I'm going to try and explain, as calmly as I can, just how insulting this filing is. The posters above have already pointed out the hypocrisy of his position (It's totally nonreligious... what I mean is, if you make me remove it you're being hostile towards religion!), and his hypocrisy within hypocrisy (my religious idol is not religious at all, totally nope!). But from a legal perspective, his actions would be swiftly sanctioned if any other attorney did so. If it was done by a pro se, it would e stricken and the pro se directed not to file additional materials or appear before the court.
Here is the basic process of the case up until now:
08/19/2013 - CV-2013-1768 is filed in Oklahoma County District Court against the Oklahoma Capital Preservation Commission (the State of Oklahoma), asserting that the monument is religious and must be removed
09/13/2013 - Scott Pruit Enters the Case
09/13/2013 -
ANSWER of the State of Oklahoma, asserting that the monument is purely secular and doesn't have to be removed03/13/2014 - parties come to an agreement on discovery schedule
04/09/2014 - depositions and written discovery are ongoing (evidenced by notice of deposition on the docket)
04/28/2014 - discovery is still ongoing, there are subpoenas being issued, and motions to quash the same
05/22/2014 - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by the State of Oklahoma (hey Judge, there are no real fact questions here. Just purely a legal question, resolve this case for us) arguing again that the monument is purely secular and not religious, so it can stay.
06/06/2014 - RESPONSE by the Plaintiffs, monument is religious, violates the Oklahoma Constitution, it has to go!
A few months of back and forth and additional briefing back and forth. Briefs by other people entered etc. etc. etc.
09/09/2014 - STATE WINS! No explanation is given by the Curt, but the Ten Commandments is defacto declared "non-religious" and therefore not in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution.
09/23/2014 - Order finalized in three sentences.
10/23/2014 - APPEAL filed
11/12/2014 - STATE ANSWERS the appeal. Argues that it is totally not religious and doesn't violate the state constitution.
01/08/2015 - Oklahoma Supreme Court orders additional briefing.
03/16/2015 - Plaintiff's file additional briefs. Arguing the monument is totally religious and must be removed.
Over the next month, several other briefs are filed by people not in the case.
05/08/2015 - the STATE files their brief. Arguing that it is entirely not religious, and even if it is, it is totally like any other monument that might be kinda religious and was allowed to stay in other places.
05/29/2015 - STATE responds to Plaintiff's brief. Saying the monument is NOT religious stop saying it is!
06/30/2015 - RULING - REVERSE AND REMANDED. TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS AND VIOLATES THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
06/30/2015 - SAME DAY, State files a request for rehearing and stay of execution (almost like it was ready to be filed...)
07/09/2015 - Plaintiffs file a response, saying a rehearing is a waste of time, the state is stalling, lets move it!
07/15/2015 - State and others ask to file more briefs.
07/27/2015 - DENIED, we already heard this crap. Get on with it!
08/03/2015 - Plaintiffs - you lost, pay our costs!
08/12/2015 - State: we don't want to pay your costs!
08/17/2015 - RULING. Too bad. Pay their costs, you lost.
08/27/2015 - MANDATE ISSUED. REMOVE THE MONUMENT.
08/27/2015 - Oklahoma County Judge - OK people, lets set a hearing and talk about how this monument is coming down.
09/03/2015 -
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, WE WANT TO CHANGE OUR ANSWER THAT WE FILED TWO YEARS AGO. WE HAD NO IDE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE MONUMENT WAS RELIGIOUS AND THAT RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS CANT BE ON THE CAPITAL GROUNDS.
- - -- - -
Seriously, they filed a request to Amend their Answer.
Holy sh!t! Seriously? Two years later and after going back and froth with a dozen briefs, you are JUST NOW figuring that out? This is sitting through a kids high school graduating, then getting a rejection letter from Harvard and deciding you should have used birth control, so you'd like to pretty please throw him off a bridge and just start over. Can we call a mulligan on that one? Please?
To start with, I've never even heard of anyone wanting to amend their answer more than ~30 days after the discovery cutoff. Certainly not after summary judgment has been GRANTED. Let alone after they won and an appeal was filed. And I've never even considered someone asking to amend their answer after a case was fully litigated, an appeal was filed, all briefs were filed, a ruling made, a petition for rehearing denied, and a mandate issued. It never even crossed my mind... you had many, many chances to state your argument.
Secondly, "Ummm, I never really thought the Court would take the other guys side - so I want a redo changing my entire theory of the case" is a ridiculous reason to ask to amend.
To come from the highest legal authority the executive branch has in this state is a flat out embarrassment. If this is how things operated then EVERY Supreme Court case would result in someone going back and changing their answer. Because by its very nature, that Supreme Court is deciding big cases and clarifying points of law. So each and every time the loser can say "Gee, I didn't think I was going to lose. I'd like a re-do." Then if they change the ruling the new loser gets to just go back and reanswer and start over again?
Finally, I sttill can't see the filing on the docket. That means the media didn't pick up on it from reading the docket. Rather, it seems likely that Pruitt is grandstanding by sending a copy directly to the media and shouting LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME. Trying the case to the public is severely frowned upon by ethics rules. The Tulsa posted on the TulsaWorld isn't even signed... here's the motion:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/24/924642b4-4025-574f-983e-a5283fb4b9be/55e8dd9bcc86a.pdf.pdfWant to talk about frivolous lawsuits and wasting the Court's time?
Here's the underlying docket sheet:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&db=Oklahoma&number=CV-2013-1768Here is the appellate docket sheet:
http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&cmid=115447&number=SD-113332Here is the Order Denying Rehearing (the opinion in the case):
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=476438I'm surprised there isn't a footnote announcing his run for governor. What a political hack job.