OHIO SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCEMENT JUST UP

[KatieBloom]

What does this mean?
I hope not what I think it means...

[bear425]

1. link? n/t

[KatieBloom]

5. Here is the link...

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/

[SueZhope]

11. but were on that link is it?

[Kazak]

20. I guess...

the first entry...Moss vs. Bush.

:shrug:

[KatieBloom]

30. Court Doc Listings

Moss v Bush
and 12/16/2004 Case Announcements #2
and 12/16/2004 Case Announcements #3

[Xipe Totec]

34. What a bunch of i-dotting t-crossing weasels!

Dodging the issue because two elections were contested in the same suit. Two new filings will be required now, one for each election, and they go back to the end of the line.

Jeez!

[jj24]

61. why not blame it on bad law?

we need better than this.

her dismissal seems an obvious necessity.

[Xipe Totec]

76. Nothing precluded Chief Justice and Governor from choosing same judge

to hear both cases. That is not incompatible with the law as written.

It not bad law, its bad faith on the part of the Chief Justice.

[jj24]

90. why do you think

they threw in that other contest?
what do you think the purpose was, especially if they knew the law?

[Xipe Totec]

120. To force the Chief Justice to Recuse Himself n/t

[zann725]

176. To state in a court document BEFORE the Electoral Vote...

that Chief Justic Moyer (who presided over the Electoral proceedings) was ironically ALSO elected due to what appears to be Election Fraud!
By stating this BEFORE the casting of the Electoral Votes, it seems they were putting into question CJ Moyer's "legitimacy" in terms of presiding over the Vote...and therefore making it easier to throw out the Ohio votes.

I thought that was also why they stated Ohio law in terms of Blackwell's actions last week in Greene (?) County as worthy of him being dismissed according to law as Sec. of State. Thereby also calling into question Blackwell's legitimacy at the time of the Electoral Vote.

I think Arnebeck and Kerry are very smart about this. Yeah, they'll have to refile, but they still have on-record (effective the date of the Electoral Vote)...evidence that BOTH Moyer and Blackwell may have NOT had the power they appeared to have in presiding over the Votes that day.

I could be wrong in this analysis, but still could be...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

183. wow, you are brilliant ! n/t

[bones_7672]

181. Wait, we accuse THEM of violating the law, yet WE don't have to obey???

And if this is our attitude why should they even give us the time of day!

[VTGold]

44. Yeah, cannot contest more than one election...

...they'll probably appeal stating that they are intertwined.

[Xipe Totec]

72. Problem is that the same judge can't rule on both elections

Conflict of interest, and specifically precluded by law.

On the Bush election, the Chief Justice of the Supreme court choses a SC judge to preside, but the second contest is against the Chief Justice, so the Governor must choose which SC Justice will preside. That's the weasel words they used to dodge the issue.

The fact of the matter is that the Chief Justice of the SC and the Governor could have jointly agreed on one judge to hear both cases.

That is, if they actually wanted the case heard...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

185. Hmmm. All the manipulation shows guilt/conspiracy to me. n/t

[corky44]

141. thrown out on a technicality without

consideration to the facts presented shows how weak
their defense will ultimately be. If they could come with any
facts to dispel suspicions don't you think this would have been
a grand moment to do so?

[Peace Patriot]

170. Thank you! But please put up top: No need to panic!

Thank you very much, KatieBloom, for spotting this and getting it posted. But please, let's put a statement up top that this is an early process ruling--most certainly anticipated by Arnebeck--and the case can easily and quickly be re-filed, and probably already has been.

We need to exercise some panic prevention here. This Election Fraud situation is such a roller-coaster. People can get emotionally exhausted just reading the alarmist forum titles.

I once went to court with a lawyer in a public interest lawsuit, who brought with him two huge boxes of prepared documents, so heavy they had to be rolled on a cart, one box for each of two possible process rulings by the judge. True enough, we had to employ the second box to file a separate case. Standard procedure.

The suit was dismissed "without prejudice." Judge did not rule on the merits (just on combining Prez and Chief Justice election fraud complaints, which Arnebeck had good to reason to do). The case will go on.

Arnebeck knows what he's doing, and, boy, does that man have cajones! (--pointing out the taint of the Chief Justice!).

Go, Cliff!

[KatieBloom]

172. All your points are well made...

Thanks for the points. Arnebeck is outstanding as are all the
people who are investing all the time and energy on this issue.

I am very new at posting here and on the verge of crawling
back into my "viewing only hole" but I would like to edit this
and can't. Any suggestions?

[IAMREALITY]

174. Don't Sweat It Katie

We are responsible enough at DU (well, for the most part) to take everything into consideration before jumping off a bridge.

I want to say Please don't crawl back into your hole. I think this thread was an amazing timely thread by you today and I am definitely grateful.

Thanks Katie and Welcome to DU!!!!!!

:toast:

[Turn CO Blue]

201. Welcome to DU KatieBloom

Stick around -- not that I've been here all that long either, but still, hang out!

My word of caution: you will have to learn to run with the big dogs around here - but the majority of them are very friendly puppies, and most of the older, grouchy dogs are all bark and no bite!

OT: I will say (don't flame me, Old Dogs!) that on perhaps only my 10th post I got flamed and humiliated by no less than Bev Harris herself. Man, I was furious and thought about never coming back (because , in my defense, I had only asked for clarification and put forth a theory that apparently irritated her -- how could I know though, with so few details???)

I've also been thoroughly belittled and personally insulted by an old-timer (again, just questions for clarification - should have hit the alert, but I'm too nice), but I have a little thicker skin now.

I feel redeemed, because on occasion I can be witty and get more than a few positive replys to my posts.

[rumpel]

178. Is it customary that the Governor of a State selects the judge?

[bones_7672]

188. What are you talking about, Moyer was elected. n/t

[lonestarnot]

187. Don't panic Complaint will be amended and refiled.

[shraby]

2. link?

[CatWoman]

3. you want to give the rest of us a fucking clue?

