[
Commenter Susie Snedaker pointed to today’s Press article which tells us Mike Kennedy (would that be Councilman Mike Kennedy or incumbent Mike Kennedy or ordinary person Mike Kennedy) wants the City (meaning, its taxpayers) to pay for the legal fees he voluntarily incurred in the recent election contest lawsuit.
What do you think? Should we, the taxpayers, pay up?
An interesting question that merits a serious discussion. Unfortunately, Bill, you have poisoned the discussion before it’s even begun with your sneering headline and deliberately unflattering photo of Mr. Kennedy. Either you are an adult who wants to have serious discussion or you are a child who only wants to throw eggs. Which is it?
Comment by KootenaiConservative — November 12, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
KootenaiConservative,
I’ve expressed my opinion.
Comment by Bill — November 12, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Get a grip KC…have you no comprehension of satire? In point of fact, Mike very likely had his bills paid by his handlers. This latest whine is just a poor little me the victim. Strictly political strategy in answer to the latest court filing.
Comment by rochereau — November 12, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Oops, forgot. Absolutely not in answer to the question.
Comment by rochereau — November 12, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
rochereau,
The Idaho laws relating to election administration are badly out of date and in need of housekeeping. Keeping those laws updated is the responsibility and duty of both the Secretary of State and the county clerks. The election contest lawsuit points out the need for the legislature to demand that the Secretary of State and the county clerks diligently perform their respective duties. While the legislature has little direct control over the county clerks, it does have considerable control over the Secretary of State through the budget process.
Jim Brannon and his attorney, Starr Kelso, have done a huge service to the people of Idaho by courageously and tenaciously pursuing the election contest lawsuit. That is the method prescribed by Idaho law to resolve disputes relating to the legality of electors or elections. It will now be up to our legislators to evaluate the damage done by years of neglect and malconduct by the county clerks and the Secretary of State and then to take steps to repair it. Because Jim’s and Starr’s exemplary actions have been politically discomforting to the corruptly entrenched in this community and others, they have been maligned viciously. Thankfully, though, more and more honest people in the community “got it.” That’s why we will have a new County Clerk come January 2011. English was thrown out not because he was a Democrat but because he had become lazy and complacent and had lost sight of his duty to follow the law.
Comment by Bill — November 12, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
Yes, the voters spoke loud and clear and that gives me renewed faith in my vote. Certainly, Mike Kennedy is ‘getting’ that message as well and now he cries the river in order to get a ‘freebie’ out of the people. I wouldn’t expect any less of him.
We are going to pay and have always been paying one way or another – 100K + is not a big price to cough up in order to keep the man of choice in place who can help accomplish ‘visions.’ Maybe the LCDC will see a way to ‘help out?’
Comment by Stebbijo — November 12, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Kennedy has never been more than a party in name only. The statutes specifically require that he be a party simply because he is an “interested” party. Nothing more. If Kennedy or his ‘handlers’ were interested in honest and legal elections he should have sat still and required the City to prove that the election was honest and legal. It was the City’s election process that was challenged. Kennedy was never accused of doing anything wrong. He had, and never has had, anything to prove. It was the City that was required to prove to its citizens (which it didn’t) and to the Court (which it seems to have done) that its election was honest and legal. Instead of doing what a community minded representative should have done, Kennedy chose, or perhaps more correctly those that he serves chose, to do everything possible to obstruct and cloud the investigation into the election process. Kennedy, and his ‘handlers’ sole interest has always been in keeping him, and his vote, on the council. If the City Council votes to pay Kennedy’s legal fees there should be a recall of every council person voting in favor of it or, a challenge made to the expenditure of money. There is no way that Kennedy’s bills, those of a private person, can be considered a legal obligation of the City’s citizens. Indeed literally half of the voters voted for someone else. Why should these citizens pay the bill of someone they didn’t even vote for. If they are to be required to pay legal fees, shouldn’t their fifty percent go to Brannon. Payment of any of Kennedy’s bills by the City would reek of _____. (you fill in the blank).
Comment by Happy Trails — November 13, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Happy Trails,
Justice will prevail.
Comment by Bill — November 13, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
From your lips to the next judges ears Bill.
