OpenCDA

April 2, 2010

Open Session, Easter

Filed under: Open Session — mary @ 9:41 am


We can start out this Easter weekend with good news on the local justice scene.  Judge Simpson ruled yesterday that the bond required to go forward with legal challenge to last November’s election, was reduced from the ridiculous level of $40,000 down to the still substantial but much more reasonable amount of $5,000.  We believe there’s spiritual hope in the world but maybe this turn of events shows there’s hope for fairness and justice as well!  Any comments, questions or ideas on this or any other subject?

3 Comments

  1. Good news on the Brannon front. It means information about the sloppy election will be made public. I’m sure there are people in City Hall and in the county courthouse who are cringing over the decision to go to trial.

    Comment by Dan — April 2, 2010 @ 11:25 am

  2. I am glad Judge Simpson reconsidered his previous decision for the sake of those voters who were feeling very discouraged.

    The last city election has raised a lot of interesting questions about the voting process which now has my attention. Identification and proof of residence discussions must remain on the radar. Sloppiness is not acceptable.

    Perhaps our city and county leaders “will get it” that our citizens do not trust them as long as they continue the same behaviors of working for development rather than the citizens they swore to protect.

    Comment by LTR — April 2, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

  3. Interesting turn of events since the judge asked Reed the amount he would suggest, being $25,000 then he ups the amount to $40,000 and now he lowers the amount significantly to $5000.00

    He must have had an ‘ah ha’ moment. Maybe he learned how NOT to be biased at judge school?

    Brannon got a break, but it’s probably the only break he’s going to get and he will get stuck with sticking his neck out because it’s all going to be white washed and chalked up as an unfortunate series of mistakes at no fault of anyone person because they are all ignorant.

    On the other optimistic hand, the judge could void the election and we would have another one. That would ensure that the case would not be appealed, not a bad thing, and that would probably be the best and most prudent move.

    He could also be really smart and have another “ah ha” moment and recuse himself as the judge. Since one of the votes in question sports the address of a place of business with his wife’s sign on it and she also happens to be on a Idaho Supreme Court committee and confers with the judicial council and well you know ….

    Comment by Stebbijo — April 2, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2014 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved