Granted! -- Latest from Moss v. Bush

[libertypirate]

Sorry if this is dupe...

http://198.234.109.19/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6994.pdf

<snip>
On Petition to Contest Election.
</snip>

<snip>
IT IS ORDERED that the motions be, and hereby are, granted.
Moyer, C.J., in Chambers.
</snip>

Folks we if we keep finding the truth we can win. Keep up the good work!

[Darkhawk32]

1. Does this mean what I think it means? n/t

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[electropop]

2. un-freakin'believable

is it so, are there a few honorable public employees left in the nation?

[pbartch]

29. I wish I was a public employee. I know I AM HONORABLE

Thank Goodness..........let all the votes be counted!

[bmoney07]

3. sounds like the case is preceding!

we'll see what happens to us now :(

[Pithy Cherub]

4. And so it begins...

WOW!

[debl]

5. We're going to get our day in court?

That would be enough to make me smile.

[crispini]

6. Here's the whole thing, it's short

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 consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Peter Peckarsky by Clifford O. Arnebeck and the motion for admission pro hac vice of Lillian M. Ritt, Charles Travis, Judy
McCann, Cynthia Butler and Bonnie McFadden by Robert J. Fitrakis,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions be, and hereby are, granted.
Moyer, C.J., in Chambers.

What he's granted is the "motion for admission pro hac vice of Peter Pekarsky" and Lillian Ritt. Who are these folks?

Anyone know what that means?

[Darkhawk32]

8. I'm holding my "FUCK YEAH"'s until I'm absolutely sure....

somebody hurry up and confirm this as to being what I think it means.

[bj2110]

9. Arnebeck and Fitrakis - 2 huge heroes!

Edited to remoe the "landmark day" tag. The DU lawyers have scaled down my excitement a little. Still great news, though. We need a MSM article with a big "Motion Granted" headline. They did it with the "Ohio lawsuit thrown out" article. It should work both ways, don't ya think?

[bemis12]

15. It's merely a

ruling that lets two attorneys who are not members of the bar in Ohio to represent their Ohio clients despite that fact.

[grumpy old fart]

39. Yep, doesn't mean squat.

[merh]

81. The pro hac vice is just allowing out of state lawyers, not licensed

in Ohio, to practice before the court. It is not anything substantive.

[righteous1]

101. SO does it mean that they will hear the case?

[merh]

106. Moyers is requiring additional pleadings

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x186697

[Terre]

7. Order copied here - WOOHOO!!

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

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 consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Peter Peckarsky by Clifford O. Arnebeck and the motion for admission pro hac vice of Lillian M. Ritt, Charles Travis, Judy McCann, Cynthia Butler and Bonnie McFadden by Robert J. Fitrakis,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions be, and hereby are, granted.
Moyer, C.J., in Chambers.

[libertypirate]

16. I would rather bring down their webserver...

That is why I didn't post the text...

[Patsy Stone]

10. That's so fucking HOT!!! n/t

[Quakerfriend]

13. Rock on !

:bounce:

[impeachthescoundrel]

11. ALL-RIGHT!!!!!

Good news is always welcome! We are actually going to be heard!

Message to repugs: GET OVER IT!

[crispini]

12. Pro hac vice

has something to do with out of state lawyers being admitted to practice in a different state, or with these out of state lawyers getting someone to present a case on their behalf.

That's my best guess from this site:

http://www.crossingthebar.com/OH-PHV.htm

Warning, I am NOT a lawyer!

[Patsy Stone]

17. Me either.

But I am a huge Polyphonic Spree fan! :)

[crispini]

26. Aren't they GREAT?!

The Christmas show here was last weekend. I'm still happy. When was the last time you saw them?

[Patsy Stone]

36. Sadly, never.

But I listen to them constantly. They make me soooo happy.
And, not for nothing, Tim DeLaughter is hot.

[crispini]

OMG! Ok, next year you & hubby need to come to Dallas

for the Christmas show. When ever I try to convince people that Dallas doesn't entirely suck, I say, "Well, Polyphonic Spree's from here!" Ya'll can stay with me if ya don't mind a pull-out couch. :)

Seeing them live will restore your faith in humanity. They are positively incandescantly beautiful. It's not a rock show, it's a religious experience. :D

Plus, yeah, Tim is hot. :P

[Patsy Stone]

56. Saw them on Austin City Limits

I think that's what it was. Outside on the hillside? They were just spectacular. I could absolutely see it being a religious experience.

