OpenCDA

October 6, 2010

Election Contest Decision

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 6:34 am

[

In a 20-page memorandum decision delivered via fax on Tuesday, Judge Charles Hosack confirmed “…the election result of Mike Kennedy’s election to Seat #2 on the City Council for the City of Coeur d’Alene in the November 3, 2009, Municipal election.”

Here is Judge Hosack’s memorandum decision.

Here is attorney Starr Kelso’s press release on behalf of Jim Brannon.

55 Comments

  1. Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 7:42 am

  2. Do I hear crickets churping in here.

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 7:43 am

  3. Eric,

    I don’t understand your question or comment. Could you please clarify it?

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 7:48 am

  4. Just was wondering why it was so quiet in here.

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 7:54 am

  5. Eric, maybe they are trying to formulate the best apology they can?

    Comment by SPC_Spaulding — October 6, 2010 @ 7:56 am

  6. Eric,

    My posts usually don’t get too many comments.

    SPC,

    We don’t really expect Kennedy and his owners or English and his owners to apologize to the voters.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 7:58 am

  7. Oh, my mistake. I didn’t realize you were one of “them.” Kennedy and English deserve the apology.

    Comment by SPC_Spaulding — October 6, 2010 @ 8:02 am

  8. SPC,

    Thanks for clarifying.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 8:07 am

  9. Judge Hosack admits that there is no case law for UOCAVA and understands that the municipal residency requirement is different but determines that UOCAVA applies anyway. So, he essentially ignored the state statute. Any further disscussion is really unsettled and will need to be clarifyied by a legislative body or appellate court as he states in his decision. For that reason alone – this case needs to be appealed. He could not differentiate the difference between a federal, state, or municipal? What? What a mess, I never dreamed in a million years a judge would use his discretion to allow votes from Canada into a city election and one in particular from a commercial residence of the former judge. But, hey, what was I thinking?

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 8:11 am

  10. There we go, leave it to Stebb, the first to volley “appealed” over the internet net. Zero serving zero :)

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 8:28 am

  11. Eric,

    I’m sure that Jim Brannon’s attorney Starr Kelso will study the Court’s decision carefully. Then he and Jim will decide how to proceed. I believe that if there is to be an appeal, it must be filed with the Supreme Court within 10 days of the District Court’s judgment.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 8:48 am

  12. Bill,
    Yes you are correct. that doesn’t mean the banter has to wait ten days. the wailing and gnashing of teeth was quite audible.
    Besides, after all the build up to this is would do a disservice to all the eloquent posters both here and over at the Spokesman site.
    On the bright side Mike can move more freely now that he can remove the blog that was implanted deep into his lower body cavity. As can Jim so good on both of them

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 8:58 am

  13. I would have been shocked if Judge Hosack had ruled in favor of the Election Challenge!

    The judge made his true feelings very clear when, during a legal hearing before the trial, he went off on a long, dramatic rant about how the Election Challenge was threatening voters’ rights to privacy. His remarks were highly prejudicial. (and very inaccurate)

    On the first day of the actual trial, when Starr Kelso called him out on the inappropriate nature of his previous, prejudicial comments, the judge tried to cover his actions by claiming he had been referring to a hypothetical situation. But that was not true and those of us who were present during his rant knew it.

    So let’s drop to the bottom line here. Judge Hosack is highly connected in this community. He’s in the Tubb’s Hill Association with Scott Reed. He lives in Sander’s beach. He is known as a Democrat. He’s good buddies with the city and county people. Hosack just retired last year and I’m sure he wants to keep living in this area for some time. He couldn’t have made any other decision and still expected a decent life around here; he would have risked being ridiculed and ostracized.

    I don’t know what Jim Brannon and Starr Kelso will decide to do, but I hope this thing goes to a higher voice with more distance and less political interplay.

    Comment by mary — October 6, 2010 @ 9:10 am

  14. Don’t know who Eric and Spaulding are, can make a good guess. When I read the headline this morning, my immediate thought was “and now the real arrogance begins”. Business in Idaho as usual. If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny. Worse even than out of city/county/state/country legal voting are the two people who “couldn’t remember” for whom they voted. Who says you can’t get away with perjury. Oh dear, oh dear! And the beat goes on…….

    Comment by rochereau — October 6, 2010 @ 9:17 am

  15. Hi Roch, you can guess away but I’m just Eric, the same one kicked out of the HooBo site some time ago for insinuating how difficult it must be for Mike to walk around with a blog so far up you know where. Seems that one crossed the line. However, if I said the same thing about any of you regulars here or Jim, wellll then the robust leader over there would have front paged it but touching the boy king, Mike, over there even in a fun way, well that’s off limits.
    But hey, that’s life sometimes.

