Back to Quick Hits

Perry (Prop 8) update

February 22, 2012

Plaintiffs ordered to respond to the petition for rehearing – due 21 days from today.

Chuck Storey’s motion to intervene and petition for a rehearing both denied.  It’s a bit confusing procedurally, because there are several different consolidated cases involved.  But the result is that Mr. Storey was told, once again, that he may not intervene and that he’s not a party to this litigation.

7 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Reformed  |  February 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    Thanks for the memories, and good luck chuck.

  • 2. Bob  |  February 22, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    denied,,,, nice try bye bye,,,,

  • 3. Nil  |  February 22, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    Shouldn't he be worrying about wasting money in the poorest county in California? I'd think so… go away Mr Storey

  • 4. Nickolas  |  February 23, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    I find his motion to interject himself into this case as acynical attempt to win favor as the martor of Prop 8 with the religious right voting populace. He stated that he "took an oath to defend the Californian constitution, and that prop 8 is appart of the constitution." Hey Storey, its just been declared unconstitutional by a federal court…twice. You wanna wait until the rubble clears before diving in head first?

  • 5. peterplumber  |  February 24, 2012 at 7:35 am

    I don't think it's Chuck himslef initiating this. And the money is not coming from the county coffers. I think the whole thing is being pushed and paid for by the "Advocates for Faith and Freedom ".

  • 6. MightyAcorn  |  February 24, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Yes, that's the "law office" that filed his paperwork, the same nonsensical rant as before. Poor Chuck, he will walk forever in the shadow of Delores. He should really just hitch up his girdle and move on.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  February 24, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    I've suspected all along that it is really the Proponents behind Imperial County's attempt to intervene, at least initially. When IC first sought intervention in District Court, they specifically cited concerns over the Proponents' standing to appeal as part of the motivation for intervention. As people have noted, IC is a particularly cash strapped county and Proponents were probably only able to get the IC Board of Supes on board (as they were in the earlier proceedings) by getting Advocates for Faith and Freedom to agree to provide pro bono legal services.

    While this continued push for intervention may have taken on a life of its own, it's also possible that Proponents continue to harbor some lingering doubts as to whether their standing will be upheld throughout the appeals process and want IC there as backup.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.