By now, nobody in the coleman camp cares about winning, just delaying franken’s being seated.

At least his father displayed more class when conducting his ... um ... affairs in public.  Direct, rather than symbolic, personal, rather than collective.

I don’t think most Minnesotan’s even care anymore.

Coleman’s lawyers say they won’t pay up until a decision on the Minnesota Supreme Court appeal.

Serve a writ of garnishment on his bank! 

I know in California Franken could arrange for a sheriff to go to the Coleman campaign headquarters, at the Coleman campaign’s expense, and physically remove any monies brought in by the Coleman campaign until the total amount of the judgment was paid.  Minnesota must have similar methods of recovering on a judgment.

<quote>Minnesota must have similar methods of recovering on a judgment.</quote>

Yeah, and the first thing Coleman would do is get a temporary injunction, contingent on the failure or success of his pending appeal.

Look, I don’t like Coleman, but this is not unreasonable.  In fact, it’s highly reasonable because if Franken’s lawyers have to respond to the appeal in the Supreme Court (which they do, even if it gets dismissed, they still need to file briefs and motions for dismissal), then the costs will go up. So, why insist on payment now, when you’re going to have to insist on more payment later?

Additionally, this is proper. If defendants had to pay costs and damages before appealing, with the hope that if they win, the plaintiff will pay them back, then that would be unfair to the defendant who later succeeds. Would the plaintiff be required to pay interest for the time that they had the money? How do you know when the appeal would be settled? Would a successful plaintiff get a damage and costs award and then be unable to spend the money for the statute of limitations, just in case there’s an appeal?
No, this is all silly. And yes, Coleman’s a dweeb, but he shouldn’t have to pay while he has an appeal of the original suit pending.

However, if he takes steps to intentionally delay the suit, then his lawyers should potentially face sanctions and the suit should be dismissed with prejudice.

Jeebus I hope Harry Reid can manage to find a spine when the Minnesota Supreme Court rules in Franken’s favor in a week or two.

MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty will of course refuse to sign the election certificate when it gets issued (because now that it’s obvious he’s running for POTUS in 2012 and not going to run for re-election as MN governor, he needs to smooch some know-nothing booty), and he’ll argue that he shouldn’t have to until Coleman’s federal appeal is complete (which could take another year or two), but Reid will have the legal authority to seat Franken immediately once the MN Supreme Court rules, signed certificate or not.

And if he doesn’t, he’s an asshole.

If Norm is slow opening his wallet, there’s another way we can pick his pocket:

Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee launched the “Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away” campaign. Each day Coleman refuses to concede, thousands of us are donating $1 to help progressives defeat Republicans in 2010.

It’s working! Over $152,000 has already been raised!

Can you add to the momentum by donating $1 a day?

https://services.myngp.com/NGPOnlineServices/contribution.aspx?X=Ded7FwPHDshrGtqFOE7vW9VcwgIMiaBGhXdSUiuRDlw=

Theaetetus is right.  This is just a judgment.  Coleman is not “ignor[ing] a direct court order.”  It may be futile and wasteful spending to continue with the appeal, but he’s within his legal rights to delay payment.  This is not what a scofflaw is.

I see the trolls are back. A legal judgment is an order to pay. You can appeal the order or ask a higher court to stay, but there’s no sign of the Coleman campaign having done any of these things. In fact, if you look at the pdf, you see that the original court order was back in April. The Coleman campaign has been trying to get the court not to enter the judgment on its docket since then, and this notice says they failed. So now they’re simply saying “We won’t pay.” Not “we don’t think we should pay, and we’ve filed to that effect,” or “If we pay, we’ll just collect when we win” but “we won’t pay.”

My reading of this, since it’s Norm, not some discorporate campaign, that filed the suit challenging the election results, is that it’s Norm who is responsible for satisfying the judgment (hence his name right there on it). So now that the judgment has been entered there’s really nothing preventing the creditor from moving to seize any of his possession and selling them to satisfy the debt…

“You can appeal the order or ask a higher court to stay, but there’s no sign of the Coleman campaign having done any of these things.”

Really, there’s no indication that Coleman has appealed this judgement? Like, to the Minnesota Supreme Court? No indication at all?

Look, paul, before you go labeling people trolls, you might want to get your facts straight.

Additionally, paul, you say:
“So now they’re simply saying “We won’t pay.” Not “we don’t think we should pay, and we’ve filed to that effect,” or “If we pay, we’ll just collect when we win” but “we won’t pay.”” (emphasis added)

As I mentioned in my earlier post, requiring defendants to pay judgments while appeals are still pending is a potentially huge mess. If the defendant pays and the plaintiff spends the money - for instance, on the costs of defending the appeal - and the defendant wins, what if the plaintiff can’t return the money? Is the defendant - vindicated on appeal - now out of luck because the plaintiff is bankrupt and judgement proof? That’s a horrible outcome.

And honestly, if pointing out flaws like this is trolling to you, then may I be the first to welcome you to the Internet. Here’s your Lolcat.

Theaetetus, you aren’t listening.  The monitary judgement is not the appealed court case.  The judge ordered the money be given to Franken.  That is a separate judgement from Coleman appealing the election.

