hi nature!
An American in Dairyland posted a link similar to what I was referencing, so I wasn't going to respond but I thought I should make clear that I did not mean to imply that Ron Rale, himself, had used the word 'dead', sorry if it came out that way :(
here's the article I was referring to, that calls it a 'status hearing' [this is the 'administrative hearing' I was trying to recall :) ] HK's legal team challenged the constitutionality of the coroner's jury process. In order for an inquest to proceed, the Bahama Supreme Court must determine whether to entertain HK"s challenge - so it's not just waiting for a replacement for Gomez, but also address the constitutionality issue.
As I understood it, there were two issues to deal with before an inquest could happen: a) Can Gomez remain seated as the judge (have since learned on July 17th Gomez was not to continue), and, b) Bahama Supreme Court would need to respond the underlying question before jury selection - that is, is not being able to question/exclude jurors (current Bahama law) unconstitutional as HK legal-team is arguing, requiring a change (amendment?) to the Constitution of the Bahamas (and then, of course, whatever has to be done to 'rewrite' their Constitution and the time that would take, IF it is agreed that the process is 'unconstititional'.
Additionally, should the Bahama Supreme Court refuse to hear the matter, or refuse to amend their Constitution, HK can then appeal to the Crown of England, which, (i THINK) may then involve British Parlament. :
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Lb8XxsLbymkJ:www.jonesbahamas.com/%3Fc%3D45%26a%3D12206+bahama+status+hearing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
quote: "Once Mr. Stern’s lawyer, Anthony McKinney, had pointed out that the facts of the matter still needed to be agreed – a procedural issue – both sides agreed that the status hearing set for the April 11 ought to go forward."
[continuing:]"... In fact, two weeks after the inquest started, the only forward step taken in the proceedings is the empanelling of the seven-member jury.
"Immediately thereafter, Mr. Stern’s legal team brought the inquest to a screeching halt with their challenge to the constitutionality of the Coroners Act.
"The act has been on the books since 1910, and was most recently amended in 1993 to set up a sole Chief Coroner and an exclusive Coroners Court.
"Mr. Stern wanted the judge in the inquest to issue the jurors a questionnaire, and then allow lawyers to question jurors on their answers to the questionnaire and possibly have people bumped from the jury for cause of partiality.
"None of this is possible under the Coroners Act, and according to Mr. Stern, this impossibility may impede his right to a fair trial before an impartial jury. It is on these grounds that he has challenged the act.
"A successful challenge of the act may have far-reaching consequences."
**
(from the article cited by An American):
Eventually, Chief Magistrate Roger Gomez ordered a Coroner’s Inquest, but before that inquiry had even begun properly it was derailed by what amounted to a challenge to the constitutionality of the Coroners Act.
Lawyers for Mr. Stern, now the executor of her estate, questioned whether the Coroners Act was constitutional because it doesn’t allow the coroner to question jurors.
In a motion before the Supreme Court, they contended that they wanted to be allowed to question jurors to determine impartiality, but were prevented from doing so by the Coroners Act, and thus the Act was unconstitutional.
(end snip)
[prior to this, from Sacajawea's post, HK apparently asked it be 'permanently' blocked: (from Sacajawea:) "Just going over some old articles. One TMZ article says that Howard asked to have the inquest hearing permanently blocked. March 29, 2007."
11,467 posted on 05/23/2007 5:01:02 AM PDT by Sacajawea
[after this, was april 11th -half/no(?)papers/no attnys, 'hearing' and a May 22nd continuation date was mentioned]
http://www.etonline.com/celebrities/news/47773/index.html
April 12, 2007
"The Daniel Smith inquest proceedings are expected to resume on May 22.
"After a brief meeting Thursday, the inquest into the death of ANNA NICOLE SMITH’s son DANIEL will reconvene on May 22 in the Bahamas.
"...Currently, HOWARD K. STERN is appealing the jury selection in the inquest, asking that his attorneys be allowed to submit a special questionnaire for the screening process. They have argued that it would be impossible to secure an impartial jury due to the publicity surrounding Anna Nicole and Daniel’s deaths — rendering the entire proceeding unconstitutional."
[I guess nothing much happened May 22, because a June 26th date was mentioned]
(from sodpoodle:) "June 26 will mark the date set for mention, meaning a date will be picked for the inquest to officially resume.
Currently, Howard is appealing...."
12,645 posted on 06/25/2007 12:59:37 PM PDT by sodpoodle
[next date mentioned: July 16th]
http://archive.nassauguardian.net/pubfiles/nas/archive/images_pages/07162007_A03.pdf
[article from July 17th]
http://www.thenassauguardian.com/national_local/289373489050360.php
"Chief Magistrate Roger Gomez was ordered dismissed yesterday as presiding judge in the Coroner’s Court inquest...""...[Lyons] also ordered that the new jurors that will be chosen as a result of his ruling should be selected from “as wide a poll as possible to draw jurors from.”
[article from July 26th]
http://archive.nassauguardian.net/pubfiles/nas/archive/images_pages/07262007_A06.pdf
Summing up, as long as HK can keep the constitutionality issue going, the longer the inquest will be delayed
Great research, blueplum! I didn’t post that article solely in reference to your comment but to provide some general history about what HKS is doing to hold up Daniel’s inquest. Your post really went into details about what was mentioned in the article I posted. Thanks for going into that!
The April stuff is dead.
Lyons booted Gomez. However, it is up to Gomez as CHIEF magistrate to appoint a replacement. Lyons also RULED that the NEW magistrate assigned will make the determination of jury selection. To me that basically told Stern the laws of the Bahamas stay as they are.
Could he go in circles again, probably. Depends, is he out of cash yet? Rolex company closed? Mom and Dad run off with the off shore accounts?