Posted on 10/18/2005 6:00:55 PM PDT by doug from upland
BACKGROUND INFO AT HILLCAP.ORG
The story is being written by the NEW YORK TIMES, but you heard it first here on FreeRepublic, the site of record.
The California Appellate Court in Los Angeles has remanded the Peter Paul civil suit against Hillary Clinton, et al back to the Los Angeles Superior Court. More importantly, the Appellate Court denied David Kendall's motion to strike on the merits and remove her as a defendant.
Paul's motion to bring David Rosen back in as a defendant was denied. Rosen will only be a witness in the civil case. Perhaps this time he will tell the truth.
The Superior Court had initially ruled against Hillary, and it was appealed by Kendall. Judge Munoz had made a ruling denying Hillary's motion based on failure to file her "anti-SLAPP" motion in a timely manner. The judge, however, ruled on the issue based on the time of filing, not the time of service. He didn't rule on the merits.
Essentially, the Appellate Court dropped it back into the Superior Court's lap. They are expected to hear it within 30 days.
It is good news for Paul that the Appellate Court did not strike on the merits. That would have removed Hillary as a defendant, and she could have only been called as a witness.
Will the Superior Court rule in favor of Kendall and remove Hillary as a defendant. Paul doesn't think so. They could have done that before, and the Appellate Court could have done that.
If anyone wants to have a little fun, why don't you plan on joining me for a FReep of Kendall within the next 30 days.
Comments???
Fantastic news, Doug. Sure hope they get Hitlery and Booba. It's about time justice was served.
Hmmmm... the other story (see eelirt thread) is painting this in a different light...
visualize the condescending air of glee dems have had the last few weeks.... now visualize it deflating audibly when hillary is taken out of the running in 08.
bump
Darn, Chavez beat me.
bttt
The Appellate Court could have removed Hillary as a defendant. They didn't. I don't think Hillary will do any better in Superior Court. They did not file the anti-SLAPP motion in a timely manner. They waited until they saw how it would go with Rosen. I think Chavez missed an important part of the story.
Ah yes, David Kendall the pilot fish of the Clinton and Democratic Party.
How in the dickens does a lawyer like Kendall fail to file timely?
It's not fantastic news, but it is better than Chavez paints it.
CA: State appeals court ruling favors Sen. Clinton in fundraiser case
ap on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 10/18/05 | Paul Chavez - ap
Doug - how does this stack up?
He was waiting until he saw how Munoz would rule on the anti-SLAPP decision regarding Rosen. This is more game playing and delay, delay, delay for which the Clintons are famous. But there will be a day of reckoning.
Watch out or DFU will accuse you of trying to bring facts to the table which always deconstruct his fantasies. He should hire a lawyer just once to understand how little he knows about the law.
Note to dfu:
HRC won't go to trial; HRC won't be a witness; Paul will pay a great deal of his own money to settle with all the lawyers he's dumped on. If he is lucky he might be able to include you as an accomplice. Quit while you're only way behind your behind.
Chavez failed to tell the reader that both Clintons have already been to the California Supreme Court. They could not get the case thrown out. From the time of the filing of Pau's suit, Hillary had thirty days to file to make a case regarding the anti-SLAPP statute. That didn't get filed for six months.
It goes back to the Superior Court. Judge Munoz erroneously thought he had no discretion regarding the failure to file the anti-SLAPP motion in a timely manner. This is more delaying by the Clintons. The good news is that the Appellate Court did not strike on the merits and remove Hillary. She is still a defendant.
Thanks for the reply
bttt
Maybe to put himself in a position such that the client can replace him with a new lawyer and keep dragging this one and on and on....
I seriously doubt you think about anything. If you did you would realize that conservative Republicans are a minority in their party just as liberals like me are now a minority in the Democratic Party.
=============================================
You fail the analogy test with a D-; but things could be worse...your social x-ray bimbo Mz Kolter always gets an F on all her lame analogies.
===============================================
Did you go to Haavaaarrrd or just stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
================================================
You are neither a conservative nor a Conservative. You are a spoiled brat, aka a libertine, incapable of understanding you will always be on the outside throwing spitballs.
=====================================================
If Mz. Kolter were twice as smart as she thinks she is she would still be a waste of time.
