Replies

Partly, yes. However, as pertains to the judge, the attorney made several VERY IMPORTANT and unusual comments to be addressed to a judge about the judge's order and what the judge's procedures on this matter will be based upon.

The attorney said it very much appears that the judge is preventing Gov. Bush the ability to cross-examine witnesses, obtain discovery so he can properly answer any charges, is allowing "hearsay" into the instant case and, is instead, calling them facts, simply because they were argued/presented in another case, but a case the Governor was not a party to, and, therefore, should not be allowed in AT ALL, unless the Gov. is given the opportunity to refute/admit those facts based on has own discovery; that it appears that the judge has already made up his mind about what "facts" are necessary for him to make a decision.....in essence, the attorney is strongly implying, that the judge is being biased, and by making the decisions he's making, it will be an err in law, not in discretion. An err in law can be appealed. An "err" in discretion cannot.

in nutshell, Connor told them they didn't file things properly , the courts have previously ruled incorrectly and the Gov will not appear before them because they didn't follow the rules????????

Another point that hasn't been mentioned is that in a legal proceeding, the respondent must be allowed 45 days from the time they are properly served notice of the proceeding to prepare a response befoe the proceeding can go ahead. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but none of them apply. Since Felos et al. haven't even served proper notice of the lawsuit to Governor Bush, the 45-day clock hasn't even started.

Methinks Felos made a very big mistake here. He's used to dealing with attourneys who may know the official rules, but don't necessarily know how things are 'done'. He's also used to playing on 'home field', where he knows how to be seen in a good light by the judges. He has just picked a fight with a legal team that's much better than he is, and done so in a way that gives up home-field advantage.

If I may use an analogy, there are two ways to win money at poker: (1) play really well, or (2) seek out players who are worse than you, and only play against those. Felos is an expert at approach (2), and consistently wins when he picks the right opponents. His latest action, though, is equivalent to engaging himself in a heads-up match against an expert. Prepare for the slaughter.