An alert reader insisted I read the goings on at the Spokane gossip blog. It is something I avoid with a vengeance, but I went there to see what was so rotten, and I concur. There were nasty comments and hypothetical scenarios about the meeting Jim Brannon and his lawyer might have with the judge this afternoon. Who does this? What normal, functional adult person comes up with these disgusting stories? One of their followers commented that the only thing missing, in the fabricated story, is that a local guy (they named him) who is in jail for a shooting that may or may not be self defense, would come into the courtroom shooting everyone up. The whole thing is beyond tasteless. Anyone who posts over there, or even reads it (and gives its lead person the satisfaction of a page hit, which is all he wants), is part of the problem. Wise up, people. What you do has consequences. If you buy into that garbage, or even look, you are part of it.
January 5, 2010
Slimy…who does this?!
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Mary,
I go to read many news sources to gather my opinion. Granted, the “Spokane gossip blog” is one of those. We know for a fact that the city of CDA runs to ‘that’ news source.
So, with this in mind – you will no longer see, nor will ‘they’ see my IP address logged into ‘their’ stats.
Comment by Stebbijo — January 5, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
Mary,
The hearing at about 4:15 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon was to ask Judge Simpson to rule on Jim Brannon’s request for an injunction to restrain the City of Coeur d’Alene, its Council and its Mayor from installing anyone declared to be a “winner” in the November 3, 2009, City general election. The injunction had been listed as one of the reliefs sought in the amended complaint Jim Brannon filed with the Court on December 10, 2009. As I understand it, the reason for Jim Brannon’s request was to allow the Mayor and City Council to continue to have the authority to conduct city business until the Court rules finally on the election contest. Brannon’s concern was that by prematurely installing the election “winners,” their subsequent actions could be challenged if the Court eventually orders a new election and any of the November 3 “winners” in fact lose the new election. The issue then may be to question whether the “winners” installed at last night’s Council meeting would have been acting outside of their authority. Brannon’s solution, as articulated by his attorney Starr Kelso, was to ask the Court to enjoin the “installation” and instead to allow the City to merely appoint the alleged November 3 “winners” to their incumbency positions. Those appointments would empower the Mayor and Council to continue to conduct the City’s business until the Court has ruled on Brannon’s election contest.
At last nights hearing, Judge Simpson ruled that the City could install the November 3 “winners” at last night’s Council meeting. Judge Simpson did not, however, rule that the City would be protected from legal action if the Mayor and Council members installed last night are subsequently declared to have been the “losers” of the November 3 election should Brannon succeed in his election contest. In other words, Judge Simpson did not rule that Brannon’s concern was wrong or invalid.
Judge Simpson ruled that in seeking the injunction, Brannon had not satisfactorily demonstrated to the Court that irreparable damage would occur if the November 3 election “winners” were installed at last night’s Council meeting. This was expected. Since Brannon’s election contest lawsuit has not yet been heard by the Court, it has not been decided. The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure put the burden of proof on the person seeking an injunction to restrain. In this case, that’s Jim Brannon. To prevail, he needed to demonstrate that immediate and irreparable damage would occur, not just that it might occur, if the Court failed to enjoin the City. Since his lawsuit will break new ground regarding the contest of municipal elections in Idaho, there were no precedents or examples available to demonstrate irreparable damage to the City would occur if the Mayor and Council were installed Tuesday night.
Significantly, Judge Simpson also ruled that Jim Brannon still has all the remedies available to him should he prevail in his election contest lawsuit. That means Judge Simpson’s ruling on the very narrow request for the injunction in no way prejudges the validity and quality of Jim Brannon’s lawsuit to be heard later.
Comment by Bill — January 6, 2010 @ 8:08 am
Thanks, Bill, for the clear explanation. So, in essence, it seems you’re saying that Jim Brannon’s legal challenge was not hurt by the judge’s decision yesterday; his case is still going forward; that the only people put at risk by the actions of the city council last night are the taxpayers of CdA.
Comment by mary — January 6, 2010 @ 8:15 am
That said, I can only imagine how nervous certain voters from the Nov. 3rd election might be right now. I hear there have been around 20-30 highly questionable voters uncovered. One is a name I recognize and understand they sold their CdA home and now live in Hayden, but still voted in the CdA election…oops! Bet they’re not sleeping well.
Comment by mary — January 6, 2010 @ 8:21 am
Mary,
Yes, your comment in 3 is correct. In reality, the City may have done more harm to itself by “winning” in court on the issue of the injunction.
I was at the hearing and was watching and listening to Judge Simpson. I think that because of last night’s hearing and the documents submitted in preparation for it, he now has a better understanding of the gravity of Jim Brannon’s lawsuit.
The legislature needs to be paying attention to this lawsuit as well. On January 1, 2011, several new statutes take effect that will cause municipal elections to be conducted by the county’s elections office. After the evidence is presented in Jim Brannon’s lawsuit, I think wise legislators may want to reexamine and maybe revise some of those statutes that take effect in less than a year now.
One thing seems very obvious to me: Jim Brannon is doing a real service to the voters of the state of Idaho by bringing this election contest lawsuit. Because of what will come out in the trial, the people will be better able to judge for themselves if Coeur d’Alene’s and Kootenai County’s elections are being administered competently, diligently, and honestly by its various election officials. Regardless of the verdict at trial, the public should be better informed and be better able to hold election officials accountable.