But not fully separate, Kate - it’s invariably linked to the case. Should the appeal be successful (we’re debating civil procedure here, not the specifics, because there’s no way Coleman will be successful), then the earlier judgement would be reversed.  Accordingly, this order would likewise be reversed.  So, although it’s a separate order, it’s not a separate judgement.

Specifically, this is a notice of entry of judgement of the election case, and an order to pay costs.  Payment should be withheld while the appeal is pending, for the reasons I discussed above. This isn’t Coleman-Franken specific, but should apply to any civil case.

In an attempt to not quote the whole thing verbatim I left out:

“The costs must be immediately paid to Franken, the court said”

However, in reading the judgment I see that this is in fact misleading.

So, hey, whatever. Coleman’s still a tool.

I don’t quite understand why they’re separate cases.  If it’s the same case, in order to appeal the party against whom a judgment is entered typically has to post a supersedeas bond big enough to cover the judgment including the anticipated interest, which bond would pay upon the conclusion of an unsuccessful appeal if the judgment debtor does not pay promptly at that time. 

If it’s a separate case a court would likely only grant a stay of enforcement of the judgment upon the posting of a similar bond. 

Either way, it’s not being a scofflaw or a deadbeat debtor to elect not to pay such a judgment until the appeal process has run.  It’s unfair or disingenuous to claim he is.

Linked to case?  Yes ... BUT see above.  The decision to make Coleman pay is separate from the Supreme Court Case when it comes to appeal.  Coleman needs to pay up OR seek judicial relief through an injunction against the payment judgement. 

Theaetetus, you are buying into Colman’s frame, which does not sound unreasonable.  Unfortunately for both of you, it also isn’t what the judge or the law apparently say.  You have something in your head that doesn’t gel with reality and you are acting like wingnuts do when science challenges their biblical understanding.

Either way, it’s not being a scofflaw or a deadbeat debtor to elect not to pay such a judgment until the appeal process has run.

Except for the fact that a judge ordered Coleman to pay up, regardless.  He gets to elect not to about as much as he gets to elect himself by Douchbag Fiat.

Theaetetus, you are buying into Colman’s frame, which does not sound unreasonable.  Unfortunately for both of you, it also isn’t what the judge or the law apparently say.  You have something in your head that doesn’t gel with reality and you are acting like wingnuts do when science challenges their biblical understanding.

With a pronouncement like that, Ms Kate, I’m sure your legal credentials must surely top mine. After all, I’m only halfway through law school.
Nonetheless, your most esteemed lawyerness, I would humbly direct you to the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically section 107.01, which notes that Coleman need merely deposit $500 as a bond.

But I realize that this “isn’t what the law apparently says” and I (and the Minnesota Supreme Court, for they drafted the Minn. R. App. Pro., of course) apparently have “something in my head that doesn’t gel with reality” and I’m “acting like a wingnut.”  So, if you can further enlighten me and extend my understanding, my ears are wide open.

Sorry, all. I hate inaccurate blog posts, because they lead me to write inaccurate blog posts, which, let’s face it, is the real crime here.

Theaetetus is right, and the Minnesota blogger I linked to is wrong (or at least misleading.)

Thank you, Auguste.

I’m quite happy to see Coleman losing, and wish he would shut it and end this stupid process, but I’m a little surprised and disappointed to correct a minor point of law, and be called a “troll” and a “wingnut.”  I think there’s a term or two for people who make ad hominem attacks on internet forums because they wish the person was wrong…

Human?

Theaetus, I’m sorry if the information and several of the links are incorrect HOWEVER you need only look back at your rather arrogant failure to address arguments right up to that last post, explain your assertions using links, or even listen to what other people were saying.

IF an order to pay court costs when a verdict is against a plaintiff is suspended during the appeal, couldn’t a rich company in the wrong destroy the small-pockets person fighting them in court by getting a countersuit going and pushing it up the chain of appeals until the other party runs out of funds? So Jerkwad risks Franken not paying him if another court reverses the decision—isn’t there really a greater likelihood Jerkward loses again and Franken *still* can’t collect the monies owed?

. . . isn’t there really a greater likelihood Jerkward loses again and Franken *still* can’t collect the monies owed?
Samantha Vimes

That’s what the supersedeas bond is supposed to do, provide a source for collection if the wrongful appellant loses.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersedeas

The appeal bond Theaetetus referred to at 06:11 PM just protects the costs of appeal (printing). 

The answer to your first question is yes, there is little protection against deep pockets party grinding shallow pockets person into dust with the litigation process, except for the (slim) possibility of frivolous litigation sanctions.

The judgment states clearly that interest and costs accrue as soon as the judgment has been entered.  I think that kind of covers it.  Don’t know when the judgment is determined to require further action.

Usually monetary judgments are not orders which the failure to comply with gives rise to contempt of court.  If the judgment debtor does not pay voluntarily the judgment creditor has to resort to further actions such as garnishment (suggested way above) of accounts or attachment of property to be sold and converted to cash.  Domestic relations support orders are different, but we’re not talking about that here.