ongoing city election contest lawsuit in Coeur d’Alene. The lawsuit reveals the need for a

comprehensive review of the state’s election law administration, especially pertaining to residency,

The Coeur d’Alene City Election Contest Lawsuit

 Anyone who votes in any federal, state, or local election anywhere in Idaho ought to know about the

ongoing city election contest lawsuit in Coeur d’Alene. The lawsuit reveals the need for a

comprehensive review of the state’s election law administration, especially pertaining to residency,

campaign finance, and timely resolution of election disputes. Felony criminal prosecutions should be

considered in Kootenai County for perjury, forgery, and alteration of sworn public documents

Furthermore, Idaho State Code 67-5716 exempts a number of state government entities from the bidding process, the Judicial Branch among them:

14) Agency. All officers, departments, divisions, bureaus, [...]]]> According to Jay Howell with the Idaho Freedom Foundation, taxpayers have paid out more than $200,000 since 2003 through the Idaho Judicial Branch in hiring their public relations firm, Gallatin Public Affairs.

Furthermore, Idaho State Code 67-5716 exempts a number of state government entities from the bidding process, the Judicial Branch among them:

14) Agency. All officers, departments, divisions, bureaus, boards, commissions and institutions of the state, including the public utilities commission, but excluding other legislative and judicial branches of government (emphasis ours), and excluding the governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, the state controller, the state treasurer, the attorney general, and the superintendent of public instruction, and, as provided in section 67-5728, Idaho Code, excluding Lewis-Clark State College, Idaho State University, Boise State University and Eastern Idaho Technical College.

So the Judicial Branch is legally free to award contracts to whomever it sees fit, provided it’s done “in accordance with good business practice and in the best interest of the state.

Evidently, according to Patti Tobias, Administrative Director of the Courts.

Awhile ago, I told you about Richard Carlton. He was hired through the newly formed Idaho Judicial Wellness Committee  (read the Wellness Committee Minutes and the Administrative Conference) to operate the secret hotline for Idaho Judges and their families. He is from out of state and was hired so things “don’t get spread around” according to their own minutes. That is why they did not hire anyone from Idaho. I guess their own physicians and medical teams are not trustworthy. That is why they need a secret hotline. No competitive bidding for that employment, however – just at the direction of the appointed members of that judicial committee.

What confuses me is why does the Judicial Branch continue to ignore this statute that distinctly says only Judges and Idaho State Bar Members are to be on the judicial committees?  You see – they are appointing their favorite Tom, Dick, and Harrys including spouses of judges to support whatever might be on their agenda. No public input or approval needed as they spend our money for WHATEVER.

1-214.Assistance in formulation of rules. The Supreme Court is hereby authorized to appoint from among the district judges of Idaho and the members of the organized bar of Idaho such persons as it deems advisable to assist it in the formulation of such rules.

Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, questions why the judiciary needs to contract with a public relations firm in the first place.  “If they need to issue a press release, why can’t they just do it from the administrator’s office?” he said.  “Why do they need to spend that money in the first place, instead of just issuing a press release if they need to?”  Luker is a practicing attorney, and a member of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee.

Well, he’s got that right! Let me make this clear. Luker is a legislator on the HOUSE Committee which is different from the Judicial Committees.  However, he is on the right legislative committee to illicit change and ask the right questions.

Why does the Judicial Branch need a public relations firm? Afer all, if they need to convene a Conflict Resolution Panel you just call Patti Tobias (208-334-2246) or Betsy Russell with the Spokesman Review (Washington paper) and the Idaho Press Club  (208-336-2854). That panel was established by the Media/Courts Committee to help “sort out significant conflicts of courthouse coverage on a case-by case basis. The panel can speak with or mediate on behalf of any lawyer, judge or journalist faceing a free press/fair trial issue ” (p.35 The Judicial Family Handbook created by the Judicial Wellness Committee).  Oh yeah, Betsy Russell is one of those non attorney – non judges on those judicial committees (Rule 32) that I believe violates the statute –  I.C. 1-214.

No coverage on that! Chief Justice is thinking that he is above the law and he is one lucky cat because he has PR Firms and special hotlines to protect him! Not to mention that if his retirement fund becomes jeopardized, he’ll just get a special EMERGENCY increase orchestrated to beef up his account!

P.S. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice. I could be wrong. But, then attorneys can get it wrong too - so can judges – except my Chief Justice.  :-)

“In the Blue Cross case, the state has its own set of anti-free market, pro-monopolistic statues which limits competition and gives insurance providers like Blue Cross a competitive [...]]]> You might want to read this interesting article by Wayne Hoffman, Idaho Freedom Foundation. Antitrust law is a chilling attack on docs – and sign of things to come.

“In the Blue Cross case, the state has its own set of anti-free market, pro-monopolistic statues which limits competition and gives insurance providers like Blue Cross a competitive advantage. The government, of course, isn’t suing itself over the restraint of trade that it enshrined in statute. Instead, the state is using antitrust laws to hammer doctors who refuse to go along with the rates established by an insurance provider that has a state-sanctioned market advantage. If doctors want to drop out of an insurance network, that’s their business, not the government’s.”

… and Idaho wonders why we can’t get doctors to Idaho and why there is a shortage. Duh? To make it worse, employers can’t afford both rising workman’s comp rates and health insurance coverage for their employees. Employees cannot afford out of pocket medical expenses.  Seriously – a problem.

Justice Department Announcement

A day to celebrate our freedom or at least make believe we are not losing it.