    Mary, interesting points, borderline irrational on some but interesting nonetheless. thanks

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 9:26 am

  16. Eric, which points do you think are borderline and why?

    Comment by mary — October 6, 2010 @ 9:41 am

  17. As long as the comments don’t violate OpenCdA Policy, everyone is welcome here. Unlike other sites (and City Hall), disagreement is welcome here, personal attacks are not.

    Comment by Dan — October 6, 2010 @ 9:42 am

  18. Also, Eric, congratulations on getting yourself extricated from that other blog. Life is much better without it.

    Comment by mary — October 6, 2010 @ 9:44 am

  19. I don’t waste my time on “that blog” Eric. However, may I add my kudos to Marys on you being tossed from Muckleberries. A badge of honor indeed.

    It isn’t all gloom and doom today. Little Thom George had his knuckles rapped in todays editorial. I suspect he is spewing steam from his ears.

    Comment by rochereau — October 6, 2010 @ 10:10 am

  20. I dunno rochereau, it’s pretty doomy and gloomy.

    Yeah, three-vote win Mikey has a lot to be proud of taking the election locally with a commercial vote from the former judge’s wife’s business, a couple others that don’t remember,and no poll book. Yes, I admit it, I am bitterly disgusted and I want to file a Judicial Complaint. My vote is absolutely worthless, here.

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 10:41 am

  21. An important point to remember:

    Oliveria is paid to blog. We are not.

    Now tell me, who is going to win over the long haul?

    Comment by Dan — October 6, 2010 @ 11:15 am

  22. “you can guess away but I’m just Eric, the same one kicked out of the HooBo site some time ago for insinuating how difficult it must be for Mike to walk around with a blog so far up you know where”.

    Eric, how does it feel to have been ‘coolered’ three times by the old man of HBO? I liked your last comment over there. ;-)

    Comment by kageman — October 6, 2010 @ 11:15 am

  23. We are going to win this mess. I called the Voter Assistance People (feds) — and left them this blog and posts to look as well as my concerns about interpeting the results of city elections through that UOCAVA. Mike the assistant is forwarding my information and they are going to get back to me – they say. I also told them about the contempt of court charge that they are trumping up against Bill because he published the truth. Anyway, I am not a happy camper. Next, when I get home from the dentist i am going to work on some more people.

    here is the info if any of you want to call – it’s not going to hurt.

    Federal Voting Assistance Program
    Department of Defense
    1777 North Kent Street
    Suite #14003
    Arlington, VA 22209

    * Do not send registration and absentee ballot request forms to this address. Refer to “Find Out Where to Send Election Materials”.

    Telephone
    Toll-free: 1-800-438-VOTE (8683)
    DSN: 425-1584

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 11:29 am

  24. All,

    By and large, dead-tree journalism is being run by dinosaurs who are locked into the late 19th to 20th century concept of news acquisition, development, production, and delivery. For sometimes interesting articles and discussions about how newspapers do and don’t successfully adapt from iron/ink/paper to bits/bytes/Internet, follow the link to Poynter.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 11:30 am

  25. Good point, Dan. Not only is the proprietor of that blog paid to be online blogging all day but many of the regulars there are paid political operatives in Boise, or paid newspaper people in Spokane, or paid city & county & NIC employees in CdA, many of them blogging while on our tax dime!

    The critical issue here is not about any other blog, however, so let’s not get off the point. The integrity of our local election system is at risk and Judge Hosack’s ruling does not defend our laws or our right to an honest election.

    In my opinion, the biggest statement of “malconduct”, which is one of the reasons under the law to overturn an election is this:

    Tim Hurst, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, who’s the recognized expert in idaho election law, said while on the witness stand during the trial, under oath, that Dan English, the County Clerk’s, failure to keep the legally required Report of Absentee Ballots, was a “FAILURE OF DUTY”.

    You can’t get more clear than that!

