preemptive denial is worded in such absolute terms.


Awaiting an Order of Protection

Following the formal acknowledgement from the defendants related to the suspicious events described above and docketed with the Court, an anxious public will await the Court's ruling on the Motion for Order of Protection that could come at any time. Judge William J. Zloch could approve, deny, or further inquire regarding the Motion; this Motion now takes precedence over the Judge's current analysis of the merits of the Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit filed previously by the Democrats and argued in the court hearings taking place in late April, 2017.

While the mainstream media continues to downplay and dismiss the massive implications of a lawsuit that will have profound consequences on the voting behavior of over 300 million Americans of all party affiliations, a silent but unfathomably vast majority around the country and world will watch with bated breath as the all-powerful American Democratic Party and media fight tooth-and-nail in Court to delay its inevitable, impending, and tragic demise.

In their valiant and undaunted efforts to bring this suit to high Court where it stands, Elizabeth Lee Beck, Jared Beck, and Cullin O'Brien have already enshrined themselves in American and world history as new-age revolutionaries who have exposed the American Democratic Party for the wicked and unrelenting oligarchy it has become.

In spite of the best efforts of a war-hungry former President who seemed to do everything in his power to ensure the continuation of his odious legacy, Americans last November successfully blocked the Clinton Restoration.

With the heavy lifting behind them, this magisterial few who brought the suit to pass have not only vindicated 13 million disenfranchised progressives, but have already ensured that the rotting carcass of the Democratic Party will soon be turned to dust.


UPDATE: Following the publication of this article on June 15, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for order of protection.