Bill McCrory recently wrote a piece for Your Local Capitalist newspaper over the [...]]]>

Bill McCrory recently wrote a piece for Your Local Capitalist newspaper over the local elections contest lawsuit in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Bill McCrory also explains this article on  OpenCdA – Stamp of Denial.

 The city’s defense – The City Council is a rubber stamp!

 I asked Bill McCrory who was ultimately responsible for this mess? His reply as follows:

As I pointed out in my post, Judge Hosack asked both parties the same question you asked. Starr Kelso correctly answered that the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council were responsible for the election. The city’s hired attorney, Mike Haman, said that the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council just rubber-stamped the canvass put in front of them. It seems to me (my opinion) that the Mayor and City Council are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the City’s election. The County was a contractor. If Dan English and the County did not fulfill their duties under the contract and deliver a “clean” election, the City ought to be raising holy hell with the County. But the City isn’t. The City got the result it really wanted — all incumbents appeared to win.

The investigation has revealed evidence justifying the election contest lawsuit, including:

(1) A discrepancy between the absentee ballots cast and those counted.

(2) Voters whose residency is not Coeur d’Alene.

(3) Voters who have never lived in Coeur d’Alene.

(4) Voters who falsely swore an oath of residence in Coeur d’Alene for the expressed purpose of voting

illegally in the Coeur d’Alene city election.

(5) Voters whose residence is in Kootenai County but who registered using their Coeur d’Alene business

addresses to vote in the city election.

(6) Voters allowed to vote in the wrong precinct.

(7) Voters who registered from nonexistent addresses.

(8) Voters who requested and apparently received absentee ballots by mail but who then voted in person

at the polling place.

(9) Sworn voter registration card information changed without registrant’s consent.

(10) “Signatures” from other documents cut-and-pasted into voter registration cards.

(11) Essential information such as voter signatures, type of ballot received, and sequence numbers

omitted from some precinct poll books.

(12) Poll book “mystery” page with a format inconsistent with any other poll book page from any other

precinct.

(13) Inconsistent recording of required poll book information among precincts

Give me one good reason - Y VOTE -  if this never goes to trial and there are not any criminal prosecutions?

Now the Supremes are busy recanting and coughing up “misstatements.”

Justice Jones (even though he is not running for the justice seat) originally was going [...]]]> There are some great articles about the Judicial race between  Idaho Court Supreme Court Justice Burdick (incumbent) and Judge Bradbury. Judge Bradbury debated Judge Burdick a few weeks ago with flying colors.

Now the Supremes are busy recanting and coughing up “misstatements.”

Justice Jones (even though he is not running for the justice seat) originally was going to debate Judge Bradbury because he did not like what Judge Bradbury was saying about the courts, but he chose later not to.

 Maybe he did not want to bring out any more ”basement” decisions?

• Justice Jones declines to debate Judge Bradbury
• Bradbury not surprised Jones canceled debate on Idaho courts
• Justice speaks out on Idaho schools case

Now, down the road Justice Burdick says differently about the school case than what he said on the televised debate.  Damage control? Probably.

 Come on — really — just another mistake?

Justice Burdick likes to talk about the separation of powers when it suits the case, according to Betsy Russell of the Spokesman Review.

Burdick said he believed the only “remedy” for Idaho’s situation was to be found in the state Legislature, due to separation of powers. “I believe the Idaho Constitution’s separation of powers requires a conservative, rather than an activist, approach,” he wrote in his press release.

Folks, Idaho has no separation of powers.  Our judical system  has a very “activist” appraoch  in order to get what they want.

excerpt from Aministrative Conference Minutes May 3rd, 2010

Patti Tobias thanked everyone who worked during the legislative session on behalf of the courts. The House and Senate lists were reviewed, and Administrative District Judges and Trial Court Administrators were encouraged to write letters of appreciation to legislators who were especially supportive of the Courts. 

  In addition, the Court will be expressing its appreciation to individuals who were instrumental in passage of the emergency surcharge, including Senior Judge Barry Wood and Senior Justice Linda Copple Trout. Also a number of individuals contributed their time to the success of HB687:  Mike Brassey, Jeff Malmen, and Brian Whitlock  

Vote Bradbury May 25th!

So he can help clean this mess up.

In the past I have written at length about our Idaho Supreme Court Judicial Committees.

Approximately, two weeks ago, District 1 – Judge Simpson recused himself from a local elections contest -CV-2009-0010010, Jim Brannon vs. City of Coeur d’Alene etal. We don’t really know why, other than “in the interest of justice.” His wife Jonelle Simpson, PhD [...]]]>

In the past I have written at length about our Idaho Supreme Court Judicial Committees.

Approximately, two weeks ago, District 1 – Judge Simpson recused himself from a local elections contest -CV-2009-0010010, Jim Brannon vs. City of Coeur d’Alene etal. We don’t really know why, other than “in the interest of justice.” His wife Jonelle Simpson, PhD was a member of the Wellness Committee along with Judge Burdick and other sitting judges. Here is the Idaho Supreme Court order. An additional snag to her participation on this committee may have been the address that showed up as a possible fraudulent vote connected to her place of business that was surfacing as part of the elections lawsuit.

I have noticed that she is no longer on that roster, thus I will cease writing about her personal connections to the Idaho Supreme Court, however, Doug Copsey is still listed and he is the spouse of a southern Idaho Judge which I believe is still/could pose to be another potential conflict down the road. Nepotism does not serve our court system well.

These are the remaining members at this time.  I also have gained more respect for our judicial system for whatever the reason was that Judge Simpson’s wife decided to no longer participate on that particular committee and for Judge Simpson’s voluntary recusal from the lawsuit. Finally.

Related Posts:

Judge DQ’s himself

Nepotism in the Courts