On November 20, the law firm that is trying to persuade Ralph Nader’s bank to seize almost $80,000 from Nader’s account and give it to the people who challenged his 2004 Pennsylvania petition, filed a response in court. The case is pending in the District of Columbia because that is the location of Nader’s bank account. The case is Serody v Nader, 2007 CA 003385F, D.C. Superior Court.

Nader had filed a motion in that case, alleging that the law firm which represents the protestors acted unethically. Nader’s motion said that one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices who heard the case was simultaneously being represented by the same law firm. Also, one of the other justices had once been given an unlimited offer to be hired by that firm at any time, an offer that the future justice received in 1985 and accepted in 1991. Finally, Nader said that 3 other justices had received campaign contributions from that law firm.

The law firm’s response admits that these allegations are all true. But, it says, there was nothing wrong with any of those activities. Alternatively, it says that even it there was something wrong, Nader should have raised these points while his case was pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not now. Of course, Nader raised them now because he only learned about them this year, not in 2005 when the case was pending.

In related Pennsylvania legal news, Carl Romanelli, who is facing a similar judgment for a similar amount from his attempt to get on the ballot in 2006, plans to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for reconsideration. The brief will be filed November 26 or November 27. Romanelli will raise the federal constitutional objections to requiring petitioning candidates to pay the costs of removing them from the ballot.