WilliamPitt or Truman - -Please tell me the truth - - I can take it - -

[Karenca]

Now, WE REALLY ARE FUCKED---Yes????

My brain short circuits reading your legal threads, so please just tell yes, we are, or no, we're not.
I think yes. :((

[Karenca]

1. Hello? nt

[read the law first]

2. You only asked two people.

My answer is "not necessarily" but we'll have to wait and see.

[Karenca]

3. did you read those 2 threads?

They didn't sound all that reassuring to me.

[read the law first]

5. This is high stakes poker for the leadership of the world.

It's gonna go back and forth with some real scary stuff in the middle. It's not like a play with a script. Our legal system is based on a system of combat with sharp things that were dangerous. We don't do it that way anymore, but it's still nerve wracking.

[Karenca]

7. ReadTheLaw, are you a lawyer? ,,,, nt

[read the law first]

8. Yes. 18 years. AV rated.

[Karenca]

14. Good......More lawyers :))

Thanks, Readthelaw.:hi:

[read the law first]

17. I don't think I've EVER seen those two phrases together in a sentence

"good" and "more lawyers" together in one sentence, I don't think I've ever seen that before without heavy use of the sarcasm button.

[Karenca]

18. I've had extremely

positive experiences with lawyers, s
o I guess I am the minority.

[read the law first]

21. wow. good deal.

A second question that you should ask of lawyers on this forum is "are you an election lawyer?" or "how many election cases have you done?"

[crispini]

23. ok, I'll bite.

are you an election lawyer? :hi:

[read the law first]

25. (1) yes (2) lots. n/t

[crispini]

31. Cool! n/t

[tavalon]

38. Third question

Are you working on these election cases?

Ooh, this is a lot like twenty questions, huh? :)

[read the law first]

47. No.

There's more than enough chefs already in the kitchen.

[tavalon]

48. True enough n/t

[sepia_steel]

52. Lawyers are like everyone else.

some bad, ,some good. I've had great experiences with lawyers, too. :) They get a bad rap.

[tavalon]

37. lol

Me either! I wouldn't get used to it if I were you. ;)

[bitchkitty]

42. I used to have a bumper sticker on my car

I (heart) my lawyer! Lawyers, to me, are the best protection against THEM. I cherish every one of you!

[Darknyte7]

58. LOL

I've only been out of law school for five years, but I've never heard that before either. ;-)

[IndyPriest]

22. I think we sometimes WANT a play with a script.

About the only law most of us know anything about is what we've seen on TV. "LA Law." "Matlock." And in those, we, as the audience, always know more than the characters on the set. It's bad training for real life!

[read the law first]

28. When we interview juries after cases, we always get that.

This was nothing like Matlock or this was nothing like CSI, etc.

and we're like, "Yeah, they get as many takes as they can afford to get it right and we only get one." We're always "going live" with no cuts.

[smartvoter]

4. I don't think they know. The problem with the WHOLE MESS is we are

leaderless. We have to rely on fragmented parties and piece-mealing instead of one leading, unified effort dealing w/ the whole ball of wax.

[GetTheRightVote]

6. I am sure that we are not, lawyers still working on it, but we are still

at it as well, do not be fate of heart, justice will be served in the end, I am sure of it. I do not know why I believe this so much but I truly do.

Perhaps it is because so many people want for it to be true and as long as they desire it then I will keep holding on in faith. This is about us holding true to each other in our belief that all the problems displayed will serve a purpose and free us of the idiots who run our country.

We must stand firm and believe it will happen as it should, justice will win in the end where ever that end may take us. Perhaps it begins in Columbus, San Fran, Boston, and then Washington, DC but it will happen, we must continue to have faith and act on that faith.

God will not let us down and I know he hears my prays. He has done many miracles in my life but I also know he gives me the strength to believe that good things will happen to good people. Those good people communicate here on DU. We must never surrender.

I too grew angry and weary of it all but then I remind myself of the other option of accepting * and that is no option so fight on I must and so must you. Together we will win this battle because we may be all there is left to win it.

