Has Arnebeck filed his memorandum to Moyer yet?

[Terre]

I was reading georgia10 over at dKos. She has done some wonderful updates on Election 2004. Here is her diary today, in case you haven't read it yet:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/28/17218/394

She reminds me of the following (See her #4):

"Today is the last day for Arnebeck to file a memorandum explaining to Chief Justice Moyer why the case is not moot."

Anyone hear whether it's been submitted or not?

[SueZhope]

1. I have no clue , its a good question

thanks for posting georgia10s latest blog.
:-) she has been terrific.

[read the law first]

2. He just got a 12(b)(6) rule nisi against the OSC case

The Court made it's own motion to dismiss and stayed the defendants' obligation to answer until he gets past the Court's motion to dismiss.

This is serious.

[justiceischeap]

3. I'm confused... Serious how?

Serious that this will go to court? Seriously bad for Shrub? Or seriously bad for us?

[bemis12]

4. If the Court made its own motion to dismiss

Then the odds that the suit is going anywhere is almost nil.

[justiceischeap]

5. Thanks...

[read the law first]

11. seriously bad for us.

:scared:

[TexasChick]

15. How can we make it good for us? Would it be possible? n/t

[read the law first]

23. You want honesty or hopefulness?

Some people get really, really mad when you give a straight up, honest outlook on something.

[Terre]

26. Disregard my post 24

and I'll take your opinion Straight Up please, even if it's on the rocks.

Regardless of a bleak outcome now, the TRUTH WILL COME TO LIGHT!

[read the law first]

28. This is not hopeless but it's a very dangerous place.

We've either got to have the goods or we've got to replead it without the fraud claim. One or the other.

[Terre]

35. God I hope he has the "goods"

Just once I'd like a touchdown for our team, ya know? Heck, I'll settle for a field goal.

Anything, ANYTHING!! lol

[TexasChick]

44. Does this have a bearing on the Kerry motion he filed yesterday for

discovery? If not, do we still have a shot there? Sorry, I'm really legal-talk challenged.

[bunny planet]

54. I think Will said they are two separate cases but one guy, sorry I forget

his name, Bonifaz I think, is involved with both cases.

[read the law first]

55. There's actually four cases.

(1) The Presidential contest in the Ohio Supreme Court (the Presidential OSC) which is being presided over by Moyer, (2) the Supreme Court contest in the Ohio Supreme Court which challenges Moyer's election(the Supreme Court OSC) presided over by O'Connor, (3) the suit in the federal court in the Southern District of Ohio (the one that ke2004 joined and has the motion) and (4) the suit in the federal court in the Northern District of Ohio.

[bunny planet]

56. Thank you for that clarification.

[newyawker99]

57. Hi thecorrection!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[gkhouston]

6. and the subpoenas to Bush et al are related to this case??? n/t

[read the law first]

9. This is the other OSC case, when they had to split them.

This is from the other judge.

[Terre]

7. YIKES!

...but ask me if I'm surprised?

Where did you read this - gotta link or anything? Using my son's new computer and I don't have access to my bookmarks. *sigh*

[read the law first]

8. I got to it from the DailyKos but I don't know how to link.

Sorry. computer un-savvy lawyer.

[Terre]

10. Copy and paste

Open the diary at dKos and click the URL in the address box above so that it's highlighted. Right click, and then in the context menu that pops up, click Copy. Come back here to a new post here, and in the text box place your cursor, right click, and then select Paste. The URL will be placed in your reply and we can click on it later.

In the meantime, what Diary title was it?

[read the law first]

13. Thanks. Let's see if this works.

It's on the second page of the calendar.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-7079.pdf

[TexasChick]

12. rtlf, just copy the URL at the top of your browser in the "Address" box by

pressing the "CTRL" button + the C button. Then come here and paste the URL in the "Message" box by pressing "CTRL" + the P button. When you post your message, it will automatically show up as a link.

[read the law first]

14. Thanks. Y'all taught me something new.

[Terre]

18. There ya go!! :o)

Isn't it great learning new things? Too bad * doesn't get it.

Thanks RTL :)

[read the law first]

21. lol. funny.

knowing how to do more things on du will lead to more time on du. uh oh.

[Terre]

16. Is this the post?

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/12/28/17218/394/31#31

which was posted by rincewind:

This is from a "Case Announcement" dated today (12-28) from the OH SC, in re: Moss v Moyer (the split-off part of the election contest that involves CJ Moyer):

Here, however, the contestors' claims are based primarily on fraud and mistake. Therefore, the contestors must state the "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake * * * with particularity." Civ.R. 9(B). Accordingly, upon review of contestors' petition,
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to my authority under R.C. 3515.11 to control and direct this election contest proceeding, that the contestors shall show cause by January 7, 2005 why their petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it does not allege the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake with particularity. Contestees may file a memorandum in response on or before January 14, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the filing of an answer by the contestees and any discovery, including depositions, subpoenas, and requests for production of documents, shall be, and hereby are, stayed pending resolution of this preliminary issue.

