Mary Souza’s Newsletter
Don’t get mad at me…I’m not the one that said it. The city’s own legal counsel said it at Friday’s hearing about the Election Contest. I couldn’t believe it.
Attorney Mike Haman, representing the City of CdA, was dancing fast as he tried to answer a question by Judge Hosack about the City Council’s role in the City election. Mike Haman argued that the City should not be added back into the election lawsuit, saying the City played absolutely no part in the election; that they contracted everything out to the County.
Seasoned Judge Hosack showed his experience and wisdom when he responded to Attorney Haman. The judge calmly asked about the role of the City Council when they acted as the “Board of Canvass”. (This is their official role at a Council meeting six days after the election, where they not only ACCEPTED the election tallies produced by the County, which have since been shown to be inaccurate, but the City Council CERTIFIED the results of the election with a unanimous vote.) It was the lawyer’s answer to the judge’s question that prompted my headline.
Attorney Haman, obviously caught off guard by the judge’s astute question, tried to downplay both the function of the City Council and their responsibility for the CITY election. He said, basically, yes, they were the Board of Canvass and yes they certified the vote tallies but, Attorney Haman said, the City Council was just a “RUBBER STAMP”.
Yes, he actually said that. I think he said it twice. And I agree.
The City neglected their duty to the voters, in my opinion. They didn’t question or scrutinize the election totals, even when two seats were decided by just a few votes: A five vote difference in the Kennedy-Brannon contest and only a 29 vote margin in the Goodlander-Gookin election. No matter. Our City Council approved the election tallies quickly, no questions asked. Rubber Stamp.
The rest of the hearing went well. Courtroom #9 is an unusual set up. The audience sits on benches, like church pews, but they are not split equally down the middle. There’s a narrow section of benches on the left, as you enter the room, and a much bigger section on the right. The City, with the Mayor, some council members, staff, extra city attorneys and a few County staff were in the small section. The crowd supporting the Election Contest, wearing stickers that said “FAIR ELECTIONS”, filled the large area, and extra chairs had to be added. Thanks to the many of you who were able to attend; I think we made a difference.
Here’s a summary of Judge Hosack’s rulings Friday, in layman’s terms:
–The case is going forward. It was not dismissed like Kennedy’s attorney wanted.
–The City of CdA and the City Clerk are back in the lawsuit.
–The bond, which the Kelso-Brannon team already paid to the level of $5,000, will NOT to be increased now, even though the City Attorney Haman requested a substantial addition. The Judge said, Let’s not get distracted by the bond, let’s focus on the merits of the case. Good idea!
It was interesting that the County attorney previously part of this case, Mr. John “Witch Hunt” Cafferty, was not present at the hearing. But County Prosecutor Barry McHugh, who’s the boss, was sitting in the audience taking notes. He has not attended the previous hearings in this case, so I was glad to see him there.
Councilman Mike Kennedy, who is still named in this case, was also not present. And after the hearing, on an internet gossip blog, Councilwoman Deanna Goodlander, who attended the hearing, described the citizens crowding the courtroom in support of Fair Elections, as “disrespectful”. Hmm. I was there and didn’t see or hear anything disrespectful. In fact, her comments make me laugh because Deanna is infamous for her rude behavior toward citizens.
This Election Contest is getting more interesting by the day. We are now on the fourth judge in the case, and he looks to be straight forward and in possession of some common sense. Maybe now, finally, County Clerk Dan English will be forced to allow the Election Contest team to LOOK at the election documents from last November. It has been seven months. Open the doors, Dan! These are public documents and WE, the voters, want to know what went on. Let’s let this case be judged on the facts, not the antics and maneuvers of city and county election officials. Please keep in mind the old adage, “Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.”
Lisa and I were in the gallery front row immediately behind Starr Kelso and Jim Brannon.
If the Court had seen or heard any disruptions affecting the proceedings as Goodlander claimed, Judge Hosack would have admonished the gallery. That didn’t happen.
