Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:37:22 -0000 From: pgammill@home.com Subject: [lpaz-discuss] (!) Re: The Appeal To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
1) Okay, I cannot tell Mr. Schmerl apart from Mr. Zajac. Apologies to all. Mr. Zajac was at the hearing, Mr. Schmerl was not. I am guilty of assuming that Mr. Schmerl, as the "State Chairman" of the Inc. and the protagonist in this saga, would attend to lend his support. It was nice to see that Mr. Hardy at least had someone there to give him support this time [I never held any of this crap against Mr. Hardy. Even if he is a fervent believer in what he is doing, he is Mr. Schmerl's attorney, and honor bound to give his client the best he has got.]. {As indicated previously, I was guessing that the other attendee was Mr. Kahn, but have seen someone indicate it is Mr. Zajac, Sr. Quite possible, since I recognized the gentleman from a publicity campaign photo, and may have confused the Tucson Mayral and Corp. Commissioner race elections.} Since I was so observant, you should consider the source for all of the following:
2) I published my impressions, not a comprehensive guide to the oral arguments. I am sorry to mislead anyone. Mr. Hardy did indeed start out with a statement regarding the Inc. "merger" and contrary to Mr. Hardy's recollection, IMHO, this was the only point during the arguments where the judges looked bored. I mean, paper shuffling, staring off into space bored, and I was too. Also, and I may be wrong, but Mr. Hardy's constant reference to the Robert's Rules seemed to be bothering the Judges. Mr. Hardy thinks he got favorable body language throughout, and I do not (nor do I think this means a whole lot they let both sides argue, instead of cutting off the debate!). Mr. Buttrick did rebut the merger portion, and then spent a lot of time rebutting Mr. Hardy's rebuttal.
I left the merger out because I found them to be a rehash of the case, nothing new, and a waste of time. But I could have said that, for whatever reason, Mr. Hardy did introduce the merger back into the oral arguments, and there was no objection. Sorry. I can see how some would see it as important. Who knows, maybe it will be a big deal and the judges will reverse Myer's on this issue. But I am not losing sleep over it. But fine, Peter continues the illusion that he is on life support, and not a corpse. Maybe I'm the deluded one:-)
3) As far as I could tell, while there was a 20 minute timer on each argument, the time expired on both party's (Rawl's first), the judges overtly allowed the arguments to continue, and in the end invited both sides to add anything else. Both sides indicated they were finished. So, I am not sure what other arguments Mr. Hardy was expecting Mr. Rawls to introduce. Mr. Hardy is correct that the judges asked whether the AG's office had been properly notified of the apeal, with regards as to whether they wished to defend the state's interest. And that Buttrick/Rawls looked uncomfortable in whether they could produce written documentation of this. As to ethos...well I will let the outcome determine that. If documentation can be found, whether from the ALP, ADP or ARP, or even ALP, Inc. trying to get the state to come into the appeals arguement, then clearly the state must feel it has NO interest. Without such documnetation... who knows. Hell, the state (Co. Rec Ofc.) left the suit in the first place citing no interest, hence the realignment.
4) Mr. Hardy did introduce two new (?) case citations with regard to the constitutional arguments, that I noted all 3 judges copied down his citations. They will be looked up and evaluated against what he said regarding them. If he has given them a way to rule and they choose to use it he wins, if in their opinion, the cases do not apply, he will have wasted their time. Throw something out and see what sticks and it might stick on you.
Hell, Mr. Hardy is far more experienced than I am in this. This is only my second oral argument attended. So weigh his impressions versus mine. I am not sorry I didn't tape this one. It wasn't that illuminating. I suspect the judges will decide on the submitted documents and not the oral arguments, but you cannot say either side didn't get a fair hearing. Frankly, Mr. Hardy's optimistic; but ever since Clinton was re-elected, I no longer confidently make predictions on things I have to solely rely on others for. I'd love to win it all, I saw nothing in the oral arguments to make me think the justices wouldn't simply take to easiest course of upholding Judge Myer's ruling in toto, or just rejecting the appeal without comment, which does the same thing [If they can do this.]. The PCM is regrettably here to stay IMHO.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered high school alumni--chances are you'll ind your friends! http://us.click.yahoo.com/l3joGB/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/JwNVlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/