Comment by Bill — January 6, 2010 @ 8:31 am
I am still disappointed. I feel that Judge Simpson should have granted the TRO. It “would” have been a prudent move on his part in protecting the ‘voters.’ It’s like he expected Brannon to prove “imminent danger” – can’t do it. The family courts use that angle all the time. It “would” have been nice if Judge Simpson had recognized the obvious issues surrounding the legitimacy of the votes. Very disappointed, but I expected as much. At this rate, Judge Simpson does not have my vote when he comes up for reelection, not that my vote means a whole hell of a lot in this area. Have to give his office/clerk credit though, for finally answering the phone and setting up the hearing. His decision just bought more time to wear Brannon out.
Comment by Stebbijo — January 6, 2010 @ 9:14 am
Stebbijo,
I understand your disappointment, but I thought it was reassuring to see Judge Simpson follow the court rules. I wouldn’t want a judge who bends or breaks the rules (like our Mayor and Council brag about doing). While I wish he had ruled differently, I believe that given the limited amount of time available to him to study all the material submitted and digest all he heard, his ruling was reasonable.
The “legitimacy of votes” issue you’re concerned about will be heard and decided at the trial. Last night’s hearing was not the appropriate venue for the evidence to be heard and decision rendered on that point. That’s why the outcome of last night’s hearing was in no way harmful or damaging to Jim Brannon’s lawsuit.
Comment by Bill — January 6, 2010 @ 9:39 am
While I would have enjoyed this injunction being issued, legally, this ruling was correct. The law is the law and I believe this judgement was sound. Not only sound, but beneficial to the plaintiff. It is unfair to criticise this judge based on a lack of legal comprehension. Another point is the future motion to dismiss. I would have been amazed had the city not made this motion. Actually, based on this ruling and the judges comments, my hopes for an unbiased trial have increased. Keep smiling Mike, that bell may well toll for thee yet!
Comment by rochereau — January 6, 2010 @ 10:02 am
An addendum…..I wouldn’t go to “that blog” for any reason under the sun. It apparently consists of traffic reports and gutter type commentary. The person running it is beneath contempt as are his minions.
Comment by rochereau — January 6, 2010 @ 10:07 am
It seems to me that it should have been the city, not Brannon seeking the Temporary Restraining Order. The city should have directed their legal dept. to request the TRO in order to protect the city against the concern that Brannon expressed; that the city is vulnerable to lawsuits for official actions taken by the council during the litigation on the validity of the election. Brannon himself, the judge ruled correctly, would not suffer irreparable damage, absent a TRO, as he can be seated later if successful in the lawsuit. But the larger question before the court, it appears to me, was to protect the taxpayers.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 6, 2010 @ 10:26 am
The city sees this at least 2 ways. They still have routine business that needs to be carried out and that is better accomplished with a full council complement. It could be that they will sideline any major decisions until after the final election rulings, which would be the wise course of action. Or……… they could hurry, rush, rush critical decisions prior to the ruling recognizing the prospect of its outcome and not caring about any legal consequences. Gee, I wonder which course will be taken?
Comment by Wallypog — January 6, 2010 @ 10:45 am
For the record, I am biased and I admit it, I am not a big fan of Judge Simpson and I have my reasons. I was much more optimistic with Hosack. I also don’t think Simpson is the right judge for the case – fresh off a Magistrate bench. In a perfect world, this case should have an ‘out of town’ seasoned District judge. As far as I am concerned, Simpson has already folded. Does anyone know/why about this last minute reassignment? I though Hosack was working through the end of the year?
Comment by Stebbijo — January 6, 2010 @ 10:56 am
My post #10 requires a high level of imagination. The audacity of suggesting that the city seek a court order to restrain themselves from doing foolish things amuses me.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 6, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
Gary, Sometimes it’s fun to imagine what responsible government would look like!
Comment by mary — January 6, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
That thought gave me a good chuckle Gary. I’m sorry, the judge hasn’t “folded”. He was following the law. While there would have been satisfaction in seeing the affected council members squirm, the legal parameters are clear and the judge so ruled. There is no immediate or irreparable damage to Mr. Brannon by seating the council. And that is the criteria.
Comment by rochereau — January 6, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
rochereau – We can agree to disagree.
Personally, I think damage will accrue during the time frame and has already – before the hearing scheduled in March. The slanted press could ruin a reelection for him if one is even granted. That would be the irreparable damage. The “garbage” that Mary has pointed out has a direct impact on the community, whether we want to admit it or not. Simpson could have ruled the other way as well, saying that no harm would be done to the city incumbents by issuing a formal injuction. Judges issue injuctions/TRO’s all the time without proving that damage “would” occur.
Judge Simpson was asking for something that was impossible to prove – that was his ‘out’. He probably made it sound all eloquent – so people are buying it and they are still hopeful. He also ruled way too hastily, he could have given it some thought, but that would have held up the “installation.” Simpson’s judgement was not reasonable – but Star Kelso’s/Brannon’s proposal was. But, like I said, I am biased.
Comment by Stebbijo — January 6, 2010 @ 1:50 pm