When Judge Hosack asked both counsel for their opinion, if each had one, about the board of canvassers, Kelso responded that it was the Mayor and City Council for the City election. That was when Haman loudly and clearly notified the Court, the gallery, the courthouse, and the three adjoining ZIP codes that the Mayor and City Council were just “rubber stamps” for the election canvass. Well said, Mike!
It is both pathetic and disgusting that Mayor Bloem, Council members Kennedy, Bruning, Hassell, McEvers, Goodlander, and Edinger take their duties regarding elections so cavalierly. Then again, they only play at government like little girls play at tea parties. Except little girls grow up. The seven “rubber stamps” never did.
Comment by Bill — May 17, 2010 @ 6:25 am
If it had happened that this slim margin went the other way you could bet that there would have been some serious City Hall inquiries prior to finalizing the tally. These fine folks could not wait to nail down this election and they are doing everything possible to impair any outside investigation. If there are no problems, why is it such a problem to have a simple look see?
Comment by Wallypog — May 17, 2010 @ 8:47 am
This is just classic Goodlander. “If I say something, it is true”. Does it not occur to this woman that many people were in court and aware of the truth. Rhetorical question, nothing occurs to her save her own vitriol. Talk about a mush brain. And, as Bill said, the Judge would not have countenanced any untoward behavior from the gallery. If someone who posts here also post “over there”, why not ask her to give an example of unruly behavior and the Judges reaction to same. Help her dig her grave even deeper. Great to start Monday with a good laugh.
Comment by rochereau — May 17, 2010 @ 9:03 am
A Spokesman Review DFO website commenter by the name of zz was in the court room too and did not hear any vocal disruptions. zz is asking Deanna for details but she remains silent.
Comment by LTR — May 17, 2010 @ 9:33 am
It doesn’t matter whether or not Goodlander provides any proof. She simply blabs the comment and then the lapdog publishes it as gospel. Kage Mann predicted as much.
Comment by Dan — May 17, 2010 @ 10:08 am
I was sitting within 18″ of MS. Goodlander and I heard no comments other than hers and heard no comments of disrespect from the “other”side of the courtroom. I think she was just a little put off by the judge’s decision to bring the city back into the trial. What do you think?
Comment by Ancientemplar — May 17, 2010 @ 10:21 am
The City can’t stand scrutiny. They don’t like dissent. They are offended when people question anything they do. Of course this decision ticks them off!
Good.
Comment by Dan — May 17, 2010 @ 10:36 am
On the overall issue of Canvass of Votes, it is interesting to note that the county commissioners will be the Board of Canvass, within seven days following the Primary next week. Dan English is the official secretary to the Board of Canvassers in addition to being the elected chief election officer. They should not certify the election of local and state officers until they ask Mr. English, for the record, if the issues currently before the court as a result of his administration of the last city election have been resolved. If I were a county commissioner I would not affix my signature to the canvass and certification unless I received an affirmative statement from Mr English, for the record, that no multiple absentee ballots in one envelope were accepted, that no registrations were illegal, and that all votes were from legally registered residents.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 17, 2010 @ 10:37 am
Dan, I wasn’t asking for proof. Just thought putting her on the spot would be good fun! : )
Gary, that is because if you had that job, it would be done correctly.
Comment by rochereau — May 17, 2010 @ 11:49 am
Goodlander and others count on the perception of their own credibility, thus they stoop to the ‘big lie technique’ when they are threatened. But it isn’t working anymore, the public is now coming to terms with the fact that they are just BIG LIARS.
On HBO MikeK has responded to the accusation that the city/county is not opening up their books, however what he twists is that these records can’t seem to get to court because the county/city keeps sidestepping that hearing. He also keeps shielding his position by blaming Brannon for not accepting a recount. He calls the actions of this election contest as “private people in their quest to take down the city.”
He also has written a veiled threat to sue some folks. He doesn’t sound very happy. He is obviously pushing his suffering credibility to turn public perception because the Judge ruled favorably for Brannon.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 17, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Ah, the rants of an unhinged twit. No wonder with all his influence, the power of incumbency, and all the money he raised, Kennedy was only able to eek out a 5-vote victory. I’m also glad that he refers to those of us asking for accountability as wanting to “take down the city.” When government is so afraid of people asking questions, then it deserves to be taken down.
And so the angry spin from City Hall continues. What a bunch of pathetic whiners.
Comment by Dan — May 17, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
Boo Hoo Mikey. What goes around, inevitably comes around. Mikey isn’t going to sue anybody. Enough bodies are popping up. Bloem will sit on him. This is getting interesting. There may be hope for the electorate yet. I broke my cardinal rule and looked at the Smuteleberries blog. They are slinging muck at Mary again….ho hum. Not an original thought in the barrel there. Just a bunch of rotten apples. You can’t even get angry, they are just pathetic.
Comment by rochereau — May 17, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
What is interesting here is how Mike Gridley is showing everyone just how inept he really is as an attorney. Having what folks have called a second stringer, but “nice guy” like Haman trying the cities case instead of doing it himself, its hard deciding which way is more favorable to the Brannon camp.
Comment by WannaBe JD — May 17, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
One other important comment from Friday’s hearing was when Judge Hosack explained why he was not going to dismiss the case, like the Kennedy camp requested. The judge listed out the illegal voters from Canada, those who voted from business addresses, people who lied about their residency and the 9 unaccounted for absentee ballots. Then he said this, which I wrote down immediately after he said it: “It is taken as true that 6 (or more) illegal voters are proven to have voted for Kennedy. So it appears that more legal voters voted for Brannon.”
This is why he would not throw the case out. I think Kennedy is very worried.
Comment by mary — May 17, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
WBJD, let us hope that the truth of the facts will be most favorable to Jim Brannon. ( I know what you meant however) It sounds to me as if the entire official city body, council and legals, are worried. Good. It is time for honesty to come front and center. What a concept that will be.
Comment by rochereau — May 17, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Wow, Mary – that’s a big one. I wish I been there to hear that.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 17, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
I was out of town but if what Mary says is a correct quote from the judge and her notes are right, (I have no reason to think they are not) then Mike Kennedy and his curb kicking friends are in serious trouble. Funny thing, whenever there was a court hearing early on in this case, the Scott Reed would quote the media saying how unfounded this all is and how unfair it is and that Mikey’s rights are violated. Where is Scott now? Was Reed at the hearing? Reed should give Kennedy a break for his performance that might cut down on all the complaining. I still think Mike was thrown to the curb when the city got out of this and left him standing. Mike you do not deserve to be paying all this money for this case. It appears Brannon not only has a case but a strong one at that. Mike your pals have done you in. Mike, its not smart to call Brannon out on HBO and talk like he (Brannon) is gonna pay this and he is gonna pay that that makes you look like a vindictive bully, well wannabe bully. Like I say, where is Reed?
Comment by WannaBe JD — May 17, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
It actually does appear that the influence peddlers have run out of ammo and a fair and impartial hearing will be held. Judge Hosack seems to be that breath of fresh air that the citizens deserve to have in-place.
If Kennedy ends up gaining votes and winning by a margin greater than five votes, the citizens still win knowing that fair scrutiny was placed upon the election process. As long as a fair examination takes place, let the chips fall where they may. After all whomever ends up with the most legitimate votes should be congratulated and everyone can then move on. Isn’t that what everyone really wants?
Kennedy’s bullying tactics with the public use of Dingleberries to plant his threats against Jim Brannon are downright juvenile – about to be expected. I guess old Rich Daddy Warbucks Boss Man can’t find the pocket to stuff to get his LCDC proponent declared councilman for another term. This must be sending shock waves through Mountain West Bank and the rest of the money-grubbers who have had their way for so long in this town. If Kennedy does end up losing, how long will it be before his political handlers bring him to Boise to regroup before sending him out on another mission in another city?
