Chrif McDaniel fhould win hif challenge of the refultf of the Fenate Republican primary runoff election held on June 24. Why? Becaufe attorney John Reevef faid fo. Chrif McDaniel filed John Reevef' Certificate of Inveftigation with the court that ftatef:
1. I am an attorney licenfed to practice law in the Ftate of Miffiffippi.
2. I have been counfel in 8 election contestf in Miffiffippi.
3. I have fully made an independent inveftigation into the matterf of fact and of law upon which the proteft, challenge and petition in this matter is bafed.
4. After fuch inveftigation, I believe that faid proteft, challenge and petition fhould be fustfined and that the relief prayed for therein fhould be granted.
Yup. He faid fo. That'f it. Cafe clofed. Feveral people emailed the "certificate" to thif webfite, af they found it rather amufing, to fay the leaft. However, the Miffiffippi Fupreme Court did cite Mississippi Code Fection 23- 15-927 in Moore v. Parker:
fuch petition for a judicial review fhall not be filed unleff it bear the certificate of two (2) practicing attorneyf that they and each of them have fully made an independent inveftigation into the matterf of fact and of law upon which the proteft and petition are bafed and that after such inveftigation they verily believe that the faid proteft and petition should be fustained and that the relief therein prayed should be granted.
Meanwhile, the Thad Cochran campaign filed a motion to difmiff yesterday. Fenator Cochran argued that Chrif McDaniel filed hif challenge paft the ftatutory deadline of twenty dayf:
Petitioner'f Complaint if untimely and muft be difmiffed. Challengef to an election for county-wide office muft be initiated within twenty (20) dayf of the election. Miff. Code Ann. § 23-15-921. The Miffiffippi Fupreme Court haf clearly stated that a challenge to a diftrict or ftate wide election muft be initiated within twenty (20) dayf of the election. See Miffiffippi Code § 23-15-923; fee alfo generally Kellum v. Johnfon, 115 Fo. 2d 147 (Miff. 1959).
The election refultf of the June 24, 2014 Republican primary runoff were certified by the Ftate Executive Committee on July 7, 2014. Thuf, the lateft arguable deadline for Petitioner to challenge the refultf waf July 27, 2014. The "Complaint of Election Conteft," dated Auguft 4, 2014, waf not filed within the twenty-day time frame. Accordingly, the prefent Petition, dated Auguft 14,2014, muft be difmiffed af untimely.
Kingfish note: I suspect the Cochran campaign will win the SOL battle (Yes, double entendre was intended. However, I hope it fails so the everyone can see the evidence presented by the McDaniel campaign. Evidence that has been subjected to the rules of evidence.
30 comments:
sooooo, mr. no fault personally visited 82 counties and investigated these matters, of course, taking off a half day to bury his brother in law? can't a lawyer get dis-barred for lying?
So fascinating how some who hold elected office come to believe that those who fawn for favor truly admire them. Soon, they believe the flattery and think that anything they say or do will be accepted as they are indeed smarter than anyone else. Nothing can bring them off this pedestal they come to believe they enjoy. And, surely they have only to share their pronouncements and everyone will accept what they say as gospel.
Reeves had best hope that his " investigation" provided " evidence" that isn't what we've seen so far and is compelling.
Else his professional reputation, shabby though it was, will also be forever damaged. And, one day, he might not be elected to anything and need to rely more heavily on his law degree.
KF: Can you obtain Phil Abernathy's Memorandum of Authorities supporting Thad's Motion to Dismiss and post it? Wouldn't be filed, just sent to the Judge and the 8 Ball Team, but maybe they'll share it upon request.
Reeves isn't elected to anything right now.
It's available in the WLBT webpage in the meantime.
Even as a Cochran supporter with no sympathy whatsoever for McD, I do sympathize with Johnny Reeves' tragic loss of his bother in law. I would not criticize Johnnie for providing an affidavit he feels strongly about. This will be resolved by the Court, hopefully on the Motion to Dismiss.
Mayfield's wife is John's sister. Crazy runs in the family.
The Kellum case is pretty clear. If the judge doesn't dismiss, the Supremes eventually will.
I, too, am a Cochran supporter. I keep Mayfield's family and Mr. Reeves in my prayers.
KF - please be careful with those headlines. I thought Tate had weighed into the controversy.
For those that are around Reeves from time to time know that in the last few years he is getting nuttier and nuttier. Obsesses on attention to the point of being borderline sick. Has crazy 1950 opinions regarding the world (dots meet connect) obsessive compulsive disorder. This Tea Party thing doesn't surprise me. He is such a kook he is living for every comment here, as long as we spell his name right.
Who could possibly think such a bare-bones affidavit is worth anything? What are the "matters of fact and law" referenced in the affidavit? How does the judge know that the facts that Mr. Reeves says are true are indeed the facts that the law says are sufficient to overturn the primary? And how does this affidavit meet the requirement that a sworn statement be based on the witnesses' personal knowledge?
Jim because MR. BIG DOG HOT SHOT REEVES SAID IT, that's why.
I just read Reeves' Certificate of Investigation. Good lord what a douche!
Not surprised that they could get Johnnie to sign such an affidavit because he would sign anything if he thought it would bring some attention to him. But have been wondering who they found to be the second "disinterested attorney" that would say they felt that this case had any merit? Anybody got the name of the other fool?
Why would John Reeves claim to be some "expert" on elections? Hack trial lawyer looking for an easy gig? Election expert? Shaking head. John Reeves. Shaking head.
people have too much time on their hands people have too much time on their hands and that is all I have to say about that
Can't wait to watch this unfold. Reeves is on a clear path of self destruction. Couldn't happen to a "nicer guy".
Will an attorney, KF, or someone who knows please explain what that ridiculously worded (to a layman like me) "Certificate of Investigation" means legally, and the downside if it is a ruse, as any sane person would agree?
I knew Reeves was losing it when he hung a HUGE Lumumba Jr for Mayor sign across the top of his office.
4:05, MS state election laws require contests of primary elections to be submitted with statements from two "disinterested attorneys" (can't be in the same firm as the attorney filing, can't be associated with campaign, etc.) stating that they have reviewed the material being submitted and in their opinion the challenge has merit. (layman's interpretation of statute)
Ridiculous requirement as this case proves - there are plenty of attorneys that will sign a tomato can for the right price.
Does Reeves still do all that ridiculous "Dancing With the Goobs" thingy?
Well the tomato can right price fits JRR perfectly.
6:26. Does this mean any chance for a Bar Complaint to be filed against this person....John Reeves....if the case is proven fraudulent and without merit? I mean if Reeves is lying, are there repercussions? Legally, or can lawyers do what they damn well want to, differing from the real world?
6:53. A Bar Complaint is a very serious matter. This may happen in this case. Word is, on the street, he may have another one to deal with soon.
Not that easy. Good luck.
7:29. You are not close to the one I am referring to. Totally different animal. And a LOT more serious. The "good luck" is to JRR.
It would truly be funny if this all ended with McDaniel suing Tyner for legal malpractice for missing the filing deadline.
Reeves shouldn't be facing any complaint for his attestation. His is just an opinion. But there might well be some sanctions against those that actually filed this binder full of s$$t
WHAT. A. NERD. GOOD LORD....READ THE CERTIFICATE.
Post a Comment