This morning’s CdA Press has an article about a legal complaint filed by Mike Kennedy’s attorney, alleging that Bill McCrory violated a court-ordered confidentiality agreement by posting information on this web site.
Here’s the post that Bill made on July 17th, entitled “Who Decides When Violations Matter?”
Notice that the legal affidavit was posted here AFTER it was filed in court and became a public document that you or I or anyone could easily request. Notice also that the affidavit was posted here AFTER the CdA Press ran a whole article about it.
And remember that Bill McCrory is an extremely honest and honorable man.
It took Kennedy weeks to find a minion, ignorant of the law and willing to file her own affidavit. Obviously Kennedy lacked the guts to file the complaint himself.
Bottom line: It irritates the powers that be, the self-appointed progressive-elite, to have information getting out regarding this fraudulent election.
So let them crow over on HBO. Let Thom George beat his chest and spew bile. The facts are coming out on this election. They hate it. They hate voting. They hate everything.
Comment by Dan — August 7, 2010 @ 8:08 am
For those who are interested in following the public record in Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit, here is a link to the District Court’s register of actions in the case. Any citizen can go to the District Court clerk’s records office (across from the law library) in the basement of the County Justice Building, 324 Garden Avenue, Coeur d’Alene, and ask to see any of the public records associated with the case. This registry is called the Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository, often abbreviated ISTARS.
For example, here are the ISTARS entries in Jim’s case for the subject of Mary’s post:
Note that this is only an index to the documents. You still have to go to the Justice Building to ask to see the documents. The registry seems to be updated daily during the workweek if and as new records are added.
In some instances I have found that when a document has been filed with the court, it may not be immediately available at the public window. When I have asked about that in other cases, I have been told that the entire file may have been requested by one of the judges. I have also been told that there may be some lag time between when the document is filed with the clerk down the corridor and when the document actually appears in the file in the records room.
Apparently ISTARS doesn’t like all web browsers. I have a Mac, and when I was using Safari (Apple’s own browser), ISTARS wouldn’t let me access the information. I changed browsers to Firefox version 3.6.8., and now it works fine.
Comment by Bill — August 7, 2010 @ 8:55 am
The article today also mentioned posting the Press story regarding Bills findings. Why didn’t Kennedys lawyer also ask for a contempt citation against the Press? Or maybe I misunderstood. Caffeine hadn’t kicked in yet. I knew Bill couldn’t have made such a miscalculation. Totally out of character. That being said, my progeny, who doesn’t know Bill asked about this. I mention this because many readers (of the Press) don’t come here or know Bill. I believe clarification must be made in the Press in order to reach these people. I’m sure Mikeys lawyer knows this won’t stand up. He also knows that people believe what they read. He is practicing mis-direction which can be very successful. (Remember Goebbels) Skewing of information and mis-direction are tools used, all too successfully, by those who would obfuscate the truth.
I can just see that buffoon Thom George dancing through the streets. cackling about this. What a nudge!
Comment by rochereau — August 7, 2010 @ 9:05 am
Well, the issue is that The Press didn’t sign a confidentiality agreement. Bill did. The point it, however, that the information he posted isn’t confidential if it’s in the public domain. I mean, how can it be?
In other words, say you were a scientist working on the Manhattan Project back in 1943. You signed an agreement to keep it secret. Yet if you wrote something about your experience after the documents were declassified, did you break that secrecy agreement? Kennedy’s lawyer would say YES.
Comment by Dan — August 7, 2010 @ 10:17 am
I understand why (Bills) the posted info was legal. It was the way the Press wrote todays article, including mention of a previous article, that made me wonder why the newspaper wasn’t included in the contempt citation. Told you the caffeine hadn’t kicked in…you explained the Press. My main point is, will the Press print the “clarification” of when and how Bill posted this information and “why” said post wasn’t in contravention of the confidentiality agreement? Too many people think that if the “lawyer” says what (Bill) did was illegal, then it must be.
Comment by rochereau — August 7, 2010 @ 11:36 am
rochereau, I agree. IS the press going to clarify the discrepancies in their article? Has anyone confronted the writer of the article and asked these questions?
Comment by concerned citizen — August 7, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
Is it possible that Bill McCrory signed a Confidentialy Agreement after he published the public information? However, I see no order on the ISTARS registry. But, ISTARS is not that dependable and at times deceiving. It is my belief, that Bill was not required to redact addressess ect before he published his material because it was “public” and applies to the exception. (I think – after reading the Protecting Personal Infomation in Court Files Committee Minutes).
Is this Confidentiality Agreement a nice term for GAG ORDER?
If that is the case Bill McCrory cannot comment any further on the subject of that material without risking contempt, but then the agreement may be unconstitutional/illegal. Is Kennedy’s attorney trying to shut down “citizen journalists” and make an example out of Bill because he published the GOSPEL TRUTH? Then Kennedy’s attorney makes references that Bill does not have standing to publish his own opinion regarding documents. Obviously, Kennedy appears that he does not like and wants to ruin Bill McCrory’s credibility through this sensational soap opera turn of events to misel the people and cast doubt on the evidence claiming it is hearsay? I don’t think so, Bill McCrory has the background to be considered an expert.
Addresses of registered are published on the Secretary of State’s site. Is Kennedy going to sue the state now for privacy disclosures?
Where is Christa Hazel’s affidavit? What kind of junk is that? If any blogger(except mainstream) were to go to the courthouse to ask to look at the case, I can feel fairly positive that the file would not be available now that they are claiming privacy violations. The CDA Press did a very poor job of covering this new event regarding the case.
