Will , Is this the same Arnebeck case from earlier? The put up or shut up

[saracat]

procedural error? What does this mean?
georgia10 (29 posts) Wed Dec-29-04 04:14 AM
Original message
Moyer off Moss v. Bush?


Courtesy of terriersmith over at dkos:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/10...

Yesterday, December 23, 2004 attorneys for Plaintiffs successfully filed Motion to disqualify Justice Moyer from sitting as the Judge on the Moss v. Bush matter based on the fact that he has an apparently conflict of interest in that the election challenge of the Presidency potentially affects his race (and the suits are effectively collateral actions) The Ohio Code of Judicial ethics, Canon 3 specifically requires that any judge with any financial interest in the outcome of litigation recuse him or herself or be disqualified. (Similar Codes of Judicial ethics exist for virtually every Judicial office.)

Thoughts?

[Straight Shooter]

1. I'm wondering about the "Yesterday, December 23" notation

Saracat, tonight is "pile on Arnebeck" night. At least it feels that way to me. Ain't love grand :eyes:

[mordarlar]

2. Moyer had a ethical obligation to recuse (withdraw)himself from the case..

because he was named in it. I believe he was ordered off the case. This would be good news.

I believe this is not the exact case they were speaking of earlier. I think that one was Moss v Moyer. They were originally filed as one case.

I may be wrong and welcome corrections.

[WilliamPitt]

3. There is only one 'Arnebeck case'

So yes.

[saracat]

4. Is it possible that Moyer was only a conflict of interest excuse to get

Moyer off the presidential case? Could that be the reason the two cases were filed jointly to begin with? And also why Arnebeck neglected title 9? Maybe the Moyer case has served its purpose and the procedural error was deliberate because they don't need to proceed?

[WilliamPitt]

5. To these questions

I have no answer.

[mordarlar]

10. Will, this may explain why he told you he was not counsel...

Perhaps when the cases were split he did not work on both of them. He may have just went with the Moss v Bush case. Then there would be truth in his claiming he is not counsel on the Moss v Moyer case. ??? dunno. I am sorry if i upset ya. : X

[read the law first]

6. Aren't there two Arnebeck cases?

Both in the Ohio Supreme Court, one challenging the Supreme Court race and one challenging the Presidential race?

Or is that what you were saying in the other post?

See, I'm confused now.

[mordarlar]

8. The case spoken of earlier with the who, what, where...

was Moss v Moyer right? This one spoken of here is Moss v Bush. If i am not mistaken Judge Moyer only presided over the Bush case. The earlier case where it was clarified that Arnebeck may have erred was the Moss v Moyer i think. I cannot find proof that Arnebeck is counsel on the Moss v Bush case as it stands separated from the original faulty filing. LOL does this make any sense at all? I am losing myself.

[saracat]

9. That is what I think. They statrted out as the one and

he refiled as two. I was always under the assumption that this was a legal manuver to get rid of Moyer because they wanted him off the presidential case. I thought they dreged up conflict of interst initially with the moyer case as he is cited and having acheived their goal of getting rid of him, have no interest in the further pursuitof the Moyer case. And therin lies the procedural error.Lack of interest. Arnebeck is only interested in the presidential case? Is this possible?

[IndyPriest]

11. Um, I don't know, Saracat. Arnebeck has been pursuing Moyer and

his cronies for a long time. I doubt he's "only interested in the presidential case." On the other hand he may have made a strategic decision to let one go to get the other...

[saracat]

12. Only the Moyer Election 2004recount issue.

The other case he was dealing with today is long standing and I agree he is persuing that. But that involves all the Supreme Court Justices.

[GetTheRightVote]

7. yes, I am glad to see him do the right thing, I just wish they could have

kept the cases together then Kerry would be named on both now.

:kick:

[mordarlar]

13. This link has all three documents...

the the current Moss v Bush, The current Moss v Moyer and the original Bush filing( thrown out)

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/990