Comment by rochereau — November 14, 2010 @ 9:35 am
I admit to puzzlement…poor Mike Kennedy…poor Mike, “has” to pay legal bills that he chose to incur…for no known reason. ON THE OTHER HAND one of poor little Mike Kennedy’s attorneys (guess he needed two, one wasn’t enough) supposedly while representing Kennedy files an entirely frivolous, bogus, etc. contempt claim against Bill…and makes no apology…or offer to pay Bill’s attorney fees? Whats up with that baloney? Perhaps, if the City is going to pay Kennedy’s bills it should pay Bill’s or Kennedy’s attorney who filed the claim should voluntarily waive an amount equal to Bill’s attorney fees and the money should go to Bill?
Comment by Happy Trails — November 14, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
Happy Trails,
That is the puzzling thing: Kennedy was personally not on the hook financially after the election contest lawsuit was filed. Even if the judge’s decision had been timely and had gone the other way, it would have been the City and not Kennedy which would have paid for the new election. In fact, if the City had done the right thing in the first few days after the election, it is highly probable the County (more likely its insurer) would have to foot the bill for the new election under the terms of its contract to administer the election for the City.
A surprising number of people “blame” Jim Brannon for the election contest lawsuit. I’m afraid they don’t understand that the entire election contest might well have been completely avoided if Dan English had obeyed the law and kept the required records and if the City had enforced its contract and demanded the County deliver a new and this time, clean, election.
Comment by Bill — November 14, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
All that doesn’t matter, Bill: The Mayor and the power players in town were pleased with the results. It’s okay to throw English under the bus because the corruption and payouts to big developers can continue unabated. Whew.
Comment by Dan — November 14, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
I still have to believe that there must have been something incriminating on Deedie Beards computer for it to be cleared and also not brought allowed as evidence. JUST my opinion.
Comment by concerned citizen — November 14, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
concerned citizen,
The principle you allude to in comment #13 is called spoliation of evidence. In Idaho:
Depending on the facts of any particular case, the behavior may become criminal as defined in Idaho Code 18-2603. Since the election contest trial was civil and not criminal in nature, any alleged spoliation would, I believe, be a misdemeanor.
Comment by Bill — November 15, 2010 @ 6:20 am
What would Bo and Luke Duke do?
Comment by WannaBe JD — November 15, 2010 @ 10:14 am
Part of the problem in breaking the law is it’s almost impossible to get prosecuted (spoiling evidence, fabricating evidence ect.) and then if it actually happens the penalties are a slap on the wrist as well as costing the plaintiff huge money to prove the crime. It appears much easier to buy the crime off if the money is there. Additionally, the laws always have this good faith clause where a mistake made in honesty is not a crime. That is where they put on their sorry faces and say, “Yes, your Honor. I am a professional (and you know who I am), but I am ignorant.” Rarely, any real time or punishment that amounts to much is served to these inside players who have the money to buy the justice system. When the Boise(Coles) Mayor was caught a few years back in a case of mishandling funds, he was found guilty with a withheld judgment, which means if you pass your probation the crime never existed. He is free to carry on his political endeavors ect – business as usual. Getting off on DUI’s etc. – it happens all the time for those ‘favored’ ones (including their children) and they all know who they are. Anyone else – fries.
Voting English out of office is one of the biggest gains I have ever seen happen. And, it would not have ocurred if Brannon, Kelso, McCrory and many others had not pressed their dissatisfaction and challenged the system. That is proof alone what kind of army you need to get a morsel of justice when you are up against corruption. It’s about time.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 15, 2010 @ 10:57 am
concerned citizen,
RE: your questions about spoliation and destruction of evidence
One Washington Times article about the federal corruption charges against PG County (Maryland) Executive Jack Johnson and his wife reveal wiretaps in which Mr. Johnson tells Mrs. Johnson to tear up evidence and flush it down the toilet.
That would be spoliation of the evidence. If the check was not recovered by the plumber and was therefore not available for evidence, the court would likely allow the jury to draw an inference unfavorable to Mrs. Johnson. It is also likely she would be charged with destroying or trying to destroy evidence. That would be supported by the wiretap evidence. It would be strengthened if the check or some identifiable part of it was recovered from the home’s sewer traps.
Comment by Bill — November 16, 2010 @ 7:40 am