Sequoia lawsuit: The Federal Judge issued his First Ruling, and....

[Land Shark]

Background:
1. Randy Gordon filed the lawsuit on our behalf April 7 in state court.

2. Sequoia and Snohomish were served on April 13 and April 14, respectively, making their Answers (or sometimes, motions to dismiss) due twenty days later, or no later than May 4, 2005.

3. Gordon filed a notice of unavailability for 3 weeks for a jury trial in Olympia, Washington (that later resulted in an $8.1M jury verdict.

4. The Gordon trial and a long-planned trip to DC related to Gordon's congressional candidacy (already announced against freshman Republican Dave Reichert in WA-8) was thus from May 8 to June 1.

5. On May 11, Sequoia removed the lawsuit to federal court, Sequoia's attorney purporting to sign the agreement thereto on behalf of Snohomish's lawyer, on his own pleading paper. (If this was to be done, it had to be done w/in 30 days, so removal alone, without other circumstances, is not a problem)

6. Five days later, Snohomish and Sequoia both filed the largest motions to dismiss allowable under the rules, approximately 24 pages apiece. Again they needed to file an answer or a motion to dismiss on or near this date, but they controlled the due date on a response. They granted the least possible time, so the response to the motions were due Monday June 6, only five days after Gordon's return from trial and DC.

7. Gordon filed a motion for a continuance of 3 weeks so the motion to dismiss would be decided July 1, citing an upcoming motion for remand and Sequoia's notice of his schedule. Such a continuance would move the date of the motions to dismiss from June 10 as originally scheduled to July 1.

8. Snohomish filed a ten page brief opposing any continuance, calling US "strategic" in wanting the court to decide its own jurisdiction before deciding motions to dismiss, and arguing generally that plaintiff "controlled" the filing here and should have left his schedule open for "extensive pre-Answer litigation" which was "expected". (Yeah, expected in STATE court prior to May 4...)

9. Sequoia "joined" the motion with a single page signed by both its CAlifornia law firm as well as its Washington state law firm. It said that alternatively, if the motion to continue were granted that sequoia's counsel were unavailable FROM JUNE 27 TO JULY 8. (WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE RULES HERE, THIS WOULD HAVE THE PRACTICAL EFFECT, IF GRANTED, OF INSURING THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS WOULD BE HEARD FIRST, BECAUSE IF WE RESPECTED THEIR 'UNAVAILABILITY' DURING THAT TIME,WE WOULD HAVE TO NOTE THE REMAND MOTION FOR MID TO LATE JULY, BUT IT HAS TO BE FILED BY JUNE 10.)

10. Interestingly enough, while Randy Gordon is the only informed lawyer of record on our side, on Sequoia's side they have 3 lawyers of record (and unknown #'s of associates) and Snohomish has 2 lawyers of record (and is the County's largest law firm: the prosecutor's office). It thus seems unlikely that two different law firms, one in CA and one in WA, that didn't know each other until recently, suddenly have the same dates of unavailability, and they have such a salutary effect on their litigation position on continuances.

11. We filed our response to the motion to dismiss (under another thread) on Monday, June 6, as required, still requesting more time to respond to Sequoia's use of overruled cases, etc.

12. On Wednesday the first RULING came down.

The judge acknowledged that the response to the motion to dismiss was "timely filed" but ruled that circumstances still warranted a continuance, which shall be to July 1 (our requested date).

While not specifying whether he read all the briefs and joinders, federal judges and their staff always do. The court further held that the motions would be heard "without oral argument" on July 1. SO I GUESS SEQUOIA CAN GO ON AND BE "UNAVAILABLE" AFTER ALL!!!

Oh, and the Judge further ordered that he would like to hear the motion for remand FIRST.

TOday we file our motion for remand.

WHile some thought the response to Sequoia's motion to dismiss was eloquent and devastating, this motion will be a NUCLEAR bomb.

If they want to go nuclear on checks and balances (as they have with filibusters as well as voting) then we'll go nuclear on their TACTICS. I'll post the brief or a link to it no later than Friday, perhaps today, when I get it from my attorney.

BTW how many congressional candidates do YOU know that take time out to do huge pro bono cases, because it's the right thing to do?

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. I can answer your last question!

None!

Thanks for the update.

[Amaryllis]

2. Some questions:

I don't understand some of the legal terms.