Texas? Hmmm. I gotta think about that! But, thanks for the invite. :)

[crispini]

61. Snerk, Texas ain't all bad. ;)

I'll keep the couch warm for ya. :D

</threadjack>

We now return you to your regularly scheduled election fraud forum. :evilgrin:

[kk897]

18. Then it must have to do with the stuff in today's Free Press

article, how all these other lawyers are getting in on the act, pro bono.

Lawyers, gotta love 'em!

[corbett]

82. Crucial First Step

It's not reason to celebrate too loudly but at least it means that we're out of the starting gate in this regard.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4816

[sabra]

14. And so it begins...

Any ideas of the dates for the next steps?

[SueZhope]

19. you bring fabulous news THANK YOU!

This is what it seems to mean correct?:hi:

[gulogulo]

20. LOL it takes so little to make you guys excited

Explanation: Moyers allowed a couple of lawyers from outside of Ohio to join the case.

pro hac vice

: (proh hock vee-chay) prep. Latin for "this time only," the phrase refers to the application of an out-of-state lawyer to appear in court for a particular trial, even though he/she is not licensed to practice in the state where the trial is being held. The application is usually granted, but sometimes the court requires association with a local attorney.

[Patsy Stone]

40. Everything has to start somewhere... n/t

[sabra]

42. And what's wrong with getting excited?

We'll take each battle one at a time...

[debl]

21. Is there a lawyer in the house?

[read the law first]

114. Yes. n/t

[New Earth]

115. how bout a FEW lawyers

to see if they all give the same information?

[read the law first]

117. You'll get as many opinions as you have lawyers.

It's a 1.0:1.0 ratio.

[Sanity Claws]

22. Nope, not what you think it means

The court just granted motions to allow certain out of state attorneys to appear before the court. That's what a motion pro hac vice means.
These are pro forma rulings; it's unusual for such a motion to be denied.

[SueZhope]

27. But does it mean the case will still be heard? n/t

[Sanity Claws]

31. That's still not answered.

[SueZhope]

33. OH then thats not good? n/t

[Sanity Claws]

66. It's neutral

Does not say anything about the final outcome. Merely says that the Court will allow these out of state attorneys to submit documents and argue before the court on the ultimate issues.

[TexasLawyer]

23. Not a big deal

This is a favorable ruling for our guys, but it is not that big a deal. Admission pro hac vice just means that these attorneys, who are not licensed to practice law in Ohio, will be allowed to practice law there for the limited purpose of litigating their Ohio lawsuit . I didn't see the specific motion, but that is usually what admission "pro hac vice" means.

[Patsy Stone]

25. Every little counts... n/t

[roseBudd]

78. I am on the OhioVote2004 Yahoo group and just last week there was a call

for pro bono lawyer volunteers to help with the case. We were instructed to ask ANY lawyers we knew to pitch in and help out no matter how much time they could donate.

[texpatriot2004]

24. And Lo you bring tidings of great joy...n/t

[KansDem]

67. ......

[Patsy Stone]

77. Too adorable.

As you see by the sig, I love Linus. :)
Peace.

[Darkhawk32]

28. Bottom line this for me? Will the Ohio SC hear the case or not?n/t

[crispini]

37. Bottom Line: We still don't know. n/t

[SharonRB]

30. Here's (sort of) a definition of pro hac vice

Does this mean that the judge is only recognizing Arnebeck and Fitrakis as being eligible to present the case -- not that the case itself has merit? Any lawyers out there who can clarify before we get too excited?

Pro Hac Vice Rules
Ohio Supreme Court
Rule I of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio provides as follows:

RULE 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTORNEYS PRACTICING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

<snip>
Section 2. Admission Pro Hac Vice.

(A) The Supreme Court may permit any attorney who is admitted to practice in the highest court of a state, commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States or the District of Columbia, or who is admitted to practice in the courts of a foreign state, to appear pro hac vice and file pleadings, memoranda, briefs, or other documents or participate in oral argument before the Supreme Court.

(B) Admission pro hac vice will be allowed only on motion of an attorney admitted to practice in Ohio and registered with the Clerk for active status. The motion shall briefly and succinctly state the qualifications of the attorney seeking admission. It shall be filed with the first pleading or brief in which the attorney seeks to participate or at least 30 (lays before oral argument if the attorney seeks only to participate in oral argument. The Supreme Court may withdraw admission pro hac vice at any time.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karenca]

43. dixiecrat43---dont freak out now !! :))

[debl]

34. OK then...

I won't get happy.

