Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ohio Supreme Court Throws Out the Election Challenge Lawsuit
Ohio Supreme Court ^

Posted on 12/16/2004 12:53:58 PM PST by hankbrown

The Ohio Supreme Court has tossed the Bush election challenge filed by that Arnebeck person. Read it here.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: backtobusiness; lawsuit; napalminthemorning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

1 posted on 12/16/2004 12:53:59 PM PST by hankbrown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

I hear the lamentations and wailing now.


2 posted on 12/16/2004 12:55:05 PM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

Mass Suicide at DummyLand.


3 posted on 12/16/2004 12:55:11 PM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown
"the complaint is fatally defective"

LOL! Couldn't be more true.

4 posted on 12/16/2004 12:57:19 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Pajama Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown
On to Washington.
5 posted on 12/16/2004 12:57:39 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Ping! Your DUmmie Ant Farm may just fall off the mantle on this one.


6 posted on 12/16/2004 12:57:57 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Pajama Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Did the Court break for the Holiday after the ruling?


7 posted on 12/16/2004 12:58:20 PM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
"the complaint is fatally defective"

Applicable to the complainers as well.

8 posted on 12/16/2004 12:59:42 PM PST by TheBigB (Smartass remarks $5.00...with extra pithiness $2.00 more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

"Game over, man! Game over!"


9 posted on 12/16/2004 12:59:49 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

Dismissed the case without prejudice because they tried to challenge multiple elections in one suit (US Pres and Ohio Sup. Ct. Chief Justice). You can bet they'll refile and challenge only the US Pres election.

Losers...


10 posted on 12/16/2004 1:01:09 PM PST by TexasAg1996
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasAg1996
Guess they love spitting into the wind.

How pathetic.

11 posted on 12/16/2004 1:02:25 PM PST by OldFriend (PRAY FOR MAJ. TAMMY DUCKWORTH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB

Quote from DUmmie bmoney07 re: Ohio decision:

"14. I can't understand - me stupid, please explain?"

Says it all.




12 posted on 12/16/2004 1:03:24 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Pajama Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

they can refile as separate cases. It's "without prejudice". the benefit is that they've wasted a lot of time, and their stuck with this judge the next time around (does not have to recuse himself)


13 posted on 12/16/2004 1:03:45 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

[Cite as Moss v. Bush, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 2004-Ohio-6792.]
SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING
This opinion is “SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING.” It has been posted to
the Website of the Supreme Court of Ohio as a manuscript document in the
interest of disseminating it to the public on an expedited basis. This document
will be replaced with the final version when the final version becomes available.
MOSS ET AL. V. BUSH ET AL.
[Cite as Moss v. Bush, _____ Ohio St.3d ___, 2004-Ohio-6792.]
(No. 2004-2055 – Submitted December 14, 2004 – Decided December 16,
2004.)
Election contests — R.C. 3515.08 — Petition to contest election may not challenge
more than one election.
ON PETITION TO CONTEST ELECTIONS.
__________________
MOYER, C.J.
{¶ 1} Contestors, various Ohio residents who allegedly voted in the
November 2, 2004 elections for President and Vice-President of the United States
and for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, have filed a petition
challenging the certified results of both elections. The named contestees are
President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard B. Cheney, Bush-Cheney ’04,
Inc., Karl Rove, various Bush-Cheney electors, Ohio Secretary of State J.
Kenneth Blackwell, and Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer.
The contestors allege that claimed voting irregularities are sufficient to change the
outcomes of both the presidential and chief justice elections or, in the alternative,

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
2
to make the result of both elections uncertain so as to warrant setting aside the
elections.
{¶ 2} The cause is partially before me pursuant to the authority granted
by R.C. 3515.08, which provides:
{¶ 3} “In the case of an office to be filled or an issue to be determined by
the voters of the entire state, * * * [an election] contest shall be heard and
determined by the chief justice of the supreme court or a justice of the supreme
court assigned for that purpose by the chief justice; except that in a contest for the
office of chief justice of the supreme court, such contest shall be heard by a
justice of such court designated by the governor.”
{¶ 4} On December 14, 2004, Governor Bob Taft designated Justice
Maureen O’Connor to hear that part of the petition constituting a contest of the
November 2, 2004 election involving the office of Chief Justice.
{¶ 5} Nothing in the pertinent election-contest statutes or case law
construing R.C. 3515.08 permits contesting more than one election in one case.
In fact, the statutes contemplate that an election-contest case will challenge only
one election. For instance, R.C. 3515.09 provides that “[a] contest of election
shall be commenced by the filing of a petition with the clerk of the appropriate
court signed by at least twenty-five voters who voted at the last election for or
against a candidate for the office or for or against the issue being contested”)
(emphasis added), and R.C. 3515.14 provides that the court shall dispose of an
election contest by pronouncing judgment as to “which candidate” (not
candidates) was elected.
{¶ 6} In adopting R.C. 3515.08 the General Assembly recognized that
election contests by their nature are not well suited to consolidation.
Consolidation of two election contests—one challenging the results of the
presidential election and one challenging the election of the Chief Justice—
unnecessarily complicates the two contests procedurally. R.C. 3515.08 vests

January Term, 2004
3
responsibility for deciding the election contest concerning the presidential
election with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. However, under the
statute, the Governor selects another justice to hear a contest of an election to the
office of Chief Justice of this court. Therefore, if this combined election-contest
case were to proceed as filed, two separate justices would be responsible for
presiding over two separate contests in one case. No words in the statute nor any
decision of a court of which I am aware supports a conclusion that the General
Assembly produced that result. Moreover, were this court to sanction
consolidation here it would establish a precedent whereby twenty-five voters
could challenge, in a single case, the election results of every statewide race and
issue on the ballot in any given election.
{¶ 7} As Chief Justice, I have statutory authority to determine only the
challenge filed by the contestors to the election of President and Vice-President.
No statute or case law authorizes the filing of multiple election contests in a single
case. The complaint is fatally defective. I therefore order that the contest of the
presidential election held on November 2, 2004, be dismissed without prejudice.
So ordered.
__________________
Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr., Robert J. Fitrakis, and Susan Truitt, for
contestors.
________________________


14 posted on 12/16/2004 1:04:33 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

Rove strikes again-- Signed a socially misaligned DUer.


15 posted on 12/16/2004 1:04:48 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown
Imagine trying to save money and rolling two suits into one.

Stupid is as stupid does!

16 posted on 12/16/2004 1:06:00 PM PST by rocksblues (No more Kerry, no more polls!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

LOL...I see you are a LAC fan..love your screen name


17 posted on 12/16/2004 1:07:34 PM PST by mystery-ak (Please pray for Maj Tammy Duckworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Exactly. They had hoped that by combining the cases, the Chief Justice (a Republican) would have to step aside. Now, the Chief Justice will hear any case they refile.

Any odds that this elected Republican judge will overturn election results giving the Republican a win by 119,000 votes?


18 posted on 12/16/2004 1:08:21 PM PST by TexasAg1996
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

I'll give that dummyland poster credit, at least he/she admits their stupid...


19 posted on 12/16/2004 1:11:24 PM PST by mystery-ak (Please pray for Maj Tammy Duckworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hankbrown

Brilliant Strategery to sue the Chief Justice of the Court in which you are bringing the suit. These people are not only ignorant, they're also stupid. Bad Combination!!


20 posted on 12/16/2004 1:11:57 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson