The Office of Courts issued this notice:
August 28, 2014
Special Judge Hollis McGehee will announce his ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the matter of
Chris McDaniel v. Thad Cochran on Friday, Aug. 29, at 2 p.m. at the Harrison County Courthouse in Gulfport. Judge McGehee will announce his ruling from the bench in Chancery Courtroom #1.
Please note that this will be a spoken ruling. No written order will be available immediately.
Judge McGehee determined that giving a bench ruling in Gulfport will be the best way to expedite a decision
for the litigants in this case. He is hearing other unrelated proceedings in another court on the Gulf Coast on Friday morning.
T
The Camera Coverage Notice requirement is waived for this occasion only.
14 comments:
"Just shoot up here amongst us! One of us done got to have some relief!"
Jerry Clower
Nananananana Nananananana Hey hey hey
Good Bye!
prediction: mcdaniel's case dismissed--the end of the saga...until the next plea for money
Isn't his ruling going to be appealed regardless of the outcome? If so, won't the attorneys have to wait until he puts it into writing anyway? This may be a stupid question; I'm obviously not a lawyer.
My gut says dismissal then appealed. Not commenting on either side just my feeling.
Also solves the problem of the subpoenas for the court as a side
No it will never be over. Mcdaniels will appeal,appeal and then claim he was robbed. Then ask for $50.00.
I would agree, then if the Supremes uphold, we are done.
6:46
Yes, appealed regardless, and it will be from the written order that should follow shortly.
Wager Judge will bunt to MS SCt. He won't dismiss. SCt will get it anyway. Although Judge will look foolish by not following the law (still haven't seen anything to support a strong factual distinction from precedent, and 20 day time frame in election is not "silly technicality"). Wonder what SCt will do.
I am also shaking head at faxing subpoenas to circuit clerks and giving 48 hours to comply. Should make every lawyer in MS angry that they spent so much time on bar prep with service of process-- only to have some rogue lawyer thumb his nose at established rules of civil procedure when it comes to actually handling a case, Where is the outrage? If this is allowed by the court, surely the MS Bar will stand up and put a stop to this nonsense???
When your cause is righteous none of the rules apply to you and you can apply unwritten rules to the unrighteous villains who dare to oppose you. That is the essence of the McDaniel position.
In Geoff Pender's article in today's Clarion Ledger, he says that, at the hearng on the Motion to Dismiss, McDaniel's attorneys argued that "it is inconceivable that the legislature would provide for such a short window for a task as monumental as a statewide election chanllenge".
Hmmmm, I wonder who we could ask about that and why that was done. Who would we call ? Maybe the Chair of the Senate Elections Committee who is in charge of this and who allowed his committeee to approve a bill setting this short window deadline. Who is that stupid SOB ? (Sarcasm intended.)Oh wait, that would be Chris McDaniel, the chair of the elections committeee who just 2 years ago passed this amendmdment setting this suppsedly inconceivable deadline. Why did you do that Chris ? If setting such a deadline is crazy and inconceivable, then why did pass that amendment through your committee ? How/why did you not see the problem with that deadline and correct it ? Isn't that your job as the chair of the committee to know these laws, finds these problems and make our laws better ?
Gees, here we go again. Now he's complaining about the crazy legislature approving an amendment to a statute when he was legislator/chair who approved and passed it, and/or crticizing the legislature for not addressing a problematic deadline when he had every chance as chairman of the committee to address and correct it. It appears, as many have already said, that despite how fondly McDaniel thinks of himself, he has not been a very effective, proactive state Senator. But yet he would make a great federal Senator and save the world. (Again, sarcasm intended)
Chris,stop, really. All you are doing, or your lawyers are doing, is making you look so stupid.
In my opinion, the simple answer to the question "why would the Legislature have such a short window for a challenge" is that there is VERY little time between the primary and general elections. The structure is set up to avoid having a prolonged challenge to a primary that either stays the general election, or forces a do-over.
Motion to dismiss lawsuit for failure to challenge in timely fashion was just granted...
Jim Craig - correct, but add two more reasons. (1) to make a challenge of a 1st primary election be filed before the runoff - which is three weeks (twenty one days) later; and (2) to keep sore losers from dragging the victor through a protracted period for no purpose other than to harm the victor who rightfully should be campaigning for the general election rather than having to be drug through prolonged court procedures.
Post a Comment