[hootinholler]

65. It has been dismissed.

Because the petition challenges more that one race? I didn't think they challenged the Chief Justice race, did they?

I wish I had a copy of the petition that was filed. Methinks the Judge is confused, or delaying.

-Hoot

[regularjoe]

I think they did. And they used the results from the Chief Justice race

to compare to the Presidential to show how odd it is for people to vote Democrat for Chief Justice and not for Pres. I think.

regularjoe

[SharonRB]

128. The petition was for both contests

[Bill Bored]

97. Arnebeck told me

that he thought both races had been hacked, so they probably did challenge both.

Does this mean it's over, or do they just have to refile or something?

Part of the strategy was to get an independent judge. Maybe even an honest Republican one. Could this be part of it?

Sorry I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, and this isn't the only one on this subj!

[malatesta1137]

138. it's been over

since Kerry cowardly conceded on Nov 3.

[corky44]

144. if you think it's over

google "Martin Luther King Jr." and see what comes
up because it can't be over. Crying in your starbucks!

[malatesta1137]

156. I did

more waste of time

[corky44]

200. not if people are wondering what it takes to win.

[read the law first]

205. Honestly, It's no big deal.

The Chief Justice said that since by statute he can't rule on his own case and the Governor has to select a different judge to hear his case, you will end up with two judges on the same case and that makes for a procedural nightmare. He dismissed it without prejudice which means it can be refiled.

Time will tell whether this was the most brilliant legal strategy in the history of jurisprudence on the Plaintiff's part or a little sloppiness on their part.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being no big deal and 10 being metaphysical certitude of a Kerry inauguration, this is about a .3. Less than no big deal.

[SueZhope]

4. were did you see this? n/t

[Connie_Corleone]

6. What??

:eyes:

[CatWoman]

10. dismissed without prejudice

[lonestarnot]

184. Mean party filing can refile.

[helderheid]

7. couldn't tell you

because you've not given any info on it. Link please??

[suffragette]

8. And? n/t

[KansDem]

19. Can't file multiple election contests in a single case....

Huh???

[Pithy Cherub]

9. Helloooooooooo.....?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

12. DISMISSED:

SNIP

As Chief Justice, I have statutory authority to determine only the
challenge filed by the contestors to the election of President and Vice-President.
No statute or case law authorizes the filing of multiple election contests in a single
case. The complaint is fatally defective. I therefore order that the contest of the
presidential election held on November 2, 2004, be dismissed without prejudice.
So ordered.

[jamboi]

89. Incredibly lame! n/t

[mattclearing]

13. All bad.

As Chief Justice, I have statutory authority to determine only the
challenge filed by the contestors to the election of President and Vice-President. No statute or case law authorizes the filing of multiple election contests in a single case. The complaint is fatally defective. I therefore order that the contest of the presidential election held on November 2, 2004, be dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered.

[bmoney07]

14. I can't understand - me stupid, please explain?

n/t

[sandnsea]

39. Two election contests

They won't hear two election contests in one law suit. Fatally flawed. Dismissed. I don't know if they looked for a loophole to try to just make this go away, or whether the lawyers seriously screwed up or what. So it isn't necessarily over, but I don't think we're getting alot out of these recounts anyway. We'll just have to see.

[read the law first]

206. They tried something. It didn't work. They can refile. No big deal.

Now whether they tried it because they are smart or sloppy, time will tell. But the ruling today is absolutely no big deal because the only time critical part of it was the TRO against the electors voting and they've already voted before it was heard anyway. Heck, you're going to have defendants answering the suit for the next two months because all of the defendants named and where they are to be served.

No big deal.

[sandnsea]

209. Loophole or legitimate decision?

I realize fatally flawed just means badly done complaint or petition. What I don't know is whether that's a legitimate decision on the petition by the judge, or if he just found an easy loophole to try and stall in hopes it would all go away. Especially if the recounts don't turn up anything.

[read the law first]

211. Fatally flawed doesn't necessarily mean bad.

It just means that you can't fix it in the same action. It is opposed to a so-called amendable defect. They tried something. It didn't work. They can refile. It's not a big deal.

I know that this will make me very unpopular but I think that a fair reading of the judge's opinion is that his reasoning is correct. (hey even broken clocks are right twice a day) Now that being said, he certainly opened himself up to the appearance of a conflict but I think the legal grounds and reasoning are correct and unremarkable. By analogy, think about a jury trial with two juries and two judges going on in the same courtroom at the same time. It would be a disaster. That's all the judge said.

Some people wonder about the fact that appellate courts have multiple judges all the time. But since this is in the OSSC first, the OSSC serves as somewhat of a trial court. It just would be unworkable to try to have two cases with two judges presiding at the same time.

"Without prejudice" is the really important part of the sentence because it means the action can be refiled.

[read the law first]

216. He dismissed it without prejudice so he knew it wasn't going away.

Now, if he had ruled on the merits or dismissed it with prejudice, then that would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

[understandinglife]

15. Link to .pdf

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6792.pdf

[pilgrimsoul]

55. They dismissed it basically on a technicality

The court sidestepped dealing with the election by saying there is no provision in Ohio law to oversee two contested elections in the same lawsuit. The good news is, the dismissal was without prejudice, so Arnebeck can prepare and file an Amended Complaint which seeks to contest only the presidential election. It's a bullshit response and a stall tactic, but essentially, the court took a roundabout way to say you can't cherrypick your judge. At least that's my layman's take on it. YMMV.

[rodeodance]

199. yup--but wouldn't you think lawyers who filed this would this???

[wysi]

16. It means...

... that the suit is dismissed.

[Jo March]

"Dismissed without prejudice"

Well, ain't that a fine crock of shit. Seems to only be a technicality that got it dismissed.

Okay, what is next? US Supreme Court?

[MrUnderhill]

Not ENTIRELY a technicality.

The technicality is that they challenged TWO elections in the same case and the law does not permit that.

But the REASON they did this was to force the chief justice (one of the elections challenged) to recuse himself from the case or to call any negative result in to question.