Does anyone know how long Moyers can sit on this thing? Arnebeck refiled last Friday, and it seems like a time-sensitive thing...

Does this action possibly signal that the ruling we're all waiting for might be coming soon(er)? Or is this all we're likely to get from Moyers for the next few weeks? I wonder what the holiday schedule is for the OSC.

[seito]

35. You see...

For us die-hard optimists, our glass is always half full will soon runneth over.

I BELIEVE that what you visualize is what you will achieve.


:party:

[Der Blaue Engel]

76. A-freakin-MEN!

For those who just don't get the "I BELIEVE" thread: there you go.

(And just for the record, I am a die-hard pessimist...and I still believe!) :D

edited for die-hard brainlessness

[seito]

79. lol!!!

Me too, but don't tell anyone because................

I BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:yourock:

No Retreat No Surrender

[New Earth]

38. yayyyy

wooohoo

[grumpy old fart]

49. DOESN'T MEAN A THING.....

Why this thread is still up makes no sense. It's an Order allowing a couple of non-Ohio lawyers to be involved in the case. That's all.

[Patsy Stone]

53. All good news is good news. That's why. :) n/t

[grumpy old fart]

55. It's not good news, it's neutral, not even news.....

[Patsy Stone]

57. Wow. You really are grumpy! :) n/t

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patsy Stone]

65. Don't be a hater.

No offense meant, but why are you here? If we're happy, why can't you just let us be happy? If it's a momentary fleeting joy, just let it be.

[TexasLawyer]

89. They can save a lot of money,

If the Court had denied their motion, then the Glibs would have had to hire local Ohio counsel, or they would have needed to scrounge for more Ohio volunteer attorneys.

By being admitted to Ohio practice, these guys (and gals) can take on the legal challenge themselves, and they can have a motivated, passionate and articulate bunch of lawyers directly representing their case. The Glibs' attorneys can be the best and brightest from around the US, and these people who are already motivated, involved and up-to-speed on the facts can keep working on the case. Under this ruling, the Glibs don't need to bring in a bunch of new attorneys who will have to catch up on the facts, and who aren't necessarily fired up about the cause.

So, even though this is not a huge victory, the order is still positive for the side of truth, enlightenment and the American way.

[libertypirate]

41. This may not be a Guilty

We must continue to show that we are on this like flies on shit!

[theboss]

87. For the record, there is never going to be a "guilty"

It's a civil action not a criminal case. The plaintiff is - I'm pretty sure - seeking some sort of injuctive relief (which I am 99.9 percent sure won't be granted, but still).

I actually am about 75 percent sure that this is going to be dismissed in a few days.

[IndyOp]

44. HELP??? DOES THIS MEAN THE CASE WILL BE HEARD OR THE CASE WAS WON?

If the case was WON then 130,656 votes were just taken from *'s total and put in *'s total and Kerry just won the state of Ohio.

HEARD or WON?

PLEASE?

:bounce:

[texpatriot2004]

45. Not won yet, it seems to say that the attorneys can practice in

Ohio to handle the lawsuit.

[crispini]

47. WE DON'T KNOW YET. Read the thread people. n/t

[Patsy Stone]

50. Neither

It means that the out of state lawyers may argue the case. It's a little, teeny foot in the door.

One small step for man...

[SueZhope]

59. Sounds like toenail in the door LOL n/t

[Doctor O]

111. Neither ! n/t

[read the law first]

116. No. It is a matter of courtesy to admit lawyers pro hac

The Judge that everybody here wants to disbar just paid us a courtesy. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Alizaryn]

46. CHEER!

[New Earth]

48. ok, well why would they grant THIS

if they weren't going to hear the case?


:hi:

[grumpy old fart]

51. It's routine, procedural, means NOTHING

I'm a lawyer, and I approved this message...

[SueZhope]

63. Thanks for sharing

I feel a little :cry: coming on.
Time to change the post title

[Patsy Stone]

52. Procedure.

But it's fun nonetheless.

Kerry rules.

[gulogulo]

54. because it is extremely rare that pro hac vice is not granted

pro hac vice

: (proh hock vee-chay) prep. Latin for "this time only," the phrase refers to the application of an out-of-state lawyer to appear in court for a particular trial, even though he/she is not licensed to practice in the state where the trial is being held. The application is usually granted, but sometimes the court requires association with a local attorney.