O'Connor, J., in Chambers.

Is this a fancy way of saying, "You didn't present proof of what you claim, so I'm not going to let you find the proof of what you claim. And furthermore, I'm going to stall on this suit long enough for Moyer to throw out the whole contest as moot. So neener-neener to you!" ?

And did she just hand Moyer a ready-made rationale for the Moss v Bush suit? (or did Moyer tell her?)

The above was from georgia10's Diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/28/17218/394

[read the law first]

19. That's the one

It's legalese for "You've got to plead fraud with particularity to survive a dismissal. You've got until the 7th, to come up with the goods or I'm gonna toss you."

I warned the folks that were talking about learning about the case through discovery that allegations of fraud were different. Now that chicken has come home to roost.

I hope we've got the goods and weren't going on a fishing expedition in the hopes that something would turn up.

Now also remember that I've said if the margin was 500, we've got plenty good enough to set aside the election.

[LiberalHeart]

22. rtlf: Ignore the question I asked you in another thread...

You answered it here. But now another question: Shouldn't the lawyer have known what he needed to have prior to filing the case? And since he's not a beginner, can you see any method to his madness?

[read the law first]

25. It's like a chess game more than a play.

You try things and they may work and they may not. But I told people that fraud had to be pled with particularity and got a bunch of "shut up and go to hell you freeper plant scuzzwad" hatemail responses.

Litigation is different than a script for a play. It's more like a chess game and one side makes a move and the other side makes a move but you don't exactly know what they're going to do until they do it. You suspect, you can anticipate, but there's a fair amount of counterpunching in litigation.

Fraud has to be pled with particularity.

[LiberalHeart]

36. So was it incompetent lawyer-ing to file.....

....without knowing what specifics needed to be included? See, that's what I'm trying to understand: how could an experienced lawyer not know what he needed to include in the suit?

And if he *did* know but still failed to provide it, what was the purpose of the filing?

I'm trying hard to understand this. I'm wondering, using your example, how it could be a smart chess move to file a suit that was guaranteed to get tossed or, at the very least, delayed.

I keep hearing how good this lawyer is, and I want to believe it -- but this looks the kind of mistake a rookie would make.

By the way, I know all about telling the truth and getting hate mail. Happened to me on my first day of posting.

[read the law first]

39. I give every lawyer the benefit of the doubt.

I give any member of the profession the benefit of the doubt.

[LiberalHeart]

40. Sorry to keep harping on this, but I need help....

...to understand *how* to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That's why I'm trying to pull from you what his thinking might be. I realize I'm asking for a hypothetical, yet I'm making my question Arnebeck-specific, so maybe a better way to ask it is like this:

"Lawyer X might file an incomplete lawsuit on purpose because (fill in answer here)."

[read the law first]

47. ok, let's get the disclaimers out of the way first.

First of all, this is a general discussion about general aspects of a law suit and is not intended as legal advice. I do not represent any party to this action and do not purport to give advice to any individual or entity in this or any other matter unless and until a retainer agreement acceptable to me in my sole and absolute discretion has been signed by such individual or entity and a retainer check in the amount specified in the retainer agreement has been tendered and has cleared. No third party should rely on this general discussion as legal advice and does so at their own risk and to their own detriment. If you think that you have rights that might be impacted or affected in this matter or any matter, you should consult with an attorney. Do not read any further unless you agree to the foregoing.

ok.

One thing that an attorney might do is file a lawsuit because a time limit such as a statute of limitations is about to run knowing that they could amend the suit up until the motion to dismiss hoping that the other side will file the 12(b)(6) in their answer and thus buy perhaps as much as 45 days to come up with the necessary allegations(as long as a counterclaim is not expected).

Another thing an attorney might do is file a lawsuit knowing that the suit could be amended and wanting to see how far their information can be protected before it has to be revealed.

Like I said. It's a chess match and we've just been "checked" (but not checkmated).

[LiberalHeart]

53. Excellent answer...Thank you. N/T

[Terre]

24. So do I understand this to say

that Moyer wants Arnebeck to provide PROOF of fraud FIRST?

How friggin' likely is that, and how does Moyer sleep at night?

Cripes

[read the law first]

27. No, it's the other judge who has Moyer's election case.

It's the other judge.

That's the problem with pleading fraud. You've got to have the who, what, when, where and how already in your pocket before you start.

Other types of pleadings are different (courts call that notice pleading). You just say "We wuz wronged" and off you go. Fraud is different though.

[mordarlar]

29. Surely these attorneys are aware of this...

i am no law mind but i am finding some of the errors made by these people a bit disheartening. The original dismissal due to filing error. They should have known this. :(

[read the law first]

33. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt because they stepped out where others wouldn't.

[LiberalHeart]

38. Is it possible that Moyer did us a favor....

....when he ruled that the suit couldn't be combined? If one part doesn't take proof of fraud, but the other part does, then by refiling the part that doesn't require proof can move forward. See what I mean?