[Jo March]

83. Ahhhh.... I am such a political novice

Brilliant plan.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

87. So this was part of their plan? It's a good thing? n/t

[jsascj]

114. Mr Underhill...

Please...what does this mean, in layman's terms. No legalese.

How are you so smart and measured? You MUST be a lawyer yourself.:)

[MrUnderhill]

130. Oh right.... butter me up.

Except saying "you must be a lawyer" is an insult where I come from.

I promise not to "alert" you. :-)

I'm just saying that, when filing the case, our side tried a clever maneuver to take one of the judges off the case that we assumed would not rule in our favor.

The case would normally go to the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court... but they challenged HIS election too (in the same filing) - so that he would be legally forbidden to hear the case.

The problem is that the law doesn't contemplate that type of case (contesting TWO elections in the same court case)... so it was thrown out. The "without prejudice" part of the ruling means that they are free to try again... as long as they do it correctly. It also means that the guy we wanted to avoid will probably preside over the case.

[jsascj]

142. Two things

1) Last sentence- "It also means that the guy we wanted to avoid will probably preside over the case." SUCKS


2) Didn't mean to "insult". I'm married to a 'good' lawyer so I know they aren't all bad. Kind of like the witches in The Wizard of Oz..."Are you a good witch (lawyer) or a bad witch (lawyer)?"

[MrUnderhill]

157. Neither.

I'm a banker.

I have more than a few law classes under my belt, but almost exclusively banking/business related.

[crispini]

17. Direct link

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6792.pdf

[CatWoman]

18. here's the actual link

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6792.pdf

[Stephanie]

132. Here's the Text >>>

(Cite as Moss v. Bush, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 2004-Ohio-6792.)
SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING
This opinion is “SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING.” It has been posted to
the Website of the Supreme Court of Ohio as a manuscript document in the interest of disseminating it to the public on an expedited basis. This document will be replaced with the final version when the final version becomes available.

MOSS ET AL. V. BUSH ET AL.
(Cite as Moss v. Bush, _____ Ohio St.3d ___, 2004-Ohio-6792.)
(No. 2004-2055 – Submitted December 14, 2004 – Decided December 16,
2004.)
Election contests — R.C. 3515.08 — Petition to contest election may not challenge more than one election.

ON PETITION TO CONTEST ELECTIONS.
__________________
MOYER, C.J.

{¶ 1} Contestors, various Ohio residents who allegedly voted in the November 2, 2004 elections for President and Vice-President of the United States and for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, have filed a petition challenging the certified results of both elections. The named contestees are President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard B. Cheney, Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc., Karl Rove, various Bush-Cheney electors, Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, and Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. The contestors allege that claimed voting irregularities are sufficient to change the outcomes of both the presidential and chief justice elections or, in the alternative, to make the result of both elections uncertain so as to warrant setting aside the elections.

{¶ 2} The cause is partially before me pursuant to the authority granted by R.C. 3515.08, which provides:

{¶ 3} “In the case of an office to be filled or an issue to be determined by the voters of the entire state, * * * contest shall be heard and determined by the chief justice of the supreme court or a justice of the supreme court assigned for that purpose by the chief justice; except that in a contest for the
office of chief justice of the supreme court, such contest shall be heard by a justice of such court designated by the governor.”

{¶ 4} On December 14, 2004, Governor Bob Taft designated Justice Maureen O’Connor to hear that part of the petition constituting a contest of the November 2, 2004 election involving the office of Chief Justice.

{¶ 5} Nothing in the pertinent election-contest statutes or case law construing R.C. 3515.08 permits contesting more than one election in one case. In fact, the statutes contemplate that an election-contest case will challenge only one election. For instance, R.C. 3515.09 provides that “ contest of election shall be commenced by the filing of a petition with the clerk of the appropriate court signed by at least twenty-five voters who voted at the last election for or
against a candidate for the office or for or against the issue being contested”) (emphasis added), and R.C. 3515.14 provides that the court shall dispose of an election contest by pronouncing judgment as to “which candidate” (not candidates) was elected.

{¶ 6} In adopting R.C. 3515.08 the General Assembly recognized that election contests by their nature are not well suited to consolidation. Consolidation of two election contests—one challenging the results of the presidential election and one challenging the election of the Chief Justice— unnecessarily complicates the two contests procedurally. R.C. 3515.08 vests responsibility for deciding the election contest concerning the presidential election with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. However, under the statute, the Governor selects another justice to hear a contest of an election to the
office of Chief Justice of this court. Therefore, if this combined election-contest case were to proceed as filed, two separate justices would be responsible for presiding over two separate contests in one case. No words in the statute nor any decision of a court of which I am aware supports a conclusion that the General Assembly produced that result. Moreover, were this court to sanction consolidation here it would establish a precedent whereby twenty-five voters could challenge, in a single case, the election results of every statewide race and issue on the ballot in any given election.

{¶ 7} As Chief Justice, I have statutory authority to determine only the challenge filed by the contestors to the election of President and Vice-President. No statute or case law authorizes the filing of multiple election contests in a single case. The complaint is fatally defective. I therefore order that the contest of the presidential election held on November 2, 2004, be dismissed without prejudice.
So ordered.
__________________
Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr., Robert J. Fitrakis, and Susan Truitt, for
contestors.
________________________

[wtmusic]

21. FUCK, it's dismissed

they tried to combine all the results into one suit.


Can be refiled????

[Jo March]

24. I don't see why not - this was a stupid mistake but we just

move forward and try to file it correctly this next time.

x(

[understandinglife]

45. Why "stupid"? I'm inclined to give Mr Arnebeck and Bonifaz...

....what I call "benefit of strategy" and will enjoy the next step(s).

Peace.

"When Did Bush Know?"

[Jo March]

75. I didn't mean it as harsh as it came out - it wasn't intentional

is what I was trying to say.

I support them too. I was trying to say that it wasn't like it was intentional and that we should just refile and move on.