[theboss]

72. To get to the point where they can even make that decision

If this wasn't granted, the attorneys couldn't even file in Ohio. Of course, they could find local counsel to file for them. So a setback wouldn't have even been that big a deal (though extremely unusual).

[libertypirate]

62. You all still don't get the framing.....

Look at how I framed this...

A professional would know better but not the average joe.

They would read oh the petition has been granted to contest the election. Frames are intended to focus the message, but some would rather keep us focused on what hasn't or is not going to happen. The question is why?

<snip>
On Petition to Contest Election.
</snip>

<snip>
IT IS ORDERED that the motions be, and hereby are, granted.
Moyer, C.J., in Chambers.
</snip>

[grumpy old fart]

64. say what????????

Your "framing" only made me look to the Order to see what it was. The "framing" just misled a bunch of folks. What was the point?

[gulogulo]

71. What he means is

it's okay to misrepresent the news as long as it benefits your political side.

That is a point of view. A vile and misguided one, IMO, but a point of view.

[crispini]

74. Framing is not the same thing as misrepresenting the news.

Have you read Lakoff? Framing is about carefully choosing your language to represent your position, not about twisting the facts. For example, the HUGE tax bill that every child today is born with can be phrased as a "baby tax." It's neat, it's complete, it packages up the concept in an easily remembered frame, and -- it represents the TRUTH.

IMO, that's a frame, not misrepresenting what actually happened.

[gulogulo]

75. in your own response further down

you said it was "framed deceptively".

If you want to engage in newspeak, go ahead and do it. I will still take "misrepresentation" and "lie" instead of the newspeak "deceptive framing".

[crispini]

80. Fair enough, point granted.

What I wanted to distinguish between what this poster has done, which I think is WRONG, IMO, and I'd agree with your use of the words "misrepresentation" and "lie," and the technique of really "framing" as employed by Lakoff. Have you read "Don't Think of an Elephant"? It's really good. Anyhoo, I think this poster is misusing the word "framing" and apparently I did too, below.

[gulogulo]

83. framing is okay - as long

as it does not drift into misrepresentation.

In the battle of ideas it is important to be precise and truthful. I am a great believer that explaining things concisely will convince people who can be convinced. On the other hand, even if you bamboozle people who would not have been convinced otherwise by twisted wording (which is what most people probably mean by "framing"), it will only turn around and bite you in the ass when the people realize they were fed cleverly worded lies.

Look at what the OP here did. He caused a momentary "high" in a few readers. I bet the drop from the "high" when the readers realized that this "motion granted" means nothing was deeper than the original emotional level. So in the end the "framing" caused harm, even though fleeting.

[libertypirate]

108. The problem is we....

think that in a "battle of ideas it is important to be precise and truthful".

How do you tell the truth when it is perceived to be the lie?

BTW If you think we are in a battle of ideas you have some waking up to do, we are in a battle for Democracy. Ideas equate party affiliation Democracy equates American people all of them. We need frames that include all Americans and how this election effects us all.

[gulogulo]

113. Thinking that "ideas equate party affiliation"

is so wrong I can't even start to explain it.

[crispini]

109. yep, I agree with you. n/t

[libertypirate]

90. Oh bullshit

That is exactly what framing is misrepresenting the news. Why do so many people wish not to see it... I have read Lakoff, don't fully agree because they still own the Fucking media. We can frame all day they choose to give us a voice, they choose if we get heard, and they choose if they are going to misrepresent or tell the truth.

We the people do not!

[crispini]

110. Framing is a TOOL.

Guess what, when they call an act that makes the environment WORSE, the "Clean Skies Act," then that's a DECEPTIVE, LYING FRAME. When they use a phrase like "Baby Tax" to represent the HUGE tax burden that we are passing down to our kids, then it's a neat handy frame. It's called NUANCE, look it up in the dictionary.

And before you jump all over me, I'm NOT saying that Republican frames are bad and Democrat frames are good.

It's a TOOL, it can be used for good or for evil, and guess what? All you did with your so-called little example was misrepresent the facts, cause false hope, and piss a lot of people off. I'd say that's an example of using it for BAD right there.

[libertypirate]

120. You would be correct...

but as an example of how to use the bad to get in the good is what I was hoping that others would see.