====================================================
I happen to like Senator Kennedy. Warts and all. I don't ever remember him saying he thought the 'framers' were geniuses. That doesn't really matter anyway since this is about my opinion and that is that the 'framers' were a bunch of rich white dudes who wouldn't let women vote, held slaves and pretty much wrote a constitution to protect property more than persons and if they were around today they would no doubt all be in jail or in rehab.
=================================================
When it takes both hands to find your butt it just proves you are a bigger ass than advertised.
=================================================
Well now, you've either gone totally bonkers or you're just being a pest; but to be honest with you I'll give you credit for playing the stupid part most convincingly.
==================================================
Bush should have picked someone who believes in Original Intent instead of a living Constitution.
1. I seriously doubt that President Bush even knows the difference, let alone cares; he does what he is told now by his keepers.
2. If you take Original Intent to its logical foundation you would not have the Bill of Rights and women still couldn't vote and ... well, you get the drift?
harrowup - If you truly wrote the statement above, I have to admit I have zero respect for you and your ability to think or properly understand what Lincoln called 'the Last Best Hope for Mankind' on this planet.
The framers were some of the finest men ever assembled together for any single great effort. You excuse the wort's of that fat, disgusting slob Teddy, and yet are not willing to do the same for these truly great men.
While it is not my purpose to destroy the reputations of some who post here,I will be happy to disclose to you why I consider dfu a leech and will also provide you with the other screen names here who use FR to promote their own personal agendas and monetary/ego gain. Since dfu has posted some of my comments originally produced and repeated all over the internet by a disgruntled former 'freeper' who was banned for disrupting this site I will not comment on the selective nature of his abuse.
If it were my intent to damage this website I would have done so, but have rather taken it as my duty to support FR and JR against those that abuse it by being on the firing line against those who have left here because their intentions were and continue to be deplorable.
The fact that types like 'dfu' continue to polute this site is not my business to question but when I see flagrant and I might add, boring repetition by a single poster I will mention it and usually move on. Apparently 'dfu' has been scorched by my very brief and pointed criticism of his behavior.
As to your complaint that a liberal has no business on a forum which promotes conservatives ideals, I will refrain from a common technique used by demagogues on the fringes of political discourse and tell you that you are a (insert whatever trips your trigger> and instead remind you that politics is the art of compromise and those of us in the middle know that and contrary to your belief that it is impossible for a liberal to be in the middle I will remind you that the Democratic Party has governed this country for a good number of years, and much of that time was with the support of southern Democrats who became Republicans...and further that President Regan attracted many Democrats because his conservatism was morally based.
Finally it is possible in this world to like people others seek to denigrate. It is called compassion and respect for the body of a man's worth, not the indiscretions of a wasted youth; I believe there are far too few in politics today for any other purpose than the accretion of wealth and Senator Kennedy is most assuredly not in that category.
Which brings me back to why I'm here and that is because I despise corruption in any form, format and forum. That is why I abhor the Clintons in form and format and support the right of Free Republic to exist as a forum because, contrary to all of FR's banned enemies, neither this site nor its founder are corrupt.
I have already atoned for my sins this year. If you believe I should start a new list for this current year than get in line...but, I will never feel guilty for criticising anyone, constitutional founders included, for eggregious intent, nor will I ever put a pedestal under them, let alone Senator Kennedy and most assuredly myself.
Who are you kidding? Most of these people are after POWER, else why would they give up private jobs where they could make 2,5,10, 50 times more money than the 'small' salary of a Senator. Most Senators are wealthy before going into politics. You are completely confused here.
Teddy is the worst form of demagogue. Forget about wasted youth, have you even bothered to listen to him the last many years. I have less than zero respect for him. Someone like Wellstone(RIP), I could genuinely respect because he truly did believe what he was championing. But people like Kennedy make me sick. The biggest phonies and frauds! How much money does Teddy give to help the poor and needy? Virtually nothing compared to what he has. He wants me and you to pay for his social programs. Plus he's a blatant, pathological liar.
We get the fact that you hate Kennedy. That is your right. The fact that you feign respect for Paul Wellstone either points to your naivete or given the nature of your ill-temper, I suspect you are just another run of the mill mouth. If you want to talk about hypocrites then put Shumer one notch ahead of Wellstone and both of them several levels behind Hatch. If you liked Wellstone you must be just ga-ga about Tancredo.
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.