Sorry if I was misunderestimated. :)

[understandinglife]

86. Thank you (n/t)

[Jo March]

203. You're welcome. I type faster than I think sometimes. n/t

[Darknyte7]

105. In short.... yes. n/t

[lwyrfl]

22. It ain't gonna be good!!!!

[bemis12]

23. It's dismissed because

He tried to contest two elections in one lawsuit, and that can't be done.

OTOH- it's dismissed "without prejudice" which means it can be refiled.

[Jo March]

28. Right - so they simply refile - correctly - and move on

They can't let this stop them. It only means that it was dismissed on a technicality. That's all. It doesn't stop the fight.

[Pithy Cherub]

58. Legal stalling,

next move Arnebeck's...

[Jo March]

79. And I'll be here, waiting and watching for the next move

I swear, this is like chess.

[KatieBloom]

60. Good and Thank-you.

[KerryReallyWon]

135. Could this have been part of the reasoning...

did they not want that chief justice of the case? Is this why they initially filed it this way? Can it be refiled and did they know it could be refiled?

[bear425]

50. do you know if it has to say...

dismissed without prejudice to refiling in order for it to be refiled correctly?

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Is anybody surprised?

[hedda_foil]

26. Sorry, read the damn thing wrong!

[crispini]

27. So, as far as I can tell,

he's dismissed it on the grounds that the suit contested BOTH Presidential and Supreme Court races -- two races -- and "Nothing in the pertinent election-contest statutes or case law construing R.C. 3515.08 permits contesting more than one election in one case."

So, can't they just refile it to contest only one?

[Jo March]

31. They should be able to do that

and they should do just that. No need to stop now. It's a technicality - a small but "overcomeable" obstacle. :)

[bemis12]

Yes, they can refile it

That's what "without prejudice" indicates.

It is a bit more than a tehcnicality. The judge ruled properly that they need to be seperate cases.

[wtmusic]

49. In reality there *was* only one election

all candidates on the ballot would have been affected similarly by the outcome of any fraud

[Lisabtrucking]

119. As I see it, The judge is giving time to the republican party to fix,

Their evildoing.

[KerryReallyWon]

140. No, htey did it to get judge off case, cuz one race was his!!

Now they will be separated, and THAT judge will hear the presidential case, what we did not want, if I understand it correctly. Now another judge will hear the "judges" case, he got more votes than presidential race, an anomily. But, the judge they wanted to recuse himself, now can her the main case.

[IAMREALITY]

29. What A Crock Of Shit

A Technafuckingcality.

This is gonna heat things up for sure now. This is bound to piss a LOT of people off.

[Oldpals]

51. Ohio ruling

Don't these lawyers read the law? If this is the real reason they should have known in advance. Seems like bad legal work in my opinion.

[femme.democratique]

68. I know it seems really sloppy...

...but with some very smart lawyers on this I have to believe that there may actually be some "logic" to the decision to file the case as it was. We will see....

[pointsoflight]

74. There was a reason: They wanted Moyer to recuse himself.

[rfrrfrrfr]

193. Um yes they do.

You didn't read the decision apparently.

Ohio law says nothing, zero, zilch, nada about having or not having multiple contested elections in one suit.

The judge interpreted the lack of any mention to mean that only one election can be contested per lawsuit. He dismissed the case without prejudice meaning it can be amended and refiled.

Nor does the seperation of the contested elections mean we can't ask that the judge in question recuse himself. It just makes it more difficult especially if the other suit gets thrown out easily.

On the plus side the Ohio BOE in the various counties have been giving arnebeck lots of ammunition for his case that fraud did exist and their possibly illegal actions can also be included in the amended suit as further proof.

[Firespirit]

32. Oh great.

What a stupid ass reason to dismiss it.

I wondered why he challenged the SC race in the first place... Can it be refiled with only the pres. race challenged??

[Firespirit]

47. Never mind... I see above posts

Don't bite off more than you can chew Mr. Arnebeck... please!!

[libertypirate]

33. Dismissed on technicality...

Means it will have to be refiled... It's another brush off from the GOP... They are saying that on Nov 2 each contest on the ballot was an individual election, each contest should be filed separately. She also states there is no statute which multiple contests can be filed together.

Basically she is full of shit!

[Jo March]

40. Pretty much but it should just be refiled by our guys

They can't let this get them down.

"Without prejudice" is a good thing - it means that the suit can be refiled.

[New Earth]

35. i guess they just need to refile then, and QUICK

they should have left out contesting the cheif justice, that was just DUMB in my honest opinion.

[bemis12]

46. It was dumb

and a huge overreach.

[Bill Bored]

118. The other reason they combined them is

that Moyer's race is evidence of the fraud in the presidential race.

Moyer's opponent got more votes than Kerry in 12 counties and Moyer got more votes than Bush in 4 counties. But on balance, in these 16 counties, Kerry got 150,000 fewer votes than Bush did in the aggregate.

[pointsoflight]

71. They wanted Moyer to have to recuse himself.

That's why they combined them.

[lwyrfl]

36. par for the course!!!

I didn't think it would go anywhere!! Did you read it??? A first year law student could have done better!

[bluetrain]

158. did you get lost? it's www.freerepublic.com

[Broken Acorn]

37. Are you fucking kidding me?

They showed all the evidence by combining all 3 elections. OMG...Arnebeck must know that this is BS!

[mikeylove]

38. Everybody needs to relax. Key words here: Without Predjudice

In other words, this can be refiled to match the conditions set forth by the Chief Justice. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

dismissal
n. 1) the act of voluntarily terminating a criminal prosecution or a lawsuit or one of its causes of action by one of the parties. 2) a judge's ruling that a lawsuit or criminal charge is terminated. 3) an appeals court's act of dismissing an appeal, letting the lower court decision stand. 4) the act of a plaintiff dismissing a lawsuit upon settling the case. Such a dismissal may be dismissal with prejudice, meaning it can never be filed again, or dismissal without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of bringing the suit again if the defendant does not follow through on the terms of the settlement.

[Shalom]

41. May Not Be Fatal...

Reading quickly, I think they dismissed the lawsuit because the contest of the Presidential election was mixed with the contest of the Supreme Court Justice.

If so, I think this can be fixed by filing 2 separate lawsuits.

