All this well founded concern about rape could really hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016. Aiding and abetting a rapist of so many women..with today's young females stand for it?
In light of this I bet McGinn's cop-union buds are back yelling at him to take another crack at shutting Holmes up like he tried to a couple weeks ago. I'm sure the mayor wants to help SPOG out, except the judge totally dismissed the grounds on which he tried to silence Holmes last time:
The judge also dissuaded the city of a notion, first put forth by McGinn during a Feb. 27 news briefing, that the city’s agreement with the DOJ — signed in July — settled the litigation between them.

McGinn’s legal counsel, Carl Marquardt, repeated the assertion in a March 5 letter to Holmes, saying “implementation of the Settlement Agreement is not ‘litigation.’ ”

He said the agreement makes clear that it is an accord between the city and DOJ to avoid litigation. Marquardt asserted that implementation “falls squarely” within the mayor’s authority.

That view is “simply wrong,” Robart said.
But Mike's pretty crafty, and his lawyer seems willing to say any old thing, so I'm sure it ain't over yet.
Here is what Seattle police reform should look like:

* Be nicer to people threatening you with carving knives and guns. Accept any officer injury in the line of duty as SPD's fault.

* Ignore any minority who is breaking the law. Particularly the loudest and most obnoxious minorities with their own associations.

* Focus more on rich white people going to work. Give SPD taxing authority.

* When the NAACP yells "Racist," just drop your head and say "Yessa Massa. Yessa."

Clearly an attack by the right-wing Seattle City government to rob unions of their collective bargaining rights. Right, you histrionic socialists??
Wow. Y'all sure get along.
You are aware there are other federal judges than Robart, right? And that he'd likely have to recuse himself of hearing said case? Your logic (that this case will somehow end up before Robart who will then toss it out?) is kiiiiiinda specious.
The file name is spog removal. Throwing the sheets in the laundry usually works for me.

On the topic, if there is already a pending case in federal court opening a new trial in state court is a dumb move. I think Federal pre-emption is a slam dunk here.
Pete Holmes for mayor!!!

Juanita Broaddrick

Hillary Clinton is Joe Paterno
@8: Hey, that's my line.

Sneaky Pete Holmes for mayor!!!!
Quick point; this isn't actually a motion. A notice of removal moves a case from state court to federal court automatically, without any judge doing anything. To get it back to state court, the other side would have to ask the federal judge to send it back ("remand") it to state court. Given that the federal courts seem to have jurisdiction, that is extremely unlikely to happen.

In other words, the game might already be lost.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.