    Comment by mary — October 6, 2010 @ 11:33 am

  26. Kage yeah the last one was the last straw I suppose. It was witty and really not personal heck, if I ran into Mike on the street I would have asked him the same question as only a fellow New Yorker would. The system won’t even let me back in at all looks like I’m banned for life and that’s fine. I blog for enjoyment not as a life supporting activity.
    Mary, as to you question,you infer that the judge is highly connected, true, but all judges are highly connected, a known democrat? Well so am I and I move along quite nicely. He’s good buddies with the city and county, again what judge isn’t. He’s retired, good for him but to suppose that if he decided any other way would have made life “difficult” for him locally, well, I truly doubt that it would be affected at all.
    Judges, like police officers, are all ridiculed and ostracized by a segment of the public that inherently dislike everything that pertains to the law mainly because they were busted or their actions hold that potential. I don’t know the judge at all but to make it to retirement I’m certain he wouldn’t let anyone infringe on his life because of a decision he has made in fact he might even think, “let’m try”
    All in all Mary, to speculate in any way that Hosack made this decision or was inclined to simply because he didn’t want to risk a decent life of retirement is well, irresponsible and disrespectful to the office. Certainly there have been corrupt and pretty crappy judges out there but not this guy. Again I’ve never met the man but just have a feeling he’s a “allrightguy”

    Sometimes we win sometimes we lose, doesn’t always make it right but in the end if we handle both with dignity and our personal integrity in tact, well, then you still win either way.

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

  27. The way I see it is that Hosack ruled given the evidence.

    Trials are weird-ass things. There are rules about what can be presented and what can’t. There is the law. There is case law. There are procedures. There is wheeling and dealing going on between both parties lawyers. Then there is the competency of the lawyers themselves.

    Hosack announced early in the process that he was looking for illegal voters, not voting irregularities. He even states so in his summary:

    III. Alleged Irregularities Do Not Constitute Malconduct

    Not being a lawyer, my brain says, “Why not?”

    The fact that people voted illegally in an election is, well, a fact. Who they voted for should make no difference. In my mind, every illegal vote dilutes one valid, legitimate vote. The supporters of the corrupt status quo don’t see it that way because they won. Had Brannon won by 5 votes, you’d see Kennedy, George, Oliveria, and the whole cabal screaming my argument. But they won and, as Dixie Reid said, “A win is a win.”

    This ruling sets precedent. Illegal voting is okay in Kootenai County. As long as Dan English remains Clerk, it will be so. Therefore, vote away, my friends in the County. Vote in the next city election. Your illegal vote will count, and be valid, as long as you claim “I forgot who I voted for” if there is ever a trial. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

    Comment by Dan — October 6, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

  28. Eric, thank you for your clarification. My reference to the judge’s social network in town is not to imply anything negative, rather to suggest that anyone within a tight-knit community who is forced to decide a highly political case, with the city & county officials & power players on one side and a group of everyday folks on the other side, would be in a bind.

    This case was put in front of almost every judge in our district. Maybe all of them had a shot at it. But they all turned it down.

    This one should be decided by someone from outside the region; someone with more distance from the community pressures and with more willingness and gravitas to step outside of the norm, if need be, to follow the laws and protect the rights of the voters.

    Comment by mary — October 6, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

  29. Mary, there you go that’s a much better delivery. Like Big D said he ruled given the evidence.

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

  30. Stebbijo…of course your vote isn’t worth anything here. Now if you move to Canada…..

    Dan is spot on. A week or so ago, I asked exactly what was the burden of proof that would decide this case. According to the judge, it was irregularities. IMO it was both illegal voters and irregularities. If illegality and irregularity doesn’t constitute “malconduct”,what does? Conflict of interest, even the hint of same, is a concept unrecognized here. If ever a case asked for a change of venue, this was it. Even then, the status quo protects itself.

    Mary,

    Comment by rochereau — October 6, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

  31. Eric, he ruled given his intrepretation of the evidence…which is what judges do. I believe that “his malconduct” would have needed proof that the iregularities were pre-planned specifically to rig the election. And that proof just wasn’t there.

    Comment by rochereau — October 6, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

  32. Let me get this straight: Our rights to privacy; about who we voted for
    supersedes, any potential voting fraud or illegal voting in any of our elections? We have the right to not remember who we voted for, or plead the 5th. And the judge will not allow county/city voting records to be looked at to refresh anyones memory about who they may have voted for?

    It doesn’t seem fair, that our rights to voting privacy, outweighs our rights to have a fair and honest
    elections. There needs to be more of a balance of these rights imo.

