Legal Question? 2/3 Ohio Moss v. Bush. Can someone tell me....

[libertypirate]

what this is about?
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-343.pdf


2004-2088. Moss v. Bush.
On Petition to Contest Election. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a
petition to contest an election under R.C. 3515.08. Upon review of the motion for leave
of John Conyers, Jr., member of Congress, to file as amicus curiae in support of
contestors' counsel, and the motion for admission pro hac vice of Sampak P. Garg by
Robert J. Fitrakis for amicus curiae U.S. Rep. John Conyers, Jr.,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions are granted and that amicus curiae John
Conyers, Jr., may file a memorandum in response to the motion for sanctions within 10
days of the date of this entry.
Moyer, C.J., In Chambers.

[Goldeneye]

1. I have no idea...but it sounds cool.

[meganmonkey]

2. Probably just a formality, I would love a lawyers opinion...

my guess is it is just a routine filing in the case to sanction them. But it sounds like the judge is letting them file a response to the charges that it was a frivolous lawsuit. Which means that they will be able to present evidence to the judge, which is a good thing!

[ottozen]

3. Congressman Conyers

can file a brief as a friend or supporter of a party to the action, in this case the attorneys for Moss. pro hac vice is an attorney from a state other than Ohio, who has been presented to the court by an Ohio attorney.

[troubleinwinter]

4. In other words....

they have agreed to recieve Conyers' letter into the record???? (for us non-legaleeze speakers??)

[ottozen]

5. It says in the order, brief; legal brief which may append a letter.

[merh]

6. Actually Arnebeck and the other 3 lawyers filed Conyers 102 page

report along with hundreds of other documents in response to Petro's motion for sanctions. There was a thread on that earlier. I will find it and edit my post to include it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x315246

[ottozen]

7. This would be in addition to the Conyers report.

Conyers apparently wants it known that he does not believe that Arnebeck's actions are sanctionable. His position may be that such a result would send a chilling effect on election contests which are necessary to protect elections etc., but would specifically relate to the sanctions issue, which was not contemplated in the report.

[merh]

8. I understand that, thanks for the explanation though.

And a hardy welcome to DU! :hi:
Its a wonderful community. Enjoy! ;-)

[Wilms]

9. Kick the good stuff. n/t

[merh]

10. kick again!

:kick:

[Wilms]

11. Once more to be sure. Kick n/t

[merh]

12. Some times folks miss some of the most important information

because they get caught up in other silly disputes and over look the good stuff!

Oh well, maybe if it is give a different thread name?

[Wilms]

13. That, or perhaps we should ask the mods...

... for a "2004 Election Results and Discussion" board where we can deal with "2004 Election Results and Discussion", and Reform issues.

[meganmonkey]

14. Be careful with that...

I kind of helped instigate something like that a few weeks ago and the world practically ended, it seemed. I regret ever trying...

[Wilms]

15. Oh!

That explains the record rain here in LA! :)

[meganmonkey]

16. To make a long story short

I proposed a DU Group where it would be more focused.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=298456

Seemed like people were afraid that would split things up, but many thought something needed to change, and maybe a name change would help define the forum better. So the mods changed the name, and all hell broke loose:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=304626

Anyway, I know this has nothing to do with the issue at hand in this thread, but it is keeping it kicked!!