Wednesday, February 1, 2023

BREAKING: "No" means no: Supreme Court Turns Down Heath's Latest Requests (READ Order)

UPDATE, 2/8, 3pm: "No" means no: Supreme Court Turns Down Heath's Latest Requests

The Arizona Supreme Court has again turned aside attorney Ryan Heath's latest effort to elbow into the Kari Lake Election Contest appeal. Today, they rejected his back-to-back motions trying to get his allegedly-unique legal understanding in front of the Court of Appeals. (He had filed a Motion for Clarification and a Motion to instruct the Court of Appeals to accept his petition as an Amicus - or, friend of the court - brief.

Justice John R. Lopez IV simply ran down the chronology, and informed Heath that his brief does not meet the requirements of the appellate courts' rules.

Heath indicates (on social media) that he plans to submit it again when/if the Lake appeal reaches the Arizona Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court has discretion to decide whether or not to review the Court of Appeals' decision.)

UPDATE, 2/3, 12pm: If at first three times you don't succeed...

Original, 2/1, 5:15pm: "AZ Supreme Court, Court of Appeals Both REFUSE To Consider "Civil Rights Activist"/Attorney Heath's Treatise On Why He Knows AZ Election Law Better (READ Order)"

"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet. 

AZ Law airs on non-profit Sun Sounds of Arizona, a statewide reading service that provides audio access to printed material for people who cannot hold or read print material due to a disability. If you know someone who could benefit from this 24/7 service, please let them know about member-supported Sun Sounds. And, YOU can donate or listen here. 

Previous episodes of AZ Law can be streamed or downloaded here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

1 comment:

  1. Heath blocked me on Twitter for pointing out both the procedural flaws (there are many) and bad legal arguments in his filings.

    ReplyDelete