Funny how they get so picky with this, while the Supremes had no problems lying, cheating, and violating the law in order to make Bushitler our Supreme Fuehrer.

[wtmusic]

42. Poor decision: there WAS only one election

in which multiple offices were filled. This should be overthrown

[MrUnderhill]

54. Not how it works.

Otherwise, challenging the results of ONE office would automatically challenge ALL of them.

[femme.democratique]

43. Remain calm!

"Without prejudice" I believe means that the dismissal has nothing to do with the merits of the case - granted, we all know this is a stall tactic, but thats ok - I see Arnebeck and co. refiling very shortly. Not surprising.

[MrUnderhill]

63. True.

And it doesn't look like a "stall tactic", it looks like the suit tried to create an advantage by removing the chief justice from the one case by tying his own interests to it. It was a clever idea, but it got shot down.

[femme.democratique]

82. Aha, what this is REALLY all about!

*lightbulb*

The reason why Arnebeck filed the case as it is has nothing to do with not knowing the law, and less to do with the plaintiffs concern about the Supreme Court election - but because he DIDN'T want Moyer the Repuke Zombie to be able to hear the presidental case. Splitting the cases means that Moyer is first in line to decide the merits of the presidential case...scumbags

[Joe Chi Minh]

122. I agree.

Why the hysteria! So they've put off the inevitable. Do you people really think this is going to go away? Or even that Arnebeck is going to down tools?

[althecat]

48. I suspect this means they can refile their appeal

seperately.... and have it heard properly.

The application is dismissed because it concerned more than one election race.. 1. the President race and 2. The Ohio Supreme Court race. The judge simply says this is not allowed and dismisses it without prejudice which I think means that it can be corrected and refiled.

Pedantic and annoying but probably not fatal.

al

[trudyco]

59. If you file two lawsuits does that mean 2 judges? nt

[MrUnderhill]

69. In this case, yes.

These cases go to the chief justice (or his designee) unless they INVOLVE the chief justice... in which case the Governor picks a judge.

So in this case, the CJ would get the Bush case and someone else would get the CJ case.

[pointsoflight]

64. Yes, but it means Moyer would hear the case.

Since Moyer would no longer be involved in the contest of the presidential election, he wouldn't have to recuse himself. That's what's going on here.

[Peace Patriot]

155. It is outrageous...

...to have a justice who was elected in a fraudulent election in a position to rule on that election. Arnebeck was trying to point that out. And there is no reason on earth that the cases could not be combined. Legal cases are often combined, especially when they have a common set of facts, from a common event, and the same remedy. They are grasping at straws. But he has made his point. The Chief Justice is TAINTED in this case. He had very likely anticipated this dismissal--lawyers have to think of these possibilities--and is fully prepared to re-file.

It will be interesting to see how Prez race facts emerge in the chief justice case, and vice versa. If both cases get to appeal, funny thing, they could well get -reconsolidated!

The conflict of interest for the Chief Justice is so obvious--and it's why Arenbeck combined them. You could end up having the Chief Justice's election thrown out, or re-voted, meanwhile that same judge is ruling on the Prez race, same election, same facts. It's called the APPEARANCE of impropriety or prejudice--and it's very blatant in this situation.

Arnebeck was perfectly correct to do it this way. Just because there is no statute permitting it, does not mean it is forbidden. And it could have gone either way. It seems like a very poor and possibly prejudiced ruling. That's the bad part of it--indications of tenor of the court, their prejudices, their bent toward stomping it out. But the case will go on--early process rulings are part of the game. "Fatal" just means no, you can't do it this way (we are going to try to protect our new Chief Justice)--refile it.

[Junkdrawer]

52. Yeah. The filing had to be on 80 lb. paper...

or something like that...

[wtmusic]

56. New rule: must be written in cuneiform

on a clay tablet, with boxing gloves on :crazy:

[New Earth]

and only left handed writing will be accepted

[bear425]

88. or in their case, right handed writing. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

125. Like it!

[Broken Acorn]

53. Can you say Run Out the Clock?

Put this fucking judge in Gitmo with the Chimp please!!!

[pointsoflight]

57. Here's the scoop. It's not all bad.

The case was dismissed because it contested both the presidential election and the election of the chief justice. Arnebeck tried to combine them so that Moyer would have to recuse himself.

Moyer is not letting them contest both elections, so that he won't have to recuse himself and can take the case. We'd prefer not to have Moyer, so that's the downside.

The upside is that Moyer did NOT dismiss the case based on its merits. It was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. So if Arnebeck separates the cases, Moyer will take another look.

[Flint-oid]

80. Nice Analysis. Thank you.

[Left Brain]

93. Legal fanangling

Thanks for the explanation. So now we need to hear from Arnebeck to see what the next move will be.

[KatieBloom]

137. Good and Thank-you...

For a very understandable response.

[grumpy old fart]

62. No biggie at all.....

Just means that the each candidate needs to file their own. Strictly cut and paste. Should be refiled as separate suits within a day or so, if not within mere hours.

[Straight Shooter]

66. Would not have mattered one iota if Arnebeck had filed it differently

The OSC would have found another stalling tactic.

Remember, our response to Ohio officials is always, What are you hiding?

edit html

[ChloeForKerry]

67. So what happened?

?

[Broken Acorn]

70. Maybe they'll take another week to review the appeal...

and then dismiss again...leaving us no time to go to the (dreaded) USSC. The GOP are very good at sticking with their strategies.

[jbnow]

73. That's better then other options.

"Dismissed without prejudice" means the case can be brought again later.
"Dismissed with prejudice" would have meant it could not.

I didn't read the court decision, but just those words mean they are not dismissing the merits of the points, just the presentation.

[suffragette]

81. not dismissing the merits of the points, just the presentation

Time to re-present that presentation

[pointsoflight]

84. That's right. He made NO judgment of the merits of the case.

Arnebeck can make a few quick edits and I suspect he'll be able to re-file it as soon as tommorrow.

