Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wheeha
The Judicial Council has rejected the motions to dismiss the recall case. The hearing is currently scheduled for 9pm on Monday.
The severance of parties motion was denied because Dina Omar contributed to the petition website, which makes her a circulator and hence a proponent. I don't find the argument compelling. (as far as I know, none of her statements were on the site until after the petitions were done circulating, so I don't see how she's a "person who circulates or attempts to circulate an Initiative Petition.")
The motion for default judgment (which should have been a motion to dismiss) because the case was wrongfully accepted was rejected because the Judicial Council already ruled on those issues when it accepted the case. They accepted the case after the deadline because the deadline was "non-restrictive" in the JRPs. Interestingly, this essentially means that there is no appeal process for the Judicial Council's acceptance of a case, unless they'll allow folks to challenge its acceptance in appealing the judgment.
The idiotically nonsensical estoppel argument was rejected because it was idiotically nonsensical.
The Judicial Council won't suppress the video because it "may be a substantial factor in helping the Council evaluate the intention behind the statements furnished by Ms. Dina Omar for the Voters' Guide."
. . .
|
. . .
|