Perhaps in the end, after the lawyers, political leaders, there is only us, but what a wonderous group of dedicated freedom fighters gather together on DU. We will win I do not doubt it.

[fooj]

40. very powerful post!

I'm in for the long haul!!!!! We are fighting for a moral and just cause!!!! I Believe.







WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?:think:

[NJCher]

43. I'm saving this post

Thank you,GetTheRightVote. I'm reading, re-reading. What a lift you just gave me (and probably lots of others)!


Cher

[zann725]

44. If only 20% of Americans believe Fraud exists, and focus on changing it...

that's more than enough. Think how small the rudder is in relation to boat...yet manages to turn the boat around.

I agree. When I think of Shrub (for 4 more years), "it is NOT an option."

Keep hope alive!

[WilliamPitt]

9. No

All respect to Arnebeck and Bonifaz, but I never held out a lot of hope for their suit, for a variety of reasons I don't feel like getting into. If they meet the Rule 9 requirements on the 7th (i.e. if they explain specifically who was wronged and why, thus meriting a trial), the case will go on. So not fucked yet there.

The other case, the Cobb/Badnarik/Kerry case also known as the Yost case, is moving along. We wait for the judge to rule on the motions Kerry said "Me too" on. Not fucked there, either.

And there may still be a chance that a Senator will come forward by the 6th.

May I use you as a case in point?

CALM DOWN.

Thanks.

:)

[Karenca]

10. WilliamPitt......Go right ahead and use me :))

Thank you,
I'm feeling quite a bit better now .... I can eat.

[MissBrooks]

20. Kerry won't come forward.... he's out...

[LittleClarkie]

26. I really want and need it to be someone OTHER than K/E

I just think it's bad form to contest your own race.

That is unless all the Dems stand up as one. That would be pretty cool.

[New Earth]

34. that's how i feel too.

[Vektor]

45. Not only would it be cool...

...if they all stood up - it would be a wonderful way to prevent the retaliation that one lone Senator might suffer if he/she stood alone.
If the whole party stood at once it would be a mighty show of solidarity that would be impossible to ignore.

[madison2000]

55. Do you remember the show "To Tell the Truth"

where three people are pretending to be the same person? After all the questions the contestants guess which one is real, and then the party is supposed to stand up. But they each pretend like they are going to stand up. OK, that's how I picture Jan 6- except they are all afraid to stand up until someone else does, and then they'll pretend they were just shifting in their seats!

[Vektor]

60. I would love that.

I'm just so afraid everyone is going to be a big fat coward. :-(

[New Earth]

32. k;kl;';

[LittleClarkie]

46. Stroke dear?

Should we call 911?

[Karenca]

35. What makes you so SURE?

[ClassWarrior]

41. So when did he tell you this?

Or are you relying on your Magic 8 Ball for this information?

NGU.

[lonestarnot]

27. Thank you and with that I will call it a night, but one question if you're

still around and not too pooped as I have been unable to locate the name of the Judge on the Yost case. And how's Hairy Bastard?

[Pirate Smile]

33. Do you have any idea of when they expect a ruling on the Yost motions?

[troubleinwinter]

59. Well, if nuthin' else, it is an education....

and the long fight shall go on.

[Left coast liberal]

11. Not as F@#$%ed as we'll be if we loose faith!

Hang in there. We may not know exactly what is happening every minute in the halls of justice but we know we're not nuts! The Election was not transparent.

At least we hope we aren't nuts.

Once again, that old, tired and true cliche, "Rome wasn't built in a day."

Cheers

:hi:

[read the law first]

12. funny,

:toast:

[mordarlar]

13. There is also the recent "good" news that Judge Moyer...

is off the Moss v Bush case. It was a conflict of interest. This helps. I am no lawyer but having him judge a case he was named in was obviously BAAAAD news

[read the law first]

15. I don't think he's off.

The post says that some party "successfully FILED" a motion to disqualify him. It doesn't say the motion was granted. I've questioned the use of the word "successful" in relation to the filing of a motion.

[mordarlar]

16. ahhh... gotcha

[mycatforpresident]

19. Do you know if

Blackwell has to attend a deposition? Thought I'd ask a lawyer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1456762

[read the law first]

24. It depends. How's that for a lawyer answer?

I don't practice in Ohio and I don't represent any party in this action and this is general comment on the law and not legal advice but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are the same (except for local rules).