The only issue is this: Now that Moyer will have to be taken out of the suit, he won't have to recuse himself and will be the presiding judge. Yes, he's republican.

[Chimpanzee]

77. We got the shatf...... AGAIN!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OHIO_VOTE?SITE=TNNAT&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Woo]

78. PROBLEM

I could be wrong -- so please correct me -- but they can't refile because you can only contest within 15 days of certification -- if my memory serves correct, they would have to refile by tomorrow...

Yes?

No?

It was set up this way if I'm right.

They can appeal, they'll lose.

[pilgrimsoul]

94. Refiling by tomorrow is no problem

Have no fear - Arnebeck I am sure has prepared for this scenario and already has an Amended Complaint ready to go. This was just a way to try and get Moyer off the case. I assure you, this was no mistake but instead, a calculated decision. Arnebeck knows the law. He's just trying to draw attention to Moyer's conflict of interest in the only way available to him right now. He's preparing ahead for appeal grounds in the event this case is dismissed on the merits down the road. Now, if Moyer dismisses the case on the merits in the future, Arnebeck can appeal on conflict of interest grounds and can correctly point out to the appeals court that the conflict issue was (a) raised right away when the lawsuit was filed and (b) that the court's failure to do anything about it created a prejudicial situation for the hearing of the plaintiff's case. I personally think this is some brilliant legal maneuvering.

[Woo]

101. Alrighty...

We'll see -- A LOT of things can and will happen in the next 24 hours -- I'm slightly spooked about them having so little time -- not that I expected much from this lawsuit in the first place, but I do hold out a little hope.

[pointsoflight]

104. Exactly right, good analysis. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

127. Wow!

Arnebeck's brilliance makes a lot more sense.

[dalloway]

139. thanks for this insightful analysis

That helps our us non-lawyer types. I, for one, am keeping my chips on Arnebeck. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing.

[Im with Rosey]

161. I absolutely agree!

I am convinced that Arnebeck knows EXACTLY what he is doing! This was planned out very carefully and with every possible situation prepared for.

[Shalom]

165. Pilgrimsoul has explained why this IS NOT A MISTAKE ! nt

[troubleinwinter]

182. Looks like Moyer fucked up?

"ADDENDUM FROM THE NEWS EDITOR AND THE ADVOCATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT: There's no word yet on why, if Justice Moyer thought Attorney Arneback's contest of election was contesting his own election as Chief Justice of Ohio, he didn't recuse himself from the case immediately. Justice Moyer's failure to do so suggests that he has just made ruling on a case which, according to his written opinion, directly implicates his own personal and pecuniary interests. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department will be curious to see whether Attorney Arneback moves to recuse Justice Moyer from all further proceedings in the case, and/or files formal complaint with Ohio's equivalent of New Hampshire's Judicial Conduct Committee. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department believe that Justice Moyer's written decision may, if news reports are accurate, constitute a prima facie case of a violation of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Ethics, as well as any state-based reproduction thereof"

http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[Jo March]

213. pilgrimsoul

Welcome to DU first of all. :hi: :hi: :hi:

Second, thank you for your sane and hope-filled post. :)

[insane_cratic_gal]

85. Why did it take THREE days

to find the technical means to dismiss it for a refile.??

It was filed on Monday 13th? Was it not?

[bemis12]

92. It was filed on the 14th

And frankly, a day and 1/2 is just about as quick as it's possible to get an opinion out of a Spremem Court.

[insane_cratic_gal]

96. When they did the OH hearings on

the 13th I was stated that was filed 20 mins before the session started that was the 13th?

there were add-ons over the course of 2 days but I'd imagine the bluk of it was in Moyer's hand on the 13th

[bemis12]

98. Think as you'd wish, but

it was filed on the 14th. That part won't change.

[WritersBlock]

117. The petition? Was filed on the 13th, according to the stamp on it. n/t

[Terre]

134. It WAS the 13th

Maybe you missed the main post that day, even before the Ohio Electoral Vote?

Article: http://www.nbc4i.com/politics/3992559/detail.html
Posted by Stephanie:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x148839

[insane_cratic_gal]

103. Or Am I

confusing it with the National Voting rights, out of Mass.. their law suit that was filed on the 13th?

[femme.democratique]

91. Freepers are on the case...morons

Will one of our spies please advise them (in a FReeperish way of course) that this is not the end?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1302920/posts

[wtmusic]

95. eh who cares

let the three-toothers figure it out for themselves

[femme.democratique]

100. not three toothers - NO toothers!

All the better for them to perform fellati0 on each other...
Gum away, little piggys...

[KeireG]

106. This is fine

It only took a few days for them to rule, so it will only take a few days if, and WHEN, it's refiled.

[bemis12]

111. No way

If the Court is going to hear the case, and we expect to be victorious, there will have to be A LOT of evidence put up. Evidence that goes beyond statistics. In short, evidence which does not exist.

[SueZhope]

115. there talking about your post already n/t

[femme.democratique]

126. Cool...I'm on FreeRepublic!

Since the no-toothers were too cowardly to allow me to debate them in an open forum...

Even though we're technically all Americans...I must point out your folly because ignorance is never an excuse for blind allegiance. Since I now know you're reading this - fascism *never* wins, kids. Yes, I just called you fascists for your support of the fascist regime now in Washington based solely on the fact that they are "Republicans" versus "Democrats". That hypocrisy is why the "intellectuals" you so despise think you're a joke, not because you claim conservative values! I don't expect you to espouse liberalism, but at least try seeing through the right-wing media BS for once, if you can.

The * administration is a corrupt criminal enterprise, and it is only a matter of time before all your exalted leaders are in jail, or working in orange jumpsuits in Iraq on their way to Camp Freedom (aka Abu Gharaib), since they seem to love it so much. You're going down! May take us some time, but it will happen...

Come on out and play, freepers! I'll gladly talk to you, as long as logic and reason are part of the equation!