What does this mean:

5.Sequoia's attorney purporting to sign the agreement thereto on behalf of Snohomish's lawyer, on his own pleading paper.

And:
WHile some thought the response to Sequoia's motion to dismiss was eloquent and devastating, this motion will be a NUCLEAR bomb.

I'm missing something here. Why will this motion be a nuclear bomb?
Obviously I am not getting the implications. I have no legal background!

[Land Shark]

3. these questions will be answered by the post later today or Friday! n/t

[FogerRox]

4. Drop kick 'em my man--to the curb

[Amaryllis]

5. Tune in for the next episode, huh? Is this a cliffhanger?

[LightningFlash]

6. This is great news! Sequoia is ensuring they don't have to testify.

I could see this case blowing up in their face just being no shows.

[JunkYardDogg]

7. KICK SOME SEQUOIA ASS !!!!!!

GRRRRRR!!!!

[Bill Bored]

8. PLEASE, just tell me the best thing to send to NY Lawyers and Legislators

about this case!

It needs more visibility and I'm trying to give it that in a state where election privatization via DREs has not yet usurped the democratic process but is probably about to.

Thanks!

[Land Shark]

9. No secret vote counting

Why is paper preferred: No secret vote counting. (and indelible ink and chain of custody advantages)

Why do some want a paper trail: Recounts, at least, can be public. That's minimal assurance but it's a slight improvement.

Why do we not like partisans administering elections? they tend to have, create, and like secrecy, at least to protect themselves from the other side.

Why are even nonpartisans administering elections a problem? We all value privacy/secrecy, but it's not appropriate in elections.

Would you trust your political enemy secretly counting the votes? If you would you're a fool.

Would you like your political friend to secretly count votes? If you would, you are corrupt or corruptible.

The essence of government is PUBLIC. The essence of PUBLIC is OPEN. The essence of OPEN is NON-SECRET.

At the heart of democracy is elections. At the heart of elections is the counting of the vote. The counting of the vote cannot be secret.

Attack the secrets, but don't suggest what they are, until you know. What are they hiding?

OK Bill, the answer is .... attack secrecy in the most simple straightforward way you can. Pointing out that DREs, in instituting secrecy, eliminate the checks and balances of our elections.

[Amaryllis]

10. See Garybeck's thread about how to frame the issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x376091

Post number two is quite interesting:

1) U.S. federal elections are held under conditions which ensure inconclusive results;

2) Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections;

3) When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought.

[Wilms]

11. .

[Bill Bored]

13. Yes, but I was hoping for you to suggest one of your published works

that could be widely distributed here with YOUR name on it, Jaws.

I and many others have been writing and calling these bozos for 6 months or more, raising all the relevant points you've made.

What I want to do now, frankly, is to put the fear of God into them.

I want them to know that if they privatize our elections, they may have to answer for it in court.

I am obviously not qualified to do that, not being a lawyer, so I thought your example would serve as a warning to legislators and BOEs, given as diplomatically as possible, and an inspiration to potential NY Land Sharks who at the moment are concerned mainly with poll-watching and voting rights (not that there's anything wrong with that!). What concerns me is that these folks are unaware of your work and I want to change that.

Our legislature is hell-bent on allowing DREs in the state and no amount of citizen activism has been able to stop them. Laws are about to be made (unless the 2 parties just can't agree!) and there may be no further legislative recourse here. The people have spoken and have been duly ignored.

That's why your work is so important.

So if you had to present the case to a legislature, BOE, litigators, or just plain folks, give us your best shot! You are better qualified to select the document than we are.

[Land Shark]

14. OK, let me think about what woudl be best, a current piece or new one n/t

[Bill Bored]

15. Excellent! See final edit of post 13. Just summed it up. And THANKS! nt

[Land Shark]

16. could we form an email comm. to do a 1-pager over the weekend? n/t

[Bill Bored]

17. Sure. Check your PMs. I sent you one a few days ago.

I'll send you one now w/my email.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Land Shark, I quoted portions of your briefs to the California Voting...

...Systems and Procedures Panel which is meeting June 16 to consider new applications for certification of Diebold GEMS and Diebold and ES&S DREs. I warned them they had better look into their legal liability.

See my letter to the VSPP at the bottom of this thread, post #48 (the section on the lawsuit is at the end of the letter):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x375744

Profound thanks for your work!

[tommcintyre]

18. kick n/t