Winter said:

"... in the hope that other readers will use it to evaluate the quality of media coverage they have been getting on this matter."

What media coverage? The only place I've seen anything about this case is right here at Bradblog and Raw's story yesterday - which was actually 3 days behind times.

Ceratinly nothing in the newspaper or on TV. They're too busy with the false flag Karr story!

Is the ruling postponed just now? That's what a headlined of a Voice of San Diego article just now released says, but it's unclear if the writer was confused that the quote of Yuri Hoffman "that he'll rule Tuesday" is an earlier quote referring to today, or a note that he's waiting until next Tuesday to rule on this case.

We're still expecting a ruling in about an hour.

Paul Lehto argued extremely well.

AS always thank-you for the details of these events that we can not locate elsewhere. Without your reporting,.. we would be left in the blind.

Please, please, please let this be a victory for democracy.

Winter... what's happening down there in the courtroom?!?!?!?

I'm dying here!!!!

MrBlueSky: I will let you know just as soon as I learn anything. Very impatient here too!

The longer we have to wait, the better that is for our side.

If the judge throws out defendants' lame jurisdictional pleading, then they have other rulings on motions and pleadings to get through.

So the longer it takes for word, unless somebody runs out with the news on this particular ruling, the better.

Even though I only rarely post here I read this blog several times a day...... Thank you to Brad, Winter Patriot and all of you for keeping me informed and pissed off enough to keep calling, writing, and talking to anyone who will listen...including, but not limited to...the plumber, the gardner, the insurace adjuster...anyone who shows up at my door here in "the O.C.".

Where are Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert when we need them?

My stomach is in knots....Do we know anything about this judge?

call me a cynic. if this judge doesn't go "their" way, there are other judges that will. Think Scalia wouldn't love to get a crack at this one?

I don't think any judge, including Scalia, would want a crack at this one. If they rule for defendants on this motion, they get to go down as an anti-Constitutional judge... as one of the enablers of fascism. They'd prefer not to have to come right out and rule for that, even if they're in favor of it.

Actually, if the judge wants to help Haas and Bilbray, et al., he will rule in their favor on the anti-SLAPP motion, which will hang the thing up indefinitely. If the judge wants to rule in favor of America, he'll deny all defendants' motions and the case will move forward.

#11 and #12.

I think especially SCOTUS judges might be nervous on this one. If the Dems retake the House and the Senate, these are the kind of cases they might look at and the rulings that come out of them to put together cases for impeachment of these judges too. I think not only is the administration leary of impeachment, I wouldn't be surprise if some on the court are also feeling that way now too. They'd probably rather not have to deal with such cases at this point.

This is why I don't blog. I forgot to delete "don't" in the first sentence.

Jeez....

{Ed Note: But I fixed it for you... --99}

-99

Bless you....XOXO

Only in my wildest dreams could I imagine a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, a new Speaker of the House, an impeachment of the POTUS and VPOTUS, two convictions, removal, (remand to the World Court), the impeachment of a few SCOTUS members, and new replacements (Larry Lessig?) confirmed.

It's probably more likely that my fantasy of me and my wife and (insert sexy actress name here) together in a hot tub will come true.

We're in a strange situation here ... it could be that things in the courtroom are taking longer than expected, or it could be that our communication lines are broken. I can't tell but I'll get the news to you as soon as I get some.

Patience is a virtue but I am not feeling too virtuous today ... and apparently I am not alone on that!

Hang tough, friends.

I called Ed Schultz this afternoon to try to talk about CA50. Got right through so apparently not many holding on at that time. I told them my topic and was immediately disconected. Called right back got on again and asked if they had hung up and was told that he hit the wrong button. I was told to hang on for ED.

I hung on for a full hour and then was disconnected as the program ended. He took about about 6 or more calls in addition to Nancy Pelozi and Soledad OBrian. Apparently Ed DID NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT CA50!!

I just went and got the tentative ruling.... Not good. So Lehto is in there arguing his heart out.

If Bilbray's right... then why do we need elections at all??????

Congress could just appoint its own members.

