The pace quickened in the Election Contest Court (ECC) with several counties disposed of in mere hours.
The Coleman pressers begin to take on an air of desperation and the bloggers are beginning to circle like fishing boats over a feeding school.
The Court made a ruling that is showing serious signs of sending Coleman's case to the bottom, as well as stifling any hopes on appeal.
Franken +249.
MN Supreme Court: No change/ decision on Franken motion to force a Certificate of Election.
Handy Links:
Not just the Uptake Link, but a link to a certain meet-up in St. Paul. A short speech from McIntee, and Noah Kunin does couch wrestling. A sighting of the shy (she does not want her image anymore on the internet than necessary) Jennifer and lurking in the bkgd in a pale blue shirt, white vest and moustache and glasses (Groucho would be proud) some irREVerent WINE-o. (In real life of course I am much taller, soberer and dashinger) FWIW:http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.o...
Election Contest Court (ECC)--Episode XXV: Flying Counties
No really. The ECC's admonitions to both sides (you KNOW how both sides are BOTH putting on their cases simultaneously? NOT!) to streamline and move from tail-drag to walk to trot to canter seems to be having an effect. Thursday Team Coleman kept rolling through county auditors and city election directors: Olmsted (SE MN, Rochester), Steele (straight S of Mpls. about an hour; Owatonna); Stearns County (NW of Twin cities; St. Cloud) Cass County (N Central part of state; Walker) Hennepin county (Mpls) cities of Minnetonka (due W of Mpls.; the original Lake resort--which up until 1955 you could reach by light rail/trolley from as far away as the WI line; all destroyed by GM); Eden Prairie (SW of Mpls.; home of the state's richest zip code) and Bloomington (S side sprawling along outerbelt, reaching east to airport & Mall of America).
Now of course this IS the Coleman legal team we are talking about, so all this may mean simply flooring the gas in your pickup right next to the ice fishing hut. The engine roars and the tires spin at 83 mph---- but the actual progress is measured ice crystals per meter thrown off the rear wheels as the tailgate falls open, slews right and tips over the neighboring ice hut and the 3 Harley's parked in front.
The roaring engine sounds are provided by Big Bad Ben Ginsberg (now an official member of the Coleman legal team since his "vice" (VEE-chay) got "pro hacked" yesterday.) Even though Ginsberg is now subject to a closer scrutiny by the Court he is still throwing "illegal votes" and "the Court's Friday the 13th decision is leading into legal quicksand" since we want this matter "concluded as expeditiously as possible" at the presser afterwards.
Veterans among you KNOW this is utterly for the neo-con, proto-fascist base. Its also a roadmap of Team Coleman's next steps when read through the Republican Reverse Projection machine. May I?
"illegal votes" = non-Coleman votes (that felon in Roseau without voting rights who voted Coleman? WC Fields: "Go away kid, ya botha me!")
"Court's decision leading into legal quicksand" = our entire strategy is to lead this case into legal quicksand. We are swamp rats and thats where we do our best work.
"concluded as expeditiously as possible"-- the stalling will go on until our money runs out
The bloggers can dump sugar in Ginsberg's gas tank without even trying:
[Comment From Yippee Skippee]
Really, Mr. Ginsberg: How many :"illegals"? How many how many how many?? And tell us: How do you know how many? Please, let us know how you came up with this number. Oh, and...and please: What difference will it have on the outcome? How do you know your guy will absolutely, positively, 100% be the winner as a result? Because isn't that what this whole thing is about?
Court strict on law. (0+ / 0-)
What Ginsberg said in his news conference is that because some precincts did not check carefully to see if witness was a registered voter, then all votes rejected because the witness was not registered should be counted. He must really be nuts. This court has been vigilantly following the letter of the law. So the idea that the court is going to allow ballots that are clearly illegal to be counted is stupid.
by ABowers13
The lawyers are not impressed either:
[Comment From Chris II]
"What evidence do you have the Coleman was unequally affected" This is just the problem with Coleman's higgledy-piggledy election contest, and what Franken complained about when it said the notice of contest was not specific enough.
Just whose rights is he asserting here? His own? Every absentee ballot voter? Every voter? Every rejected absentee ballot voter? It's constantly shifting, which makes it impossible to determine if he has a valid legal claim, much less whether he's proven his claim, or what the remedy ought to be. His theory has never been determined with any specificity. It's a moving target.
