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

To: Torie
You mean the count that was based on a law not in effect when the action was committed? That one? I didn't know Earle has dumped it, but I didn't know that little faclet at the time either.

Neither did I, and I didn't base my conclusion on the law (the conspiracy angle) not being in effect. I didn't look up the conspiracy part of the case, just the underlying part. Anyway, DeLay has been charged with the underlying part - now under the ssame cloud the two co-conspirators were charged with back in April.

One of those two cases will be useful to more clearly see whether the statutry elements we bantered about have in fact been violated. Keep in touch if you learn anything on it - it'll be fun to see how it turns out.

65 posted on 10/14/2005 8:27:48 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

It appears both counts are still in play, both based on the same facts. The one count, seems rather dead, if the law was not in effect then (which was the subject of the Delay motion, which motion I don't know the status of at present), and the other is being attacked by Delay right now, not on the merits, but on Earle misconduct in ramming it home right before the statute of limitations ran to the forum shopped grand jury, deprived of some of the facts, maybe.


66 posted on 10/14/2005 8:31:23 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Go to post #34 and click on it. You can download and read her brief. That way you can form your own opinion on her capabilities.


68 posted on 10/14/2005 8:41:49 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

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