I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.


An oddiment in McDaniel’s brief: Gunn is not legitimately in office if Cochran’s argument is right.

Phillip Gunn is Speaker of the House.  A key point of contention is the impact of an election contest between he and Jep Barbour that the Mississippi Supreme Court decided in 2004 that centered around the state elections of 2003.

Obviously, Gunn has fully served the term he won in that case, along with another term and the better part of a third.

Citing the principle that a decision of a court that had no jurisdiction is void, McDaniel closes his brief by suggesting that Gunn could be removed from his most recent successful election for something a court did three elections ago:

To apply a new or different standard to Senator Chris McDaniel’s challenge would not only create a double standard in the Court suggesting judicial activism, but would also void this Court’s decision in Barbour v. Gunn ab initio. If this Court were to decide that it was wrong in its jurisdictional analysis – if the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear Speaker Gunn’s election contest case because he did not file his complaint with the SREC within 20 days, then Speaker Gunn could be removed from his office, since this Court’s ruling in that case would be void ab initio. Therefore, the Republican Party’s State Executive Committee’s certification of Jep Barbour as the winner would stand.

Since it pretty much highlights that McDaniel is willing to argue for utter chaos and that his arguments are silly, not the note I would have ended on.

The brief and a discussion of it are in a prior post.

Comments are closed.