Skip to comments.Judge rules that Joe Miller must pay state legal fees
Posted on 06/25/2011 10:23:11 AM PDT by Hawk720
An Alaska judge on Friday ordered that failed U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller pay more than $17,300 in legal costs incurred by the state in fighting Miller's challenge to last year's election. But Judge William Carey said Miller won't have to pay legal bills for his rival, Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
In state court, when no money is at issue in the litigation, winning parties can seek up to 20 percent of their attorney fees. For the state, in this instance, that came to $17,373.85. Carey said Murkowski, who intervened in the case, was not a prevailing party.
Attorneys for all three parties said Friday afternoon that they hadn't seen the order and declined comment.
Miller sued over the state's handling of the election and counting of votes for Murkowski, who mounted an unprecedented write-in campaign after losing the GOP primary to tea party favorite Miller last August.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
The additional burden of proof thrown unto the plaintiff will discourage significant numbers of frivolous lawsuits.
Murcowski: seems to me I remember that name. Isn’t she the RINO Republican that democrats elected ?
I remember now, Her daddy gave her the job and told her it belonged to her by right of inheritance.
So this will also apply to the WI female that lost. Can’t remember her name. /s
Only if she is a Republican. Our nation is creeping closer to Civil War II with every tilted judicial ruling.
The Judge (Carey) was appointed by Sarah Palin and applied Alaska law as written to essentially undisputed facts — the loser has to repay the state 20% of the state’s costs in this circumstance. It isn’t cause for even mild alarm, much less civil war.
I wonder if all the people that wanted Miller to keep fighting long after it was clear he'd lost are going to pony up and help him pay off these legal expenses.
I wonder if he could use any remaining $ from his campaign? Seems reasonable to me.
Yeah, I think he could if he has anything left in the till.
I suspect that he can, although I don’t know that for sure. As another poster noted, this is the real-world result of “loser pays” legislation.
No. Miller had legal troubles before he came up against Murkowski. Even though he is a lawyer, he does seem to understand how the law works and that he is not above it. Also, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. He was the one who instigated the challenge to the vote.
Miller is a sleazy, lying carpetbagger.
Think of Lisa as an un-indicted co-conspirator in a massive criminal enterprise.
Look, just about everybody but Todd Palin and my relatives are carpetbaggers in Alaska.
miller sure turned out to be a disappointment.
my wife and i sent him a campaign donation.
The only sleazy liar is Lisa Murkowski. She lost the GOP nomination fair and square and broke the spirit of the law to get herself the office for which she lost with the liberal help from her Democrat buddies.
I often say Civil War III. The American Revolution was a Civil War of sorts.
People will usually say, "Another Civil War. Today? This is America".
By itself, of course not. But combined with the never-ending legislative and judicial and executive sewage overspill of liberal legal decisions, open hostility to Christians specifically and conservatives in general, and a complete and utter disgust for our nation's Constitution, it is only a matter of time.
It sounds like you would have preferred the Judge to ignore the law and impose his political will in disregard of the law. Unlike you, I do not think that activist Judges are a good idea.
What I would have preferred is that Joe Miller won the election in the first place.
Of course. Can we agree, however, that the election is now final and that the Judge should follow the law and not override the determined will of the voters based upon his political whim? We are supposed to stand for a constitutional system here and not for judges disregarding laws they don’t agree with. That is just exactly the sort of thing that true conservatives have been rightly fighing against. Or would you prefer that we become just like the liberals and follow the constitution and laws only when we agree with or like the outcome?