    Comment by kageman — October 6, 2010 @ 2:19 pm

  33. Roch i agree the proof just wasn’t there. Honestly I bet 5, 10, 15, votes that were cast in the fashion that were looked at in this case happen in almost every election. The fact that this one was so close put them under the magnifying glass.
    But do any of you guys honestly believe that the team that won “arranged” these votes? Do we really believe that they are sophisticated enough to know that they would need 3-5 extra votes to turn the election? That’s pretty far fetched IMO.
    If one side won by 100 plus votes we wouldn’t be here talking about this. This isn’t to say that it’s right because it’s not but this happens all the time and for better or worse the one thing this case does is shed light on the fact that it does happen.

    But again look at the people involved, I just can’t give them such a compliment as to pull this off in such a calculated way. And on the other side of the coin, the losing team,well they certainly couldn’t prove it either.
    It’s like a bunch of knuckleheads trying to prove that they were taken advantage of by crafty fellows that in reality are knuckleheads themselves.

    Comment by Eric — October 6, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

  34. I don’t agree that the judge ruled on the evidence. There was clear evidence of malconduct. There are specific residency laws for city elections. And there are 10 ballots with no correlating voters.

    Kageman, voting is a public action. No one has the right to know how legal voters voted, but we do have a right to know which legal voters voted. And to make sure they are legal.

    Comment by mary — October 6, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

  35. …since the other blog is a topic I want to get this straight. DFO is over there ranting and claims this about me:

    On the other hand, Stebbijo claimed on her personal blog that she was coolered. Which isn’t true.

    Fact: DFO aka Condom Master is a LIAR LIAR LIAR </bL

    Proof from the horse’s @ss himself</b:

    DFO on September 16 at 8:14 a.m.
    ChuckU & Stebbijo … you’re now in the cooler for attempting to out someone here.
    That might be OK at the OpenSewer.com site. But not here. Check back with me
    Monday — and I may let you out. You can do so via my office e-mail. I won’t try
    to contact you. Should I forget … you might be in the cooler for some time.

    …then the arrogant flamer (DFO) writes me an email and tells me I am making things up. Seriously, he did.

    His goading and what he claims is community journalism has created the controversy because he is a pathological manipulator and liar who is a paid mouthpiece. He’s a liability and should retire and hand the reigns over to a more credible source because he obviously forgets what he writes and he lacks the insight to correct his neurological deficits.

    I hope you are reading this DFO and if you are not, then one of your Napolean cohorts will surely clue you in. DFO is nothing but a professional online BULLY.

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 3:04 pm

  36. Relax, Stebbijo! Why do you even go over there?

    Comment by Dan — October 6, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

  37. Kageman,

    Re your comment #32: In an election contest the contestor is allowed to ask the witness how s/he voted after the Court has first determined that the contestor voted illegally. If the Court first determines the witness to have been a legal voter, the contestor may not inquire about how the witness voted. That’s the protection built into the process.

    For example, two voters who had used their CdA business address for voter registration were found by the Court to have voted illegally, because their residence is not in CdA. Thus, they voted illegally in the CdA city election. Once the Court found that, then Starr was allowed to ask how each voted. The Court listens to each witness’s answer and then decides how much weight the Court will give the witness’s testimony. Again, if a witness is sure for whom s/he voted, that makes it easier for the Court. On the other hand, if the witness says, “I’m not sure, but I think I voted for (whomever),” the Court’s job is more difficult. In the election contest it was important to determine for whom the elector voted if that could be determined.

    It’s also important to understand that just because someone voted illegally does not mean their actions were criminal. The absentee ballot voted by Army SGM Greg Proft is a good example of someone who precisely followed the erroneous instructions he was given by Kootenai County Clerk Dan English and Secretary of State Ben Ysursa. SGM Proft never established a residence in CdA but had last lived in Post Falls. He did not recall the specific address. When he applied for his absentee ballotunder UOCAVA, lawfully and properly, he asked what address he should list for his residence. He was told, incorrectly by English and Ysursa, that he should list the County Courthouse which is in CdA. As a result of following English’s and Ysursa’s erroneous instructions, he was automatically sent a CdA city election ballot. He assumed, reasonably albeit incorrectly, that English and Ysursa knew what they were doing and would not send him any ballot he was not entitled to vote. So, he voted the CdA city ballot. During the trial the parties stipulated that his vote had to be rejected because it was illegal, and the Court approved the stipulation.It was an illegal vote (through no fault of his), but certainly not criminal and not even careless.