[mordarlar]

43. And this is definitely worthy of gratitude...

but i am finding it harder and harder to trust ANYONE. The potential consequences if they fail are dire. In four short years they could feasibly have congress and the court system so warped we would have no power to stop them. I prefer to challenge them now while it is a simple matter of court filings and rallies. The alternatives are too unthinkable. We cannot afford for them to make mistakes of judgment.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

[Mojorabbit]

30. Does this include Blackwell too?

I did not think they ever would get Bush to testify but I thought for sure they would get Blackwell?

[Terre]

31. Thanks RTL

I just now realized this is in regards to the part that has the Moyer contest in it.

I get the gist of what she's saying, but dang this is getting so friggin' confusing - trying to keep track of who says what on which suit. I'd be LOLing if it weren't so sad.

[Verve]

32. Hello read the law! This new ruling sounds very important! Would you

mind starting a new thread to discuss it. It warrants it own thread! You seem to be the most informed so I want to give you the honors. Thanks for your hard work! :)

[read the law first]

37. I don't know how but have no objections if you started it.

I don't even want the credit. I just stumbled across it reading Dailykos.

That's it! Eureka! They've done a lot of work, can you figure out how to start a thread with their link at Dailykos or just to the OSC link?

I'd appreciate it.

[Verve]

41. Read Law,I have to leave in a minute but I'll try to walk you through it.

1.Pull up the dailykos article and 2.highlight the complete web address from the top of your screen. 3. Then click EDIT from the top of your screen and click copy. Then go back to DU and click on post.
A blank post will appear. Click on the main area so that your pointer is on the main area. Then click on edit again and click on paste.

Voila! You should have a link to that webpage on your post.

I'm no computer whiz so if this doesn't work maybe someone else can help. Good Luck.

[Terre]

42. You CAN do it!!

Just go to the Main page in this forum, and at the top click on the POST link.

A page will pop up that's similar to what you're used to already when replying. You've learned copy and paste - that's basically all there is to it.

[read the law first]

51. Thanks but there are two other threads that have it now.

But I'll print these instructions out and keep them for future reference. Thanks.:toast:

[Vektor]

17. Of course...the Ohio courts are WAY conservative...

They will deliberately roadblock us every step of the way. Some of those judges were appointed by the Bushes, and there is NO way we'll get a fair shake up there. You could have crystal clear video footage of Bush himself setting fire to all the ballots marked "Kerry" and those judges would toss it out. They're bought and paid for.

This fraud has been years in the making..they have covered every angle and their own corrupt asses.

[Vektor]

20. This is the Judge...

..who rejected the motion.
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Justices/oconnor/
She seems pretty conservative, what a shocker.

[Doctor O]

34. Is Arnebeck serious about these cases, or simply finding

ways to line his pockets? This is the second time he has submitted filings that if he is a great lawyer as he portrays, which have not been complete. even the Moss vs. Bush seems to be incomplete. If he researched the law, perhaps he needs help interpreting it.

[rfrrfrrfr]

45. Please do some reading

Before making posts that make you look stupid.

1. This ruling has nothing to do with the Presidential election case. It is about the Chief justice election. Note the case number. The presidential case is 2088.

2. This was origianlly filed with the presidential case, see case 2055 for complete details. While serious in itself it was primarily put in as supportive evidence for fraud in the Bush case and to disqualify Moyer from sitting on the presidential case. Moyer made a controversial ruling on case 2055 forcing them to refile the two contests seperately. Possibly commiting an ethics violation in the process. It would have been folly to not resubmit the Moyer election contest even though they may not have a real strong case put together for that as yet. Remember their main case is against Bush and co. The didn't file these lawsuits just to unseat Moyer, although that would probably be a good thing too.

3. So what the justice is saying is that in the chiefs justice election contest the little evidence that he has at this time, which was not a whole lot to begin with, as it was really secodary to the main case against bush was not in her opinion not specific enough. and has given him time to come up with the specifics.

4. the supreme court justices on the ohio court are mostly conservatives who will use just about every delaying tactic they can to keep from having to rule on the merits of the case/s

5. This is a big chess match with them trying to beat out the clock and us trying to speed things along. Expect to see lots more legal maneuvering and posturing on both sides the longer this gets dragged out.

[Andy_Stephenson]

46. It was filed

yes indeed it was.

[read the law first]

48. good deal. look forward to reading it.

Thank you for the report.

[TexasChick]

49. rtlf, is Andy talking about Arnebeck's response as to why the case

shouldn't be thrown out? Thanks!

[read the law first]

50. He's talking about the Presidential case in the OSC before Moyer

There's at least four suits going on.

Presidential OSC before Moyer
Supreme Court OSC before OConnor
Presidential case in the southern district of ohio
Presidential case in the northern district of ohio

The response that was due today was the response in the Presidential OSC before Moyer.

It's hard to keep all the players straight without a score card.

[TexasChick]

52. LOL! I know what you mean, thanks! n/t