[bemis12]

129. Yeah, this is an open forum.......

[femme.democratique]

133. Actually, it is...

As long as people aren't abusive you can say whatever you like here without immediately being shut out of the discussion. I posted a VERY innocuous paragraph and they immediately banned me. It really speaks volumes of their cowardice. Granted, FR is very representative of the Repuke party and of the modern conservative movement in general - the ONLY discussion that matters is that which agrees with Karl Rove's agenda. No opposing points of view needed!

[SueZhope]

166. What i do not understand

If they are morally superior why do they spend all that good energy bashing DU
They should be reading the bible more Du less....???

We are the liberal sinners so we dont have to live up to any unrealistic expectations.
its hard being a freeper.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

179. They're afraid! Read this bit from that thread...

They threw the supreme court contest into the case to have this happen. This gives them a talking point, we were screwed by the judicial system.

[lonestarnot]

197. Fooking Freeper Creeper Freaks!

They can't figure out their ass from their tail anyway... so who gives a poop.

[Terre]

99. Well heck!

Will they have to re-file their new ". . Motion for Expedited Hearing . ." again?

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/arnebeck_1216.php

That one also combines the two contests, or is that not relevant since it's a completely different issue.

[politicasista]

102. BOOOOO!

Smirky has everyone on locked down! What a joke!

[regularjoe]

107. Everybody just settle down. We don't really know what will happen

or if this is good or bad. Give it a little time.

regularjoe

[ecoalex]

108. Why Kerry Conceeded

Like Jimmy Carter said, " there's no way to win, with repugs controlling everything,vote count, courts ,congress ", game set match.The repugs have to over reach, get caught a la watergate, for the sleeping country to wake up.

[malatesta1137]

162. a second Watergate will NEVER happen, stop dreaming

Nixon resigned because Congress was under Democratic control.

[Occulus]

214. They're starting to turn against Rumsfeld already

It's only a matter of time before * gets involved. Second terms are often like that, the makeup of Congress notwithstanding.

I have faith that there is yet something the * admin could do that would horrify even 'mainstream' Republicans. If enough of them get pissed off, there's the possibility of the tide turning.

[malatesta1137]

215. if you think Tom Delay will turn against Bush

I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

[uncle ray]

109. i read this whole thread but a question

i understand the strategic reasons for the filing being the way it was, but what about the evidence gathered, will it likely be weaker due to being split beween the cases?

[pointsoflight]

112. No, doesn't effect the content at all.

[Bill Bored]

131. read it again

the thread keeps getting changed because we don't just respond to the FIRST post. Thanks!

[femme.democratique]

110. Think about it - they could have waited ALOT longer than they did

To render this decision. Methinks someone on the SC is on our side...

Again, allow me to point you to the following thread for more information:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x162811

[keepthemhonest]

113. why does it seem like we keep running into brick f___cking

repuke walls. This is very discouraging.

[EFerrari]

121. Well, we backed off of brick walls last time, so they think it will

work again.

It won't work this time. We just get more pissed and more determined.

what an ugly surprise this is going to be for the Repugs.

[henslee]

116. Judy Woodruff/CNN just announced the dismissal -- gave it 20 seconds.

[delphine]

123. It's dismissed WITHOUT prejudice, which means

he simply has to make whatever changes are indicated and refile the complaint.

WITH prejudice means you're done.

[rjbny62]

124. AP Link

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ohio-Vote.html

Ohio Justice Throws Out Election Challenge
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 16, 2004


Filed at 3:54 p.m. ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The Ohio Supreme Court's chief justice on Thursday threw out a challenge to the state's presidential election results on a technicality, ruling that the request improperly challenged two separate election results.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ruled that state law does not allow voters to challenge the results of more than one race in a single complaint. The challenge likely could be refiled.

The challenge before Moyer, filed Monday on behalf of 40 voters, included the results of the presidential race and of Moyer's race against a Cleveland municipal judge.

[Peace Patriot]

175. Arnebeck is brilliant!

Read this AP article again. It says, in so many words, that Moyers threw out a case against HIMSELF--on a technicality!

And both suits will be back in court tomorrow--one saying Moyers' election was illegimate, and the other saying Bush's was--each on the same set of facts.

Maybe we'll start getting TWO AP articles per day, one to cover each suit.

Go, Cliff! My hero!

[Bill Bored]

136. Moyer should still RECUSE

because his race is EVIDENCE in the Pres race!
(Edited to add the ! at the end.)

[KerryReallyWon]

143. I still see Moyer running into problems hearing the main case only...

because as they argue the case, Moyer's case keeps coming up, by our attorneys, as the comparison to show an anomily.
Thoughts on this?

[pointsoflight]

146. Yes, there's a reasonable argument for a recusal anyway. n/t

[Bill Bored]

148. EXACTLY! n/t

[corky44]

145. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

[corky44]

147. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

[Bill Bored]

154. OK, I'll bite, why does MLK Jr. mean it's not over?

I was going to say to google Yogi Berra!

[corky44]

163. hopes, dreams, blood, sacrifice. SEE PITTIS BRIDGE

King saw these times coming.

[corky44]

149. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corky44]

151. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

[corky44]

152. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

[corky44]

153. AND DON'T EVER FUCKING FORGET IT!

[IndyPriest]

160. Corky: are you trying to run up your post count?

What about MLK, Jr?

[corky44]

168. I woke up the other morning and knew

we have no way out of this thing. Rule of MORAL LAW
must prevail or we are doomed.
Like Jesse said "from Selma to Columbus"

[KatieBloom]

159. an upside to this? ...

This court response seems to be hitting the media quickly.
This is bound to draw more attention to this urgent issue
which so many people seem to be so unaware.

All the following in the last hour or so:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=337144

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ohio-Vote.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041216/ap...

[EMunster]

164. The linked editor and publisher story isn't what you think it is....

not about Ohio Elections.

[KatieBloom]

169. Thanks and corrected

[IndyPriest]

167. Several upsides...

See, for example, pilgrimsoul's post above, #94

[Verve]

173. Yes, Do read #94 by pilgrimsole. It's an upper! All is not lost!! n/t

[SueZhope]

171. sadly its not such good press ..people

just see that first headline thats why they were happy to share so quickly

"Ohio Justice Throws Out Election Challenge"

[errorbells]

202. No offense SueZ..

but scr*w the press and their stupid headlines.