And how good are the lawyers who are blogging with Cheetos-dusted fingers in their parent's basement law office? Well, how about citing precedents in relevant MN case law... from 1917? Note: Do NOT mess with MN lawyer bloggers. (In the current trial remember Coleman is the contest-ANT and Franken the contes-TEE as used in the citation.)
[Comment From annie esq]
The Coleman position is simply untenable. An important case is Berg v. Veit, 136 Minn. 443 (Minn., 1917). In this case 20 votes were illegally cast in a county-level election. The court said "...the burden was upon contestant to show that purging the election of these illegal votes would change the result declared by the canvassing board."
and
"Where a contestant bases his contest upon the fact that illegal votes were cast, it is incumbent upon him to show that enough of such votes were cast for the contestee to change the result. He is not in position to ask the court to adopt the pro rata rule above mentioned, unless he is unable to show for whom the illegal votes were cast, and has established that fact to the satisfaction of the court."
1917 eh? Lawyers & judges LOVE precedents so it may be a bit moldy, but, ah, Norm? Like the song says, "Moldy oldie/just another brick in the wall" of the case against you.
The ECC BUSTS a move: King Banaian rejection take 2
Lawyer types have attached a fair weight to the Court's Order rejecting Professor Banaian from testifying. (He is the St. Cloud State economics professor who did well in some of his sadistics classes, so Team Coleman wanted to call him as an "expert witness". Wouldn't want to call an actual, you know, statistician after all. I mean somebody really knows stats and is not a member of the Minnesota Neo-Cons Forever By Jesus Club might somehow hurt the case.)
The Franken team filed a Motion In Limine (Lat. "at the threshold") to exclude Banaian's testimony completely..... as opposed to either crushing him on cross-examination or using him to dump a truckload of bricks onto the Coleman case. ("We could do it, you know, but.... why bother?")
Well the Court ruled to exclude and I thought, OK another nice backhander on net from the slot for the Blue Team. But the lawyers around here are pretty taken with the Court's move:
king ruling (11+ / 0-)
Last night's Banaian ruling was the beginning of the end of Coleman's case on the absentee ballots. The court reminded everyone, but especially Coleman (and me) that they are not a court of general jurisdiction.
This thing should wrap up very quickly now. The court has all but said they are not going to decide whether previous conduct in the election violated equal protection, so they aren't going to give Coleman a remedy for it. They're just there to count, and give a final number.
by underwhelm
[Comment From Chris II]
I've been wondering what practical effect the court's limited statutory jurisdiction would have (to determine who had the most votes). The court's order seems to suggest it means that it may not consider or remedy any purported equal protection violations that took place during the election. I think that about does it for Coleman's absentee ballot issue.
You see the Court could have simply said to the Motion in Limine "Granted" and stopped there. (They were quite terse, for instance, in responding to the Coleman letter asking them to reconsider Friday the 13th's "victorious" ruling; they said simply, "Denied." Full stop with signatures.) But this time they went on and put in a bit of reference material ("this is what's at stake and what each side is asking for"). Cool.
Then they wrote part 2 briefly (and it really is brief) "here's the law on evidence and why we think this sort of testimony can be excluded." They closed with the line, "evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Hmmm... I like how this is unfolding..... Cool again.
But then they said, "We are going to use our arithmetic skills to see which number is bigger on which candidate." Period. Whoa!
"Irregularities between counties are irrelevant" YOWSER!
"The Court will be reviewing all ballots presented according to the uniform standard contained in MN law....." Wooden stake in the heart!
OK folks I have to agree with the lawyers, this is BIG. The court seems to be going out of their way to say:
A) All, and I mean ALL, of the last three weeks of Coleman mumbo-jumbo, buck-and-wing, "hoc est pecorum meum" (fondly known as "hocus pocus") having to do with discrepancies between counties
are IR-REL-E-VANT! And those "discrepancies" and "irregularities" are the absolute heart and soul of the Coleman case and the fulcrum they are trying desperately to build for an "equal protection" appeal to federal court. (The ECC just walked over to the Coleman Fulcrum Cement mixer and added about 22 extra bags of sand. You pour that as concrete and it will NEVER set up or harden.)
B) And then the court will be proceeding according to the "uniform standard contained in MN Law." Yes there is a standard, written, with case law attached since 1963 when the law was enacted. (Hey ECC! If you want to get hard-nosed, take a look at the annie, esq. post above if you'd like a 1917 bit of case law!)