I am not a lawyer, this is just my lay person opinion based on the information available to me at this time – it is not legal advice.
You go Bill and if you end up in jail – I am sure there are many folks who would break you out! 😉
Comment by Stebbijo — August 8, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
Here is a repost of Bill’s SLAPP Revisited. “SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A SLAPP suit is a meritless lawsuit filed to intimidate people.It is intended to stifle both free speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Comment by Stebbijo — August 8, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Here’s a question: Why Starr Kelso have to sign a confidentiality agreement but Scott Reed did not?
Comment by mary — August 8, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
Stebbijo and Mary,
Starr and Matt Kelso, Matt Roetter, Jim Brannon, and I all signed the confidentiality agreements on June 22, 2010. They were filed with the Court by Kootenai County Deputy Prosecutor John Cafferty on July 22, 2010. I do not know if anyone else had to sign similar agreements. According to ISTARS, ours are apparently the only ones filed with the Court thus far.
Comment by Bill — August 8, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
I don’t get the point of the confidentiality agreements if Kennedy and his lawyer, and all the other lawyers, king’s horses, etc., didn’t have to sign anything? Why so one-sided?
And how does a confidentiality agreement differ from a “gag order”? What specifically is being kept confidential? (Yeah, I know you can’t say, so it kind of defeats the purpose of my asking.)
Comment by Dan — August 8, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
This whole thing is a joke and a last ditch effort to smear the Plaintiff. If this ploy flies we should all sue the state for publishing/releasing our addresses on the SOS site and violating our privacy and possibly our safety over this very volitile lawsuit. After all ‘they’ know where we live now and we are subject to identity theft and this type of thing needs to be strictly regulated according to Dan English our county clerk. That’s because you cannot prove voter fraud if you don’t have any addresses. Ridiculous.
Comment by Stebbijo — August 8, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
Dan,
One of the defense strategies in every phase of the election contest appears to have been to prevent the general public from receiving accurate, complete information about how ineptly elections have been administered by City Clerk Susan Weathers and County Clerk Dan English. That strategy has been aided by the local and regional press corpse [sic] whose dereliction of professional duty equals that of some of the public officials involved.
The City of Coeur d’Alene contracted with the County Clerk to administer the November 2009 City election. That means the City agreed to pay your tax dollars and mine to the County to administer the election. The City hired the County as a contractor to administer the election in much the same way you might hire a roofing contractor to install a roof. If the roof is poorly installed and leaks, you have recourse against the contractor. So if the election administration by the County was flawed, the County could be held liable and required to make it right. And that’s what you would expect would happen. The County FUBAR’d the administration of the Coeur d’Alene City election, so you would expect the City to be fighting to reveal what went wrong and demanding the County pay to make it right. That is what an honest City government would do: Try to protect the integrity of the City election process and at the same time force the County to make right its mistakes. An honest Coeur d’Alene city government should have joined with Jim Brannon to demand the County fund the cost of a new city election.
That isn’t what is happening.
Within days after the November 3, 2009, election the City, County, and Kennedy’s attorneys were communicating with each other to mount a collective defense against any action challenging the County’s conduct of the municipal election. So while the poor election administration by the County cost the City taxpayers money, the City has been working with the County to try and keep the public from learning the details. Why? Does that make sense?
The Secretary of State and the county clerks are supposed to advise the legislature on what needs to be done to keep Idaho’s election laws up-to-date and not susceptible to manipulation. The legislature needs to consider the Secretary of State’s and the clerks’ recommendations, but the legislature and certainly not the Secretary of State or the clerks is responsible for making the laws. Our state legislature needs to examine very closely and impartially the conduct of the Secretary of State and his staff as well as the conduct of the county clerks to ensure that those officials are executing, not unilaterally interpreting or amending, the election laws as passed by the legislature. Based on what I’ve seen throughout the course of this election contest and from what I’ve read in the public record in Michael Jorgensen vs Daniel J English (CV-2010-0003645), the official conduct of the Secretary of State Ben Ysursa and Kootenai County Clerk Dan English can most charitably be described as “lazy.”
Comment by Bill — August 9, 2010 @ 7:20 am
Lazy.
Comment by Dan — August 9, 2010 @ 11:08 am
Second Random Person Alert
Just a note to those following this charade that the second random person has contacted me regarding concerns about the fraudulent 2009 City Council election.
I don’t seek these people out, but they do call me. So the word is getting out.
The feedback is that the election was thrown, but people are frustrated as there is nothing they can see that can be done about changing the situation. Remarkably, it’s the actions of the City, County, English, and Kennedy that are cementing in people’s minds that the Big Players in town threw the election. People are not happy.
Comment by Dan — August 9, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
People have contacted me too, Dan, and you are right on when you say they think there’s something fishy going on.
Most of us have a common sense attitude toward these things, especially when one side says one thing and the other says the first side is lying. Common sense dictates that we look at which side has the most to gain or lose? Obviously, the City and County are trying to CYA (cover your A**). And they want Dan English re-elected because he’s a good-ole-boy with them.
But who’s in it for the big bucks? Seems to me it’s the Kennedy camp. They gave him a great job as soon as he became a City Councilman several years ago, and they have a vested interest in keeping him in that seat. Don’t question the last election!
Comment by mary — August 9, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
It’s the big developers who have the vested interest. One of my calls was from someone who was talking about a sweetheart deal made courtesy of the LCDC.
I don’t blame the developers. They’re simply taking advantage of a lack of brains and a gross lack of accountability in elected officials at the City and NIC.
Comment by Dan — August 9, 2010 @ 6:34 pm