We can collectively take back our country if we
do not give up!

The law is a good thing and we would be nothing without it.
I trust the attorney's are doing what is best...just
hang on.

Media be damned!

There are thousands of people here/around the world
who have done more homework than the MSM and we
know that Bush>>> DID NOT WIN !!!!

ELECTION FRAUD 2000 - 2004!!!

[nashuaadvocate]

177. [REPOST] This may be the biggest scandal yet! Lawyers will tell you

...that if Justice Moyer actually believed the Alliance for Democracy contest of election was in fact contesting *his own election* to a fourth term as Chief Justice (i.e., his race against C. Ellen Connally), he should have recused himself from the case *immediately*. That he did not do so may constitute an enormous ethical breach for which he could face state-level bar discipline. Why would he not recuse himself under these circumstances? For those who follow -- or work in -- the legal system, this is an outrage.

Mind you, I'm basing this analysis only on recent news reports of the story. However, if they're true, this is an enormous story that the mainstream media (with the possible exception of MSNBC's Dan Abrams -- maybe folks should e-mail him?) will almost certainly miss. Frankly, what it suggests more than anything is that Moyer -- an elected Republican, like Blackwell, like Bush -- was stalling the election-contest effort, and didn't, in fact, believe his own written opinion.

Again, this strikes me as serious stuff.

For more -- including an intentionally facetious headline, in order to draw attention to this remarkable story -- see the recent Nashua Advocate article at http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate

[troubleinwinter]

180. UH-OH!

"(ADDENDUM FROM THE NEWS EDITOR AND THE ADVOCATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT: There's no word yet on why, if Justice Moyer thought Attorney Arneback's contest of election was contesting his own election as Chief Justice of Ohio, he didn't recuse himself from the case immediately. Justice Moyer's failure to do so suggests that he has just made ruling on a case which, according to his written opinion, directly implicates his own personal and pecuniary interests. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department will be curious to see whether Attorney Arneback moves to recuse Justice Moyer from all further proceedings in the case, and/or files formal complaint with Ohio's equivalent of New Hampshire's Judicial Conduct Committee. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department believe that Justice Moyer's written decision may, if news reports are accurate, constitute a prima facie case of a violation of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Ethics, as well as any state-based reproduction thereof).

http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com

[stepnw1f]

192. Hot Damn

Chess it is.

[troubleinwinter]

195. I have posted before, that I would NOT want to play chess with Arnebeck!

[The Judged]

217. Arnebeck! Litigating against interests of OH Supreme Court Justices!

It wouldn't surprise me to see the OH Supreme Court disqualify Arnebeck on the basis of his previous and ongoing litigation of alleged campaign finance law violations by the OH Chamber of Commerce on behalf of members of this OH Supreme Court who are alleged to have benefitted from use of these illegal contributions in getting elected to their present judicial offices, even though this is not a conflict of interest as the Chief Justice of the OH Supreme Court has demonstrated in deciding to reject a case that he has a direct interest in defeating!

[McCamy Taylor]

186. double uh-oh

[newscott]

189. This is the right's modus operandi

The bigger and more outrageous the lie, the better. Everybody swallows hook line and sinker.

They know that average folk could give two shits about "nuance".

[bones_7672]

190. Whether Moyer recuses himself or not, this petition is going nowhere.

There will still be 4 repubs on the bench, and I bet the 2 Dems like him too. It may take a few weeks, but in January this suit will be dead.

[Razorback_Democrat]

191. Are you psychic???

or are you hoping??

I wouldn't put any money on it either way right now.

Depends a lot on how much public exposure the suit gets now and the merits of the lawsuit which were not addressed at all in the dismissal.

And Arnebeck is expected to re-file quickly.

[Razorback_Democrat]

194. self delete

[read the law first]

207. This lawyer won't tell you that.

If he had dismissed it with prejudice or on the merits, then ok. All he did was say that they had set up a trainwreck. They tried something. It didn't work. It's dismissed without prejudice. It's no big deal.

[rumpel]

196. Is it customary that a Governor appoints a judge to such a case?

[rodeodance]

198. "The complaint is fatally defective" WHOW!!

FRom the link above:

.....{¶ 7} As Chief Justice, I have statutory authority to determine only the
challenge filed by the contestors to the election of President and Vice-President.
No statute or case law authorizes the filing of multiple election contests in a single
case. The complaint is fatally defective. I therefore order that the contest of the
presidential election held on November 2, 2004, be dismissed without prejudice.
So ordered.
__________________
Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr., Robert J. Fitrakis, and Susan Truitt, for
contestors..........
________________________

[bear425]

204. KatieBloom

Welcome to DU! :)

[KatieBloom]

210. Thank-you, glad to be here!

[peacetalksforall]

208. It hink it's clever...maybe...don't know how many suits are coming, but

multiple single suits are good for the public image - it can be spun that there are xxx number of aggressions and anamolies against the citizens who voted for Kerry and the Independents AND SO FAR there are xx number of lawsuits. As news of each comes out, people will wnat to know how the others are coming and it will generate more interest in general. It is essential that whoever appears on any public forum or interview knows what they're talking about because right wing hosts and dinosaurs will concentrate on any negative results and never on any positive.

We'll see how the only so-called dems, Begala and Carville, carry it off. I'm becoming quite disallusioned with both. I'm kinda writing them off. And they only get about 25 minutes a week anyway when you subtract commercials, guests, ad tucker-bob.

Imagine...only 25 minutes of so-called dems speaking for us on all of CPNs (Corporate Propaganda Networks) combined - CNN, FOX, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS. .... i.e., on Murdoch, Time-Warner, GE, Disney, Viacom.

[lonestarnot]

212. MEDIA MAKING RESERVATIONS FOR D.C. JAN 6, 2005

MEDIA IN THE MAKING AS TRAVEL PLANS BEING MADE TALK TO EVERYONE YOU ARE MAKING THEM WITH!