Posted on 04/26/2021 1:55:32 PM PDT by White Lives Matter
Conflict of interest checks are a fundamental aspect of representation and this guy never should have been let on the Senate's team. .
On the other hand, the justification for recusal was pretty lame so it's obvious that Judge Coury wanted off this case in the worst sort of way. I think Coury did a basic gesture towards fairness when demanded a 1 milllion dollar bond for the emergency restraining order incorrectly assuming that the Democrats would pony up cash and shut down the audit before it had a chance to get started.
He got blindsided by their refusal to post bond and was shocked that the audit got rolling. After that, he was probably looking for any way out of the case. The only judges who wnat this case are the one who want to shut down the audit. For any one else than a dem operative Judge wanting to shut the door n the audit, this case is totally lose-lose.
That will not work. No Dim lawyer would buck the fix.
Yes the audit is continuing...but the new judge has ruled against the 10 day pause and has scheduled hearings to start tomorrow.
Gee. How convenient.
How so? The person who had been an intern was added to the Democrat team.
The intern was on the legal team representing the Senate Republicans
The only party that ever surrendered was the democrat party at Appomattox court house.
Try again.
10 days? Should be able to find enough fraud, although I prefer they find all of it.
Or they just repeat the tactic until they get the judge they want.
I checked. You are correct.
There is some serious bad reporting on this case.
OK then 13/40ths, sheesh.
I believe the AZ attorney general says they will ignore the suit as a county judge does not have jurisdiction over a state. The arena is also a state owned building.
Apparently the demo hired a lawyer that worked for the judge within the last 5 years, creating a conflict of interest.
The Supreme court case is about separation of power. The Legislature claims, (and I believe correctly), that once the subpoena was deemed legal by the courts and the documents/equipment were delivered that the courts have no authority in dictating what and how the legislature can conduct the audit.
It also argues that persons and companies contracted by the legislature to perform the audit also have the same “speech and debate” immunity that the legislature has.
The Supreme Court refused to “stay” the audit and set specific dates for filing of arguments. They also agreed that the trial court judge was correct to not stay the audit once the Dems refused/failed to post the bond, (1 million dollars). The issue before them now is the accusations of voter identity/secrecy and security of the subpoenaed documents/equipment. The Legislature is arguing the separation of powers, (the court can not dictate how the Legislature conducts its business), and the speech and debate immunity when in session.
The trial court’s new judge has extended the time for pleadings in their case beyond the original timeline, and if he does not order the audit stopped, (which would immediately be appealed to the Supreme Court), then the audit will be finished before the case is fully briefed, argued and decided, at which point the case will be MOOT.
Possibly the new judge is going to do to the Dems what they did to Trump; dismiss it on technical grounds without ruling on the merits.
This post is for #23 and #25. The judge recused himself because the defendant, Cyber Ninjas, hired a former clerk of the judge. It was not the Dems. This new lawyer was hired for the appeal to the Supreme Court against the trial judge and the Dem Plaintiffs. Since the judge was made a party to the Supreme Court case and he was associated with the new lawyer less than 5 years ago, the trial judge had to recuse himself.
The initial news reports were very confusing and until I read the filing in the Supreme Court it appeared that the Dems were the ones that hired the new attorney. The SC filing clearly list him as an attorney for Cyber Ninjas.
“Possibly the new judge is going to do to the Dems what they did to Trump; dismiss it on technical grounds without ruling on the merits.”
This is where we all throw our heads back and laugh.
This is the argument that Schiff is making on the Judicial Watch lawsuit requesting the subpoenas issued to the phone carriers during the impeachment “investigation” in which they got phone call data for numerous Republicans including elected folks.
Schiff claims that the courts have no authority to order release of the subpoenas since they are the legislative property and the legislature can keep them “secret” or make them public as they see fit.
This line of argument appears to me to be valid based on separation of powers and the speech and debate article of the constitution. Possibly one of the people who had their data provided to Schiff by these subpoenas would have standing to sue, and potentially be able to win.
But in the AZ case there is no one that can sue, (standing), since the identity of the voter of an individual ballot can not be determined/identified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.