What purpose would closing her cases serve? Anyone? Anyone?
Unless it would be that it would give 0 a loophole : unable to produce material because it is currently involved / evidense in an open case?
Does that sound even plausible ?
Orly has only two eligibility cases "pending," all of the others having been finally dismissed long ago. I put "pending" in quotes, because neither of those cases is actually ongoing: She had a case in federal court in California which was dismissed by the district court judge and is on appeal to the 9th Circuit; and she has a case in federal court in Mississippi where the defendants moved to dismiss and the motion has been pending for over a year. So there is no ongoing discovery in any of Orly's eligibility cases.
“What purpose would closing her cases serve?”
IIRC, Orly is trying to compel disclosure of Reed Hayes report which was submitted in AL but is under seal. The Hayes report is also copyrighted by Zullo who personally paid for it (again, IIRC).
Zullo and Arpaio and Hayes don’t need to be wasting legal fees for court filings and appearances to prevent premature disclosure of the Hayes report when it appears, as Gallups contends, that the new “universe-shattering evidence” will render the Hayes report essentially moot.
Finding an alternate BC for Barry that can be proved-up in federal court under federal rules of evidence would make the Hayes report far less important.
Orly also has been pursuing dead-end criminal accusation against Barry in CIVIL court where no judge can impose any remedy against Barry. Only the Congress can impeach and convict Barry. That is where Arpaio’s evidence must go, not to one of Orly’s state or federal court cases IMO.
Whatever the new evidence against Barry is, it must overcome the “full faith and credit” that all federal courts must extend to the state of HI under the Constitution.