- A Response (a 4-page document) to plaintiffs' rule 56(D) motion; and
- A Reply in support of request for judicial notice (a 5-page document)
Previously, plaintiffs had filed the rule 56(D) motion hoping to get the IRC motion to dismiss denied.
The rule 56(D) motion, according to the IRC brief, is a stalling tactic without merit. The Arizona Eagletarian, on August 9 included excerpts from the IRC motion to dismiss this case, citing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as saying this kind of case is “more likely to encourage politically motivated litigation than to vindicate political rights.” Scalia's observation certainly seems to be on the mark here.
Plaintiffs (by way of counsel David Cantelme) opposed the IRC request for judicial notice claiming such a request is only reasonable when the items subject to the notice are not in dispute. Cantelme says the items, in this case, are very much in dispute.
In due time, we will get word from the court on what will be denied or dismissed or still be subject to court consideration in this action. This may be the case subject to a court hearing on October 31. Yes, it IS difficult to keep the lawsuits straight in my mind.
In the meantime, Wednesday morning, the Arizona Court of Appeals will hear the open meeting case. I plan to attend and will post about it later that day (or evening).