If the Berg Boys (Joe Freid- and Ben Gins-) want to argue "equal protection" one way to do it is to say (as in Florida 2000) "there is no uniform standard." Indeed a lot of the microphone mist the Coleman team has been blowing around at their pressers has been calling for "a uniform standard" for recounting ballots/judging absentee ballots.
(The Franken Team all along has been answering there IS a uniform standard in place and it is MN law. The Star Trib in particular and the lamestreamers in general have considered this dull and not worth reporting.)
Now the Court has come down and said (3-0, mind you) yes, there is a uniform standard and come hell or high water WE the ECC are following and will follow it. ("You don't got no problems wid dat, do youse?"--- sorry. Left over comment from "Talk Like a Gangster Day.")
Many of us would LOVE to see, say, Judge Hayden snap her gavel down on Ginsberg and say, "Mr. Ginsberg, in the Court's opinion you haven't thought through those fatally flawed comments about legal quicksand. I am finding you in contempt and sentencing you to 72 hours in solitary to find the flaws in your thinking. Bailiff? Remove him now."
But courts are about laws, and at their best, about justice. This court is saying, "We are following the law. We are observing equal protection. We are being uniform. If your case is saying the opposite, you are day old lutefisk left on a steam radiator." That means Norm's legal strategy is sunk AND (important) any reversal on appeal (or an appeal even being granted for hearing) is VERY unlikely.
Actually very easy reading for an official court order (I could have read it at the UpTake meet up last night even in the SECOND hour!) and only a 3 page pdf (look for Banaian, likely the first one, but if new orders/ motions are added, the Banaian order will move down the list) http://www.mncourts.gov/...
Friday Morning Minnesota Media
You gotta love Jay Weiner's headline (and story) over at the Minn Post: "Franken's Legal Wine Streak Continues."http://www.minnpost.com/...
Doyle & Duchschere are halfway decent in their write up of Thursday's action. A lot of it is focused on Coleman's attorneys but for the very good reason that they are the ones squirming and bleating. http://www.startribune.com/...
Rachel Stassen-Berger for the Pioneer Press
a) has a better headline writer ("Judges shoot down Coleman.."; MY kind of fair and balanced because it happens to describe facts)
b) notes Ginsberg from Wednesday is being a gas bag
Ginsberg didn't outline how or why the court would reconsider its refusal to reconsider its decision, but he insisted the three judges must.
c) showed Team Franken at work counter-mining the Coleman effort by actually, you know, helping the Court by citing, you know, law and reason
"Under (Coleman's lawyers) theory, any mistake by a local election judge ... any misapplication of the statutory standard to a particular ballot would constitute a constitutional violation and draw the entire election into question. Not only would this result in an untenable rule that would make democratic government impossible, it finds no support in the case law," Franken's lawyers told the judges in a memo.
I tell you RSB keeps this up and the people of St. Paul are going to end up as an informed citizenry. http://www.twincities.com/...
Over at the Uptake McIntee gets a half-hour show these days at 5:00pm on KTNF the local, rather low-power, but feisty outlet for Air America (Stephanie, Schultz, Hartmann, Maddow, etc.). Thursday he had on some ir-REV-erent WINE-o as a call-in interview. Despite the guy's obvious drinking condition and unlikely work history (wine sales and a pastor? C'mon!), had some decent things to say. (Probably not worth archiving though.) But more like him and another pool of informed citizenry might be forming. :-)
PS. On a personal note, perhaps I wrote out of turn yesterday about some rotten stuff that hit home for me. All of you were extremely gracious and supportive, and the advice, words and encouragement I will cherish, yea even...... print out in hard copy. (To one particular kossack, for your personal response, WineRev bows gallantly and kisses hand.)
Now its time to beat the publishers into submission (hah! We'll see who submits whom!). (Do you really think these diaries could be hammered into a book? It would need a hell of an editing job.....we could add pictures....... would any non-Kossack buy it?....) and use weakness to defeat strength with the credit card dragons. But you guys are the greatest.....*sniff*.
Thats the latest until we meet around the UpTake.com hot stove for a trial that is indeed picking up momentum. Keep warm out there; here its still single digits but daylight is up over 100 minutes since the 8 hr. 48 min. bottom on 12/21, which is how we know spring is coming yust southeast of Lake Wobegon.
Shalom.