Recall Ellis Goes to Court

The Erickson household is still recovering from strep/stomach bugs. In any event, today the Recall Ellis effort makes it way to court in Macon. The effort has five very well articulated points that show Ellis falls within the recall statute.

Remember, in a recall, the facts presented do not have to be true, there just has to be probably cause to believe they are true. Once that is established, all a judge is required to do is determine if a reasonable person could conclude there was a legal violation if the facts, as presented, were true.

I think they meet that burden and this should go forward.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

3 Comments

  • You’re right! Here is some more information for ya …

    For those of you who are wondering about Judge Tracy Moulton shutting us down because of Res Judicata.

    You see, at the beginning of the hearing, the judge said he wouldn’t hear any evidence prior to his last decision on October 22, 2004, which was the date he issued his order for the prior recall hearing. Thank goodness I read all the case law I could get my hands on prior to our first hearing so when I heard that statement by the judge, I knew I had to go searching. I finally found what I was looking for today. Here is the link: [link=www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/3122 newwindow]COLLINS et al. v. MORRIS et al. (two cases).[/link].

    Basically it states that even though a previous recall application was found to be legally insufficient, it cannot affect the hearing of a new recall application.

    If you’ll read further you’ll note something that our fantastic attorney, Richard Thornton, made a big deal of in court, which is that the hearing is about minimal due process. In the case I had noted above it talks about how the voters are to be the ultimate decision makers regarding a recall, not the courts.

    So read and praise the Web site http://www.lawskills.com for providing free access to the annotated versions of the Recall Act of 1989. While you’re there, think about making a small donation to them because they’ve saved our behinds!

    I’ll keep you updated when we get the transcript from the court. I’d like to post it online so if you weren’t there, you can read it for yourself. I’ll also let you know how our proposed orders are going.

    Thanks for all your support, and we’ll continue to work hard for this recall!

  • You’re right! Here is some more information for those interested …

    For those of you who are wondering about Judge Tracy Moulton shutting us down because of Res Judicata.

    You see, at the beginning of the hearing, the judge said he wouldn’t hear any evidence prior to his last decision on October 22, 2004, which was the date he issued his order for the prior recall hearing. Thank goodness I read all the case law I could get my hands on prior to our first hearing so when I heard that statement by the judge, I knew I had to go searching. I finally found what I was looking for today. Here is the link: http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/3122.

    Basically it states that even though a previous recall application was found to be legally insufficient, it cannot affect the hearing of a new recall application.

    If you’ll read further you’ll note something that our fantastic attorney, Richard Thornton, made a big deal of in court, which is that the hearing is about minimal due process. In the case I had noted above it talks about how the voters are to be the ultimate decision makers regarding a recall, not the courts.

    So read and praise the Web site http://www.lawskills.com for providing free access to the annotated versions of the Recall Act of 1989. While you’re there, think about making a small donation to them because they’ve saved our behinds!

    I’ll keep you updated when we get the transcript from the court. I’d like to post it online so if you weren’t there, you can read it for yourself. I’ll also let you know how our proposed orders are going.

    Thanks for all your support, and we’ll continue to work hard for this recall!

  • Sorry … that was my post above. I just couldn’t get it work correctly the first four time I posted it with my name.

    Sincerely,
    Heather McCroan