It all depends on the notice of deposition and whether or not they are a party or a non-party. The general rule is that unless there is a court order shortening the time, the deposition notice has to state a reasonable amount of time for the deposition to take place. Our practice is that 10 to 14 days is usually determined to be reasonable. Also, parties usually don't have to respond to discovery unless and until the time for filing their answer has run, again unless the court has jurisdiction over them and orders otherwise.

Now, if they're a party and they haven't been served, then no, they don't have to show up because they're not really a part of the action yet and the court doesn't have jurisdiction over them yet.

If they're a non-party is doesn't matter about the service. That's one reason why I wondered whether it was a good idea or not to name everybody and his brother in the suit. I thought "wow, they're going to be serving people into March."

So, if he's named as a party and he hasn't been served with the Complaint, no, he doesn't have to show up.


You are going to get me so totally flamed by giving you an honest answer, I hope you're happy with the carnage that you're about to witness.

[mordarlar]

36. LOL

[mycatforpresident]

39. This is still Moss v. Bush, yes?

If so, Blackwell is definitely listed as a Defendant.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/14/151628/87 (lawsuit posted here)

snip

Richard Conglianese, Ohio Assistant Attorney General, is seeking a court order to protect Blackwell from testifying under oath about how the election was run. Blackwell, who administered Ohio's November 2 balloting, served as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1046

So, if I am a party to a lawsuit, and I feel there is a reason I should not have to give any sworn testimony, I can simply have an Attorney General buddy help me out of it? On what grounds? This is beyond me...

BTW, I'm not sure why you will get flamed for this, but I am keeping my fire extinguisher handy, just in case.

[me b zola]

54. I've been wondering, as well

about the 'chain of command', if you will, and how it is that the AAG can represent the SOS in either a civil or criminal investigation.
Aren't there ANY ethic rules involved with these offices? Who do they answer to?

[mycatforpresident]

56. My understanding

is that one of the functions of the AG's office is to serve as legal counsel to agencies, Legislature, Guv, etc.

This means that yes, he could represent the SoS, but I'm not sure if this means helping the SoS to avoid legit proceedings. BTW, the SoS offfice seems to have a stake in the Repugs continuing hold on the country.

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/columns/2004/20041221.htm

Mr. Lawyer Man? What do ya think?

[newyawker99]

51. Hi mycatforpresident!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mycatforpresident]

53. Thanks!

I've been around (lurking) for awhile, but was generally too busy to do anything but read gnu gnus.

Now that the election is "over" I have a little more time on my hands.

[lonestarnot]

29. Does he have the Yost case also?

[read the law first]

30. No. That's in federal court. n/t

[Not a Sheep]

49. Yes, we're f'd... here's why...

My opinion? Yes, you're right. We are fucked. Again.

I'm assuming you mean that Bush will take office on the 20th.

I think the only thing that will come from the 2004 debacle in Ohio is a little election reform. Look at what happened in 2000 and ask youself what good came from that? And remember that in 2000, the election aftermath was a bigger story than what is happening now. Over the next four years Republicians have even more control over policy and law than they did from 2000-2004. Why would they change anything when the f'd up system is working in their favor?

We've already had 4 horrible years of this administration after the 2000 election, now we're going to have another 4 years after the joke that was the 2004 election. There should already be mass protests and great unrest like in the Ukraine (if the MSM was doing it's job). Maybe you'll see something on the 6th. I certainly hope so.

In 2008, take a look at everything Bush has done (and has not done) to the US and the world and then look at the changes that took place in the electoral process. Then ask yourself if all the damage he did was worth what I believe will be few changes going into another election.

At that point I think you'll say yeah, we got fucked. Hard.

[Bouvet_Island]

57. It isn´t

the size that matters when making babies. It is the potency.

I believe you are jumping to the conclusion.

[Karenca]

50. Tool late to edit tie title, but it should be: WilliamPitt, Truman and

ReadTheLaw.
Thanks you three.