Yes Carp, as well as a new GM versed and willing to work within the framework to Title 33, and understands members are a benefit not a liability to be silenced.
No new entries to speak of about the hearing, but there is a one liner entered that may be of interest. " DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF POSITION REGARDING RETROACTIVITY ISSUE" I would surmise the judge is making an ruling about title 33, and making it retroactive. No, I was not in court, just guessing at what the latest motion, filed on the 23rd of August could mean.
It should be fascinating to watch and see if this judge is an old style hanging one who is looking for his pound of flesh or if he is enlightened enough to let a by-gone truly be a by-gone.
There are minutes posted from the hearing that seem to indicate that there is some movement. The court wants to hear from both parties on the partial summary judgement and also the effect of the law that was passed in relation to Title 10 status. We should know more in a few weeks.
You all know the saying, "The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. " So we can be pretty sure about the first part, not so sure about the second part.
Was just reading the "notices" under the Superior Court Page and there appears to be some interest by the court in both S.B. 1094 and "DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF POSITION REGARDING RETROACTIVITY ISSUE". It would appear to the this reader the Title 10/33 has become an issue in the hearings. Just my observation, nothing in the notes or case history to indicate anything concrete.