RNC Files Latest Response in DNC v. RNC Voter Intimidation Case, with Hearing Set for 10 am Tomorrow

You can read the response here. The RNC says there’s not enough evidence they are violating the consent decree to justify any additional remedies or sanctions. A snippet on Ms. Holland, the person who sent the controversial text message: 

First, none of the individuals named in the declarations serve in any capacity as an RNC member, employee, contractor, or volunteer. See Phillippe 2d Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 9-17; Talbot Decl. ¶ 7; Graves Decl. ¶ 5. There are only two individuals identified by their full name — Kishanna Holland and Onita Petersen. Ms. Holland was hired by Stampede Consulting, LLC to serve as a poll observer. See Turner Decl. ¶ 10. Stampede is not working for the RNC in Nevada,1 see Turner Decl. ¶ 7, and Ms. Holland was not hired and is not working on the RNC’s behalf. See id. ¶ 10; see also Phillippe 2d Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Talbot Decl. ¶ 7. Moreover, as the attached declarations explain, many of the details in the DNC’s declarations are wrong. For example, Ms. Holland does not appear to be a law student from New York. See Phillippe 2d Supp. Decl. ¶ 16. She also did not move temporarily to Las Vegas to observe the election. See id.

FN: The RNC has retained Stampede Consulting, LLC in connection with get-out-the-vote efforts only in certain districts in a different state. See Phillipe 2d Supp. Decl. ¶ 15; see also 2009 Order ¶ 5 (permitting these activities). The contract between the RNC and Stampede Consulting is expressly limited to those duties. See Phillippe 2d Supp. Decl. ¶ 15; see generally Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 752 F.2d 874, 882 (3d Cir. 1985) (noting rule that principal is not liable for acts of agent outside scope of authority); Pedro Realty Inc. v. Silva, 399 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981) (“a principal is not liable for actions of its agents committed outside the scope of its employment and before one may infer that the principal ratified unauthorized acts of his agent, evidence must demonstrate that the principal was fully informed or that he approved of those acts”).

And more on Stampede:

After due diligence, it appears that “Charlene” could refer to Charlene Stamps, who was hired by Stamped Consulting, LLC to perform poll-watching duties and, like Ms. Holland, has no connection to the RNC.

UPDATE: From the DNC response:

In the November 3 telephone conference with the Court, counsel for the RNC stated that two of these five individuals—Kishanna Holland and “Charlene”—are working for Stampede Consulting, not the RNC. Counsel acknowledged, however, that Stampede is a contractor for the RNC. Indeed, an FEC filing that includes the name of Donald Trump, the candidate supported by the expenditure shows that just a few weeks ago, the RNC paid Stampede $1.3 million for “GOTV consulting.” Supplemental Certification of Angelo J. Genova, Esq. at Ex. 1 (“Genova Supp. Cert.”). Because as RNC appears to concede, the Consent Decree applies to contractors of Case 2:81-cv-03876-JMV-JBC Document 127 Filed 11/03/16 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 6382 3 the RNC, the Stampede activities alone established a Consent Decree violation. See DNC Mem. at 2 (Consent Decree applies to actions by the RNC directly, indirectly, or through its agents or employees); RNC Mem. at 11 (“All staff recipients, employees, contractors, and volunteers were directed that they ‘must strictly avoid participation in any planning meeting, recruitment efforts, and other activities related to [election day operations] and/or the prevention of voter fraud.” (emphasis added)).

Share this: