Alizaryn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-04 03:58 PM
Original message |
| Have I missed anything regarding Arnebeck's |
|
response to the Supreme Court's ruling from the 22nd? I thought he was suppose to respond by the 28th to the 2 questions?
|
| papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-04 04:02 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Is this the Rule 9 question - it was discussed yesterday on DU. |
|
Sounds like it can go forward after he gets his documents clean as to Ohio law.
|
| Alizaryn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 2. Thanks Papau, must have missed it. I'll dig back through |
| righteous1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-04 05:07 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. Ohio SC just denied Arnebecks request for an expedited |
|
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 05:17 PM by righteous1
hearing and discovery and called his submittance "woefully inadequate"....not a good sign
|
| GetTheRightVote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-04 05:10 PM
Response to Original message |
| 4. I hope this is the rule threaded on yesterday |
| righteous1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-04 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 5. It isn't....brand new and none of it good news |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 12:15 PM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