    Electors need to understand that when s/he signs his name in a poll book or on the signature line on an absentee ballot envelope, s/he is taking an oath. As that relates to residency, the signator is swearing that s/he is familiar with the residency requirements for voting in that particular election, and s/he is swearing that s/he meets those requirements. Again, too many people don’t pay attention to the obligations that attend to the privilege and right of voting. I’ll oversimply quite a bit here: If an elector knows s/he does not meet the residency requirements for voting in the Cda election but still signs the poll book or absentee ballot affidavit and falsely represents that s/he does meet the residency requirements for voting in the CdA election, that elector has taken a step beyond careless and stupid and is one step closer to being charged with perjury. While an elector may state s/he didn’t know, that can be overcome by circumstantial evidence such as the testimony of witnesses to incriminating conversations or physical and documentary evidence. There are at least two electors who voted in the CdA city election on November 3, 2009, who should be referred to the prosecutor for investigation to see if they should be charged with perjury. He is already aware of these people.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

  38. Dan,

    I go over there because if he writes crap about me that isn’t true, I am going to document and get it right. I don’t like people lying about me nor do I like the way he fabricates other stories along with the defamation he publishes about you or anyone else. I am sick of him – sick sick sick of the way he undermines, ridicules, and defames so many people in this town. He makes me want to publish a photo of a horses @ss I have and put his face on it – and I might. He will be the dingleberry hanging from you know where. Thank God, you guys are here.

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

  39. Stebbijo,

    We know he makes stuff up. You’re right to document for your own records what he falsely says or implies about you, but please don’t repeat it here. His desperation is not our problem.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

  40. You have every right to be angry, Stebbijo, but there is a level of decorum that should be maintained. I’m going to humbly ask that you keep your comments here related to the topic of the Election Contest. If you’d like to rant about DFO, feel free to do so on the Open Session thread. Thanks!

    Comment by Dan — October 6, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

  41. Bill and Dan,

    I disagree. That blog is your problem. It has a readership that packs a powerful punch and it works.

    I know you all empathize because you decided to post that message but deleted it about welcoming the huckleberry minions so I do know that you are also fed up with the coverage by that blog.

    But, back to the elections case – the coverage is the problem and the coverage that we have which is Mary et al. (this blog and posters) are blasted and defamed to the point that it hurts credibility. There are those who stand by the names of the past which include the S-R ect as the only credible news sources and everyone else are just whackos. There are people outside of the local club that are watching this charade and trying to get a grip on the strength of our votes. I for one. The whole elections case reported back to me from what I read and heard as just one big circus. I understand that those who wish to spin the false agenda do not fear retribution because they are buffered by media attorneys and reporters who lobby for the interests of the political gain for thier own agendas.

    I am just sayn’ that I think it’s reached a bubbling point and civility does not work in a corrupt system. Call it failure of duty, malconduct, or whatever but it is all the same game and it has our legal system as well. A person cannot just stand back and take the slime that is dished out and call it a level of decorum that needs to be maintained because there never has been any. Many of you have spent your own money to battle this monster and now you have aptly proved that the people are worthless, meaningless, and lack any armor to ever make a difference. In fact you have proven just exactly how it works. This is as close as it will ever get and if Brannon cannot win it – it can’t be done. Sad, but true. And, Bill – I hope they don’t burn you at the stake next week.

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

  42. Stebbijo,

    I really don’t care if people who read false information and misrepresentations about me believe it only because it’s been published in a newspaper or on a newspaper’s blog. I think you clearly understand that both the Press and the Spokesman-Review exist only to promote the business interests of their owners, not to deliver factual information. People who read for information content rather than ego gratification read critically, and they can distinguish between what the Press and S-R write and factual news. Critical readers can also spot when major news stories are being under-reported.

    Thanks for the well-wishes for my contempt trial next week. I’ll wear my flame-retardant suit.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

  43. Bill, I understand your explanation but there are not that many people who read critically and they don’t distiguish fact from gossip – they jump on the most popular bandwagon because that bully might be winning even if he is a bully. Our own politicians are not that smart. They identify with the ‘winner’ so to speak even if he is the abuser which is the corrupt media. The rest of us who ‘get it’ may ‘get it’ but, unfortunately, it’s not enough. Critical readers can do nothing about a media that under reports or falsely reports. You are only as good as the source that publishes the real story and I hope you find them. I will, however, refrain from ranting here and go to the other thread when I can’t help myself.

    I hope your suit works!

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

  44. rochereau,

    Going back to your comment #30, it might surprise you to learn that “malconduct” is used but not defined in Idaho election law. That failure of definition has been a problem in earlier election-related cases, not just this one. The Secretary of State and the county clerks are supposed to pay attention to stuff like this and to apprise the legislature of necessary updates, clarifications, and even new law. Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit has brought to light not just Dan English’s failure of duty but the similar failure of Ysursa and his predecessors.

