So Coleman will be liable for all of Franken's legal expenses if Coleman loses?

I will cross post at my http://fifthestate.net  

BTW: Do all of you liberal-progressive-democrats who read the DailyKos.com know that in Arabic and Farsi "Kos" is a derogatory term for female private parts, it has four letters, starts with "C" ends with "T" with the third letter between "m" and "p" in the alphabet?  Did you know?.......I talked to a guy in a bar last week who claimed the "Coleman will owe" Frankin's legal bills if Coleman loses.  This person theorised that Coleman will agree to concede if the legal actions for this are not pursued. (This is called "blackmail".) ....What actually happened was that early in the year a Minneapolis election judge and official was put on the stand and admitted to emails and perhaps some telephone conversations with Coleman's legal team but not Ginzberg. ........This was not included in discovery. Frankens lawyer cited a Minnesota statute and petitioned for financial redress against Coleman's lawyer for incomplete discovery.  Reporters asked if they were asking for costs related to the delays cost by Coleman's lawyers Franken's lawyers replied "That is for the judge to decide........Recall first the "Martha Steward rule".  It not the offense but the cover up.  Ginzberg cooperated fully and gave a detailed explanation quickly, calling it "an honest mistake"......That is the story.  Google it!.......  I've followed the coverage by those reporters and former reporters covering the trial live and not seems to have mentioned or noticed this "Coleman pays all legal costs if he loses" theory. ............... 

I suspect that the law was enacted after the Wellstone/Mondale/Coleman election when resent absentee ballots apparently were not recounted because Coleman's lead was larger than the total number of absentee ballots resent so it was mathematically impossible for Mondale to win.  ........  The Coleman win was outside of the mandatory recount parameters.  Just an educated guess.......Beyond the fact there was not pattern of obstruction by Coleman's lawyers and they cooperated with this "snafu" when challenged I don't see a pattern of obstruction. The law, as I read it excluded situations where errors were found.  That includes this.  Also, I can't recall the law ever being applied or it's constitutionality challenged.  In the US with civil cases the "loser pays" but election challenges are different from civil law cases.