“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
This news is a few days old, but I’m sure that anyone who is following the delegate lawsuit is aware that an opposition to the RNC’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on Wednesday, July 18th. The PLAINTIFFS‘ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS‘ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT cites the reason of opposition to be that the RNC’s counsel did not correctly follow court procedure to Meet and Confer under Civil Rules section L.R. 7-3. You can read the Plaintiff’s Opposition here:
Here are the letters that were included in the motion; these are correspondence between Gilbert and Marlowe and the RNC Counsel. (I have to mention at this point that these are ONLY Gilbert and Marlowe’s letters, not the responses from Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, LLP, counsel for the RNC.)
I decided to go ahead and do a little research into the Civil Rules and to read the section that the opposition motion is based upon. The section referred to in the motion states that an initial Case Management Order MAY (not will) establish deadlines for many things, including:
(You can click on the above text to access the Civil Local Rules).
Now, here’s the rub. The motion to oppose includes Gilbert and Marlowe’s letters, but not the responses from the RNC. Those are public record, so I will publish them so you can read them for yourself. Pay attention in particular to the fact that Gilbert wants all correspondence in writing. Gilbert also says, in the June 29th letter, that he “received your letter dated June 28, 2012, wherein you acknowledge receipt of all of my Meet and Confer letters.” However, if you look at the letter dated June 28th, there is no mention of that. In fact, most of the letter deals with a reprimand for violation of the California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100 (A) from the other counsel. I’ll let you make your own judgments…I have my opinions as to the professionalism involved, but it’s not for me to say…I am not an attorney. Here is a link to the file, and I will attach images of the letters for you to peruse as well.
Remember that old adage, “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar”? I’m not real sure how a “refusal to speak on the telephone”, as per one of the letters above, shows a willingness to Meet and Confer, but again, that’s only my opinion. I’m interested to see how this plays out. I think that ALL of the letters should have been included in the exhibits, because it paints a better picture of what is actually going on between the parties’ counsel. Once again, I invite you to read and come to your own conclusions. Other motions have been filed…I’ll try to post more as this progresses and keep you up to date.
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?”