So one of the complex legal concepts that I’ve learned while blogging about these Obama eligibility lawsuits is that when someone moves for the court to do something, the other side gets to respond and then the first folks get to reply. It’s an A→B→A thing.
Here we have the Defense motion in Melendres v. Arpaio demanding Judge Snow disqualify himself, to which the Plaintiffs objected, and now the Defense (Arpaio) replies. You can read it from the most excellent Jack Ryan collection at Scribd.
When I wrote about Arpaio’s initial motion appealing to 28 USC § 144, I said they had made a mistake. Apparently I was right, since it is thrown under the bus in the reply:
Even presuming that a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 may be precluded, the Court must still consider the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Adesanya v. W. Am. Bank, 19 F.3d 25 (9th Cir. 1994). Regardless of § 144, then, Defendants’ Motion must be considered under § 455.
What is troubling about the response is an apparent lie:
First, even Plaintiffs acknowledge that both Arpaio and Sheridan testified that the Montgomery investigation stopped long before the April 2015 OSC hearing after they deemed Montgomery to not be credible.
Arpaio himself testified that they were “finishing up” the investigation at the OSC hearing in April.
Finally, the Defense never explains how Judge Snow’s wife would ever be a witness in the contempt of court process. She might be a witness in some sort of a recusal hearing, but that would be by another judge, and hence no bias.