A lawyer for the plaintiffs in the widely under-reported class action lawsuit known as Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corp. and Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman-Schultz filed a new document on Thursday, June 1, 2017, that is causing a stir on social media. The document was a Notice of Filing an E-mail. The plaintiffs’ lawyer let the court know that her office emailed the defendants’ lawyer. The actual purpose of the e-mail that was sent from the plaintiff’s attorney to the DNC’s attorney is what people are talking about though.

Elizabeth Lee Beck (the counsel for the plaintiffs) sent an email to the counsel for the defendants after the law office received an unusual phone call, according to the notice filed with the court. The case has been stalled as the parties await Senior Judge William J. Zloch’s decision on the DNC’s Motion to Dismiss. The case is unfolding at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Most recently, the lawyers for the DNC filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that the plaintiffs, who were mostly Bernie Sanders’ supporters, would be violating the DNC’s right to practice free assembly if the case moved forward, according to the transcripts of the hearing.

Until now, the latest on the DNC lawsuit was that the DNC’s lawyer argued that moving forward with the lawsuit would violate members of the DNC’s constitutionally protected right to free association. The DNC lawyer argued that the DNC didn’t even need to listen to voters to choose its candidate, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was basically under no legal obligation to be fair to Bernie Sanders or his voters during the primary.

DNC argues in court: We don't owe anyone a fair primary process https://t.co/dpjrnhUQMY pic.twitter.com/3IsAGpBYrv — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) May 1, 2017

Now, the lawyer for the classes of individuals suing the DNC says that things have turned fishy as we wait for the judge’s decision on whether or not the case will move forward. The development detailed in the filing is so unusual that it is rumored to have been what prompted the plaintiffs’ lawyer to express her nervousness on social media.

In the email sent to the defense counsel, Beck detailed the development.

“At 4:54 p.m. today, an individual called our law office from “305-936-5724.” See attached

photo of the caller I.D.

“The caller refused to identify himself/herself, but asked my secretary about the Wilding et al.

v. DNC et al. lawsuit. My secretary stated that it sounded like the caller was using a voice

changer, because the voice sounded robotic and genderless — along the lines of the voice

changers used when television show interviews are kept anonymous. The caller concluded

with ‘Okey dokey,’ after my secretary gave the caller public information about the case. “After the call ended, a simple Google search of the phone number “305-936-5724” shows that

it is the phone number for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office,

https://wassermanschultz.house.gov/contact/. See attached screenshot. “What just occurred is highly irregular and we will be filing the instant e-mail with the court

forthwith.”

So, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyer, someone called her law office asking about the DNC lawsuit, using what seemed to be some kind of voice alteration technology. Furthermore, the number on the caller ID screen implied that the call was made from one of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s offices.

Of course, it is possible, as many have pointed out, caller ID can be faked, and the call could have been someone not affiliated with Wasserman-Schultz at all. Official Spoof Card, for example, sends fake caller ID numbers, but if that is the case in this situation, the judge could require confirmation of the number, get access to phone records, and if no call was made from the DNC office, the judge could subpoena the information.

Either way, the plaintiff’s counsel wanted the information on record, especially now that it’s public knowledge that U.S. Capitol Police have been investigating Wasserman Schultz’s longtime IT aide, Imran Awan, for allegedly stealing and funneling congressional equipment and data from members of the House of Representatives, according to Politico. After the House of Representatives had banned Awan from the network, Wasserman Schultz didn’t fire the IT specialist, according to Politico; she simply changed his job description.

Incidentally, the DNC was just hit with another class action lawsuit in May. This time, the lawsuit is over the DNC’s allegedly unfair labor compensation practices during the convention, CBS reported.

[Featured Image by Andrew Harnik/AP Images]