    Comment by Bill — October 6, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

  45. On the malconduct thing – Judge Hosack determined there wasn’t any, but at the same time he chose to ignore residency requirements and decided to interpret federal law and apply it to a municipality – and ignore state statutes? That is why he has determined that the commercial address of a psychotherapist by the name of Allan Friend is a legal voter? Like, he lived here for 4 months at the previous judge’s business address that just happened to once serve as a residence? How cozy. Is he coming back any time, soon? Seriously, that floats as a legal vote? Bitterly, disgusted – again. It is all just so wrong.

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 5:10 pm

  46. But then, new law will probably be drafted and reviewed by Judge Simpson who had to origninally step down from the case and who’s wife’s address is connected to the alleged legal vote from Canada. So we can count on the correct and neccessary changes to the law in order to make it all right since he is on the Judicial Legislative Review Team which keep no records of their meetings.

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

  47. Sorry, this will be my last post for the night. I contacted my brother who lives in Japan to let him know he can register and vote in the city elections and the county told me to steer him to a federal website that I have mentioned. His last residence was here in CDA, Idaho. I doubt if the embassy will send him the ballots for the city election – I don’t get it, yet.

    Anyway, this is what he said:

    Ive been doing that for years( but not city I dont think ?) the embassy here sends it to me. I already got mine for the midturn elections for idaho..it has for senator, auditor, not that many positions .

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

  48. Okay, I lied. My brother is going to check with the embassy on voting in city elections in Idaho from Japan. i will let you know.

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 6, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

  49. I hope he at least gets to vote in the County Clerk election!

    Comment by mary — October 6, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

  50. This judicial decision may seem like a vindication for Dan English, but just wait until OpenCdA publishes the court transcripts . . .

    Comment by Dan — October 6, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

  51. Eric,
    I believe the number of votes needed to win are in the deleted emails on deedie beards computer.

    The other thing is, I know EVERY single person I vote for/against and WHY. I do not check boxes blindly.

    Comment by concerned citizen — October 6, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

  52. Bill when is the scheduled appointment you have with the court?

    Comment by Ancientemplar — October 6, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

  53. Ancientemplar,

    My trial is scheduled for 4 p.m. on Tuesday, October 12, in Judge Hosack’s court. We don’t yet know which courtroom that will be in, so if you’re thinking of attending, I’d suggest calling the civil clerk at 208-446-1160 on Tuesday morning and asking. All you need to give the clerk is the time of the trial and the judge’s name. We are not exactly clear on whether this going to be a civil trial or a criminal trial. At the first hearing, the Judge explicitly notified my attorney and me it would be civil, however the nature of the allegation and the sanctions available to the court make it criminal under Idaho statutes and case law.

    Comment by Bill — October 7, 2010 @ 6:33 am

  54. Thank you Bill. Apparently the verdict on this trial depended on the definition of a word that had no firm legal (in ID) definition. My question all along was what exactly was the burden of proof based on. As I now understand, Judge Hosack decided that, while there may have been irregularities (you think??), they were not premeditated to throw the election. So intent was the deciding factor??? IMO this entire mess was caused by sloppy inattention to duty. Should Dan English go, you bet. Will he, not likely. Will the process be tightened up? How are we to know?

    Bill, so now the judge claims you committed a civil tort? Can’t wait to hear that “definition”.

    Comment by rochereau — October 7, 2010 @ 10:05 am

  55. rochereau,

    No, it was Councilman Mike Kennedy through his attorney Scott Reed who presented the Court with a motion to hold me in contempt. Since the matter has not yet come to trial, I am not going to comment on the substance here.

    As for the burden of proof, to prevail at trial Jim Brannon needed to prove to the Court that one (and only one) of the six grounds identified in Idaho Code 34-2001 had been met.

    Brannon had no obligation to prove that someone had premeditated to throw the election. That wording implies criminal conduct, and that would have to be properly investigated by the State of Idaho.

    I have little confidence that the process will be tightened up. The systemic, statutory failures were caused by inattention and dereliction by the Idaho Secretary of State and the county clerks in Idaho. They had a duty to keep Idaho’s legislators apprised of needed changes and updating, and they all failed in their duty. Yet you can be sure the aforementioned public officials will be the ones whom our legislators turn to for solutions. The ass-covering has already begun.

    Comment by Bill — October 7, 2010 @ 12:42 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