The rethugs do this all the time, they take a hit to make a point... Like going down for not supplying armor to our troops... They use their little mishaps as TOOLS to arrange headlines so they remain in control of the news cycle.

I am sorry if I offended but I am testing ways to get attention if even at first it is presented as a negative, but in reality it reinforces a positive.

Anyways sorry again...

[crispini]

69. YOU FRAMED IT DECEPTIVELY, that's why.

Jeez, you're making everyone think that the MOTION OF THE CASE was granted, but it WASN'T. It was a legal procedural little thing.

You're fucking with people's heads here, it's NOT KIND.

[theboss]

68. Wow, you are easily excitable....

Basically, this ruling is the equivalent of the attorney's car making it to the courthouse. It's a very very minor procedural win.

[New Earth]

70. in a time like this

who wouldn't be easily excited? the way things have been moving (SLOW) any positive info. is good.

[IndyOp]

73. I get that lawyers from out of state get to practice, but what about

the fact that the case number on the ruling is 04-2088 the title of which is "Contestor's Emergency Motion for Emergency Expedited Hearing and Emergency Expedited Relief to Prevent Spoilation of Evidence and to Preserve Documentary and Electronic Evidence"?

Are all motions granted for just the out of state lawyers are okay?

This is NOT the BIG suit "Moss v. Bush" which would overturn the election results -- that is 04-2055 (unless the case number changed at refiling)...

:kick:

[rfrrfrrfr]

107. Yes the case number

changes when you refile. It is the same case. The old case 2055 got thrown out remember. The refiled case 2088 is the one we are dealing with now.

There are tow positive things that come from this ruling.
1. The judge decided not to ban out of state lawyers from the case as a delay/cost tactic against the plaintiff.

2. The first action of the court on the case was not to dismiss it outright. Although, that outcome could be forthcomming shortly anyway.

[grumpy old fart]

84. Help an Old Fart....what does "IMO" mean?

these darn kids and their new fangled lingo.....

[Patsy Stone]

85. In my opinion -- also IMHO = In my humble opinion n/t

[gulogulo]

86. "in my opinion"

could also be "IMHO" - in my humble opinion.

Of course, people who use "IMHO" rarely mean the H part.

[grumpy old fart]

88. Thanks! n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

91. This is Great News!!!!!

[New Earth]

not really

read through all the posts, and then decide. it's not great, it's not bad....

it's just bleh (according to everyone else)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

119. I read it that they would hear the case. That they weren't dismissing it.

Will read through, thanks. :)

[theboss]

93. Eh, not so much....

It would be really strange had it not been granted.

[mattclearing]

92. Self-deleted

?

[theboss]

94. Read the thread

It means that the attorneys filing the motions - who are not licensed in Ohio - can temporarily practice in Ohio in regards to this case.

[Niche]

95. OMG! Yeah!!!

[New Earth]

96. omg,

the original poster really needs to change the title! that is so misleading.

[gulogulo]

97. What - you're objecting to "framing" as well? n/t

[New Earth]

98. it's called

if you are going to report something, you make the headline match the POINT OF THE INFORMATION. THE POINT WAS NOTTTTTTT THAT THE ENTIRE CASE HAS BEEN GRANTED TO BE HEARD. AND THAT IS WHAT THE AUTHOR MADE IT OUT TO SEEM. AND YOU KNOW IT. there should be no further arguing on the point, the title needs to be changed, as well as the post.

[gulogulo]

99. LOL - but the author claims

it was just his clever framing (see post #62)

[New Earth]

102. i don't understand what you find funny

the author needs to change it. it's not some kind of joke. that is sick.

[gulogulo]

103. What I find funny is that

here you object to the "framing" the author did. Yet when people on DU "frame" things like "Documented fraud in New Mexico" when the "documentation" is basically ruminations on statistics, you seem to have no problem with that and enthusiastically egg them on.

[New Earth]

105. did i even say the word framing?

[mostly_lurking]

100. The real meat is in the next announcement posted by SCO

Please look at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x186697

[righteous1]

104. Your right, sounds like the OSC is looking to dismiss this as moot

[prosecutr1960]

112. thrown out!

Looks like this suit will be thrown out. They're just laying the groundwork! Not good but not surprising.

[KerryReallyWon]

118. Why would they see this as an emergency to expedite, the lawsuit is

filed by candidate who's outcome, it cannot change. Maybe IF KERRY would do this, they would see the need to expedite. Maybe they are forcing Kerry out?