Comment by CDAShenanigans — May 17, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Scott Reed was at the hearing but Kennedy was not. Mr. Reed went on and on trying to get the judge to dismiss the case, even after what the judge said about the illegal votes. The judge did dismiss the Kelso-Brannon motion that the City could not legally contract with the County. He said he understood Kelso’s argument but felt the law had enough ambiguity to allow it. So this was not a one-sided win, there were pluses and minuses on both sides. I just think the City & County thought they could make the whole thing go away, and thank goodness that did not happen. The voters deserve a thorough examination of our election process! I agree with CDA Shenanigans when he said, “As long as a fair examination takes place, let the chips fall where they may.”
Comment by mary — May 17, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
To clarify Mary’s comment 14:
In a motion to dismiss such as the one Kennedy filed, all allegations of material fact in Brannon’s complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Brannon). For Kennedy (Reed/Erbland) to prevail in his motion to dismiss, Kennedy would have to present conclusive evidence showing Brannon’s allegations could not have been true. Based on what has been presented so far and represented to the Court, the Court clearly believe Brannon’s allegations could be proven at trial.
Kennedy’s attorney Reed tried repeatedly to get the Court to apply a standard of proof that does not apply until trial. Reed failed to present sufficient (or any) evidence showing Brannon’s evidence would not hold up at trial.
Comment by Bill — May 18, 2010 @ 6:26 am
If I may: Kennedy’s attorney Reed tried repeatedly to get the court to accommodate his errant demands because he was likely accustomed to getting any accommodation from the insider players for his insider clientele. It is fun to watch him squirm having to play fairly by the actual laws for a change.
Comment by Wallypog — May 18, 2010 @ 6:42 am
Wallypog,
It may be that to convince Senior Judge Hosack to come out of retirement and take this case, Chief Justice Eismann urged Judge Hosack to completely disregard the local political influences that had apparently caused every elected First District Court Judge to run and hide from what they believed was a politically too-hot-to-handle case. Justice Eisman may have assured Judge Hosack that if he ignores the political pressure and decides the case on law and fact, the Supreme Court won’t be critical of Judge Hosack in its decision unless Judge Hosack really blows it (he won’t).
It was interesting that several times during Friday’s hearing, Judge Hosack seemed to be suggesting the obvious: The Idaho legislature needs to re-examine the viability of Idaho’s election laws. That isn’t likely to happen unless our lazy Secretary of State gets off his ample, deceased posterior and diligently begins performing his duties. It is his responsibility to provide the legislature with proposed changes to election laws to keep them current and effective.
Comment by Bill — May 18, 2010 @ 7:10 am
Yes, Bill, Neither of the attorneys for the City and Kennedy even attempted to argue against the illegal voter evidence provided by the Kelso-Brannon team. Instead they were arguing technicalities in the law which, as the judge so aptly pointed out, is riddled with vagueness. (Vagueness is actually a noun, I was surprised too but I just looked it up!)
Comment by mary — May 18, 2010 @ 9:02 am
Vagueness could be the state motto.
Comment by Dan — May 18, 2010 @ 9:18 am
I think it would be a good idea for one of our District 3, 4 or 5 legislators, to introduce legislation very early in the next session to delay the massive changes in election laws scheduled to be operative January 2011. These election law changes were adopted in 2009. Some of the election laws being applied to this case under existing statutes are not changed with the new laws effective in January and will only continue to be litigated unless fixed.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 18, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Gary,
That would be wise. Not only is the election contest lawsuit identifying needed corrections, but the federal Daien vs. Ysursa lawsuit did also. Neither set of defects has been corrected in the statutory changes effective January 1, 2011. Hopefully any legislation will be well thought out and not knee-jerked.
Comment by Bill — May 18, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
Absolutely, Gary. And I hope our legislators are following this fiasco closely. Sloppy (I’m being kind) or fraudulent elections undermine the very integrity of our government.
Comment by mary — May 18, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Our GOVERNMENT has undermine the very integrity of our government !
Comment by concerned citizen — May 20, 2010 @ 6:43 am