On November 8, Ralph Nader asked a Superior Court in Washington, D.C., not to allow his bank account to be garnished by the Pennsylvania law firm that kept him off the Pennsylvania ballot in 2004. The case was filed in D.C. because the D.C. court already has jurisdiction over the bank attachment matter. The case is Serody v Nader, 2007-3385F. UPDATE: here is the brief, and here is the evidence. Both are interesting and easy to understand and not unduly long.

Normally, in cases involving whether to order a bank to deliver up funds to someone who is hostile to the person with the bank account, the underlying merits of the original dispute may not be re-litigated. However, there are narrow exceptions.

In this case, Nader’s brief documents that only in September 2007 did Nader learn that the law firm that wants approximately $80,000 from Nader’s account failed to reveal several conflicts of interest. The Nader filing shows that the law firm had extended an open invitation to hire one of the future Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices in 1985, an invitation that the future justice accepted in 1991. That future justice was one of the justices who ruled against Nader in 2006.

The Nader filing also shows that the law firm had represented one of the other Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices while the Nader case was pending. That justice had also ruled against Nader in 2006.

Finally, the Nader filing shows that the law firm had made large campaign contributions to all but one of the justices who ruled against Nader, and did not disclose this during the Nader litigation.

Therefore, Nader argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court order of 2006 that he must pay the administrative costs of removing him from the 2004 ballot is tainted, and should not be enforced against Nader. The amount of money would be approximately $100,000, except that Nader’s running-mate in 2004, Peter Camejo, already paid $20,000 toward the total.