Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Coleman-Franken trial: In no uncertain terms, Franken side opposes Coleman injunction attempt and seeks sanctions

The lawyerly language heated up today as Al Franken’s lawyers told the three-judge panel in a stern memo that Norm Coleman’s attempt to block the redaction of 933 recounted votes “flies in the face” and serves to “eviscerate” an earlier court order.

Under Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, the Franken side is even seeking unspecified sanctions against Coleman’s lawyers.

It all stems from this morning’s filing by Coleman lawyers of a motion seeking a temporary injunction.

In a document, Franken lawyer David Lillehaug wrote: “Having stipulated that the 933 ballots were properly counted, they cannot urge now — in this case or any other — that those ballots were not properly counted … In the middle of an extraordinarily important, historic, expedited proceeding, [Coleman] has burdened the Court with a motion that seeks to abrogate a solemn stipulation and an order of this very Court. This is a direct attack on the integrity of the Court and the entire judicial process.”

A hearing on the matter is expected later today. But the fact that some of the 933 have been redacted has left the matter up in the air.

Comments (2)

  1. Submitted by Eric Ferguson on 02/20/2009 - 02:17 pm.

    Isn’t it extraordinary to ask a court to reconsider rulings? It seems there could be no end of requests to reconsider rulings, until the dissatisfied side wins. Doesn’t there come a point where the court has ruled, and appeals have to go to a higher court?

  2. Submitted by Alyce Bowers on 02/20/2009 - 05:21 pm.

    What happened today with the list of absenette ballots that Franken wants to enter into evidence and consider for counting?
    Did he turn in his list?
    How many names were on it?

Leave a Reply