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
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.