God! The suspense is killing me!!! I don't like that last post (#20) --it doesn't sound good...

Wayne,

I've gotten so I can't stomach too much of Ed Schultz. I realize though, he serves a purpose in appealing to people who are testing the water to the left of the dial (in reality..the center on his show). In my opinion he doesn't ask the hard questions that need to be asked of the Democratic politicians who appear on his show.
Ed really lost me when he snickered at people who have come to the conclusion that 911 was most likely an inside job. It seems to me he is deferentail to the callers who come up with excuses or questions that support the government's story....even though, I would imagine, they have spent almost no time researching the subject compared to people...liberal and conservative ..who have done so and come to the terrifyng conclusion we are victims of a false flag operation..... which is not surprising once one becomes aware of the truth about our foreign policy.

Oh please let there be a ruling on the side of democracy by the time I post this. My dog and my thighs need to go for a walk and I don't want to leave my computer!

I've seen lawyers talk judges out of their intended rulings lots of times, and Lehto's reasoning behind filing the way he did might have been a little too fancy for this judge to fathom without some serious talking to get the matter straight in his head. Judges these days are very wary of overstepping their bounds, and defendants have made it seem that he would be doing that if he kept the case. We just have to hope Paul Lehto has his shwerve on today! All is not lost.

The DNC response to this Calif. Dist. 50 mess.

Link to DNC / Moore Response

Sure, oldturk, they're right on top of this one! So far on top, we can't even see them.

Agent 99,

Does Susan Lapsley's involvement in the election make any difference in this case? Is Lehto allowed to bring her involvement into question?

I know nothing about law...so please excuse my ignorance...I'm just praying something will cause this judge to have some sort of epiphany and smell the stench of fascism.

Diane

It could, IF the case is allowed to go forward. I'm not sure, but if the Judge rules this contest should have been taken to the legislature itself, I THINK the time for that has passed. If it is, her involvement wouldn't even be a question for them to decide.

If this case is dismissed, I don't know if there's another we can bring, let alone have decided before Busby and Bilbray face off in November again, possibly STILL with no better reliability for the voting machines. It's a nasty thing to contemplate. I don't know enough to set you at ease about anything, except that Lehto could talk the judge out of dismissing this case. Sorry.

Well, and if the case is allowed to go forward, Lapsley's involvement would bear on the precipitous swearing-in and so she would be deposed, or named as a defendant, or called as a witness.... It looks as if we're fighting to keep the case right now. The judge's tentative ruling was to dismiss the case. We have to wait to hear through channels.

oldturk (#25): Wow, those were some nice and strong WORDS from the DNC.

Brad, let us know how much the check was that came with those words? $1,000? (morning coffee money to the DNC). $10,000 (serious business lunch money for the DNC). Perhaps $100,000 (actually committed to fighting for Democracy level money for the DNC). After all, they put what --- $10-$15 MILLION??? --- into the California 50? You would think they would put a pittance more into finding out who won.

I'm guessing they haven't given CENT ONE to the cause, because they are a bunch of... oh hell, you all know how I feel about the DNC. Nuff said.

Where the hell is the ruling?

The totaly fucked facist results are now up at the top of the blog!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Did the judge indicate in any fashion what he deemed was the legal certification basis for Hastert to swear in Bilbray? It seems we need to hear his opinion on that before we can know how to respond to this ruling. If we are going to appeal, it seems that we should sue for whatever official falsely either issued certification where it was not legal or used certification. We won't overturn this election or force Bilbray out before the end of his term, and likely at this point won't get the opportunity for a manual count, but at least we can force the issue of not allowing this sort of "edictive" way of declaring a winner without a clearly defined methodology of certification (with opportunities for the public to take issue with the certification results). That should be appealed to the SCOTUS and force them to deal with it. I'd also like to know when Yuri's term is up to get relected as a court justice around here. I think he just drew a big X on his back now that needs to be remembered heavily around here!

A judge isn't going to give an opinion on anything bearing on a case he dismisses on jurisdictional grounds. We have to appeal the ruling, and if we win, then we get the questions adjudicated.